This Independence Day, Ditch The DNA Test And Learn More About Your American Ancestors
In a frustratingly divided nation, we need stories that unite us to a shared American vision of the good life based on our nation’s founding principles.In a frustratingly divided nation, we need stories that unite us to a shared American vision of the good life based on our nation’s founding principles.New Video Series For America’s 250th Teaches Americans Why They Should Love Their History
'We can’t remember it very well if we don’t know it very well. And so, part of the purpose of this series of lectures is to remember.''Woke right' smear weaponized by liberal interlopers against MAGA conservatives, populists — and Arby's?
James Lindsay. Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty ImagesOn his website, he stated:
Woke Right refers to right-wing people who have adopted the characteristics and underlying worldview orientation of the Woke Left for putatively "right-wing," "conservative," or reactionary causes. They are, as reactionaries, the image of the Right projected by the Left made real by players claiming to be on the Right. That is, they’re right-wing people who act and think about the world like Woke Leftists.
Lindsay echoed this definition in his written responses to Blaze News, in which he suggested that woke right "means using critical theories or Marxian analysis for right-wing or anti-Left causes."
"It is very specific," Lindsay continued. "Most conservatives do not meet this definition."
A sizeable portion of the MAGA coalition does, however, supposedly meet this or one of Lindsay's other definitions. Right-wing populists, for example, are on the liberal's naughty list, as are those who subscribe to national conservatism, which he dubbed "the Woke Right final boss."
The application of "woke right" to national conservatives amounts to the more tactical smear, as it not only cuts through the MAGA coalition but deep into the Trump administration and the Republican Party.
Past speakers at the National Conservatism Conference, which is run by the Hazony-led Edmund Burke Foundation, include Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Michael Anton, another senior State Department official; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby; White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller; Trump border czar Tom Homan; and Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).
Of course, there's also JD Vance, who underscored in a NatCon speech — given just days before President Donald Trump chose him as his running mate — that while America was founded "on great ideas," it is not, as some have suggested, reducible to "just an idea."
James Lindsay and a bunch of his friends tried to pump the hatred higher because the term 'illiberal' — it just didn't succeed in sufficiently tainting and de-legitimizing conservatives.
While Lindsay has danced around labeling Vance "woke right" for daring to express such thoughts, stating in December, "I haven't called JD Vance Woke Right anywhere yet," he has implied as much — calling him a "post-liberal" with a predominantly woke right team, who not only entertains the woke right definition of "nation" but did the unspeakable: speak at a National Conservatism Conference.
In fairness to Vance and his fellow NatCon alumni, it is apparently easy to find oneself labeled "woke right." After all, even a fast-food chain has been tagged.
Lindsay recently indicated online that Arby's had veered into woke right territory with its post, "Unlike dad, our ham & swiss actually came back."
In the much ridiculed post, which he has since apologized for and walked back, Lindsay noted, "That's curtains for them. Cringe af."
When asked why national conservatives warrant their categorization as "woke right," Lindsay suggested that while "not all of National Conservatism is Woke Right ... the general thrust of the movement meets the basic definition."
Final boss
Hazony, the author of "The Virtue of Nationalism" whom Lindsay has repeatedly targeted with the “woke right” smear, explained to Blaze News that the strategy behind the term is not new.
"The main people who are behind this — and James Lindsay is the one who's most explicit, but I don't think that he's at all the only one — they've been doing the same thing for many years, long before the term 'woke right' came out; at least as far back as Donald Trump being elected, you know, so it's almost a decade ago," said Hazony. "There was this game of saying that in between liberals and Nazis or racialist fascists — in between, there is no legitimate position. That is a standard argument of the anti-nationalist liberal camp that has been used by many, many different people, and it's always the same."
"When people started using 'illiberal' ... in the mid-2000s, what they were doing was eliminating the legitimacy of the word 'conservative,' because 'illiberal' is anybody who's an authoritarian or a Nazi or a theocrat or a fascist, plus anybody else who's not a liberal," continued Hazony. "So that strategy, using the term 'illiberalism' as a way of saying, 'No, I'm not going to recognize that there are any legitimate conservatives or nationalists' — that's been around in that form for at least 15 years."
Hazony noted that more recently,
James Lindsay and a bunch of his friends tried to pump the hatred higher because the term "illiberal" — it just didn't succeed in sufficiently tainting and de-legitimizing conservatives. So they switched to "Christian nationalism," and it was the same kind of thing, where, you know, you pick the absolute least palatable people who can be called "Christian nationalists," you quote them, and then you say, "Well, everybody who's a nationalist and a Christian all the way right up to the borders of liberalism — that entire sphere of conservatives and nationalists who are basically normal but they have criticisms of liberalism — no, they're all illegitimate. They're all totalitarians. They all reject the American Constitution." And so they tried that; that peaked in 2023; and it failed. It petered out. They didn't succeed in convincing the average, intelligent person who's paying attention that the political spectrum is only liberals and fascists.
Whereas previous attempts failed, Hazony indicated that "this time, they have succeeded in drawing blood."
"This term [woke] was designed to be humiliating by taking the term that we were using for the Maoist-style cultural revolution that was taking over America and Britain and other countries. And now they say, 'Those of you who are fighting against this, you're exactly the same. You're the same exact thing.' And it upsets people."
'You got dogmatic, fanatic liberals who thought that the whole world simply could be brought under liberalism either by persuasion or, if not, then by conquest.'
Hazony further told Blaze News that "it's deeply insulting at a personal level for people who've devoted their time to trying to save America and the West from the woke, and at the same time, it's incredibly effective at destroying the coalition that was built — the anti-woke coalition — by making the different parties despise one another."
"The idea that liberalism is about toleration was just thrown out the window and you got dogmatic, fanatic liberals who thought that the whole world simply could be brought under liberalism either by persuasion or, if not, then by conquest."
Playing with fire
Lindsay has tried tarring Blaze Media with the same brush he has used on Hazony and others, characterizing it as "the first captured stronghold" in his imaginative woke right "takeover" narrative.
'The term has little meaning other than as a slur used by people trying desperately to gatekeep this intellectual, cultural, and commercial majority movement.'
Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson, whom Lindsay has implicated as a key player in this supposed takeover, said, "I know Lindsay and we had a decent relationship until he suddenly lumped me and my tenure here at Blaze Media with his slur."
"Obviously, we have a wide variety of people and opinions at Blaze Media. We represent the broad MAGA-MAHA majority coalition, and I take that role seriously," continued Peterson. "But I do not need to say for the record that we are not 'woke right' because the term has little meaning other than as a slur used by people trying desperately to gatekeep this intellectual, cultural, and commercial majority movement."
Peterson suggested that the term's capricious usage has helped empty it of meaning.
"What's puzzling and ultimately discrediting about the term is that Lindsay and others lump disparate people and groups together into a wild, grand conspiracy," continued Peterson. "He and his associates refer a lot to abstract -isms like hermeticism, communism, and gnosticism and call all kinds of people followers of various schools of thought: 'Nietzscheans' and 'Schmittians.'"
The "Schmittian" smear lobbed around evokes Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist who critiqued liberalism, defined politics as the distinction between the categories of friends and enemies, and lent intellectual support to the Nazi regime in Germany.
Peterson noted that he once tried to explain his thoughts on Schmitt to Lindsay over text.
"As a student of political thinkers who were taught by Leo Strauss, who fled Nazi Germany (as opposed to Schmitt, who became a Nazi), I think Schmitt's writings are important to anyone who wants to seriously consider the nature of executive power, which is why they are still studied by people of all kinds throughout the world," said Peterson. "But the idea that this makes me a Nazi or that I agree with everything Schmitt says or believed is ridiculous. James recently asked me to 'denounce Schmitt' on X at his command, which sounds a lot like he's trying to initiate the very 'struggle sessions' he often decries."
Peterson emphasized the range of people and institutions that Lindsay and his fellow travelers have lumped into his "grand conspiracy," noting, for instance, that "they throw in institutions from the Roman Catholic Church to the Claremont Institute, countries from Hungary to China, and individuals from General Michael Flynn to Yoram Hazony to Peter Thiel in the mix as part of whatever the 'woke right' is."
"It becomes silly pretty quick," said Peterson.
Threatened liberals
The host of BlazeTV's "The Auron MacIntyre Show" — one of Lindsay's frequent targets — said that when it comes to Lindsay, woke right "seems to be more of a branding exercise and a political weapon than it does anything with definitive content."
"I think that's the reason so many people have had difficulty when attempting to have even a basic discussion about the term," MacIntyre said. "The guy who is most famous for coining and popularizing it himself has admitted that it wasn't a great one, and it doesn't really have a lot of content besides its ability to be used as a political weapon."
'The only thing that seems to actually link any of these people together is their willingness to win.'
MacIntyre suggested that woke right's apparent transformation in the wild from a denigratory term for anti-Semites and identitarians into a strategic full-spectrum put-down is “the real trick of this term.”
"A lot of people assume that [anti-Semites and identitarians] were the original targets, and because of that, many people thought that perhaps there could be some value in it because, you know, not all of those groups are particularly ones that people enjoy being associated with," said MacIntyre. "That said, it's become quickly clear that the expansion of the term has now come to encompass Orthodox Jews like Hazony, guys who are big fans of Israel like Tim Pool, and others."
"He's included a large number of very well-respected people who are obviously well outside of this — guys like Matt Walsh."
RELATED: Let's build a statue honoring Pat Buchanan
"The only thing that seems to actually link any of these people together is their willingness to win, their willingness to fight back against the left, their willingness to say, 'Actually, we're going to take affirmative steps. We're going to take power. We're going to use power to win political battles.' And that seems to be the main violation," continued MacIntyre.
'What they're finding is actually, no, conservatives would like to be in charge.'
When asked whether this campaign might be, at least in part, the early stages of an effort to politically neutralize JD Vance ahead of the next presidential election, MacIntyre answered in the affirmative.
"Not only is that the case, I think he's been pretty explicit about that," said the BlazeTV host.
MacIntyre suggested that Lindsay and other "new atheists, rational-centrist types" feel threatened by Vance and the national conservatives, given their willfulness and refusal to "be ruled by people who hate them, hate their values, hate their religion."
MacIntyre suspects that while the "salience" of the "woke right" term has risen, the credibility of those wielding it has "plummeted."
"[Lindsay has] made many enemies of pretty high-profile figures with good reputations by throwing around this term and attacking people who clearly don't hold any of the nefarious views he's attributing to them," said MacIntyre.
The attacks have also served to expose bad actors who "ultimately were hoping to undermine the conservative movement rather than be a productive part of it," said MacIntyre. "That's something that's critical to know at this juncture."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Supreme Court will hear challenge to Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for non-straight youth
The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Monday that it would hear a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado's 2019 counseling censorship law, which prohibits so-called "conversion therapy" for minors.
The controversial state law, an amendment to Colorado's Mental Health Practice Act, prohibits psychiatrists and mental health care providers from encouraging an individual to reconsider their sexual preference or to "change behaviors or gender expressions."
Under the law, a mental health professional who fails to indulge delusions or affirm homosexual inclination could face disciplinary actions, lose his license, and/or receive hefty fines. The law does not, however, similarly prohibit gender ideologues from encouraging confused children in therapy sessions to embrace the delusion that they are actually members of the opposite sex or to undergo sex changes.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who specializes in trauma but has also helped minors with eating disorders and gender dysphoria, filed a federal lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that the censorship law violates the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to her.
'Their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions.'
Court documents indicate that Chiles has long worked with "adults who are seeking Christian counseling and minors who are internally motivated to seek counseling." Her clients, many of whom found her through referrals from churches or word of mouth, apparently uphold a biblical worldview that includes "the concepts that attractions do not dictate behavior, nor do feelings and perceptions determine identity"; that "their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions"; and that "God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity."
Chiles indicated that she does not try to help minors alter their sexual preferences or identity if they are not seeking change. Rather, "she seeks only to assist clients with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body."
'It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech.'
While she has yet to receive a complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the Colorado law has chilled her speech and adversely impacted both her counseling and ability to help minors.
The case, Chiles v. Salazar, made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where a Biden judge and Obama judge affirmed a lesser court's ruling in a 2-1 vote that the ban regulated Chiles' conduct rather than her speech.
Chiles' attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition with the Supreme Court in November, asking whether "a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause."
ADF president and general counsel Kristen Waggoner stated, "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients."
"There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings," continued Waggoner. "Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: The only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients."
A ruling in Chiles' favor would threaten similar prohibitions in 27 states against helping minors overcome their confusion.
When the Supreme Court decided in December 2023 not to hear a First Amendment challenge to a similar "conversion therapy" ban in Washington state, Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent that he would have granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, adding, "In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Self-discovery trap: Finding truth on the battlefield of lies
The ancient Greeks said to “know thyself.” Unfortunately, Western culture has elevated that pursuit to a life goal, as in, “The purpose of my life is to discover who I am, find my happiness, etc.”
But focusing on ourselves is not what we were created to do.
Truth is the first weapon in the arsenal against lies.
That’s the key. We were created by Someone for something. Who we are can only truly be understood in relation to the Almighty Creator of the universe. That understanding, properly acted upon, brings us purpose and meaning and life and joy.
And, according to the apostle Paul, everyone starts in precisely the same place.
"And you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all also formerly conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Ephesians 2:1-3).
That’s the bad news. Fortunately, Paul doesn’t make us wait for the good news — it's the very next thing he shares.
Ephesians 2:4-10:
But God, being rich in mercy because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Light vs. darkness, truth vs. lies
These glorious truths are a light to the world. However, we live in an increasingly dark world of lies. We don’t know who we can trust or believe as we watch current events unfold.
Sometimes we struggle with what to believe about ourselves. It only takes watching a few commercials to be told we aren’t living our best lives. We not only need that new thing, but we’re told we deserve it. Or we’re told we’ll be less without it — less attractive, less successful, less happy.
Always, happiness is held out as the primary goal of our lives. Whatever we must pursue to find happiness is worthy.
This philosophy has done more damage to families than perhaps any other. Is my spouse not making me happy any more? Dump him or her. After all, I have to be true to myself and what makes me happy. Or maybe I’m not being true to my own sexuality. Maybe I need to change my body to reflect my sexual inclinations. I gotta be me. This is my truth. (A lie if there ever were one.)
There is human wreckage left in the wake of these lies — this illusion of multiple truths. And it is staggering.
Those left behind in broken families — children and adults — are left grappling with the ugly reality of betrayal, abandonment, confusion, insecurity, and pain. And Satan steps right into this with more lies — always the lies. A voice whispering in their ears: You’re not worthy. You are less than. You will never be good enough. You will never be loved.
Make no mistake. This is a spiritual battle, and sadly, it is increasingly common (see Ephesians 6:12). But this is precisely the place where we must know who we are in Him. If you belong to God, you are His precious child, redeemed from the pit of hell for His glory. And since you are still alive, that means He has plans for you, also for His glory (re-read the passage from Ephesians 2 above).
Redeemed and precious to God. That is who you are.
Keeping truth top of mind
How do you remember who you are when you’re suffering an onslaught of lies from that pit of hell?
Fortunately, God has given you a complete set of weaponry to fight back. Paul writes in Ephesians 6:10-17:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the might of His strength. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace. In addition to all, having taken up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one, also receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God …
Notice that truth is the first weapon in the arsenal against lies. Of course it is! So here are a few more truths upon which to reflect.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. … For you were bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
And Jesus says, "You are My friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14).
Back to Paul: "For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons by whom we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God ... (Romans 8:14-16).
The Bible has no shortage of truth about who you are in Him. We can meditate on these passages to permeate our hearts with these truths, helping ensure that what we’re telling ourselves is not contradicting His word.
What we say and believe about ourselves must be truth.
This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Diane Schrader's Substack, She Speaks Truth.
DNC chair candidates unanimously reveal the party's not done accusing Americans of racism and misogyny
The Democratic National Committee will pick a new chair on Saturday to replace Jaime Harrison. Ahead of the party's election, MSNBC co-hosted an event Thursday with Georgetown University affording potential replacements with an opportunity to discuss their proposed messaging strategies and how they might win back the multitudes of voters the party has done its apparent best to alienate.
All eight candidates for chair — among whom Minnesota's Ken Martin and Wiconsin's Ben Wikler are reportedly the front-runners — made abundantly clear during the forum that the Democratic Party will not jettison the failed identity-centered thinking and messaging that helped them lose the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress.
MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart, who with former Biden campaign official Symone Sanders and former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki put questions to the candidates whenever the crowd was able to refrain from interrupting, asked, "How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat?"
All the candidates raised their hands.
"That's good. You all pass," said Capehart, who then stated as though it were a fact that President Donald Trump "consistently employed racist and misogynistic rhetoric on the campaign trail."
— (@)
Blaming racism and misogyny may have been an easy way to account for Harris' relative unpopularity; however, doing so deterred Democrats from addressing the issues actually driving voters away, such as their candidate's radicalism; Harris' positional weakness on important matters such as the cost of living, the fallout of open-border policies, and crime; her monomaniacal focus on attacking Trump; her choice of running mate; her candidacy's reliance on the effective voiding of the Democratic primary elections; the strength of her competitor's pitch; and the sense that a Harris administration would simply continue failing where former President Joe Biden left off.
'This DNC chair race is important for sending a signal to voters that Democrats have learned a lesson and will do things differently going forward.'
For instance, rather than figure out why Harris' promise of legal dope wasn't enough to win over black male voters or why the very suggestion might come across as deeply offensive, former President Barack Obama presumed the once-reliable Democratic voting bloc just wasn't "feeling the idea of having a woman as president."
Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), seeing similar polls indicating an aversion to Harris, suggested in October that "there's still a lot of this bigotry in this country in terms of sexism, in terms of racism, and we still have to work at getting over that."
Democrats' allies in the media have played the same losing game.
Ahead of her first failed presidential run, Harris suggested America might not be "ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States of America."
ABC News dutifully raised the question, "Is Kamala Harris proof that America isn't ready for a woman of color as president?"
Alicia Jones, a black Howard University alumna, told the liberal outfit at the time, "I didn't vote for Barack Obama just because he was black. I voted for him because he was smart. I voted for him because he had a record that showed me the things that he did. It didn't matter that he was only a senator for five minutes."
"I think that what she did was dirty. And I think she's way beyond and way above what she did," Jones added, referring to Harris' statement.
Following Harris' crushing defeat last year, Fox News resident Democratic commentator Juan Williams said, "I'm not sold on this idea that it was the cost of eggs."
"I worry that it was, 'Well, I'm not voting for this woman.' Or 'I'm not voting for this black woman,'" said Williams.
Williams' fellow panelists pointed out that the identity-centered explanation for Harris' loss was undercut by various factors, including Trump's simultaneous drop in support among whites and increase in support among black men and Hispanics, and by black male voters' stated reasons for ditching Democrats.
Disputing German economist Isabella Weber's assertion that "many working Americans felt that Democrats had abandoned them with respect to their pocketbook struggles and ended up casting a ballot for Trump," the Nation's race-obsessive "justice correspondent" Elie Mystal adopted a similar line to Williams, claiming that Harris' loss was "not the economy, stupid. Trump ran on pure, unadulterated white identity politics and hate, and white-hot hate won."
"This DNC chair race is important for sending a signal to voters that Democrats have learned a lesson and will do things differently going forward," Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told the Guardian. "If it sends a signal that we stand for the status quo and want to do everything the same, that will be a turnoff both to the Democratic base and to swing voters who want to see that Democrats are doing something different."
By the candidates' show of hands, it appears that Democrats are keen to keep attributing past and future losses not to remediable messaging and policy issues but to imagined bigotry.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Vermont couples barred from fostering children because of their Christian beliefs on sexuality, says lawsuit
Brian Wuoti of Vermont is a Baptist pastor and a high school math teacher. His wife of 14 years, Kaitlyn Wuoti, leads a bi-weekly women's Bible study and homeschools their five children. They first became foster parents in 2014, adopting a pair of brothers who have become an "integral" part of their family.
Michael Gantt is the lead pastor of another church, and Rebecca Gantt, his wife of 25 years, raises their seven children. They became foster parents in 2016. Extra to their four biological children, they have adopted three children from the Green Mountain State's foster care system.
Both families believe that God created everyone in his image; that sex is binary and fixed by God at conception; and that all people deserve respect and love.
These two families unfortunately share something more in common beside their establishment of loving homes, dedication to protecting the vulnerable, sterling records, and Christian faith.
According to their lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Department for Children and Families has barred them from continuing to foster children on account of their religious beliefs about sexuality.
'Vermont would prefer children have no home than to place them with families of faith with these views.'
"Although the Wuotis and Gantts have adopted five children between them, the Department has determined they are unfit to foster or adopt any child solely due to their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa," said the lawsuit.
"And Vermont applies this policy categorically — whether applicants want to adopt their grandchild, provide respite care for an infant for just a few hours, or foster a child who shares all of their religious views," continued the suit. "Vermont would prefer children have no home than to place them with families of faith with these views."
The Wuotis discovered that their mainstream Christian beliefs rendered them ineligible to give orphans and other vulnerable minors a supportive home in 2022, when the state was reviewing their application to renew their foster care license.
Despite a case worker suggesting that she "probably could not hand pick a more wonderful foster family," and the Wuotis' licensor apparently indicating there was "no doubt" they could welcome another child into their home, everything changed when they indicated they were Christians and would not embrace the ideological fads of the day. Somehow, they instantly ceased to be wonderful. An absence of doubt in their ability to foster another child became an absolute certainty in their inability.
They received a "Notice of Decision" from the VDCF recommending the revocation of their license.
Last year — a year where the state had 985 children in out-of-home protective custody, 467 in conditional custody, and 150 family support cases — the Gantts heard the call of a child in need.
The VDCF apparently asked the couple whether they could take an emergency placement — a baby about to be born to a homeless junkie. Prior to taking another child into their home, the couple received an email "explaining that families must accept the State's orthodoxy about gender fluidity 'even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs,'" said the lawsuit.
The Gantts met with a caseworker about fostering the baby and made clear they would "love and accept any child" but that they would not compromise on their Christian beliefs. Michael Gantt also made clear to a department employee he would not bend the knee to gender ideology — no Pride parades, no incorrect pronouns.
The couple received a "Notice of Decision" concerning their license revocation in February.
'The division is committed to making ongoing efforts to recruit, train, support and retain foster families who are LGBTQ affirming and supporting.'
While the lawsuit references various indicators that the VDCF is ideologically captive and hostile to traditional views, a number of which are still maintained by the majority of Americans, it highlighted the department's LGBT activist orientation, manifest in Policy 76.
The policy states, "When assessing safety and risk in an environment where an LGBTQ child or youth resides, family services workers will determine whether a parent, caregiver, or other family member's attitude and behavior about the child or youth's sexual or gender identity impact the safety and well-being of the child."
"The division is committed to making ongoing efforts to recruit, train, support and retain foster families who are LGBTQ affirming and supporting," the policy says in a section on placement considerations.
The lawsuit indicated that the VDCF has reinterpreted its existing requirements of foster parents in accordance with Policy 76 and that foster families must demonstrate they can follow the policy's guidance.
Extra to the policy, other departmental communications and rules have indicated that devout Christians need not apply.
A Sept. 8, 2023, email circulated to all foster families by the VDCF reportedly stated, "Eligibility for licensure is dependent on foster parents and applicants being able to support youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or another diverse identity (LGBTQI+) even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs."
'It bears mentioning that this suit was filed at the start of pride month.'
A VDCF spokesman relayed a statement from Aryka Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division, to the Christian Post, saying that while the department does not comment on the details of pending lawsuits, "generally speaking, DCF takes the care and support of youth in our custody seriously, and we work to ensure that youth in foster care are placed in homes that support all aspects of what makes them who they are. This includes their sexual orientation and gender identity."
"It bears mentioning that this suit was filed at the start of pride month — a time when we reflect on the achievements and continued struggles of the LGBTQI+ movement," Radke continued, signaling her bias. "The department stands in partnership with the community, and continually works to be a better partner, ally, and support system — rather than a barrier to the children and youth who identify as part of this community."
"Providing safe, affirming, accepting and welcoming homes benefits all youth and it has the power to save lives. This is true year-round, and bears underscoring for these youth especially during pride," added Radke.
'They don't need the state pushing its gender ideology on them.'
Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, the Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel representing the families, highlighted to the Christian Post that contrary to Radke's suggestion, it's the state's polices that "are actually harmful."
"I would point people to the Cass review that came out of England showing that pharmacological and surgical intervention likely caused more harm than any good and that the evidence is incredibly weak in this area," said Wildmalm-Delphonse. "Children just need a loving place, someone to care for them while they work out these types of issues. They don't need the state pushing its gender ideology on them."
Blaze News previously detailed the extent to which the Cass Review, a multi-year investigation into the pseudoscience of transgenderism, commissioned by England's National Health Service, undermined the ideology that now reigns supreme at the VDCF.
Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, reached a number of damning conclusions in her final report, such as:
- the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
- puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction"; and
- the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care" is "weak" and unreliable.
Alliance Defending Freedom stated, "By denying people the chance to be foster and adoptive parents because of their religious beliefs and compelling them to speak the government’s preferred message about sexual orientation and gender identity, Vermont is violating the First Amendment."
The lawsuit alleges the VDCF has specifically violated the couples' rights to free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion, as well as the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. The couple seeks a declaration on the part of the department that its LGBT activist mandate encompassing Policy 76 and a handful of rules violated and continues to violated their constitutionally protected rights. Additionally, they seek an injunction against similar and future denials of foster licenses on the bases of protected beliefs.
"Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from adoption and foster care," added the Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Gantts and Wuotis are hardly the first to be precluded from adopting or fostering on the basis of their Christian faith. The Massachusetts DCF rejected Catholics Mike and Kitty Burke last year. Washington State dashed Shane and Jenn DeGross' dreams in 2022.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Leftist Billionaire McKenzie Scott Doubled Pledge To Open Border, Pro-Trans Nonprofits
MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos' ex-wife, pledged $640 million to over 360 mostly leftwing, identity-based nonprofits.How A Silly Oklahoma Bill On Kids Identifying As ‘Furries’ Could Help Fight Mental Illness
With any hope, parents who have children struggling with mental illness may finally be emboldened to take action.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com