Print this Page

Welcome to the
NATURAL FAMILY FOUNDATION

WHAT WE ARE ABOUT                                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO

 

WHY HOMOSEXUALS DO WHAT THEY DO

Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen

Permanent link to this article: https://www.naturalfamilyfoundation.org/

BALL OF CONFUSION

Deep State: Education Officials Quietly Push Transgender Ideology Onto Schools

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/23/trump-administration-investigate-school-personnel-fail-use-trans-students-preferred-pronouns/

Dr. Susan Berry

An internal memo in the Department of Education says officials will investigate schoolteachers who do not comply with children’s demands to be called by the opposite-sex pronoun, for example, ‘her’ instead of ‘him.’

The instruction was part of a jargon-filled memo dated June 6, and signed by Candice Jackson, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Education Department, which provides instructions to staff concerning “complaints involving transgender students.”

The memo tells department lawyers how to respond when they get complaints involving “transgender students.” It says the department’s left-wing lawyers can use recent and disputed federal court decisions — not the elected President’s popular policies — to justify high-pressure lawsuits against teachers who have normal attitudes about the equal, different and complementary status of males and females.

For example, lawyers can investigate a case of  “hostility” where school personnel are “refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred name or pronouns when the school uses preferred names for gender-conforming students or when the refusal is motivated by animus toward people who do not conform to sex stereotypes,” the document says.

The his-her pronoun issue is especially sensitive because federal support for the transgender ideology would mean that a child can use federal lawyers to threaten other students and teachers in school until they submit by referring to the child by the biologically incorrect pronoun, even in science class.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil rights organization, says the long-standing Title IX laws have nothing to do with calling students by pronouns they prefer. “Title IX does not require a school district or teacher to call students by false gender pronouns,” he said. “Title IX is silent regarding the use of pronouns, and it cannot be a violation to refer to students by pronouns consistent with their actual sex.”

Staver adds:

Requiring false pronoun usage by teachers is a compelled speech violation for teachers and compelling students to participate in a lie violates their right to free speech. I thought we had seen the last of this nonsense coming out of the Department of Education. I call upon Betsy DeVos to end this new policy.

In February, the Trump administration reversed former President Barack Obama’s guidance that allowed gender-confused students to use the bathrooms and showers of whichever gender they prefer – without restrictions – rather than those corresponding to their biological sex.

Regarding the reversal of the policy, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said:

We have a responsibility to protect every student in America and ensure that they have the freedom to learn and thrive in a safe and trusted environment. This is not merely a federal mandate, but a moral obligation no individual, school, district or state can abdicate. At my direction, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights remains committed to investigating all claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.

DeVos’s statement, however, followed a report in the New York Times which suggested she was at odds with the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions over changing Obama’s pro-transgender policy. That policy sought to remove any legal or civic distinctions between women and men, boys and girls by allowing “transgender” people to switch their legal sex, and then use the opposite sex’s bathrooms, athletic leagues, and pronouns.

Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson applauded the Trump administration’s decision to reverse the Obama-era transgender bathroom directives, and further urged Congress to clarify that mentions of “sex” in the law do not mean “gender identity.”

“This would ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges would not be allowed to reshape policy that affects women and girls,” he added.

The Trump administration has said the school bathroom issue was a states’ rights issue, rather than one for the federal government to decide.

However, as Breitbart News reported, although Trump’s new policy has discarded legal documents produced by Obama’s deputies, it has not formally rejected the transgender ideology. The ideology claims that a person’s legal sex — and their pronouns — are determined by their flexible choice of “gender identity,” not their actual biology. Those Obama-era rules told officials that they must comply with the child’s life-changing decision, even if the parents oppose.

Jackson emphasizes that the Trump administration’s reversal of the Obama policy still requires OCR to “rely on Title IX and its implementing regulations, as interpreted in decisions of federal courts and OCR guidance documents that remain in effect, in evaluating complaints of sex discrimination against individuals whether or not the individual is transgender.”

But the courts are being pushed by transgender advocates to impose the ideology onto unwilling parents, kids and school districts. In one federal court decision, Whitaker v. Kenosha, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Kenosha Unified School District violated federal law and the Constitution by protecting the privacy of the many students who would be forced to share bathrooms and showers with a teen of the opposite biological sex who claimed to have switched gender.

In the May 30 decision, the judges completely accepted the teen’s claim that people can switch their gender identity as they please simply by declaring themselves to be “transgender.”

A very small proportion of Americans attempts to live as members of the opposite sex. Only about 1-in-2,400 Americans, for example, have changed their names from one sex to the other, according to a study of the 2010 census.

The OCR memo also underscores the potential dangers inherent in school vouchers and other financial mechanisms that use taxpayer funding to facilitate school choice. Federal oversight, as seen in the OCR memo, could be extended to these schools as well

SHADES OF 1984:

BIG BROTHER TAKING OVER FAMILY MATTERS

If you are Christian/conservative and/or a Trump supporter you best get you mind right, or else.

 

By Prissy Holly – Freedom Daily

The cancer of Islam is rapidly spreading across the planet, thanks to liberal politicians who keep letting these vermin invade westernized countries. As terror attacks committed by Muslims are now becoming an almost everyday occurrence, what’s even more horrifying is that distraught citizens are being silenced for speaking out against Islam, as we continue to see people across Europe being imprisoned for saying negative things about Muslims, as “Islam anti-blasphemy” laws are now being held up in courts. While we would expect that sort of nonsense to go on in countries like Canada and Germany, that very sort of thing was just established in Minnesota.

Muslims understand fully that in order to establish their global caliphate ruled by Sharia Law, they must first infiltrate every facet of westernized society through massive immigration and breeding. As these Muslim invaders infest our government, our schools, and our law enforcement agencies, Muslims are working furiously to silence Americans who are calling them out, which is why we see Muslims constantly labeling people “Islamophobes” and “bigots” as a way to bully American citizens into submission.

Anti-blasphemy laws have been a massive victory for Muslims across the world, as now followers of Islam can have people who speak out or criticize their religion thrown into prison. In an unprecedented and unconstitutional move, liberal politicians Minneapolis, Minnesota, have just set up a hotline where Muslims can call in and report any American who “harasses” or speaks out against their religion.

While this sounds like something you’d read off of a conspiracy website, it’s really happening. According to Minneopolis’ local newspaper, the Star-Tribune, the hotline was set up as a way to target Trump supporters, who Muslims believe are the group of people most likely to “harass them.” The Star Tribune reported:

The city of Minneapolis has set up a hot line for residents to report hate-crime incidents and other acts of intolerance.

The service, operated through the city’s 311 help line, is aimed to aid targets of any “harassing behaviors motivated by prejudice,” according to a city news release issued on Monday.

The announcement comes amid signs of a recent surge of such incidents affecting Muslims and Jews across the country, many of which go unreported.

  • “Since the general election, many of us have experienced, witnessed firsthand or heard of actions of: racism, xenophobia, sexism and bigotry directed at people here and in cities across the United States,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated.”

The city’s Department of Civil rights along with mayor is leading the charge for this government-enforced fascism, as this new hotline will now encourage citizens to turn in their neighbors for holding opinions deemed forbidden by the state. This hotline flies right in the face of our United States Constitution, where it goes to the heart of denying American citizens their inalienable rights of the First Amendment, which governments CAN NOT DO.

Of course the rabid liberals controlling the city have little regard for the Constitution or the rights of Americans, as they are using their position to establish a soft version of anti-blasphemy laws. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website.

Mayor Betsy Hodges

The Department echoes the unconstitutional sentiments of Minneapolis’ mayor, Betsy Hodges, who went on to blast President Trump, pushing her insane narrative of there being an epidemic of bigotry and hate in our country since he got into office. She stated:“I will not compromise the public safety of the people of Minneapolis to satisfy Trump’s desire to put politics before public safety. Minneapolis is being built and strengthened by people from all over the world and I am grateful for their commitment to our city. I stand with them today and will continue to take that stand as the President-elect prepares to take office.”

This is absolutely insane that an anti-blasphemy hotline is being established in our country, as the city of Minneapolis is clearly violating the doctrine of separation of church and state. But startlingly, this is only the beginning of Democrats’ plans for full-blown fascism in our country. Hillary Clinton advanced a United Nations resolution U.N Resolution 16/18 that encouraged nations to criminalize a person who defames or criticizes a person’s religious views.

This hotline is nothing more than a sneaky backdoor approach to establishing full-blown anti-blasphemy laws in America. And trying to normalize the concept of turning in your neighbor for their opinion is nothing short of chilling, especially when you think of the what went on with the Nazis in the 1930’s.

http://freedomdaily.com/riots-erupt-minnesota-just-handed-full-control-muslims-take-infidels/

 

 

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

by  Robert Oscar Lopez
within Marriage

 

August 6th, 2012

 

Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people.

Life is hard when you are strange. Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted. Though I am hard-working and a quick learner, I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.

In terms of sexuality, gays who grew up in traditional households benefited from at least seeing some kind of functional courtship rituals around them. I had no clue how to make myself attractive to girls. When I stepped outside of my mothers’ trailer, I was immediately tagged as an outcast because of my girlish mannerisms, funny clothes, lisp, and outlandishness. Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend, instead having gone to four proms as a wisecracking sidekick to girls who just wanted someone to chip in for a limousine.

When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet. Frightened and traumatized by my mother’s death, I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there.

It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself. I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man. I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or “homocons.”

Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus, in an email dated July 17, 2012. I was not part of his massive survey, but he noticed a comment I’d left on a website about it and took the initiative to begin an email correspondence.

Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

Like my story, these 248 people’s stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

So why the code of silence from LGBT leaders? I can only speculate from where I’m sitting. I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

The latest attempt at trying to silence stories (and data) such as mine comes from Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, who gave an interview to Tom Bartlett of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he said—and I quote—that Mark Regnerus’s study was “bullshit.” Bartlett’s article continues:

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

The problem with Sherkat’s disqualification of Regnerus’s work is a manifold chicken-and-egg conundrum. Though Sherkat uses the term “LGBT” in the same interview with Bartlett, he privileges that L and G and discriminates severely against the B, bisexuals.

Where do children of LGBT parents come from? If the parents are 100-percent gay or lesbian, then the chances are that the children were conceived through surrogacy or insemination, or else adopted. Those cases are such a tiny percentage of LGBT parents, however, that it would be virtually impossible to find more than a half-dozen in a random sampling of tens of thousands of adults.

Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting.

I would posit that children raised by same-sex couples are naturally going to be more curious about and experimental with homosexuality without necessarily being pure of any attraction to the opposite sex. Hence they will more likely fall into the bisexual category, as did I—meaning that the children of LGBT parents, once they are young adults, are likely to be the first ones disqualified by the social scientists who now claim to advocate for their parents.

Those who are 100-percent gay may view bisexuals with a mix of disgust and envy. Bisexual parents threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up. While some gays see bisexuality as an easier position, the fact is that bisexual parents bear a more painful weight on their shoulders. Unlike homosexuals, we cannot write off our decisions as things forced on us by nature. We have no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents, and live with the guilt, regret, and self-criticism forever.

Our children do not arrive with clean legal immunity. As a man, though I am bisexual, I do not get to throw away the mother of my child as if she is a used incubator. I had to help my wife through the difficulties of pregnancy and postpartum depression. When she is struggling with discrimination against mothers or women at a sexist workplace, I have to be patient and listen. I must attend to her sexual needs. Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died. I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest . . . forever.

Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children. Bisexual parents must wrestle with their duties as parents while still contending with the temptations to enter into same-sex relationships. The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is. Rather than threatening, it is a reminder of the burden I carry and a goad to concern myself first and foremost with my children’s needs, not my sexual desires.

The other chicken-and-egg problem of Sherkat’s dismissal deals with conservative ideology. Many have dismissed my story with four simple words: “But you are conservative.” Yes, I am. How did I get that way? I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions. Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.

So yes, I am conservative and support Regnerus’s findings. Or is it that Regnerus’s findings revisit the things that made me conservative in the first place? Sherkat must figure that one out.

Having lived for forty-one years as a strange man, I see it as tragically fitting that the first instinct of experts and gay activists is to exclude my life profile as unfit for any “data sample,” or as Dr. Sherkat calls it, “bullshit.” So the game has gone for at least twenty-five years. For all the talk about LGBT alliances, bisexuality falls by the wayside, thanks to scholars such as Sherkat. For all the chatter about a “queer” movement, queer activists are just as likely to restrict their social circles to professionalized, normal people who know how to throw charming parties, make small talk, and blend in with the Art Deco furniture.

I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore. Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard; it takes a mental toll, makes it harder to find friends, interferes with professional growth, and sometimes leads one down a sodden path to self-medication in the form of alcoholism, drugs, gambling, antisocial behavior, and irresponsible sex. The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange. We owe them, at the least, a dose of honesty. Thank you, Mark Regnerus, for taking the time to listen.

Robert Lopez is assistant professor of English at California State University-Northridge. He is the author of Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman. This year he will be publishing novels he wrote in the 1990s and 2000s.


Public Discourse

Ryan T. Anderson
Founder & Editor

Serena Sigillito
Managing Editor

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

Americas LOST Generations

 

 

NORTHERN EXPOSURE

Ontario approves measure that allows government to take children from parents who oppose gender ideology

Jardine Malado 03 June, 2017

The province of Ontario has passed a bill that allows the government to seize children from parents who do not accept gender ideology.

 

The Canadian province of Ontario has passed a legislation that has been described by critics as “totalitarian” as it allows the government to seize children from families who do not accept gender ideology.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, was passed by a vote of 63–23 on June 1, the last day before Queen’s Park adjourns for the summer, Life Site News reported.

The measure repeals and replaces the Child and Family Services Act, which governs child protection services, as well as adoption and foster care services.

Under the legislation, “gender identity” and “gender expression” are included as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.” However, the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child is removed from consideration in assessing the child’s bests interest.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” said Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.

“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption,” he added.

Fonseca asserted that the measure would give government workers the legal means to discriminate against Christians who want to adopt or foster children.

He claimed that there were several Christian couples who were turned down for adoption because of their religious beliefs about marriage and human sexuality even before Bill 89 was passed.

Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) was the first pro-family group to express concerns about the bill.

While the former law states that the Children’s Aid Society should take the “least disruptive course of action,” Bill 89 includes a provision that calls for “early intervention services and community support services,” according to an ARPA analysis.

At the second reading of the bill in March, 83 of Ontario’s 107 MPPs voted unanimously to advance the legislation. But Conservative MPP’s who were present at Queen’s Park for the vote on June 1 opposed the measure, which was in stark contrast to their position in March.

No Liberal broke ranks to vote against the bill, and several New Democratic Party MPPs voted in favor of the legislation as well.

Fonseca lauded the MPPs who voted against Bill 89, and he called on Christian leaders, particularly Catholic Bishops, to voice their opposition to the bill.

The bill was introduced by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau, who has previously stated that he considers questioning a teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” Coteau said.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops,” he continued.

 

Source = The Christian Times  Jun 7 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

A WAR OF WORDS

by James Harrison

Our journey with the Natural Family Foundation starts with the realization that we are in a public opinion war and that we must win that war to be effective in our goal of making the concept of the Natural Family as the Foundation, prerequisite and mainstay of any civilization. Simply getting the general public to understand what a natural family looks like is job one.  Secondly, it is our task to help others realize the critical importance of this family unit not just to their immediate clan but for the nation state that they occupy.

Finally and most importantly, these new “students” will hopefully see the importance of acting upon that knowledge once they “get it”. One of the results of their epiphany is that they will hopefully feel compelled to tell others about the natural family and encourage them to defend, support and even promote the concept.

IF A TREE FALLS IN THE FOREST AND NOBODY HEARS IT

Unfortunately we may have built a better mousetrap but the world is not going to beat a path to our door unless they know about it.  It is incumbent upon us to do the “legwork” required in order to be effective in the war of words in which we find ourselves. And yep its never easy and will require a lot of time and work if we are to win. Our adversary likes to confuse, discourage and divide us. Look around, are we united?

THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN HELP

Do you know what the natural family consists of and do you think it should be a priority for our nation to emphasize?  Do you see where it fits into what you are currently doing? How it actually can help unify and attract others to YOUR particular calling?  There is strength in unity – don’t believe me then see how effective the humanists movement has been in getting divorce, homosexual marriage, sexual fluidity, transgender bathrooms, pornography, pedophilia normalized by combining their efforts.  And what have they all been exerting their primary focus on? Public opinion of course.

THE SQUEAKY HINGE GETS THE OIL 

You see today what is happening to our President. The news media, entertainment industry , educational institutions, businesses, churches, government  and today’s modern families are all developing a public opinion “case” for their cause.  Riots ensue, judges obfuscate and political opponents squeal and as a result,  their agenda moves forward  . . .and at who’s expense?

IF YOU DON’T HAVE A NATURAL FAMILY FOUNDATION WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

Right now, where you are, what you are involved in, if you are successful, be it the pro life movement, fighting the judicial and governmental systems, assuring our financial stability, fighting transgender bathrooms, whatever; if there is no natural family to support what it is that you are doing, what do you have?  Saving an unborn baby life is wonderful. but if you put them in an unnatural home with say an abusive spouse, two mommies or a pedophile, now what? Our laws permit it and public opinion supports it, so what can you say or do?

We need your help to get the word out to change the “social contracts” in today’s modern world.  We needs more friends on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/374843636213301/, more visitors to our blog ,webpage  and twitter page.  More “Last Call “ listeners more stations that support our cause. And we need more converts to our cause. We need you to get the word out.

Won’t you consider giving us a hand to increase our footprint?  You are an important piece in the puzzle and we need you to complete the Natural Family Picture.  It’s great that you have personally taken your hands out of your pocket to help but you don’t have to continue to fight the battle with one hand tied behind your back.  We ask that you please consider joining with the Natural Family as others have and become part of the entire body, unified and undefeated.  We cannot do it without you and with all due respect you cannot do without the rest of the body.  . .   “One Band one Sound”

James Harrison
Natural Family Foundation