We’re rapidly approaching the day where church members will cry out, “Why did you lie to us? Why didn’t you tell us the truth?” Mondo de la Vega says on the Jim Bakker Show.

Right now, few pulpits will teach the truth about God’s Word. Instead, they’re held captive by a spirit of fear.

“They’re afraid they’ll be mocked or be marked by being called radicals,” de la Vega says.

Pastor Carl Gallups points to one clear culprit. Watch the video to see what it is.

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., has been a thorn in President Donald Trump’s side since before the 2016 presidential election.

He is one of two Republicans in Congress who continue to push the Russia Narrative, signing onto a Democrat measure to force an independent investigation prior to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He refused to support the American Health Care Act. And now, he was the only Republican who refused to support last week’s vote on strengthening immigration enforcement.

Prior to Friday’s vote, the congressman tweeted:

No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The [powers] not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are [reserved] to the States [respectively], or to the [people].

After the votes, he then tweeted:

I voted no today on two bills that together violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 11th Amendments. I will always defend our Constitution.

The bills in question were House Resolution 3003, the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,” and HR 3004, also known as “Kate’s Law.” The bills were adopted, 228-195 and 257-167, respectively. Amash explained in greater detail on Saturday his opposition to both bills.

Regarding HR 3003:

This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.

The bill violates the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting any state or locality from doing anything that would restrict the ability of their law enforcement officers to “assist” federal immigration enforcement, giving state and local governments legal immunity for providing such assistance and limiting transfers of aliens to sanctuary cities for criminal prosecution.

I have voted in the past to defund law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities that prohibit information sharing between their law enforcement and federal immigration officials (including HR3009 in the 114th Congress), but this bill also prohibits any actions or policies that may restrict local law enforcement’s cooperation with, or assistance to, federal immigration enforcement. This goes far beyond just facilitating the exchange of information that local law enforcement may already come across in the course of their own activities; this bill unconstitutionally enables the federal government to coerce states into helping with actual enforcement of immigration laws. Plus, it gives immunity to states for assisting with immigration enforcement, and it affirmatively punishes states for noncompliance.

Congress has no authority to direct state and local officials in this way. Our Constitution establishes a system of dual federalism. In Congress, the laws we make are to be executed by federal officials; we may not commandeer nonfederal officials.

The bill violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements by increasing DHS’s use of, and authority for, warrantless arrests and detentions of suspected illegal aliens. As their texts make clear, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply explicitly to all “people” and “person[s]” within the United States. [More precisely, these amendments secure the rights of individuals under U.S. jurisdiction by identifying limits on the government’s power.] The Constitution uses the word “citizen” in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution’s applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.

The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.

Lastly, the bill violates the First Amendment by likely interfering with the ability of state and local officials and other individuals to make statements regarding immigration enforcement policies and priorities.

I support securing the borders, and I have voted to defund sanctuary cities, but I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means I must oppose bills aimed at policy goals that I support.

And, on HR 3004:

This bill is narrower than other recent bills that also have been called “Kate’s Law.”

This version of Kate’s Law changes the maximum possible punishments for some individuals convicted of re-entering the United States illegally and changes the procedures for prosecuting illegal re-entry. My concern with this bill stems from a provision that denies Fifth Amendment due process to certain criminal defendants.

As its text makes clear, the Fifth Amendment applies explicitly to all “person[s]” within the United States, including suspected illegal aliens who are arrested, charged and tried within the United States. [More precisely, this amendment secures the rights of individuals under U.S. jurisdiction by identifying limits on the government’s power.] The Constitution uses the word “citizen” in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution’s applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.

Under current law, it is illegal to reenter the United States if you have an outstanding order of removal. The removal order is an element of the crime, and a defendant may challenge the validity of the order, but only in limited circumstances. To challenge the validity of a removal order under current law, the defendant must show that she has used up all other opportunities to challenge the order, she has been denied her right to have a judge review her case, and the removal order was “fundamentally unfair.”

This bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order. As noted above, the removal order is an element of the crime. In our criminal justice system, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove her—which is an element of the crime!—was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendant’s due process rights.

Under current removal procedures, this circumstance may be rare, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution secures the defendant’s rights when this circumstance does arise. {eoa}

He was one of the most renowned writers in the metaphysics community. Hundreds of thousands flocked to Steven Bancarz’s website each day to see what wisdom the New-Age expert had to offer.

“I believed that I was God, and that we could all become Christ, too, if only we realized this inherent connection we have to God,” Bancarz says.

Money followed the posts, and Bancarz says he believed it was affirmation from God that he was correct.

Though he was raised in a Christian household, Bancarz developed a fascination with aliens and the paranormal. What followed was demonic oppression and even attacks.

Watch the video to see his full testimony.

{eoa}

For the first time in 25 years, the Israeli government broke ground on a new community in Judea and Samaria. It’s meant to replace a disputed community evacuated earlier this year.

“When we came to Amona, there was nothing there. It was just an empty hilltop with nothing there,” said Elad Ziv, a resident of the former Amona community. “The only things that were there historically were the ruins of our ancestors.”

That was in 1996. Since that time, Israelis built homes, and families moved in, including Ziv and his wife, who lived in Amona for 18 years and raised seven children there. Then in February of this year, the Israeli government uprooted all 42 families who lived in the Samarian community. Israel’s Supreme Court ruled it had been built on private Palestinian land. “In any other rational place in the world where there is a dispute over land, you do not go out and throw out people for nothing,” Ziv said. “If someone proves that the land is his, and you have assets on that land, you compensate the one who has the land.” One glitch here: it’s against Palestinian Authority law to sell land to Israelis. Those who have done so in the past have often been murdered.
 
Now, Ziv’s six children share a room in a girls’ dormitory where all the Amona residents live. He and his wife live in another room. They have a small sink for a kitchen. “You have to understand, we are sitting here in the land of the tribe of Benjamin. Our forefathers came here 3,500 years ago,” Ziv said. “All the Bible is talking about these areas. We are in a struggle of coming back to our own homeland.”
 
And that struggle could soon be over for these families. There’s a new settlement in the works with room for 100 families.
 
It’s called Amichai, which means” my people” or “my nation lives.” The former residents of Amona chose the name as a reminder that Amona also is alive.
 
“The Jewish people are coming back to its land, and this why it’s making a big fuss, and this is why everyone is against it,” Ziv said.

That includes some Israelis, like the European-funded organization Yesh Din, which spearheaded the legal battle to remove Amona.
“We believe that as long as there will be an occupation in the West Bank there is no real way to secure that the Palestinians will enjoy their full rights,” Yesh Din spokesman Gilad Grossman told CBN News.
 
“I don’t believe in the Bible, and even if I did believe in the Bible, I don’t see how that’s [the]  basis to what is happening right now” Grossman said.
 
Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.
 
President Trump asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “hold back on settlements” at their White House meeting several months ago. But some, like Avihai Boaron, think Trump’s visit will actually be good for settlements in the end.

“I think that President Trump understand[s] that Israel must be strong here in the Middle East in order to have more stability in this region,” Boaron told CBN News.

Boaron is the spokesman for the Israelis from Amona. He thinks Trump realizes that Israel needs Judea and Samaria to be strong.

“If you will cut off Judea and Samaria from the State of Israel it will [make] Israel a tiny state, a tiny strip of 20 miles [wide]. It will weaken Israel, and he must stop it and not let it happen,” Boaron said. {eoa}

Copyright The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., All rights reserved.

Why do we celebrate the Fourth of July?  If you were to ask average people on the street this question, many of them would mumble something about independence, but the truth is that most Americans would not be able to tell you clearly why it is a holiday.

According to Wikipedia, the Fourth of July “is a federal holiday in the United States commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence 241 years ago on July 4, 1776.”  Unfortunately, most Americans have never read the Declaration of Independence, and if a similar document were authored today, it would be banned from our public schools because it mentions God four times. We have allowed the liberal elite to gain such a stranglehold over our society that even our most cherished founding principles have become politically incorrect.

If you ask most Americans to quote from the Declaration of Independence, almost everyone will give you something from this sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is one of the most famous sentences in the English language, but do most of us still proudly believe this?

And if you happen to be someone that does not believe in God, then where do your rights come from?

If they come from men, then men can take them away. But if they come from God, then nobody can take them away. This is a point that President Trump brought up in a major speech that he just delivered to a group of veterans:

“Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence 241 years ago, America always affirmed that liberty comes from our Creator. Our rights are given to us by God, and no earthly force can ever take those rights away. That is why my administration is transferring power out of Washington and returning that power back where it belongs, to the people,” Trump said.

“Our religious liberty is enshrined in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. The American founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence,” said Trump. “Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention to begin by bowing their heads in prayer. Inscribed on our currency are the words: ‘In God We Trust.'”

It is so refreshing to hear a president talk like this because, these days, most of our politicians are so careful to be politically correct. And I am not just talking about Democrats. Many politicians who are supposedly conservative seem quite uncomfortable when matters of faith come up, and if you can get them to talk about God, they usually want to switch topics as quickly as possible.

But in the old days, Republicans and Democrats both acknowledged the importance of faith in our society. The following comes from an excellent article by Dr. Gary Scott Smith:

Dwight Eisenhower insisted that the Founding Fathers “wrote their religious faith into our founding documents, stamped their trust in God upon our coins and currency [and] put it squarely at the base of our institutions.” They strove to obey God’s commandments, live in freedom and create a prosperous country. “The knowledge that God is the source of all power,” Eisenhower maintained, gave birth to and sustained America. Human dignity depended on the God-given rights that were “eloquently stated” in the Declaration of Independence.

Faith in Almighty God, John F. Kennedy contended, “was a dominant power in the lives of our Founding Fathers.” He urged Americans to “dwell upon the deep religious convictions of those who formed our nation.”

Ronald Reagan repeatedly stressed the religious commitments of the Founding Fathers, especially their contention that the United States would flourish only if its people acted morally. The founders, he declared, “believed faith in God was the key to our being a good people and America’s becoming a great nation.” Reagan regularly recounted how the founders, especially Washington, had relied on God in leading the nation. The Declaration of Independence, Reagan claimed, expressed America’s recognition of God’s power and authority. He noted that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all accentuated God’s providential guidance and the importance of prayer. The Founding Fathers ensured that Congress began each day with prayer, Reagan proclaimed, because they valued prayer so highly.

Of course in our day and time, teens are actually being threatened with arrest for praying in school.

If we truly want to restore our Republic, we can’t throw out the principles and values that the Republic was founded upon. The First Amendment guarantees that there will never be an official state church and that we will always get to worship God the way that we want, but there is absolutely nothing in there that says we must have a godless government. On the contrary, our founders were more influenced by the Bible than any other book, and they quoted from it more than any other book. Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach is the author of Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers, and I have used this quote from him previously, but I wanted to use it again here because it fits my point perfectly:

The founders, as I document in my new book Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers, lived in a biblically literate society. Their many quotations from and allusions to both familiar and obscure biblical texts confirm that they knew the Bible from cover to cover. Biblical language and themes liberally seasoned their rhetoric. The phrases and intonations of the King James Bible, especially, influenced their written and spoken words. Its ideas shaped their habits of mind.

The Bible left its mark on their political culture. Legislative debates, pamphlets and political sermons of the age are replete with quotations from and allusions to the Bible. Following an extensive survey of American political literature from 1760 to 1805, political scientist Donald S. Lutz reported that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought, such as Enlightenment liberalism. Approximately one-third of all citations in the literature he surveyed were to the Bible. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as Locke’s writings, and the Apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu.

The biggest reason why our federal government is such a mess today is because it has pushed God completely out of the picture.

So instead of defending life, our nation has murdered nearly 60 million children since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

Instead of defending liberty, the control freaks at the federal level are suffocating us with hundreds of thousands of laws, rules and regulations, and if you throw in the state and local levels, the number of laws, rules and regulations governing us is in the millions.

And instead of promoting the pursuit of happiness, all of us have to work several months each year just to pay the dozens of different taxes and fees that various levels of government impose on all of us. But we don’t actually have to have such a system. If we got rid of our debt-based financial system and went to a much smaller federal government, we could abolish the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

Government is not the solution to our problems.

As Ronald Reagan once famously said, government is the problem.

If we work together, we can dismantle the monstrous federal bureaucracy that the liberal elite have spent decades constructing, and we can restore the republic that our founders risked everything to establish.

It won’t be easy, but we can get there, and the first step is getting back to the principles and values that made America great in the first place. {eoa}

Eighteen people were killed when a tour bus burst into flames after colliding with a lorry on a motorway in the German state of Bavaria on Monday, police said.

Thirty people were injured in the crash, which occurred shortly after 7 a.m. local time (0500 GMT) near the town of Stammbach, around 90 km (56 miles) northeast of Nuremberg, police said. Some were seriously injured.

“It’s clear now that all 18 of the missing people on the bus died in the accident,” police said on Twitter.

There were 48 people, mainly from the eastern state of Saxony, on the bus and they were aged between 41 and 81, police said.

Speaking at the scene of the crash, Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt said two people were in a critical condition, he said.

“The heat’s development must have been intense because there is nothing flammable left on the bus. Only steel parts are recognizable so you can understand what that meant for the people in this bus,” he said.

Chancellor Angela Merkel described the crash as “terrible” and said: “Our thoughts are with the victims’ relatives and we wish all of the injured a quick recovery, from the bottom of our hearts.” {eoa}

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Friday, just hours before the U.S. military was supposed to begin accepting enlistments and applications for commissions from transgendered Americans, Secretary of Defense ordered a six-month delay in the Obama-era requirement to further assess its potential impact on the Department of Defense’s war-fighting capabilities.

Department spokeswoman Dana White issued this short statement announcing the decision:

Secretary Mattis today approved a recommendation by the services to defer accessing transgender applicants into the military until Jan. 1, 2018.

“The services will review their accession plans and provide input on the impact to the readiness and lethality of our forces.

The Associated Press later reported it received a copy of a memo from Mattis to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the branch secretaries that shed further light on his decision. In it, he said he believes the department must measure “each policy decision against one standard,” which is how it will impact the military’s ability to defend the U.S.

“After consulting with the service chiefs and secretaries, I have determined that it is necessary to defer the start of accessions for six months,” the memo stated. “We will use this additional time to evaluate more carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality.”

“Accession” is the official military term for new enlistments and commissions.

It was reported earlier in the week that the Army and Air Force had been seeking a two-year hold on the new requirement. Mattis said in the memo that his decision to adopt a six-month hold was only meant to allow him to have a chance to access the impacts with incoming Trump administration officials as opposed to leadership installed by President Barack Obama.

The Family Research Council hailed the decision regardless. In a statement following White’s announcement, the Christian pro-family group said it took the news as an encouraging first step in the right direction. FRC vice president Jerry Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general and founding member of Delta Force, stated:

The Pentagon is right to hit the brakes on a policy that will fail to make our military more capable in performing its mission to fight and win wars. It’s good that the nation’s military leadership realizes what the American people realize, this policy makes no sense.

The military has been reduced to stripping parts from museums, which is why it makes no sense to spend more than a billion taxpayer dollars on new body parts for anyone who joins the military and identifies as transgender. After lost deployment and other costs are factored in, taxpayers could be on the hook for as much as $3.7 billion over the next 10 years. Spending billions of dollars on transgender surgeries and treatment plans, when the military has other priorities that would actually ensure its effectiveness in war, is irresponsible.

However, the cost to readiness, recruitment, retention, morale and cohesion will be even greater. Personnel who identify as transgender are expected to receive exceptions to policies and medical requirements that their peers will still be required to meet. These exceptions may be applied to policies about everything from physical and mental fitness standards to dress and presentation standards, and they create an unfairness that will undermine unit cohesion and morale.

These serious concerns no doubt motivated the military service chiefs to request a delay.

Now, Secretary Mattis and Congress need to ensure the priorities of the U.S. armed forces remain those that the secretary has outlined:  mission readiness, command proficiency and combat effectiveness. These should be the new priorities, not the last administration’s social engineering projects that ignore military readiness.”

Click here to read the FRC report on the financial impact of the transgender policy that Boykin noted in his statement. {eoa}

 A car bomb killed 20 people in Damascus on Sunday and wounded dozens more, the Syrian foreign ministry said, the first such bombing in the Syrian capital since a series of jihadist suicide attacks in March.

The authorities said it was one of three car bombs that were meant to be blown up in crowded areas of the capital on Sunday, the first day back to work from the Eid al-Fitr holiday. Security forces pursued and destroyed the other two.

Officials said the bombers had been prevented from reaching their intended targets, otherwise the casualty toll would have been higher.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. Damascus was hit by two separate, multiple suicide bomb attacks in March, one of them claimed by Islamic State and the other by the Islamist insurgent alliance Tahrir al-Sham.

In a letter to the U.N. secretary general and the head of the security council, the foreign ministry said the blast that killed 20 people in the Bab Touma area near the Old City had also wounded dozens of women and children.

State media said the bomber had been spotted and pursued by the security forces and set off the bomb after he had been encircled in the area.

Damascus has enjoyed relative security in recent years even as the six-year-long civil war has raged on in nearby areas.

Footage broadcast by state TV from the blast that caused the fatalities near the Old City showed roads scattered with debris, several badly damaged cars, and another one that had been turned into a pile of twisted metal.

Footage from another of the blast sites showed what appeared to be the remains of a person and badly damaged vehicles outside a mosque in the Baytara traffic circle near the Old City.

On March 15, two suicide bomb attacks in Damascus killed several dozen people, most of them at the Palace of Justice courthouse near the Old City. Islamic State claimed responsibility for that attack.

On March 11, a double suicide attack in the capital killed scores of people, most of them Iraqi Shi’ite pilgrims. That attack was claimed by the Tahrir al-Sham alliance of Islamist insurgents, which is spearheaded by a jihadist group formerly known as the Nusra Front.

Syrian government forces, which have defeated rebel fighters in several suburbs of Damascus over the last year, are currently battling insurgents in the Jobar and Ain Tarma areas on the capital’s eastern outskirts.

A rebel group accused the army of using chlorine gas in the fighting on Saturday. The army denied the claim as fabrications.

A suicide bomber dressed as a veiled woman killed 14 people and wounded 13 others in a displacement camp west of the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Sunday, security sources said.

Islamic State militants, who have been facing mounting offensives in Iraq and neighboring Syria, claimed responsibility for the assault.

The camp known as “kilo 60” houses people forced out of Sunni Muslim areas control by Islamic State in the Euphrates river valley, the sources said.

The militants said in a statement they had been targeting an Iraqi army position.

The hardline Sunni group has all but lost its capital in Iraq, Mosul, while its capital in Syria, Raqqa, is isolated from the rest of the territory under its control across the border. {eoa}

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

How would you feel if a man walked into a business meeting wearing a skirt and 8-inch heels? Twenty years ago, that would have been absolutely unthinkable, but, if one American designer has his way, that may soon become the norm. When I saw photos on Facebook of Thom Browne’s latest line for men, I have to admit that I was floored. If you have not seen what I am talking about yet, you can do so here and here. Personally, I believe men should dress like men and women should dress like women, but much of society is moving in the exact opposite direction.

In recent years, we have been hearing a lot about “gender fluidity,” and this is yet another example of that phenomenon. The distinctions between men and women are being blurred, and there are many who would like to eliminate them altogether.

Given enough time, could we eventually get to the point where it is just as acceptable for men to wear skirts and heels as it is for women? Apparently, Thom Browne wants us to have these kinds of conversations:

Gender fluidity in style is no longer a thing for only women, but men too. Thom Browne, an American designer seems to think men should embrace the trend too and rock a few pieces ‘borrowed from the girls’. His spring summer collection presented at the ongoing Men’s Fashion Week had a slew of dress shirts, tunics, maxi dresses and skirts all worn with pointy-toe heels.

Who says what a man should and shouldn’t wear? The collection seems to drive a conversation many of us never want to have. And, if a woman can wear a pantsuit, why can’t a man wear a skirt suit? This is probably what the designer wanted to us to talk about.

For Browne, he figures that since we all wore similar clothing as babies, we should be able to do the same thing once we reach adulthood. The following quote from Browne comes from Vogue:

I like the idea that when you are a baby you wear pretty much the same clothing as your brothers and sisters. And I think that culture dictates which way and what kind of clothing you wear—but it is nice that you can pretty much do whatever you want.

Doing whatever is right in our own eyes may make a lot of sense for Browne, but a society without gender would be complete chaos. God created both men and women for a reason, and trying to eradicate masculinity and femininity would be a tragic mistake.

In particular, there seems to be a tremendous effort in our society today to feminize men. By now just about everyone has heard about the metrosexual trend, and more recently there has been a push to make rompers for men fashionable:

For too many years, men have suffered from a lack of options in the fashion realm. So, four Chicago-based business school buds sought to rectify this injustice by introducing to the world (for better or for worse) the male romper—er, the RompHim.

“Turn heads and break hearts when you take your RompHim for a spin,” reads the product description. “Is it a romper specifically designed for men? Sure, but it’s also so much more.”

When I see men dressed in rompers, part of me wants to laugh, but another part of me wonders where all of this is heading.

Instead of male and female, are we ultimately headed for a genderless era where most people will fall on a spectrum somewhere between the two genders? Even now, some major stars in the entertainment industry are fully embracing the genderless label. For example, just consider what Miley Cyrus had to say during one recent interview:

“I think I’m weird because that I feel very genderless; I feel ageless; I feel like I’m just a spirit soul, not even divided by human being, or I treat the animals the same or, hopefully, treat the planet with as much respect as possible,” Cyrus said during an interview on Lorraine, a U.K. morning show.

“I feel very much like there’s no ‘us’ and ‘them’. There’s no ‘me’ and ‘you’. I feel like I’m kind of just—I want to be everything, and I want to be also kind of nothing. I just want to be able to be myself,” she continued.

That is just weird.

But tens of millions of young people around the globe absolutely adore Miley Cyrus and look up to her as a role model.

So as Miley Cyrus embraces a genderless identity, it is inevitable that large numbers of other young people will follow in her footsteps.

This is yet another example that shows that we need to be very careful about what we feed into our minds. The average American consumes approximately five hours of television programming a day, and it is inevitable that all of that programming is going to have a dramatic impact on how we all see the world.

After thousands upon thousands of hours of programming, many of us may be ready to accept just about anything—and that includes men dressing in skirts and heels. {eoa}

Read articles like this one and other Spirit-led content in our new platform, CHARISMA PLUS.