Parents or babysitters: I know which one I am

October 14, 2019

Obra Shalom Campo Grande/Flickr

CEO/Founder

The joy one feels when your child is born is unparalleled in human experience. Holding that small being in your arms. A new person, a part of you brought into the world. A tiny, fragile little human, one who is wholly dependent on you for its life. Nothing in our experience as people really compares to that moment and that experience. Forget money, forget career, forget a sub-two-hour marathon or Everest or becoming a "Million Miler" on your favorite airline.

When you hold your baby in your arms, you're terrified. You're proud and humbled at the same time. You did that! But also, holy crap, what did you do? In that moment, you realize there is nothing you would not do for that child. Nothing you would not give them, nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to protect him or her. For those of you who've not been through it, I can tell you it is life changing. It's life changing every time you go through it, too. First child or fourteenth.

It's an unspoken bond that we share as parents. If you aren't one yet, just believe me. Parents know.

But today, I think we have to be honest and ask ourselves: Are we still parents? Is that still a thing? Are we still parents, or are we babysitters?

As a parent, you get to direct the affairs and decisions for your kids. While still respecting their basic rights as human beings, you help determine the course of their life. What they wear or don't. What they eat. When they sleep. What books they read. What games they play. When they get a bike, when they get their first BB-gun. It's an awesome, terrifying responsibility, every minute of it. What if you screw something up? What if you let them eat too much candy? What if they sit too close to the TV? What if letting them play with your Apple watch results in accidentally sending dozens of pictures of your nose-hairs to your PTA president? (Try explaining that one at your next parent/teacher conference.)

As far as your kid is concerned, you're a bit of a benevolent dictator, at least until they get into their teens and figure out you're mostly full of crap and start to rebel.

As far as your kid is concerned, you're a bit of a benevolent dictator, at least until they get into their teens and figure out you're mostly full of crap and start to rebel. Those are fun days....

So as a parent, you and your spouse run the show. But when you hire a babysitter, they have only a select set of discretionary powers that you delegate to them. They run the set of plays you select for them. Feed them this, put them to bed at 9, and video games only after homework is done. Babysitters, the good ones at least, simply do the list of things you gave them to do, but don't have real authority to engage in life-altering actions for your kids. They are there to tend for a short period, but not to decide who your kids will be, how they will be raised.

Given that paradigm, and where were are today, I think we have to ask ourselves: Are we parents anymore? Can we still call ourselves that? Or are we just babysitters?

Do we get to decide the how and when of our child's development? Should they take Flintstones vitamins or not? Get all their vaccinations or not? Are they ready to learn about the birds and the bees or not? Are they mature enough to have a sleep over, to carry a cell phone, to ride bikes across Main Street to buy a soda at the Dairy Queen?

If those choices aren't yours anymore, if someone else is deciding, are you a parent....or are you a babysitter?

Today, across many modern countries with progressive Democratic policies, we don't necessarily get to decide the course of our child's life and development.

Consider Charlie Guard, the child whom British socialized medicine decided was too expensive to try to treat for a severe disorder, and was left on feeding tubes to die, despite the parents pleas to remove them from the hospital and taken to another country for attempts at treatment. Despite court battles and global press coverage, the Death Panel decided it would set a bad precedent and the parents didn't get to have the choice to attempt other ways to treat their child, even outside the country at zero cost to the Government.

What about in Canada, where it's considered legal child abuse to not address your child with their own preferred gender pronoun, at any age. Child abuse that could result in your child being removed from your home and placed in Government-ordered foster care, with you in jail the same as if you'd beaten your child with a tire iron. The same goes for teaching your children that homosexuality might be a sin in the eyes of God, also a Federal offense that is punishable by potential jail time, even if your religion beliefs indicate it is a sin.

Or in the EU, where parents can be fined if it's determined they are not giving Islam fair and equal coverage to Christianity or Judaism in their own Homeschooling program. No matter your religious traditions or scriptures, if you teach your kids that Moses was a prophet but Mohammed was not, the PC police can show up, take your kids away, because you're engaging in the hate speech of teaching Christian theology as being superior to Muslim theology. In your own home.

Or consider this.

When are you kids ready to learn about sex? Where babies come from...believe me, they start asking about it way before they're really ready to know much detail...whoever invented the Stork story was a genius, believe me.

But seriously, as parents, we have to decide that. When and how to have that discussion.

Or maybe not. Maybe not anymore. Maybe that ship has sailed. After all, maybe we're not parents anymore at all. Maybe we're just babysitters.

In 2015, advanced Sex Education became required curriculum in Canadian public schools, including primary and secondary schools, for Kindergarten through 12th grade students.

Announcing the controversial program, Education Minister Sebastian Proulx (pronounced "Proo") indicated the program would include what he termed "age-appropriate" instruction on LGBTQ and Gender-expression issues, sexual orientation, sexual assault as well as traditional sex education topics such as preventing STDs.

Although Mr Proulx acknowledged some parents and teachers may be opposed to the new compulsory content, he said the instruction was necessary. "I know it is not an easy subject. I know the questions are sensitive. But we have to respond as a society to a societal issue."

The new program was developed in a collaboration with sexologists as well as public and private organizations, including Planned Parenthood of Canada, according to CNS News Service.

When asked if parents who objected to the content would be allowed to opt-out of the new sex education program, Mr Proulx indicated such waivers would be allowed only in exceptional cases, such as if a student had been the prior victim of sexual abuse. No exemptions would be allowed for moral or religious beliefs.

During the 4 years this program was in place, the following examples of lessons, required by law in public schools, were shared by Canadian students or parents on Social Media:

In Quebec, children as young as 10 years old were taught that a person's gender does not necessarily correspond to their sex at birth.
In Montreal, kindergartners aged 6 were split into small groups and given dolls to enable them to play "house", including same-sex parent couples and gender-neutral couples where parents didn't identify as Mom or Dad, but rather "Parent 1 and Parent 2".
12 & 13 year old students were given a writing exercise based on the following question "How would thinking about your personal limits and making a personal plan influence decisions you may choose to make about your sexual activity?" (from page 216 of Canada's Sex Education curriculum guide for teachers) Note the age of consent in Canada is 18, so sex at age 13 would be, by law, statutory rape.
In a guest-lecture provided by a nurse from Planned Parenthood, one lesson taught to 8th graders (13-14 year old kids) included a slide titled "Ways to Minimize Risk of Pregnancy". Suggestions included condoms, masturbation, same-sex partners and/or anal intercourse. Abstinence was not one of the suggestions.

Quoting again from the Canadian sex-education curriculum, "Children are expected to demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g. male, female, two-spirited, transgender, transsexual, intersex, etc), gender expression, and sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual), and identify factors that can help individuals of all identities & orientations develop positive self-concepts."

Of the 240 page Sex Ed curriculum, two words that appear ZERO times? "love" and "marriage".

A 2012 draft of the Canadian sex-education manual for teachers included the name Ben Levin, Deputy Minister of Education of Canada among the authors. In 2015, Ben Levin plead guilty to multiple counts of child exploitation, production and possession of child pornography and pedophilia. The 2015 Canadian Sex-Education manual for teachers omitted Mr Levin's name from the list of authors.

In the 2018 elections, voters in Ontario elected a Conservative majority to parliament, largely based on a campaign against the radical sex-education program and the sexual activation of their children. Conservatives promised to roll sex education programs back to the previous 1998 standards by this school year.

Canada, sadly, is not unique in this type of initiative:

A BBC article from 2017, citing the alleged "success" of the 2015 Canadian Sex Education program, indicated that similar compulsory programs were being rolled out across the UK, replacing the previous programs that had focused on preventing sexually-transmitted diseases.
The new UK program, called "Sexual Relationships Education," would focus on teaching children as young as 12 the importance of developing a proper, healthy sexual identity and relationships.
The mandatory program includes instruction for students about learning to understand their own bodies, including what feels good and what does not. Quoting from a guide provided to grade 7 teachers, for 12 year old students: "Thinking about your sexual health is complicated...It's also about your sexual orientation and gender-identity, your understanding of your own body, including what gives you pleasure, and the emotional implications of sexual intimacy and sexual relationships."

But don't worry Canada, don't worry United Kingdom, we're not far behind. As of 2018, the state of California has also made this type of sexual education mandatory, with no opt-out provisions. Massachusetts has a similar program on it's ballot this fall. So the good old US of A ain't far behind you.

But don't worry Canada, don't worry United Kingdom, we're not far behind.

When the government makes the sexual activation and grooming of 12 year old children State policy, using the threat of fines or jail time for parents who may choose to not have their children instructed on how to develop sexual relationships, your rights as a parent are simply gone. When the state is teaching 5 and 6 year olds how to identify and spell vagina, vulva, anus and penis instead of cat, dog, mom, dad, your rights as a parent are gone. When the State is requiring 1st grade teachers to read My Princess Boy, which teaches "Dyson loves pink, sparkly things. Sometimes he wears dresses. Sometimes he wears jeans. He likes to wear is princess tiara, even when climbing trees. He's a Princess Boy."...when that is required reading for 7 and 8 year olds, but Huck Finn, Catcher in the Rye and The Jungle Book are all banned, your rights as a Parent are gone.

Schools in Canada & the UK have become nothing more than sexual training centers, grooming children as young as 5 and 6 years old for sexually active lives, gender fluidity, and bisexuality. In the name of remaking the world into a politically correct safe space for every possible gender identity, every sexual behavior and proclivity, they've made it the government's business to hyper-sexualize children, normalizing ultra-rare behaviors such as gender-disphoria. They are teaching young children to develop a "plan" around sexual activity and figuring out what they find to be sexually pleasurable...these lessons happen when these kids are pre-teen!

Proponents of such radical ideas claim that "children are going to become sexual active anyway" and "kids are exposed to so much online these days", that the government must step in and provide instruction. "It's a Societal problem."

I can tell you that for sure, 100%, it is a societal problem. We have a problem in our society when we believe that, by LAW, 10 and 12 year old kids need to learn about same sex partners and anal intercourse as a means to not get pregnant.

The problem isn't that kids are more likely to be exposed to pornography than the last generation was, or that they are more likely to be bullied if they are gay. We have solutions for those kinds of problems. Parents doing their job is the solution, the same as it has always been. The problem is that we have somehow come to believe that the only way to solve any perceived ill in the world is for governments to act.

Could churches and religions help provide a framework for understanding relationships, self-worth, sexuality and love? No! Ghosts in the sky aren't real! They can't help us.

Could parents determine the right way and right time to discuss sexual feelings and urges with their kids? No, parents messages will vary and discussing these things with parents can make children feel uncomfortable, only in the scientific-based classroom setting can children freely discover express their sexuality!

If in your state, province, country or local school district, you don't have a choice about sending your kids into a classroom where teachers are required to teach this type of content to your kids, don't even pretend you still have rights as a parent. Are you that delusional? Have we fallen that far, that we believe it is somehow our duty as citizens to let our children be psychologically and philosophically molded by government stooges into sexually active, gender and sex-orientation fluid "agents of change?"

If you think you still have rights as a parent, you must think that the sum total of your rights orients around paying taxes and dropping your kids off on time. That's not parenting. That's babysitting! Babysitting they are asking you to pay them for.

As for me? I'm with Mr Shapiro on this one. Beto, don't show up at my door demanding my kids learn about developing a sexual plan at age 12. If you do, we're going to have a serious disagreement. And we're a 2nd Amendment household, OK? As Ben said, i"t is never radical or outrageous to defend our fundamental rights."

Don't be a babysitter. That can't be who we are. Be a parent. Do your job! We can't surrender this ground. This must be unassailable, sacrosanct territory. Beto, you stay out of my house, my home school and out of my kid's lives. You're not welcome here.

I'm a parent. This is my job, my wife's job. We may hire the occasional babysitter. But we're parents. No others need apply.

UPDATE: Here's how the conversation went on radio.

LGBTQ IN CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS: Beto VS Ben Shapiro & How Parents Are Losing Their Rightswww.youtube.com

What our response to Israel reveals about us

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

Overcoming loneliness: Connecting in a disconnected world

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Russell Vought’s secret plan to finally shrink Washington

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s OMB chief built the plan for this moment: Starve pet programs, force reauthorization, and actually shrink Washington.

The government is shut down again, and the usual panic is back. I even had someone call my house this week to ask if it was safe to fly today. The person was half-joking, half-serious, wondering if planes would “fall out of the sky.”

For the record, the sky isn’t falling — at least not literally. But the chaos in Washington does feel like it. Once again, we’re watching the same old script: a shutdown engineered not by fiscal restraint but by political brinkmanship. And this time, the Democrats are driving the bus.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

Democrats, among other things, are demanding that health care be extended to illegal immigrants. Democratic leadership caved to its radical base, which would rather shut down the government for such left-wing campaign points than compromise. Republicans — shockingly — said no. They refused to rubber-stamp more spending for illegal immigration. For once, they stood their ground.

But if you’ve watched Washington long enough, you know how this story usually ends: a shutdown followed by a deal that spends even more money than before — a continuing resolution kicking the can down the road. Everyone pretends to “win,” but taxpayers always lose.

The Vought effect

This time might be different. Republicans actually hold some cards. The public may blame Democrats — not the media, but the people who feel this in their wallets. Americans don’t like shutdowns, but they like runaway spending and chaos even less.

That’s why you’re hearing so much about Russell Vought, the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Donald Trump’s quiet architect of a strategy to use moments like this to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Vought spent four years building a plan for exactly this scenario: firing nonessential workers and forcing reauthorization of pet programs. Trump talks about draining the swamp. Vought draws up the blueprints.

The Democrats and media are threatened by Vought because he is patient, calculated, and understands how to leverage the moment to reverse decades of government bloat. If programs aren’t mandated, cut them. Make Congress fight to bring them back. That’s how you actually drain the swamp.

Predictable meltdowns

Predictably, Democrats are melting down. They’ve shifted their arguments so many times it’s dizzying. Last time, they claimed a shutdown would lead to mass firings. Now, they insist Republicans are firing everyone anyway. It’s the same playbook: Move the goalposts, reframe the narrative, accuse your opponents of cruelty.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the infamous "You lie!” moment in 2009? President Barack Obama promised during his State of the Union that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” and was condemned for breaching decorum.

Several years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform openly promised health care for illegal immigrants. What was once called a “lie” became official policy. And today, Democrats are shutting down the government because they can’t get even more of it.

This is progressivism in action: Deny it, inch toward it, then demand it as a moral imperative. Anyone who resists becomes the villain.

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Stand firm

This shutdown isn’t just about spending. It’s about whether we’ll keep letting progressives rewrite the rules one crisis at a time. Trump’s plan — to cut what isn’t mandated, force programs into reauthorization, and fight the battle in the courts — is the first real counterpunch to decades of this manipulation.

It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about control. Progressives know once they normalize government benefits for illegal immigrants, they never roll back. They know Americans forget how it started.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills. If we don’t take it, we’ll be right back here again, only deeper in debt, with fewer freedoms left to defend.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Britain says “no work without ID”—a chilling preview for America

OLI SCARFF / Contributor | Getty Images

From banking to health care, digital IDs touch every aspect of citizens’ lives, giving the government unprecedented control over everyday actions.

On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood at the podium at the Global Progressive Action Conference in London and made an announcement that should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves liberty. By the end of this Parliament, he promised, every worker in the U.K. will be required to hold a “free-of-charge” digital ID. Without it, Britons will not be able to work.

No digital ID, no job.

The government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Starmer framed this as a commonsense response to poverty, climate change, and illegal immigration. He claimed Britain cannot solve these problems without “looking upstream” and tackling root causes. But behind the rhetoric lies a policy that shifts power away from individuals and places it squarely in the hands of government.

Solving the problem they created

This is progressivism in action. Leaders open their borders, invite in mass illegal immigration, and refuse to enforce their own laws. Then, when public frustration boils over, they unveil a prepackaged “solution” — in this case, digital identity — that entrenches government control.

Britain isn’t the first to embrace this system. Switzerland recently approved a digital ID system. Australia already has one. The World Economic Forum has openly pitched digital IDs as the key to accessing everything from health care to bank accounts to travel. And once the infrastructure is in place, digital currency will follow soon after, giving governments the power to track every purchase, approve or block transactions, and dictate where and how you spend your money.

All of your data — your medical history, insurance, banking, food purchases, travel, social media engagement, tax information — would be funneled into a centralized database under government oversight.

The fiction of enforcement

Starmer says this is about cracking down on illegal work. The BBC even pressed him on the point, asking why a mandatory digital ID would stop human traffickers and rogue employers who already ignore national insurance cards. He had no answer.

Bad actors will still break the law. Bosses who pay sweatshop wages under the table will not suddenly check digital IDs. Criminals will not line up to comply. This isn’t about stopping illegal immigration. If it were, the U.K. would simply enforce existing laws, close the loopholes, and deport those working illegally.

Instead, the government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Control masked as compassion

This is part of an old playbook. Politicians claim their hands are tied and promise that only sweeping new powers will solve the crisis. They selectively enforce laws to maintain the problem, then use the problem to justify expanding control.

If Britain truly wanted to curb illegal immigration, it could. It is an island. The Channel Tunnel has clear entry points. Enforcement is not impossible. But a digital ID allows for something far more valuable to bureaucrats than border security: total oversight of their own citizens.

The American warning

Think digital ID can’t happen here? Think again. The same arguments are already echoing in Washington, D.C. Illegal immigration is out of control. Progressives know voters are angry. When the digital ID pitch arrives, it will be wrapped in patriotic language about fairness, security, and compassion.

But the goal isn’t compassion. It’s control of your movement, your money, your speech, your future.

We don’t need digital IDs to enforce immigration law. We need leaders with the courage to enforce existing law. Until then, digital ID schemes will keep spreading, sold as a cure for the very problems they helped create.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The West is dying—Will we let enemies write our ending?

Harvey Meston / Staff | Getty Images

The blood of martyrs, prophets, poets, and soldiers built our civilization. Their sacrifice demands courage in the present to preserve it.

Lamentations asks, “Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?”

That question has been weighing on me heavily. Not just as a broadcaster, but as a citizen, a father, a husband, a believer. It is a question that every person who cares about this nation, this culture, and this civilization must confront: Is all of this worth saving?

We have squandered this inheritance. We forgot who we were — and our enemies are eager to write our ending.

Western civilization — a project born in Judea, refined in Athens, tested in Rome, reawakened in Wittenberg, and baptized again on the shores of Plymouth Rock — is a gift. We didn’t earn it. We didn’t purchase it. We were handed it. And now, we must ask ourselves: Do we even want it?

Across Europe, streets are restless. Not merely with protests, but with ancient, festering hatred — the kind that once marched under swastikas and fueled ovens. Today, it marches under banners of peace while chanting calls for genocide. Violence and division crack societies open. Here in America, it’s left against right, flesh against spirit, neighbor against neighbor.

Truth struggles to find a home. Even the church is slumbering — or worse, collaborating.

Our society tells us that everything must be reset: tradition, marriage, gender, faith, even love. The only sin left is believing in absolute truth. Screens replace Scripture. Entertainment replaces education. Pleasure replaces purpose. Our children are confused, medicated, addicted, fatherless, suicidal. Universities mock virtue. Congress is indifferent. Media programs rather than informs. Schools recondition rather than educate.

Is this worth saving? If not, we should stop fighting and throw up our hands. But if it is, then we must act — and we must act now.

The West: An idea worth saving

What is the West? It’s not a location, race, flag, or a particular constitution. The West is an idea — an idea that man is made in the image of God, that liberty comes from responsibility, not government; that truth exists; that evil exists; and that courage is required every day. The West teaches that education, reason, and revelation walk hand in hand. Beauty matters. Kindness matters. Empathy matters. Sacrifice is holy. Justice is blind. Mercy is near.

We have squandered this inheritance. We forgot who we were — and our enemies are eager to write our ending.

If not now, when? If not us, who? If this is worth saving, we must know why. Western civilization is worth dying for, worth living for, worth defending. It was built on the blood of martyrs, prophets, poets, pilgrims, moms, dads, and soldiers. They did not die for markets, pronouns, surveillance, or currency. They died for something higher, something bigger.

MATTHIEU RONDEL/AFP via Getty Images | Getty Images

Yet hope remains. Resurrection is real — not only in the tomb outside Jerusalem, but in the bones of any individual or group that returns to truth, honor, and God. It is never too late to return to family, community, accountability, and responsibility.

Pick up your torch

We were chosen for this time. We were made for a moment like this. The events unfolding in Europe and South Korea, the unrest and moral collapse, will all come down to us. Somewhere inside, we know we were called to carry this fire.

We are not called to win. We are called to stand. To hold the torch. To ask ourselves, every day: Is it worth standing? Is it worth saving?

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Pick up your torch. If you choose to carry it, buckle up. The work is only beginning.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.