Breaking: What Just Happened To Jenner Could Mean It’s About To Be Game Over

The TV personality and highly controversial transgender icon honored by ESPN and celebrated by tolerance-demanding liberal activists may be headed for a ratings crash as his new reality show loses even more of its early shine.

Western Journalism told you last week that the audience ratings for the much-ballyhooed E! docuseries I Am Cait fell dramatically from the show’s hysterically-hyped premiere to its second weekly installment. The entertainment industry publication Variety reported on Cait’s one-week transition from a top-rated reality hit to a weak miss, noting that the sensationalistic showcase for Caitlyn Jenner fell 53% in viewership from the premiere to the follow-up episode.

Now, after airing the third in the planned eight-part series, E! network executives are said to be starting to worry about the show’s future. Radar Online reports that I Am Cait lost even more viewers this past Sunday night: “…in its third week on E! the show had only 1.2 million overall viewers, according to Nielsen ratings – with only half a million in the 18-49 year old demographic, which is its intended target audience.”

Now while it may sound impressive to have more than a million people overall watching a cable show, Hollywood insiders believe the declining viewership is cause for genuine concern about whether 65-year-old Caitlyn Jenner’s TV soapbox for transgenderism may transition into the cancelled column before long.

According to the Radar Online post:

“Executives and producers for the show feel that Caitlyn is being overexposed,” an insider at the network tells Radar.

“E! invested so much time and money into this project and everyone is just kind of baffled at how poorly it is doing.”

There are no doubt a lot of conservatives and others who believe in and promote traditional family role models and values who could explain to those “baffled” network hotshots why I Am Cait isn’t faring all that well with audiences. And if, as the insiders who shared their knowledge and opinion with Radar Online suggest, the Jenner-centric show is pulled before its scheduled run is complete, E! execs probably shouldn’t be all that surprised.

“Caitlyn got paid, but for [him] that isn’t enough,” Radar Online quotes a source reportedly close to Jenner. “[He] wants ratings gold and it is evident that if something drastic is done that this show will most likely not make it to its final episode.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Something Unexpectedly Disastrous Happened To ‘I Am Cait’ After Only One Week

Okay, it might be a rhetorical stretch, but here goes: In a play on the well-worn saying, “curiosity killed the cat,” you might say, “lack of curiosity could be killing the Cait.”

As the entertainment industry publication Variety notes of the second installment of the much ballyhooed docu-series on Bruce Jenner’s transition to Caitlyn, “A lot of curious viewers who tuned in to the premiere of E!’s ‘I Am Cait’ didn’t return for a second helping.”

In fact, the audience for “I Am Cait” has gone south faster than the public perception of Hillary Clinton’s trustworthiness. The Variety article on Cait’s one-week transition from a top-rated reality show to a weak also-ran notes that the sensationalistic showcase for Caitlyn Jenner fell 53% in viewership from the premiere to this past Sunday’s second episode.

According to the Nielsen ratings service, the latest installment drew 1.29 million viewers overall, compared to the opening night’s attraction of more than 2.7 million viewers.

“One week after standing as cable’s No. 1 Sunday program in the 18-49 demo, ‘I Am Cait’ settled for a ninth place finish among original cable series on the night this time around,” reports Variety.

The Hollywood Reporter adds that the “I Am Cait” series opened to “lofty ratings expectations,” but quickly and precipitously fell into the so-so category of cable offerings.

In addition to the likely collapse in the curiosity factor that could be responsible for the show’s plummeting ratings, there’s always the possibility that Caitlyn Jenner herself contributed to the decline. As Western Journalism reported earlier this week, the transgender heroine of the LGBT community demanding acceptance for Cait’s kind may well have stunned some of her ardent supporters by questioning the wisdom of having government programs that subsidize low-income, transgender men and women.

There’s no official indication, however, that it was disaffected liberal activists who fled the second episode of “I Am Cait,” accounting for the tumble in viewership.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

They Were Celebrated Liberal Icons For ‘Normal’ Gay Parenting…Then This Happened

They’re heavily tattooed and in good physical shape. They’re black and they’re hip in a city where hip-hop is the definition of cool and connected. So when these two gay parents in Atlanta started posting family pictures on Instagram — two 20-something black guys with their three young children — they became sudden celebrities and lauded cultural icons of the LGBT community seeking to normalize the “new” family unit.

Image Credit: Instagram/KordalenKaleb

Image Credit: Instagram/KordalenKaleb

In fact, Kordale Lewis and Kaleb Anthony became such celebrated icons of the same-sex normalization movement that they began to enjoy a taste of fame and fortune. Nikon, seeking to exploit the couple’s popularity and climb on board the progressive bandwagon of “inclusion,” reached out and made them and their kids the centerpiece of a new ad campaign promoting acceptance. They were portrayed as just another American family – “normal” and loving.

But that was before they hit a huge bump in their road to stardom — a bump that normal heterosexual couples with kids often hit.

The Daily Mail newspaper reports that Kordale and Kaleb — the “overnight sensations” of the “new normal” in family relationships — are going their separate ways. Just as their celebrity was born on Instagram, so, too, has their breakup reportedly been announced on the social media platform.

“…fans of the couple were blindsided when Caleb – who had previously gone by the spelling Kaleb – made a series of posts on Instagram, which have since been removed, including a long letter explaining that he was leaving Kordale, breaking off their engagement,” according to the article in the British newspaper.

In the midst of the ongoing controversy as well as the celebration in some quarters over the legal status of same-sex marriage across America, social media was abuzz with chatter about the announced plans for the gay couple’s wedding. The Daily Mail article notes that Kaleb “tweeted just last month that: ‘Next month we will start to plan our wedding!! im (sic) overexcited! #lovewins.” Apparently, though, in this case, love doesn’t win, as some undisclosed “disrespect” has the pair now disengaged.

The New York Post, which calls the ex-couple “America’s favorite gay dads on social media,” notes that Nikon has released a statement saying that the company was “aware of the news,” adding that they wish “the best to Kordale, Kaleb and their entire family. We were happy to have them participate in our campaign and there were no plans to extend marketing efforts with any of the featured participants.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why MLK Would Have Opposed ‘Gay Marriage’

Ever notice how the secular left conveniently omits the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a devout Christian minister?

While, historically, there have certainly been apostate “Christians” who, in the name of Christ, have abused and taken out of context certain biblical passages to support slavery, segregation, racism and other evils, it has been, without fail, true Christians–that is, Bible-believing Christians of every race, color and creed–who have led the charge in defense of all legitimate human (and civil) rights.

The Rev. King was one such Christian; and though he and other Christian leaders have, no doubt, welcomed aid and support from honorable and like-minded secularists over the centuries, it was and remains Christians – Bible-believing brothers and sisters like MLK, William Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, et. al. – who have, indisputably, embodied the most effective and well-known of all humanitarian and civil rights activists.

Even so, in recent decades, sadly, and in what amounts to a sort of soft racism, a mostly white, hard-left movement of secular extremists has managed to hijack MLK’s Christian legacy and invoke his character-based “dream” to advance their own anti-Christian agenda and behavior-based nightmare. I am referring, of course, to homosexual activism (i.e., the push for so-called “gay marriage” and “gay rights”), which, by its very nature, and unlike MLK’s “dream,” is a wholly counter-biblical endeavor.

On all issues, particularly issues relating to morality and human rights, God’s word is the plumb line by which all truth is measured. “The moral law or the law of God,” as MLK called it, was, in fact, his exclusive guidepost and primary motivation. From a biblical standpoint, racism is objectively immoral; and Rev. King understood this – so he spent his entire life, gave his life in fact, working to secure civil and human rights for racial minorities.

Similarly, from a biblical standpoint, homosexual behavior, or “the sin of Sodom” as it’s oft referred, is likewise objectively immoral (along with its oxymoronic offshoot: counterfeit “same-sex marriage”). Jesus defined marriage for us. His definition is reflected in the spiritual, biological, and in-every-other-way-self-evident order of His divinely defined design. “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Moreover, the very thing that defines “gay marriage,” the biologically and spiritually disordered act of same-sex sodomy, is, likewise, a counterfeit. It mocks God’s design for natural sexual intercourse.

Indeed, the Bible, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, unambiguously condemns as “vile affections,” as sin rising to the level of “an abomination,” all same-sex sexual conduct, be it “loving, monogamous and committed,” or otherwise.

Homosexuality is mock sexuality.

And “gay marriage” is mock marriage.

So-called “gay rights” represent nothing more than moral wrongs. Homosexual sin has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights; and, based upon what we know of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he would have wholeheartedly agreed. While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear.

But don’t take my word for it. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself. In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Rev. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here’s the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Neither would he have supported same-sex “marriage.”

To be sure, in 2005, Rev. King’s daughter, Bernice King, led a march to her father’s graveside in support of a constitutional amendment to defend natural marriage. Sharing his position on the issue, she later said that her famous father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK, a man of the Bible, would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hellbent on justifying unbiblical sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention,” up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.

And so, how would MLK have responded to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion presuming to invent a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based “marriage”?

It’s clear how he would have responded.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Rev. King famously declared: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

As it was with the national sin of systemic racism, there can be few things more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the inherently immoral notion of sodomy-based “marriage.”

And so the good reverend would have opposed it.

Quite likely, he would have led the charge against it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

OUTRAGE: PC-Purging Dems Just Declared War On These Two Words About Traditional Marriage

Not only does the subject of traditional marriage vs. gay marriage present a terribly slippery slope, it also shows how quickly a cultural snowball can gather size and speed as it crashes forward in a blinding cascade of political correctness.

Hot on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide — no matter what the individual states or their residents might say — comes a move in Congress to ban two words associated with the age-old definition of marriage.

A California congresswoman, Democrat Lois Capps who represents the coastal district north of Los Angeles, has introduced what is called “The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015.” In essence, the Capps bill — which, according to her website, is currently co-sponsored by 23 others in the House of Representatives — would ban the words “husband” and “wife” from all federal code because they are “gendered terms.”

In explaining her motivation for the effort to ban “husband” and “wife” from the federal government’s lexicon, Rep. Capps pushed for the use of the words “spouse” or “married couple” instead. Again, from her congressional website:

“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.”

Question: Did you ever consider that calling someone your husband or your wife meant you’re showing “prejudice and discrimination?”

And when it comes to the “values of our country” as Capps refers to them in her statement, support for same-sex marriage is sharply split along party and generational lines, as The Hill noted in a recent post about a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

…the majority of Democrats, independents and those between the ages of 18 and 34 back it, while the majority of Republicans and elderly Americans are against it.

And should the Capps bill to ban the traditional references to husband and wife win approval on Capitol Hill, one can reasonably ask how long it will be before gay marriage advocates and activists lawyer up to go after churches, chapels, and justices of the peace who dare to ask, “Do you take this person as your lawfully wedded husband/wife?”

Then, of course, there are a couple more inviting targets for the PC police who could find cause to take legal potshots at the generally accepted terms “bride” and “groom.”

Where does the PC snowball stop?

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth