Gay Male Are An Embarrassment To All Real Men That Walked This Planet:

Liberal Feminism Big Lie! It's All Base In Atheistism, The War On The Bible, Sin Degraded The Man's And Woman's Roles Coming From The Carnal Nature and Pride Of Mankind.

 Sin degraded the man's and woman's roles coming from the carnal nature and pride of mankind. The biblical example affirms that men are to be the leaders in the home, church, and state. Women were not created to rule these divine institutions, because God gave that responsibility to the man. The prophet Isaiah was condemning Israel in Isaiah 3:12, when he said they had allowed women to rule over them. In a church, according to God's word the Bible, no woman is qualified to be a pastor or a deacon or in any other leadership position over men. This is plainly stated in God's word:

This distortion of God's truth, looking through carnal eyes, fails to see that God never in any way degraded a woman, but made her of equal importance in the marriage union. Man is not the woman's master, but rather her provider and leader. The truth is there can be no true union or biblical marriage without the man and the woman functioning biblically in each of their distinctive roles. If the man abandons his role of providing for his family and being the spiritual leader, the family falls into serious trouble. The same applies to the woman who tries to step into the role of the man. In either case the family as God created and structured is severely weaken or destroyed. Further, the same principle applies in a local church when men do not provide the leadership and when women step out of their God given roles and seek to rule over men. When this happens in a church, the organization and structure of the church is out of order and sets an unbiblical example for the families of that church. This is why it is so important for a church to present a proper and biblical example of God's instructions to its members, their families and the world around them.

http://bible-truth.org/Biblicalordermenwomen.html

“Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.”
— Radicalmamaw.tumblr.com, July 26, 2014

“Women who are sane, normal and happy do not become feminists, because such women do not need feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Aug. 25, 2014

One of the things you recognize, if you pay close attention to feminist rhetoric, is how the “patriarchy” or “male supremacy” — and other concepts like “misogyny,” “the beauty myth,” etc. — function as all-purpose scapegoats for whatever any woman may be unhappy about.
We could revisit the original skepticism that confronted feminists after the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s. Feminism arose within the extreme fringe of the New Left, and a majority of American women emphatically rejected this crypto-Marxist movement’s attack on marriage, motherhood and Christian morality. Whatever the dissatisfaction women might have felt with their lives, most American women were aware that they were living in the most free and prosperous society in human history. The radicalism of Kate Millett and Shulamith Firestone was directly hostile to the beliefs and interests of most women and this is still true today. The American woman views herself as an individual, not as a member of a collective “sex-caste” (to borrow the Marxist jargon of radical feminism) and she not only rejects feminism’s claim of collective female victimhood, she also rejects the claim of collective male guilt that feminists imply by reference to “patriarchy” and “male supremacy.”

We could revisit the arguments of the 1960s and ’70s — were my mother and aunts and grandmother oppressed by the patriarchy? — but this is not 1975. No, it’s 2015, and we now live in a society that has been changed by more than four decades of feminist “progress.” Because of societal changes, young women in 2015 have new problems that are not the same as the problems that were the original grievances of feminists circa 1968. And many of the problems experienced by young women today are arguably caused by feminism’s “success.” If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism. Let me quote one young feminist’s complaint:

“i wish men understood that when women are talking about feminism and rape culture and sh–t, it’s not just a political conversation. it’s not about being a ‘social justice warrior’ or whatever. it’s about our actual lives being shaped by misogyny since childhood, and the daily reality of living in fear of violence. this isn’t a f–king game or philosophical debate. this is our f–king lives.”

The author of that colorful prose identifies herself on Tumblr.com as “Kina Penelope, gay femme fairy, writer, traveler, feminist, college student living in WA.” If she is a college student, she is about 20 years old, which means that Kina was born circa 1995. What was the “misogyny” that shaped her life since childhood? Who is responsible for the “fear of violence” she confronts as a college student in Washington State? How does a “gay femme fairy” experience “rape culture”? Why can’t she be bothered to capitalize properly?

We are now six years into the presidency of Barack Obama. During the 20 years or so of Kina Penelope’s young life, Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 years. She may say that “talking about feminism” is “not just a political conversation,” but it was feminists who declared the personal is political. If she is merely talking about her own personal problems, or the personal problems of women in general — “our f–king lives” — without any political purpose, is this really feminism at all? Or is it just unhappy women complaining because they are unhappy?
Many of the social pressures that cause young women’s unhappiness in 2015 are clearly caused by the tension between the careerist pressures of liberal feminism — the striving ambition to “have it all” — and their own psychological need for a more traditional womanhood.
That is to say, most women don’t identify as a “gay femme fairy.”

Most young women would like to find a man who loves them, a man who wants to marry them, a man who is willing and able to provide them with a better life than a woman can have by herself.
No matter how much satisfaction she obtains from career achievement, she needs (and no, “need” is not too strong a word for her profound psychological urge) to have the love and support of a man. She wants babies. She wants to find a strong man, a masculine man who loves her so much that he is willing, for her sake, to shoulder the responsibilities inherent in the titles “husband” and “father.”
Feminism is not the solution to that young woman’s problem.
If you are a normal young woman — desiring a life that includes men, marriage and motherhood — you need to recognize how modern feminism is directly hostile to your own self-interest.
Feminism is a formula for unhappiness, an ideology conceived by unhappy women who were unwilling to take responsibility for their own unhappiness. Instead they promoted a false crypto-Marxist worldview in which all men oppress all women. This belief — feminism’s Big Lie — is how unhappy women justify their envy-driven attacks on the actual sources of happiness in other women’s lives.
Confusion about what “feminism” means leads women to embrace this label, and to consume the feminist movement’s rhetoric without skepticism. It is very easy for any unhappy woman to internalize feminism’s resentments and hostility toward male sexuality, an attitude I have described as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis.” There is also a tendency in feminist rhetoric to blame women’s problems on “society,” so that women are encouraged to develop anti-social attitudes, to feel a self-pitying sense of humiliation in the ordinary hassles of everyday life. Here is another woman’s complaint on Tumblr.com:

Don’t eat too much, don’t eat too little. Don’t be fat, don’t be too skinny. God do you ever stop eating? Woah do you ever eat? The not-so-well-concealed looks of disgust, the not-so-well-concealed looks of concern.
Don’t be loud. Don’t be quiet. Have a voice in society, leave the talking to the big boys. You want something, speak up! No, no, when it’s your turn, sweetie. Ugh, she never shuts up, it’s obnoxious. Have you ever heard her talk? I don’t even know what her voice sounds like.
Make sure your skirt is long enough, but not too long. Don’t make yourself too available, but you don’t want to look like a grandma. Show off what you got, but if you do it’s your fault if anything happens. Was your skirt long enough? How is any boy going to look at you if you wear that?
Have sex, but stay innocent. Give us what we want, but we hate sluts. Virgins are so sweet. What do you mean you want to stay abstinent until marriage? Do you even live in our society? Live without sex is boring. Life with sex is disgusting. God, have you seen her? She’s banged every guy in the school. God, have you seen her? Still a virgin at her age.
Be smart, but not too smart. Boys like a smarter girl. Boys can’t stand it when you know more than them. Play dumb. Ugh, not that dumb, god, weren’t you even listening? They like a smarter girl. No, no, now you just look like a nerd. Girls don’t belong in the classroom, they have to take care of the kids. You want a well-paying job? Take some incentive and study. You can’t slack off because your a girl.

Do what you love, but don’t. Be yourself, unless it goes against what we say. Do you love to do your hair and makeup? Great, you’re good to go. Approved. Do you love videogames and guns? You’re faking it. You’re lying. You’re pretending. You’re wrong

Who is telling her these things? Who are these hyper-critical voices the woman hears, constantly reminding her of her own inadequacy, so that she feels wrong no matter what she does?
Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8:43-45). Satan is the false accuser (Revelation 12:9-11). Satan constantly tells us lies about ourselves and lies about God. If you listen to that satanic voice, you will drive yourself crazy, because the lies are contradictory. Satan will tell you whatever you want to believe, whatever it takes to destroy you. Satan will tell you that your sins are so wicked that God cannot possibly love you. Then Satan will tell you there is no such thing as sin. Satan will tell you that good is evil, and evil is good, and that you should do evil because that will make you happier than doing good. Most of all, Satan tells us to reject God’s law, to instead make our own judgment of right and wrong.
This was the original lie of history: “Ye shall be as gods!”

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron . . .”
— I Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)

Maybe you didn’t expect a sermon when you started reading this, but I didn’t plan to preach a sermon when I started writing it, either. Sometimes it’s like these things just start writing themselves.
The truth is still the truth. Satan is still a liar. If we cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, there is no hope for any of us.

“Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.”
— Radicalmamaw.tumblr.com, July 26, 2014

“Women who are sane, normal and happy do not become feminists, because such women do not need feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Aug. 25, 2014

One of the things you recognize, if you pay close attention to feminist rhetoric, is how the “patriarchy” or “male supremacy” — and other concepts like “misogyny,” “the beauty myth,” etc. — function as all-purpose scapegoats for whatever any woman may be unhappy about.
We could revisit the original skepticism that confronted feminists after the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s. Feminism arose within the extreme fringe of the New Left, and a majority of American women emphatically rejected this crypto-Marxist movement’s attack on marriage, motherhood and Christian morality. Whatever the dissatisfaction women might have felt with their lives, most American women were aware that they were living in the most free and prosperous society in human history. The radicalism of Kate Millett and Shulamith Firestone was directly hostile to the beliefs and interests of most women and this is still true today. The American woman views herself as an individual, not as a member of a collective “sex-caste” (to borrow the Marxist jargon of radical feminism) and she not only rejects feminism’s claim of collective female victimhood, she also rejects the claim of collective male guilt that feminists imply by reference to “patriarchy” and “male supremacy.”
We could revisit the arguments of the 1960s and ’70s — were my mother and aunts and grandmother oppressed by the patriarchy? — but this is not 1975. No, it’s 2015, and we now live in a society that has been changed by more than four decades of feminist “progress.” Because of societal changes, young women in 2015 have new problems that are not the same as the problems that were the original grievances of feminists circa 1968. And many of the problems experienced by young women today are arguably caused by feminism’s “success.” If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism. Let me quote one young feminist’s complaint:

“i wish men understood that when women are talking about feminism and rape culture and sh–t, it’s not just a political conversation. it’s not about being a ‘social justice warrior’ or whatever. it’s about our actual lives being shaped by misogyny since childhood, and the daily reality of living in fear of violence. this isn’t a f–king game or philosophical debate. this is our f–king lives.”

The author of that colorful prose identifies herself on Tumblr.com as “Kina Penelope, gay femme fairy, writer, traveler, feminist, college student living in WA.” If she is a college student, she is about 20 years old, which means that Kina was born circa 1995. What was the “misogyny” that shaped her life since childhood? Who is responsible for the “fear of violence” she confronts as a college student in Washington State? How does a “gay femme fairy” experience “rape culture”? Why can’t she be bothered to capitalize properly?
We are now six years into the presidency of Barack Obama. During the 20 years or so of Kina Penelope’s young life, Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 years. She may say that “talking about feminism” is “not just a political conversation,” but it was feminists who declared the personal is political. If she is merely talking about her own personal problems, or the personal problems of women in general — “our f–king lives” — without any political purpose, is this really feminism at all? Or is it just unhappy women complaining because they are unhappy?
Many of the social pressures that cause young women’s unhappiness in 2015 are clearly caused by the tension between the careerist pressures of liberal feminism — the striving ambition to “have it all” — and their own psychological need for a more traditional womanhood.
That is to say, most women don’t identify as a “gay femme fairy.”

Most young women would like to find a man who loves them, a man who wants to marry them, a man who is willing and able to provide them with a better life than a woman can have by herself.
No matter how much satisfaction she obtains from career achievement, she needs (and no, “need” is not too strong a word for her profound psychological urge) to have the love and support of a man. She wants babies. She wants to find a strong man, a masculine man who loves her so much that he is willing, for her sake, to shoulder the responsibilities inherent in the titles “husband” and “father.”
Feminism is not the solution to that young woman’s problem.
If you are a normal young woman — desiring a life that includes men, marriage and motherhood — you need to recognize how modern feminism is directly hostile to your own self-interest.
Feminism is a formula for unhappiness, an ideology conceived by unhappy women who were unwilling to take responsibility for their own unhappiness. Instead they promoted a false crypto-Marxist worldview in which all men oppress all women. This belief — feminism’s Big Lie — is how unhappy women justify their envy-driven attacks on the actual sources of happiness in other women’s lives.
Confusion about what “feminism” means leads women to embrace this label, and to consume the feminist movement’s rhetoric without skepticism. It is very easy for any unhappy woman to internalize feminism’s resentments and hostility toward male sexuality, an attitude I have described as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis.” There is also a tendency in feminist rhetoric to blame women’s problems on “society,” so that women are encouraged to develop anti-social attitudes, to feel a self-pitying sense of humiliation in the ordinary hassles of everyday life. Here is another woman’s complaint on Tumblr.com:

Don’t eat too much, don’t eat too little. Don’t be fat, don’t be too skinny. God do you ever stop eating? Woah do you ever eat? The not-so-well-concealed looks of disgust, the not-so-well-concealed looks of concern.
Don’t be loud. Don’t be quiet. Have a voice in society, leave the talking to the big boys. You want something, speak up! No, no, when it’s your turn, sweetie. Ugh, she never shuts up, it’s obnoxious. Have you ever heard her talk? I don’t even know what her voice sounds like.
Make sure your skirt is long enough, but not too long. Don’t make yourself too available, but you don’t want to look like a grandma. Show off what you got, but if you do it’s your fault if anything happens. Was your skirt long enough? How is any boy going to look at you if you wear that?
Have sex, but stay innocent. Give us what we want, but we hate sluts. Virgins are so sweet. What do you mean you want to stay abstinent until marriage? Do you even live in our society? Live without sex is boring. Life with sex is disgusting. God, have you seen her? She’s banged every guy in the school. God, have you seen her? Still a virgin at her age.
Be smart, but not too smart. Boys like a smarter girl. Boys can’t stand it when you know more than them. Play dumb. Ugh, not that dumb, god, weren’t you even listening? They like a smarter girl. No, no, now you just look like a nerd. Girls don’t belong in the classroom, they have to take care of the kids. You want a well-paying job? Take some incentive and study. You can’t slack off because your a girl.
Do what you love, but don’t. Be yourself, unless it goes against what we say. Do you love to do your hair and makeup? Great, you’re good to go. Approved. Do you love videogames and guns? You’re faking it. You’re lying. You’re pretending. You’re wrong

Who is telling her these things? Who are these hyper-critical voices the woman hears, constantly reminding her of her own inadequacy, so that she feels wrong no matter what she does?
Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8:43-45). Satan is the false accuser (Revelation 12:9-11). Satan constantly tells us lies about ourselves and lies about God. If you listen to that satanic voice, you will drive yourself crazy, because the lies are contradictory. Satan will tell you whatever you want to believe, whatever it takes to destroy you. Satan will tell you that your sins are so wicked that God cannot possibly love you. Then Satan will tell you there is no such thing as sin. Satan will tell you that good is evil, and evil is good, and that you should do evil because that will make you happier than doing good. Most of all, Satan tells us to reject God’s law, to instead make our own judgment of right and wrong.
This was the original lie of history: “Ye shall be as gods!”

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron . . .”
— I Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)

Maybe you didn’t expect a sermon when you started reading this, but I didn’t plan to preach a sermon when I started writing it, either. Sometimes it’s like these things just start writing themselves.
The truth is still the truth. Satan is still a liar. If we cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, there is no hope for any of us.

“Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.”
— Radicalmamaw.tumblr.com, July 26, 2014

“Women who are sane, normal and happy do not become feminists, because such women do not need feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Aug. 25, 2014

One of the things you recognize, if you pay close attention to feminist rhetoric, is how the “patriarchy” or “male supremacy” — and other concepts like “misogyny,” “the beauty myth,” etc. — function as all-purpose scapegoats for whatever any woman may be unhappy about.
We could revisit the original skepticism that confronted feminists after the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s. Feminism arose within the extreme fringe of the New Left, and a majority of American women emphatically rejected this crypto-Marxist movement’s attack on marriage, motherhood and Christian morality. Whatever the dissatisfaction women might have felt with their lives, most American women were aware that they were living in the most free and prosperous society in human history. The radicalism of Kate Millett and Shulamith Firestone was directly hostile to the beliefs and interests of most women and this is still true today. The American woman views herself as an individual, not as a member of a collective “sex-caste” (to borrow the Marxist jargon of radical feminism) and she not only rejects feminism’s claim of collective female victimhood, she also rejects the claim of collective male guilt that feminists imply by reference to “patriarchy” and “male supremacy.”
We could revisit the arguments of the 1960s and ’70s — were my mother and aunts and grandmother oppressed by the patriarchy? — but this is not 1975. No, it’s 2015, and we now live in a society that has been changed by more than four decades of feminist “progress.” Because of societal changes, young women in 2015 have new problems that are not the same as the problems that were the original grievances of feminists circa 1968. And many of the problems experienced by young women today are arguably caused by feminism’s “success.” If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism. Let me quote one young feminist’s complaint:

“i wish men understood that when women are talking about feminism and rape culture and sh–t, it’s not just a political conversation. it’s not about being a ‘social justice warrior’ or whatever. it’s about our actual lives being shaped by misogyny since childhood, and the daily reality of living in fear of violence. this isn’t a f–king game or philosophical debate. this is our f–king lives.”

The author of that colorful prose identifies herself on Tumblr.com as “Kina Penelope, gay femme fairy, writer, traveler, feminist, college student living in WA.” If she is a college student, she is about 20 years old, which means that Kina was born circa 1995. What was the “misogyny” that shaped her life since childhood? Who is responsible for the “fear of violence” she confronts as a college student in Washington State? How does a “gay femme fairy” experience “rape culture”? Why can’t she be bothered to capitalize properly?

We are now six years into the presidency of Barack Obama. During the 20 years or so of Kina Penelope’s young life, Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 years. She may say that “talking about feminism” is “not just a political conversation,” but it was feminists who declared the personal is political. If she is merely talking about her own personal problems, or the personal problems of women in general — “our f–king lives” — without any political purpose, is this really feminism at all? Or is it just unhappy women complaining because they are unhappy?
Many of the social pressures that cause young women’s unhappiness in 2015 are clearly caused by the tension between the careerist pressures of liberal feminism — the striving ambition to “have it all” — and their own psychological need for a more traditional womanhood.
That is to say, most women don’t identify as a “gay femme fairy.”

Most young women would like to find a man who loves them, a man who wants to marry them, a man who is willing and able to provide them with a better life than a woman can have by herself.
No matter how much satisfaction she obtains from career achievement, she needs (and no, “need” is not too strong a word for her profound psychological urge) to have the love and support of a man. She wants babies. She wants to find a strong man, a masculine man who loves her so much that he is willing, for her sake, to shoulder the responsibilities inherent in the titles “husband” and “father.”
Feminism is not the solution to that young woman’s problem.

If you are a normal young woman — desiring a life that includes men, marriage and motherhood — you need to recognize how modern feminism is directly hostile to your own self-interest.
Feminism is a formula for unhappiness, an ideology conceived by unhappy women who were unwilling to take responsibility for their own unhappiness. Instead they promoted a false crypto-Marxist worldview in which all men oppress all women. This belief — feminism’s Big Lie — is how unhappy women justify their envy-driven attacks on the actual sources of happiness in other women’s lives.

Confusion about what “feminism” means leads women to embrace this label, and to consume the feminist movement’s rhetoric without skepticism. It is very easy for any unhappy woman to internalize feminism’s resentments and hostility toward male sexuality, an attitude I have described as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis.” There is also a tendency in feminist rhetoric to blame women’s problems on “society,” so that women are encouraged to develop anti-social attitudes, to feel a self-pitying sense of humiliation in the ordinary hassles of everyday life. Here is another woman’s complaint on Tumblr.com:

Don’t eat too much, don’t eat too little. Don’t be fat, don’t be too skinny. God do you ever stop eating? Woah do you ever eat? The not-so-well-concealed looks of disgust, the not-so-well-concealed looks of concern.

Don’t be loud. Don’t be quiet. Have a voice in society, leave the talking to the big boys. You want something, speak up! No, no, when it’s your turn, sweetie. Ugh, she never shuts up, it’s obnoxious. Have you ever heard her talk? I don’t even know what her voice sounds like.
Make sure your skirt is long enough, but not too long. Don’t make yourself too available, but you don’t want to look like a grandma. Show off what you got, but if you do it’s your fault if anything happens. Was your skirt long enough? How is any boy going to look at you if you wear that?

Have sex, but stay innocent. Give us what we want, but we hate sluts. Virgins are so sweet. What do you mean you want to stay abstinent until marriage? Do you even live in our society? Live without sex is boring. Life with sex is disgusting. God, have you seen her? She’s banged every guy in the school. God, have you seen her? Still a virgin at her age.

Be smart, but not too smart. Boys like a smarter girl. Boys can’t stand it when you know more than them. Play dumb. Ugh, not that dumb, god, weren’t you even listening? They like a smarter girl. No, no, now you just look like a nerd. Girls don’t belong in the classroom, they have to take care of the kids. You want a well-paying job? Take some incentive and study. You can’t slack off because your a girl.

Do what you love, but don’t. Be yourself, unless it goes against what we say. Do you love to do your hair and makeup? Great, you’re good to go. Approved. Do you love videogames and guns? You’re faking it. You’re lying. You’re pretending. You’re wrong

Who is telling her these things? Who are these hyper-critical voices the woman hears, constantly reminding her of her own inadequacy, so that she feels wrong no matter what she does?
Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8:43-45). Satan is the false accuser (Revelation 12:9-11). Satan constantly tells us lies about ourselves and lies about God. If you listen to that satanic voice, you will drive yourself crazy, because the lies are contradictory. Satan will tell you whatever you want to believe, whatever it takes to destroy you. Satan will tell you that your sins are so wicked that God cannot possibly love you. Then Satan will tell you there is no such thing as sin. Satan will tell you that good is evil, and evil is good, and that you should do evil because that will make you happier than doing good. Most of all, Satan tells us to reject God’s law, to instead make our own judgment of right and wrong.
This was the original lie of history: “Ye shall be as gods!”

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron . . .”
— I Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)

Maybe you didn’t expect a sermon when you started reading this, but I didn’t plan to preach a sermon when I started writing it, either. Sometimes it’s like these things just start writing themselves.
The truth is still the truth. Satan is still a liar. If we cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, there is no hope for any of us.
 http://theothermccain.com/2015/01/15/feminisms-big-lie/

When You Hear Social Justice Warrior, Say They Are Triggered, What Are They Talking About Pulling The Trigger Of A Gun? Proving Again That Social Justice Warrior Are Idiots

When You Hear Social Justice Warrior, Say They Are Triggered, What Are They Talking About Pulling The Trigger Of A Gun? Proving Again That Social Justice Warrior Are Idiots

When You Hear Social Justice Warrior, Say They Are Triggered, What Are They Talking About Pulling The Trigger Of A Gun? Proving Again That Social Justice Warrior Are Idiots!

What Are They Doing?

Per Social Justice Warrior They Plans Ban French Braids Hair , Other 'Offensive' Costumes In Contest, In The Name Of Cultural Sensitivity, But Rant About Gender Expression, Crap, Like As The Way, We Style Our Hair, Select Our Clothing, Proving Again, That Social Justice Warrior Are Idiot's:

Sierra College’s student government is considering a resolution that would place a wholesale ban on several types of Halloween costumes for the school’s annual costume contest.

The resolution was proposed to the school’s student government by what is known as the “Beyond Diversity Club” in conjunction with the “Feminist Action Club,” both of which are lobbying for restrictions on costumes that depict certain ethnicities or cultures.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8322

Homosexuals Admit “Sexual Orientation” Can and Does Change: Proving Again That Liberal Homosexuals Are Liar! Gay Or Straight Liberal's Are Liar!

 


Homosexual activists, intent on using every cultural institution—including public schools, the courts, and legislatures—to advance their non-factual beliefs, have been successful in their efforts in large measure because they have lied to Americans. How have they lied to Americans? Let us enumerate just a few of the ways:

• They have said that moral disapproval of homoerotic activity and relationships constitutes hatred of same-sex attracted persons.

• They have said that those who experience homoerotic attraction are “born that way,” meaning that homoerotic attraction is 100 percent heritable, like skin color.

• They have said that homoerotic attraction is in all cases immutable, like skin color.

• They have said that because same-sex attraction is 100 percent heritable in and in all cases immutable, it must be affirmed as central to identity in order for those who experience it to be happy.

• They have said that because a homosexual “orientation” is 100 percent heritable and in all cases immutable, any efforts to help same-sex attracted persons change their “orientation,” diminish same-sex attraction, or construct an identity that doesn’t include affirming same-sex attraction, activity, or relationships are cruel, harmful, and futile.

What’s remarkable about these claims is not just that they are patently false but that they are rejected by “LGBTQ” academicians.

The Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act (HB 217 and SB 111) sponsored by lesbian activist State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) and State Senator Daniel Biss (D-Skokie) relies on gullible acceptance of these beliefs. When considering Cassidy’s ill-conceived anti-identity-choice bill, lawmakers should take into account the following comments that our anti-intellectual mainstream press commonly overlooks. These are not outlier views but commonly held views among scholars, including homosexual scholars and devotees of Queer Theory.
Author, feminist scholar, social critic, and lesbian Camille Paglia writes this in her book Vamps & Tramps:

Responsible scholarship is impossible when rational discourse is being policed by storm troopers . . . who have the absolutism of all fanatics.
…
Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? The difficulties in changing sexual orientation do not spring from its genetic innateness. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition….

…[H]elping gays learn how to function heterosexually if they so wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage when children anxiously band together by gender.

John D’Emilio, homosexual professor of history and of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago explained in an interview what many—perhaps most—homosexual academicians think about homoerotic attraction and biological determinism:

What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible…. queer theory asks us…to be skeptical of seeing both gender and sexuality as fixed categories. Who can argue with that?

In a post on the website Social (In)Queery, Jane Ward, who admits to being voluntarily homosexual, disputes the entire pseudo-intellectual edifice upon which Cassidy has built her teetering bill:

But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true.  Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic….But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true.
…
People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature.  But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design.
…
People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate.  First of all, these conversions do not always fail….the point is that we can and do change.  For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism.  I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew.  But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires.  If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man….But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [emphasis added]

Trudy Ring, writer for the homosexual magazine The Advocate  openly admits the flawed nature of the central argument that homosexual activists have used to insist on special treatment based on their mutable erotic desires and volitional erotic activity—something which other groups similarly constituted do not enjoy:

For years, much of the case for LGBT rights has been based on the argument that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable…..

But an increasing body of social science research posits that a sizable number of people experience some degree of fluidity in their sexual and romantic attractions: being drawn to the same gender at one point in their life, the opposite gender at another.

David Benkof explores the common view of homosexual scholars that the notion of an immutable “gay identity” is false and a-historical, a social construct of the last 150 years:

Are gays indeed born that way? The question has immense political, social, and cultural repercussions. For example, some of the debate over applying the Constitution’s equal protection clause to gays and lesbians focuses on whether gayness is an inborn characteristic….

Thus, if it’s proven sexual orientations are not innate, much of the scaffolding upon which today’s LGBT movement has been built would begin to crumble.
…
According to the experts on homosexuality across centuries and continents, being gay is a relatively recent social construction. Few scholars with advanced degrees in anthropology or history who concentrate on homosexuality believe gays have existed in any cultures before or outside ours, much less in all cultures. These professors work closely with an ever-growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts “born that way” ideology.

Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate….

[H]istorian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said “no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.” And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: “Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it’s impossible that that’s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures.”
…
Gay and lesbian historians aren’t just claiming that before the 19th century nobody was called “gay.” They’re saying nobody was gay (or straight). While various societies had different ways of thinking about and expressing gender, love, and desire, homosexuality was generally something one could do, not something one could be.

Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association, shared his experiences in a USA Today column:

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco’s gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

…With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

…Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.
…
Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don’t believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.
Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That’s why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.
But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as “unethical” violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.
Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.

Lisa Diamond, lesbian professor of psychology and gender at the University of Utah believes that both men and women experience sexual fluidity. Sexual fluidity means a change in “sexual orientation” from being sexually and romantically attracted to persons of one’s same sex to being attracted to persons of the opposite sex or vice versa.

While Diamond believes that “sexual orientation” can and does change, she bristles at any suggestion that humans may have any capacity to participate in their own “sexual orientation” change. Oddly, however, she also argues that “‘Either we are a society that protects people’s rights to sexual expression…or we’re not.’” Does protecting “people’s rights to sexual expression” include protecting minors’ “rights to sexual expression”? If so, wouldn’t Kelly Cassidy’s bill violate the rights of those teens who desire help from mental health providers in constructing a sexual identity that does not affirm unchosen and unwanted same-sex attraction?

Dr. Howard Fradkin, homosexual psychologist who treats adult victims of childhood molestation, stated on The Oprah Show that childhood molestation can result in “sexual orientation confusion.”
Even the American Psychological Association was forced to admit this about the hypothetical causes of “sexual orientation”:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…

When groups as disparate as homosexual scholars and conservatives agree that same-sex attraction is not biologically determined; that it can and does change; that environmental factors—including molestation—can contribute to the development of same-sex attraction; and that in some cases “conversion therapies” do work, it would be intellectually and ethically indefensible to use the law to ban forms of counseling that some homosexual activists don’t like.

The central motivation of this sloppily written, politically driven, dishonest bill is not to help children, but to advance the pernicious goal of mainstreaming Leftist beliefs about homosexuality even if that means undermining autonomy and liberty for families and mental health providers, and harming children and teens.

DNA Fingerprinting, Gender Identity Debunked, Again

How Does DNA Fingerprinting Work? - Naked Science Scrapbook. Gender Identity Debunked, Again

A Link for the Missing -- DNA "Fingerprinting" Gender Identity Debunked, Again

Debunking Gender Identity, Again DNA Paternity Testing Determines The Biological Father Of A Child. We All Inherit Our DNA From Our Biological Parents — Half From Our Mother, And Half From Our Father. Gender Identity Debunked!

A DNA paternity test compares a child's DNA pattern with that of an "alleged father" to determine if there is a match. When performed correctly in an experienced laboratory, it's the most definitive proof of a biological relationship.  

What Do My Paternity Test Results Mean?

 

The precise language used in your paternity report is very important but, because it’s also very technical, it can sometimes be hard to understand. The report language is familiar to scientists, lawyers, and judges. To help with understanding your results, we’ve also shown you how they might say it on TV, instead of in a courtroom.

Your Report

Each paternity test report shows the following information:

• Conclusion
• Combined Paternity Index (CPI)
• Probability of Paternity
• Data table of DNA markers (or genetic systems)

The Conclusion states whether the possible father is EXCLUDED or is NOT EXCLUDED as the biological father (see explanations below). The data table lists the different DNA markers (or “genetic systems”) examined by scientists to create the CPI and Probability of Paternity.

Your Result

If the Conclusion reads, “is EXCLUDED as the biological father,” this means that he is NOT the father because the data in the table do not support a paternity relationship. When a possible father is EXCLUDED as the biological father, the Combined Paternity Index (CPI) is 0 and the Probability of Paternity is 0%.

If the Conclusion reads, “is NOT EXCLUDED as the biological father,” this means that he is most likely to BE the father because the data in the table strongly support a paternity relationship. When a possible father is NOT EXCLUDED, the Combined Paternity Index (CPI) is 100 (or larger) and the Probability of Paternity is typically 99.99% (or higher).

Why do TV personalities say “you are the father” while scientists say you are “not excluded as the biological father”?

Scientists use precise language, whereas TV personalities generalize for dramatic effect. DNA paternity testing uses powerful statistics to create a probability of paternity, and the highest probability possible is 99.99% (not 100%). Saying, “You ARE the father,” implies a 100% probability of paternity, which is technically incorrect.

So, just how powerful is a 99.99% probability of paternity?

A 99.99% probability of paternity is so powerful, that it’s routinely accepted as evidence in favor of paternity by genetic scientists, courtroom judges, and even the U.S. State Department. Although the scientific language is more technical than how they say it on TV, the bottom line is the same: a DNA paternity test probability of 99.99% is strong enough for a judge to confidently allow (or deny) child support, immigration, or even conviction in a criminal case. It’s also why a TV host feels confident enough to say, “You ARE the father.”

https://dnatesting.com/what-do-my-results-mean/

 

Diagnostics & Testing

DNA Paternity Test

What is paternity testing?

Paternity testing can determine whether or not a particular man is the biological father of a child. This procedure involves collecting and examining the DNA of a small sample of bodily fluid or tissue from a child and the potential father. DNA is the unique genetic "fingerprint" that makes up a person’s genes and chromosomes. When a baby is conceived, each parent passes on half of his/her DNA to the baby, whose genetic code (DNA) is a shared mix of only its mother’s and father’s DNA. By collecting and examining a small sample of DNA from the baby and the potential father, a paternity test can confirm or disprove that the potential father is indeed the biological father of the baby.

What bodily fluids and tissues can be sampled?

DNA is present in most of our body’s cells. A small sample for testing can be obtained from several bodily sources. The cells most commonly tested are obtained from the blood or inside the cheek of the mouth (called buccal cells).

How is the cheek cell test conducted?

Cells are collected by gently rubbing a cotton swab – similar to a Q-tip® - on the inside cheek of the mouth. The swab is sent to a laboratory and a select number of specific DNA sequences are examined to determine if the DNA collected from the baby match DNA collected from the alleged father.

How accurate is DNA testing?

DNA testing is generally considered to be the most accurate testing method available. DNA paternity testing can indicate that a man is highly likely to be the father with about 99.9% accuracy or that he is excluded as being the father with 100% accuracy.

Can paternity be confirmed before the baby is born?

Technically, yes. Two different tests can be done while the baby is still developing in the mother’s womb. One test, called chorionic villus sampling (CVS), is conducted only between 11 to 13 weeks of pregnancy. This test involves testing a small sample of tissue from the placenta. Another test, called amniocentesis, is usually performed between 16 and 22 weeks of pregnancy. This test involves passing a needle through the mother’s abdomen into the womb to collect a small sample of amniotic fluid (the “water” around the baby), which also contains cells from the baby. The collected samples are then forwarded to a laboratory for examination. Although technically possible to confirm paternity with these tests, the risk of miscarriage – generally given as 1% (1 in 100) for CVS and 0.5% (1 in 200) for amniocentesis leads most physicians not to offer CVS or amniocentesis only for paternity testing. People who have questions about this should speak with their physicians.

How long does it take to obtain test results?

Results of buccal cell DNA paternity testing are usually available within 5 to 10 days after receipt by the laboratory. DNA paternity testing by CVS or amniocentesis would take between three and four weeks before results could be made available.

Are home DNA paternity testing kits available?

Yes. Several laboratories offer home testing kits that can be purchased over the Internet. The kits contain all the necessary materials and instructions for conducting a cheek cell swab test. After the DNA cheek cells are collected, the sample is sent to the laboratory for analysis. If directions are correctly followed, the testing technique and accuracy of a privately conducted home test does not differ compared with a test required by court order. For court ordered testing, however, the potential father would need to report to a designated paternity testing facility so that the testing can be witnessed and fingerprints and photographs can be confirmed.

How can I locate a paternity testing facility?

The AABB (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks) is an organization that provides accreditation for laboratories offering relationship testing (including paternity testing). Accreditation means that each laboratory listed has met specific standards for testing accuracy and service. For a list of AABB accredited relationship testing facilities, please visit AABB Accredited Relationship Testing Facilities.

Can the results of a home test be used in a court of law?

Without legal identification of the test taker and official witnessing of the test, a home paternity test is not admissible in court.

How much does a paternity test cost?

Tests costs will vary from less than $100 for some home kits to over $500 for the complete testing process through an accredited facility. Prenatal paternity testing is usually much more expensive because of the ultrasound, CVS or amniocentesis procedure, and doctor fees, You will need to contact your nearest facility to get an exact price estimate.

References

• U.S. National Library of Medicine. Chromosomes. Accessed 8/23/2013.
• National Human Genome Research Institute. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). Accessed 8/23/2013.
• American Pregnancy Association. Paternity Testing. Accessed 8/23/2013. 

Can you get a paternity test while the baby is still in the womb?

Technically, yes. Two different tests can be done while the baby is still developing in the mother's womb. One test, called chorionic villus sampling (CVS), is conducted only between 11 to 13 weeks of pregnancy. This test involves testing a small sample of tissue from the placenta.

 

Cis- Gender Is Other Dumd Ass Word That Atheist's Made Up And Mean's Nothing , Claim A Cis-Gender Person Identifies As The Gender He Or She Was Assigned At Birth. Cisgender.” It Was Created So As Not To Offend The Atheist Trans Community. So Just Start Using This Word For All Them, Call Them Atheist In The End That Who They Really Are, Atheist

 




Do not call me cisgender. You have no right or authority to name me without my consent. . . . It does not come from us, as its origins are from a trans perspective. . . . Do not call me cisgender. That is offensive to me. I am offended that you consider that you have power over me, and can name me.

terms like cis allow us to identify when we mean cis men/women instead of always using men/women to mean cis men/women while always distinguishing trans men/women as the other. It places cis and trans people on equal ground.

a, you are saying to yourselves, then aren’t you just a straight person? What is the difference between straight and cisgender? 

 According to a Tumblr blog called What-Does-Cis-Mean: terms like cis allow us to identify when we mean cis men/women instead of always using men/women to mean cis men/women while always distinguishing trans men/women as the other. It places cis and trans people on equal ground. I agree, that explanation was needlessly complicated. I will dumb it down for you. A cisgender is basically a non-transgender.

 But wait, you can’t say non-transgender. It is offensive for some reason. According to BasicRights, “referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal.” This is the main reasoning behind the existence of the word “cisgender.” It was created so as not to offend the trans community. (Although this reasoning doesn’t really apply elsewhere: Referring to minorities as non-whites means that the white people are the norm and the minorities are not.

 So, in the same vein, calling a group of people non-trans means that transgenders are the norm.) The earliest mentions of the word “cisgender” in academia go back to a 1995 article by sexologist Volkmar Sigusch in which he discussed “transsexual desire and cissexual defense.” Most recently, even though the term in effect refers to straight people, “cisgender” can be found only on websites catering to the trans community. In fact, when researching the definition of the word, I came across an article called “

Trans 101: Cisgender.” If the word is meant for non-trans people, then why is it primarily found on trans websites? The “cis” term has been popularized in, among other places, a book called Whipping Girl, which is not, as you might have guessed, about a dominatrix but about the transsexual experience. Why is the transgender community creating words for what I should call myself? So that the trans community will feel better about themselves? In the words of a Tumblr blogger called “Nerd is my gender”:

 Do not call me cisgender. You have no right or authority to name me without my consent. . . . It does not come from us, as its origins are from a trans perspective. . . . Do not call me cisgender. That is offensive to me. I am offended that you consider that you have power over me, and can name me. Maybe I should come up with a new word for people who reject the cisgender label and make that the 27,957th gender choice on Facebook. Please leave any ideas in the comments section below.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378511/cis-ridiculous-christine-sisto

Indulging Confused Gender Fantasies Makes Them Worse! Stop Using Trans/ Gender It A Made Up Word! It Don’t be fooled. This Is All About Gaining Control Of The Minds And Bodies Of Children.

 




From the time I was nine, my father decided he was a woman. He became “Becky.” Sort of.
The truth is no amount of hormones or cosmetic surgery could change my dad into a female. Of course, not even a simulated tampon could change his natural biological sex. His DNA still said male in every cell. No matter how much make-up, cosmetic surgery, and dresses he wore, my dad was a male who, after all, had fathered children with my mother. That is reality.


We are in the cultural grip of what the American Psychological Association celebrates and champions: creating a genderless society at the cost of reality. Glamour magazine recently naming Caitlyn Jenner its 2015 “Woman of the Year” is only the tip of the iceberg. So society continues down delusional lane by reinforcing unhealthy ideals of gender and favoring a pretend world of identity politics that manufacturers gender-confused children. These children are being pushed to reject their bodies as biologically male or female. Instead, they’re being told to choose a range of gender fantasies.

It is telling that media’s most celebrated transgender boy, Jazz Jennings, told Cosmopolitan: “A lot of transgender individuals are attracted to mermaids and I think it’s because they don’t have any genitals, just a beautiful tail.”

Mermaids are neither real nor human. This is a make-believe world that tells children never to grow up, and to live forever in their fantasies.

Americans can no longer believe that this issue will not affect them personally. It already does. Hollywood produces shows such as “Becoming Us,” “Orange is The New Black,” “Jazz,” and Bruce Jenner’s reality show to make sure they come into your living room. Many Americans are naïve to the bigger implications behind the transgender movement, which destabilizes the family unit.

Just look at what’s happened in Oregon. Legislation there allows 15-year-old children to have sex reassignment surgery without parental consent, even though these children would need their parents’ consent to get a tattoo, smoke, or donate blood. Lori Potter of Parents Rights and Education says, “This is trespassing on the hearts, the minds, the bodies of our children. They’re our children. And for a decision, a life-altering decision like that to be done unbeknownst to a parent or guardian. It’s mindboggling.”

These kinds of laws and bills should be considered child abuse. Especially when 70 percent to 80 percent of those kids will spontaneously lose those feelings, according to Paul McHugh, the former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and one of the few honest voices on this. Meanwhile, the rest of the medical profession enthusiastically embraces this idea, alongside the big pharmaceutical companies.

The media shuts up any messages that counter the one the message that Caitlyn Jenner conveys on the cover of Vanity Fair. We’re just supposed to accept as fact that one can go from being a 60-year-old man to a 20-year-old pinup despite biological reality, genetics, and the lack of a backward time travel machine. Reality these days is whatever a person can imagine and pay for. And whatever culture applauds.

We’re Ruining People’s Lives for Fantasies

Here is the truth I lived. No matter what surgery or hormones one takes, his or her biology, neurology, and genetic composition remain the same, just like that of my dad’s. Yes, he called himself Becky. But my dad was male. He was a son, husband, and father.

On the most basic level, children are left abandoned to search out other male role models because their own father is busy playing Rita Hayworth.

The goal of the transgender movement is to destroy reality, which destroys childhood, as well as families, wives, children, and parents. What is left in its place is the media’s “new normal.”
The human costs to the individual and the family are real. Parents are essentially being told their son Henry never existed, but that instead they have a daughter, Heather. And Henry’s wife needs to accept her same-sex marriage, which is not what she had intended when she married Henry. Not only does this try to dismiss the purpose of male and female bonding, it also demands that everybody continuously role-play in the transgender’s personal delusion.

On the most basic level, children are left abandoned to search out other male role models because their own father is busy playing Rita Hayworth. The family also learns that now their new daughter Heather has found an entire community of other folks who are celebrating her as a brave hero and demonizing her entire family. Heather is essentially cut off as this new community gains control and reinforces the delusion. That’s what cults do.

Don’t be fooled. This is all about gaining control of the minds and bodies of children.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/26/indulging-transgender-fantasies-makes-them-worse/

To Be White Is To Be Racist, Period’: H.S. Teacher’s Classroom Message Exposed By Angry Student?

An Oklahoma high school student became disturbed at what she was seeing and hearing during a recent class, so she pulled out her cellphone and started recording.

The teacher of the elective philosophy class at Norman North High School was heard on the recording saying “to be white is to be racist, period.”

Am I racist?” the teacher was also heard asking the class. “And, I say ‘Yeah.’ I don’t want to be. It’s not like I choose to be racist, but do I do things because of the way I was raised?”

The student who made the recording spoke to KFOR-TV; her face was obscured and her voice was altered to protect her identity. “Half of my family is Hispanic,” she told the station, “so I just felt like, you know, him calling me racist just because I’m white … I mean, where’s your proof in that?”

She added: “I felt like he was encouraging people to kind of pick on people for being white.”

Her cellphone also caught a video being shown to students depicting an actor brushing white-out across countries on a globe and then writing a new name over the white space.

So he was basically comparing what he’d done to the globe to what we did to America,” the student told KFOR regarding the clip that focused on Native Americans.

“Why is it OK to demonize one race to children that you are supposed to be teaching a curriculum to?” asked the student’s father, whose face also was hidden and voice also was changed.

“You start telling someone something over and over again that’s an opinion, and they start taking it as fact,” the student added to the station. “So I wanted him to apologize and make it obvious and apparent to everyone that was his opinion.”

But countering her assertion were more than 100 Norman North students who held a silent protest in defense of the teacher — identified as James Coursey by the Norman Transcript — before classes began Tuesday morning.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/19/to-be-white-is-to-be-racist-period-h-s-teachers-classroom-message-exposed-by-angry-student/

New Survey Shows A Lot Of Millennials Like Socialism, Think Bush Killed More People Then Stalin?

• US Troop Deaths in Afghan War Under Obama Now Twice Then Under Bush

• 1728 US troops have died in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, with 1153 of those deaths having occurred since President Obama's inauguration. 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during President Bush's term in office.
• http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1043
• 
  
• Mao: 40 million
• Stalin: 20 million
• Hitler: 12 million
• Leopold II: 10 million
• Tojo: 5 million

the minds of 80 percent of baby boomers and 91 percent of elderly Americans, communism was a major problem in years past and remains a significant concern today. But millennials, aged 16 to 20 years, see it differently. Only 55 percent of the younger generation take issue with communism, 45 percent say they would vote for a socialist and 21 percent say they’d vote for a communist.

And millennials made all that clear during the Democratic presidential primary, when many of them cast their vote for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist. In fact, the report credits the New England lawmaker with a “bounce” that led to less than half of millennials — 42 percent — having a favorable view of capitalism.

By contrast, 64 percent of Americans aged 65 and older hold a favorable view of the capitalist structure.

In addition to the dramatic turn in political ideology, the study revealed an alarming lack of historical knowledge among millennials — a realization that might be impacting their political leanings.

According to the report, 32 percent — one-third — of millennials believe more people were killed under Bush’s presidency than Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. The study also finds that a majority of respondents “grossly underestimated” the number of deaths associated with communism.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/17/new-survey-shows-a-lot-of-millennials-like-socialism-think-bush-killed-more-people-than-stalin/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20HORIZON%20w/%20ad%20-%2010-18-16%20-%20w/LIARS%20ad&utm_term=Firewire

ESTIMATES OF HOW MANY PEOPLE STALIN KILLED

Dictators are, as you might imagine, not keen to record how many people they are killing.So it is tricky to establish exactly how many people died as a result of Stalin’s policies.

Estimates of the death toll vary widely, from 3.5-8 million (G Ponton) at the low end to 60 million (A Solzhenitsyn).

Today, most historians seem to have settled on a total of about 20 million.

According to John Heidenrich, in his book “How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen” the death toll can be divided into three broad groups:

• Kulaks and forced collectivisation: 7 million
• Gulags: 12 million
• Purges: 1.2 million

Robert Conquest, in his book The Great Terror: A Reassessment, divides the figure another way:

•  1930-36: 7 million
• 1937-38: 3 million
• 1939-53: 10 million

The number of deaths in the Soviet Union that were explicitly ordered by someone – in other words, the number of executions – is actually relatively low at around 1.5 million.

The majority of the deaths were caused by neglect or repressive policies – for example, those who died in the Soviet gulags, those who died while being deported, and the German civilians and Prisoners of War are believed to have perished while under Soviet guard.

Some historians argue that victims of famines should be counted as victims of Stalin. However because they were, if not the direct result of Stalin’s policies, at the very least exacerbated by Stalin’s policies, there is a very strong counter-argument to say that they should be included. Most historians do include the victims of famine in any counts.

WHICH 20TH CENTURY DICTATOR KILLED THE MOST PEOPLE?

Despite the horrific death toll listed above, Stalin doesn’t hold the distinction of being the most genocidal leader of the 20th century.

• Mao: 40 million
• Stalin: 20 million
• Hitler: 12 million
• Leopold II: 10 million
• Tojo: 5 million

In absolute terms, Mao Zedong of China is thought to be responsible for the deaths of 40-75 million Chinese (admittedly from a much larger initial population base). Again, most of these deaths are attributable to famine, and political decisions such as the Great Leap Forward which, alone, is estimated to have a death toll of 18-45 million.

Based on the estimates above of 20 million deaths, Stalin would come second in the list of dictators who killed the most people.

Adolf Hitler, of Germany, is probably responsible for 10-20 million deaths. Timothy Snyder settles on a total of 12 million including the deliberate murder of 5.4 million Jews. (This of course, doesn’t count the 40 million civilians and soldiers who died in the Second World War itself)If you add in the casualties from the Second World War, though, which was caused by Hitler, this rises by 42 million to 50-60 million, which would the number of deaths caused by Hitler comparable in scale to those caused by Mao.

Fourth on the list of the twentieth century’s mass murderers is a surprising entry – King Leopold II. The ‘Butcher of Belgium’ oversaw a vicious colonial regime in Congo which killed an estimated 10 million people.

Rounding out the top five is Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Japan during the second world war. An estimated 5 million civilians were killed throughout China and the Asia Pacific during his rule.

http://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people/