Major far left reporter, Alan Colmes, debated Christian Theodore Shoebat on the homosexual agenda and women’s suffrage. It was a well done and fair discussion. Here is the video:
For too long Christianity has been watered down in our modern day as a pacifist faith with no inclination of fighting evil. But is the Church here to be weak and useless? This shocking and riveting two disk DVD set lecture series, passionately shows how Christianity is not here to be feeble, but for warfare, to be militant against tyranny and the forces of darkness.
You will not be dissatisfied after watching this lecture, and Bible studies will forevermore never be the same again.
Anytime I get into these media debates, I always prepare ahead of time. So I decided to present to you my debate notes that I compiled in preparation for this.
— THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE AGAINST WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE
John Adams to James Sullivan`, in May 26, 1776, on extending the vote to women and others:
But let us first Suppose, that the whole Community of every Age, Rank, Sex, and Condition, has a Right to vote. This Community, is assembled–a Motion is made and carried by a Majority of one Voice. The Minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the Right of the Majority to govern, and the Obligation of the Minority to obey? from Necessity, you will Say, because there can be no other Rule. But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary Nurture of their Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. (Papers of John Adams. Edited by Robert J. Taylor et al. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977)
—ADAMS BELIEVED THAT WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE WOULD DESTROY DISTINCTIONS WITHIN SOCIETY (Papers of John Adams. Edited by Robert J. Taylor et al. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-):
“Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open So fruitfull a Source of Controversy and Altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the Qualifications of Voters. There will be no End of it. New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with any other in all Acts of State. It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell.”
—AND ADAMS WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
THE FAMILY IS THE BUILDING BLOCK OF SOCIETY — IF YOU HAVE GOOD AND HEALTHY FAMILIES, YOU HAVE A HEALTHY SOCIETY. MORAL SOCIETIES ARE NOT FORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE FORMED BY MORAL MOTHERS AND FATHERS.
THIS IS WHY MOTHERHOOD IS SUPERIOR TO BEING A CAREER WOMAN. IT IS BEST THAT THE WOMAN WORK FOR HER HUSBAND AND HER CHILDREN THAN SOME BOSS.
THIS IS THE DEGRADATION OF THE FAMILY
BECAUSE OF THIS EQUALITY OF GENDERS, THEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOTHER IS ALSO DOWNGRADED, THIS IS WHY THE MODERNISTS WILL SAY THAT CHILD BEING RAISED BY TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN IS NO DIFFERENT, OR THAT GENDER MEANS NOTHING, AND THIS IS SIGNIFIED BY THE ADVOCATION FOR MONSTROSITIES LIKE “TRANSGENDERISM.” OR, THE PUSHING BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR GENDER EQUAL BATHROOMS, AS WE SEE BEING ADVOCATED BY THE DYKE NAZI MAYOR OF HOUSTON ANNISE PARKER.
— ABIGAIL ADAMS WROTE TO HER HUSBAND, JOHN ADAMS: “Remember the Ladies.” John responds with humor. “the Declaration’s wording specifies that “all men are created equal.” (FROM THE LIBRAY OF CONGRESS WEBSITE)
THE FEMINISTS WENT AGAINST THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, IN 1848, ORGANIZED THE DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS CONVENTION IN SENECA FALLS (NY) IN WHICH THEY PROTESTED AGAINST THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:
Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
Many of you will sit there and bring up American ideals such as “liberty,” and express your reverence for the Founding Fathers. “The Founding Fathers! The Founding Fathers!” is what I hear from so many today. Lets go to the Founding Fathers. Lets go to Thomas Jefferson, the most revered amongst them, and what we’ll find out is that “woman’s liberation” is not even an American ideal. Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, expressed his concern for the lack of efficient applicants for public office, and suggested that women be placed in certain positions. To this Thomas Jefferson replied:
The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I.
For Jefferson, as he wrote to Angelica Schuyler Church in 1807, “The tender breasts of ladies were not formed for political convulsion,” and women “miscalculate much their own happiness when they wander from the true field of their influence into that of politicks.”
GREAT THINKERS AGAINST SUFFRAGE
J. B. Sanford, Chairmen of Democratic Caucus, who was against woman’s suffrage in America, wrote on the dangers of suffrage:
Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a woman consequently the privilege should not be granted to her.
Kate Douglas Wiggin, a famous America children’s book writer, who was opposed to woman’s suffrage. She wrote:
I am probably an antisuffragist by instinct and temperament, but all the experience of my busy life has confirmed my natural attitude of mind. I would not for the world retard the development of woman nor hamper her in her struggle for still greater freedom than she now possesses, though to my mind she had not at any time gone to the limit of her powers under present conditions, but I can not believe that the ballot is the first or th next best thing to work for. I want her to be a good citizen, but above all to be a helpful, stimulating, inspiring force in the world rather than a useful and influential factor in politics. I do not question a woman’s ability to concentrate her mind on political questions, to grow steadily in knowledge and power, and to vote wisely and conscientiously, but I would prefer her to develop still higher powers, for there are higher ones.
G.K. Chesterton. One correspondent of his told him: “Would not our women be spared the drudgery of cooking and all its attendant worries, leaving them free for higher culture?” To this Chesterton responded that there is more freedom for the housewife than the man who works for a living:
The Ladies and Gentlemen of the Smart Set are quite free for the higher culture, which consists chiefly of motoring and Bridge. But the ordinary man who typifies and constitutes the millions that make up our civilization is no more free for the higher culture than his wife is. Indeed, he is not so free. Of the two sexes the woman is in the more powerful position. For the average woman is at the head of something with which she can do as she likes; the average man has to obey orders and do nothing else. He has to put one dull brick on another dull brick, and do nothing else; he has to add one dull figure to another dull figure, and do nothing else. The woman’s world is a small one, perhaps, but she can alter it. …She can put the flowers or the furniture in fancy arrangements of her own. I fear the bricklayer cannot put the bricks in fancy arrangements of his own, without disaster to himself and others.
…A woman cooking may not always cook artistically; still she can cook artistically. …The average woman, as I have said, is a despot; the average man is a serf. I am for any scheme that any one can suggest that will make the average woman more of a despot. So far from wishing her to get cooked meals from outside, I should like her to cook more wildly and at her own will than she does. So far from getting always the same meals from the same place, let her invent, if she likes, a new dish every day of her life. Let women be more of a maker, not less
THE BIBLE ON WOMEN
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 2:34-35)
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:22-25)
Let us quote St. John Chrysostom to see what he said on the verse of St. Paul:
To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming. “But I suffer not a woman to teach.” “I do not suffer,” he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence.
— SUPREME COURT ALREADY DEFINED MARRIAGE AS A GODLY INSTITUTION IN RAMSEY VS. MURPHY, 1885:
“the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
YOU CANNOT EQUATE GENDER WITH RACE. WE HAVE GIRL SCOUTS AND BOY SCOUTS, NOT BLACK SCOUTS AND WHITE SCOUTS
In Loving vs Virginia, 1967:
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” This comes directly from the Declaration of Independence which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence
— WHY AREN’T YOU CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUAL ELITIST??
GAYS THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR
Jim McKinight, Chair of Psychology Department at the University of Western Sydney, wrote that “straight” men who carry the homosexual gene are superior to those without it. His writing is quite reminiscent to the type of language used by the eugenists and the Nazis. He speaks of how “homosexual genes confer a benefit to the species”, and goes on to say:
Those straight men who have one homosexual gene (and here we are assuming a single gene for simplicity’s sake; the actual situation is more likely polygenic) probably have an enhanced sex drive which leads to great numbers of children and to a retention of the blanched homosexuality gene. These straight men are therefore genetically superior by virtue of having a dose of gayness — least in this respect. (Jim McKnight, Straight Science? p. 76)
Actress Lisa Kudrow, says that homosexuals are “superior beings”:
I don’t know who I’m going to offend by leaving them out, but I need to say that I think gay men are superior beings in my mind… The two sides of the brain communicate better than a straight man’s, and I think that has to be really important. They’re not women — they’re still men — and women also have thicker corpus callosums, so I think it’s the combination of those qualities that makes them like a superhuman to me.
Moby, a well known musician, states that gays are superior to people of natural affections:
I’m straight but I’ve grown up around gay people and gay clubs. They are superior to straight people. If you have a gay child you’re more inclined to be a prouder parent.
Satoshi Kanazawa, evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, wrote a long paper on the connection between superior intelligence and homosexuality. He wrote:
Regardless of their true sexual orientation, more intelligent individuals may identify themselves as homosexual, engage in homosexual behaviour or report homosexual fantasies and desires.
Satoshi also said, “more intelligent individuals are more likely to identify themselves to be homosexual, while more educated individuals are less likely to do so.” He also wrote: “more intelligent individuals in the United Kingdom have had significantly ( p < 0.05) more same-sex cohabitation partners in their lifetimes than less intelligent individuals.” He then went on to say:
My paper represents one of the most comprehensive empirical attempts to establish the association between intelligence and homosexuality, using large, prospectively longitudinal and nationally representative samples from two different nations. While other studies have noted a potential empirical association between intelligence and homosexuality, to the best of my knowledge, the Hypothesis provides the only theoretical explanation for why we may expect such an association to exist at all. It explains why more intelligent children may grow up to identify themselves as homosexual, express homosexual attraction, have more homosexual sexual and cohabitation partners than less intelligent children.
The sodomite agenda wants to see this same cruel tyranny established today, in order to build a homoerotic utopia where boys are recruited for a homosexual army, and the male body is exalted as the primal and pure physique of a warrior. Lets not forget what the Gay Manifesto says:
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. … We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
ISIS IS FILLED WITH HOMOSEXUALITY
According to the report:
In a joint statement released on August 13 2014 two senior United Nations officials spoke out against Isis’ “barbaric acts” of sexual violence and “savage rapes” of Iraqi minorities. “We are gravely concerned by continued reports of acts of violence, including sexual violence against women and teenage girls and boys belonging to Iraqi minorities,” Zainab Hawa Bangura and Nickolay Mladenov said.
One detail in Arango’s story, however, stands out: it is the reference to homosexual sex in an Isis training camp. “He [Barho] said he saw men having sex with other men behind the tents in the desert night.”
—SUPREME COURT NONSENSE
DREAD SCOT VS SANDFORT (1857) “BLACKS ARE PROPERTY”
Justice Curtis and Justice McLean WENT AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT, THUS CHRISTIANS ARE OBLIGATED AS WELL TO GO AGAINST THE RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE RULING ON SODOMITE MARRIAGE.
— WHY AREN’T YOU CONDEMNING DARWIN ??
DARWIN WAS ANTI-WOMEN
Darwin has written down that a married man is a “poor slave, . . . worse than a Negro,” (Institute For Creation Research, Darwin’s Teaching Of Women’s Inferiority, By Jerry Bergman, Darwin 1958:234.) Many other anthropologists in Darwin’s time agreed with this theory. Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of “the conclusions of England’s great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin,” argued that “the child, the female, and the senile white” all had the intellect and nature of the “grown up Negro” (Institute For Creation Research, Darwin’s Teaching Of Women’s Inferiority, By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., 1863:192).
Darwin also taught that women were less evolved than men and stated that the female “are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization… a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that . . …. the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.” (Institute For Creation Research, Darwin’s Teaching Of Women’s Inferiority, By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Darwin 1896:563,564.)
Even Stephen Gould (a very prominent and well-respected evolutionist) acknowledged that Darwin’s view was very popular in his time. Gould quotes Gustave Le Bon who was a pioneer in human behavior and evolutionist: “Women . . . represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and …. . . are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconsistency, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely.” (Institute For Creation Research, Darwin’s Teaching Of Women’s Inferiority, By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.., Gould, 1981:104,105).
It’s interesting to realize that evolutionists who support Darwin and promote things like “Darwin Day” don’t bring the quotes from Charles Darwin on women that read: “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn [shown] by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
Take Darwin’s half-cousin and anthropologist Francis Galton founded an ideology of human engineering called Eugenics. After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Galton became familiar with an interpretation of Darwin’s work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection which was responsible for the extinction of the inferior. Galton believed that only bychanging these social policies, could society be saved from a “reversion towards mediocrity,” a phrase that he first coined in statistics, but later changed to the now common “regression towards the mean.” *Eugenics, History, See Chapter 3 in Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981).*
In 1904 he clarified his definition of eugenics as “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.” *Francis Galton, “Eugenics: Its definition, scope, and aims,” The American Journal of Sociology 10:1 (July 1904).* Galton wished to create a Utopia where all the world would be a place of people with superior perfect genes. Galton wrote in unpublished novel titled Kantsaywhere, which was about a utopia based on eugenic laws, filled with perfect breeders and where “they think much more of the race than of the individual”. *Kantsaywhere by Francis Galton, Page 414* ‘
Darwin also wished for totalitarianism. He believed that in order for society to evolve the state needed to take action by cleansing the world from people natural selection chose as weak: “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.” *Darwin 1882, p. 134.*For too long Christianity has been watered down in our modern day as a pacifist faith with no inclination of fighting evil. But is the Church here to be weak and useless? This shocking and riveting two disk DVD set lecture series, passionately shows how Christianity is not here to be feeble, but for warfare, to be militant against tyranny and the forces of darkness.
You will not be dissatisfied after watching this lecture, and Bible studies will forevermore never be the same again.
Will It Take Someone Like Vladimir Putin To Save Christianity?
September 27, 2015
By BI: A shocking concept perhaps, but unlike most leaders in the West, Vladimir Putin is dedicated to cultural self-preservation of European traditions, religion, and race. Eastern Europe is also struggling to preserve its culture while Western Europe and the U.S. are on a collision course with their own self-destruction.
LIBERALS SIGN PETITION TO BAN TALKING ABOUT POLITICS & RELIGION IN PUBLIC
“We’re just trying to mute people’s political and religious speech”
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
Americans in the leftist enclave of San Diego, California eagerly signed a petition to ban talking about politics or religion in public.
Mark Dice’s latest ‘man on the street’ stunt once again illustrates how people are completely ignorant of their constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment.
“We don’t really need people talking about politics or religion out in public,” Dice tells one man who signs the petition before responding, “Yeah we need to chill.”
“We’re just trying to mute people’s political and religious speech,” says Dice as the man’s partner signs the petition.
An older man whose father possibly fought in the Second World War to defend the freedoms that Americans should hold dear also signs the petition while agreeing that the First Amendment wasn’t designed to allow people to express political views in public.
“Right, cause it’s going to lead to a confrontation – always does,” he states.
“There’s a time and a place for freedom of speech and it’s not out in the public,” Dice tells another man.
“Yeah, I totally agree, I hope it works,” he responds.
“There’s a place to talk about politics and religion, but I think we can all agree it’s not out in public, right?” Dice asks another woman who signs the petition.
“True,” she responds.
Only one woman politely refuses to sign the petition at the end of the video.