Much as that might sound like the beginning to a punchline of a joke, this is what happened earlier this week as the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments regarding whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to transgenders in the workplace.
On one side are the progressive uber-Leftists who are trying to force the transgender agenda down Americans’ throats and on the other, we find conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders fighting back against it.
You know an issue is particularly important and major if conservatives and lesbian feminists are fighting ON THE SAME SIDE.
While the Supreme Court Justices were hearing oral arguments inside the High Court, on the steps of the building were demonstrators and protesters on both sides of the issue, each trying to make their case in public.
Walt Heyer is one of these people, making his case against the transgender agenda. And while nutcase Leftists might try and pin him as a transphobe or a sexist or what-have-you, there is particular reason to hear his testimony: he, himself, used to be a transgender woman (biological male to female).
Heyer recounted: “It all started when I was four-years-old and my grandmother started crossdressing me and I enjoyed it very much. But that crossdressing started a confusion within me about who I was. And it was in 1944, before we had any words like gender dysphoria. I was just a confused kid that was being affirmed by my grandmother who actually caused me to have this tremendous confusion, which started this journey to transgenderism.”
Heyer said that he uncovered the truth about his life when he began studying to become a counselor: “I wanted to be a therapist. So I studied at U.C. Santa Cruz and realized in studying the books in the stacks that people who identified with gender identity disorder had mental disorders. And I thought we’re not approaching this from the right direction. We need to be addressing the co-morbid problems that are causing people to believe they’re a different gender. It seems to be compassionate to me to reach out to those people and actually guide them in the right direction and not fill their bodies with hormones and cut body parts off and rearrange everything in their lives so their lives are totally destroyed.”
Heyer also has a website called sexchangeregret.com and he says that hundreds of thousands of people have visited it. “Today, we have a worldwide ministry that reaches over 300 million people a year and people now are de-transitioning by the hundreds,” said Heyer
In the site, Heyer also recounts what he went through, having had gender reassignment surgery in 1983 but being left unsatisfied and then de-transitioning back to male 25 years ago. He is now happily married for 20 years to a woman, but he recognizes the permanent damage that surgery caused to his body, having to take hormones now to “try to regulate a system that is permanently altered,” according to Heyer.
The site also notes the fact that males have XY chromosomes, even those who are transgender women, and that the genes responsible for the determination of sex, SRY, and the genes that determine possible male infertility, AZF a, b, and c, are not found to be abnormal in transsexual people, meaning there is no biological reason for people to be transgender.
If you want to read more of Heyer’s testimony, go to this Breitbart News link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/former-transgender-woman-on-sex-change-regret-people-are-de-transitioning-in-the-hundreds/.
Moving on to lesbian feminists, however, we also find another great speech.
The speech was given by Natasha Chart, a feminist writer at FeministCurrent.org, and while her speech was relatively long and I can’t share everything she said, here are the main points:
If you wish to read her full speech, here is the link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/watch-feminist-speaks-against-transgender-ideology-i-will-not-submit/.
But what she says is completely right and insanely powerful. I’ve already noted how feminists get banned from Twitter if they speak out against men in women’s sports and other transgender issues. And the risk of transgender bathroom laws, as I have always maintained, is that women are put into the precarious situation where they might be raped or sexually assaulted.
Chart herself noted in her speech: “If a woman complains that a man has dropped his trousers in front of her at a job, the left will shout ‘Me Too!’ in solidarity, and he’ll be cancelled. If a woman complains because he dropped his trousers in front of her at a gym locker, but he says he’s a woman, they’ll cancel her. Is that kind?”
Basically, transgender bathroom laws, despite their supposed intentions, leave women at risk of being raped or sexually assaulted and without the ability to hold the man accountable because of identity politics (and yes, Chart railed on the hypocrisy of the Left more than in just this instance).
The transgender agenda gives license to rapist and sexually-deviant men to get away with whatever they want and have the Left side with them. Only look at someone like “Jessica Yaniv”, the transgender “woman” who is all-too happy to sue a wax parlor because the female worker would not touch his male genitals.
Because of cases like Yaniv, is it really so surprising to see conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders – who discovered the grim reality of what gender reassignment and transgenderism bring someone – fighting on the same side against a highly-dangerous and morally-evil agenda?
I’m not sure if I have stated this previously, as I have said a lot of things at this point in my career, but I have felt for a while that the transgender movement would have to be completely divorced from the rest of the gay movement. It totally goes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals, who by definition affirm the reality of two genders.
If Hegelian dialectics are anything to go by, this antithesis of transgenderism to the thesis of the rest of the gay movement will have to bring about a synthesis, where the two theses collide with one another. I think that’s what’s happening here, with lesbians and other gay people fighting against the transgender movement. This also is the case for feminism against transgenderism.
Put simply: transgenderism and feminism cannot peaceably coexist. One must abandon key beliefs in order to appease the other and live with it to some extent. If more men enter women’s sports because they are wimps and can’t win against other men, women’s sports will disappear because the women, most of the time, cannot compete against physically-superior men.
There is a reason there is an NBA and a WNBA – a reason there is a men’s and women’s tennis (though there are mixed teams too, but still).
One of the reasons Serena Williams was so successful is because she has a uniquely man-like physique that makes her bigger, stronger and generally physically superior to many women. And even then, when facing against a man ranked 203rd in 1998, the man destroyed her and then her sister, beating Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2. Despite her physical advantages against women, she is still, herself, a woman and physically inferior to most athletic men. The mere fact that she even said that no man outside the top 200 could beat the Williams sisters is an indication that she didn’t think she could beat Carlos Moya, who was the same rank as Serena (no. 5) in 1998, and an indication that she did not believe she could beat a man of her skill range. Despite the similarities in rank at the time, the Williams sisters didn’t think they could beat men in their same rank range, such as Carlos Moya, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, or even number 199, Lorenzo Manta.
If men and women are not physically different, why wouldn’t Serena and Venus Williams have challenged men who were in a similar rank to them at the time?
But regardless, my point is that the transgender movement is very dangerous for society as a whole, not to mention people the Left already victimizes, like women and homosexuals.
It’s very dangerous to children, as hormone treatment can permanently destroy children’s lives, and it makes absolutely no sense to be in favor of this.
But the hate-filled Left will see none of this logic and change their minds. They think transgenderism is something they must back in order to attain power, even though Obama himself admitted on NPR that his support for transgenderism might’ve made Trump’s election easier.
This is far too dangerous and destructive to be allowed and I hope and pray that God will guide the SCOTUS to the right decision. Otherwise, may God help us.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The United States is facing a seldom-talked-about crisis: declining birth and marriage rates. While the first is largely in part to Planned Parenthood’s success in routinely massacring the unborn year after year, the second has a number of plausible reasons for happening. But one study finds that the reason, or at least one of the biggest ones, is the lack of “economically-attractive men” who are unmarried.
The study’s authors examined data gathered on recent marriages from 2007-2012 and 2013-2017 (5-year marriages). According to studyfinds.org, the “data was used to estimate the financial and sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential husbands by creating economic profiles that resembled real husbands who had married comparable women.” These husbands then were compared to actual data of unmarried men throughout the country, including state and local locations.
The researchers found that these “dream” husbands had an average income 58% higher that the real unmarried men, were 30% more likely to be employed than real unmarried men and were 19% more likely to have a college degree than unmarried men.
Dr. Daniel T. Lichter, lead author of the study, explains: “Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men – men with a stable job and a good income – make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs. Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.”
Of course, this is on average and I believe there are a multitude of factors that affect the current marriage rates (and I’ll get to them), but this does point out quite a delicious irony for the feminist movement: women may be strong and independent, but they still DESIRE a husband who is not a deadbeat, beta loser.
I am reminded of an article I wrote a long time ago, back in November of 2017, about a similar subject. In that article, I talked about how the UK Daily Mail said that women, even those who considered themselves “feminist”, still found muscular and wealthy men to be attractive.
I also talked about the reasons for that to be the case: muscles are a sign of potential safety from physical harm (as long as the guy is a good man and not an abuser) and money is a sign of potential safety from financial harm (no one wants to starve).
So it makes sense that these mentalities that are as old as time itself remain in humans: we seek safety and comfort. Men seek to be able to protect their women and women seek to be able to be protected by their men. This isn’t sexism or misogyny but basic biology. The strong and fit will seek to protect those they have an emotional connection to. This is why men and women can become pretty much superhuman when their children are in danger.
But that’s physical protection. Financial protection is a rather new form of protection (in the grand scheme of things, but it has been around for millennia as well). Women seek men who are financially stable and capable of providing for a family. This is as true today as millennia ago.
In a day and age when student loan debt financially cripple most people, and in an age when more women are enrolled into colleges than men are (56% of college students nationwide are women), it comes as no surprise that there is such a hole in desirable men. Women tend to want to marry up, not sideways or down. When a woman does financially better than a man, she finds little to no reason to get married to that man (again, there are other factors to marriage, but this is an important one).
If she is able to sustain herself financially, that is one less reason to get married. Now, I’m not saying we should roll back the clock to a time when a woman was legally incapable of working, but I am saying that the feminist movement regarding female independence creates this sort of scenario: almost no man is good enough.
And that is another major reason, at least as far as I can see, for declining marriage rates. Cornell University points out the lack of economically-attractive men, and they are not wrong, but I do not think they quite got to the root of the overarching problem.
The lack of economically-attractive men is an effect, not a cause. The cause, at least one of the biggest ones, in my opinion, is the feminist movement. The idea of a “strong and independent woman”, while the norm today, naturally serves to divide men and women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t be strong and independent, but independence itself indicates a separation. Independence means to be apart from another thing upon which one might at one point have depended.
It’s a matter of cause and effect: women seeking “independence” from men means women being apart from men and not really finding it necessary to be with men. As such, declining marriage rates seem logical and, in my opinion, by design.
Women’s ability to be financially independent and equal, while not a bad thing in itself, does render men with one less asset to bring into the “marriage bargain”, as Dr. Lichter mentioned. Again, women tend to want to marry up. With the standard rising, less men become financially attractive and marriage rates go down.
It also doesn’t help that extreme militant Leftists insist that all men are rapists, men rape women in college all the time, that toxic masculinity is even a thing and that men are, overall, not to be trusted with anything, least of all women.
Much as the feminist movement might try and suggest they are for “equality”, they really are not doing that. Men and women are already considered legally equal. The “problems” they bring up, such as the fictitious wage gap, comes as a result of women working less total hours than men on average, not as a result of sexism. Not to mention that they regularly attack “straight, white men” as often as they can, highlighting not only their hatred towards straight and white people, but also towards men.
The problem of declining marriage rates is multifaceted, but the constant attacks against men just for being men certainly don’t help matters any. It only serves to create distrust on impressionable young women.
The study points out an interesting portion about this problem, but I wouldn’t say that a lack of economically-attractive men is a cause of declining marriage rates. It’s an effect, as is declining marriage rates, of militant feminazism.
But another major cause, I’d say, is the overall lack of regard for the importance and value of marriage. What do I mean by that? I mean that most people view it as a unity of love, and while it is that, that’s not the entire point. Marriage is a unity, not only between a man and a woman but also a unity between the two and the Lord, who is at the head of the marriage.
Let me share with you what Ephesians 5:22-33 says:
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
That is a lot to cover, and I do not quite have the time to do so, but one important thing about this is just who created marriage: God. The same God who created you and me created the unity between a husband and wife; created the marriage between the two. It’s why we say it’s “holy matrimony”. But the “holy” part has largely been taken out of the idea of marriage. From gay marriage to an unmarried man and woman living in the same place and even having a baby together while not even thinking on the need for marriage, these things deprive marriage of all its spiritual meaning.
The fact that marriage rates are down is a crisis to people like us, Christians, but not to people like the Left, who do not value marriage in the least. Marriage means nothing more to them than unity of the flesh, and even then, they understand they don’t need marriage for that. What they advocate and support fervently is sexual immorality that goes against the meaning and significance of marriage, not to mention God’s Word.
As with shootings, this is yet another effect of our turning our backs against the Lord as a nation. Slowly but surely, His Word is becoming less and less recognized as the ultimate authority. His Word is becoming less and less relevant in people’s eyes and seek to outright rebel against every bit of it. Marriage, an institution built by the Lord, is becoming less and less relevant, and so, less and less sought after by people.
Now, again, the study pointed out that women do, indeed, still want to get married, which points to the feminazis’ failure, at least to a certain extent. But it’s only a matter of time until marriage itself becomes completely irrelevant in many people’s eyes. Its definition and significance has certainly already been heavily altered from what God intended it to be.
But in sum, what I’m trying to convey is the eternal importance of following the Lord, His Word and His Authority. Marriage is extremely important, in my opinion, and it’s taken quite the beating in recent time. I can only hope and pray that these trends, of declining marriage and birth rates, will be bucked and overturned so that people will get married more and have beautiful families together.
“He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Much in the same way that those who try socialism end up suffering because of it, women are now reportedly suffering in Wall Street due to the threatening effects of the #MeToo movement. What do I mean by that?
Well, according to Bloomberg, men all across Wall Street are “adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.”
“No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.” That was literally the opening paragraph of the Bloomberg article.
“In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is ‘an unknown risk’. What if she took something he said the wrong way?”
So because of the #MeToo movement, men in the financial industry are trying to protect themselves from unfound sexual harassment lawsuits that could destroy them. Of course, Bloomberg doesn’t mention that, instead choosing to basically attack the men for now becoming more discriminatory.
Now, I’m not saying this is a good response to the #MeToo movement. Doing this sort of thing can be detrimental to women in the work-place as well. But you can’t exactly blame these guys for fearing a sexual harassment or assault claim.
I know I’ve already talked plenty about Kavanaugh, most recently with outgoing Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill admitting Democrats’ handling of Kavanaugh might have hurt her in her election efforts, but he is a prime example of what the #MeToo movement could POTENTIALLY cause for men.
Now, this is something that must be pointed out: the Kavanaugh accusation was strictly political. You may believe the “survivors” in this case, but it’s plainly obvious that the biggest reason he was targeted is because of his political leanings, not because of anything devious he had done.
However, what I want to point out is the fierceness of the media in attacking Kavanaugh with these allegations, and more importantly, the substantial LACK of evidence that was brought about that still led to the fierceness of the media.
Like I said in the previous article discussing Kavanaugh, the media was essentially calling him an outright serial rapist. For weeks, the accusations were all anyone, including yours truly, was talking about in length. Story after story of Kavanaugh assaulting, harassing or flat out raping girls would come out. On the day of his hearing, he gave a very emotional, but appropriate response to the entire mess… and the media attacked him for that too, saying he was a lunatic.
The guy had essentially been a boy scout his entire life. Never really doing anything bad, or at least too bad. Always trying to do the right thing. Always keeping his hands clean. And upon being selected to the highest court in the land, a privilege only a select few will ever receive in their lives, he is attacked and barraged with accusations that went uncorroborated either by any evidence or witnesses.
Kavanaugh, thankfully, overcame that and was closely selected to become a Supreme Court judge. But not every man that is similarly attacked will be so lucky.
Sure, the media largely won’t go after the Regular Joe anywhere as fiercely as they did with Kavanaugh. Maybe not even at all. But the whole Kavanaugh debacle with the media highlighted the kind of world we are heading towards: Kavanaugh’s character was being destroyed by accusers who did not or could not bring forth any substantial evidence to their claims.
If ZERO evidence is all any woman needs to destroy a man’s career (and let’s not forget Blasey Ford heavily benefited because of this with a GoFundMe page that gave her over $600,000), then no man is safe in the work-place.
Now, again, the Kavanaugh smear was strictly political. But what reason does a woman have not to lay forth uncorroborated claims against a male colleague if she can benefit from it? Companies will surrender settlements for people not to sue, so in an age when evidence is pretty much unnecessary and “we must believe all women”, why would any woman not lay forth such claims?
It doesn’t even have to be all-out rape or even sexual assault. A simple sexual harassment claim will do because such a claim comes down to what is “interpreted” by the woman as harassment. Men are afraid of flirting with women due to how the woman might take that flirting and somehow claim it as harassment. I mean, in France, it’s a finable offense to wolf-whistle (kind of like in old-timey cartoons where a man will whistle at a woman’s attractiveness). That is being equated to harassment.
So when it’s so insanely easy to screw a guy over, men will look to protect themselves from this sort of thing by avoiding female interaction in the work-place. It may not be the best response, but it’s not something you can blame them for.
The #MeToo movement is basically trying to do away with due process. The phrase “believe all women” essentially symbolizes that desire. What if the woman is lying? “What, and let the guy get away with allegedly raping the girl that is lying? Never!”
It doesn’t help matters when women have the mindset of female over male, in the guise of equality. Allow me to explain. Back in November of last year, Teen Vogue columnist Emily Lindin shared the following: “Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
If women like her believe that it’s okay to sacrifice innocent men just to further the Leftist agenda, that will lead men to take actions similar to the ones described by Bloomberg. That mindset is not about equality in the least. It’s not about undoing oppression, it’s about women BECOMING oppressors.
It’s for this reason that I find anyone who says “the future is female” to be a disgusting human being. They might think it’s a good thing, but it’s just as sexist as saying “the future is male”. That’s not undoing “oppression” (I argue there is no such oppression, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say there is). It’s changing who gets to be oppressors and who is made to be oppressed.
Such people do not strive for equality; they strive for supremacy and domination.
Such people are the ones who are more than okay with destroying an innocent man’s career, reputation and life for the sake of the feminist agenda. It doesn’t help women, it hurts them, as we can plainly see.
In that same Bloomberg article, Lisa Kaufman, CEO of LaSalle Securities, said that men have to step up and “not let fear be a barrier,” in response to men acting this way as a result of #MeToo.
Again, can you really blame these guys for this? They’re just trying to protect themselves from an unnecessary risk. Is it the right response? I don’t think so, because it also causes women to suffer. But you have to understand that women in the #MeToo movement have to also step up and not insist that we “must believe all women”, because sometimes, women lie. Just as men lie, so do women.
And if a woman can benefit from destroying a man, what reason apart from her own conscience would she have to not do it? Again, companies are suckers for these sorts of things. They will give out settlements like Tic-Tacs to women who could simply claim harassment in an effort to avoid a lawsuit.
This is particularly the case for “woke” companies like Google, who will literally fire an employee for simply recognizing the basic DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
Equality is, as it turns out, a two-way street. Making false claims for profit, or even to advance some sort of agenda, is not being equal. It’s just being an ass. Men should not sexually assault, harass and/or rape women. Men should not segregate themselves from women in the work-place. But women should also not take advantage of other people’s actual assault stories in order to further themselves or some sort of agenda. Women should not use “believe all women” to accuse a guy of something that he didn’t do.
“For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Here’s a topic we don’t often discuss. Most of the time, we talk about what a great job Trump is doing as POTUS (50% approval rating by Rasmussen is not bad at all!), or the dangers and stupidity of socialism (still waiting on a math genius on the Left to tell me how they’re going to afford everything they want, or even one of the things they want). But the issue of feminism still lingers. And yes, it’s an issue.
What brings me to writing about this topic? The slew of all-female casts for movie reboots. From Ghostbusters to Ocean’s 11, and now, Terminator.
Last week, we were informed that a new Terminator movie is being made and set to premier in November of this year. We were informed through the franchise’s Twitter account with a promo shot of three women: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Natalia Reyes and Mackenzie Davies. This promo shot has feminists going wild for the movie not because of the stellar cast or crew (though James Cameron producing, Tim Miller directing and Linda Hamilton starring doesn’t hurt), but because the shot, and presumably most, if not all, of the movie features no men.
According to Graeme McMilan from The Hollywood Reporter: “There’s another, less obvious, reason to get excited about the movie because of this image. There are no men in the photo.”
“There were obviously men in the movies – Sarah’s son, John, is the Macguffin that gets the story going, after all, and there are both sidekicks (Hi, Kyle Reece! Hi, Old-School Terminator in T2!) and male threats – but at the center of it all, unmistakably, is Sarah Connor. She was the engine of resistance and change for the entire narrative and, for both of Cameron’s movies, the only character that really provided any emotional hook for the audience.”
“The lesson seems obvious – but it’s one that only appears to have been learned with the release of this new promotional image. When it comes to Terminator, arguably more than any other science-fiction franchise, the future is female, and always has been. The visual that audiences needed to see to have faith in any new installment isn’t the eponymous robot threat, any number of grimacing male action heroes brandishing weapons while sweating, or a callback to earlier promo posters; none of that is what makes the series special. What is, is meeting the women who are going to fight back and save tomorrow.”
Now, I have only watched the first two Terminator movies, so I can’t speak for the other ones. What I saw out of the Terminator movies isn’t merely a strong female protagonist who don’t need no man. What I saw is a strong female protagonist who (in T1) needed the help of a male soldier to protect the child she has yet to have and (in T2) being driven to near insanity by the trauma of being hunted down by a machine from the future and doing whatever it takes to protect her son, even befriending the very machine that haunted her nightmares because he’s been reprogrammed to protect her son as well.
What these two movies have in common is the fight for the protection of the most important thing in people’s lives: their children.
THAT is what made those two movies so good and special. Not the fact that Sarah Connor was strong (she wasn’t for most of T1) or that she only needed herself to do the task at hand (she needed the help of the T-1000 in T2 for the most part). It’s the fact that she would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the most important person in her life, even before that person was yet to be born.
If you want to see a film that encapsulates what it means for men and women to be equals, look no further than Terminator 2. Connor is strong because she has to be. She is stronger than a lot of the men in the film, too. But she doesn’t disrespect or belittle the men around her who are strong as well. She respects them.
Paul Bois of the Daily Wire wrote about this as well. He writes: “Though tough and certainly no-nonsense in their own right, neither Sarah Connor nor Ellen Ripley (from the Alien franchise, another one of Cameron’s movies) show disrespect to the men around them, or rather, the actual men around them. Effeminate, weak-willed men like Dr. Silverman and Lt. Gorman, they steamroll over. Righteous, heroic men like Kyle Reese and Corporal Hicks, they respect; actually, they depend on them for survival and vice-versa…”
What makes women strong is not the objective of being strong in itself. What makes women strong is their superhuman desire to protect their children. Feminists believe women must be strong in order to survive in an occupation or, for the lunatics in the feminist movement, to overthrow “the patriarchy”, and I will return to that concept momentarily.
They believe that women should really only care about their careers and not their family or children. That directly contradicts the role the Lord has established for women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t work or shouldn’t be strong at work. I’m saying there should be a clear reason for being strong: the benefit of their children.
That is the point Terminator 2, and even Terminator 1, were conveying. You do everything you possibly can to protect your children. They are not just the number one priority, they are the only priority. That’s the point that these feminists are missing.
Now, let’s return to that “overthrow the patriarchy” point, because it’s important. It details the precise point of the feminist movement. The main reason for existing. Whenever they say they only want “equality” and for women to be considered equal to men, that’s utter garbage. Why? BECAUSE WOMEN ALREADY ARE EQUAL TO MEN!
Men don’t have a single right that women do not, at least in America. Women can vote, just as men. Women can drive, just as men. Women can purchase and brandish a firearm, just as men. Women can work, just as men. There isn’t a single right that men have that women don’t (and don’t even get me started on the absolutely ridiculous notion that guns have more rights than women). The fact that men and women ARE equal is the precise problem to these feminists.
You see, they don’t want equality. If they did, they would realize we already have it. No, like the KKK who want white supremacy, the feminist movement wants female supremacy. They want women in charge and take over where they believe men have “failed”. They want women to be above men, not equals to them.
And every time a movie like this comes out and the feminist lunatics like McMilan speak in favor of the movie for that particular feature, that truth is exposed. You can’t possibly expect me to be stupid enough that I would believe you if you said “we want equality” while at the same time saying things like “down with the patriarchy!” or “the future is female”. That line of thought is illogical. Which is why it fits perfectly with the Leftist agenda.
And it’s also why I always find it ironic whenever they attack conservative women. To feminists, a woman who makes the decision of being a stay-at-home mom is dumb at best and a betrayal of their gender at worst. Despite the fact that feminists supposedly fight for the freedom to choose, they hate it whenever women make the “wrong” decision.
Oh, and by the way, that freedom to choose only really extends to abortion. If you choose to remain at home with the kids and teach them, you are berated for that choice. If you choose to be a Christian, you are berated for that choice.
Leftists are not pro-choice, they are pro-the-only-choice-to-be-made-is-what-they-want-for-you aka socialism. They don’t want you to have a choice. They want to make the choices for you. And that entire thing brings me to a different argument of how “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron as there is nothing democratic about a system of government that takes people’s things by force and gives them to other people.
Regardless, let me reiterate my point: feminism is not about equality - it’s about female supremacy and rule. Statements like “the future is female” only highlight the truth of that fact. This new Terminator movie may be good or may be bad, but the fact that it may likely have an all-female cast is not what will make it good or bad.
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Do you know what a feminazi is? A feminazi is a woman who believes her gender is sociologically still insanely unequal to men, even though facts say otherwise and she is typically someone who wants female supremacy while claiming it’s for “equality”.
But why am I bringing this up? Because of a story I read on AffinityMagazine.us. Here’s the title of the story: “Why the Term “Feminazi” Should Never Be Used”. In this story, Clara Sparwath tells of the time when she was “sitting in my English class listening to the boys behind me talk about the election right after Trump was announced to be our next president… I couldn’t take it anymore when one boy said, ‘Trump was elected! They need to just get over it!’ As the words left his mouth I spun around and looked at the two boys and said, ‘We can’t get over it because he’s an a**hole.’ They looked at me, stunned for a moment before one of them began to chuckle before saying, ‘Looks like we got a feminazi on our hands.’ Immediately rage built inside me.”
I would like to know what college those boys attend so I could shake their hand and become their friend. But I also want to point out her reason for liberals not being able to get over Trump getting elected. So she thinks he’s an “a**hole”? Let me tell ya, I thought Obama was a communist spawn of Satan, but I got over him becoming president… TWICE!
The article continues: “How is wanting gender equality anything like committing genocide? The answer is: it’s not. People have started calling feminists ‘feminazis’ in order to invalidate the movement and our arguments (not to mention the word nazi is not one to be thrown around carelessly).”
This girl has much to learn. Committing genocide is not strictly a Nazi thing. ISIS commits genocide as often as they can, but no one calls them Nazis. Nazis are those inherently hateful of other people simply for being different and are willing to go to any extreme to eradicate them.
Huh, I guess ISIS actually could be classified as neo-Nazis, according to my definition.
But anyway, that’s not the reason we call them “feminazis”. We call them “feminazis” because they HATE men who are men, HATE women who are women and HATE women who don’t hate men.
Secondly, what does this girl mean by “gender equality”? I thought men and women already were equal? Are they not? Are women not able to vote in elections like men do? Are women not allowed to drive like men can? Are women not allowed to have jobs like men can? Do we live in the early 1900’s still? You see, I thought women ARE equal to men, but I guess they’re not, since this girl says they’re not.
Third, she says we started calling them feminazis to “invalidate the movement and their arguments”. Honey, history already invalidates your arguments, you don’t need us for that. And to “invalidate the movement”? The “movement” is not for equal rights. It’s for the right to get free contraceptives that TAXPAYERS have to pay for so that you can have sex all you want without worrying about getting pregnant. Oh, but then what does it matter if you do get pregnant? Because you also claim that abortion is a right and since it’s “your body”, therefore it’s “your choice”.
THAT IS THE GENOCIDE PART! ABORTION!
Abortion is the reason they're feminazis. Nazism is synonymous with genocide...and 55 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade are the evidence of the Feminist Movement genocidal character.
That’s what the feminist movement is. The WOMEN’s movement was successful in making women equal to men. The FEMINIST movement seeks to emasculate men and have women be SUPERIOR to men. The feminist movement seeks to get people to pay for them to just have fun having sex without worrying about having to take care of an “annoying child”.
In my opinion, the only important thing that is left to take care of is the wage gap. If a woman is perfectly qualified to do a job that a man can, she should not be getting payed less for that job. THAT is the only thing I could possibly agree on. THAT is the only area that is still an issue. A REAL issue, that is. The rest is not for equality between both sexes, it’s about free contraceptives, the right to kill their own children and being dominant over men.
Lastly, I want to point out the irony of the statement “(not to mention the word nazi is not one to be thrown around carelessly)”. I can bet you any amount of money that she’s called Trump a Nazi on more than one occasion. The Left calls us Nazis all the time now, if not “white supremacists”, so I find it deliciously ironic that she has a problem with getting called a “feminazi”, when she has, undoubtedly, called conservatives Nazis in the last few weeks.
But to return to the previous point, do you know exactly who has made it so that men have the roles they have and women have the roles they have? It’s not the government. It’s not society. It’s GOD.
He is the one that has explained the roles of men and women. Ephesians 5:22-24 says: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
The wife is to submit to her husband, as they are to submit to the Lord. Does that mean that she is his slave? Not in the least! Because Ephesians 5:25-30 says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body.”
God told men that they should LOVE their wives as Christ loved the church. Should a wife submit to her husband, even if he is abusive towards her and/or the children? OF COURSE NOT! A man who abuses his wife and/or children is no man at all! And she should not submit herself to a man who refuses to be a godly man. But if the man loves his wife as Christ loved the church (which actually is a great task that, without God, we would fail), then the wife, commanded by God, should be submissive to him, knowing that she will be taken care of by his love.
Does that mean that she shouldn’t get a job if she wants to have one? No, she can do as she pleases in that regard, provided that the husband is ok with that decision as well, particularly if there are children involved. Marriage is a compromise, as they say. Equal partners in love. The husband may be the head of the household, but in no way does it mean that he is the owner of the wife.
The point is that the women’s movement has already accomplished much of what feminists claim they want to accomplish. And God has already commanded that women have a certain role, provided the husband also does what He commands he does. If the husband does not love his wife as Christ loved the church, the wife is in no way to be submissive to such a poor excuse for a man.
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
While listening to the Rush Limbaugh show on Tuesday the 11th of April, Rush talked about a news article from PJ Media about Millennials. The article was titled “Millennial Men Prefer to Be Family Breadwinners, Have Stay-at-Home Wives”.
When I heard it, I immediately thought that that’s not something the Left, particularly feminists, would be happy to read. But it makes sense. Personally, I want to be the breadwinner for my family and for my wife to take care of the house and children. That’s not to say I wouldn’t help, but that’s the roles I want for my family.
And, according to this article, most millennial men want the same.
Rush also stated a survey run on the dating website “Plenty of Fish”. According to the survey results, “22% of women refused to date a man that earned less money than they do.” And that by comparison, “4% of men and 11% of single individuals overall claimed that they refuse to be the breadwinner in a relationship.” The wording might trip you up a bit, it certainly confused Rush for a moment, but this is certainly good news. This means that 96% of men in that survey said they wanted to be the breadwinner.
When I heard all of this, it made complete sense. But more than that, it made me think about the trend in the world. The Left is trying to fundamentally change the U.S. They want civilization and people to be so incredibly confused and frustrated that they need government intervention to help sort things out, and that means Democrats getting elected. But what these things tell me is that the Left is not succeeding anywhere near as much as they would want us to believe.
They have the mainstream media and Hollywood to shout the things they believe and shove them down people’s throats, but that’s just it: they’re loud, not plentiful. Most people don’t want what they’re selling.
That article told me that millennial men want to embrace the role that God Himself ordered on man. And that they want a woman who will embrace the role God Himself ordered on woman. Telling this to a liberal feminist will undoubtedly infuriate them to the core. And that just makes me smile. This tells me that the Left isn’t succeeding as much as they want me to believe or even as they may believe themselves.
Furthermore, the evidence that they aren’t as successful as they claim to be is in the 2016 electoral map by county. When you look at that, you see a massive sea of red, even in California, Oregon and Washington. That’s something I’ve told you about in previous articles, but it is reinforced by the aforementioned article and survey.
MOST PEOPLE WANT A NORMAL LIFE.
MOST MEN WANT TO BE MEN.
MOST WOMEN WANT TO BE WOMEN.
Most people want to embrace the role God gave them. And that makes God smile. God didn’t create man so that he can lazy around doing whatever he wanted whenever he wanted with and to whomever he wanted. He didn’t create woman to do the same things man did. He created man to protect and care for woman and He created woman to accompany man by his side.
Leftists might say that that’s damaging to women, calling people that want that ‘sexist’. But here’s the thing: God created Eve from Adam’s rib. He didn’t take a part of Adam’s foot so that he may be above her, or from his head so that she may be above him. He took part of Adam’s rib so that woman may be equal to man, formed of his side to be by his side.
Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and women are to love and submit to their husbands as the church loves and submits to Christ.
When the husband is a man of God, righteousness fills his heart and refuses the desire to do evil, such as harm his wife. That’s just common sense. As Christ is the head of the church, so is husband the head of the family, which is why Ephesians 5:22-24 says to women that they should submit. “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit everything to their husbands.”
This verse talks about a husband who is a man of God. God obviously doesn’t want women to submit to an abusive, sinful, evil man. But if a man is right with God and follows Christ, his heart won’t allow him to sin and feel good about it. He has the right heart and so the wife should follow him who follows Christ.
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, so that He might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’”
Author: Freddie M.
In case you've missed it, Cate Blanchett has recently said in an interview with Stephen Colbert that her moral compass is 'in her vagina'. What Blanchett doesn’t realize is that this sexist comment actually feeds the misogynists she's so desperately trying to combat.
You see, if instead of Blanchett saying this dumb comment it was someone like Johnny Depp or Matthew McConaughey saying ‘my moral compass is my penis’, you would immediately call either man a pig. And that’s because such a comment would MAKE these men pigs.
When you have a woman lowering herself to a sex object she’s falling right into these pigs’ hands. Think about it: chauvinists don’t even have to make any efforts to convince women they’re absolutely worthless and nothing but sexual beings. These ‘feminists’ are doing all the job for them. Cate Blanchett has put herself in the ‘just-a-sexual-being’ category. She’s nothing but a sex toy. Her emotions, intelligence, talents and spirituality are absolutely irrelevant – all that matters is her vagina.
'Pigs' of the world: thank FEMINISM for that.
Feminists have now become misogynists.
They hate themselves so much that they’re willing to lower themselves to the status of ‘stuff’. They’re nothing but stuff – a sexual object to be used and discarded by the very men they say they hate.
If you’re a woman, like I am, you know that women like Cate Blanchett are hardly a role model for anything moral.
You see, I refuse to let anyone – male or female – put me in a little box labeled ‘sex toy’. You cannot expect others – male or female – to respect you if you don’t respect yourself.
Ladies, young and not so young, should be VERY CAREFUL who they listen to. DO NOT let ANYONE fool you into thinking that your sexual organ can dictate anything positive in your life. If you let it rule your life, you’ll be miserable. Why? Because even YOU won’t be able to respect yourself when you allow your animal instincts define you.
Nobody who loves women – and I doubt Cate Blanchett loves women or even herself – would talk to women or about women like that. A good man – a GODLY man – would NEVER even imply that a woman’s worth is her sexual organ. And a good woman – a GODLY woman – would NEVER waste a second of her time with a man with such mindset.
Do you know what the best moral compass is?
God teaches us to respect ourselves and others. God has instituted marriage and family because He knows a good family is the best foundation for a solid, prosperous life. Look around you and you’ll see how people raised in broken marriages tend to have more issues in life – from financial issues to spiritual issues.
But God intended men and women to be GODLY. He doesn’t want men to abuse women or women to disrespect men. The Bible teaches men to love their wives as they love themselves. To love them like Jesus loves the church. And women are supposed to respect their husbands.
With the kind of husband and wife the Bible commands, there’s no room for disrespect.
I feel sorry for Cate Blanchett and anyone who feels the same way. Misogynists rub their hands when they hear women trash themselves like this. All they have to do is get them into bed (something obviously easy to do with women like Blanchett) and throw them into the garbage the following morning, assuming they feel like spending the whole night with these women. How sad...
I truly feel sorry because it doesn’t have to be this way for women.
Ladies, don’t believe these lies. You’re VALUABLE. You’re WORTHY of LOVE.
Jesus LOVES YOU and you have to aim high when looking for a husband.
Don’t settle for less - you’ll save yourself a lifetime of regret.
Fathers, teach your little girls to love themselves as Jesus loves them.
Mothers, teach your little boys to love girls like Jesus loves the church.
For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up His life for her.
When you think about feminism today, you picture a bunch of leftist women demanding free contraception pills, free abortion and free healthcare. They say this way they’re empowering women to do with their own bodies as they please – just like men do.
Long gone are the days when feminists actually fought for something meaningful, like universal suffrage.
Modern day feminists are leftists and a tool used by…leftist men.
A tool for what?
Well, a tool to do what leftists do – deceive young women so that they can control them.
The left is about control, regardless if we’re talking about leftist TAX policies, leftist HEALTHCARE policies, leftist FOREIGN policies or leftist WOMEN policies.
Every single leftist policy is carefully designed to control specific groups of people
And in the quest for control, the left must absolutely victimize and oppress regular folks. They cannot control you unless they victimize you.
But how exactly has feminism hurt women?
Let me give you the 4 ways feminism has hurt women.
The fact of the matter is a happy family consists of mom, dad and children. Career is an option and promiscuity is flat out stupid – any woman who prioritizes promiscuity is condemned to live a miserable life where no man will ever take her seriously.
The purpose of this leftist strategy, of course, is so that women live as bitter as they can, with the lowest self-esteem possible, dependent on government welfare and absolutely lonely so that they’re more controllable and therefore LESS EMPOWERED.
The Bible gives women AND men instructions as to what role each one has to play in this world. In fact, the Bible gives more responsibilities to men than it does to women.
Submission to the type of man the Bible describes is no problem at all. But the man has to do his part.
Here’s the role that God wants for women:
For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.
I know, to the modern woman this sounds outrageous. But keep on reading, because this man that the Bible describes is sure to win your heart and you will have no issues submitting to him.
Here's the role that God wants for men:
For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead she will be holy without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cared for the church. And we are members of his body.
Young - and not so young - women, please don’t listen to the feminists lies. Love yourself. If you don’t, men will know and they won’t love you either. Go back to the supply and demand principle and increase your value. Find a godly man who will love you more than he loves himself and build your heaven on earth – that family that we’re all meant to have.
In the last eight years, during the Obama Administration, we’ve seen a drastic shift in the way we’re supposed to live, according to the liberals. We now have gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, late term abortion….anything goes.
The left speaks of ‘tolerance’ and how we’re supposed to tolerate all these activities.
Tolerance, of course, is only applicable to these very specific activities – try praying in school and you’ll see how tolerant your school teacher really is.
The left has turned wrong into right and right into wrong.
Now, I’m not saying we shouldn’t tolerate gays and lesbians – they are free to do whatever they want to do in their bedrooms and quite frankly, I don’t care to know.
But what is the government’s role? Is the government’s role to IMPOSE these minorities’ lifestyles on us?
The role of the government is to promote what’s best for society
In school, they should promote respect and teach girls and boys to respect each other. To seek a good husband and wife to start a family. To refrain from sex until after they get married, if they don't want to complicate their lives unnecessarily. They should promote all of these things because they are much more likely to lead to a life full of joy.
Instead the Obama Administration and liberals promote promiscuity. Premarital sex. Homosexuality. Abortion. Teen pregnancy. All things that confuse children and are likely to lead to a life that's far more complicated than it needs to be, with negative economic implications that can be avoided.
The good news is some of these young people will go through so much pain, emotionally and physically, that they will find that the only answer is Jesus. But it doesn't have to be this way. I would encourage our young people to seek Jesus first and their lives will be so much more meaningful.
Nobody wants an abortion – not even pro-choice women. So why does the government promote premarital sex?
Why would any government want its people to be slaves to their sexuality, or food stamps, or predators? What’s in it for the government?
Well, let me tell you what’s in it for them.
Yes, control over you.
The more miserable you are, the more mistakes you make early in life, the more ‘weird’ you are, the lower your self-esteem, the more insecure you are…the easier it is to control you.
If you’re a single mom, you’re likely to need the government to survive.
If you’re a pregnant teenager, you’re likely to want the government to fund an abortion.
If you’re gay, you’re likely to want the government to approve of your sexual perversion. Let’s face it, it IS perversion to the extent that you're prioritizing sex in your life.
But ultimately, the government wants to make sure you’re as miserable as you can be so that you need it more.
You see, if you have a family that loves you, a good career or a prosperous business and friends, you’re truly FREE. You won’t need the government – you are joyful and your necessities are covered. Jesus has led you in the right direction.
Governments want slaves
To remain in power.
Everything career politicians do is intended to keep them in power. They don’t care that you’ll need food stamps, or a shrink to get by. They just want power and you're going to pay for it with your lack of opportunities, your liberty and your sanity. It's alright as far as they're concerned.
Think about it this way: no career politician has ever produced anything of real value that anyone would be willing to buy in the market place. They’re not the ‘producers’ – YOU are. They are the TAKERS.
They take your money and grow their own net-worth via political contributions or taxation. And they also STEAL OPPORTUNITIES from you. In school if instead of teaching you how to protect the turtles or the whales from God knows what they taught you to be careful and find a good wife and be a productive member of society, your chances at long-lasting joy would be much higher. But they don't want you to be joyful. They want you worried, poor and miserable.
In order to take more of your money and your freedom, they need to create chaos. In the 60's, it was drugs, sex and rock‘n roll. Now, it’s gay marriage and transgender bathrooms. The more confused you are, the easier you are to manipulate.
My friend, I’m not saying all career politicians are the same. In fact, only LIBERALS want you to be confused and a slave.
But you were born to be free.
God breathed life into you and He created you in His image.
Genesis 1:27-28: God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
And in Revelation 3:20 you read: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
God gave you the freedom to choose Him. He’s knocking on your door right now. You don’t need the left. You just need God. He created you for a PURPOSE. Sex isn’t a purpose. It’s too small for you. You need something bigger – you’re so much more than just a sexual object. You’re valuable. You’re smart. Use your God given talents for GOOD, and start living a life full of joy!
There’s nothing that reveals the democrats' hatred for women more than abortion. I know, they say abortion is a woman’s right to choose and since they ‘love’ women so much, they want us to have the freedom to choose…
But that’s simply not true – now, if you follow my logic here, you’ll understand why.
You see, the whole idea of ever having to face abortion at all, in the liberal’s mind, is this: as a woman, you’re supposed to have all the sex, all the ‘fun’ that you want – it’s the ‘cool’ thing to do. Inevitably, at some point, you get pregnant because your birth control method failed. So you go to the guy who you think is the baby’s father and tell him the news. The guy, obviously, wants nothing to do with you or the baby.
He was just having fun!
A baby is something he doesn’t want to deal with because, let’s face it, he doesn’t care too much about you so why should he care about your baby?
So you’re left alone with what now seems to be your right to choose, according to the liberal’s mind. So you choose.
Now this whole ordeal is revealing an undeniable fact about liberals' opinion of YOU:
Much like you think your baby is disposable, your ‘man’, if he’s a liberal, thinks you’re disposable too. Or why else do you think they want the freedom to abort?
Let me tell you why:
Your liberal boyfriend wants the freedom to dispose of YOU and YOUR BABY as soon as possible!
Abortion is to a liberal like his car's regular maintenance – change the oil, get rid of the baby so he can go back to using you over and over and over again.
Now, don’t get me wrong – a democrat’s car is probably more important to him than you’ll ever be…he would never toss his car into the garbage as fast as he tosses YOU into the garbage. And when he finally does get rid of his car, he goes through a mourning period. In order for him to get rid of his car, the car must meet two conditions:
When he chooses to get rid of YOU, however, you only have to be useless to him. No need to wait until you’re old. And no mourning period is needed – he’ll go after his next victim as fast as he can. Let’s face it, college campuses are filled with insecure young women who will go with the first liberal who compliments her a little.
Listen – we didn’t create this website to sugarcoat anything here. We created it to share the simple truth. The ONLY truth. My philosophy is: It’s better to tell a truth that hurts now, but saves in the end, than to tell a lie that doesn’t hurt now, but kills in the end.
Be brave and keep on reading…
...a REAL man would take care of you.
A real man wouldn’t abandon you. A real man is NOT a liberal – he’s a GODLY man who desires to find the right woman to raise a family with.
And, by the way, a real woman wouldn’t kill her baby either…
Does it hurt?
I hope it does – it’s called ‘growing pains’…
But the Left doesn’t want you to know any this. The more ignorant you are, the easier for them to turn you into a sex toy.
How about feminism?
Ah! Glad you asked…
Feminism is a Woman's WORST Enemy
Feminism is in bed with democrats. It supposedly opposes the objectification of women. But you have to remember – they’re leftists too. When they defend your right to kill your baby, they’re protecting men’s right to use you as an object. The ultimate goal is to make you think that you’re worthless and disposable – thus controllable.
The lower your self-esteem, the easier it is to manipulate you.
If you don’t want to have lots of sex, these feminists (directed by leftist men) label you as ‘backward’, ‘weird’. They want YOU to feel like you’re the one with the problem, while actually creating a much bigger, self-destructive problem.
How DARE you not lower yourself to the objectification they try to impose on you?
How DARE you rebel against their decision to put you in this little box labeled ‘sex toy’?
Don’t you see that that’s ALL you are? Don’t think. Don’t feel. Just let liberal men use you and toss you into the garbage as they please.
That, my dear friend, is the uncomfortable truth.
Are you going to let leftist feminists DICTATE what you should do with your body? And I’m talking about your body here, not the baby’s body. You can read more about the baby’s body in my Abortion Is a Matter of LIFE and DEATH blog.
Are you going to let self-centered leftist men DICTATE what you should do with your body?
And please don’t fall for his lies: ‘but I love you!’. He doesn’t. Democrat men don’t know how to love.
When you’re dating, ask him this question: ‘what do you think about abortion’?
If he’s in favor of it, dump him.
A man who doesn't care about his own children won’t care about you either.
Dump him and never look back.
If a man only wants to spend time with you just to have sex, he’s not worth 30 seconds of your time.
If a man abandons you when you get pregnant with HIS baby, he’s not worth 30 seconds of your time.
He doesn’t love you, and he never will.
The left doesn’t love you, and it never will.
Feminists don’t love you, and they never will.
But YOU should love yourself as much as God loves you.
I’m telling you all this because as a woman, I care about other women. I’ve seen too many women suffer in the hands of selfish leftist men. And they fell for these men’s lies over and over and over…and these women were miserable. They wasted SO much time until they figured it out.
One thing liberals do really well is lie – don’t fall for their lies!
God loves you too much to let you think so little of yourself.
If you’ve had an abortion, please don’t think God loves you any less. Don’t let guilt eat you up – repent. Repent from your sin and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. The baby you aborted is resting with Jesus now. But you’re not saved unless you repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Love yourself as much as God loves you!
John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Find a good Bible church, and spend more time with people who WILL lift you up and LOVE you the way God does.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...