Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

31 August 2013

The real purpose of the gay agenda.

A Christian photographer who declined to shoot a same-sex ‘commitment ceremony’ has been told by a US Supreme Court that she must “compromise” her beliefs to accommodate other views.

In 2006 Vanessa Willock approached Elane Photography, owned by Elane and Jonathan Huguenin, to request that they photograph a ‘commitment ceremony’ between herself and another woman.

But Mrs Huguenin turned the job down saying it conflicted with her and her husband’s Christian beliefs.

Miss Willock found a different photographer for her ceremony but still filed a complaint against Elane Photography.

The case has made its way to the highest court in New Mexico where it has ruled against Elane Photography ordering Mr and Mrs Huguenin to compromise their beliefs and photograph same-sex ceremonies.

Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote: “At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others”.

He added: “That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people”.

“In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship”, he said.

Representing Elane Photography, the Christian legal organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said: “Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country. This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free”.

The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling from a lower court.

Earlier this month a Christian bakery hit the headlines after being put under investigation by state officials because it declined to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple in Oregon, USA.

The owners of “Sweet Cakes”, Aaron and Melissa Klein, said they were trying to protect their religious conscience when they refused to sell a cake to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer for their gay wedding.

Mr and Mrs Klein have received death threats, hate mail and have lost half of their customers since the incident in January.

Source: http://ow.ly/omdTF
* * * * * * *
The gay agenda has nothing to do with what gays really want. The purpose of the gay agenda is to silence conservattives by proxy. Leftists know they can't handle informed traditionalists/conservatives/Christians/whites, so they send someone else to do their dirty job. After that job is done, leftists get rid of all those useful idiots.

30 August 2013

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
"From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.
His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.
“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR).

The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

Source: http://bit.ly/16WfeJy

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

28 August 2013

The Top Five Ways That White Feminists Continue To Discredit Women of Color

by Aaminah Hernández.

1) Say we are too “involved” or biased in regards to the subject, and claim that you are more “objective”.

This is frequently done to silence people who are trying to tell their own story. Academia is famous for this, but it happens outside academia as well. For example, who are the acknowledged “experts” about our cultures, religions, and lives? Why are there white upper-class men teaching Women’s studies, white upper-class women teaching African or Latin American studies, and white upper-class Christians or atheists teaching Islamic studies? Why does the media go to people outside the group they are speaking about to ask their opinion and views on a subject? The claim is that people of color and women are not “objective”. Especially in regards to religion, this is frequently thrown out there when discussing “Eastern” religions like Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism; we are viewed as too biased to speak about our own history, culture and beliefs. 

2) Say we are ignorant of the subject, even though the subject is our own life, history, culture or religion, because we have dared to speak to our own story and question the way outsiders have portrayed it. This includes questioning our academic background (or lack of), our writing style/ability, and whether or not we cite “accepted” texts to prove our points. 

So called “experts” are the most obvious examples of this, and this ties in with
number one above, but it is also enacted regularly by non-experts. The blogging world, for example, is full of people who think they know about something because they read it on-line or have a friend of a friend who experienced xyz, and then they use this as a means to say that this is the only version that is valid. Rarely are women of color allowed to speak to our own experience, to say that we were mistreated or discriminated against without someone else claiming that we are “reading too much into it”. Similarly, if we speak of the beauty and empowerment we have found in our own culture or religion, there is someone quick to dismiss it as an anomaly or us not knowing enough about where we come from to realize the intricate workings of oppression inherent in what we have stated we are not oppressed by. 

3) Speak condescendingly towards us. Tell us we are too young or too old, naïve or bitter, and that we are angry or emotional, etc. 

This is one of the most offensive things done by other women. We all recognize it when done by men, and we all rally around the anger and hurt that it causes then, but some of us experience it more frequently from our fellow women. Women of privilege regularly say these things to women of color as a way of silencing our questioning of their intentions, goals, and strategies. Rather than engaging why we are angry, we are dismissed for expressing deep emotion. Rather than accepting the opinions of a woman that differ, it is said that she is “old school” or “out of touch” or that she is too cynical because of past experience and therefore not giving the new guard a chance. Young women who come full of energy and new ideas are discouraged from changing the way things have been done and told that they are ignorant of the big picture. Act as though you are protecting us, mentoring us, looking out for our good – basically patting us on the head and telling us to pipe down. 

4) Pull out your “credentials” to show that you have more support and legitimacy than we do.

This ties in with the idea of “experts” but goes one farther. If writing for a large feminist blog, the offending woman will say that the size of the blog is proof of her legitimacy. She will claim to have many followers, and her followers can’t be wrong, so she must be saying something right. She will point to a woman of color’s blog and say that it is small, or accuse her of the bad grammar, unprofessional writing, and “hating” to show that her blog and writing is more appropriate, thereby her ideas must also be more correct. If the white feminist has been published in magazines or has published books, she will point to these as further proof of her credentials and acceptance from the larger society, mocking the woman of color who has not attained this sort of approval even if the woman of color doesn’t want to be published

5) Say we are hurting the cause of feminism, or that we aren’t really feminist at all.

This one is perhaps the most damaging of all. First, it presumes that we consider ourselves “feminist” at all and thereby implies that there is something wrong with us if we don’t. Then it attempts to define what feminism is, what counts as feminism, and tells us that we aren’t really part of it, while trying to shame us and discount anything we have to say because it is “not feminist”. It does not allow that feminism could have different forms and faces, but limits it to what serves the white woman and nothing more. If, as women, we cannot set our own goals, speak to our own needs, and create our own agenda, then how “feminist” are you? Ignoring us, pushing our concerns to the back, this is what is really hurting the “Movement”. It is arrogant for certain women to sit in judgment of other women and whether or not they should be allowed into the ranks or allowed to use a label. But then, that’s probably why so many women of color are throwing away the label of our own accord. We don’t want to be confined to your self-serving definition.

16 August 2013

The Barren Wombs of Smart Women

A statistical analysis from England suggests that a woman’s IQ is inversely proportional to her desire to breed. This, in turn, suggests that the world will grow dumber with every new day.

In his book The Intelligence Paradox, London School of Economics researcher Satoshi Kanazawa surveyed data from the United Kingdom’s National Child Development Study. Controlling for variables such as education and income, he reached the following conclusions:

• With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.
• The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.
• Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

The paradox is that women who are measurably more intelligent based on IQ tests are dumber in terms of evolutionary survival instincts. Kanazawa writes:
If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.
Kanazawa’s findings correlate with a 2010 Pew survey that found women ages 40-44 with a master’s degree or higher are 60% more likely to be childless than women who never graduated high school.
“Dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation.”
Kanazawa is widely known as a “controversial” researcher, which is coded speech meaning that his results cause significant discomfort among those who swallow the reigning cultural dogma. In the past he has faced disapprobation, ridicule, and even job dismissal for publishing studies that claim black women are less attractive than women of other races due to their higher testosterone levels, sub-Saharan Africa’s poverty is caused by low IQ, intelligent men are less likely to cheat on their partners, and attractive people are more likely to produce female offspring. He also wrote that if Ann Coulter had been president in 2001, she would have dropped nuclear bombs on the Middle East and won the War on Terror “without a single American life lost.” 

But it is specifically his research on race and intelligence that causes his critics to dismissively snort that he is a zero-credibility genocidal wackjob who peddles junk science riddled with huge methodological flaws that raise the terrifying notion of eugenics that has long been debunked and discredited because of, well, Hitler and everything.

Paul Gilroy, a colleague of Kanazawa’s at the London School of Economics, says:
Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.
In other words:
His statistical findings do not jibe with our cultural dogma.
Despite all the jeers and catcalls, Kanazawa defends his research:
The only responsibility scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they create.
The most egregious blasphemy one can utter in today’s insanely stifling and repressive climate of intolerant egalitotalitarianism is to gently suggest that genetics play any role in determining intelligence differences and relative prosperity between individuals and social groups.
Yet (grab a hankie) that’s what the evidence suggests.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_barren_wombs_of_smart_women_jim_goad/print#ixzz2bq6H4xMt

13 August 2013

Top Italian history professor blames fall of Rome on rise of homosexuality

A professor is facing calls to resign after blaming the collapse of the Roman Empire on homosexuality.

Roberto De Mattei, a devout Roman Catholic, had already raised eyebrows by saying the Japanese tsunami was ‘divine punishment’.

In a radio interview, the vicepresident of Italy’s prestigious Centre for National Research said: ‘The collapse of the Roman Empire and the arrival of the Barbarians was due to the spread of homosexuality.

‘The Roman colony of Carthage was a paradise for homosexuals and they infected many others.’
The 63-year-old added: ‘The invasion of the Barbarians was seen as punishment for this moral transgression.

‘It is well known effeminate men and homosexuals have no place in the kingdom of God.
‘Homosexuality was not rife among the Barbarians and this shows God’s justice comes throughout history.’

Professor De Mattei is a close friend of education minister Maria Stella Gelmini and controversial prime minister Silvio Berlusconi who once said: ‘Better to love girls than be gay.’

Last night fellow historians, gay rights groups and politicians expressed outrage. Paola Concia, an MP with the Democratic Left, said: ‘I have tabled an urgent call for the education minister to intervene.’

Italian homosexual groups said the professor’s comments were ‘based on superstition, ridiculous and outrageous’ and called on him to resign from his Rome-based post.

Historian Emilio Gabba, a leading light in Roman history, said: ‘It is highly improbable homosexuality led to the fall of the Roman Empire.’

Professor Lellia Cracco Ruggini, an expert on Roman history from Turin University, said: ‘There is no proof Rome had a high number of homosexuals. I can safely say Rome did not fall because it was gay.’ However research would seem to suggest homosexuality was rife in ancient Rome.

The 18th century expert Edward Gibbon wrote that ‘of the first 15 emperors, Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct’.

Homosexuality is widely portrayed in ancient Roman art and was seen as acceptable 2,000 years ago.
Professor De Mattei co-operates with the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Historical Sciences and has been awarded the Order of Knighthood of St

Gregory the Great in acknowledgement of his services to the Roman Catholic Church

11 August 2013

Science Of Sex: 4 Harsh Truths About Dating And Mating

To make the best decisions, we cannot delude ourselves.

I’ve posted many studies offering hope and inspiration but to be honest and fair, we also need to look at facts about people many like to deny.

And that’s where the science of sex comes in.

If you wish to retain illusions that the realm of sex and relationships is pure as the driven snow or that outside of physical dimensions there are no fundamental differences between men and women, turn back now as I am about to open a large can of peer-reviewed whoop-ass.

Naive romantics, I warn you one last time:


So what are some harsh truths that the science of sex has shown us?

1) Those things we say we hate actually make us more attracted to people.

When someone plays hot-cold, keeps you guessing, makes you constantly uncertain?

Participants in the uncertain condition were most attracted to the men-even more attracted than were participants who were told that the men liked them a lot. Uncertain participants reported thinking about the men the most, and this increased their attraction toward the men.

Playing hard to get? It works.

Had it up to here with narcissists? No, we haven’t because they really are more attractive.
You know what we like about them the most? 

The worst parts – their entitlement and exploitativeness:

…narcissism leads to popularity at first sight. Second, the aspects of narcissism that are most maladaptive in the long run (exploitativeness/entitlement) proved to be most attractive at zero acquaintance.

2) Yes, guys are pretty shallow.

The stereotypes are true: men want sex more than women and, yeah, guys are more likely to hit on girls with big boobs.

(Most of us didn’t need scientific studies for that but, hey, I’m thorough.)

Studies show that often the main reason men kiss is to progress toward sex. The main reason men cuddle after sex is… to get more sex:

…females were more likely to engage in post-coital behaviors related to bonding with both short- and long-term partners, whereas males were more likely to engage in ones that were extrinsically rewarding or increased the likelihood of further coital acts.

What determines how much a guy spends on an engagement ring? The younger the woman, the more he spends:

The total spent on rings was positively correlated to the annual incomes of both men and women but negatively correlated to women’s ages. 

Research shows, if men didn’t need to impress women, they probably wouldn’t leave the couch:

The results show that if there were no returns to career choices in the marriage market, men would tend to work less, study less, and choose blue‐collar jobs over white‐collar jobs.

Statistics show men are about as likely to cheat on their wives as they are to experience a flight delay.
Not dark enough for you?

Guys are more likely to cheat when their wives are pregnant:

Controlling for marital dissatisfaction and demographic variables, infidelity was predicted by greater neuroticism and lower religiosity; wives’ pregnancy also increased the risk of infidelity for husbands.

3) Women can be quite dastardly too.

The science of sex tells us that the romantic comedies lie. Sex is an area where nice guys do finish last:

In one survey of men, Trapnell and Meston (1996) found that nice guys who were modest, agreeable, and unselfish were disadvantaged in sexual relationships. Men who were manipulative, arrogant, calculating, and sly were more sexually active and had a greater variety of sexual experiences and a greater number of sex partners.

Women are very often attracted to bad boys like James Bond. In fact, research shows young women sometimes prefer out-and-out jerks:

In the end, young women may continue to claim that they find certain qualities in a “good guy” nice guy as highly desirable and that they want to be in a committed relationship with one man as their ultimate goal, but, at the same time, they seem content to spend “the meantime and in- between-time” going out with fun/sexy guys who may or may not turn into “jerks.”

Happy guys, it seems, can be a turn-off:

…happiness was the most attractive female emotion expression, and one of the least attractive in males. 

What do studies say can make a man more attractive? Among other things, a flashy car and throwing money around. Yes, that works.

Women find married men more attractive than single men:

…a group of women again rated photographs of men for attractiveness. The photos were accompanied by short descriptions, and when the men were described as “married,” women’s ratings of them went up.

And they find sexist men more appealing than non-sexist men, too. Wow.

4) Little of the above will be changing anytime soon.

This is the science of sex, not the culture of it. Most, if not all, of these things are true around the world.
In a study of over 1000 participants in 3 dozen cultures it was consistently found that men are focused on looks and women on status:

Several standard sex differences replicated across cultures, including women’s greater valuation of social status and men’s greater valuation of physical attractiveness.

But we grow out of it, right? Nope.

Findings suggest that although emerging adults believe that their peers’ mating desires change systematically over time, emerging adults’ self-reported mating desires vary little with age.

Across the life span, men sought physical attractiveness and offered status-related information more than women; women were more selective than men and sought status more than men.

Join 45K+ readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More