American women are materialistic, selfish, and manipulative. Of course there are still good women out there, just not as many.

Print this entry

Karl Marx was a philosopher, economist, sociologist, and revolutionary socialist. In 1868, he wrote “The Communist Manifesto” and became the father of modern social science.

But like Sigmund Freud and Betty Friedan, his work had a deeper purpose.

Both of his grandfathers, Meier Halevi Marx and Isaac Pressburg were Jewish rabbis.

Marx hated German Idealism, the philosophical theory that ideas are more important than physical objects. He criticized German philosophers including Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Marx promoted materialism, the theory that physical objects are more important than ideas. He claimed spiritual ideas like “God”, “marriage”, and “family” were fake, socially created theories.

In 1845, he criticized German Idealism in his book, “The German Ideology”.

Marx claimed Germans spent too much time in “the realm of philosophy”. He thought their ideas were confusing and abstract.

He wrote Germans “lack not only the necessary power of comprehension and the material but also the evidence of their senses”.

He explained “in direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven”

In other words, Marx believed Germans waste their time thinking about cultural traditions and spiritual ideas. He wanted people to focus on physical objects and create a “workers paradise” (heaven on earth).

Marx believed  “in history up to the present it is certainly an empirical fact that separate individuals have, with the broadening of their activity into world-historical activity, become more and more enslaved under a power alien to them, a power which has become more and more enormous and, in the last instance, turns out to be the world market.”

Hmmm, interesting… So what is the solution?

Marx claimed “the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that then the liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history. Only then will the separate individuals be liberated from the various national and local barriers”

In other words, Marx argued the world would be free without nations, religion, and private wealth. (Sounds like that John Lennon song…)

Better Dead Than Red...

Marx theory is flawed because he totally ignores what makes people human. Our spiritual ideas define who we are and how we live. His classless, stateless society would also destroy cultural traditions. (That was probably his goal though…)

In 1848, Marx expanded on these theories in his book, “The Communist Manifesto”.

In the opening of the book, Marx claims “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

He explains, “society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

In other words, Marx claims society is divided between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots.

Marx claims the bourgeoisie uses religion to distract everyone, the family structure to oppress women, and nations to divide people.

In reality though, Marx blames the wealthy bourgeoisie to distract everyone from the true source of global conflict… Jewish Communism…

Marx has become one of the most influential figures in human history and his ideas have spread throughout the world.

His political ideas have influenced Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Chairman Mao and most recently Barack Obama.

Modern communism is the continuation of Marx’s theory to expand the government and destroy the family.

Print this entry

This band dominates the industry!

We all know now that Donna Summer has passed. Only a few months ago so did Whitney Houston. One could say Summer was the influence and predecessor to Whitney Houston. What’s up with all these black musicians dying lately?

Could it be these people are being killed by the music/media Jew to push the focus on new pro-homo stars like Lady GaGa and Jew rapper Drake?

How does Hollywood really work? The Jews/Wasps have always helped Blacks until the late 1960′s which ended in a bitter brake down between blacks and Jews. Blacks have been “anti-semitic” since those years.
Are the Jews extracting revenge here? Taking out the old avant-garde in way for the new homosexual avant-garde?

What’s up with music stars dying in tubs, anyway. Houston died in a tub, Jim Morrison died in a tub, didn’t Cobain blow his brains out in a tub? That’s too high of a coincidence and the tub could be taken as a calling card to others who are thinking of going against the Jews.

Was Whitney Houston Murdered: Yes (google the coroner’s report)
Was Donna Summer Murdered: Probably
Was Michael Jackson Murdered: It would make sense if the goal now is to push a new avant-garde that you would take out the most popular leader of them all. Remember how long that summer felt when Michael Jackson died?

Print this entry

After King Charlemagne died in 814, his empire was divided among his sons.

The lack of political control following his death initially brought chaos but also led to a rebirth in ancient tribal consciousness throughout Germany.

The German people rallied around their natural, historical tribes which included the Salian Franks, Ripuarian Franks, Barvarians, Swabians, and Saxons.

Otto was born in Wallhausen, Germany in 912. King Charlemagne was his fourth great grandfather.

In 936, Otto became the King of Germany in Aachen, Germany. His coronation was held at the Aachen Cathedral, the church built by King Charlemagne.

King Otto viewed himself as Charlemagne’s successor and followed his example. His goals were the same: unite Germany & promote Catholicism.

He expanded his own powers at the expense of the aristocracy. King Otto ignored the nobility and weakened their power throughout his kingdom. Instead, he promoted the Church and expanded the religious and political power of German bishops.

Like King Charlemagne, Otto also devoted himself to protecting the Catholic Church.

In 961, King Berengar II of Italy invaded the Papal States and attacked Rome.  Pope John XII requested King Otto’s help to defend the Church.

Otto’s army crossed the Alps and descended into Italy to defend Catholicism. He defeated the Italians and eventually reached Rome on January 31, 962.

Three days later Pope John XII crowned King Otto the Emperor of the Romans (Latin: Imperator Romanorum), the same way Charlemagne was crowned in 800.

The ceremony introduced the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire (German: Reichskrone) for the first time. For the next 800 years, Catholic Popes crowned German Kings with the same, sacred crown. 

On February 12, 962, King Otto and Pope John XII had a synod (meeting) in Rome. The next day they ratified the Diploma Ottonianum , an agreement between the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire.

In the agreement, the pope was recognized as the spiritual leader of the Church and the German king was recognized as the political defender of the Church.

The document also gave the Church the right to elect the pope but gave veto power to the German king. The pope would also be required to take an oath of allegiance to the German king.

In other words, Europe was ruled by the spiritual authority of Rome and the political authority of Germany.

After Otto left Rome though, Pope John XII changed his mind and decided he had given the King Otto too much power.  He began to organize a coalition to attack Germany and eliminate King Otto.

When King Otto was informed of the plan, he invaded Rome again. Pope John XII fled the city and hid in the mountains of Italy.

Otto gathered a Church council and appointed Leo VIII as the new pope. In 963, King Otto finally returned to Germany, assuming the chaos was over.

However, John XII eventually returned to Rome and gathered a mob to chase Pope Leo VIII from the city. The mob was successful and John XII was restored as pope.

When King Otto was informed of what had happened, he marched his troops back over the Alps and invaded Rome again. When he arrived though, he learned John XII had already died and the Romans had elected a new pope, Benedict V.

King Otto was furious and called another synod (meeting) in Rome to figure out exactly what had happened.

In the meeting, Benedict V admitted he was a fraudulent pope. Leo VIII, the real pope furiously broke the Papal Staff over Benedict’s head.

Pope Leo VIII Used Papal Staff As Weapon

King Otto sent Benedict V into exile, restored Leo VIII as pope, and returned to Germany.

The next year, Pope Leo VIII died and the Church elected Pope John XIII with King Otto’s approval.

Ten weeks later though, the Romans arrested and imprisoned the new pope.

King Otto marched his troops back over the Alps and invaded Rome for a third time to protect the pope from the Romans.

He restored John XIII but stayed in Rome for another six years to make sure it didn’t happen again.

In 972, King Otto finally returned to Germany as the most powerful man in the world. He had established Rome as the spiritual authority and Germany as the political authority of European society.

The future Holy Roman Emperors followed King Otto’s example and defended the Catholic Church for the next 800 years.

King Otto’s crown, the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, is currently displayed at the Hofburg Museum in Vienna, Austria.

However, some believe the crown is only being kept there “until there is again a Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation”…

Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire

Print this entry

Baby Obama & His White Mother

Census data shows that 50.4% of babies born in 2011 were Hispanic, black, Asian, or from other minority groups.

It’s the first year in U.S. history that minorities had a majority of babies.

Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University believes “this is a watershed moment, it shows us how multicultural we’ve become.”

Cherlin tries to downplay the effects and claims“the changes to the country may not be as huge as some people think. Immigrants will change our society, but our society will change the immigrants.” (don’t think so…)

Minorities currently make up 37% of the total population, but have already become a majority in California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas.

In fact, sociologists predict minorities will become majority by 2042.

William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution claims immigration has slowed down and it will occur beyond 2050. Eventually though, he believes the change is inevitable.

The Washington Post claims these totals “signal the dawn of an era in which whites no longer will be in the majority.

God help us…

Print this entry

Liberals are quick to criticize Christians about contradictions in the bible.

They claim we should be more “accepting” and “tolerant”.

So, why do we believe homosexuality is wrong?

Not just because it’s in the bible, but it violates natural law.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law.” (CCC:2357)

The Catholic theory is based on natural law supported by science, biology and anthropology.

Ancient philosophers also believed sexual relationships required gender balance.

In Laws, Plato wrote:

“When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.” (636C)

So to summarize, Plato believed homosexuality was “contrary to nature” and homosexuals were motivated by their “slavery to pleasure”.

Christian theologians like St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas also believed there was a natural order in the universe.

Natural law also influenced the development of English common law. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson were inspired by natural law.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence refers to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

So, what’s the punishment for violating natural law?

In our past articles, we referred to scientific studies on homosexuality and showed:

They have higher rates of STD’s (including HIV/AIDS)
They typically don’t have faithful, monogamous relationships
They are more likely to be abused by their partner
If they do adopt, their child grows up without a mother or father

Every conservative, traditional religion agrees on natural law. All people can observe the negative consequences of homosexuality and recognize the true structure of the universe.

Thank you for following our series on homosexuality, we will continue to expose the myth with future articles/videos.

We encourage you to join our campaign by following us on Twitter (@No_ItGetsWorse) or uploading your own “It Gets Worse” video to Youtube and linking to our website.

Print this entry

Chapter 17 of Brave New World examines the quality of modern life.

World Controller Mustapha Mond (named after Jewish Zionist Alfred Mond) is a progressive, liberal ruler who claims modern life is better because more people are “happy”.

John “The Savage” is a traditional, conservative, blonde European man who believes life is worse and likes the way things were. He criticizes modern society for abandoning real art, science, and religion.

Here is a condensed version of their discussion:

“ART, SCIENCE–you seem to have paid a fairly high price for your happiness,” said the Savage. “Anything else?”

“Well, religion, of course,” replied the Controller. “There used to be something called God–before the Nine Years’ War. But I was forgetting; you know all about God, I suppose.”

“Well …” The Savage hesitated. He would have liked to say something about solitude, about night, about lying pale under the moon, about the precipice, the plunge into shadowy darkness, about death. He would have liked to speak; but there were no words.”

The Controller, meanwhile, had crossed to the other side of the room and was unlocking a large safe set into the wall between the bookshelves. The heavy door swung open.

Rummaging in the darkness within, “It’s a subject,” he said, “that has always had a great interest for me.” He pulled out a thick black volume. “You’ve never read this, for example.”

The Savage took it. “The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments,” he read aloud from the title-page.

“Nor this.” It was a small book and had lost its cover.

“The Imitation of Christ.”

“Nor this.” He handed out another volume.

“The Varieties of Religious Experience. By William James.”

“And I’ve got plenty more,” Mustapha Mond continued, resuming his seat. “A whole collection of old books. God in the safe and Ford on the shelves.” He pointed with a laugh to his avowed library–to the shelves of books.

“But if you know about God, why don’t you tell them?” asked the Savage indignantly. “Why don’t you give them these books about God?”

“Because they’re old; they’re about God hundreds of years ago. Not about God now.” Mond replied.

“But God doesn’t change.”

“Men do, though.”

“What difference does that make?”

“All the difference in the world,” said Mustapha Mond. “One of the numerous things in heaven and earth that ancient philosophers didn’t dream about was us, the modern world. You can only be independent of God while you’ve got youth and prosperity; independence won’t take you safely to the end.”

He added “Well, we’ve now got youth and prosperity right up to the end. What follows? Evidently, that we can be independent of God. ‘The religious sentiment will compensate us for all our losses.’ But there aren’t any losses for us to compensate; religious sentiment is superfluous.”

“Then you think there is no God?” the Savage asked.

“No, I think there quite probably is one” the Controller answered.

“Then why? …”

Mustapha Mond checked him. “But he manifests himself in different ways to different men. In premodern times he manifested himself as the being that’s described in these books. Now …”

“How does he manifest himself now?” asked the Savage.

“Well, he manifests himself as an absence; as though he weren’t there at all.”

“That’s your fault.”

Mond answered “Call it the fault of civilization. God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness. You must make your choice. Our civilization has chosen machinery and medicine and happiness. That’s why I have to keep these books locked up in the safe. They’re smut. People would be shocked it …”

The Savage interrupted him. “But isn’t it natural to feel there’s a God?”

Mond replied “you might as well ask if it’s natural to do up one’s trousers with zippers,” said the Controller sarcastically. One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons–that’s philosophy. People believe in God because they’ve been conditioned to.”

“But all the same,” insisted the Savage, “it is natural to believe in God when you’re alone–quite alone, in the night, thinking about death …”

“But people never are alone now,” said Mustapha Mond. “We make them hate solitude; and we arrange their lives so that it’s almost impossible for them ever to have it.”

The Savage nodded gloomily. He asked “Doesn’t there seem to be a God managing things, punishing, rewarding?”

“Well, does there?” questioned the Controller in his turn. “You can indulge in any number of pleasant vices with no risks  The gods are just. No doubt. But their code of law is dictated, in the last resort, by the people who organize society; Providence takes its cue from men.”

“Are you sure?” asked the Savage. ” The gods are just. Haven’t they used our pleasant vices as an instrument to degrade us?”

“Degrade us from what position? As a happy, hard-working, goods-consuming citizen, we’re perfect. Of course, if you choose some other standard than ours, then perhaps you might say we are degraded. But you’ve got to stick to one set of rules.”

The Savage said “If you allowed yourselves to think of God, you wouldn’t allow yourselves to be degraded by pleasant vices. You’d have a reason for bearing things patiently, for doing things with courage.”

Mond replied “There isn’t any need for a civilized man to bear anything that’s seriously unpleasant.”

The Savage asked “What about self-denial, then? If you had a God, you’d have a reason for self-denial.”

“But industrial civilization is only possible when there’s no self-denial. Self-indulgence up to the very limits imposed by hygiene and economics. Otherwise the wheels stop turning.”

“You’d have a reason for chastity!” said the Savage, blushing a little as he spoke the words.

Mond explained, “But chastity means passion, and passion means instability. And instability means the end of civilization. You can’t have a lasting civilization without plenty of pleasant vices.”

“But God’s the reason for everything noble and fine and heroic. If you had a God …”

“My dear young friend,” said Mustapha Mond, “civilization has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism. These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise. Where there are wars, where there are divided allegiances, where there are temptations to be resisted, objects of love to be fought for or defended–there, obviously, nobility and heroism have some sense. But there aren’t any wars nowadays. The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much. There’s no such thing as a divided allegiance; you’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears–that’s what soma is.”

“But the tears are necessary. There’s an old story about young men who wanted to marry a beautiful woman so they had to do a morning’s hoeing in her garden. It seemed easy; but there were flies and mosquitoes, magic ones. Most of the young men simply couldn’t stand the biting and stinging. But the one that could–he got the girl.”

“Charming! But in civilized countries,” said the Controller, “you can have girls without hoeing for them, and there aren’t any flies or mosquitoes to sting you. We got rid of them all centuries ago.”

The Savage nodded, frowning. “You got rid of them. Yes, that’s just like you. Getting rid of everything unpleasant instead of learning to put up with it. It’s too easy.”

“What you need,” the Savage went on, “is something with tears for a change. Nothing costs enough here. Isn’t there something in living dangerously?”

Mond answered “There’s a great deal in it, but there’s inconveniences.”

“But I like the inconveniences” the Savage said.

“We don’t,” said the Controller. “We prefer to do things comfortably.”

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustapha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“All right then,” said the Savage defiantly, “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.”

There was a long silence…

“I claim them all,” said the Savage at last.

Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. “You’re welcome,” he said.”

Print this entry

Medical theories claim homosexual families do not provide children with a stable, gender balanced environment.

Dr. Henry Biller, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Rhode Island wrote:

“There are hundreds of nuances about men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that makes a difference in the way the child develops.”

He believes “even if the father and mother behave in generally similar ways, they provide contrasting images for the infant. Mothers and fathers have different verbal styles when communicating. Involved fathers are more likely to stimulate the infant to explore and investigate new objects whereas mothers tend to engage their infants in relatively pre-structured and predictable activities. The father and mother offer the child two different kinds of persons to learn about as well as providing separate sources of love and support.”

In 2003, the Catholic Church wrote “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, which claimed:

“The absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”

In other words, homosexual adoption does not provide children with a mother & father. This is not just a religious idea, but a widely accepted  scientific theory.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover was a professor at Yale University and the former president of the C.G. Jung Foundation. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard University.

In 1997, the state of Florida asked him to testify about homosexual adoption in court. In his testimony, he claimed:

“If two homosexuals wanted to adopt a child, I would have no objection to it if one of them was a man and one of them was a woman.”

Dr. Satinover later explained, “In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental, at every phase of the life cycle, social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.”

Medical theories show that homosexual families do not provide children with a stable, gender balanced environment.

In the next article of this series, we will examine “Homosexuality & Natural Law” with more scientific research to support our claims.

We encourage you to join our campaign by following us on Twitter (@No_ItGetsWorse) or uploading your own “It Gets Worse” video to Youtube and linking to our website.

Print this entry

James Wilson was born in Carskerdo, Scotland in 1742.

He moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1766 and became a lawyer.

In 1776, Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and became one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Wilson was a legal expert and one of the original judges appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by George Washington.

He was also elected to the Continental Congress and influenced the United States Constitution.

His most notable legacy came when he created the “Three-Fifths Compromise” at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Northern and Southern states argued about the legal definition of “population”.

Northern states claimed blacks SHOULD NOT count as people.

Southern states claimed blacks SHOULD count as people. (Not because they REALLY believed it, but wanted more representatives and tax money)

James Wilson sat down and wrote the Three-Fifths Compromise to settle their dispute.

In Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, he wrote:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

In other words, Wilson determined blacks were legally 3/5 of a person.

The Northern and Southern states agreed to his compromise and the Constitution was approved.

Jett & Jahn Media honors American Hero James Wilson for bringing our country together.

Print this entry

Medical studies show that homosexual relationships aren’t faithful or monogamous & often involve domestic abuse.

In 1978, Dr. Alan P. Bell & Dr. Martin S. Weinberg surveyed gay males to examine homosexuality. They worked for the Alfred C. Kinsey Institute For Sex Research, a pro-homosexual organization at the University of Indiana.

Dr. Bell and Dr. Weinberg asked homosexual men how many sexual partners they have had.

The results were shocking:

# of Sex Partners Among Gay Males

25% had less than 100
15%  were between 100-249
17% were between 250- 499
15% were between 500-999
28% had over 1,000

In other words, 75% of gay men claimed to have had sex with more than 100 different men.

(Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men & Women
New York, Simon and Schuster, 1978
Page: 308)

In 1984, Northern Illinois University homosexual professor Dr. Joseph Harry surveyed gay males and homosexual relationships.

He determined that 66% of gay males had sex with other men within the first year of their relationship. He also found that 90% of gay males in a relationship longer than five years had sex other partners.

He wrote “for gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year.”

(Gay Couples
New York, Praeger Books, 1984
Page: 116)

In 1973, Washington University professors Dr. Marcel T. Saghir & Dr. Eli Robins also surveyed homosexual relationships.

Dr. Saghir & Dr. Robins found that 85% of gay males & 82% of lesbians had never been in a relationship beyond three years.

(Male & Female Sexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation
Baltimore, The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973
Page: 57)

By contrast, heterosexual marriages are typically monogamous and faithful.

In 2007, Southern Illinois professor Dr. James M. Hanslin surveyed sexual practices among married couples.

Dr. Hanslin determined that only 6% of married heterosexuals had sex outside their relationship.

He also found that 25% of heterosexual cohabitating couples had sex with other partners.

(Exploring Social Life: Readings to Accompany Essentials of Sociology
Canada, Pearson Education, 2007
Page: 57)

Not only are homosexual relationships less faithful, but studies show they have high rates of domestic violence.

In 2000, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire pro-homosexual professor Dr. Susan Turrell surveyed abuse in homosexual relationships.

The data was astounding:

Gay Male Relationships:
40% reported violence
13% reported sexual violence
83% reported emotional abuse

Lesbian Relationships:
55% reported violence
14% reported sexual abuse
84% reported emotional abuse.

(“A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample”
Journal of Family Violence, Volume: 13, 2000
Page: 281-293)

Scientific studies show that homosexual relationships typically aren’t faithful or monogamous & often involve domestic abuse.

In the next article of this series, we will examine “Artificial Homosexual Families” with more scientific research to support our claims.

We encourage you to join our campaign by following us on Twitter (@No_ItGetsWorse) or uploading your own “It Gets Worse” video to Youtube and linking to our website.

Print this entry