Tom Valentine's guest on *Radio Free America* (Shortwave, 5.065 
MHz, mon-fri, 9 pm cst) on December 28, 1994 was Andrea Pearson, 
editor-in-chief of a newsletter called "Americans In Exile" 
[contact info to be included below]. Ms. Pearson has some non- 
politically correct views on feminism, etc. Note that views 
expressed in the following do not necessarily reflect my own 
views or those of Conspiracy Nation.
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
Absolutely, I think it is. Also, when Congress considered passing 
this U.N. treaty, they talk about how "patterns of conduct" is in 
article five of the treaty.
All right. Now this U.N. Convention, this treaty, is this the one 
that goes clear back to 1957, in establishing the U.N.?
Or is this something new?
Well, actually, it was signed on behalf of the united States in 
1980. It has not been ratified yet. But one provision in the 
document is to say that the different States' parties can bring 
their own federal laws into compliance.
Now what this treaty does, in lots of ways, is it regulates 
conduct, it alters culture... It talks about how the State should 
provide for health care, and women should have equal opportunity 
for all sorts of things -- that I don't think the American people 
*want* women to have equal opportunity, say, for military 
service. Or we don't necessarily feel that our "patterns of 
conduct" or our culture are something that we want changed.
What disturbs me the most about this is that there was no public 
debate about this [e.g. The Gender Equity in Education Act]. And 
I believe that anyone who's a historian or who has studied 
American history *knows* that people like Thomas Jefferson, 
George Washington, and so forth, were not "white male dictators" 
in general, and certainly did not abuse their wives. And yet 
Marxists believe that they did.
Just this one piece of evidence of that: if you look at the 
*Notes on the State of Virginia* by Thomas Jefferson... And he's 
writing, in this case, about the American Indians. But he's 
talking about how *they* relate, in terms of men and women. And 
he says, "It is civilization alone which places women in the 
enjoyment of their natural equality."
And I believe that, in America, women were free creatures who 
were very happy the way they were. And not only that, they worked 
when they wanted to. There was, in fact, no discrimination 
against women.
Well if they wanted to [work], they certainly could.
All right. If you'd like to join us, 1-800-878-8255. Andrea 
Pearson is my guest. "Feminizing and Marxizing Us". I'm Tom 
Valentine, *Radio Free America*.
All right, we are back, live. And a very important part of 
everyday life is being discussed tonight: the role of women in 
this here united States of America.
Mark, [in] Sarasota. You're on, with Andrea.
Hello, Mark.
Yeah. Good evening, Andrea. It's just wonderful and refreshing to 
hear a woman come on the air with your viewpoints. Actually, 
today, in the media, that's all you get is the left-wing 
viewpoint of women -- feminized, feministic views of women today.
I have one point that I want to just clarify with you. You 
mentioned that it's our Judeo-Christian heritage. Actually, it's 
really our Christian heritage. And that's an important part and 
it should be emphasized too. That when we go back and we're 
talkin' about people like Thomas Jefferson and some of our 
founding fathers and George Washington, remember that this was a 
Christian heritage. It wasn't a Judeo-Christian heritage. Many of 
the Marxist, Communist ideas have been introduced in the Judeo- 
Christian churches today which are not really our founding, 
Christian heritage at all.
I understand what you're saying, about our Christian heritage, 
and I agree with you. But I also believe that there are a number 
of very honorable and good Jewish people who honor the same 
principles that I talk about, that you are espousing too. And I 
don't like to exclude people -- and particularly if you read in 
the work of St. Paul, in Romans, [chapter] eleven. He talks about 
how even though some of these Jewish people may have been 
deceived, that that was for our blessing. And I really don't like 
to divide things according to religious lines when I'm talking 
about America.
And I think that the Biblical history as well is something that 
shows very *clearly* what the role of women should be. And it's 
often referred to in the New Testament. Also, those kinds of 
things are found in the Old Testament, such as the ruling of 
Appolya(?), or Jezebel, in Judah. I don't think that (even though 
I sense in many of the Jewish people that they espouse this kind 
of agenda), I think that many people who are Christians, or who 
call themselves Christians, often have incorporated the Feminist 
agenda into their very churches. I hear [of] female ministers and 
female priests, and I don't believe that that's something that's 
according to God's law! I think that...
That's a big fight going on right now, especially in the Lutheran 
and the Episcopalian church.
Absolutely! And I've watched that. And I'm particularly disturbed 
at the way that Christianity is being re-written. And I think we, 
as Christians, need to mind our own business pretty carefully. 
Because things are gettin' serious out there.
All right. Mark, I understand where you're coming from also: that 
there are many people who feel that the traditional, Christian 
values have been distorted. And one of the things to do is to use 
language in such a way, and that the Ecumenical movement, which 
has watered down basic Christianity, utilized that phrase, 
That's right.
...and people see it for that and... And so you both make a good 
point, and I appreciate your call very much!
Thank you.
Gene, in Savannah, Georgia.
How are ya doin', Tom?
Just fine.
Uh, Andrea. Pleased ta meet ya. You've got a very good, and 
serious, subject. I think it strikes at the *heart* of the matter 
of what's happening in America. If we can strike at this, first, 
the right to bear arms is second to this. We need to back it up.
But as a man, and someone who tries to exercise their rights over 
children, it becomes very difficult. And how to attack it: I've 
done a little research, reaching, uh studying Kent's commentaries 
and Blackstone's commentaries. I've discovered that even the 
common law doesn't really help that much. It seems like the 
common law has been divided into, well, I think it's been 
traversed. I call it, "the king's common law". And I think the 
last caller has a pretty good point. I studied Judaism a little 
bit, and it looks like, in the Jewish religion, that the mother 
is held up as the head of the family. And under the king's common 
law, the kind of like, you know, in the old days, about 
legitimizing a child and all that -- and it has a lot to do with 
today's "birth certificate". If you don't have a birth 
certificate, you lose... you know, you almost... You try to 
retain your rights to your child, but without the birth 
certificate you're in a paradox and you lose your rights to the 
And if you look into the law libraries, you can read about using 
the petition of *habeas corpus* to bring the child forth. And I 
think this is evidence that the Biblical common law was where the 
father was head of the family and, you know, as long as he obeyed 
God's law. And well, whoever, you know, really disobeyed the law 
of God was actually the one who should be, you know, punished or 
what have you. But the child should stay with the father as long 
as, you know, he obeyed...
Well the point that seems to be coming out of both of you is 
that, the traditions that are the glue of our society have been 
set down in Scripture for a long, long time -- both in the Old 
and the New Testaments. And if we stopped getting away from that, 
we wouldn't be doing so badly.
Yeah. I'm wondering if, when this type of "king's common law", as 
I call it, has been switched from Biblical common law over... I 
was wondering if it was when Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jewish 
people into England. I'm just theorizing.
That's a, that's a subject for another show some night. And there 
are a lot of people that go into that particular aspect of the 
control over the British-speaking [sic] people and the use of the 
Bible and so on.
Gene, I appreciate your call.
Dan, in Schenectady, New York!
Yes sir! Well I wanna say two things: one is, it's a privilege to 
be listening to you, Andrea, and hearing your commentary tonight. 
And Tom, we've been listening to you for a couple of years, and 
in the last year or so on shortwave. And it's good to hear you in 
this area.
First, I wanna say, number one, is the comments with regard to 
the laws passed and everything: I think the issue that many of us 
are concerned about is, a lot of times (in the dark of night, so 
to speak) laws are passed that nobody knows much about. And it 
really brings us to the question of localism. In not just, you 
know, laws, but in virtually controlling the community around us. 
A lot of the things that are mentioned in the law that Andrea 
raised, or I should say, that was passed, are probably more 
proper items for a local community. Because a lot of times it 
depends on that local community -- its mores, their social 
conditions, and what's involved. And a lot of times, we lose 
track of the fact that, you know, the whole, the whole issue of 
our Constitution, etc., invests a lot of power *downward*. From 
the federal level, down to the local communities.
Well Dan, that's what I've thought: that this doesn't belong in 
the federal government at all. And I'm out of time right now, and 
I really appreciate your calling. And I'll have Andrea comment on 
what you had to say, as soon as we get back.
I'm Tom Valentine. This is *Radio Free America*.
                   [...to be continued...]