Noted Psychologist Abdullah Johnson Explains Why So Many Black Kids Are “Turning Gay”

BlackNews.com:

It’s not a new video. It was actually recorded and posted on YouTube about this time last year. But the video has resurfaced and is going viral again. Some love it, some hate it. In the video, Dr. Umar Abdullah Johnson, a nationally certified psychologist and child therapist, explains why so many Black kids are turning gay. 

During his discussion, Abdullah Johnson says that mothers actually “psychologically castrate” their sons and then wonder why they turn gay later on.

He also presents concerns and solutions towards ending ‘Fatherlessness’ and ‘Motherlessness’ – problems that affect communities of people of African descent. This is a focused section from a longer video in which the presenter deals with problems affecting children of African descent in American schools as well as he does questions and answers towards the information he presents.

RELATED: Yes, I Blame White Liberals

Will Blacks in North Carolina, and Elsewhere, Continue to Buy the Liberal Line?

Townhall.com:

Republicans need to pick up six seats in November to gain control of the Senate. 

Consensus to date points to good prospects of this happening. 

But one state where the picture remains unclear for Republicans is North Carolina. Republican challenger, speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Thom Tillis, has failed to pull ahead of Democrat incumbent Senator Kay Hagan and average of latest polling shows him behind 3 to 4 points.

Mitt Romney won North Carolina in 2012 by three points. In the last ten presidential elections, Republicans prevailed in North Carolina eight times.

North Carolina is anything but a boilerplate blue state. And the Hagan-Tillis face-off is as pure liberal vs. conservative as you can get.

Tillis is an experienced legislator and solid conservative. 

So what’s the problem?

One issue is the volatile black vote. Not volatile as to their consistency to vote for Democrats but whether or not they show up to vote.

North Carolina, with a population that is 22 percent black, is a laboratory this November for whether the Republican challenger can successfully point to the dismal record of the Democrat incumbent regarding black progress and convince black voters that they should not vote for more of the same.

The big question in states like North Carolina, and with black voters nationwide, is how long will blacks continue to buy what they have been sold for years by liberals.

Hagan’s story line for black voters is the same as what liberals always tell blacks.

Don’t vote for the conservative because the conservative wants to cut government money. And don’t vote for the conservative because the conservative is “for rich people”, and “they’re racist”, and they, as Joe Biden said, “want to put you back in chains’.”

But will these voters really believe that the black poverty rate in North Carolina stands at 34 percent, versus 13 percent among whites, because taxes are not high enough or because government spending is not expansive enough? 

Or that the graduation rate of black males in North Carolina is, according the Schott Foundation, just 58 percent, because government is not spending enough on public schools?

Maybe blacks will finally grasp that government spending really benefits the political class and not the lower class.

RELATED: Lefty Rock Critic: Killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown Result of ‘Hatred’ for Obama

Adam Carolla: Liberals Have Turned Conservatism into a Pejorative

Mediaite.com:

Liberals have taken over the word “conservative” and turned it into a pejorative, says comedian and radio host Adam Carolla.

In the latest episode of The Adam & Dr. Drew Show, Carolla fielded a caller’s question about how, in the past year, it seems as though the actor has had much more to say about politics than in years past.

“It’s not a political stance; it’s a life stance,” Carolla said. “I understand how life works. You know why? I’ve done it.” He added: “I know that the path to success is a bunch of hard work and that is about it. And we can all get to that or we can call me whatever you want to call me.”

However, the comedian claimed that such views have now been branded a certain way (Transcript via RCP):

It’s bizarre and that’s what we have turned it into. But also, it’s the left turning conservatism into a pejorative, number one. Being conservative didn’t used to be a pejorative in any stretch of the imagination. Being a conservative with your money was being prudent. Being conservative as it pertains to work or investments or even at the poker table it was sort of prudent. Conservative meant prudent; it was not a pejorative.

The left has taken over the word conservative and turned it into a pejorative. So it’s like, “Oh, you’re a conservative?” They’ve done a wonderful smear campaign.

“Oh, are you a conservative?” “Yes, I’m a conservative.” “Oh, great. You hate women. You hate blacks. You hate all cultures. You love people’s money. You hate poor people.”

“No, no. I just want to focus on education. I want to focus on hard work. I want to focus on being motivated and getting ahead in a country that made for that ethic…”

Now, it’s weird that I can be conservative and never talk about religion. Because conservatives are a bunch of Bible-thumping, you know, brainwashed, you know, they believe the earth is 1,000 years old. How come I’m not religious? I’m an atheist. See, they just pick and choose whatever they want.

RELATED:  Progressives are quicker to seize on the political opportunities created by a changing culture

The "Heartland" Canard: Smearing Republicans On Immigration

NationalReview.com:

The heartlessness and nativist pandering that have broken America’s immigration system must give way to providing proper food, clothing, shelter and medical care to the Central American children streaming into the country.” So pronounced the editors of the New York Daily News. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne echoed the theme in his “Bordering on Heartless” column, noting that Glenn Beck has “come under fierce attack” for his proposal to bring food, water, teddy bears, and soccer balls to the children stuck at the border. “It’s one more sign,” Dionne writes, “of how the crisis at our border has brought out the very worst in our political system and a degree of plain nastiness that we should not be proud of as a nation.”

Charges of Republican or conservative heartlessness about the children flooding the border have been common. Some journalists seemingly cannot type the word “Republican” without the modifier “heartless.” But where is the evidence of this supposed callousness and why is it any greater among Republicans than Democrats?

The flag-waving protesters who confronted buses of children in Murietta, Calif., were unseemly. Whatever the merits of arguments over illegal immigration, children are clearly helpless pawns in the drama and should not be subjected to protests about actions over which they have no control.

But other than the protesters in Murietta — and no one has polled them to discover their political views, though it’s likely that they’re conservatives — by what standard are Republicans held to be heartless while Democrats are not?

Is it by arguing that the new illegal migrants be denied legal status? Jeh Johnson, the Obama administration’s secretary of Homeland Security, said just that. “Those who cross borders today illegally, including children, are not eligible for an earned path to citizenship.”

One can make a case that those Democrats who virtually invited a flood of underage migrants to our shores are more culpable for the humanitarian emergency than those who simply reacted once it was underway. The president’s unilateral granting of legal status to the children of illegal immigrants together with the 2008 law providing special treatment for children thought to be victims of trafficking sent a signal that was received and then amplified throughout Central America. The Department of Homeland Security seemed to know in advance that the deluge was coming: In January of 2014, it advertised for contractors to help with the “resettlement” of up to 65,000 underage migrants. Texas governor Rick Perry says that he warned the administration about the influx but got the impression that “they weren’t that interested.”

Or perhaps the president anticipated the flood but miscalculated its political effects, just as he misjudged the way the Bowe Bergdahl swap would be received. He may have thought that thousands of children crossing our borders would pressure Congress to pass the kind of immigration reform he favors. When it turned out differently, he resorted to partisan sniping. No crisis will “go to waste” — including those he creates himself.

This president engages in schoolyard taunts, calling Republican budget proposals, for example, a “meanwich” and a “stinkburger.” It’s hard to be a leader of all the people when you never rise above partisan hackery.

E. J. Dionne, like the president, thinks Republicans are cruel, but as he acknowledged, unless you are prepared to permit unlimited immigration, you must make “agonizing choices about whom to let in and whom to turn away.” Yes, the circumstances from which these unaccompanied children fled are terrible. But so are the home situations for many of the 4.5 million people worldwide currently waiting, legally, for visas to enter the United States. And while Central America is poor, corrupt, and crime-ridden, it cannot be the case that those conditions alone guarantee entry into the U.S. Most countries on earth meet those criteria.

Second to the human suffering, the most dismaying aspect of this border situation is that — unlike, say, the mortgage-finance issue — it’s a relatively straightforward problem. Congress could repeal the Wilberforce Act and provide funding for housing, feeding, and deporting the children who’ve crossed the border in the past several months. Private organizations could contribute time and money toward making the children comfortable and arranging for their safe return. The president could state unequivocally (with special messages targeted at Central America) that illegal migrants who arrive at our borders will be treated humanely but deported.

This won’t happen not because Republicans are meanies, but because the president’s unremitting partisanship and small-mindedness have left him unable to do even the easy things.

RELATED:  D’Souza: Obama Wants Border Chaos, Can ‘Prey’ on the American People’s Guilt

How The Trans-Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everyone

TheFederalist.com:

Did you think only women get pregnant? Or only women get abortions? Planned Parenthood and NARAL—ironically both pro-abortion organizations that self-identify as champions of women’s rights—may soon be trying to change your mind about that.

One signal comes from a little petition drive that goes by #protransprochoice. It urges both Planned Parenthood and NARAL to adopt language more “inclusive” of transgender persons and to acknowledge “gender-non-conforming” people. Both pro-abortion organizations, which have been longtime supporters of the LGBT lobby, tweeted back supportive replies.

So what does this mean and why should we care?

Well, maybe Exhibit A should be Oprah Winfrey introducing us to “the first pregnant man” in 2008. This would be a woman named Tracey who “transitioned” to being Thomas by having a double mastectomy with a dose of hormones to produce facial hair and such. Thomas thought it would be nice to have a baby someday, and so decided to keep “his” vagina, uterus, and ovaries intact. But for some reason, even though Thomas was legally documented as male, she (oops!) needed a sperm donation. (Life isn’t fair.) In any event, when pregnant, Thomas was happy to pose nude (mostly, anyway) for the camera.

Thomas has since had two more children and in 2012 decided to undergo surgery for a more complete transition to a male bodily appearance. She now lectures on “trans fertility and reproductive rights.” Most do not understand what a seismic shift in language is being pushed here. In this scheme of things, using the pronoun “she” to refer to a person who goes through pregnancy and gives birth to a child is grounds for punishment.

So what does it all mean? At root, this isn’t really about people like Thomas. It’s mostly about everybody else. It’s all about changing you and your self-concept. As fringy as they may sound, injecting such lies into our language—“the pregnant man” and the push to separate the word “pregnancy” from the word “woman”—are clear signals that we are moving steadily towards erasing all gender distinctions in the law.

And why should we care? Because erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human. A new legal definition of human—as neither male nor female—would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere “social constructs.”

We should especially care because we are well on the way to enacting such laws already. In November, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The law is based on the assumption that one’s perceived “gender identity” does not always “match” your sex “assigned” or “designated” at birth. So, the thinking goes, the law should allow a more ambiguous array of gender identities: male, female, both, neither, or something else entirely. It’s not an overstatement to say that ENDA is a huge step, mostly under the radar, to codify a new definition of humanity.

In the Senate, every Democrat and ten Republicans voted for ENDA: Senators Ayotte, Collins, Flake, Hatch, Heller, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey. So all that remains is for the House of Representatives to take up ENDA (which hasn’t happened just yet) and follow suit.

RELATED:  Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights

"Establishment" GOP Takes Tougher Stance Towards Tea Party

When it comes to winning the job on dividing and conquering Republicans, liberals must laugh till they sleep:

That 2014 has been the year that the establishment struck back — preparing and financing its candidates with a new determination and focus — is evident in its success.

That may prove to have been the easy part. Republicans on both sides of the internal divide are now looking at the impact the primary season will have on politics and governance as the party seeks to build on its House majority and take control of the Senate this year and win back the White House in 2016.

Emboldened by their success, establishment Republicans are using tough language about the party’s more conservative groups. They are suggesting that the federal government shutdown last fall — led by hard-liners like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas — and this year’s primary results have staggered the organizations claiming the Tea Party mantle.

“This is a bunch of out-of-state political gunslingers who have crowned themselves as the leaders of Tea Party Republicanism and are raising money in the name of a more conservative party and spending it all attacking Republicans,” former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi said in an interview at the meeting here.

“If in 2016 we don’t have these people raising millions of Republican dollars and using it to attack Republicans, then we’ll be stronger against the Democrats for president and for keeping the House and for hopefully keeping the Senate,” said Mr. Barbour, who was one of the few speakers at the meeting to urge party unity.

The most significant effect of the party turnabout could take place well before 2016, though. If Republicans now in office conclude that Tea Party pressure is no longer a political threat, they may be more willing to face down the right on issues like an overhaul of immigration laws.

“If the threats are toothless, then the scorecards are meaningless,” said Mr. Barbour, referring to the closely watched voter guides issued by many conservative groups.

Scott Reed, a political strategist for the newly aggressive U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such ratings now amount to “hollow threats” and that the success of the party’s mainstream wing would give Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio some room to maneuver in the House.

“If Speaker Boehner increases his margins, he’ll have a more manageable caucus, and governing will be back front and center,” Mr. Reed said.

RELATED: Dr. Ben Carson Has Some Advice for Conservatives: ‘We Can Be Purists and Never Get Into Office, or We Can Be Pragmatic’

How Godless Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments

WND.com:

One of my readers, we’ll call him Moses, is the publisher of a mainstream newspaper in California. He wrote me the other day with an insightful observation. Since Moses works in one of the most liberal industries, in one of the most liberal states in the union, I won’t divulge his real name. We don’t want Moses tarred, feathered and banished to Oklahoma with a scarlet “C,” for Christian, emblazoned on his Harris Tweed sport coat. (Note: I have antipathy toward neither Oklahoma – I once lived there – nor Harris Tweed, though I do recommend against wearing Harris Tweed in Oklahoma. Especially in the summer.)

“Matt, think about this,” wrote Moses. “Every one of the Ten Commandments is explicitly violated by a principle of the left.”

So I thought about it.

And you know what? Slap me with a Red River catfish if Moses ain’t exactly right.

To be sure, as individuals, we’ve all violated many, if not most or all, of the 10 Commandments. In our fallen, sinful state we have an inherent propensity to rebel against God’s perfect and holy will for our lives. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Thank God for making available a path, narrow as it is, for eternal redemption and salvation through Christ Jesus.

Still, there is a difference between individual sins and a philosophical worldview that embraces those sins as a matter of course. Modern liberalism – “progressivism,” leftism, secularism, pick your poison – is built upon, by and for sin itself. Liberalism’s entire fabric is constructed by precept planks that are soaked through and stained by man’s arrogant rebellion against our Creator God.

In sum, liberalism is folly. It represents man’s futile attempt to disorder God’s natural order. It’s the unholy brainchild of God’s very first enemy, given by that enemy to God’s favored creation, us, with the sole purpose of destroying that creation.

Unfortunately, we’re all too happy to help. Liberalism just formalizes the process, making sin public policy.
Volumes could be penned on the myriad ways in which the central tenets of liberalism violate each of the Ten Commandments. The following is a much truncated analysis:

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17):

1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.

At worst, liberalism denies the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, it adopts that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberal “Christianity” falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp.

Secular humanism, liberalism’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images.

We’re talking idolatry here. Liberalism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry (the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects) enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc.
Essentially, liberalism worships the created over the Creator. Liberalism also worships the sins of the flesh (see Commandments No. 1, 6 and 7).

3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain.

To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain. Liberalism does this and much more. Many liberals also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. They hate truth.

4. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.

This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law – the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a holy significance.

5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.

Liberalism seeks to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “gay marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these cornerstone institutions.

6. Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Abortion, euthanasia, “pro-choice,” “reproductive rights,” “death with dignity.” Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the liberal rite of passage for a feminist mother to slaughter her own child in the womb. Fifty-five million dead babies later, liberals continue to worship at the pagan altar of “choice” (see Commandments No. 1 and 2).

7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include marital infidelity, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, et al. Liberalism, it seems, embraces all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. Central to liberalism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, you can do no wrong because there is no wrong.

8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.

With class warfare as its fuel, liberalism embraces the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Liberalism thrives on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, liberal government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring liberal politicians remain in power.

9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals: “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.” As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Liberals lie. That’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of liberalism is par for the course.

10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.

Again, liberalism uses man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all liberal economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives liberal government the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only does liberalism violate this commandment, liberalism commands its adherents to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.”

As Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so, too, does liberalism masquerade as good. It’s deceptively packaged in flowery euphemisms and feel-good sound bites that promise “equality,” “tolerance” and libertine notions of “social justice.”

RELATED: Santorum: Obama Wants a ‘Godless’ Society

Bill O’Reilly: Minorities Should Be ‘Furious’ Liberals Are Using Them to Stifle Dissent

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly opened his show Friday night with a rant against politically correct liberals who exploit minority outrage in order to fuel their agenda and stifle any sort of dissent, especially on the right, from anyone who dares waver from the politically correct norm.

O’Reilly cited the YMCA school ban, the “hump day” camel ban, and people like Al Sharpton attacking him for his infamous “mf-ing iced tea” comment as examples of this “politically correct madness.” He argued it’s actually dangerous for free speech because this “wipes out dissent” and gives liberals “a point of attack” from which to accuse conservatives of being insensitive bigots.

He said, “The left attacks, attacks, attacks, using minorities as a flashpoint. If I were a minority, I would be furious about it.”

RELATED:  Do Liberals Use Black People as Pawns?