Black Leaders Decry NAACP Endorsement of Homosexual Agenda

Alveda C. King is among the growing number of African-American leaders speaking out about President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. is joining black spiritual leaders in decrying the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP’s, move to give a nod to gay marriage in the United States.

The NAACP released a resolution on May 19 supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights group’s board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law.

In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act and, most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution’s to prohibit same sex marriage.

“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.

“Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda,” says King, founder of King for America and Pastoral Associate for Priests for Life.

“In the 21st century, the anti-traditional marriage community is in league with the anti-life community, and together with the NAACP and other sympathizers, they are seeking a world where homosexual marriage and abortion will supposedly set the captives free.”

Day Gardner, founder of the National Black Prolife Union, agrees. As she sees it, many black people are realizing just how far off the mark the NAACP is with regard to the real issues and the most important problems facing the black community. The NAACP organization, he says, was founded by blacks who had an understanding and strong faith in God. They were people—pastors and congregations who knew that the Bible—which is God's final word—was indeed very clear on the immorality and wages of homosexuality and abortion.

“It is appalling that this one time super hero 'civil rights' organization supports the breakdown of traditional marriage and the ruthless killing of our unborn children—as a civil right," Gardner says. “In its decision to please the world, the NAACP has turned its back on the things of God, therefore, we must encourage those who know the truth to speak out—to stand firmly on the solid rock—to not look to the right or to the left. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.'”

Stephen Broden, pastor of Fair Park Bible Fellowship in Dallas, notes that the black community is suffering from soaring unemployment, an extraordinarily high rate of abortions, a high-school drop-out rate among black teenagers that is breathtaking, an exploding rate of single parent households and the decimation of black families.

Yet, Broden says, the NAACP is making statements about same-sex marriage. “The NAACP has proven again to be an irrelevant organization as it relates to issues of survival for the black community,” says Broden who co-authored Life at All Costs with King and Gardner. The book addresses issues such as abortion and homosexuality.

Clenard Childress, founder of Blackgenocide.org, points out that the homosexual community is demanding that their lifestyle be legitimized and viewed by society as a lifestyle that is right. “We are subjected to the distasteful alignment of homosexuality with the 'Civil Rights Movement and with the argument that gay rights should be guaranteed under the Constitution,” he argues. “These two issues are incompatible."

And Levon Yuille, pastor of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti, Mich., and founder of The National Black Prolife Congress, says his community seems to have more churches than any other community in America, described as 'most religious,' “but by their vote support the most anti-Christian agenda in the history of this nation, including the abortion and homosexual agenda."

The issue of gay or homosexual marriage has divided the black community, with many religious leaders opposing it. In California, exit polls showed about 70 percent of blacks opposed same-sex marriage in 2008.

“As a person who values human life, I feel very troubled that the youngest of our communities are not guaranteed the opportunity to have their day in the sun,” Johnny Hunter, national director of Learn. “As I speak to churches over half the states in America and abroad, I have seen people weep as they are confronted with the horrors of this holocaust. Still, the destruction continues.”

via Jennifer LeClaire of Charisma News

Is Your 5-Year-Old Transgender? - Mona Charen

A 5-year-old child with large dark eyes, full lips and a button nose stares out from the front page of the Washington Post Sunday edition. "Transgender at Five" declares the provocative headline. The child's hair is being cut in a close boy's cut by her father.

We learn from the article that "Tyler," who was born "Kathryn," began insisting that she was a boy at the age of 2. "'I am a boy' became a constant theme in struggles over clothing, bathing, swimming, eating, playing, breathing." The child's parents, at first uneasy and later accepting of their girl's desire to be a boy, agreed to raise her as a boy. Starting at age 4, she began to wear boys' clothes, was permitted to choose a boy's name for herself, and has been introduced to family, friends, teachers, and congregants at church as a boy.

Oh, boy.

Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that something called "gender dysphoria" -- with which Tyler was diagnosed at age 4 -- does exist. Let's further agree, again for the sake of argument, that the proper treatment of this condition is choosing to live as the other sex, with all that such a radical decision implies. Is there any reasonable way to conclude that something as drastic as attempting to change one's sexual identity can be undertaken by a 4-year-old?

"Parents who ignore or deny these problems," warns the Post, "can make life miserable for their kids, who can become depressed or suicidal, psychiatrists say." How many psychiatrists? The very most that can be said is that the practice of treating children for what is sometimes called "gender identity disorder" is highly controversial in the psychiatric world. Some psychiatrists want to change the name to "gender incongruence" to remove the word "disorder." Others, such as Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, think the whole idea of treating children for this condition is unwise. "We shouldn't be mucking around with nature," he told Fox News. "We can't assume what the outcome will be."

Apparently, hormone blockers are being prescribed more and more for children with "GID." The hormones postpone puberty indefinitely and, the Post explains, "give the kids more time to decide who they are and whether switching genders is the answer to their problems." McHugh calls giving hormone blockers to children "child abuse." Some young people are having "gender reassignment" surgery as young as age 16.

Perhaps some tiny percentage of children truly is born feeling trapped in the body of a person of the wrong sex. But it is undeniable that the vast majority of children go through stages. I recall wishing to be a boy myself when I was about 5 or 6. I didn't like frilly dresses and asked my playmates to call me "Timmy." Perhaps mine was a normal tomboy phase and maybe that's distinguishable from what Tyler is experiencing. But how can we be sure? The Post quotes Dr. Edgardo Menvielle, of Washington's Children Hospital, who has been treating "transgender kids" for a decade. About 80 percent, he says, switch back to the gender they were born into by the time they reach adulthood.

The problem with the Post's recommended approach -- which amounts to "let's accept a child's version of reality to avoid causing depression or worse"-- is that the decision of parents to indulge a child's whim on gender identity is itself irreversible. The effects of hormone blockers, the Post reassures readers, are fully reversible. Maybe. How much research can there have been on such a new practice? Would parents who hesitate to let their kids eat preservatives or nonorganic eggs consent to block the complex hormones that begin to flood kids' bodies at puberty? In any case, the decision to dress a girl in boys' clothing, cut her hair, and call her a boy -- even if reversed later -- must, absolutely must, scramble a child's psyche. Imagine the confrontation between a teenaged girl who has changed her mind and the parents who raised her as a boy. "Did you not think I was pretty enough to be a girl? Wasn't I feminine enough?" Or perhaps even more damaging, a teenaged boy demanding to know whether his father thought him lacking in masculinity as a child. It's a psychological minefield.

We have the technology to make -- or at least appear to make -- women into men and vice versa. If adults choose to do this to themselves (and can afford it), that's their business. But a child? One wonders: What other major life decisions should 4-year-olds be judged competent to make?

via Townhall

Why Gay Is Not The New Black - Michael Brown

Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?

There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early Civil Rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.

1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?

Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.

Also, skin color cannot be hidden, whereas a person’s sexual orientation is, generally speaking, not outwardly recognizable (unless it is willfully displayed). Put another way, blacks do not have to “come out,” since their identity is self-evident, whereas gays and lesbians have to come out (or act out) for their identity to be clearly known.

2. The very real hardships endured by many gays and lesbians cannot fairly be compared with the monstrous suffering endured by African Americans. Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”

Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions, not to mention the fact that in many cities in America, even the lynching of blacks was accepted. Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?

3. Skin color is innate and immutable; sexual orientation is not. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no reputable scientific evidence that people are born gay or lesbian. Even the unabashedly pro-gay American Psychiatric Association stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” As expressed bluntly by lesbian author Camille Paglia, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”

John D’Emilio, a gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, wrote, “What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

Also contrary to popular opinion, there are former homosexuals; there are no former blacks (despite the best efforts of the late Michael Jackson). This also underscores the fact that skin color cannot be compared to behavior, since even someone who remains same-sex attracted can modify his or her sexual behavior. A black person cannot modify his or her blackness.

Stated another way, genetics determine skin color, not behavior. Otherwise, if genetics unalterably predetermined behavior, then someone with a so-called violent gene could tell the judge, “My genes made me do it!” (For more on this important subject, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black” in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

4. Removing the unjust laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) did not require a fundamental redefinition of marriage and family; legalizing same-sex “marriage” does. Marriage between a black person and a white person always included the two essential elements of marriage, namely a man and a woman (as opposed to just two people), and as a general rule, interracial marriage could naturally produce children and then provide those children with a mother and father. In contrast, same-sex “marriage” cannot produce children naturally and can never provide children with both a mother and father. (Another newsflash: Two dads or two moms do not equal a mom and a dad.)

Removing the laws of miscegenation simply required the removal of anti-black bigotry (since a white man could marry a Native American woman but not a black woman), whereas legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage (opening the door to polyamorists, polygamists, and advocates of incestuous “marriages,” who are already mounting their legal and social arguments) and the normalizing of homosexuality (beginning with elementary school education), among other things.

That’s why many black Americans are rightly upset with the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by gay activists.

Michael Brown
via Townhall

Born In Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii?

No birthers here at the Triangle, but apparently Pres. Obama's literary agent forgot to take down that old, tired, "multi-culti" bio that was on the web from the early nineties until 2007! 

God bless the guys over at Breitbart for finding this one. 

P.S. - I know it's a week old, but it so hilarious! Just wanted this pic here to show people after November! 

Here's your choice for 2012: Bain or Bane! (cartoon)