Could the Jig Finally Be Up for Huma Abedin?

A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's chief assistant. This follows this post about fake "hate crimes." This follows this post about Muslims refugee resettlement in the U.S., such as in Idaho. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
You can follow me here.

Robert Spencer, FrontPage: Could the Jig Finally Be Up for Huma Abedin?

\ By Robert Spencer 56 Comments

In FrontPage this morning I explain why the current mini-controversy over Huma Abedin bespeaks a much larger problem with America’s contemporary political culture.

They got Al Capone for tax evasion, and they may get Huma Abedin for “violating rules regarding vacation and sick leave” and for the “possible exchange of unsecured, classified data.” To be sure, these are serious charges, and the available evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is ample warrant to investigate and perhaps even charge Abedin. However, it is a sign of a serious problem with today’s political culture that even more serious allegations regarding Abedin have never been investigated, and almost certainly never will be.

Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood connections have been fully exposed by Andrew McCarthy and bruited about for years. The facts are quite public, albeit largely ignored: Abedin’s parents are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but her links to the organization are not just familial. Abedin was for twelve years the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), which was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Muslim Brotherhood operative and al-Qaeda financier. Naseef and Abedin both appeared on the JMMA’s masthead from 1996 to 2003.

Consider that Abedin worked closely for seven years with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who financed al-Qaeda in light of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy during the years that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Everyone acknowledges that Abedin and Clinton are extremely close, and that Abedin controls access to Clinton and has tremendous influence over her. Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department was distinguished by the remarkable sight of Egyptian anti-Muslim Brotherhood protestors holding signs denouncing the President of the United States for supporting terrorism, and by the Benghazi debacle, when the Secretary of State sat back and did nothing as jihad terrorists murdered four Americans, including an ambassador.

Then there was the Benghazi cover-up, during which Clinton vowed to have a man who made a video criticizing Muhammad arrested and imprisoned for supposedly provoking the riots, thereby placing herself firmly in opposition to the freedom of speech and aligning herself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to compel Western governments to criminalize criticism of Islam (under the guise of “incitement to religious hatred”).

Is it at all possible that Huma Abedin, whose parents were active in the Brotherhood and who worked for twelve years for a journal closely linked to the Brotherhood, had anything to do with the pro-Muslim Brotherhood orientation of the Obama/Clinton State Department? In today’s poisonous political culture, it isn’t possible even to ask the question without incurring charges of “Islamophobia” – as we saw in 2012, when Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had the temerity to call for an investigation of possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government.

Bachmann explained: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.” And that was to say nothing about Abedin’s association with Naseef and work with the JMMA.

Now that Abedin is suspected of mishandling classified material, Bachmann’s questions about Abedin’s security clearance are piquant in retrospect. But when she first raised them, Bachmann was ridiculed and vilified, even earning a denunciation from John McCain: “These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.”

It was actually about more than just Abedin’s family, and a perfectly sound case could be made, in light of Obama’s foreign policy disasters, that Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood links possibly did harm and threaten the United States. But Bachmann’s name was dragged through the mud in 2012 for talking about all this, and now none of the new allegations against Abedin raise any issue with her possible Muslim Brotherhood connections.

That few people care about those connections, and that those who do are dismissed as “far-Right bigots,” shows how myopic and foolish our contemporary political culture is. If Huma Abedin had a hand in the pro-Muslim Brotherhood tilt of the Obama/Clinton State Department, that would be a far graver offense than anything she is accused of now, just as old Capone was guilty of far greater crimes than tax evasion. But on the other hand, those tax evasion charges ended Capone’s operations for good, and so if Hillary’s infamous email server does the same to Huma Abedin, no one who values America’s historic role as leader of the free world will have any reason to complain.

America’s Most Influential Woman Wants You to Know How Her Vagina Looks

A timely post about from www.debbieschlussel.com about two of the most famous women in America. This follows this post about Rhianna performing in a Muslim country. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

America’s Most Influential Woman Wants You to Know How Her Vagina Looks


By Debbie Schlussel



Sadly, this Skank-in-Chief is America’s most influential woman (and probably most admired), and she got there because she made a porno film. Just remember, as you watch the video, below, of her telling America about the state of her vagina, that faux-conservative Sean Hannity told this whore (and America) that she is a “role model” for girls, “gutsy,” and that she has a “great head on your shoulders.” Riiiight.   In related news, America’s second most influential woman, the U.S.’ Vice Skank, wants you to know that she’s really into “porno pumpkins” carved to depict naked couples in sex acts, including lesbians. Oh, and by the way, Sean Hannity calls her dad a “Great American."   I’m not sure how America survived this long, but don’t look for it to last much longer. G-d save this sinking nation.

Disney VP: New Princess Character Needs No Prince – “We’re Undoing That Damage”; Single Mom, Multi-Culti Character

A very interesting book from www.debbieschlussel.com  about the new Disney Character called Sofia the First. This follows this post about Target's clothing line.  In the meantime, you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Disney VP: New Princess Character Needs No Prince – “We’re Undoing That Damage”; Single Mom, Multi-Culti Character


By Debbie Schlussel



Disney’s new Princess, “Sofia,” is completely politically correct. Her mother is a single mom, she doesn’t need a prince, and her family is “multi-cultural.” The only things missing are mosque worship and a vegan lesbian illegal alien sister seeking tranny surgery before her upcoming gay marriage to Janet Napolitano and artificial insemination with the sperm of rapper Ludacris. But don’t worry. I’m sure that’s coming. With this week’s death of Annette Funicello comes the death of the wholesomeness and traditional family values that used to come with the Disney name. Disney Senior Vice President of Original Programming and General Manager of Disney Junior Worldwide, Nancy Kanter, said the new Disney character, “Sofia the First,” doesn’t won’t need a prince to save her because, “We’re undoing all that damage.”



Disney Veep Nancy Kanter: “We’re Undoing All That Damage” of Needing a Man



Uh-huh, lets train America’s 2-5 year olds, among whom “Sofia the First” is this year’s most watched cable series that single mothers and not needing a man is the way to go. Because that’s working so well in this world we live in right? No reason to promote the traditions that have kept Western civilization alive. Time for Disney to promote what tears the West down.



By the way, take a look at Nancy Kanter in the photo above. Butch haircut . . . check. Sensible shoes . . . probably check. WNBA All-Star Game tickets . . . probably check, check, check. Just sayin’. You know this has everything to do with her referring to masculine men in Disney stories as “all that damage.”



“We knew we didn’t want it to be a young woman looking for a man,” says Nancy Kanter, senior vice president of original programming and general manager of Disney Junior Worldwide. “Sofia the First” was introduced to children last November when Disney Channel and Disney Junior aired a heavily promoted 45-minute pilot. Then a weekly animated program began to run on Disney Junior on Jan. 11. The show is this year’s most-watched cable series among children 2 to 5, according to Nielsen Holdings data. . . .




The cable show focuses on a plucky girl who lives in a village in the kingdom of Enchancia with her mother, Miranda. Miranda is an unmarried shoe-cobbler who meets and marries Enchancia’s King Roland. . . . With Sofia, Disney aims to avoid the stereotype of girls needing a prince to save them . . . . “We’re undoing all that damage,” Ms. Kanter says. “Everyone is aware of the ‘princess luggage,’ ” says Bobette Buster, a story consultant hired by Disney to help with “Sofia.” . . .



While Sofia represents a departure from the likes of Ariel, the little mermaid willing to trade her voice to be reunited with a man she met once, she’s still a Disney princess. She’s pretty, she lives in a castle and she wears gowns. . . . Craig Gerber, Sofia’s creator and the show’s executive producer, says he imagined Sofia as the child of a single mother because doing so offered an easy way to explore themes of adaptation and a family situation that resonates with many kids. He also plans to nod at multicultural family dynamics: Miranda wasn’t born in Enchancia and is, he says, “of mixed fairy-tale heritage.”



Ah, the charm of multi-culti mixed fairy-tale heritage . . . but only after sperm via turkey baster, since, after all, no princes and “all that damage” are needed.



Say what you want about Walt Disney (including his fascination with Hitler associates and that he hated Da Jooos, to which even his own namesake museum admits). He was devoted to presenting a clean, wholesome, traditional set of values to American kids, and for that he should be appreciated. Heck, he even required that Annette Funicello not wear bikinis (or any two-piece swimsuits) in the beach movies in which she appeared.



But fast forward a few decades and his descendants are supporting Palestinian terrorists against Israel (so maybe that’s coming full circle to his views), and his namesake company is promoting single motherhood, blind multi-culturalism, and the total dissing of men.



And you wonder why America is a dying nation.

SMBC and Disposable Fathers

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about single mothers. This follows this post about atheism in Britain.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

SMBC and Disposable Fathers






article by Cecil Maranville





Family structure is constantly changing. We cannot afford to assume that different is better. Tampering with God's design will bring catastrophic results.



US Airways, a major air carrier, ran a contest this year inviting children to write an essay about their father or their "father figure." Such is the time in which we live. "Father figures" who replace the real McCoy are within the boundaries of "normal" life.



"SMBC" is another reality that would have been considered an oddity not long ago. Do you know what it represents? It stands for four words that define a current trend in Western society—"Single Mother By Choice." This defiant moniker stands in stark contrast to the idea of a Father's Day, a day set aside to honor dads.



Among today's trendsetters are several prominent female entertainers who have chosen to have children without the presence of a father. One of these, actress Camryn Manheim, explained in a recent interview that she plans to provide everything her child needs, including "male stimulus" from family members and friends. She much preferred that arrangement, she said, to having to "seek the approval" of a spouse for such typically shared decisions as naming the children.



Can occasional contact with any male actually replace what a father gives to his son or daughter? Are fathers so disposable?



"How on earth will Ms. Manheim teach her son to be a good father when she has made such a mockery of the concept?" asked columnist Michelle Malkin. "'Go ask your male stimulant' seems a criminally inadequate response." The title of Malkin's stinging editorial was "'Male Stimulant's Day?" (Creators Syndicate, Inc., June 13, 2001). It's worth your time to read it.



Ms. Malkin makes a good point-children learn to parent best through the example of their parents. Take the normal father out of the picture, as has happened much in this generation, and the future generation of males is doomed to struggle with its identity and role. (We have to add "normal," because the character and behavior of some fathers makes them a terrible example and influence on their children.)



Another actress, Calista Flockhart of Ally McBeal fame, adopted a baby recently. She doesn't mind the idea of having a husband, she told The New York Post , but "meanwhile, the baby is all I really want."



Of course, there are many more reasons that fathers are absent from their families than the SMBC ilk; but for the purpose of this article, we'll look at those homes where fathers would be found, if wanted. Whatever the reasons, currently more than one third of children in the United States live apart from their biological fathers. Of those children, 40 percent have not seen their fathers in at least a year.



Aren't the children better off with just a mother, who after all is a better nurturer? Don't be too sure.



A surprising study



A California psychologist has just released a book that shows how effective a father is at nurturing his children on his own. Wayne Farrell's research revealed that both sons and daughters would fare better under the care of a single father than they would under the care of a single mother.



Better? How so?



In Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love , Farrell reported that single fathers make better disciplinarians and exercise self-control more effectively than single mothers. Single mothers more commonly "lose it" and strike their children in uncontrolled anger. Farrell says that single moms are 24 times as likely to kill their children as are single fathers—a gruesome topic and statistic.



Further, children of single dads do better in every academic discipline, with math and science at the top of the list. They miss fewer days of school due to sickness and are also socially healthier than their counterparts who live only with mom.



Does this mean that men are better nurturers than women? It is more likely that the statistics reflect the type of men who seek primary custody of their children. However, the research disproves a too-widely accepted modern myth, that children are "better off without dad" in their lives.



Columnist Maggie Gallagher featured Becky Peck in a recent article on single mothers. Ms. Peck was considered avant-garde for her time by having a baby through anonymous sperm donation in the early '80s. She is the consummate SMBC. In spite of all the love and material provisions Ms. Peck gave her child, a fatherless household wasn't enough. By the mid-teen years, the child wanted—needed—to know its father. Just carrying his DNA wasn't enough.



The debate will probably continue, and statistical cannons will be rolled out to shoot figures back and forth. But it isn't a petty battle over who could do a better job rearing the children, mother or father. SFBC-Single Father By Choice-isn't an improvement over SMBC.



Dr. Farrell's book shows the need for two-parent homes. He ranks family structures according to how they best serve the interest of the children. Out of four rankings, a home with primarily the mother present-including the silly and selfish SMBC-is dead last.



A home with a father as the primary parent is only slightly better.



There's a difference between a home in which a father excludes the mother from her children and the family structure Farrell calls shared parent-time, which he ranks as healthier. In this structure, the primary parent invites and encourages the other parent to be involved with his or her children, in spite of divorce.



And single fathers are more likely to include their children's mother in their lives than single mothers are, according to Farrell.



But the healthiest home, the best environment for rearing children, is what he calls "the intact family," a home in which children live with their father and mother.



All the "modern" reasoning aside, what's best for the children is the way the Creator structured a home from the beginning. Children are the losers when mothers or fathers try to compete with the other by becoming a SPBC-Single Parent By Choice.



Bringing up children not a competitive sport



Rearing children is not a competitive sport, a field of contest in which one parent is proven superior to another.



President George W. Bush appropriately observed: "A child's greatest source of security today is not only knowing, 'my mom loves me' and 'my dad loves me,' but also that Mom and Dad love each other. If we're serious about renewing fatherhood, we must be serious about renewing marriage" ("Fatherlessness a Problem for Kids, Not Mothers," by Maggie Gallagher, June 12, 2001, Universal Press Syndicate).



Does the SMBC crowd stop to consider the wording of the Fifth Commandment, "Honor your father and mother"? The apostle Paul noted further that it was "the first commandment with promise," and quoted, "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6:2-3 [2] Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;

[3] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.





See All...).



The Fifth Commandment promises well-being to more than just a child who honors his or her parents. We are so used to thinking in terms of the individual that we may fail to perceive that this special commandment looks beyond the individual to the entire human family. Revealed within this promise is a formula of success for generations to come. The pledge isn't necessarily of long life for every child who heeds and applies the law.



Rather, it guarantees that mankind itself would be preserved.



Addressed to more than children, the law calls on men and women to create and rear families in the context of marriage.



More at stake than most could imagine



God's law says children need their fathers. Women who choose to have a family without a father have their own interests at heart, not their children's. Worse, they sacrifice the best interest of the entire human family—not just that of their offspring.



Malachi was inspired with an appeal from God similar to what was later recorded in Ephesians: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:4-6 [4] Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

[5] Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

[6] And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.





See All..., NIV).



In the present context of those who are SMBC, the wording of this prophecy is strikingly appropriate-"turn...the hearts of the children to their fathers." The intent of the Hebrew, however, is to imply that parents turn their hearts to their children and vice versa. Several translations of the Bible have the word parents. Both the SMBC and the SFBC are selfish.



More must be said about Malachi's prophecy, for the English word curse inaccurately tempers the actual meaning. The Hebrew word from which it's translated conveys a much broader and more serious warning. The word and the root from which it's taken imply utter destruction.



What would be destroyed? Written to the remnant of Israel that still occupied the Promised Land, their homeland is the immediate focus of the warning. However, the prophecy is clearly about an end-time setting, a time in which God concerns Himself with the entire earth, not just a limited territory in the Middle East.



The full impact of the warning is that God would be forced to scrap His plans and hopes for mankind if it abandons the family structure. Some people attempt to spiritualize the prophecy, ascribing the sense that people (children of God) must return to their (heavenly) Father. Clearly, though, the Father doesn't need to be admonished to turn His heart to His children! So, the warning is to physical parents about physical families.



We assume that most readers of World News and Prophec y are dedicated to the biblical ideal. Nonetheless, we realize that we are all influenced by the society in which we live, that fathers are discouraged by the growing whim that families are better off without them and that women are encouraged to choose a family structure that will only hurt all concerned.



The United States took a census in 2000. The previous census showed that 55 percent of the population lived in married couple households. Last year's count showed the figure has dropped to only a little over half, 51 percent. At the same time, single-parent households have jumped to 7.5 million, a 25 percent increase .



How are American children faring in the evolving family structure, as their parents indulge their selfish whims? Today 30 percent of U.S. children do not live with two parents—even stepparents, much less their mother and father.



The United Church of God is dedicated to the spirit of Elijah, seeking to have our fathers' and children's hearts turned toward each other. It's also our desire to bring this urgent, double-edged message of warning and promise to all who have ears to hear. WNP

.

From media darling to pariah

A very interesting book review from www.UCG.org  about being politically incorrect in the news. This follows this post about slanted news reporting. This follows this post about Bias in news coverage. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE.

From media darling to pariah


A revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.



Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In it she explains that "what began so many years ago as a noble cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's people . . . who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive' point of view . . .



"There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group" (2001, p. 4).



The result is that "the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired [or] sued . . . Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down" (ibid., pp. 2-3).

Memo Misread: Elena Kagan Did Not Tell Clinton to Back Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Elena Kagan's abortion views. This follows this previous post about the Supreme Court nominee. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Memo Misread: Elena Kagan Did Not Tell Clinton to Back Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- To hear mainstream media outlets like the Associated Press and Washington Post tell the story, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once urged President Bill Clinton to back a ban on partial-birth or late-term abortions. The take from the stories is that Kagan's rock solid pro-abortion views aren't that strong.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Post indicates "activists on both the left and the right seek to better understand how the solicitor general might rule on a right to privacy [read: unlimited abortion] if she is confirmed to the court."
"The answer to that question got a little bit clearer late Monday afternoon as the Associated Press reported on what it said was a 1997 memorandum authored by Kagan during the time she advised then-President Bill Clinton," the newspaper continued.
AP reports on a May 13, 1997 memo that the Post claims was a "compromise ban on late-term abortions: put forward by pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle.
"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, wrote in the memo.
The Post responds that the "revelation may help to mute right-wing groups who often use support for abortion rights as a way of attacking a nominee." Yet, the opposite is more likely when the full case is presented.
The Daschle measure was an attempt to draw attention from the partial-birth abortion ban that the Senate eventually approved on a 64-36 vote margin. The legislation, which purported to ban late-term abortions, would never have prevented a single one because of a health exception similar to the one that has allowed Roe v. Wade to result in 52 million unfettered abortions.
Full story at LifeNews.com

Hope for Homosexuals

An interesting article from www.gnmagazine.org about homosexuality that should definitely be read in these times! This follows this post about U.S. consumers. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Hope for Homosexuals
Interview by Melvin Rhodes
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi is a clinical psychologist. He is the president of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a 1,000-member organization. Dr. Nicolosi has successfully treated thousands of patients to help men transition from homosexuality to heterosexuality. He is author of several books, including Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality and Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality.
He has spoken at hundreds of conferences worldwide and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs around the world as the preeminent authority on reparative therapy. He also heads the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California.
The Good News: What is homosexuality and how do you define it?
Joseph Nicolosi: Homosexuality is a developmental disorder. It has nothing to do with sex. It's really the person's search for belonging—what we call the three "As"—attention, affection and approval. These are the normal, emotional, affectional needs, which have been sexualized.
GN: In your book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, you use the expression "non-gay homosexual." What exactly is meant by that?
JN: Well, we make a distinction between homosexual and gay. Unfortunately, too many people think they're synonymous and that's due to the success of the gay activists who have sold people on the idea that to be homosexual means they're automatically gay.
But there is a population we're concerned with, in particular, whom we call the non-gay homosexual, which is to say they have same-sex attractions, they have same-sex feelings, and they even engage in same-sex behavior, but they do not identify with the gay sociopolitical identity. They see themselves as having heterosexual values and want to live a heterosexual life.
GN: Is it possible to change from homosexual to heterosexual?
JN: Yes. There are many studies that show many men and women do come out of homosexuality. We see more and more of the evidence, more and more of those studies; and if the person is highly motivated there is a very good chance that he or she can come out of homosexuality.
GN: How do you help someone who wants to change?
JN: They have to begin to understand the origins of their homosexuality. It's not about sex. These are emotional needs, and in therapy you direct the client to address these emotional needs. These needs usually go back to the father—not having enough of the father's love, enough of the father's affirmation, and they begin to get these needs met in more authentic ways, ways that really transform a person rather than the sexual, which is a kind of repetitive and nonproductive attempt at meeting those emotional needs.
GN: How long does the treatment take and does it last?
JN: Usually the therapy is about two years. We're talking about once a week. And long-term studies show it does last. In fact, these people, once they have learned certain skills and insights, actually continue to get better long after they terminate therapy.
GN: What other sources and support are available?
JN: We at NARTH [National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] have a national referral list of therapists around the country who see homosexuality as a developmental disorder and as a treatable condition. Someone can call our main office to see if there is a therapist available for them. Besides the professional assistance, we have ministries for ex-gays like Exodus International and a few other ministries around the country.
GN: What are the basic causes of homosexuality?
JN: The basic cause of male homosexuality is an emotional detachment from the father or the father figure and that becomes the foundation of insecurity about the person's own masculinity and his desire to make that male connection, that male bonding. When that is frustrated, the male homosexual finds that he can do it through sex, but, of course, sex does not give the quality of attachment that is necessary.
GN: Are there any other contributing factors?
JN: One of the things that we are seeing that contributes is sexual child abuse. About one third of the men in therapy with me report having been sexually molested as little boys by older males—which would include an adolescent male—and that is much higher than the average population. Many studies show sexual molestation between a boy and an older man as being the history of gay men.
GN: Do genetics play a role?
JN: There's been a lot of talk in the media about genetics or the biological origins, but none of those studies have really proved anything conclusive. There seems to be, what we concede to be, what we call a temperamental disposition. This is to say that the boy has a temperamental, sensitive, introverted and artistic side, but we need a family environment to really take that temperamentally vulnerable boy and push him in the direction of homosexuality.
GN: In your book you use the term "gender identification." Please explain what this is and why it's important.
JN: Gender identification is for a boy to really gender identify with masculinity and for a girl to really develop her gender identity, which is to say her femininity. These are fundamental traits of human nature. There is so much talk today about how a person can develop without the definitions or without the parameters of gender, but that is not true. We all need gender as a fundamental support to our personal identity. That is the foundation of the homosexual problem and in the course of treatment that is exactly what we focus in on as being the target to develop.
GN: How do parents sometimes thwart this natural process?
JN: Boys need to be supported and affirmed in a masculine identity. Even though the boy or girl is biologically "hard-wired," to use a term, to be male or female, they still need the active support and encouragement of the family. Boys need masculinity to be affirmed by the family, by the mother and father, and likewise for the girl in terms of her femininity, especially by the same-sex parent—that is to say, the father for the boy and mother for the girl.
GN: In your book you state that an absent father is not the primary cause of homosexuality. Rather, it is the boy's defensive detachment against male rejection. What is defensive detachment?
JN: Defensive detachment is really the psychological armor, barrier or defense of the personality which keeps homosexuality alive. You might see defensive detachment as a sort of cell that protects the person and also protects the homosexuality inside. It's an anticipation of being hurt and rejected by other men. And this comes from the earlier rejection by the father.
The predicament of the male homosexual is that he is sexually attracted to men but, because of his defensive detachment, keeps an emotional distance from them. It prevents him from getting what he really wants, which is to have those emotional needs met. So the focus of therapy is to get him to drop that defensive detachment so he can allow himself to experience the healing benefits of non-sexual, intimate male relationships.
GN: Is it desirable for fathers to be warm and affectionate with their sons?
JN: It is more than desirous. It is essential. Fathers have to be warm and physically demonstrative. We encourage fathers to hug and to kiss and to wrestle and to have physical contact with their boys because when we listen to these homosexual men, they are so starved for male contact. All of them report almost without exception, "My father never touched me." "My father never hugged me." "My father never kissed me."
GN: Does divorce play a role in causing homosexuality?
JN: In a general sense yes, but in a specific way no, if the father continues to keep a relationship with the son. We say in a general way yes, because the family structure is designed to really enhance all the members of the family, especially the children.
Someone once said what makes a young man spend time with a little boy is when the woman he loves has that little boy. In other words, it's really his relationship with the mother that connects him with the son. Most fathers who are young men in their mid-to-late 20s aren't really going to spend time with a little boy unless there is a relational context, meaning the woman in the center keeps the relationship there.
GN: What percentage of Americans are homosexual?
JN: To be clearly homosexual, we believe it's 11⁄2 to 2 percent—at most 21⁄2 percent. We've been hearing 10 percent for the last 50 years, but that was due to the Kinsey study—and it turned out that Kinsey himself was a homosexual. Actually, Alfred Kinsey was a sadomasochist who derived sexual pleasure from receiving pain, which is another story in itself. This is the man that influenced generations through his Kinsey Institute and his biography just came out revealing all this stuff.
Anyway, it's really not 10 percent—it's 2 percent. But even though we say that about 2 percent are exclusively homosexual, we are assuming more homosexual experimentation is acted out, especially with young and adolescent people.
GN: Are there comparatively more homosexuals today than, say, 100 years ago?
JN: Again, we make the distinction between homosexual behavior and true homosexual orientation. I think homosexual orientation is still the same but I think there is more homosexual behavior. Also, we are seeing more homosexuals take a more overt role in the culture. We are seeing them more readily on television and in movies.
GN: What research led to the legalization of the gay lifestyle and homosexual acts?
JN: You mean the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association? That was not scientific; that was purely a political decision. It happened in one day. It was motivated out of compassion. The idea was that by normalizing homosexuality, these people would not have to suffer social ostracism and social criticism. While that was a good intention, you don't compromise science for a sociopolitical end, which is what happened.
GN: Is lesbianism caused by the same factors?
JN: Basically, yes. There are some complicated factors but, basically, lesbianism, just like male homosexuality, is really rooted in an emotional breach between the daughter and the mother.
GN: What can a Christian male heterosexual do to help a Christian struggling with homosexuality?
JN: I think we as Christian men need to realize that these are not simply degenerate, perverted people, but they are basically individuals who are seeking basic, authentic emotional needs that were frustrated in childhood and have developed into a sexualized pattern.
We need not to condone homosexual behavior but to be supportive of those Christians struggling with homosexuality and try to give them the understanding and support and the emotional connection that we can offer them, which will help them in the healing process.
GN: How can ministers help?
JN: By first of all being educated as to what homosexuality is, knowing that there is a population of non-gay homosexuals that we really need to reach out to. The pastor needs to have resources—therapists he can refer to whom he trusts, ministries for ex-gays that can be supportive, books and materials that he can recommend. That's an obligation the pastor has, I think.
GN: In the last few years, AIDS has become primarily a heterosexual problem internationally. In the United States it still affects gays disproportionately. Why is that?
JN: AIDS affects gays disproportionately because of the behavior that they engage in, behaviors that will spread AIDS. Anal intercourse is the way of spreading AIDS. And there is a great deal of sexual promiscuity and a lot of reckless self-deceiving, self-destructive impulses in gay men and they are killing each other. Paradoxically, all this talk about homophobia and hatred toward gays—when you think about it, who is really killing gays? Other gays! A very sad irony is that they are killing each other through a behavior that should be associated with love. Paradoxical, isn't it?
GN: How important are religious beliefs and church affiliation in overcoming homosexuality?
JN: I think it is very important. The majority of people who come to us are Christian. The church means something important to them. God is a living, powerful force in their lives. I think that their Christian foundation is a sound support as a motivator—not only in terms of right and wrong, but it actually gives them strength in the process of overcoming homosexuality.
A very interesting thing I have observed over the years is that many of the men, almost without exception I would say, become more religious in the course of therapy. Even if they began not particularly religious, at the end of two years, with all the soul searching and really digging deeply into deep issues, they become more religious.
GN: What can wives do to help?
JN: I think wives, number one, have to understand what is going on, what the husband is really looking for, and have to be supportive of the husband's attempts. She needs to understand that he needs close male friendships and she might feel threatened by that. Especially if the husband has betrayed her trust in the past, it will be difficult for her to really trust it will be a friendship and nothing more. She has to be educated, she has to be informed, and she has to be supportive of his healing process.
GN: Does pornography play a role in leading people toward homosexuality?
JN: I really think it does. I think that pornography on the Internet is exacerbating the problem. It is not only increasing homosexuality, but it is entrenching those who are already dabbling with homosexuality.
In other words, the greater exposure to pornography is making the healing process more difficult. We see this—men who are still looking at the porn are going to move slower in therapy than those who do not have it in their lives.
GN: You said they need close male relationships. How can men struggling with homosexual feelings have a close male relationship without those feelings becoming sexual?
JN: Well, he's going to have those feelings. No doubt about it. And he shouldn't be afraid of those feelings but he has to learn how to translate those feelings into authentic friendship. One of the questions I often ask a man just beginning therapy, I will say to him, "Have you had the experience of being sexually attracted to a guy but when you got to know him as a person and a friend, the sexual attraction disappeared?" And they almost always say, "Yes." And I ask, "Why do you think that was so?"
They have no answer for it. Because they have translated the mystique and there is no more sexual energy there. It is now a friendship and when you develop that kind of brotherly feeling, the idea of having sex is absurd. That's exactly the process they have to go through time and time again until all men seem like just other guys and there is nothing sexual about them. GN

a Vote for Kagan is a Vote against Traditional Marriage

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about the Supreme Court nominee's views. This follows this previous post about the Supreme Court nominee. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Nat'l Organization for Marriage: a Vote for Kagan is a Vote against Traditional Marriage

By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews.com) -
The pro-homosexuality views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan could have dire implications for traditional marriage in America should her nomination to the Supreme Court be approved, says the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
President Obama on Monday nominated Kagan, who sports a pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality record, for an opening on the Supreme Court left by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
“A vote for Elena Kagan as Supreme Court Justice will be a vote for imposing gay marriage on all 50 states,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM, in a press release following the nomination.
The pro-family group points out that the timing of Kagan's nomination is critical in the fight for traditional marriage, as the Supreme Court is likely to vote on two key marriage cases in the next two years. The cases are Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenges California’s Proposition 8 and seeks a ruling that would impose gay “marriage” on all 50 states, and Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management, which will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the federal definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Brown notes that a controversial brief authored under Kagan as solicitor general regarding DOMA, "explicitly and gratuitously rejected the key legal defense for marriage as the union of husband and wife — that such unions uniquely protect children by encouraging responsible procreation."
"Kagan’s brief was designed to, and in fact will, undermine the legal defense of marriage currently before the federal courts,” said Brown. While the brief urges the California district court to dismiss the charges against DOMA due to lack of standing, it nonetheless states that, "With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."
NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher noted that the legal tactic has been used before to undermine traditional marriage, such as in the case of California Attorney General Jerry Brown. In these cases the bureaucrats and lawyers "who initially claim they are defending a law, actually file briefs that undermine the law and substantially contribute to its legal defeat."
"This tactic is not only wrong, in the sense that it fails to defend marriage, it is deeply duplicitous or at least intentionally misleading,” stated Gallagher.
Gallagher told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) Monday that the Justice Department brief had been reworded after an initial draft upholding the child-centered reasoning behind traditional marriage was vociferously attacked by homosexualist activists - a change Kagan would have overseen.
"The Solicitor General is responsible for the kind of legal argumentations made," said Gallagher. "The way in which she defended it ... in fact, will undermine the law. So, there's now on record that the government of the United States has rejected the main reason for marriage, [while] every state supreme court that has upheld marriage has done so on the grounds that marriage is related to responsible procreation."
Gallagher noted that NOM might have "held off weighing in on this so quickly, except there seemed to be a concerted effort to suggest that somehow her statements would lead you to believe that she's moderate on the gay marriage issue."
"On the one hand she's saying she's going to defend DOMA, on the other hand, guts the legal record in a way that makes it much more likely that we'll lose that federal DOMA case," said Gallagher.
Both Gallagher and the Family Research Council (FRC) have also criticized Kagan for her extremism when, as Dean of Harvard Law, she barred military recruiters from entering campus in the height of the Iraq conflict, as a means of protesting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule banning open gays in the military.
"Ms. Kagan's incredibly hostile view of the military suggests she is out of touch with mainstream sensibilities and obedience to the rule of law," FRC president Tony Perkins noted in an email to constituents Monday. Gallagher agreed that the anti-military move was "an indicator of a pretty radical vision of what gay equality requires from the rest of us."
While Kagan has not publicly self-identified as homosexual, Internet news services have played host to strong rumors that her relationship with a female partner is an "open secret" at Harvard Law. Last month, the White House forced a CBS news blogger to retract a statement asserting that Kagan would be the first "openly gay judge," whose female partner "is rather well known in Harvard circles."
And while Brown states that "we have no quarrel with Elena Kagan’s personal character, or with her intellectual brilliance, or technical qualifications," the group considers the media's downplaying of Kagan's pro-homosexuality views alarming.
“The current PR campaign designed to portray Kagan as opposed to imposing a constitutional right to gay marriage based on her responses during the confirmation process for Solicitor General is similarly clearly wrong and misleads the public about her core values and commitments to Constitutional law,” added Gallagher.
Meanwhile, pro-homosexuality groups have applauded the appointment of Kagan as a supporter of their cause.
"We are confident that Elena Kagan has a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading homosexualist group.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Obama Nominates Pro-Abort Elena Kagan for Supreme Court http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051003.html
Updated: Obama to Pick Pro-Abort Elena Kagan for Supreme Court http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050703.html

Barry’s Pick: Leftist Jewish Female Homosexual?

An interesting story from http://www.badeagle.com/ about the Supreme Court nominee. This follows this previous post about the Supreme Court Justice nominee. This follows this post about another potential, alternative nominee. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.



Barry’s Pick: Leftist Jewish Female Homosexual?
by David Yeagley ·
So, true to his ‘colors,’ Barry “Obama” Soetoro nominates another alien type to “represent” all Americans: Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court must comprise absolute diversity–to reflect, or better, to inject diverse values into American society. First he nominated a New York Puerto Rican (cryptic Jewess?), Sonia Maria Sotomayor, with little talent, little experience, poor record, poor English, but “Latina” wisdom. Now, a clear-cut Communist Jew from New York City, with no judicial experience whatsoever, but who clerked for two very liberal judges, Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and racist-oriented Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Mikva, of course, is a long time supporter and advisor of Barry, and represents another Chicago figure, like his Kenyan protegé, and like Elena Kagan. Chicago Communists run America now, as we all know.
Current US Solicitor General, Elena Kagan
So, two elements are of serious concern here. First, the liberal Jew, second, the homosexual.
There are strong conservative Jewish personalities in America today. Let no one make the mistake of accepting the stereotypical Communist “liberal” Jew as the only kind of Jew there is–in New York, or anywhere else. That’s like taking the professional clown Al Sharpton as the token Negro in America. Unless one prefers to think ill of all Negroes, one quickly laughs Sharpton off stage. Similarly, unless one prefers to think ill of all Jews, one does not accept the Elena Kagan type, or Bloomberg, or Schumer, as the Jewish American. Jay Seculow is the new American Jew. His kind, however, has been around for some three decades now. Seculow, a New York Jew, represents the pith of American values. (I’d say “conservative” values, but, those values are essentially the American values. All else is Communism.) It used to be called the new Jewish Right, but, these days, conservative Jews simply represent America core values. They don’t claim Judaism as some special privilege or the ticket to special rights. American rights is what they stand for, and those rights include the respect and protection that they need.
Already, Elena Kagan and female homosexuality have been cited as an issue. A month ago, Ben Domenech blogged on a Harvard “rumor” about Kagan, and the White House was infuriated. April 16, The Washington Post publicly condemned CBS for posting the blog. April 18, James Joyner said it wasn’t a rumor, nor a smear. May 10, a female homosexual (Joan Garry) says that being homosexual isn’t the political issue here, but, that it should be considered a “charge,” or an “accusation,” as though it were a fault.
Generally speaking, a woman who purposely looks and acts like a man is a female homosexual. Take Janet Napolitano, for example, or Janet Reno. Kagan appears to be quite similar. But that’s really neither here nor there. The issue her is advocacy. The issue is using the Supreme Court to advocate social norms, rather than to preserve and to apply the United States Consitution. Liberals (Leftists, Communists, etc.) like the lying, alien black African Communist Barry Soetoro have already demonstrated their preference for Justices who advocate personal racial values. That’s how and why the low-level thinker Sonia Sotomayor got in. A pity act. A race/gender based act. While the door is open, why not get another female in there–and particularly a sexually-charged female, and one with a classic ethnic minority background. Why, six conservative Roman Catholics deserve at least two Jewish female liberals to balance the scales of “social justice.”
Now, the fact is, Kagan is really tough on terrorism. She might be the kind that would oust Holder, or even Barry himself, when it comes to that issue. So, is this the price we pay for America’s protection? Jewish liberal female homosexualty in office?
The real issue, again, is advocacy. A homosexual that doesn’t really care about public opinion, and has no desire to make a public issue out if the subject–in short, a non-activist homosexual, might seem innocuous enough. How many Justices imbibe on a regular basis? While it would seem a national statement, to honor a homosexual with a position on the Supreme Court; while it would play into the Hollywood approach to politics which has dominated Democrat (Communist) politics for some twenty years now; her personal sexual orientation may not significantly affect her judgment–and especially on wholly unrelated issues.
“Wise Latina” Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
However, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” position seems to be her approach to whatever her orientation is. Right now, that position is under fire by the homosexual activists. Kagan is the one who, as Dean of the Harvard Law School, condemned military recruitment on campus–precisely because of the “discrimination” against homosexuals. Therefore, her regard for the military position on homosexuality is at least terribly ironic, especially considering her own lack of personal ‘confession’ in the matter of homosexuality, one way or another. From FOXNews (May 10, 2010):
Kagan became dean of the law school in 2003. ”The military policy that we at the law school are overlooking is terribly wrong, terribly wrong in depriving gay men and lesbians of the opportunity to serve their country,” she said shortly after becoming dean at the law school’s first reunion for its gay, lesbian and bisexual alumni. Later, as the issue intensified with protests on campus, she wrote in an e-mail message to students and faculty, ”I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy.”
From the Washington Post (April 18, 2010):
“This action causes me deep distress,” Kagan wrote that morning in October 2003. “I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy.” It is, she said, “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”
Even her liberal critics noted her unusually heated rhetoric in the matter. It seemed out of character.
We certainly don’t expect any integrity or backbone from Congress these days, and Kagan will probably become the first homosexual on the Supreme Court. And a grand “coming out” that will be. Not that homosexuality itself has anything to do with the real issue, but that, it’s just another example of putting special interests, personal interests, at the national helm of justice. Wise Latina. Wise Lesbian. Wise woman. Just include anything that isn’t male and white. It’s wiser. All underprivileged, all minorities of any sort, all poor and struggling, all who don’t own a two-garage home, a Cadillac, all who don’t have a college education, all who have not fulfilled the materialist version of the so-called American dream, must have a personal representative on the United States Supreme Court. Simple as that. That doggoned white man needs to get out of there! Who cares about what he represents? He just built the country, that’s all. His opinion don’t matter no mo! He just needs to give it all up. America belongs to the world! America belongs to those who are in no way related to it, to those who despise it, and to those who crave honor for indulging themselves in the achievments of others.
Posted by