Archive for January, 2010

“Maafa 21” The Undeniable Truth about Eugenics and Genocide that is Awakening America’s Sleeping Black Giant

Posted in Abortion, Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Pastor, Black Victims, Clenard Childress, Eugenics, Life Dynamics, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, Nazi, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

By: Reverend Ceasar I. LeFlore III

From King Richard III- Act II, Scene 3

FIRST CITIZEN: Come, come, we fear the worst; all shall be well.
THIRD CITIZEN: When clouds appear, wise men put on their cloaks; when great leaves fall, the winter is at hand; when the sun sets, who doth not look for night? Untimely storms make men expect a dearth. All may be well; but if God sort it so. ‘Tis more than we deserve, or I expect.
SECOND CITIZEN: Truly, the souls of men are full of dread; Ye cannot reason almost with a man that looks not heavily and full of fear.
THIRD CITIZEN: Before the times of change, still is it so: By a divine instinct man’s mind distrust Ensuing dangers; as, by proof, we see the waters swell before a boisterous storm.
Sir William Shakespeare

For the record, it is far less intriguing to me that William Shakespeare describes what I call refusing to live in denial as a “divine instinct that causes man’s mind to distrust ensuing dangers”; than it is to try to understand the reasons we so often do it, even when the ensuing dangers are as obvious as waters swelling before a horrible storm (remember those who didn’t run from Hurricane Katrina).

If God, as Shakespeare contends, has truly given us a divine instinct of caution when we perceive coming dangers, how then could a movement to control or eliminate the population of an entire race of people in America, using the same methods and espousing the same eugenics ideology that produced the Third Reich, remain so inadequately challenged by American people of good conscience; especially those who were targeted to become the primary victims – African Americans?

During the past 20 years of my personal and organizational involvement in the efforts to stop abortion and sound alarms about its racist intent that would ring loud enough to awaken America’s sleeping black giant, I often experienced a crippling frustration when encountering an inexplicable level of apathy from the black community, even when they were presented with what I thought was solid evidence that proved abortion to be racist and the most evil thing perpetrated against us since slavery.

Reciting facts such as “abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community,” and “black women are three times more likely to be sold an abortion than her white counterpart” didn’t seem adequate to break through the veneer that covered the eyes of black liberals and caused them to view abortion as more a basic right than an instrument of racist evil. To be honest, I began to give up hope that anything we could present would ever be enough to break through the deep-rooted skepticism that was manifesting itself in illogical political alliances between perpetrators and victims in defense of legalized abortion. Until I saw Maafa 21.

Maafa 21 is the explosive documentary, produced by Mark Crutcher and Life Dynamics of Denton, Texas, that I believe will be the game changer in the national discussion on legalized abortion in America and its racist origins, as well as the unpardonable compromises made by those who knew the horrible truth but chose to turn a blind eye to the murder and mistreatment of millions of African Americans over the past 150 years for the sake of economic and political expediency.

The movie is all over the internet, and is currently being shown by private citizens and organizations all over the country, on screens and for audiences both large and small, and is causing a response of outrage that is unprecedented. It looks as though the sleeping black giant is finally waking up, and he looks very angry.

From coast to coast the reports are coming in saying that Maafa 21 is having a phenomenal impact – even on those who considered themselves pro-choice – because it goes beyond the opinionated rhetoric that is so prevalent on both sides of the issue and establishes fact, using direct quotes and recordings that are undeniable and unimpeachable even for the most ardent abortion apologist.

I am convinced that this historic documentary is the smoking gun that will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that slavery and abortion are not only born of the same evil but are in fact opposite sides of the same evil coin.

Maafa 21 is about eugenics, elitism and well-hidden racial agendas. It’s about treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America. Maafa 21 lays out in undeniable detail the devious plans that this nation’s white elites – firmly ensconced in the upper echelons of both political and industrial privilege – chose to embrace as the solution to the enormous Negro dilemma that followed the emancipation of the American slaves.

The word Maafa is a Swahili term used to describe the period of time during which Africans were hunted, shackled and enslaved for the convenience of those who presumed a right to determine their worth as humans and control how their lives should be disposed. Adding the 21, as explained by Mark Crutcher, indicates that the same practice continues even today as we advance into the 21 century. Basically, the same racist motives and justifications still exist in the hearts of American elites; they have simply selected a new method to reach their desired outcome.

To the early American elites, slaves were an asset as long as they remained slaves, but after being set free they would become a liability that would affect the economic viability of not only the South but of the entire nation. Every facet of American commerce was invested in slavery – from the cotton fields to the banks – and the release of millions of uneducated and unemployable people who were viewed as less than human was going to create a huge financial burden on many Americans who were not remotely interested in bearing it. “So, what are we going to do with all these sub-humans after we give them their freedom?” was an overwhelming concern. Something had to be done or the weight of the slaves release into society as free men would break the bank, swell the prisons and jeopardized the harmony of American society. Maafa 21 illustrates how disastrous it was to entrust the people who sought to keep slaves permanently in shackles with the responsible of planning for their freedom?

The great Fredrick Douglass is quoted as saying: “What shall be done with the 4 million slaves if they are emancipated? This question has been answered and can be answered in many ways. Primarily, it is a question less for man than for God; less for human intellect than for the laws of nature to solve. Our answer is, do nothing with them. Mind your business and let them mind theirs. Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings and all they now ask and really have need of at your hands is just to let them alone.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Douglass’ recommendation went unheeded and this nation set clumsily about to solve its Negro dilemma in a federally funded but unworkable effort called colonization to send the slaves back to Africa. When colonization proved to be impracticable, the new philosophy of eugenics that was rearing its monstrous head around the world appeared to be a perfectly acceptable solution to dealing with those who were deemed by the elitist as undesirable; weeds in a bed of roses that needed to be extracted. Eugenics was the answer then, and for some remains the answer today.

Eugenics is a term created by Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of evolutionist Charles Darwin) but derived its meaning from the Greek term that translates “good birth.” Quite literally, eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species.

The end of slavery did not represent an opportunity to the likes of Mr. Galton to discover and accept the equal humanity of the former slaves and to improve their state by permitting them to be educated and prepared to assimilate into mainstream society. Instead, they viewed the release of these “African inferiors” as an unwelcome challenge to civilized white society and to how it would protect itself from being polluted and degraded by those who they believed were unfit to live among those with whom they were not equal.

In Maafa 21, Mr. Galton is quoted as saying, “I do not join in the belief that the African is our equal in brain or in heart…average Negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support.”

Maafa 21 presents numerous examples like the previous to support its claim that the type of sick and invidious thinking that motivated Galton, Darwin, and other racist elites to launch a movement designed to control black population, which has proven to be no less than a genocide, did not die when they died, but was rather a legacy that was embraced by others who followed in their footsteps, the most notables being Adolph Hitler and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and continues even to this day.

The proof of this has become almost undeniable, but yet there are still many today that when faced with these well proven facts find it hard to suspend their disbelief and accept the fact that this type of racism still exist and continues to fuel the modern eugenics movement that has been represented in everything from lynching, unlawful sterilization of unsuspecting black women, to legalized abortion.

Since the end of slavery, untold thousands of blacks have been murdered and brutally done away with – both legally and illegally – through the various tools of eugenics and yet the minds of many in the black community remained resistant to the belief that at some point in our history men conspired to determine ways to control and/or eliminate black populations that were no longer useful to them and then went about the business to implement them.

Philosopher Frederik Kerling said, “When people refuse to see proof, they think their belief helps them so much that losing it will cost more then they gain from a perhaps more truthful story.”

It’s as if it was to unthinkable to believe that the neighbor who volunteers for Planned Parenthood or the favored politician who supports abortion under the guise of protecting women’s rights could be so evil as to endorse what they know to be legalized genocide. Indeed that may be the case. Not all pro-choice people are avowed racists.

In Maafa 21, Pastor Clenard Childress, a long time pro-life leader and Director of The Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N), is quoted as saying, “the eugenics movement wasn’t invented by everyday average white Americans but by a select group of wealthy white elites that had often used this ideology to pit all of white America against black America and we see that that is the case even to this day. ….”

Perhaps this explains why it was taking so long for thinking people to connect the dots that linked slavery and abortion together as evil twins – Siamese twins even – that many pro-life pioneers believed were too obvious to miss. I had supposed that either we were just totally inept in the way we tried to carry the message – and there’s probably a lot of truth to that – or that people were so totally committed to believing that nothing we could ever have presented to them would be enough to break through the well sold notion that abortion was a good and not an evil. There is obviously a lot of truth to that as well.

Planned Parenthood and others have invested greatly in making numbers prove what cannot be proved in the collective hearts of the good American people. Time after time they have tried to bamboozle people into believing that a majority of Americans are in favor of legalized abortion when they are not, and that abortion and other so-called medical services they provide have been beneficial to women, which they haven’t.

Maafa 21 lays out in specific detail the callous and deceitful brilliance of those who had the task of getting rid of an entire race of people by convincing them that the tools that would be used in killing them off were good and merciful for them, causing them to literally fight for a right to their own destruction.

Shakespeare wrote, “When clouds appear, wise men put on their cloaks; when great leaves fall, the winter is at hand; when the sun sets, who doth not look for night?”

That makes sense to me. I get that very clearly and I’ve always believed that when black America realized that this so-called right that had been given to us (was so clearly designed to bring death to us) we would assume that the persons instituting and justifying it had our demise as their primary motive.

I believe that message is now clearly resonating throughout the black community and it is causing a great disturbance in their hearts as they realize the duplicitous motivations of those who smiled in our faces while sticking knives in our backs. Maafa 21 points out that there is enough blame to go around. It crosses political lines, generational lines and even economic lines and paints all of those who turned their backs on the horrible facts they saw as unworthy of the public trust.

The giant is waking up. It’s about time!

Maafa21 Preview Below:

Demographics or targeted Black Genocide?

Posted in Abortion, Black Genocide, Black Victims, Children, Eugenics, Guttmacher, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

According to Planned Parenthood’s Research Arm – The Guttmacher Institute’s Report from Jan. 2010
U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions:National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity

Teenage abortion rates were highest in New York (41 per 1,000), New Jersey, Nevada,Delaware and Connecticut.
• By contrast, teenagers in South Dakota (6 per 1,000), Utah, Kentucky, Nebraska and North
Dakota all had abortion rates of eight or fewer per 1,000 women aged 15–19.
More than half of teenage pregnancies ended in abortion in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.
• In five states, 15% or fewer teenage pregnancies ended in abortion: Kentucky, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah.


What was the reason given for these high rates of abortions in New York:


New York has had high rates of abortion for a long time,” noted Elizabeth Nash, of Guttmacher. “The demographic makeup in New York probably plays a role. There are significant populations of African-Americans and Latinos. Both groups tend to have higher rates of pregnancy and abortion.”

Perhaps the abortion rate among this group has something to due with the fact that Planned Parenthood targets Black and Hispanic Communities to make sure they have easy access to abortion.

And why would they do such a noble thing: EUGENICS?

Don’t believe me?

Listen to these clips from founders and supporters of Planned Parenthood from 2 hour documentary:

Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America


(get the full DVD here)

PRO-ABORTION GROUPS PLAY THE “H” CARD OVER TEBOW SUPER BOWL AD

Posted in Abortion, Anti-abortion, pro-choice, Pro-Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

Below Commentary is WELL STATED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John G. Winder , The Cypress Times
Published 01/28/2010 – 5:42 a.m. CST

No one has seen the ad yet it is already labeled as “hate”.

Focus on the Family has received approval from CBS to air an ad during this year’s Super Bowl which delivers a pro-life message. The ad features one famous face and his mother.

The back story is this: Pam Tebow and her husband were working as Christian missionaries in the Philippines in 1987. Pam became pregnant. Doctors at that time advised Pam to abort her child due to health reasons. She did not. She had a son, Heisman Trophy winning former Florida Gators football quarterback, Tim Tebow. This is the story that apparently Pam and Tim Tebow relate in the pro-life ad slated to run during the Super Bowl.

I say “apparently” because despite abortion group accusations that the ad is “un-American” and has a message of “hate”, no one has seen the ad yet.

Erin Matson, VP of N.O.W., says she objects to the airing of the ad because CBS (the television network carrying the Super Bowl) has a longstanding policy against airing controversial ads during the big game.

Ms. Matson says, “The abortion debate has no place in the Super Bowl. I organize abortion rights rallies all the time and I recognize how inappropriate it would be for me to sit in the stands with signs at the Super Bowl.”

I agree with Ms. Matson. That would be inappropriate. It would also be inappropriate for pro-life groups to sit in the stands with signs at the Super Bowl. However, the topic at hand is an ad on television, not someone holding a sign in the stands.

N.O.W. and other pro-abortion groups have written to CBS and urged the network to reject the ad. CBS executives have seen the script for the ad and are standing by their decision to air it.

“Our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a policy that ensures all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air,” a CBS statement read.

The ad featuring the Tebow’s is produced and paid for (at prices averaging around $1.2 million per :30 second ad) by Focus on The Family.

Pro-Abortion group ChoiceUSA spokesperson Kierra Johnson called Focus on the Family an “Anti-American” and “Anti-Woman” group. She said the Focus on the Family ad featuring Tim Tebow and his Mom had an “un-American” message of “hate” that has no place in the Super Bowl. Again, Ms. Johnson has not seen so much as one second of the ad.

In many Christian circles, Focus on the Family is very well known. If you’re not familiar with the group founded by the Rev. James Dobson, here is how they describe themselves.

“Focus on the Family is a global non-profit Christian organization with a vision for healing brokenness in families, communities and societies worldwide through Christ. The purpose of the ministry is to strengthen, defend and celebrate the institution of the traditional family and to highlight the unique and irreplaceable role that it plays in God’s larger story of redemption.”

I can’t find a single “Anti-American”, “Anti-Woman”, “un-American” or hate-filled thought, ideal or word in any of that description.
Ms. Johnson also said that Focus on the Family was basically trying to pull a fast one by getting an ad in the Super Bowl that delivered a “one-sided” message.

I ask anyone who has ever watched a Super Bowl, or television in general for that matter, to please cite for me one single instance ever in the annals of advertising where an ad did not have a “one-sided” message.

“One-sided” message is the epitome of the definition of all advertising.
Will the Budweiser ads aired during the Super Bowl mention that Miller Beer is awesome, too. Will “Go Daddy” ads point out that there are a myriad of ways to acquire and register a URL and that many are cheaper than “Go Daddy”? Will Apple list the best attributes of the PC? You get the gist.

Let’s go back to the “H” word.

Abortion groups are calling Focus on the Family, and the ad, and by extension, Pam and Tim Tebow, purveyors of hate.

“HATE”.

Have we dramatically changed the meaning of that word in our culture, or is it that we have so diluted the meaning of words that we now feel free to attach the most horrific words to anything with which we simply disagree?

Abortion is a volatile subject. Emotions run deep. It is literally a subject of life and death which echoes into eternity.

Even taking those visceral reactions into account, even considering the lifelong pain involved in the struggle between abortion and life, when did any opposition to abortion become hate speech?

When did we come to this awful place in our society and culture where an opposing viewpoint is automatically categorized as hate? According to this new way of conducting ourselves, if two people disagree then one, or perhaps both people, must therefore be involved in an expression of hate.

Or is it that only one of those two people carries the label of “Hate-monger”? And if it’s only one of the two, then who decides who is the hater? Does the majority decide? If anyone then puts voice to dissension, are they automatically peddling hate? That’s a slippery slope along which we are already sliding at break neck speed.

Here’s the deal. If disagreement now equates to hate, then we’re all hate mongers. No one individual agrees with every other individual all the time on every subject. So, if to disagree is to hate, then we are all haters.

According to groups like N.O.W. and ChoiceUSA, Focus on the Family is spreading “HATE” in defense of life. Yet no one has seen the content of the ad and no one knows the specifics of the ad’s message. They only know that the ad is pro-life.

Society accepts abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has stamped the act with its seal of approval. So, to be the voice speaking out in support of life is now to be the voice of hate.

If defending the life of the unborn is now “hate”, then conversely we must assume that killing a baby in the womb is now “love”? Is that the message emanating from organizations like ChoiceUSA who make their money off of the death of millions of innocents? These are the people who have successfully changed the vernacular of the debate. We no longer have abortionists, we now have abortion “providers”.

Here’s a question to weigh. Why do the people at N.O.W., ChoiceUSA and abortion clinics all over the country fear the message of life? Even a message they haven’t even heard yet.

And another question, why does our country, which was founded on the courage of dissent, now so fear anything not considered mainstream, or going with the flow?

‘Bully Pulpit’ Obama attacks Supreme Court : Alito replies, “not True”

Posted in Constitution, Obama, Supreme Court with tags , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

Last year during the “State of the Union Speech” Republican Rep. Wilson yells “you lie” after Obama says illegal immigrants won’t be insured.

During this year’s (2010) State of the Union Address, Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

Obama’s Statement, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

“The President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, in The Corner blog on Nationalreview.com.

Imagine the outrage if a Pro-lifer did this act of ” Assault and Terrorism” ?

Posted in Abortion, Animal Rights, Anti-abortion, Crazy People, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

Canada’s Minister of Fisheries gets a pie in the face during a news conference. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has claimed responsibility, citing Canada’s support of the annual seal hunt as the motive.

Activists protesting the seal hunt laid claim Monday to having pied the fisheries and oceans minister, adding Gail Shea’s name to a list of politicians who have tasted that most peculiar of political protests.

Shea was delivering a speech at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters to open the Aquatic Life Research Facility, west of Toronto, when a woman stood up in the front row and pushed the pie squarely into her face.

While police called it a “shaving cream pie” the animal rights group that took responsibility for the act called it a “tofu cream pie.”

Whatever the filling was made of the incident resulted in an assault charge against an American resident.

PETA, which took credit for the incident, said in a release it was part of its campaign to stop the government’s “ill-advised sanction of the slaughter of seals.”

“Shame on you Gail Shea. Ban the bloody seal hunt. It is a shame on Canada, it is a shame that she has not denounced this bloody seal hunt,” the protester said after covering Shea’s face with the creamy white filling.

Shea, who represents a P.E.I. riding, did not require medical attention and returned to the podium after wiping the pie away.

Emily McCoy, 37, of New York City, was taken into custody and charged with assault, police said.

Politicians have often been targets for demonstrators wielding pies, some of whom went to jail.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien was hit in the face with a pie by a protester in Prince Edward Island in 2000. His attacker initially was given jail time but eventually received a conditional sentence.

A woman who missed Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach with a pie at the annual Calgary Stampede breakfast in 2007, and hit a security official instead, was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

So was a woman who threw a pie at Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier in the summer of 2007.

In 2003, a protester who hit then-Alberta premier Ralph Klein in the face with a pie at the Stampede breakfast was convicted of assault and ordered to serve a 30-day intermittent jail sentence.

Jean Charest got it in April 2003, two days before his Liberals ousted the Parti Quebecois and he was elected Quebec premier.

Discriminated for being pro-life, woman told she could not enter National Gallery of Art with a pro-life pin

Posted in Church, Pro-Life with tags , , on January 27, 2010 by saynsumthn

Separation of Pro–Life and State
Jan 27, 2010
Meghan Duke

While visiting the National Gallery of Art this past Saturday, I ran into a pair of errant security guards who have taken to interpreting the Constitution in their spare time.

I decided to visit the Gallery after attending the March for Life the day before. There was an exhibit on processes of photography before the digital age that I hoped would confirm me in my refusal to give up on film.

After searching my bag, the two guards at the Gallery told me, “You’re good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.” He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message “impact73.org” and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat.

The pin, they informed me, was a “religious symbol” and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building. Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building? Bringing to bear the full weight of the supreme law of the land, the guards informed that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the

United States’ Constitution: The combination of me, wearing a pro-life pin, in a federal building was a violation of the separation of church and state.

Rest of story here

Leaked: Unfaithful Democratic Presidential Hopeful John Edwards wanted to abort mistress’ baby, calling Hunter a “Crazy Slut”

Posted in Abortion, Left Wing, Liberal, pro-choice with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 27, 2010 by saynsumthn

Senator John Edwards thought about leaving his terminally ill wife after having an affair but decided he couldn’t ‘let her die knowing’ about his infidelity, according to a new book.

Andrew Young, a former aide to the two-time US presidential hopeful, claims that Mr Edwards cited his love for breast cancer sufferer Elizabeth Edwards as the reason for his decision to keep details of an affair secret.

In his new book The Politician, Mr Young claims the senator asked him to go into hiding with his mistress, partly because of his wife’s health.

Though The Politician doesn’t hit shelves until Feb. 2, Wall Street Journal blog Washington Wire apparently “purchased a copy” and read it.

: John wanted Andrew to “handle” Rielle’s pregnancy and persuade her to abort.

According to Young, Hunter called him in May 2007 to say she was pregnant. Young says that when he informed Edwards, the senator told him to “handle it,” to which he replied: “I can’t handle this one.” Young writes that Edward unloaded on Hunter as a “crazy slut,” said they had an “open relationship,” and put his paternity chances at “one in three.” Young says that Edwards asked him for help persuading Hunter to have an abortion.

Now that is a TRUE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT – KILLING HIS OWN KID –

Another – Abortion for reasons of health and life of the baby excuse , huh?

Just Say’n