Archive for the Civil Rights Category

Today marks 50 years of Civil Rights why ignore racism of abortion?

Posted in Civil Rights with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 2, 2014 by saynsumthn

July 2, 2014
Life Dynamics Logo

“Why do the same people who mark the 1964 Civil Rights Act ignore the most widespread civil rights crime of our day: Black Genocide ?” ~ Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher.

Today, Life Dynamics, Inc., a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, is celebrating 50 years of Civil Rights in America.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As we celebrate this momentous occasion, Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics and producer of the documentary film on Black Genocide, Maafa21, asks, “Why do the same people who mark the 1964 Civil Rights Act ignore the most widespread civil rights crime of our day: Black Genocide ?”
CivilRightsafter50years

As Life Dynamics documents in Maafa21, racism in America came in many forms.

One of those forms was eugenics, a well thought out agenda to limit the births of the Black population.

Klan abortion

In Maafa21, Life Dynamics unmasks the attitude of racists who openly admitted that they wanted to target Black babies in the womb.
LeanderPerezQuote

Just a few years after the Civil Rights Act was passed Louisiana State Judge, Leander Perez said this, “The best way to hate a nig*** is to hate him before he is born,” 1970.

That statement is profound because today racists now use abortion to target the Black population before “they are born.”

Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, explains, “Abortion is not about woman’s rights or reproductive freedom it is simply about eugenics. We not only documented the eugenic targeting of minorities in our film, Maafa21 but also in a report we published in 2011. Research we produced for our report, Racial Profiling by Planned Parenthood and the American Abortion Lobby, clearly shows that a majority of family planning centers market abortion to minorities by locating their centers in minority communities.”

Racial Targeting tumblr_m0s2oqfoKO1r85k4s Read the report at http://www.maafa21.com

Stats reveal that today more African Americans are killed inside American abortion clinics than are killed from AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, accidents and violent crime combined.

Since 1973 25 percent black Maafa21

In fact, every 4 days more Blacks are executed by abortion than the Klan lynched in 150 years

Black abortion by the numbers

_______________________________________

EARLY CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS:

In Maafa21, Life Dynamics details how early civil rights activists recognized this danger:

Van Keys Maafa21

The racist tells you to take birth control pills to kill, to murder life that might have existed if you had not … They are planning mass extermination of people they consider dispensable.” ~ Van Keys, Oakland Chapter, Black Panther Party said in 1969.

George Clements

In 1973, Father George Clements, an African American priest told Jet Magazine, “I believe the entire question of abortions is just one more in the continuous series of events to eliminate the Black population.”

BlackPantherParty Quote

A member of the Detroit Chapter of the Black Panther Party once wrote, “A true revolutionary cares about the people; he cares to the point that he is willing to put his life on the line to help the masses of poor and oppressed people. He would never think of killing his unborn child.”

alvedamaafaquote

Perhaps the most stunning statement in Maafa21 comes from Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, who points out that, “When we said we would no longer sit at the back of the bus, a place was being reserved for us down at the abortion clinic.

Crutcher concludes, “If slavery had never existed, population control organizations like Planned Parenthood would not exist today. When you look at what we document in Maafa21, it is clear that the impetus behind the legalization of abortion was eugenics.”

As we remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we need to ask why those who say they stand for civil rights today remain silent and in some cases participate in the genocide of black babies in the womb through abortion.

If you would like a history of how this racist agenda of black genocide came about Life Dynamics invites you to visit http://www.maafa21.com where you can view Maafa21 for free.

####

For an interview call the office at (940) 380-8800
About Life Dynamics: http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/
Mark Crutcher’s Bio http://lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Prolife_Activist/
Download the Racial Targeting Report here http://www.prolifeamerica.com
You can view the trailer or watch Maafa21 here http://www.maafa21.com

50 years of Civil Rights: why ignore racism of abortion?

Posted in Civil Rights, Maafa21 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

Voter Surpression

Life Dynamics Logo

 

 

 

 

2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As we celebrate this momentous occasion, Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, Inc and producer of the documentary film, Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America asks:

“Why do the same people who mark the 1964 Civil Rights Act ignore the most widespread civil rights crime of our day: Black Genocide ?”

In 1970, only a few years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Louisiana State Judge, Leander Perez made this astonishing statement:

“The best way to hate a nig*** is to hate him before he is born.”

LeanderPerezQuote

 

That statement is profound because today in America racists have figured out how to rid the country of the black population, by targeting them before they are born.

In America today more African Americans are killed inside American abortion clinics than are killed from AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, accidents and violent crime combined.

Number One Killer

 

In fact, every 4 days more blacks are executed by abortion than the Klan lynched in 150 years

untitled

 

EARLY CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS:

In Maafa21, Life Dynamics details how early civil rights activists recognized this danger:

The racist tells you to take birth control pills to kill, to murder life that might have existed if you had not … They are planning mass extermination of people they consider dispensable.” ~ Van Keys, Oakland Chapter, Black Panther Party, 1969.
Van Keys Maafa21
In 1973 Father George Clements, and African American priests told Jet Magazine:

I believe the entire question of abortions is just one more in the continuous series of events to eliminate the Black population.”

George Clements
A member of the Black Panther, Detroit Chapter, wrote:

A true revolutionary cares about the people; he cares to the point that he is willing to put his life on the line to help the masses of poor and oppressed people. He would never think of killing his unborn child.”

True Revolutionary

 

Perhaps the most stunning statement in Maafa21 comes from Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King:

“When we said we would no longer sit at the back of the bus, a place was being reserved for us down at the abortion clinic.”

BackofBusM212

 

As we remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we need to ask why those who say they stand for civil rights today remain silent and in some cases participate in the genocide of black babies in the womb through abortion.

For more information on the racist agenda of abortion, watch Maafa21.

Weather Service blames “clerical error” in announcement stating the NWS required ammunition

Posted in Civil Rights, Civil Unrest, Conspiracy, Constitution, Global Government with tags , , on August 14, 2012 by saynsumthn

NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen emailed the following statement to the Washington Post, clarifying an ammunition order is for fisheries law enforcement, as we suspected:

Due to a clerical error in the federal business vendor process, a solicitation for ammunition and targets for the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement mistakenly identified NOAA’s National Weather Service as the requesting office. The error is being fixed and will soon appear correctly in the electronic federal bidding system. The ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement agents in their twice annual target qualifications and training.

National Weather Service “ammunition” solicitation triggers confusion

NOAA says there was a “clerical error” in the FedBizOpps announcement stating the NWS required ammunition. The solicitation actually originated from the “NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement” not the National Weather Service. See bottom of post for more details.

Original post: Weather forecasting or preparing for war? The National Weather Service (NWS) seeks to buy 46,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols says the FedBizOpps website. It’s a solicitation head-scratcher of explosive proportions.

Infowars, the website of libertarian talk-show host Alex Jones, says the ammunition being ordered is “designed to cause maximum organ damage.”

But NWS spokesman Chris Vaccaro said the ammunition is not for the NWS. And, in fact, despite the fact the solicitation says NWS “requires” the ammunition, the same solicitation indicates the ammunition is to be delivered to the “NMFS” – which stands for National Marine Fisheries Service. Like the NWS, NMFS is housed under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

NYT and Texas Republican Senator agree Obama’s US Kill List the Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize

Posted in Civil Rights, Obama, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 2, 2012 by saynsumthn

Congress is finally standing up to President Barack Obama on targeted killing. Almost a year after three American citizens were killed in US drone strikes, legislators are pushing the administration to explain why it believes it’s legal to kill American terror suspects overseas.

Congress is considering two measures that would compel the Obama administration to show members of Congress what Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) calls Obama’s “license to kill”: internal memos outlining the legal justification for killing Americans overseas without charge or trial. Legislators have been asking administration officials to release the documents for nearly a year, raising the issue multiple times in hearings and letters. But the new proposals, including one from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) first flagged by blogger Marcy Wheeler and another in a separate intelligence bill, aren’t requests—they would mandate disclosure. That shift shows both Republicans and Democrats are growing impatient with the lack of transparency on targeted killings.

The New York Times has confirmed the existence of a secret memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the branch of the government that tells the president whether what he wants to do is legal—outlining the legal basis for the targeted killing program.

Below is an interesting piece by the New York Times on this topic…When the New York Times and a Texas Senator agree- we need to pay attention !

John Cornyn Makes Sense
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

I don’t often find myself in agreement with Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican. But he’s rightfully fed up with the secrecy surrounding the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, and he’s now pushing a measure to force greater disclosure.

Here’s the background: In public speeches (though not in a court of law) the administration has claimed the right to decide, without any Congressional or judicial review, which people, including American citizens, represent an imminent terrorist threat to the United States and have them killed – by soldiers on the ground in other nations, or by drones.

It’s an open secret that, as a part of this program, Mr. Obama ordered the killing of Anwar al Awlaki, an American-born Islamic cleric who was urging jihad against the United States. He was killed in a drone attack that also killed Samir Khan, another American citizen. Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son was killed in a separate attack.

It’s also an open secret that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a memo outlining the legal rationale for the program—but, officially, the administration refuses to acknowledge that the memo even exists.

We’ve seen this kind of dangerous over-reach in the not-distant past. And Mr. Obama was highly critical of President George W. Bush’s vision of an imperial executive who could give legal sanction to torture, to warrantless wiretapping, to indefinite detention without charges. Mr. Bush also resisted providing documents and explanations to Congress and sneered at the notion of judicial oversight.

Mr. Cornyn certainly did not introduce bills to compel Mr. Bush to turn over documents on his extra-legal activities. But in this particular case I’m glad he’s been inconsistent. Mr. Cornyn’s measure, an amendment to an intelligence bill, would compel Mr. Obama to turn over the OLC memo to legislators.

I’m not certain the amendment—which isn’t a request but a mandate for disclosure—passes muster on the separation of powers, but Mr. Obama has brought this on himself. The Times, going a bit further than Mr. Cornyn, is party to a lawsuit seeking public disclosure of the OLC memo (rather than disclosure to Congress). The ACLU, going a bit further than The Times, is also seeking disclosure of the specific documents justifying the Awlaki killing. (That seems like a stretch since they certainly contain highly sensitive intelligence.) But though the administration may find reasons to shrug off The Times and the ACLU, there’s truly no excuse for withholding any of those papers from Congress.

TSA screenings aren’t just for airports anymore

Posted in Civil Rights, TSA with tags , , , , , , , , on December 27, 2011 by saynsumthn

Reporting from Charlotte, N.C.—
Rick Vetter was rushing to board the Amtrak train in Charlotte, N.C., on a recent Sunday afternoon when a canine officer suddenly blocked the way.

Three federal air marshals in bulletproof vests and two officers trained to spot suspicious behavior watched closely as Seiko, a German shepherd, nosed Vetter’s trousers for chemical traces of a bomb. Radiation detectors carried by the marshals scanned the 57-year-old lawyer for concealed nuclear materials.

When Seiko indicated a scent, his handler, Julian Swaringen, asked Vetter whether he had pets at home in Garner, N.C. Two mutts, Vetter replied. “You can go ahead,” Swaringen said.

The Transportation Security Administration isn’t just in airports anymore. TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass transit locations around the country.

Read Rest Here

SB 1867 – Detention of citizens without a trial for crimes committed within the US

Posted in Alex Jones, Civil Rights with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2011 by saynsumthn

According to legal experts, the wording of the new National Defense Authorization Act effectively repeals the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), which limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. The Act allows for the imposition of martial law only where specifically authorized by the United States Constitution (invasion, insurrection, etc.) or Act of Congress. Under the provisions of the unamended NDAA, the president will have the power to impose martial law, and thereby suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority.

READ MORE HERE

Vodpod videos no longer available.

ATTENTION PREPPERS – Having More Than 7 Days Of…, posted with vodpod

U.S. Senate Votes for Indefinite, Unconstitutional Detention

Well, now they have done it. On Tuesday a bipartisan total of 61 Senators voted for and only 37 voted against provisions in latest Defense Authorization Act that would authorize the President of the United States to arrest and detain indefinitely, without charges or trial, people suspected of being enemies, or linked to enemies of the United States.

Most Democrats voted against the provisions but only two Republicans voted nay — despite the fact that it is the Republicans more than the Democrats who talk about the importance of abiding by the Constitution. The two Republican Senators who have both read and respected the Constitution of the United States and therefore voted against the travesty were Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

The vote is such a blatant thumbing of senatorial noses at the Constitution of the United States that it might even be called revolutionary — or counterrevolutionary, meaning that it is an attempt to at least partially overthrow the revolution against the tyranny of the British crown beginning with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. When former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was criticized by some of his Senate colleagues for following a line of reasoning that is “pre-911,” the Senator, who cast the lone Senate vote against the controversial Patriot Act, replied that his critics were exhibiting a manner of reasoning that might be called “pre-1776.”

It might even be called, for the historically minded, “pre-1215,” the year English noblemen forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which guaranteed, among other things, the right of habeas corpus.

That is, lest we forget, the right to appear before an independent magistrate and hear the charges against the defendant and to be given a right to challenge those charges, any and all witnesses and the evidence behind the charges. That is what the U.S. Senate would now deny you. Ironically the Obama administration, whose defense of civil liberties has been well short of stalwart, has opposed these provisions that the Senate overwhelmingly passed Tuesday night. The attorney general has said the legislation is not needed and would, indeed, be counterproductive. The Secretary of Defense has said the same. The President has reportedly threatened a veto should the measure pass the House. It is bad enough that this war-making President is seen as the peace candidate when compared to the militaristic Republicans and their neocon, dot.com warriors in the Fourth Estate. It is even more outrageous if the Republicans will now make Barack Obama the defender of the Bill of Rights.

The War Party line, as found in, for example, National Review Online, is that nothing much has changed and only the libertarian “fanatics,” like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano, are sounding the alarm. It merely reflects what was accomplished by the passage of Authorization of the Use of Military Force in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It merely broadens the definition of the enemy to include more than members of al-Qaeda. That, however, leaves untouched the argument that the legislation is radically inconsistent with and unmistakably violates the Constitution of the United States, which the National Review and other allegedly conservative publications purport to hold in minimum high regard.

One can fairly easily anticipate the defense by Jonah Goldberg, who has already endorsed President Obama’s policy of targeting American citizens for assassination without charges or trial. Surely, Goldberg will argue (or perhaps already has), if the commander in chief has authority to put together an assassination list and kill people — even American citizens — without trial, what is the big deal about imprisoning citizens indefinitely without trial?

Read Rest from The New American Here

Senator Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

(Transcript of Sen. Paul’s 11/29/11 remarks)

James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”

Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.

The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.

My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.

Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely – without due process or trial – SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.

I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.

If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.

There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.

Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.

Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:

“Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”

He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.”

Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.

As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?

The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.

This is simply not borne out by the facts.

Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.

And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.

Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.

Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.

Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”

Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.

The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.

The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.

The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.

These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.

Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.

But 9/11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.

These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.

A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.

We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.

Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.

No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.

To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.

Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.

The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.

Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.

African American Pastor on Dred Scott vs. Roe Wade and the personhood of unborn children

Posted in Abortion, Black Babies, Black Church, Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Pastor, Civil Rights, MLK, Personhood with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

African American Pastor on Dred Scott vs. Roe W…, posted with vodpod

ALSO….Learn the racism of abortion watch Maafa21