Maafa 21 Rocks!

By any measure, the response to Maafa 21 has been astonishing.

It is routinely being called “stunning,” “breathtaking,” and “jaw-dropping.”  Many viewers have said they were left “speechless” by what they saw and several have told us that it filled them with anger.  One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.”  Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda. 

It has never been a secret that one of the pro-life movement’s biggest frustrations has been its inability to effectively recruit the African-American community.  Despite the fact that polls consistently show that blacks are more pro-life than whites, that reality has not translated into them joining the battle in significant numbers.     

But with the launch of Maafa 21, that is changing and even though we are just getting started the message is spreading like wildfire.  The internet and YouTube are buzzing with Maafa 21; one conservative radio talk show purchased 750 copies for his audience and it has been shown twice in the Capitol Visitor Center Theater in Washington.  This was done through the help of Congressman Trent Franks and, after the showing, one African-American woman who works as an aid to a pro-choice member of the Congressional Black Caucus said, “I was moved to tears.  I came in here with an opposite mindset and I am leaving with another.  My life has been changed forever.”

Another example of the power of Maafa 21 was seen when Rev. Clenard Childress assembled a team of black street activists who gave out 400 copies of Maafa 21 to credentialed members of the NAACP at their recent four-day national convention.  The response was incredible with many people taking the DVD back to their hotel room to watch at night and then returning the next day to ask what they could do to help.  In fact, one of those who did exactly that was an NAACP attorney.  Clenard also found strong support among the younger convention goers and one professor at a historically black college said he was going to make Maafa 21 part of his curriculum. 

One thing that made Clenard’s NAACP effort so successful was a statement by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Just days before the convention began, she was quoted in the New York Times saying, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Think about that for a moment.  Here is the most radically pro-abortion member of the United States Supreme Court admitting that the driving force behind the legalization of abortion was not “women’s rights” or “privacy” or  “reproductive freedom” as we’ve been told.  She says that the motivation for it was EUGENICS, which is precisely what Maafa 21 documents!  We could not have bought a public relations victory like that for a billion dollars and here it was being given to us for free.  Clenard told me that whenever his team repeated that quote to the convention participants, even those who were the most skeptical about Maafa 21 were suddenly quite interested.  It seems they were aware of who the “population” was that Ginsburg and her cronies did not “want to have too many of.”

We are especially excited about how Maafa 21 is opening doors for us into areas where the pro-life message has seldom been heard and often unwelcomed.  Liberal “peace and justice” groups are starting to have Maafa 21 showings on college campuses.  And some “Afro-Centric” groups who are not necessarily Christian and have generally been disinterested in the abortion issue, are now actively promoting Maafa 21. 

An example of this is a California man named Keidi Obi Awadu.  Keidi is the founder of Black Star Media and the Living in Black Radio Network and he has an international audience.  Already, he has personally bought over 100 copies of Maafa 21 and has helped us secure someone to distribute the film in England.  Keidi has also become instrumental in an effort to have it shown at predominately black colleges and universities across America.  To put it mildly, Keidi and his people are on fire for Maafa 21.                 

Another thing we are finding is that Maafa 21 is not simply impacting the African-American community.  We are already seeing whites–especially those who are high school and college aged–becoming outraged and then activated by what it documents.

Those who are familiar with Life Dynamics know that we have been responsible for some of the most explosive revelations about the abortion industry in the history of this battle.  In just two high-profile examples, we uncovered the lucrative trade in baby body parts and we later exposed the abortion industry’s nationwide pedophile protection racket.  But as enormous as those stories were, I can honestly tell you that I have never seen anything have the impact of Maafa 21.  Although we are only at the beginning, it is clear that this film is going to grow our movement and change our image for the better.  It is also bringing a fresh level of energy and excitement by recruiting the reinforcements our battle-weary troops have desperately needed for years. 

So stay tuned.  Like I said, we’re just getting started.  By the way, if you haven’t seen Maafa 21 yet, check out the two-minute trailer for it at Maafa21.com.  That website also contains some insightful comments from previous viewers.

 

A Few Random Thoughts

1) Remember the Mission

For many years now, I’ve been saying that the pro-life movement must not judge success on its ability or inability to win over the pro-choice mob and that our goal is not to convert these people but to stop them.  Of course, for an equal number of years there have been some in the pro-life community who challenge that position. 

Fortunately, over time I have seen the percentage of those who disagree with me decrease significantly.  It seems that our movement is, indeed, becoming less naïve.  But such naïveté has certainly not been eradicated altogether.  It still exists, and may always exist, because pro-lifers tend to be decent well-meaning people who sincerely want to assume the best about others.  And while that is certainly a laudable trait, there are two fundamental truths about the abortion struggle that make this attitude unrealistic. 

First, the pro-life position is one based exclusively on a moral principle.  We do not oppose the slaughter of the unborn because it is impractical or because it lacks utilitarian advantages.  We fight against abortion because it is so abysmally wrong that it cannot be either defended or ignored.     

Second, those who most vehemently defend abortion are not just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement.  Instead, the “pro-choice” community is dominated by amoral and self-absorbed people who find concepts like “right and wrong” to be quaint and irrelevant. 

Combining these two realities means that our enemies are effectively immune to any argument against the legalization of abortion.  With very few exceptions, they are not winnable and, therefore, we must never evaluate our effectiveness on our ability or inability to convert them.

Now, I can appreciate why some would disagree with me on this.  I have no doubt that they are much nicer people than me and, like I said a moment ago, they want to believe the best about everyone – even the Choice Mafia.  If that describes you, all I ask is that you look for examples in world history where barbarians stopped what they were doing because they came to see that it was wrong.  What you will discover is that inertia is a fundamental property of barbarism.  It never stops on its own. 

2) The Bastardization of Compassion

I have often written about the fact that, in America today, over 90 percent of children suspected of having Down syndrome are executed in the womb.  I use the word “suspected” because a mistaken diagnosis in this area is not at all unheard of.

Generally, the apologists for this particular form of savagery try to rationalize it by claiming that we do it “to protect these babies against a lifetime of suffering.”  Those people are lying through their teeth.  They know good and well that our society does not slaughter babies with Down syndrome in order to “put them out of their misery;” we do it to put them out of our misery.  Whether we want to admit it or not, these babies are killed because we find them inconvenient, unsightly, more expensive to care for than they are worth and missing many of the “normal” human qualities we so admire in ourselves. 

That is the inevitable nature of a culture that places a utilitarian rather than an intrinsic value on human life.  It is a system in which those with power decide who gets to live and on what justification those who fail to qualify may be killed.  Today, this philosophy defines how we approach war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and, if socialized medicine is in our future, it will define how we ration healthcare. 

The fact is, in the “Brave New World” that America has become over the last forty years or so, the right-to-life must be earned.  And for anyone we label “less than perfect,” earning that right becomes more difficult every day.  In fact, just considering the Down syndrome issue alone, the inevitable question is why we should limit our compassion to the unborn.  After all, if it is compassionate to kill those who, if allowed to be born, may suffer a life of misery, surely it would be even more compassionate to kill those who are already suffering such a life. 

At this moment in history, we need to understand that what I’m suggesting here may be neither farfetched nor far away.  That is why you and I must fight these people with every ounce of strength we can summon and we must do so until we draw the last breath God gives us.

3) A Frightening Time

It is undeniable that we've had defective people occupy the Oval Office before now and we don't have to look very far back in history to find them.  Nixon was a paranoid crook whose view that the law didn't apply in his case brought the country to the edge of a Constitutional collapse.  Carter was a buffoon who is proving to be as squalid a nuisance as an ex-president as he was as a sitting president.  Clinton was a moral degenerate whose abysmal behavior exposed the entire system of American government to derision.  And Bush 43 may have been well-intentioned but my feeling is that history is going to judge him far closer to Jimmy Carter than George Washington.            

However, none of these people were nearly as dangerous or destructive as the guy who sits in that office today.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, I said that the Obama phenomenon is less a political movement than a cult.  Now the evidence to support that view is all around us and growing like a slimy green mold.  Compared to the Obaministas, the Stepford Wives look like a herd of anarchists.

The frightening thing is, not since the Nixon administration have we seen anything like the way dissent is not tolerated.  In both cases, loyalty could accurately be defined as blind devotion and unquestioned obedience as well as a willingness to be oblivious to whatever the leader does.  The difference is that, in those days, if you criticized Tricky Dick you ended up on some sort of “Enemies List” and got your taxes audited.  Today, anyone who says anything negative about The Grand Obama will instantly be labeled either a racist or an Uncle Tom–depending on the malefactor's skin color.
 
And that brings me to my latest question: is the International Olympic Committee going to be labeled “racists” now that they’ve rejected Obama’s pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago?  Or is that tactic only used in the case of Americans who dissent from the party line?

4) Caught Lying

First, the Godless Left says that abortion will not be covered under ObamaCare.  But then, they fight any effort to include language that specifically excludes abortion.  With a straight face, they will say it is an unnecessary waste of effort to add this one tiny paragraph to the bill – even though it is already slated to be over a thousand pages long.  In other words, they are lying through their teeth.  If abortion is not going to be covered, a one paragraph addition to confirm it would do no harm.  Their refusal to allow this provision in the legislation is irrefutable proof that they intend to take money out of the paychecks of every American to buy abortions for other people.        

What we need to be reminding them of is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease and that pregnancy is none of those.  In addition, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to either her life or physical well-being.  What all this means is that, by definition, ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!

Amazingly, some Obamanistas are arguing that ObamaCare will reduce the number of abortions even if it pays for them.  Of course, many of those making this claim are the same grinning idiots who tell the lie that you can be a Christian and pro-life even while working to put a pro-abortion heretic like Obama into the White House.  

They are also ignoring that long-established principle of politics which says, “When you want less of something you tax it and when you want more of something you subsidize it.”  I have never heard of an exception to this and, in the unlikely case that such exceptions actually exist, there is no evidence that abortion is among them.  So the real question here is: just how pathetically stupid would you have to be to conclude that making abortions “free” will cause the abortion rate to drop?

Let me tell you the bottom line here.  Any form of socialized medicine will eventually, if not immediately, cover elective abortion.  Even if abortion is specifically excluded, the Obamanistas are banking that a future court decision will rule that this prohibition is unconstitutional.  And I think they are correct in making that assumption.  I can also assure you that, if national healthcare is passed, it won’t be long before a challenge to any abortion exemption is headed toward the Supreme Court.  For that reason, until we return legal protection to the unborn, we cannot afford to have ANY legislation passed that would create a national healthcare system.


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics