http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm Unique Perspectives on the Battle for Life en-us Mon, 20 May 2013 01:30:37-0500 Tue, 14 May 2013 09:00:00-0500 BlogCFC http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss mark@prolifeamerica.com mark@prolifeamerica.com http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/5/14/Surprise--Surprise A fire breaks out in the forest and all the animals start running for their lives. Eventually, they reach a river that will provide safety to those who can get to the other side. A rabbit is poised to jump in when a snake calls to him, "I can't swim, can I ride across on your back?" The rabbit is wary and says, "No, you're a snake and you'll kill me if I let you get that close." The snake pleads, "That's not true, you would be saving my life. You would be my friend. Why would I harm you?" Out of compassion, the rabbit finally relents and lets the snake climb on his back. Once they safely reach the other bank, the snake sinks his fangs into the rabbit's throat. Before he dies, the rabbit asks, "Why? Why did you do this to me? I was the one who helped you." The snake replied, "Look, you knew I was a snake all along." Now, if you want to blow-off the message in that, simply because it is nothing more than a fictional story, that's fine. But don't think that message doesn't play out in the real world. In fact, try this on for size. The Obama administration's Department of Justice has just been caught spying on – are you ready for this – THE ASSOCIATED PRESS! You heard right. The very people who made this degenerate president, and have consistently insulated him from his own incompetence and corruption, just got bit on the throat. You gotta' love it. AP, Pres. Obama, Justice Dept. Tue, 14 May 2013 09:00:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/5/14/Surprise--Surprise http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/5/3/The-Gosnell-Question-Who-is-Really-on-Trial During the Nazi holocaust, Josef Mengele used concentration camp prisoners, including young children, as test subjects for a catalog of demented medical experiments. Documents uncovered by Allied forces revealed that, before they were killed, Mengele's victims were subjected to pain on a scale that can only be described as unimaginable. After the war, Mengele became known as the "The Angel of Death" and international prosecutors wanted to put him on trial. But he had fled Germany and could not be found. Then, in 1985, a body was exhumed from a South American grave that DNA evidence confirmed to be his. After eluding capture for 34 years, Josef Mengele had died at the age of 68 having never been tried for his crimes. But in a Philadelphia courtroom, we are being given a glimpse of what Mengele's trial might have looked like. It is the criminal prosecution of abortionist, Kermit Gosnell. At this point, the State has presented its case, the defense has rested without calling any witnesses and we await the verdict. What we heard from testimony given by sworn witnesses is that this pro-choice hero has a long history of performing "safe and legal pregnancy terminations" after which the babies are still alive outside their mothers' bodies. He then completes the procedure "ex-utero" by making small slits in the back of the babies' necks and cutting their spinal columns in half. Courtroom testimony was that Gosnell had performed such decapitations hundreds of times over the years with one clinic employee testifying that, she alone, saw him dispatch more than 30 living children in this way. We also learned that the caseload became more than Gosnell could handle by himself, so he recruited an unlicensed medical school graduate named Steven Massof to lend a hand. At trial, Massof could not say with any certainty just how many baby spines he had snipped, but he estimated that it was somewhere around a hundred. He went on to say that sometimes, "It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place." When investigators searched the abortion clinic, they found bodies of dead babies in paper bags, plastic bottles, milk jugs, orange juice cartons and cat food containers. Some were stored in refrigerators and one freezer contained the corpse of a 28-week-old baby boy frozen in a one-gallon water bottle. It was also apparent that some of these bodies had been there for years. Most of the prosecution witnesses were former employees and one testified that Gosnell collected the feet of his victims in glass jars and authorities found about 50 such containers scattered around the abortion clinic. One testified that fetal remains were sometimes left out overnight. She stated that, "You knew about it the next day when you opened the door ... because you could smell it as soon as you opened the door." In other testimony, a former clinic worker said Gosnell put a baby in a plastic shoebox for disposal and the witness said she noticed that it was still breathing and moving around. She testified that the child jumped while she was snipping its neck. One witness said that another baby was also put in a shoebox but was too big to fit. The baby pulled his arms and legs into the box and Gosnell snipped his neck. Another former employee said that she saw multiple babies killed after being born alive and that, in one case, the child was making a screeching noise like "a little alien." One witness testified about a baby they killed that was 12-18 inches long and that Gosnell joked about one of them being big enough to walk him home. Another testified that Gosnell also joked about a baby that was writhing as he cut its neck saying, "that's what you call a chicken with its head cut off." In other sworn testimony, a clinic worker said that one woman's baby fell out of her while she was on the clinic toilet and that the baby was alive. She said that the child "looked like it was swimming" and that another employee "reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck." Inspectors said that the facility was filthy and foul smelling. They said that the floors and walls were splattered with urine and that some of the furniture was covered in dried blood. They also found dirty surgical instruments as well as plastic disposable speculums and curettes being reused from woman to woman. One witness testified that, following their abortions, women were left naked from the waist down and that the clinic provided no robes, only blankets that were washed once a week. Another witness stated that women often sat in bloodstained lounge chairs in the "recovery room" while unlicensed, unsupervised workers gave them large doses of various drugs because Gosnell wanted them to be quiet. A janitor at the clinic told jurors that he had threatened to quit because he did not like pulling flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing. He said that the clinic's toilets backed up one-two times a week and that, whenever he opened the clean-out pipes, fetal parts such as babies' arms came spilling out. The catalog of health and safety violations was overwhelming. There can be little doubt that they played a role in the fact that several patients contracted STDs while at the clinic and at least two women died. Another witness testified that Gosnell would sometimes take sexually suggestive photos of patients using a digital camera or his cellphone. There were also charges of racism. Despite the fact that Gosnell is black, former employees testified that white women were routinely taken to clean well-kept rooms with televisions where Gosnell treated them personally. Meanwhile, minority women were sent to the clinic's dirtiest rooms to be seen by medically unqualified staff. One witness said that when she asked Gosnell about this, his response was that this is just the way the world is. The list goes on and on and is certainly too long for this article. For those who are interested in the complete story, the full grand jury report is available online. The answer to why these atrocities would occur is not hard to find. First, while the pro-life movement claims that abortion takes the life of a living human being, nobody on earth knows that better than the people who work at abortion clinics. The lofty rhetoric of "choice" may insulate those who work in the political and public relations arena, but the day-to-day reality for those who provide those "choices" is to deal with the corpses and parts of corpses they pull out of their customers' bodies. It is an environment that inevitably destroys the humanity of those who choose to live in it. In fact, look up the definition of "psychopath" and you will see a textbook description of the kind of person who is mentally capable of performing abortions. Second, the nature of abortion is no different than the nature of pornography and prostitution. All three are sleazy and corrupt businesses that only attract sleazy and corrupt operators. Moreover, that does not change whether they are legal or illegal. In recent years, even abortion defenders have begun grudgingly admitting that one of their biggest failures has been their inability to "mainstream" abortion within the legitimate medical community. They may not like acknowledging it, but these industry insiders have come to see that, like pornography and prostitution, the stigma of abortion is permanently hard-wired into the act itself. In the final analysis, these are the two reasons why we have seen these abortion clinic horror stories in the past and why we will see more of them in the future. Simply put, it is the nature of the beast. During Gosnell's trial, it became clear that organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and others within the pro-choice community, were fully aware of what he was doing. But they kept quiet because this was a rock they did not want the public looking under. What they knew, and wanted to keep hidden, was that everything being done at this abortion clinic was within the standard operating procedures for every other abortion clinic in the country. So they, and their lapdogs in the media, started whistling past the graveyard. Now it's in the hands of the jury and, given the testimony and evidence piled up against Gosnell, it seems incomprehensible that this monster could escape conviction. But, I'm not so sure. After all, the judge has already dismissed some of the charges against him on the basis that the state failed to prove that the babies were born alive. In short, the judge's opinion was that these tortured and mangled children were simply the product of everyday, run-of-the-mill, late-term abortions. In addition, Gosnell's defense team has routinely argued that very point when trying to counter the testimony of prosecution witnesses. To paraphrase their position: these babies were taken to this abortion clinic to be killed and they were killed ... so what's the problem? As a long-time anti-abortion activist, I have to say that the judge and defense team locked-in on the core issue of this trial. What they are saying is that, if Gosnell decapitated these babies while they were still inside their mothers' abdomens – rather than a few feet away on a stainless steel table – then nothing illegal occurred. To put it another way, the mere fact that these children were butchered is irrelevant as long as they were butchered in the appropriate location. The tragedy is, under existing abortion law that is a viable position. It also defines the abyss of moral bankruptcy that our legal system – and our nation as a whole – fell into on the day that Roe vs. Wade was handed down. Today, legalized abortion is like a chicken bone that's stuck in the throat of the American people. The abortion lobby will never be able to make them swallow it, and the pro-life movement will never let them just ignore it. And every once in a while, something comes along to remind them of those two realities. At this moment in history, that "something" is the Gosnell trial. It is forcing the intellectually honest members of our society to ask themselves why they can be so horrified by what this guy did to these babies outside the womb, but so accepting of the fact that the same things are done to babies inside the womb every day in abortion clinics all over the country. Either the American people are legitimately blind to the hypocrisy and irrationality of that, or they have made a conscious decision to look the other way. If it is the latter, they have no right to be outraged when the Kermit Gosnells of this world come along and rub their noses in it. In the coming days, we will learn the outcome of this trial. But whether Gosnell is tossed onto death row, set free, or something in between, the far bigger picture is what this trial says about our country. The late Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, once stated that America would be judged on how it treats those at the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life and those in the shadows of life. If he was right, then the ultimate verdict of this trial will not be rendered by the 12 men and women who made up the jury. Instead, it will be revealed in the way the public responds to what they've been shown. Make no mistake; regardless of anything that happened or didn't happen in that courtroom, the real defendant was the American people. By the way, it is interesting to note how Josef Mengele made his living during the 34 years he was hiding from justice. He was an abortionist. Gosnell, Mengele, abortion, clinic workers Fri, 03 May 2013 09:21:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/5/3/The-Gosnell-Question-Who-is-Really-on-Trial http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/2/1/Yettes-Ghost-and-the-NAACP It's January, 2013. Dr. Johnny Hunter, a Black man, is quoted on Twitter criticizing the association between the NAACP and Planned Parenthood because of that organization's racist and eugenics history. Within minutes, after saying that Planned Parenthood has the NAACP on a leash, this Black group's Twitter account is suspended and taken down. To put it succinctly, Hunter had been "Yetted." If you're not familiar with that concept, let me offer a short history lesson. In January of 2011, an African-American man named Samuel Frederick Yette died in a Maryland nursing home. He was a man of enormous accomplishments having earned two college degrees, been an officer in the Air Force as well as an award-winning journalist, author, lecturer and university professor. In 1964, he had been appointed Executive Secretary of the Peace Corp after which he became Special Assistant for Civil Rights to the Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. He later became the first Black reporter hired by Newsweek magazine where he rose to the position of Washington D.C. Bureau Correspondent. But in 1968, Mr. Yette wrote a book exposing high-level plans within the United States to use birth control and abortion as instruments of Black genocide. Immediately after this book was published, Yette was summoned to his supervisor's office and fired. He was told that Newsweek was under pressure from the Nixon White House to get him out of Washington. Later, despite the fact that his book was selling well, had won at least two national awards and was being used as a textbook in colleges across the country, Yette's publisher dropped him and took the book off the market. Mr. Yette was chopped off at the knees because, by the late 60s, population control – especially Black population control – had become a virtual religion for America's power structure. And these people do not tolerate dissent well – especially when it comes from uppity Black opinion molders. Yette described the situation perfectly in January of 1972 when he told a reporter for Jet magazine: "I do not mean to be pejorative or vindictive, when I say this, but had I been a nigger instead of Black, a spy instead of a reporter, a tool instead of a man, I could have stayed at Newsweek indefinitely." Now if you're tempted to think that this has changed over the years, let me remind you what happened to 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. As his campaign picked up steam, he began reminding the public that Planned Parenthood had been founded by ultra-wealthy white racists and eugenicists. He went on to point out that Planned Parenthood was carrying out the agenda these people had laid out by disproportionately placing their abortion and birth control facilities in minority communities. Then, within just a few hours after he started calling for Planned Parenthood to be stripped of its taxpayer funding, anonymous women started dropping out of the trees to claim that he had sexually harassed them. Eventually, Herman Cain was forced out of the race and, to no one's surprise, these women disappeared as quickly and mysteriously as they had appeared. Somehow, the allegations and the alligators evaporated simultaneously. Today, America's "Population-Control / Family-Planning Cartel" includes the politically ambitious quislings and shameless hucksters over at the NAACP. The fact is, given their unholy marriage to Planned Parenthood, it seems appropriate for the NAACP to just go ahead and change its name to the National Association for the Abortion of Colored People. When my friend, Johnny Hunter, began to point that out, it was inevitable that he would be Yetted. And so he was. NAACP, abortion, Frederick Yette, eugenics Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:04:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/2/1/Yettes-Ghost-and-the-NAACP http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/1/25/Reflection-and-Perspective At the beginning of the classic Christmas movie, It's a Wonderful Life, George Bailey stood on a snow covered bridge preparing to jump into the icy river below. He was going to kill himself after concluding that he had made a mess of things and that his life had counted for nothing. Then, at the height of his despair, he was visited by Clarence – an angel who showed him all the lives he had touched and how different his community would be had he never lived. In the end, George came to see that he had walked onto that bridge because he was allowing his life to be defined by its failures. There is a valuable lesson in that for the pro-life movement. Today marks the 40th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision and, for those of us who fight for the unborn, I often get the feeling that our self-doubt and sense of failure has grown with each of those years. While we don't question the rightness of our cause, the enormity of its challenges makes us question whether our blood, sweat and tears have bought very much. This attitude seems to be reinforced when you recognize that, for all our efforts, we have not returned legal protection to one baby in one state. On the surface, it seems that all we've really done is minimally regulate the circumstances under which they can be killed. While that analysis may be technically accurate, the picture it paints is misleading. Although few, if any, would call me an angel, I want to point out what our country would be like had my brothers and sisters in this struggle not done what they have done. When I started Life Dynamics in 1992, there were over 2100 abortion clinics in America. Today, there are just over 600 and most of those that remain are gasping for air. But be assured, if the pro-life movement had never existed, there could easily be one in every mall and strip shopping center in the country. Now if you think the idea of mall-based abortion franchises is too crass even by Planned Parenthood's standards, you don't know much about Planned Parenthood. In reality, this is precisely the kind of thing they would do if they could get away with it. You might also be tempted to think that the American people would not tolerate something this outrageous. If so, I remind you that, fifty years ago, those same people would have labeled you insane if you had predicted that they would soon be driving past free-standing abortion businesses with toll-free numbers, Yellow Page ads and credit-card decals on the front door. Moreover, they would have hauled you away to some asylum if you had predicted that these barbarians would be doing late-term abortions on healthy babies being carried by healthy moms, or that it would be legal for 12-year-old girls to be taken to these places and aborted without their parent's knowledge. The point is, if you consider that these things happened in a country with a vibrant pro-life movement, it is quite reasonable to predict that there would be abortion franchises in the malls of a country with no pro-life movement. In that environment, we could also expect to see abortion pills hanging in bubble packs at the check-out counters of every convenience store in the country. In fact, they'd make the perfect companion to the large variety of condoms and "personal lubricants" that are hanging there now. There's more. If the pro-life movement had never existed ... every public school and university in America would either have an on-site abortion clinic or a contract with a nearby abortionist. If the pro-life movement had never existed ... there would be no debate about taxpayer funding of abortion; the government would have been forcing us to pay for them since day one. If the pro-life movement had never existed ... the right-to-life of the unborn would not even be discussed in either the public arena or the political process. If the pro-life movement had never existed ... poll after poll would not now be documenting a dramatic shift away from support for legalized abortion and toward the pro-life position – especially among the young. If the pro-life movement had never existed ... we would not see the faces of children with disabilities like Down syndrome – not because these maladies had been cured but because abortion would have long ago become the accepted medical "treatment" for every imperfect baby. After all, killing people is easier than healing or accommodating them. If the pro-life movement had never existed ... there would be no crisis pregnancy network to help those women who might not want to submit to abortion. That's because, without your voices, abortion would be the default position for every unplanned pregnancy. The list goes on and on, but the bottom line is that, without the pro-life movement, America would have devolved into a country where the killing of an unborn child has no more moral significance than the pulling of a tooth. Now, for those who think I am exaggerating about these things, let me introduce some facts you may not have considered. In the early 1920s, the Soviet Union became the first industrialized nation in the world to legalize abortion. Many years later, several studies were conducted to determine how that decision was playing out. To put it mildly, the findings were stunning. One published study documented that the average Soviet woman had nine abortions during her child-bearing years. Other research documented that 90 percent of all first pregnancies in the Soviet Union and 60 percent of all subsequent pregnancies were legally aborted. It is also known that, of the remaining pregnancies, many of them ended in illegal or unreported abortions. The result was that, according to one American researcher, in some parts of the Soviet Union it was not uncommon for women to undergo as many as 28 abortions. Today, the Russian government is saying that the health consequences of this have been catastrophic for that nation's women. Additionally, economists are saying that the demographic realities brought on by Russia's artificially shrunken population will inevitably cause an economic meltdown. In fact, some demographers are arguing that this collapse has already begun. The important thing for us to recognize is that the Soviet experience with abortion is a prototype for what happens in any country where the abortion industry is allowed to operate without opposition and, thus, without restraint. Make no mistake, had it not been for the American pro-life movement, what happened in the Soviet Union would have been duplicated right here. We would not now be standing on the graves of 50 million dead babies; we would be standing one the graves of 150 million or 250 million or ... God only knows how many. Think about that the next time you start to question what the blood, sweat and tears of the pro-life movement have bought. As we go forward, it is important to never forget that this is not a war between the pro-life movement and the abortion lobby. It is a war between the abortion lobby and the unborn. The pro-life movement is merely a collection of soldiers who volunteered to fight on the side of defenseless children who would, otherwise, be left alone to face these remorseless and amoral cowards. In the final analysis, we are stronger today than we've ever been. For all our faults – and they are many – we have made it clear that whatever sacrifices must be made, we will make; whatever burdens must be borne, we will bear; and whatever obstacles must be overcome, we will overcome. We have lived this commitment – and we will keep living it – because that is what God expects of us. Two thousand years ago, He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against us ­– and we understand that if the front door of an abortion clinic is not a gate into hell, then hell does not exist. So, while it is true that the pro-life movement has not yet won, it is just as true that we will never quit. Despite the setbacks we might face and the battles we might lose, we are going to continue doing our duty and trusting God to deliver the promised victory. But until that day comes, we will not allow Satan to rub our noses in our failures. We will be proud of what we have accomplished, unapologetic about where we have tried and failed, focused on the battle in front of us, and resolute about the future. And we're going to leave the snow covered bridges to our enemies. It's A Wonderful Life, abortion, pro-life movement Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:52:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2013/1/25/Reflection-and-Perspective http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/12/7/The-Naked-Emperor The hypocrisy of John McCain is breathtaking. Recently, he told pro-lifers that we should state our opinions on abortion and then go home and shut up. This week, he is saying that America should take military action against the dictator of Syria if he starts using Sarin gas on his own people. My question is: Why isn't he now saying to the American people that we should just express our opinions about this despot gassing his political opponents, and then go home and sit down in front of our televisions and watch it happen? I mean, this guy claims to be pro-life, but then advises his fellow pro-lifers to be good little Republicans and just sit back and let the holocaust continue. The fact is, most of us in the pro-life movement always knew that McCain's pro-life rhetoric was hollow and motivated only by his political ambition. In this way, he is virtually indistinguishable from almost every other Republican in the country. They see the plight of the unborn as something that can often be exploited for political gain, but is otherwise to be ignored. The bottom line is that McCain and his fellow travelers really see the unborn child as nothing more than a political inconvenience that they wish would just go away. Our job is to make certain that never happens so, no, we will not just sit around and do nothing. We are not that cowardly. Syria, abortion, Republicans, John McCain Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:34:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/12/7/The-Naked-Emperor http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/7/23/The-Baby-Killer-Bailout In the first few years after its legalization, studies were taken to determine the cost of an abortion. The findings were that the price of a first-trimester procedure was generally around $350. The interesting thing is, that figure has changed little since then. To put this in perspective, even if we ignore the fact that prices have probably risen faster in medicine than in any other area of the economy, applying the basic rate of inflation shows that an item purchased for $350 in 1973 costs almost $2,000 today. So the question is, with no competition and a seemingly reliable demand, why has the abortion industry not been able to raise prices in almost 40 years? The answer is that, contrary to what the abortion lobby would have us believe, the demand is not reliable. In any marketing environment, buying decisions can be categorized on a "marginal / non-marginal" scale. On one end of the scale are decisions based solely on "want" (marginal) and, on the opposite end are decisions based solely on "need" (non-marginal.) Buying a ticket to a baseball game is an example of a marginal decision because it is a decision based on want. On the other hand, if a business owner cannot operate his business without a forklift, his decision to purchase one is based on need and is, therefore, non-marginal. One significant factor in determining where a product falls on this scale is the degree to which consumers might reject it because of price. The more price-sensitive a product is, the more marginal is the decision to buy it. Using the previous examples, a rise in the price of baseball tickets will decrease their sales more than a proportionate rise in the price of forklifts will decrease their sales. This "marginality" scale applies to all purchasing decisions, including the decision whether to "purchase" an abortion or not. Since day one, the abortion industry has pushed this idea that when a woman does not want to be pregnant she will crawl through hell on broken glass to get an abortion. In other words, their contention is that the abortion decision is a non-marginal one. For that to be true, it would have to also be true that the cost of abortions does not significantly impact the abortion rate. The problem is, the evidence does not support this. In April of 1988, the financial publication, Economic Inquiry, Vol. XXVI, published a study about the relationship between abortion cost and abortion rates and concluded that, "The significant inverse relationship between the price of abortions and the abortion rate confirms that the fundamental law of demand is applicable to abortions." Other independent studies have also documented that, as the cost of abortion goes up the demand for abortion goes down. In addition, Colorado abortionist, Warren Hern, reinforced this conclusion during a May, 1997, annual convention of the National Abortion Federation held in Boston, Massachusetts. At a workshop regarding the use of ultrasound in abortion, Hern complained that paying for an ultrasound machine would increase the cost of an abortion by $25. He went on to say that such an increase would cause patient loads at abortion clinics to "plummet." Hern was not merely confirming the argument that price affects the abortion rate, he was going much further and stating that even small increases in price have an overpowering impact. By the way, Hern is no novice in this area. He is the author of the textbook, Abortion Practice, that is almost universally considered to be the definitive publication on abortion and abortion provision. The point is, whether it's these studies or the comments of Warren Hern, the consistent message is that the abortion lobby's "hell on broken glass" rhetoric is a self-serving fabrication and that the abortion decision is often a highly marginal one. If that were not the case, a $25 price increase would not significantly impact abortion rates much less cause the number of women having abortions to "plummet." This represents a very sticky dilemma for the abortion industry. The obvious solution to their current economic woes would be to raise prices to reflect their increased costs even if that meant making more money off fewer procedures. But the abortion lobby knows that is not a viable option. They have always been aware that, in order to maintain abortion's legality, they need the political and cultural inertia created by a high abortion rate. This has put them in a kind of "Catch 22" situation. They need higher prices to financially survive, but those higher prices would lower the abortion rate and threaten their political survivability. In a nutshell, that is why the abortion industry has not raised prices for almost 40 years. Meanwhile, the cost of doing business has risen dramatically. The result is that the $350 abortion that was so profitable in 1973 dollars, is a stone-cold loser in 2012 dollars. What this means, and what the abortion lobby has known for several years, is that their future depends on finding a way to raise their prices without lowering abortion rates. Enter Barack Obama. Make no mistake about it, one of the primary motivations behind this guy's obsession with socialized medicine is government-funding of abortion. In fact, a model for what his administration intends to do already exists. Imagine two women sitting in an abortion clinic waiting room. They are the same age, in the same state of health and their pregnancies are at the same gestational stage. The only significant difference between them is that one is paying cash and the other has a health insurance policy that covers elective abortion. After their babies have been exterminated and their corpses tossed in the dumpster, the first woman will be out the clinic's door for the usual $350 or so. However, the other woman's insurance company will be lucky to escape with anything less than a $3000 claim to pay. This is a scenario that is repeated every day at abortion clinics all across the country. It is also a peak into what Obamacare is all about. The Obamanazis figured out a long time ago that the abortion industry's only hope for survival is for socialized medicine to convert every $350 patient-paid abortion into a $3000 taxpayer-paid abortion. Equally important is that, since customers will be getting their babies butchered at no charge, the abortion rate is not going to drop. In fact, it's going to skyrocket. To put it bluntly, Obamacare is a permanent stimulus package for the abortion industry. Now, if you think I'm baying at the moon here, let me take you back to December of 2009 when this debacle was being fought out in Congress. With only a few hours left before the Christmas recess, it looked like America was going to dodge this bullet. Despite all the greasy politics, arm-twisting, semi-veiled threats, naked bribery, sweetheart deals in smoke-filled rooms and other assorted criminal activities being committed by the Obamanazis, they were still a couple of votes shy. The problem was that several Democrats were holding out over concerns that Obamacare was going to pay for abortions. Obama and his fellow travelers were assuring them that this was not the case. Of course, this could not be verified since no one had actually seen the bill and, furthermore, they were not going to see it before voting on it. In one of the most arrogant and moronic things ever uttered by an elected official, Nancy Pelosi openly stated that Congress would have to pass the bill before the public would be allowed to see what was in it. The crucial thing to note here is that this hang-up over abortion-funding could have been easily resolved. If the administration had not been lying, they could have simply allowed those rebellious Democrats to add a one paragraph statement to the final bill specifically prohibiting any funding for abortion. Had they done that, these guys would have shuffled back onto the reservation and passage would have been assured. But the Obamanazis were lying. They knew abortion funding was written into the bill's language and that such a paragraph would wipe it out. Since they were not willing to give up on one of the fundamental goals of this monstrosity, they had to stick with their argument that we should all just blindly trust them when they said that the bill would not pay for abortions. In effect, a blank contract was shoved in front of Congress and a pen was forced into their boney hands. This strategy worked because, to no one's surprise, the so-called "pro-life Democrats" eventually wimped-out, stopped questioning Obama's lies and signed where they were told to sign. As is common in the political arena, when the choice is between principle and ambition, the latter is usually chosen. And so it was. Today, the bill is available for all to see and now everyone can know what the pro-life movement knew all along. Abortion funding is included. In the final analysis, it is simply a fact that Obama was prepared to flush his crown jewel legislation down the toilet rather than take abortion funding out of it. The fancy rhetoric he used during the debate may have been about people suffering and dying because they are being denied basic healthcare. But his actions made it clear that he would write these people off without blinking an eye, unless a government bailout for Big Abortion was part of the deal. Like I always say, to understand the abortion issue just follow the money trail. In this particular case, if you believe nothing else I've written here, believe this: on the day that Obamacare becomes fully implemented, every single abortion performed in America will be taxpayer-funded. Every single one. Obamacare, Taxpayer funding for abortions Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:12:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/7/23/The-Baby-Killer-Bailout http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/6/15/Ohio-and-Hollow-Bravado Among the many strange creatures found in the Australian outback is one called the Frilled-Necked Lizard. He has this umbrella-like structure around his neck which, when threatened, he splays out in an effort to look larger to his adversaries. To complete the effect, his skin grows darker in color, he opens his mouth widely and emits a loud hissing sound while rocking back and forth on his hind legs. It's quite a sight and it does make him appear somewhat menacing. The problem is, it's all for show. If a potential foe makes even a faint move toward him, this guy turns and runs away like his head's on fire. Despite his warrior-like appearance, he is actually more of a song-and-dance-man. It is a trait that makes him the obvious candidate to replace the elephant as the symbol of the Republican Party. After all, elephants are noble animals who will take on a pride of lions to protect their young, and no one can even remotely suggest this is true about the GOP. With that, we come to the primary arena where Republicans display their cowardice. It is in the battle over abortion and, right now, a textbook example of this being played out in Ohio. As you read this article, a groundbreaking piece of pro-life legislation called the "Heartbeat Bill" is being intentionally bottled up in legislative maneuvering by gutless Republican legislators who call themselves pro-life. Naturally, these people are able to regurgitate a lot of meaningless drivel to justify their treason, but the bottom line is that they seem to be comfortable doing nothing while millions of unborn babies have their arms and legs ripped off, their chests crushed and their skulls collapsed. Apparently, like the goons down at Planned Parenthood, Ohio's Frilled-Neck-Republicans are willing to just write these children off. I must caution you, however, not to conclude that this sort of scandal is unique to Ohio. In the pro-life movement's race to our inevitable victory, overcoming the damage done by faux-life politicians is a hurdle we have had to leap before and will have to leap again, in every state of the Union. Let's cut to the chase. As much as the GOP's gated-community quislings might prefer that confrontations over abortion be conducted like some ivory-tower debate between people in plaid smoking jackets with elbow patches, it is not going to happen. This has always been, and will always be, the political equivalent of a brawl in a waterfront bar. Regrettably, most Republicans give off the aura of a bunch of guys whose mamas used to dress them for college. As part of some fraternity hazing ritual, they might find themselves sitting in a waterfront bar trying to look like they belong. But the only thing you can be certain of is that, when the first punch is thrown, the next sound you're going to hear is the rapid pitter-patter of fine leather wingtips stampeding out the door. Another problem is that Republican lawmakers have about as much practical use for the abortion issue as a fish has for a bicycle. That's because these guys are motivated by money and votes that the unborn don't have. In addition, they always seem to get a little queasy whenever the abortion issue is mentioned. To an even casual observer, it is clear that these people have about the same opinion of the pro-life movement that they would have about a cockroach they step on during a middle-of-the-night trip to the toilet. In short, this is a fight for which Republicans have no stomach. On the other hand, it is exactly the kind of fight their opponents relish. It is hardly a secret that, since the 1960s, the once-proud Democratic Party has devolved into a snake pit of perverted social agendas pushed by amoral leftists who will wallow in the filthiest cesspool in order to get what they want. And that scares most Republicans to death. In the final analysis, the Democrats are almost always wrong on moral issues and will fight to the death for them, while the Republicans are generally right on moral issues but don't care about them. The result is that, in the cultural civil war currently being waged for the soul and future of our country, the political battle often comes down to a contest between those who lack character and those who lack courage. If you need proof, just do an internet search and type in: Ohio, the Heartbeat Bill. Republicans, Lizard, Ohio Heartbeat Bill, Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:50:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/6/15/Ohio-and-Hollow-Bravado http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/6/12/The-Hidden-Coup Our parents warned us to always be careful what we ask for because we just might get it. It is sound advice that tends to get ignored, thus leaving us exposed to the unforeseen and unwelcome consequences that follow. For generations, cynical voters have been asking for politicians who keep their campaign promises. In 2008, their wish was granted. Barack Obama was handed the keys to the Oval Office after faithfully promising the American people that he would fundamentally change their nation. It is a promise he is keeping with a vengeance. Many of the principles upon which America was built have already been eliminated and those that remain are in his cross-hairs. Obama is now the center of a personality cult that is, with breathtaking speed, transforming us into the Marxist utopia he was so seduced by during his time at Harvard. It is correctly said that elections have consequences and I can find no better proof of that than the one that gave us Barack Obama. Because of it, we now find ourselves in a precarious situation that threatens the very survival of the country. Even if Obama loses in November, it will take decades of Herculean effort to undo the damage he's done. On the other hand, if he wins, there will shortly come a time when we will be living in a country that we cannot imagine today and will not recognize then. The political and cultural ramifications of this are being cussed and discussed by people far brighter than I will ever be. But in the midst of all this, important questions are being overlooked about the long-term effects of Obamaism on the Black population. First, by now, it must be clear to even the most oblivious of our fellow citizens that this guy is in way over his head. Any way you look at it, we are now in the final stages of a four-year amateur night at the White House. What we don't know is whether voters will see this as an indictment of Obama, Democrats and liberals, or as a referendum on African-American politicians in general. If that turns out to be the case, we might look back one day and conclude that the first Black president saw to it that there would not be a second one for another 150 years. Second, polls consistently show that Blacks are far more pro-life and far more opposed to the homosexual agenda than the population as a whole. Yet they broadly support a man who has been the most radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexual president in American history. In the field of psychiatry, this phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance" and it occurs when people behave in a manner that conflicts with their belief system. Interestingly, this trait is commonly found among members of cults. Whether Obamaism meets the definition of a cult or not is, obviously, open to interpretation. However, it is hard to imagine that there will not be negative repercussions within the Black community for having blindly followed a man who is so out of step with them on these two core-value moral issues. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, consider the following: since the 1960s, Martin Luther King has been the greatest presence in the African-American community and cast the biggest shadow in the struggle for civil-rights. For more than fifty years, he has been a man among boys and Black families have been able to hold him up to their children as the symbol of what African-Americans can do and can become. The danger we now face is that Dr. King may soon be replaced by Barack Obama as America's preeminent Black role model. Should that happen, and it certainly seems plausible that it will, the results will be disastrous for the country in general and the Black community in particular. Of course, some will not see this as an "either/or" situation and suggest that both can serve in this capacity. Those people are wrong. In reality, this is a textbook "either/or" situation. It is completely illogical to contend that Dr. King's devotion to the advancement of fundamental American values is compatible with Obama's advocacy of godless statism and Black Liberation Theology. As a practical matter, the only way for one philosophy to prevail is for the other one to be destroyed. So whether the country realizes it or not, we stand at a crossroads. To put it simply: Martin Luther King was a unifier; Barack Obama is a divider. And if our fate is for the latter to replace the former as the symbol of Black America, we're all in deep trouble. Obama, Martin Luther King, November elections Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:05:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/6/12/The-Hidden-Coup http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/3/1/Abortion-and-the-Kilby-Effect On the seventh of April in 1947, a stunned nation learned that Henry Ford had died at his home in Dearborn, Michigan. As his body laid in state at Lovett Hall, throngs of ordinary people came to pay their final respects. Five thousand of them walked past his open casket every hour until officials were forced to close the doors. Outside the Hall, the lines to get in were growing longer and could not be accommodated. Two days later, thousands more came to his funeral knowing that there was little chance that they would be able to go inside the church. They came because they were willing to settle for simply being close by. The American people recognized that Henry Ford was a man of enormous and meaningful accomplishments who had touched each of their lives and changed their world forever. Then, on the twentieth of June in 2005, another elderly man passed away in Dallas. And like Mr. Ford, he too had changed the world. In 1958, he had gone to work for an obscure electronics company called Texas Instruments and what he did there made it possible for us to go to the moon in 1969 and carry cellphones in our pockets today. His name was Jack St. Clair Kilby and he invented the computer chip. By any reasonable measure, it is no exaggeration to say that Jack Kilby shaped our modern world every bit as much as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers or anyone else. Interestingly, however, his death came without causing so much as a blip on America's radar screen. Today, the average person could not imagine their lives without the legacy of Mr. Kilby, and yet I have no doubt that not one in ten thousand of them could tell you his name or what he did. So what happened between 1947 and 2005? The answer is that we stopped being a people who revered men and women of real accomplishment. Instead, we became a people who worship our court jesters – those who amuse us. The reality is that, in contemporary America, everyone who is not an actor, or a rock star, or an athlete is invisible. It's also true that the more drug-addled, self-absorbed and self-destructive these people are, the more irresistible we find them. As evidence, I submit the recent death of Whitney Houston. When this happened, the media immediately went into an "All-Whitney-all-the-time" feeding frenzy. For days, this coverage swamped every other story even on the so-called "hard news" shows. It was soon clear that all of this was going to eventually lead to her funeral being on national television. Of course, just because that phase is now behind us, we should not conclude that the spectacle is over. You can bet the family farm that additional "specials" are in production and that next year's "Anniversary Show" is already being scripted. Another example of this was seen when Princess Diana died and the entire world fell into a near-catatonic state. I am not dismissing the tragedy of how she died, but let's not overlook that this woman's primary claim to fame was that she married well. Had she not done so, it is unlikely that she would have become one of the "beautiful people" and would have probably spent her life in a world of mac & cheese, mortgages and minivans. The irony is that, just a few days after her death, Mother Teresa also passed away. Yet the response by the media and the public was breathtakingly different. As amazing as it sounds, it was not at all unusual for news of Mother Teresa's death to be told in a matter-of-fact manner as part of a follow-up story about Diana. The fundamental problem is that we have become a culture dominated by asinine priorities in which the superficial is king. With that, we come to the issue of abortion. In the last few days, there have started to be rumblings within the Republican primary campaign from people saying that candidates are spending too much time on "social issues" like abortion. Some of them are saying that such subjects should be left out altogether in favor of what they have decided are more important issues – primarily those related to the economy. Now I realize that some of the people making such statements are not Christians but, for those who are, I want to issue a warning. Scripture talks about people who choke on gnats while swallowing camels. Make no mistake, this "drop-the-social-issues" chant is a textbook example of that phenomenon. What we must never forget is that God is not going to judge America over unemployment rates, regressive tax policies, immigration laws or any of the other issues we deceive ourselves into thinking are so crucial. But if we continue to behave as if we can avoid His judgment over the slaughter of the unborn, we are presiding over the collapse of this nation. It may not be politically correct to say this, but the truth is that if we continue down this path, we have no hope left. Not only is our destruction assured, it is well deserved. Abortion, social issues, primary elections Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:00:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/3/1/Abortion-and-the-Kilby-Effect http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/8/Obamas-Newest-Shell-Game The Obamanistas are saying that the new mandate requiring all employers – including Catholic institutions – to provide free birth control insurance to every employee does not violate the religious freedom of those institutions. They claim this is so because an exemption is granted to those religious-based organizations that primarily minister to members of their own faith. According to this standard, the only way a Catholic hospital would qualify for this exemption would be to fire all of its non-Catholic employees and replace them with Catholics. The problem is, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, RELIGION, sex, or national origin. If we assume that the Obama administration is aware of the 1964 Civil Right Act, the only rational conclusion is that they intentionally designed a scheme in which any institution that attempted to qualify for their exemption would be in violation of federal law. To carry it one step further, it could be argued that the only way a Catholic hospital would ever be eligible for this exemption is if they also had an admissions policy that only accepted Catholic patients. I also suspect that even Catholic patients would have to be turned away if they were brought into the emergency room by non-Catholic ambulance drivers. All I can say it that you have to hand it to the Obamanistas. They may be thoroughly evil, but they are crafty. Abortion, Obama, Mandate, insurance Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:28:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/8/Obamas-Newest-Shell-Game http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/7/Time-to-Exhale By now, most people probably know about the Susan G.Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco. To recap, Komen announced that it would no longer give money to Planned Parenthood; the baby-killing lobby immediately went into an apoplectic rage; right on cue, the mainstream media piled on Komen with an attack so vicious it could almost make you feel sorry for them. Finally, wearing their best "deer-in-the-headlights" look, Komen's leadership rescinded the funding prohibition, rolled over onto their back and started begging Planned Parenthood not to hurt them anymore. And with that, the curtain came down. Planned Parenthood had taught Komen that when you ride on the back of a shark, trying to dismount is dangerous. After the smoke had cleared, a truly laughable moment was provided by godless-left gadfly, Anna Quindlen. She told a gathering of Planned Parenthood degenerates in Fort Worth that the lesson to be learned from this episode is that, "When you poke us women, we poke back." Given that, by this point, Komen and Planned Parenthood had already kissed and made up, this warning was clearly directed at anyone who might, in the future, be tempted to challenge Komen or Planned Parenthood – most notably, the pro-life movement. Apparently, Quindlen had convinced herself that she could rattle her little pink saber and we would all go screaming into the night and cower under our beds. But all I could think about was, "What the hell is this nitwit talking about?" I mean, this was basically a cat-fight within the pro-choice camp in which the pro-life movement was little more than a spectator. But somehow, these people are strutting around like it was us who ended up groveling at the feet of Planned Parenthood. The reality is, from the perspective of the pro-life movement, everything ended up at the same place it started. In the beginning, an organization comprised of morally bankrupt pro-aborts was giving money to the country's number one abortion profiteer. In the end, that was still the case. However, even though the journey ended where it started, that doesn't mean nothing good was accomplished along the way. It was. First, the aura of credibility and prestige that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had cultivated was finally exposed as a fraud. They have long been tied to the abortion lobby and, now, everyone knows it. Second, the stench of being associated with abortion was reinforced one more time. Once again, the public saw that abortion is a 220-volt wire that even its most ardent advocates do not want to touch. Third, for this thing to unravel in just three days is a testament to Komen's pathetically weak leadership. Furthermore, it is now going to give an untold amount of its donor's money to a New York public relations agency in an attempt to repair the damage. Fourth, the public saw Planned Parenthood turn on one of its own donors like a pack of rabid hyenas. It was a savage and low-class response that is completely within the character of Planned Parenthood. Hopefully, that fact won't be lost on potential donors in the future. Fifth, the media's shameless bias and incompetence was again put on public display. When Komen said that they were discontinuing their funding to Planned Parenthood, the media instantly portrayed it as a result of pressure brought by "anti-abortion bullies and terrorists." They did this despite there being no evidence to support this assertion and despite Komen's assurances that it was not true. It should also be noted that, when Komen flopped, none of these people attributed it to bullying or terrorism by Planned Parenthood fanatics. Now, in an effort to justify Komen's decision to restore Planned Parenthood funding, its defenders are resorting to some of their stale old arguments. For example, they are saying that Planned Parenthood is the only source of healthcare for many poor women. This ignores the fact that every dollar given to Planned Parenthood can be just as easily given to a legitimate healthcare provider. It is a scandal and an obscenity that we relegate the poor to getting their healthcare from abortionists. Be assured that, among the wealthy, the political power structure, the media elite, and all the others who are so quick to tout Planned Parenthood's virtues for the poor, none of them would be caught dead getting their own healthcare from these people. Another tactic Komen defenders are using is to claim that the money it gives to Planned Parenthood does not promote or pay for abortions. This is nonsense. Once a dollar is put into an organization's account, it is indistinguishable from any other dollar put into the account. It's like pouring water from several sources into a bucket. Once it's poured in, there is no way to restrict which water can be taken out and used for a particular purpose. The fact is, as long as Planned Parenthood is doing abortions, it cannot be honestly stated that money given to them is insulated from abortion. Komen's people are also defending their actions by contending that abortion is only a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. There are, of course, several flaws with this claim – not the least of which is the fact that it is a lie. Simply analyze Planned Parenthood's own financial data and it becomes clear that abortion is, in fact, a major part of their business. It should also be noted that the pro-life movement has never claimed that killing babies is all that Planned Parenthood does. We have merely pointed out that they kill more babies than any one else. And that is undeniable. But even if it were true that abortion is only a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, it's irrelevant. It's no different than some apologist for Adolph Hitler saying that killing Jews was only a small part of what the Nazis did, or someone defending the Klan by claiming that lynching was only a small part of what they did. Or imagine some guy convicted for bank robbery whining that his trial was unfair because he wasn't given credit for all the banks he didn't rob. Another excuse offered by Komen's defenders is that many of Planned Parenthood's facilities don't even do abortions. And once more, this is completely irrelevant. The fact is, there is not one Planned Parenthood facility in America that does not either do abortions or refer for abortions. And whether the people associated with the Susan G. Komen Foundation or Planned Parenthood want to own up to it or not, the blood of any child snuffed out by abortion is on the hands of every person who played a role in making that abortion happen. To put it bluntly, they don't have to actually hold the knife in order to be responsible for the killing. Komen, Planned Parenthood, abortion Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:59:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/7/Time-to-Exhale http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/1/2/All-That-Glitters Some time ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), began allowing the "Morning-After Pill" (MAP) to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription. At the time, I pointed out that this was a tremendous victory for perverts who prey on underage girls for sex. After all, these guys understand that pregnant 13-year-olds can result in a couple of men with badges, guns and no sense of humor walking up their sidewalk. But thanks to the Obama administration, that little problem can be headed-off with a quick trip to the neighborhood drug store. One little pill and the child is cleaned-out and back in service. Of course, the most important thing is that those pesky cops aren't knocking on the front door. Then in December, HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, announced that MAP sales would not be permitted to children under seventeen. The next day, Barack Obama leaped on board telling the media that he fully supported her decision. Meanwhile, some pro-life and pro-family groups even joined the chorus characterizing Sebelious' action as a crucial first-step in protecting young girls. This is unadulterated nonsense. Let's get one thing perfectly straight. The problem never was that over-the-counter MAP sales allows statutory rape victims to buy these pills anonymously. The problem was that over-the-counter MAP sales allows statutory rape perpetrators to buy them anonymously. And that is still the case. For years, the American abortion and contraception cartel has been operating a pedophile protection racket and this decision does not alter that in any way. Moreover, Obama and Sebelius are fully aware of this and are simply grandstanding for the nation's Catholic bishops. In fact, even some Democrat Party operatives are conceding this point. Remember, in order to be re-elected, Obama has to receive a significant percentage of the Catholic vote. Working against that is a growing awareness among Catholics that ObamaCare is going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, take away the "conscious clauses" that protect Catholic healthcare workers and require Catholic pharmacists to fill birth-control prescriptions. It is also pretty clear that these are things that, contrary to their public pronouncements, the Obamanistas are not willing to give up. They understand that when medical professionals have the option to either participate in abortion or not, they choose the latter. This means that the only long-term hope the abortion industry has for survival is in forced abortion provision. That is the driving force behind the sudden decision to limit MAP sales. It is a no-expense / low-risk way to sand away the rough edges of issues that are irritating a crucial group of voters. The cold reality is, the Over-the-Counter-Morning-After-Pill controversy was yesterday's wound and, if this were not an election year, Obama and Sebilious would not have picked the scab off of it. abortion, ObamaCare, Catholic voters Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:02:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/1/2/All-That-Glitters http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/11/6/Herman-Cain-Meet-Samuel-Yette In January of this year, an African-American man living out his life in a Maryland nursing home succumbed to Alzheimer's disease. Because he was not a sports hero or a member of America's brain-dead entertainment industry, the nation barely noted either his life or his passing. His name was Samuel Frederick Yette. Born into the segregated South in 1929, Mr. Yette earned a bachelor's degree from Tennessee State University and a master's from Indiana University. Then, following his U.S. Air Force service in the Korean War, he became an award-winning journalist who worked for several newspapers and magazines. In 1964, he was appointed Executive Secretary of the Peace Corp after which he became Special Assistant for Civil Rights to the Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. He later became a civil-rights commentator for both BET and PBS and he finished his working life as a lecturer and a professor at Howard University. Among Yette's many other achievements, in 1968, he had become the first African-American reporter hired by Newsweek magazine where he soon rose to the position of Washington D.C. Bureau Correspondent. But three years later, he wrote a book that exposed high-level plans within the United States to use birth control and abortion as instruments of Black genocide. Yette's book was called The Choice and, immediately after it was published, he was summoned to his supervisor's office and fired. During that meeting, he was told that his termination was caused by pressure from the Nixon White House to get him out of Washington. Next, despite the fact that his book was selling well, had won at least two national awards and was being used as a textbook in colleges across the country, Yette's publisher mysteriously dropped him and took the book off the market. It is important to understand that, by this point in history, population control – especially Black population control – had become a virtual religion for America's power structure. And that remains true to this day. Whether it's liberal social engineers, or wealthy elitists, or the media establishment, or the academic community, these people have created a "Population-Control / Family-Planning Cartel" that does not tolerate dissent. If you cross them, or if you appear to be a threat to their agenda, they will chop you off at the knees. It is also true that they have been especially ruthless about this when it comes to African-Americans. Early on, the leaders of the eugenics movement had figured out that it was best for them to keep their racial intentions hidden. They also understood that it would be hard to pull this off if a lot of "uppity" Black opinion molders started challenging their actions and questioning their motives. That knowledge drove the assault on Samuel Yette. The Cartel – of which Richard Nixon was a card-carrying member – was sending a message to civil-rights activists, politicians, journalists, writers, college professors or anyone else who might have influence within the Black community. They were being warned that, when it came to population control, they only had two options; they could either get on the plantation or they could keep their mouths shut. Yette described the situation perfectly in January of 1972 when he told a reporter for Jet Magazine, "I do not mean to be pejorative or vindictive, when I say this, but had I been a nigger instead of Black, a spy instead of a reporter, a tool instead of a man, I could have stayed at Newsweek indefinitely." Samuel Yette may have told the Cartel where to shove their options but, regrettably, time would show that most influential Blacks did not have his kind of courage. Thus, they chose between the two options offered to them. In just one example of this, the politically ambitious Jesse Jackson instantly went from describing abortion as "genocide" and calling for a constitutional amendment to ban it, to being one of its most shameless apologists. In Jackson's world, the word "genocide" had morphed into the word "choice" virtually overnight. He, and others like him, were creating a model for how to suck-up to America's power-elite. It is a model that is still in use as you read this. Now comes Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain. In the last few weeks, Cain began pointing out that the Cartel is still alive and well in the form of organizations like Planned Parenthood. He also reminded the public that this particular organization was founded as an instrument of eugenics while being politically and financially backed by ultra-wealthy racists and eugenicists. He then correctly pointed out that Planned Parenthood, as well as other eugenics organizations, have disproportionately placed their facilities in minority communities with results that have been both disastrous and predictable. Finally, he called for Planned Parenthood to be stripped of its one-million-dollars-a-day in taxpayer funding. (You heard correctly ... $1,000,000.00 a day.) The fascinating thing is that, within hours, anonymous people started dropping out of the trees to claim that Herman Cain sexually harassed them. As we have seen in the past, this is a very convenient charge because it is one that is virtually impossible to refute. In the minds of many, the mere accusation itself is evidence of guilt and, once the allegation is made, the target has to prove a negative which, for all practical purposes, cannot be done. This is especially problematic for Republicans since the standard for using it against them is different than it is for Democrats. For whatever reason, it appears that our society has reached a point where it simply accepts that Democrat politicians will have significantly lower moral standards than Republican politicians. The perfect example of this is, of course, Bill Clinton. I mean, here is a man that even the most ardent Democrats would not leave alone in a room with their 15-year-old daughter, but they would enthusiastically elect him President of the United States. Back to the Cain situation, let me make it clear that I have no personal knowledge of whether the allegations against him are legitimate or not. On one hand, there are men who sexually harass women and, on the other hand, there are women who fabricate such charges. In the end, it seems that only the accusers and the accused ever really know the truth. So while I have no way of drawing conclusions regarding the merit of these accusations, their timing is undeniably suspicious. From the beginning, it seemed too coincidental to actually be coincidental that Cain's attack on the Population-Control / Family-Planning Cartel was immediately followed by sexual harassment charges against him. I may be baying at the moon here, but the whole episode gives off a very Nixonian odor. Perhaps Herman Cain is being warned to either take one of the Cartel's options or suffer the fate of Samuel Yette. Whether that is the case or not, the reality is that if Herman Cain was "pro-choice" on abortion and the leading candidate in the Republican race for the White House, there would be no sexual harassment accusations hanging over his head and it wouldn't matter how true or untrue they may be. If you doubt that, again I refer to Bill Clinton. When far more serious and far more numerous allegations were made against him, including some that would have been felonies if prosecuted, the leaders of America's eugenics and population-control groups tied themselves in knots trying to defend him. Many even publicly admitted that the reason they were willing to look the other way was because of Clinton's unwavering support for abortion. In an article written about this situation by feminist gadfly, Gloria Steinam, it was even suggested that Slick Willy was to be admired because it appeared that, when he went after a woman, he backed down if she rejected him. His willingness to accept "No" for an answer was, according to her, proof that he was the kind of man feminists want all men to become. In short, every man gets one free grope. Of course, to no one's surprise, this newly embraced "boys-will-be-boys" attitude even extended to the media. Former Time magazine reporter, Nina Burleigh, wrote an article heaping praise on Clinton in which she volunteered that, "I'd be happy to give him a b*** j** [street term for oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Others made similarly charming statements. The message in all this was unmistakable and unambiguous. The population-control lobby has come to just accept that, by definition, pro-choice men are going to be of lower moral character than other men and should not be expected to meet the same standards of behavior. And sure 'nuff, they never are. I want to offer one last observation for Mr. Cain and all those others who might one day find themselves being ground under the Cartel's hobnailed boot. Samuel Yette left this world as a decent and courageous man and that is a feeling sell-outs like Jesse Jackson will never experience. The interesting thing is that Shakespeare defined the lives of these two men centuries before either of them was born: "Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once." Herman Cain, Samuel Yette, genocide, abortion Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:12:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/11/6/Herman-Cain-Meet-Samuel-Yette http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/7/Setting-the-Record-Straight Contrary to what some of his supporters contend, not everyone who criticizes Barack Obama is a racist. The fact is, unless these Obama apologists are complete morons, they know that this is nonsense – even while they are in the midst of making the charge. It's a shabby little game in which the "race card" is deployed as a way to cut off any criticism of Obama. There is a parallel phenomenon in the Christian community and, in recent days, I have seen it first hand as a result of my defense of Father Pavone. Because I have helped to expose the contemptible actions taken against him by his bishop, the "anti-Catholic" card is now being played against me. Let me be perfectly clear about this. While the people doing this are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, they are not entitled to their own facts. Here is just a tiny part of what they are conveniently leaving out of the equation. Since I started Life Dynamics, well over half my employees have been Catholic, including three of my personal assistants. The attorney who represents us is Catholic. The majority of our donors are Catholic, and the only person I have ever given authority to make major decisions for Life Dynamics other than me is Catholic. In addition to Priests for Life, I also work hand in hand with groups like Human Life International (HLI), American Life League, Pro-Life Action League and numerous other Catholic organizations. I was very close to HLI founder, Father Paul Marx, and remained in regular contact with him until his death. It may also surprise some to know that Father Marx was a faithful and long-time donor to Life Dynamics. In 2002, I received the first annual Cardinal Von Galen Award from HLI and, in 2004, I was given the Cardinal O'Connor Pro-Life Hall of Fame Award by Legatus. I was also given the 2009 Blogger of the Year award by American Life League. Moreover, I have consistently made it clear that the Catholic Church and its associated organizations were on the frontlines of the pro-life battle when the vast majority of my fellow Southern Baptists were perfectly comfortable looking the other way. I have also shown no reluctance to publicly defend the Catholic Church or state that, without its commitment to this cause, there would have never even been a pro-life movement. I could go much further down this track, but the point is that these efforts to portray me as "anti-Catholic" are absurd and despicable. The people doing this are motivated by the fact that I do not ascribe to the view that the Catholic hierarchy, or any other church's hierarchy, is to be installed upon a pedestal and given authority that is absolute and beyond scrutiny. In their minds, that makes me "anti-Catholic" in the same way that criticizing Obama's stimulus plan makes someone a racist in the minds of some hardcore Obamanistas. In fairness, it should be noted that self-pious bigotry is not a disease that only infects Catholics. Over the years, many non-Catholics have felt the need to call my office and warn me that if I continue to associate with Catholics – or as they describe them, "that cult of cloven-hoofed heretics" – I will eventually find myself with a window seat on the Hell Bound Express. Regrettably, a couple of these nitwits have checked in with me in the last couple of days. It seems they are quite amused that a bunch of Catholics would like to see me rotating over a low flame because of my aggressive defense of a Catholic priest. The irony about this is that none of these people would now be attacking me if I had simply abandoned Father Frank when Bishop Zurek dropped him in the grease. Of course, it may not be ironic at all. It could be that it reflects the simple reality that these people are just opposite sides of the same coin – though both would become enraged at such a suggestion. Before closing, I want to bring up a couple of other issues. First, notice how quiet the pro-choice mob is being. Obviously, these people understand the concept that when your enemy is in self-destruct mode, the smartest thing to do is keep your mouth shut. My prediction is that, once all of this is resolved, they will have plenty to say. Second, I can assure you that if the things that are going on behind the scenes of this regrettable situation are ever made public, the people who are now blindly defending Bishop Zurek are going to be stunned at what they learn. I can also assure you that these revelations will not be coming from me. Finally, I want to make you aware of an interesting phone call I received yesterday. It was from Dr. Levon Yuille who is an African-American pastor in Michigan and unwavering defender of the unborn. He told me that, a couple of years ago, he was giving a speech at a pro-life banquet and that, afterward, he was milling around chatting with a small group of attendees. He said that he can't remember why but, for some reason, Father Frank's name came up. At some point in the conversation, he said this well-dressed woman standing nearby suddenly blurted out that, "Father Pavone is getting too big for his britches and we're going to take him down." Dr. Yuille said he found this incident bizarre but that he had forgotten about it until he heard what Bishop Zurek was doing. After some discussion, we both concluded that it is a long shot to assume that her statement and this situation are related. But who knows? Fr. Frank Pavone, Bishop Zurek Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:36:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/7/Setting-the-Record-Straight http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/3/Who-Do-You-Trust Recently, the Ohio legislature was debating a piece of abortion legislation when State Representative, Connie Pillich became unhinged and began shrieking that attempts to restrict abortion indicate that we don't trust women. First off, this seems to be an odd assertion given that most of the people in the pro-life movement are women and, yes, that includes most of its leaders. Apparently, Ms. Pillich is hoping that the public is simple-minded enough to just accept at face value her charge that a predominately female entity does not trust women and seeks to squash them underfoot. Beyond that, however, saying we shouldn't have laws against abortion and should, instead, trust women to make their own decisions, is no different than saying we shouldn't have laws against rape because men should be trusted to make their own decisions. It's also no different than opposing laws against armed robbery on the basis that we should just trust each person to make his or her own decisions about whether stealing is right or wrong. In fact, this philosophy can be just as easily applied to any subject. As for this particular issue, the abortion lobby's basic argument is that since women are the ones who get pregnant, they are the only ones qualified to make the decisions that are right for them. Using that concept, imagine the following hypothetical, but quite realistic, scenario. A pregnant woman has an abortion scheduled for tomorrow, but goes into premature labor today and gives birth. Also imagine that the baby survives. (And yes, abortions are done on babies who have reached the point of viability. For proof, all you have to do is check out abortion clinic advertising in the Yellow Pages.) The question is: under these circumstances, should it be legal for her to kill that baby? Remember, she already decided that she doesn't want it and arrangements were in place to have it killed the next day anyway. So why should she lose her "right to choose" because of circumstances that were beyond her control? Is she not still the one best qualified to make the decisions that are right for her? Otherwise, what we're saying is that we trust women to make good decisions while they're pregnant, but at the moment they're no longer pregnant we no longer trust them. It should also be pointed out that, from the baby's perspective, there is no distinction between being butchered inside the womb or outside. Naturally, the mental images created by the latter might cause the rest of us to feel a little queasy, but we could comfort ourselves by just looking the other way and referring to it by some high-sounding sanitized term like "reproductive choice ex-utero." Since Roe vs. Wade, our society has developed a real talent for inventing that sort of self-deluding rhetoric. So again, do we still trust this woman to make the right decision or not? Look, the cold hard reality is that every statute enacted denies someone the legal ability to make certain decisions. In fact, that is what they are intended to do. The law is a response to the realization that all human beings--men and women--are capable of making decisions that are dangerous, immoral, destructive, etcetera. And the law exists to keep those decisions from being inflicted upon other innocent human beings. Now, to Ms. Pillich and her fellow travelers who are out there chanting this mindless "we trust women" mantra, I have a challenge for you. If you do indeed trust women, prove it. Start promoting an overhaul of the American legal system so that it exempts women from all legislation. By doing this, you would be making sure that women have the legal right to make their own decisions about everything – driving drunk, embezzling money from their employers, writing bad checks, using cocaine or selling their bodies in prostitution. Female business owners would even be allowed to decide for themselves whether to discriminate against minorities. The list goes on and on, but the common element is that every law enforceable against women is, by definition, a statement that we don't trust them. Clearly, that makes such laws irreconcilable with your philosophy and demands that they be eliminated. If you are "pro-choice," you simply cannot tolerate the fact that women are being denied these choices. Either you trust women or you don't. Of course, we both know that you are not going to accept my challenge and we both know why. You know that doing so would expose your "trust women" rhetoric as pure undiluted nonsense. To put it succinctly, this line of argument is nothing more than a diversionary scam you people dreamed up to keep from having to defend a barbaric practice that you know cannot be defended. As for my fellow pro-lifers, it is important to understand that when your enemies are reduced to making idiotic and irrational arguments like this, what they are telling you is that you are winning and they are out of ideas. Today, death merchants like Connie Pillich are seeing a tidal wave of pro-life sentiment rolling across America and they know there is nothing they can do to hold it back. So be encouraged, ratchet up the pressure, and savor the beautiful sounds of pro-aborts squealing like pigs stuck under a fence. Abortion, trust women, St. Rep. Pillich Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:11:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/3/Who-Do-You-Trust