Author Archives: bluebird of bitterness

Herman Cain, meet Samuel Yette

by Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics Incorporated

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 Corps 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 were “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 Steinem, 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.”

Copyright 2011 by Mark Crutcher. Used with permission.

5 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Bill Clinton, Democrats, Eugenics, Feminism, Herman Cain, Human Rights, Planned Parenthood, Republicans

Politics, protests, and playtime

Inspired by Occupy Wall Street and its many copycats, my daughter decided to outfit some of her toys with their very own custom-made protest signs. (Click to enlarge for enhanced legibility.)

4 Comments

Filed under Funny Stuff

Firestorm over “Firefly” poster; FIRE intervenes

I swear, there are times I think some Wisconsin residents are determined to make our state the laughingstock of the country.

Last month, a theater professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stout put a poster on the door to his office. It was a picture of a character from the TV series “Firefly” with a quote from the show. And it got the professor threatened with criminal charges. Here it is:

(You can watch a video clip here that puts the above quote into context.)

I’ve never watched “Firefly” myself, although several of my children are fans. Christian Schneider at National Review Online describes it as a “libertarian cult classic that is part throwback Western, part space fiction, and features characters (ironically) who battle an authoritarian government.”

Professor James Miller, a fan of the series, put the poster on his office door on September 12. On September 16, UW-Stout Police Chief Lisa Walter removed the poster, and informed Dr. Miller that “it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing.”

University officials agreed with Walter, saying that they simply couldn’t allow posters that they believe contain threats of violence. “We have a responsibility as a university to provide an atmosphere for our students, faculty and staff that is safe,” UW-Stout spokesman Doug Mell said.

After his Firefly poster was confiscated, Miller put up a different poster:

The campus cops removed that one as well, and Miller received an email from Police Chief Walter that said, among other things, “The posting depicts violence and mentions violence and death. The campuses [sic] threat assessment team met yesterday and conferred with UW System Office of General Counsel and made the decision that this posting should be removed. It is believed that this posting also has a reasonable expectation that it will cause a material and/or substantial disruption of school activities and/or be constituted [sic] as a threat.”

Then the aptly-named Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) jumped into the fray. On September 21, FIRE wrote a letter to UW-Stout Chancellor Charles Sorenson protesting the assault on Professor Miller’s free speech rights. Sorenson did not respond to the letter. On September 27, Sorensen sent an email to all faculty and staff, claiming that the University’s act of censorship was not an act of censorship, but “an act of sensitivity to and care for our shared community, and was intended to maintain a campus climate in which everyone can feel welcome, safe and secure.”

Nathan Fillion (the actor whose picture appears on the offending poster), Adam Baldwin (another actor from the series), and writer Neil Gaiman also got into the act, posting comments on Twitter that prompted thousands of people from across the country to contact UW administrators in support of Professor Miller.

As Baldwin pointed out in a column he wrote for Big Hollywood, none of the folks currently having fits over Professor Miller’s supposedly “violent” and “threatening” posters expressed even the mildest objection to the “Kill the Bill” signs that appeared all over campus earlier this year as part of a protest against Governor Scott Walker’s budget bill. The signs were a takeoff on the publicity poster for the movie “Kill Bill” (another movie I didn’t see, due to my wimpish tendency to avoid movies with large amounts of violence, blood and gore). Baldwin wrote:

Oddly enough, police chief Walter was not at all concerned with the reference to killing or to the weapon of violence depicted in those posters. In fact, she was quoted in this article at the time as being rather complimentary of the activities.

“The neat part of working in a university is that folks get to have their voices heard, and we try to make sure that it’s done in a manner that’s orderly and doesn’t disrupt the rest of the operations too much,” she said.

The double standard is alive and well in academia.

But finally the pressure got to be too much even for the arrogant know-it-alls who run UW-Stout, and the administration caved. Chancellor Sorenson defended the original decision to remove the posters, stating that officials did so “out of legitimate concern for the violent messages contained in each poster and the belief that the posters ran counter to our primary mission to provide a campus that is welcoming, safe and secure.”

“In retrospect, however,” the statement continued, “it is clear that the removal of the posters – although done with the best intent – did have the effect of casting doubt on UW-Stout’s dedication to the principles embodied in the First Amendment, especially the ability to express oneself freely.” No kidding.

“FIRE is pleased that UW-Stout has decided to abandon its previous position and reopen the door to free speech and common sense on its campus,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “This victory would not have been possible without the outpouring of support from people across the country on news sites, blogs, and social media. FIRE would especially like to thank Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Neil Gaiman, and my fellow Firefly fans.”

You can learn more about FIRE here.

(crossposted on bluebird of bitterness)

10 Comments

Filed under Education, Liberty

Whom do you trust?

by Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics Inc.

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, et cetera. 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.

Reprinted with permission. Here are some other recent articles by Mark that are worth a read:

Apparently, Seeing Ain’t Believing

Someone Please Pass the Logic

Comments Off on Whom do you trust?

Filed under Abortion, Human Rights

More garden pictures

My husband got some great pictures of my morning glories a couple of days ago, so I thought I’d share a few of them.





Here’s something I’d never seen before: a four-sided morning glory.

Yes, I am a morning glory fanatic. But I do grow a few other things too. Here’s a group shot of part of my coleus collection:

9 Comments

Filed under How Does Your Garden Grow?

My garden, what there is of it

My garden was nothing to brag about this year, due to a number of factors. First was the terrible economy, which left me with very little money to spend on plants (and my record of success in growing things from seed is abysmal). Second was that I got a very late start, as I had to wait for the places that sell plants to mark everything down to half price. Third was a combination of uncooperative weather (including several hailstorms) and frequent neglect on the part of the gardener (i.e. me). Let’s just say it wasn’t one of those summers that I would have wanted my yard to be on the Garden Tour. Still, there are some places in it that are quite pretty… so I had my teenage daughter go out this afternoon and take some close-up shots of the parts that are actually worth looking at.

4 Comments

Filed under How Does Your Garden Grow?

Just what America needs

I was skeptical at first whether this was a real book; I thought it might be the work of a prankster. But I checked online, and the title seems to be available for purchase from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, WalMart, and other retailers, so I’m guessing it must be for real.

I expect your first thought on seeing it was: Just what we need — more idiots working for government. Yeah, that was my first thought too.

Here are a few of the customer comments about this book on Amazon.com:

“Absolutely capital idea for a book, because clearly complete idiots are underrepresented in the ranks of government employees.” –Michael S.

“Everything you need to know about being deadwood that can’t be fired is found in this book. Yes that’s right, live off the taxpayer with great travel opportunities and of course complimentary membership in the union of your choice (for the first month, union fees assessed retroactively).” –Jabez

“I plunked down the money from my recently-cashed welfare check and bought this book a few weeks ago. It has changed my life! Not only do I now have a government job with health benefits and a pension, but I was able to move out of my parents’ basement and into a rent-controlled apartment. As luck would have it, a gorgeous tattooed lady on a motorized scooter was purchasing this book at the same time, and when our eyes met we fell in love. That night she introduced me to her children and they each told me about their fathers. Three kids, three fathers, woohoo. I can’t wait to start a family with this lady and soak the taxpayers for our health care and dental costs. Of course the dentistry is for me, she ain’t got no teeth.” –Ted M.

11 Comments

Filed under Books

Cat rescuer extraordinaire

Tina (offspring of FranklytheNut) recounts how she rescued a litter of starving kittens, and joined the ranks of the crazy cat ladies.

10 Comments

Filed under Funny Stuff

Land that I love

posted by Bob

What a Hoot posted this video earlier in the week, but I’m re-posting in case anyone missed it.

Here is the short version, containing just the performance:

This version contains the performance, preceded by a segment introducing the performers and followed by the judges’ comments:

Comments Off on Land that I love

Filed under Loose Pollen

Depends on what the meaning of “hostilities” is…

posted by Bob

When it comes to meanings of words, many politicians subscribe to the thumbscrew theory of lexicography: torture the language until it says what you want it to say. Bill Clinton concerned himself with little words like “is,” but Barack Obama has bigger fish to fry: he wants to redefine the word “hostilities.” The Bard of Murdock elaborates:

For Democratic presidents
Afflicted with precision,
The definition of a word
Can be a grave decision.

It stands to reason that elites
Who take a small excursion,
Would want to find replacement words,
And with them a diversion.

But stupid is as stupid does
And ‘is’ is self-defining;
No matter how Bill Clinton spins,
The word needs no refining.

A decade later, once again
We’re back to definitions,
This time primarily with guns,
With bombs and live munitions.

The President prefers what he
Would call kinetic action;
He hates the word hostilities,
Preferring an abstraction.

I’m sure Gaddafi and his friends
Might raise a point of order,
As NATO’s bombs drop left and right
Inside their country’s border.

But if we were to call it war
Then, per our Constitution,
It would require Congress pass
An awkward resolution.

So following in Bubba’s steps
And Democrat tradition,
The President just redefines
And doesn’t seek permission.

Copyright 2011 by The Bard of Murdock. Used with permission.

(crossposted at bluebird of bitterness)

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Benghazi, Bill Clinton, Constitution, Democrats, Funny Stuff