LifeNews.com Note: Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King is a leading pro-life voice who formerly had two abortions before having a faith conversion and she now is a speaker for and representative of the educational outreach of Priests for Life and the Silent No More network. This editorial originally appeared in the Washington Times.
Let me begin by telling you that two of 50 million children taken away by abortionists since 1973 were mine. I can still see them in my mind's eye.
Like many black women, I once believed the doctor who told me my babies were no more than "a blob of tissue." I wanted to believe it. Eventually, I realized I was wrong, that I was a secondary victim of abortion. I repented and found healing through God. Today, I work in the civil rights movement of our century -- the right of every one of every race to live.
I am asking you to join me. Let me tell you why. Abortion and racism are evil twins, born of the same lie. Where racism now hides its face in public, abortion is accomplishing the goals of which racism only once dreamed. Together, abortionists are destroying humanity at large and the black community in particular.
Abortion has taken a gruesome toll on the black community, killing more than AIDS and crime combined. Some 14 million black babies have been aborted since the 1973 US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all stages in all 50 states. That's equal to one-third of the number of blacks living today.
By the abortion industry's own statistics, black women are 4.8 times more likely to abort than are non-Hispanic white women. Blacks comprise about 13% of the population, yet have 37% of all abortions.
When dramatic racial disparities like these appeared in employment and education, it was enough to conclude that institutionalized racism and discrimination were present in our corporations and colleges. Why should we apply a different standard to the abortion industry?
Racism and abortion are twins in many other ways.
Racism springs from the lie that certain human beings are less than fully human. It's a self-centered falsehood that corrupts our minds into believing we are right to treat others as we would not want to be treated. So it is with abortion.
Racism oppresses its victims, but also binds the oppressors, who sear their consciences with more and more lies until they become prisoners of those lies. They cannot face the truth of human equality because it reveals the horror of the injustices they commit. While victims die physically, practitioners die spiritually. So it is with abortion.
Racism is a way to gain economic advantage at the expense of others. Slavery and plantations may be gone, but racism still allows us to regard those who may keep us from financial gain as less than equals. So it is with abortion.
A majority, perhaps as many as 75%, of abortion clinics are in areas with high minority populations. Abortion apologists will say this is because they want to serve the poor. You don't serve the poor, however, by taking their money to terminate their children.
The abortion movement in this country was started by Margaret Sanger, the founder of an organization known today as Planned Parenthood. Ms. Sanger was quite open that she wanted "more children from the fit, less from the unfit." The unfit, she made clear, were blacks and poor whites. She had no qualms about speaking to as many as 12 Ku Klux Klan meetings. As I discuss in the new film, "Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America" (produced by Life Dynamics Inc.), she targeted blacks in her eugenics-based campaigns.
Does an overtly racist past mean that the abortion industry is racist today? Consider last year's widely reported account of seven Planned Parenthood offices that agreed to accept a donation on the sole condition that the money only be used to abort black babies. The recordings of the phone calls to Planned Parenthood are chilling. Why were some offices of the organization willing to take money based on race?
Abortion targets blacks disproportionately, but it affects everyone. And as my uncle, Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from the Birmingham jail, "[i]njustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Abortion is an attack on the family and the humanity that unites us all.
My Uncle Martin also wrote: "The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety." Those words are still true today. After all, how can the dream survive if we let them take our children?
1/18/2010
MLK's Neice on Abortion
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- On a day when Americans across the country are celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his desire to regard all people as Americans worthy of equal treatment, his niece says King's dream, if announced today, would also include protecting unborn children from abortion.
Dr. Alveda King, today, is celebrating Uncle’s life and she said he would agree that, when it comes to treating all people with respect, that he would include babies before birth.
“Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of a Beloved Community where all are treated with respect and dignity,” Alveda King told LifeNews.com today.
“He fought against society’s exclusion of people who were treated as less than human because of their appearance," she added. "Today, we are compelled to continue Uncle Martin’s fight by standing up for those who are treated as less than human because of their helplessness and inconvenience."
King told LifeNews.com, “The unborn are as much a part of the Beloved Community as are newborns, infants, teenagers, adults, and the elderly."
The niece of the great civil rights leader also said those who follow his ideals of tolerance don't always show that to unborn children.
"Too many of us speak of tolerance and inclusion, yet refuse to tolerate or include the weakest and most innocent among us in the human family," she said.
King concludes, "As we celebrate the life of Uncle Martin, let us renew our hearts and commit our lives to treating each other, whatever our race, status, or stage of life, as we would want to be treated. Let us let each other live."
King had an abortion but now speaks out for protecting human life. She has called abortion and racism "evil twins."
Alveda King and her family will be joined by pro-life leader Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life as a program participant in the Martin Luther King Jr. Annual Commemorative Service at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
Dr. Alveda King, today, is celebrating Uncle’s life and she said he would agree that, when it comes to treating all people with respect, that he would include babies before birth.
“Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of a Beloved Community where all are treated with respect and dignity,” Alveda King told LifeNews.com today.
“He fought against society’s exclusion of people who were treated as less than human because of their appearance," she added. "Today, we are compelled to continue Uncle Martin’s fight by standing up for those who are treated as less than human because of their helplessness and inconvenience."
King told LifeNews.com, “The unborn are as much a part of the Beloved Community as are newborns, infants, teenagers, adults, and the elderly."
The niece of the great civil rights leader also said those who follow his ideals of tolerance don't always show that to unborn children.
"Too many of us speak of tolerance and inclusion, yet refuse to tolerate or include the weakest and most innocent among us in the human family," she said.
King concludes, "As we celebrate the life of Uncle Martin, let us renew our hearts and commit our lives to treating each other, whatever our race, status, or stage of life, as we would want to be treated. Let us let each other live."
King had an abortion but now speaks out for protecting human life. She has called abortion and racism "evil twins."
Alveda King and her family will be joined by pro-life leader Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life as a program participant in the Martin Luther King Jr. Annual Commemorative Service at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
11/16/2009
10/16/2009
Dennis Miller: The other side of 'but'
Dennis Miller: The other side of 'but'
By: Dennis Miller
Op-Ed Contributor
October 16, 2009
I guess I've been hearing it for years now as the country has slid into knee-jerk relativism. Till now though, it's merely been an equivocating grandfather clock in the background, metronomic, at worst nettlesome. It was at the beginning of l'affaire Polanski, though, that I realized how much I've come to detest the word "but."
One liberal pundit or another (banality = interchangeability) was bleating on and on, and I actually heard the words "what Roman Polanski did was wrong but ..." and it hit me like an air horn in a Trappist monastery. With a simple wave of the conjunctive wand, we now believe that we can explain away absolutely anything!
I know man does not live by declarative sentences alone, although you can certainly do a lot worse than Hemingway. Purely and simply, there are certain times in life that you have to pull up short of the logic abyss that is the word "but" and pitch camp on the near side of it. This is one of those times.
To apply a caveat to the forcible rape of a 13-year-old girl by a 40-year-old euro-lech armed with quaaludes and bubbly (and ably assisted by a brain-dead parent) is akin to sailing around the Cape of Good Hope to visit the corner store.
Now while I'm pretty certain Whoopi Goldberg is going to try to put a Roadrunner cloud between herself and her "not a rape-rape" gem, I'm not even sure she has to anymore! I think our society is so inundated with misinformed faux wisdom these days that her swing and a miss moment has already passed. The dogs bark, the caravan/news cycle moves on.
And where do you most often find this contorted gibberish masquerading as insight? Invariably on the backside of the word "but." Liberals have commandeered "but," conservative bunko artists favor "nevertheless," and moderates put you into an induced coma with their incessant "howevers." Pick your poison, fact is we'd all be better off staying on this side of the "but."
If you feel you've got something so wise, so precious, so singularly sagacious, that you want to tag it onto Polanski's atrocity to "shed some light on it," light is in fact your biggest problem because you've got your head shoved so far up your tuchus that they're gonna have to cut in switchback trails to get to it.
The Roman Legions came over the hill flying a single flag, the liberal one. Make of that what you will, I guess occasionally a man is going to be pushed too far. Think Van Heflin in "Shane." Evidently some liberals felt pushed too far by the arrest of Polanski. No doubt some airtight progressive notion about the day of the rape paling in comparison with the days since the rape. Now, I can't tell if Polanski's defenders are completely underthinking this or overthinking it. Either way, they're obviously not thinking. Theirs is a flat-line electroencephalogram.
If we don't have unanimity on the rape and sodomy of a 13-year old girl, well, we're never gonna have it, are we? If "but" appears as a fulcrum in a sentence about an occurrence this horrific, it signals a brokenness in the American spirit that even a card carrying, "eyebrow-raised-higher-than-Pelosi's" skeptic like me could never have imagined.
"But" appears to have become America's verbal Continental Divide. Rainwater falls down one side, drivel the other. Polanski is a monster and the evil he perpetrated on that child demands punishment. No "buts."
*Author's note. Short of its parenthetical use to remind the reader which word was the butt of this screed, not one "but" was used (at appreciable difficulty I might add), in the composition of this piece.
Comedian and commentator extraordinaire Dennis Miller appears regularly in the "Miller Time" segment of "The O'Reilly Factor "on Fox News, as well as his own daily talk radio show heard on more than 250 stations across the country.
By: Dennis Miller
Op-Ed Contributor
October 16, 2009
I guess I've been hearing it for years now as the country has slid into knee-jerk relativism. Till now though, it's merely been an equivocating grandfather clock in the background, metronomic, at worst nettlesome. It was at the beginning of l'affaire Polanski, though, that I realized how much I've come to detest the word "but."
One liberal pundit or another (banality = interchangeability) was bleating on and on, and I actually heard the words "what Roman Polanski did was wrong but ..." and it hit me like an air horn in a Trappist monastery. With a simple wave of the conjunctive wand, we now believe that we can explain away absolutely anything!
I know man does not live by declarative sentences alone, although you can certainly do a lot worse than Hemingway. Purely and simply, there are certain times in life that you have to pull up short of the logic abyss that is the word "but" and pitch camp on the near side of it. This is one of those times.
To apply a caveat to the forcible rape of a 13-year-old girl by a 40-year-old euro-lech armed with quaaludes and bubbly (and ably assisted by a brain-dead parent) is akin to sailing around the Cape of Good Hope to visit the corner store.
Now while I'm pretty certain Whoopi Goldberg is going to try to put a Roadrunner cloud between herself and her "not a rape-rape" gem, I'm not even sure she has to anymore! I think our society is so inundated with misinformed faux wisdom these days that her swing and a miss moment has already passed. The dogs bark, the caravan/news cycle moves on.
And where do you most often find this contorted gibberish masquerading as insight? Invariably on the backside of the word "but." Liberals have commandeered "but," conservative bunko artists favor "nevertheless," and moderates put you into an induced coma with their incessant "howevers." Pick your poison, fact is we'd all be better off staying on this side of the "but."
If you feel you've got something so wise, so precious, so singularly sagacious, that you want to tag it onto Polanski's atrocity to "shed some light on it," light is in fact your biggest problem because you've got your head shoved so far up your tuchus that they're gonna have to cut in switchback trails to get to it.
The Roman Legions came over the hill flying a single flag, the liberal one. Make of that what you will, I guess occasionally a man is going to be pushed too far. Think Van Heflin in "Shane." Evidently some liberals felt pushed too far by the arrest of Polanski. No doubt some airtight progressive notion about the day of the rape paling in comparison with the days since the rape. Now, I can't tell if Polanski's defenders are completely underthinking this or overthinking it. Either way, they're obviously not thinking. Theirs is a flat-line electroencephalogram.
If we don't have unanimity on the rape and sodomy of a 13-year old girl, well, we're never gonna have it, are we? If "but" appears as a fulcrum in a sentence about an occurrence this horrific, it signals a brokenness in the American spirit that even a card carrying, "eyebrow-raised-higher-than-Pelosi's" skeptic like me could never have imagined.
"But" appears to have become America's verbal Continental Divide. Rainwater falls down one side, drivel the other. Polanski is a monster and the evil he perpetrated on that child demands punishment. No "buts."
*Author's note. Short of its parenthetical use to remind the reader which word was the butt of this screed, not one "but" was used (at appreciable difficulty I might add), in the composition of this piece.
Comedian and commentator extraordinaire Dennis Miller appears regularly in the "Miller Time" segment of "The O'Reilly Factor "on Fox News, as well as his own daily talk radio show heard on more than 250 stations across the country.
10/12/2009
An Open Letter to the President
Dear President Barack Obama:
You are an annoying prick.
Please get the fuck off of my television.
I am sick of hearing your irritating speech patterns and your goofy-looking face, and then the sickening boot-licking sycophants in the mainstream news media slobbering over your every pronouncement like you are the Saviour of all humanity.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States of America.
P.S. Now that you are making some extra bucks, how about getting that stupid mole removed from your face?
You are an annoying prick.
Please get the fuck off of my television.
I am sick of hearing your irritating speech patterns and your goofy-looking face, and then the sickening boot-licking sycophants in the mainstream news media slobbering over your every pronouncement like you are the Saviour of all humanity.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States of America.
P.S. Now that you are making some extra bucks, how about getting that stupid mole removed from your face?
9/19/2009
Nationalized Health Care
For my entire adult life, I have worked and struggled and sacrificed most of my dreams to provide for my family, and to make sure each one received medical care as they needed it. I have foregone opportunities because I could not afford to take the chance of not having health insurance, for even a short while.
Now, with my children grown and able to take care of themselves, I am being asked, no, told that I must now support a new, more "socially just" system that will provide health insurance to millions of people who do not take personal responsibility in their lives, who do not, and will not make the necessary sacrifices to take care of themselves and their families. I must accept a lower standard of care, and outrageously confiscatory taxes, in order to provide this "free" service to millions of people, a huge portion of whom are of virtually no value to society.
I wonder why, and what is the morality behind it, that I must pay for the health care of other people's children? It is the parents' responsibility to provide for their own offspring, to feed them, educate them, and keep them healthy. It is not mine.
Now, with my children grown and able to take care of themselves, I am being asked, no, told that I must now support a new, more "socially just" system that will provide health insurance to millions of people who do not take personal responsibility in their lives, who do not, and will not make the necessary sacrifices to take care of themselves and their families. I must accept a lower standard of care, and outrageously confiscatory taxes, in order to provide this "free" service to millions of people, a huge portion of whom are of virtually no value to society.
I wonder why, and what is the morality behind it, that I must pay for the health care of other people's children? It is the parents' responsibility to provide for their own offspring, to feed them, educate them, and keep them healthy. It is not mine.
9/02/2009
Hard-Learned Lessons
Each generation, it seems, has to learn first hand of the depth of corruption of the Democratic party. After years of bitching and complaining, name-calling and slander about the Republican party and it's leadership, the Democrats have finally convinced millions of otherwise apathetic young voters to come out to the polls and end the Republican corruption. Well, congratulations to you, young voters. You have gotten your wish. Who knows how long this brave new socialist world will last? You have believed in a saviour, and now he (with the assistance of his co-conspirators, thugs, demagogues, criminals, liars, thieves, and henchmen) is busy delivering on his promises, by stealing money from people who work, and giving it to his own political supporters.
This change in government is not just switching from Republican to Democratic leadership as it has been in the past; since the Democratic party has become dominated by those whom we used to call Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and Anarchists, the whole system is in danger.
These people are trying to institute such changes in the American form of government that it is nearly as bad as if we had lost a war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and been taken over by soviet bureaucrats and regulators.
I can remember when I was a child, I used to hear a then-common phrase: "It's a free country, isn't it?", meaning "I can do whatever I want to, as long as it harms no one else". It's been decades since I've heard this phrase, or even the sentiment.
Over the past several years, I have heard the leftists repeat various versions of the Benjamin Franklin quote about freedom and security: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." I don't know about whether they would deserve neither, but that is what they will get, for sure. The quote has been used to beat up on George W. Bush, because of the Patriot Act, wherein the government took upon themselves the right to monitor communications with foreign enemies.
Now, we are in a great battle about nationalized health care, where the left wants the government to provide us with the SECURITY of free health care, in exchange for our FREEDOM to choose whether we want to participate. They, who know better than we, will TAKE our money, and give us minimal health care, after siphoning off trillions of dollars for the vast bureaucracy that will be administering this boon from our "generous" government.
The opportunities for corruption are vast. It will be bad for our country, and bad for our citizens, and bad for the people of the earth. I am against it, but there seems little I can do about it. Too bad. I am mostly concerned with the lower quality of life that my children and their children will enjoy due to this power grab. It is very sad.
This change in government is not just switching from Republican to Democratic leadership as it has been in the past; since the Democratic party has become dominated by those whom we used to call Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and Anarchists, the whole system is in danger.
These people are trying to institute such changes in the American form of government that it is nearly as bad as if we had lost a war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and been taken over by soviet bureaucrats and regulators.
I can remember when I was a child, I used to hear a then-common phrase: "It's a free country, isn't it?", meaning "I can do whatever I want to, as long as it harms no one else". It's been decades since I've heard this phrase, or even the sentiment.
Over the past several years, I have heard the leftists repeat various versions of the Benjamin Franklin quote about freedom and security: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." I don't know about whether they would deserve neither, but that is what they will get, for sure. The quote has been used to beat up on George W. Bush, because of the Patriot Act, wherein the government took upon themselves the right to monitor communications with foreign enemies.
Now, we are in a great battle about nationalized health care, where the left wants the government to provide us with the SECURITY of free health care, in exchange for our FREEDOM to choose whether we want to participate. They, who know better than we, will TAKE our money, and give us minimal health care, after siphoning off trillions of dollars for the vast bureaucracy that will be administering this boon from our "generous" government.
The opportunities for corruption are vast. It will be bad for our country, and bad for our citizens, and bad for the people of the earth. I am against it, but there seems little I can do about it. Too bad. I am mostly concerned with the lower quality of life that my children and their children will enjoy due to this power grab. It is very sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
