Implications of the Jaffe Memo for Christians in Society

[This is adapted from a much longer essay by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath, which can be read here. Anthony is a pro-life speaker and the president of Wisconsin Lutherans for Life.]

Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has set the pro-life blogosphere on fire with her posting of the ‘Jaffe Memo,’ a memorandum written by Frederick S. Jaffe, former vice-president of Planned Parenthood.  Jaffe apparently was in charge of PP’s population control agenda.  The memo was written in 1969.

The memo appears to be legit but I haven’t been able to find its original source.  Read it.

This memo has all sorts of blood chilling suggestions- blood chilling if the culture of death does not run through your veins, that is.  Ideas on controlling world population include:

  • Fertility control agents in the water supply
  • Encourage women to work
  • Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
  • Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
  • Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children- except for a few who would be allowed three
  • Discouragement of private home ownership
  • Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically
  • Make contraception truly available to all

Some of my more predictable readers will go through that list and their eyes will simply glaze over for most of it.  With their eyes in a fog as they instinctively declare the above as merely an instance of “Godwin’s Law” but their blood started boiling when they saw on the list “Encourage women to work.”

Dear God, who could be against that? And who could be against making contraception available to everyone?  Clearly, this blogger is a bigot.

I included that item in order to make a very important point. Continue reading

‘Social issues’ are related to liberty and limited gov’t!

By Anthony Horvath
© 2010

Apparently, a letter has been written to GOP leaders by conservative homosexuals and some tea-party activists requesting that the GOP lay off its traditional pro-life stance. That would be horrible for many reasons. One reason: In actuality, de-emphasizing life issues is a threat to conservative notions about limited government and individual liberty.

The very first thing that has to be made clear is that those in the culture of death themselves strongly believe that social issues and economic issues are linked. The pro-death camp is perfectly able to present their “social issues” in economic terms. Not only are they able, but they are happy to do so.

A brief glance at history reveals this to be utterly obvious and conclusively true. To take one prominent example, the eugenics movement was very concerned about improving the race, but it was more than that. Activists’ position on these “social issues” was closely connected to the economic realities on the ground as they perceived them, as this quote from Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) will quickly corroborate:

The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of their small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. … The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community, when we become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race; when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born. [“Pivot of Civilization,” page 99-100]

Continue reading »


Anthony Horvath is the executive director of Athanatos Christian Ministries. He speaks often on pro-life issues and his ministry hosts an online apologetics conference dedicated to the defense of the family through the arts.

Tony Perkins, a tarnished icon

Please read Gregg Jackson’s letter below for details on how a pro-family icon betrayed his supporters.

Tony Perkins was an icon of the pro-family movement until he started supporting Mitt Romney, in kind of a zombie-like irrational way, despite the warnings from Christian leaders. I too have had an acquaintance who was very pro-family. Until the last primaries, when suddenly she became very defensive about Mitt. I sent her some of the information about him that clearly showed how he had supported same-sex marriage in MA while he was governor, thinking I could change her mind. She sent me a terse email saying “my mind is made up. I am supporting Romney.”

It didn’t make sense because she didn’t give any reasons for this, and I had my suspicions even then because her husband was highly placed in the GOP.

Since then, it is becoming abundantly clear why some people have remained so adamantly pro-Romney despite the evidence. Romney trades in a commodity called loyalty, and there are sellers, some in very high places.

Why do they sell themselves?

Tony and his ilk want to have their rewards on earth.

Friends, don’t sell your loyalty for a fistful of devalued dollars. God has something better in store for you if you are willing to wait.

Donald Hank

 

Friends,

As many of you are aware, I have called on Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council (FRC) on numerous occasions to retract his support for Mitt Romney and return any money he and FRC have received from Romney and/or his surrogates.

Yet, Mr. Perkins continues to promote and support Romney, recently calling him a “friend to the pro-family movement” in a fundraising e-mail (from July 22, 2008) as well as featuring Romney at the upcoming FRC/Values Voters Summit in Washington D.C.

As all of you know (including Mr. Perkins), Mitt Romney:

  • Established abortion with a $50 co pay as a “healthcare benefit” (AFTER his supposed “pro life conversion”) in his socialist healthcare plan that was endorsed by Hillary, Teddy K, and Planned Parenthood.
  • Appointed a Planned Parenthood member to his healthcare advisory board (AFTER his supposed “pro-life conversion”) and no pro-life appointed representative.
  • Illegally instituted same sex “marriage” without an accompanying legal statute to fulfill an earlier promise to the Log Cabin Republicans not to oppose same-sex “marriage” in return for their endorsement. (There was no “court order” as Romney has falsely claimed.)
  • Boosted government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren.

  • Refused for his entire four years in office to order his education officials to enforce parents’ legal rights to protect their own children from unwanted indoctrination about homosexuality.
  • Forced Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples or go out of business (which they ultimately did) even though he was not required to do so by law.
  • Forced Catholic Hospitals to issue the abortion pill claiming that he was required by law to do so even though Mike Dukakis admitted there was no law that existed which required Romney to do so.
  • Opposes a ban on homosexual scoutmasters.
  • Favors sexual orientation “anti-discrimination” laws for homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders.
  • Opposed the Bush Tax Cuts.
  • Raised taxes and fees by over $900 million as governor which has destroyed the Massachusetts economy.
  • Implemented a socialist healthcare plan endorsed by Planned Parenthood that in the words of the Wall St. Journal is in “intensive care” whose costs are estimated to more than double and which the Cato Institute and Boston Globe has said is a total failure.
  • Lied about seeing his father march with MLK.
  • Lied about being a hunter “pretty much” (his) whole life.
  • Lied about being endorsed by the NRA in 2002.

 

Isn’t it time that Tony Perkins and FRC cease from portraying the Founding Father of sodomy “marriage” and the 50 dollar tax funded abortion, Mitt Romney, as a “friend to the pro-family movement?”

Isn’t it time that we shine the light of truth on the man and his “pro-family” organization who continues to deceive millions of pro-family Christians and grassroots conservatives about a very wicked man?

Will you take a stand as a pro-family and pro-life leader and join me in calling for Tony Perkins to:

  • Return the $250,000 that Perkins/FRC received from Romney and his surrogates?
  • Retract his support for Romney and claim that Romney is a “friend to the pro-family movement?”
  • Resign as President of FRC?

 

If you choose to take a bold and courageous stand for truth and righteousness, please hit “reply all” and let every other leader on this e-mail including Tony Perkins, know where you stand.

I will post this letter on my site www.greggjackson.com along with those leaders who choose to stand with me in calling for Mr. Perkins to resign as the President of Family Research Council (with a list of those who chose not to) and will distribute to the entire news media.

I will assume that if you don’t respond and call for Mr. Perkins to resign, that you support Mr. Perkins’ backing of Mitt Romney whose legacy as governor is even to the left of much of today’s ultra-left wing Democrat Party and is one that Barack Obama would be proud of.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely Yours,

Gregg Jackson

www.gregggjackson.com

Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind

Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind

 

By Donald Hank

Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more.

Great strides have been made recently, however, with the recognition, among the most astute observers, that Hitler’s Third Reich is by no means an example of rightwing ideology and policies in action, contrary to current political doctrine.

Many conservative writers have already concluded that Hitler was not a rightwinger, based mostly on his National Socialism.

Indeed Mr. de Carvalho’s (as yet unpublished) lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” cites the recent book “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia” by Richard Overy, which demonstrates the parallels between Hitler and Stalin.

I had noticed that the compatibility of Hitler’s ideology with today’s European relativism was brilliantly highlighted in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, and most poignantly in the scene in a former Third Reich mental “hospital” where patients deemed to be of no value to society were gassed (I couldn’t help but think of Terri Schiavo). When Stein asked the tour guide at the museum what she would say if she could talk to the perpetrators of that horror, she simply said that was another era and they had their reasons for doing what they did. Thus she clearly would not feel justified in judging these criminals by her standards (assuming she had any). Here was a woman who had certainly been educated in Germany, either the communist East Germany or the socialistic West Germany. Neither system prepared her to condemn Hitler’s actions because these actions were based on the same world view that Germany embraces today, atheistic humanism based on a tenacious belief in Darwinist principles of natural selection, and the correlative notion that man has a moral right and even obligation to support natural selection with his laws under which a race can be culled of inferior elements. Neither socialism nor “national” socialism reject this out of hand. Only Christianity does, and that religion is fading fast in Europe (while here Christianity is being absorbed by the Left. See here, here and here).

All this helps clarify the compatibility between two world views that our education system and mainstream press insist are opposites.

But surprisingly, despite a lot of keen observation, before Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture, no one had yet managed to credibly characterize the Left in all of its main facets.

I have personally grappled with this for many years and had all but despaired of finding an adequate definition. And yet, how can a good American be a good American if he can’t identify the enemy of his way of life? How can he stand athwart history and shout stop if he doesn’t know what it is he must stop?

At the top of the first page of each issue of Izvestia was the slogan “Workers of the world unite!” Thus to people of my era, the Left portrayed itself as a system of social justice that aimed at creating a level playing field between workers and their bosses and attempted to share the wealth equally with a view to building a world free of poverty.

Yet today, we see the Left working hard to make fuel more expensive for the poor, not in any attempt at social justice but rather to “save the planet.” The main area where social “justice” is sought is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the current thrust is toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” which, if it triumphs, will trivialize traditional marriage, ultimately prompting fewer to marry and bear children, since part of the attractiveness of marriage has been a sacred religious ceremony affirming one’s faith, encouraging people to wait until marriage to enjoy sex, and therefore fostering heterosexual purity based on a biblical world view. None of this is apparent in the “gay” community with its emphasis on promiscuity (broad daylight naked orgies) and its rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality. This focus on discouraging child birth is mightily supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus, ultimately, the leftist vision seems to be a world with more poverty and fewer children born to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly, for example, by paying into the social services system. The once-proud vision of a world of strong healthy workers receiving equal pay for a better, more prosperous life, is quickly giving way to a vision of a world impoverished for the sake of an impersonal planet to whose riches mankind must increasingly forfeit its claims. We are taught that to consider humanity’s needs is to be selfish, that we must sacrifice our children’s future for the sake of a planet. And yet we are being asked to sever ties to that planet as if our destiny were separate from its.

Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead.

In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed.

How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?

Olavo de Carvalho had wondered the same thing. But he was born into a South American environment where leftism was the air they breathed. It was the worldview in academe and on the street and there was no other box to think outside of. Therefore, as a philosophy student, he was steeped in the literature of the Left, not just Marx and Hegel but the entire pantheon of leftist gods writing the blueprints for society. Thus he had read an enormous amount of this literature and is today one of the few living conservatives-having had his epiphany-who now truly understands the Left, something like David Horowitz, except that de Carvalho had the additional benefit of seeing a much more virulent leftism in action and up close.

Even so, Mr. Carvalho had to read and reread the old (and new) revolutionary literature to find a common thread, and what he found is surprising:

The Left (which he calls the “revolution”) is not a unified ideology or agenda at all, but rather a way of seeing the world, and specifically it is an inversion of what normal people call common sense. And this inversion is the sole unifying factor, the one common thread running through the revolution since the 13th and 14th centuries

According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon.

Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).

Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.

One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.

While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.

The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.

Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.

De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!

To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).

By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” the American revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.

De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.

You will be a better American for having read the writings of – a great American.

 

Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosopher and writer, many of whose articles have graced the pages of Laigle’s Forum.

 

VA cuts off Planned Parenthood funding

Virginia Cuts All Government Funding to Planned Parenthood

Senate surprisingly follows House in opposing abortion funding

By Michael Baggot

RICHMOND, VA, February 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Virginia Senate decided to end taxpayer funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood on Wednesday.  Lt. Governor Bill Bolling cast the tie-breaking vote and approved the amendment to the state budget following the 20-20 tie vote among senators. 

Attorney general hopeful Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II introduced the amendment.  He explicitly attacked Planned Parenthood’s abortion programs.  “What we are doing is financing an abortion-mill operator,” Cuccinelli said. “This will deny them that money.”

The decision was a surprise, given the Senate’s Democratic majority.  Democrat Sen. Charles J. Colgan’s vote in favor of the amendment led to the tie vote, which was decided by the Lt. Governor’s vote.  Despite pressure from fellow Democrats, Colgan sided with 19 Republicans, stating, “I ran on a pro-life platform, and most of my constituents are pro-life.”  Colgan cited fidelity to his conscience as a major reason for opposing funding to Planned Parenthood.

Democratic opponents of the amendment claimed that Planned Parenthood’s programs actually decrease abortion, and that cutting funding to PP would hurt PP’s HIV prevention and pregnancy prevention programs.

Sen. Janet D. Howell, argued that Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive programs lead to a decreased number of abortions.  “The irony is, Planned Parenthood probably prevents more abortions than any other organization in the country,” said Howell.

Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw expressed fears that the Wednesday decision will lead to further funding cuts to groups that supply abortion.  “Once we start down this road, there will be no stopping,” said Saslaw.

Last summer, Planned Parenthood revealed that it had received $305.3 million in tax-player funding in 2006, 12 percent more than in the previous year.  Planned Parenthood admitted that 34 percent of its 2006 income came from taxpayer funding.  The organization also reported a $55.8 million profit for the year. 

The Republican-controlled House has already eliminated Planned Parenthood funding from its budget. 

Planned Parenthood’s abortion support was a clear reason for House opposition to funding.  “We should shut off all federal dollars to any organization that provides abortion services or counseling,” Rep. Stephen King told Cybercast News Service. 

Representatives also cited the inappropriate sexual material on Planned Parenthood’s teenwire.com site as reason to end taxpayer support of the group.  The site tells teens that viewing pornography is normal.  “I don’t believe taxpayer funding should be going to groups that put sexually explicit material on the Internet targeted at minors” said Rep. Joseph Pitts. 

The final state budget will be decided during the next week in light of both House and Senate proposals. 

Lifesite recently reported on undercover investigations that showed Planned Parenthood’s racist tendencies (http://laiglesforum.com/wp-admin/).  An actor playing a white racist was able to give money to the group for the specific purpose of eliminating a black baby who might someday rob the apparent donor’s son of a spot in college because of “affirmative action”. 

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, once stated, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

In another case from last year, Lila Rose, editor of The Advocate pro-life magazine, who also organized the recent racism investigation, posed as a 15 year old seeking an abortion at Planned Parenthood.  In a recorded conversation, she was encouraged to change her birth date so that the organization would not have to report her pregnancy as statutory rape.

In light of undercover recent investigations, Rose argues that “young girls are at risk and Planned Parenthood is receiving federal tax money. The federal government should investigate this and Planned Parenthood, like any other corporation, should be held accountable.”

See other related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Undercover Investigation Reveals Planned Parenthood’s Racism
http://laiglesforum.com/wp-admin/

U.S. Planned Parenthood Reports Record Profit, Record Amount of Taxpayer Funding
http://laiglesforum.com/wp-admin/