Skip to content

America’s Destiny in the Balance



Author: Steve McCann
Source: American Thinker – 07.01.2015
Link: About.Me


In 1856 Harper’s Magazine published a quote first attributed to Jose Correia de Serra, a Portuguese Abbot, scientist and close friend of Thomas Jefferson: “It has been said that a ‘special Providence watches over children, drunkards and the United States’.” The presidency of Barack Obama is the latest example of the accuracy of this observation, since the American people have been granted a last chance, before it is too late, to reverse course as a window has been forced open for the citizenry to view what future will bring if the nation remains on its present course.

Beginning in the 1930’s, under the aegis of Franklin Roosevelt, the nation began a drift to the left as a reaction to the Great Depression. However, those truly committed to socialist/Marxist philosophy and tactics remained in the shadows until the 1960’s. The Viet Nam war protests unleashed far more than just a demand for an end to the war. Those that blamed America for all manner of alleged sins in the past and determined to transform the United States into a socialist/Marxist nirvana were able to step out from behind the shadows and enter the mainstream of national legitimacy. This swarm of locusts soon enveloped the higher levels of academia spawning countless clones to further infiltrate all strata of society — most notably the mainstream media, the entertainment complex and the ultimate target: the Democratic Party. These vital segments of the culture are now instruments of indoctrination, propaganda and political power.

The curriculum throughout all levels of schooling and the scripts of movies and television shows were gradually but inexorably altered to reflect the American left’s mindset, not only about governing, but their determination to undermine basic societal moral and religious underpinning as a necessary step in assuring that an eventual ill-educated and dependent populace would look to a government controlled by a single political party as their savior and provider.

Over the past fifty years, as the foundation of the United States was being stealthily eroded, the vast majority of the American people slumbered content in unprecedented peace and prosperity. Regardless of who was in the White House or in control of Congress, no one has been able or willing, as by-product of this public apathy, to curtail the incessant spread of so-called Progressivism in the nation’s institutions as well as the exponential growth of government with its tentacles increasingly intertwined in the day-to-day lives of all Americans.

Nonetheless in 2008 this was still a right of center country, as less than 20% of the populace identified themselves as liberal or in favor of an all-powerful central government and over 80% self identified as religious. It was clear that it would take at least 15 to 20 years of public and political indifference and another fully indoctrinated generation before the tenets of socialism/Marxism would completely envelop the nation and its social and political institutions, thus being impossible to ever reverse.

It was at this point that Barack Obama was thrust upon the scene. No nominee in the history of the United States was less qualified to be president, as he had no accomplishments or executive experience except to be steeped in socialist/Marxist ideology and tactics. Nonetheless due to a extraordinary confluence of circumstances — the self-inflicted and near universal unpopularity of George W. Bush, a catastrophic financial meltdown six weeks before the presidential election, uninspiring and feckless opposition in the primaries and the general election and, most importantly, the unique factor of skin color — he was elected President.

With the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the White House the acolytes of the American Left, in their giddiness over the election of a fellow traveler, abandoned all pretext of moderation. Their adherence to the scorched earth tactics of Saul Alinski, open and unabashed advocacy of socialist/Marxist tenets, the depths to which they had infiltrated American society and the Democratic Party quickly began to come into focus.
[Related Article: When Subversives Rule]

After nearly six and half years of the Obama administration and the ongoing rampage of the Left, it is clear for all to see what future lies in store for the United States under the long term reign of this cabal:

A. The Supreme Court is one justice away from being dominated by politically motivated leftists, four of whom are already in place, bent on relegating the Constitution to the dustbin of history and replacing it with the Left’s agenda.
B. In due course, freedom of speech, religion and the press will be what the central government and courts, controlled by one party, allow it to be.
C. All macro-economic activity will be determined by Washington D.C., and in order to continue to operate major corporations, their managements will have to be subservient to the central government per the basic tenets of fascism. Small business formation will be severely curtailed as the federal regulatory state determines who and what business can be formed.
D. The power and independence of the individual states will be vastly eroded as the courts and the power of the purse emanating from Washington will force them into compliance with the whims of the Democratic Party.
E. The Republican Party will cease to effectively exist except as a token opposition party, as fund raising laws, a media controlled by the government, regulations and court decisions will render it ineffective.
F. There will be a permanent massive underclass encompassing over 50% of the population as a result of central planning, massive open door immigration, the near non-existence of new business formation and the inability of the country to weather the next global financial crisis. They and the remnant of the middle class that remains will be increasingly dependent on government largess as the national debt approaches 200% of a declining Gross Domestic Product and the nation lives under a constant threat of hyper-inflation.
G. The United States will, in due course, become a hollow military power unable to play a role on the world stage as other government expenditures and a declining standard of living render defense spending moot. As a result the country will find itself under increasing level of domestic attacks by terrorists spawned in the Middle East and acting as agents of America’s enemies. China will take over the status as the world’s super power as the United States voluntarily casts itself into a subservient role.
H. Eventually this nation as we know it will cease to exist as a violent reaction to all the above will eventuate in a revolution and split the country into three or four independent nations.

Notwithstanding the above, a plurality of the American people have begun to wake up to this potential reality as revealed by the outcome of the 2014 mid-term elections wherein the Democratic Party suffered massive defeats at all levels of government. However, far too many are still living in their self-induced stupor unable or unwilling to understand where this nation is headed and why. Coupled with the urgency of the populace and the opposition party to vigorously push back against the onslaught of the American Left for the next 18 months the election of 2016 will be the most critical in the nation’s history if the nation is to survive in peace and prosperity.

I am an immigrant to this country and a displaced survivor of a war that destroyed a continent. A war fomented by men, beginning the 1920’s, who also adhered to the same basic tenets espoused by Barack Obama and his fellow travelers. I have seen and experienced the end product of their narcissism and megalomania. Based on firsthand knowledge I can attest to the existence of God as well as his helping hand. God has given the people of the United States one last opportunity, through the circumstances of the election of Barack Obama, to rescue the last best hope of mankind. There will be no divine intervention — it is for the people, in their free will, to decide. If the citizenry chooses to maintain its present course, God will turn his back on this nation as he has done with much of Europe and the Middle East.




Author: Matt Ward
Source: Rapture Ready – 06.29.2015

As the end of the Second World War approached even the most diehard and fervent Nazis knew that the end was coming. During this critical time orders were issued which would completely baffle us. Instead of withdrawing the most experienced generals and fighters to defend the homeland the orders were instead given to send these generals to the death camps to speed up the execution of the Jews.

In other words, it was more of a priority to speed up the killing machine we have come to know as the Holocaust than it was to safeguard their own survival and futures. They sacrificed themselves so that they could kill as many Jews as possible in the time available to them. This is one of the ways we can know with certainty that the Nazi regime was demonically inspired.

Today in 2015, ISIS have killed 3027 people in Syria, including 1784 civilians, all within a matter of months. They drown people in cages, or set fire to them, filming it to show the world all its gory, sadistic details. They throw gay people off the roofs of high buildings because they’re gay; they are subjecting a generation of women to slavery in a way which the world hasn’t witnessed for a thousand years.

Some women and girls are being bought for as little as a box of cigarettes. Last month ISIS crucified 70 children simply because their parents are Christians, smashing their young hands and feet to crudely made crosses, some as young as four and all in the name of Islam.

The international outrage is non-existent.

The focus of everybody’s attention is on the recent Supreme Court decision over gay marriage. It really is a perverse juxtaposition. The Middle East is on the brink of self-destruction and the entire world wide economy is about to self-implode. Life for everybody on this earth could get drastically worse very quickly, yet the issue which occupies all the attention is gay marriage.

The real motivation in this decision is not perhaps what it seems.
[Related Article: Gay Activist Reveals the Truth]

The real issue here is not to win equality in marriage for gay people, as so many believe. The real agenda here, and it is a satanic one, is to marginalize Christians. That is why this is being celebrated so widely and why, despite the plethora of other more important events and issues around the world, it occupies such a place of prominence.

The real agenda here is to put Christians in a position where they are finally, legally exposed if they follow and practice their faith. The endgame is “to get” Christianity. The desired outcome is not to liberalize and bring equality for gay people; the desired outcome is to put Christianity directly within the crosshairs so that its adherents can be proactively attacked and persecuted.

If you live in the United States of America and you are a Bible-believing Christian you woke up this morning criminalized. When you went to bed early last week you were a different person to the person waking up this morning. If your desire is to live your life in a way pleasing to your Savior, then hard times are ahead; you and your beliefs have been rejected by the legal system of your country.

The repercussions of this judgment will be far reaching.


People write often, men and women that I respect, about the possibilities of national repentance and the spirit being poured out once again upon us. People better than I believe that if we would just turn our hearts back to God then even now He would forgive us as a nation. With all my heart I wish that this were true but in reality I simply don’t believe that it is possible anymore.

There is no coming back from what has just happened. What has taken place is an absolute affront to God. God ordained marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, it is a picture of Jesus Christ’s relationship with His Bride. This decision fundamentally corrupts God’s will for mankind and it mocks Him.

This decision is a very deep offense to the nature of God. Even the rainbow colors which are the symbol of the Pride movement is purposely offensive and insulting to God. It is designed specifically to cause God offense. These are the colors which symbolize God’s deliverance of mankind from a time of evil the likes of which this earth had not seen before.

A rainbow even surrounds the holy throne of God Himself. This rainbow, a symbol of deliverance has now become corrupted and twisted, now in our time a symbol of sin and rebellion, the symbol of the Pride movement.

As I write this my heart is very unsettled within me. I am deeply troubled spiritually by what has happened. When we look at the biblical example of Sodom and Gomorrah we need to understand that these cities were not destroyed until the leadership of these places actively mandated a homosexual lifestyle. With this decision America finds itself in an identical situation to Sodom and Gomorrah.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

God loves mankind, deeply and desperately. He loves us so much that He has told us what is good for us and what is bad through His Word. He cares for us to such a huge extent that He has actually put Himself in the place of our execution. God Himself stands directly in our stead on our behalf.

God loves humanity, each and every person within it.

Yet it is because of this love that God will ultimately allow each person and nation to decide for themselves what they think is good. If a nation chooses friendship with God then He will come and make his home with that nation. If a nation chooses to walk away from God and follow its own path, God will allow it…and abandon it.

This decision means that America has chosen enmity with God.There will be consequences for it. For those of you who will hold to Jesus and His testimony, you are now marginalized, set apart. Even though I genuinely believe that as the bride of Christ we will not see the wrath of God’s judgment come upon this world, I do believe, especially in light of this decision, that we will see persecution.

From this moment on we will never be as free as we once were in our faith. We will be systemically harassed and criminalized. I believe that there will be a brief pause now, a moment of calm while people and forces take stock of what has happened and what it means.

Then will come the outright persecution. You are in the crosshairs. You have been warned.

Attend to your God and His Son and be about His work. The night is coming when it is not possible to work. In fact, I think that dusk has already begun to settle on this fallen world.

Gay Activist Reveals Secret Agenda!



Homosexual Activist Admits True
Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

Source: Illinois Family Institute
Author: Micah Clark – 04.06.13

See also: Homosexuality and the Bible (

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Masha Gessen

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: ABC – Radio National)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

See also: Examining Homosexual Myths (

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point. When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits. Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

See also: America’s Spiritual Crisis (

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

See also: Is Homosexuality A Sin? (

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Related Articles:

Concerns for Richmond, VA and the Greater Richmond Area (

The Ten Lies of Feminism (

The Mother of Feminism Exposed (ONE WAY at

Planned Parenthood: American Genocide


The Negro Project

(Margret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics)

Source: the ONE WAY blog – 1.01.2013
See Also:
The Spirit of Feminism
Beyond Birth Control: Part One and Part Two
(Black Genocide) The Truth About Margret Sanger

The Negro Project:
Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans

Author: Tanya L. Green
Source: Concerned Women for America

“… I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”
—Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)

Malthusian Eugenics
The Harlem Clinic
Birth Control as a Solution
Web of Deceit
“Better Health for 13,000,000”
“Scientific Racism”
Sanger’s Legacy
Untangling the Deceptive Web
End Notes

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973). The significance of each case—equal rights for all Americans in the former, and abortion “rights” in the latter—converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

“’Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).[1]

The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

Malthusian Eugenics
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Margret Sanger

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.[2] He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.[3] His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.[4]

Malthus’ disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated—or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.[5]

Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.[6]

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Rudin.[7] Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.


Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without exception.” And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.[8]

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area—those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.[9]

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.[10]

In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].[11]

She concluded,

The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.[12]

The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:

It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.[13]

Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.”[14] She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.” Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be “of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”[15]

In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established “in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.” For this was the way “to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds [emphasis added].”[16]

Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:

– the woman or man had a “transmissible” disease such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, syphilis, etc.;
– the children already born were “subnormal or feeble-minded”;
– the father’s wages were “inadequate … to provide for more children.”

Sanger said “such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.”[17]

Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.

The Harlem Clinic
In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.[18] In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:

– were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s black population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
– comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
– had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
– had a death rate from tuberculosis—237 per 100,000—that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.[19]

Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois,[20] one of the day’s most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.

That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.[21] The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.

Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau
operated from this New York building
from 1930 to 1973.

Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem’s leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.”[22] She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.

Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem’s largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker.[23] But that event received criticism. At least one “very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist” spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, “received adverse criticism” from the (unnamed) minister who was “surprised that he’d allow that awful woman in his church.”[24]

Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family’s income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.

Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks.[25] Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.

Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic,[26] an indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger’s labyrinth.

Birth Control as a Solution
The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among blacks about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, they believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the “rationale” of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called “The Negro Number,” featured a series of articles written by blacks on the “virtues” of birth control.

The editorial posed this question: “Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?” The answer: “Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality … if they only knew how.”[27]

DuBois, in his article “Black Folk and Birth Control,” noted the “inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.”[28] He criticized the “mass of ignorant Negroes” who bred “carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] … is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”[29]


DuBois called for a “more liberal attitude” among black churches. He said they were open to “intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added].”[30]

Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, wrote “eugenic discrimination” was necessary for blacks.[31] He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.

Further, “the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief.”[32] Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.

Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as “pathetic.” In his article “God’s Chillun,” he wrote:

The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous [emphasis added].[33]

Terpenning considered birth control for blacks as “the more humane provision” and “more eugenic” than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust.[34] He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured.

Sadly, DuBois’ words of black churches being “open to intelligent propaganda” proved prophetic. Black pastors invited Sanger to speak to their congregations. Black publications, like The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender, featured her writings. Rather than attacking the root causes of maternal and infant deaths, diseases, poverty, unemployment and a host of other social ills—not the least of which was racism—Sanger pushed birth control. To many, it was better for blacks not to be born rather than endure such a harsh existence.

Against this setting, Sanger charmed the black community’s most distinguished leaders into accepting her plan, which was designed to their own detriment. She peddled her wares wrapped in pretty packages labeled “better health” and “family planning.” No one could deny the benefits of better health, being financially ready to raise children, or spacing one’s children. However, the solution to the real issues affecting blacks did not lay in reducing their numbers. It lay in attacking the forces in society that hindered their progress. Most importantly, one had to discern Sanger’s motive behind her push for birth control in the community. It was not an altruistic one.


Web of Deceit

Prior to 1939, Sanger’s “outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.”[35] Her vision for “the reproductive practices of black Americans” expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” He suggested black leaders be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge.[36] Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people.[37]

Another project director lamented:

I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.[38]

Sanger knew blacks were a religious people—and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:

The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added].[39]

Sanger’s cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA’s National Advisory Council reads like a “who’s who” among black Americans. To name a few:[40]

– Claude A. Barnett, director, Associated Negro Press, Chicago
– Michael J. Bent, M.D., Meharry Medical School, Nashville
– Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, president, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, D.C., special advisor to President Roosevelt on minority groups, and founder of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach
– Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, cum laude graduate of Tufts, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha (the nation’s oldest black sorority), Washington, D.C.
– Charles S. Johnson, president, Fisk University, Nashville
– Eugene Kinckle Jones, executive secretary, National Urban League, New York
– Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York
– Bishop David H. Sims, pastor, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia
– Arthur Spingarn, president, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Even with this impressive list, Sanger ran into resistance when she tried to present a birth control exhibit at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, a fair that traces the progress blacks have made since the Emancipation Proclamation, in Chicago. After inviting the BCFA to display its exhibit, the Exposition’s board later cancelled, citing “last minute changes in floor space.”[41]

Sanger did not buy this and issued a statement urging public protest. “This has come as a complete surprise,” said Sanger, “since the Federation undertook preparation of the exhibit upon an express invitation from a member of the Exposition board.”[42] She said the cancellation resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition. [43]

Her statement mentioned BCFA prepared the exhibit in consultation with its National (Negro) Advisory Council, and it illustrated “the need for birth control as a public health measure.”[44] She said the objective was to demonstrate how birth control would “improve the welfare of the Negro population,” noting the maternal death rate among black mothers was nearly 50 percent higher, and the child death rate was more than one-third greater than the white community.[45]

At Sanger’s urging, protesters of the cancellation sent letters to Attorney Wendall E. Green, vice chairman of the Afra-Merican Emancipation Exposition Commission (sponsor of the Exposition), requesting he investigate. Green denied there was any threat or pressure to withhold funds needed to finance the Exposition. Further, he said the Exposition commission (of Illinois) “unanimously passed a resolution,” which read in part: “That in the promotion, conduct and accomplishment of the objectives (of the Exposition) there must be an abiding spirit to create goodwill toward all people.”[46] He added that since the funds for the Exposition “came from citizens of all races and creeds, any exhibit in conflict with the known convictions of any religious group contravenes the spirit of the resolution,”[47] which seemed to support Catholic opposition. The commission upheld the ban on the exhibit.


“Better Health for 13,000,000”
The propaganda of the Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So on this premise, the BCFA designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated into existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.”[48]

The BCFA opened the first clinic at the Bethlehem Center in urban Nashville, Tennessee (where blacks constituted only 25 percent of the population), on February 13, 1940. They extended the work to the Social Services Center of Fisk University (a historically black college) on July 23, 1940. This location was especially significant because of its proximity to Meharry Medical School, which trained more than 50 percent of black physicians in the United States.[49]

An analysis of the income of the Nashville group revealed that “no family, regardless of size, had an income over $15 a week. The service obviously reached the income group for which it was designed,”[50] indicating the project’s target. The report claimed to have brought “to light serious diseases and making possible their treatment, … [and] that 55 percent [354 of the 638] of the patients prescribed birth control methods used it consistently and successfully.”[51] However, the report presented “no definite figures … to demonstrate the extent of community improvement.”[52]

The BCFA opened the second clinic on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Robert E. Seibels, chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association.[53] BCFA chose this site in part “because leaders in the state were particularly receptive to the experiment. South Carolina had been the second state to make child spacing a part of its state public health program after a survey of the state’s maternal deaths showed that 25 percent occurred among mothers known to be physically unfit for pregnancy.”[54] Again, the message went out: Birth control—not better prenatal care—reduced maternal and infant mortality.

Although Berkeley County’s population was 70 percent black, the clinic received criticism that members of this group were “overwhelmingly in the majority.”[55] Seibels assured Claude Barnett that this was not the case. “We have … simply given our help to those who were willing to receive it, and these usually are Negroes,” he said.[56]

While religious convictions significantly influenced the Nashville patients’ view of birth control, people in Berkeley County had “no religious prejudice against birth control. But the attitude that treatment of any disease was ‘against nature’ was in the air.”[57] Comparing the results of the two sites, “it is seen that the immediate receptivity to the demonstration was at the outset higher in the rural area.”[58] However, “the final total success was lower [in the rural area].” However, in Berkeley, “stark poverty was even more in evidence, and bad roads, bad weather and ignorance proved powerful counter forces [to the contraceptive programs].” After 18 months, the Berkeley program closed.[59]

The report indicated that, contrary to expectations, the lives of black patients serviced by the clinics did not improve dramatically from birth control. Two beliefs stood in the way: Some blacks likened birth control to abortion and others regarded it as “inherently immoral.”[60] However, “when thrown against the total pictures of the awareness on the part of Negro leaders of the improved conditions, … and their opportunities to even better conditions under Planned Parenthood, … the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed,” said Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.[61]

A hint of eugenic flavor seasoned Ferebee’s speech: “The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of us who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population [emphasis added].”[62] She peppered her speech with the importance of “Negro professionals, fully integrated into the staff, … who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks] in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race [emphasis added].”[63]

Sanger even managed to lure the prominent—but hesitant—black minister J. T. Braun, editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Publishing Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web. Braun confessed to Sanger that “the very idea of such a thing [birth control] has always held the greatest hatred and contempt in my mind. … I am hesitant to give my full endorsement of this idea, until you send me, perhaps, some more convincing literature on the subject.”[64] Sanger happily complied. She sent Braun the Federal Council of Churches’ Marriage and Home Committee pamphlet praised by Bishop Sims (another member of the National Advisory Council), assuring him that: “There are some people who believe that birth control is an attempt to dictate to families how many children to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.”[65]

Sanger’s assistants gave Braun more pro-birth control literature and a copy of her autobiography, which he gave to his wife to read. Sanger’s message of preventing maternal and infant mortality stirred Braun’s wife. Now convinced of this need, Braun permitted a group of women to use his chapel for a birth-control talk.[66] “[I was] moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition,” Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger.[67]At first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers and children [emphasis added].”[68]

By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations[69] into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.[70]

Sanger’s successful duplicity does not in any way suggest blacks were gullible. They certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. Sanger used their vulnerabilities and their ignorance (of her deliberately hidden agenda) to her advantage. Aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Surely, blacks would not have been such willing accomplices had they perceived her true intentions. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement—and Sanger’s embracing of that ideology—the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized.


“Scientific Racism”

Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to repudiate the organization’s eugenic origins.[71] It adamantly denies Sanger was a eugenicist or racist, despite evidence to the contrary. Because Sanger stopped editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the organization tries to disassociate her from the eugenic and racist-oriented articles published after that date. However, a summary of an address Sanger gave in 1932, which appeared in the Review that year, revealed her continuing bent toward eugenics.

In “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a “Parliament of Population.” One of the main objectives of the “Population Congress” would be “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” This would be accomplished by applying a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”[72]

It’s reasonable to conclude that as the leader of Planned Parenthood—even after 1929—Sanger would not allow publication of ideas she didn’t support.

Sanger’s defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control’s “health benefits.” However, she counted the very people she wanted to “educate” among the “unfit,” whose numbers needed to be restricted.

Grant presents other arguments Sanger’s supporters use to refute her racist roots:[73]

– blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other minorities are well represented in the “upper echelons” of Planned Parenthood Federation of America;
– the former, high-profile president of the organization, Faye Wattleton, is a black woman;
– “aggressive” minority hiring practices have been standard procedure for more than two decades;
– the “vast majority of the nation’s ethnic leadership solidly and actively supports the work” of the organization.

These justifications also fail because of what Grant calls “scientific racism.” This form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. “The issue is not ‘color of skin’ or ‘dialect of tongue,’” Grant writes, “but ‘quality of genes [emphasis added].’”[74] Therefore, “as long as blacks, Jews and Hispanics demonstrate ‘a good quality gene pool’—as long as they ‘act white and think white‘—then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, ‘the best of their race,’ then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens [emphasis added].” By the same token, “individual whites” who show “dysgenic traits” must also have their fertility “curbed right along with the other ‘inferiors and undesirables.’”[75]

In short, writes Grant, “Scientific racism is an equal opportunity discriminator [emphasis added]. Anyone with a ‘defective gene pool’ is suspect. And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the elite.”[76]

The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, “The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. … It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.”[77]

“There is no way to escape the implications,” argues William L. Davis, a black financial analyst Grant quotes. “When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when its goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn’t take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.”[78]


Sanger’s Legacy
It is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood’s past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. The poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood’s own records reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black [79]—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent.”[80]

“Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America,” says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. “We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community … say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”[81]
Prayer Requests for Richmond, VA

Some blacks have even made abortion “rights” synonymous with civil rights.

“We’re destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here,” Hunter laments. “Who knows the musicians we’ve lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers?” He recites an old African proverb: “No one knows whose womb holds the chief.”[82]

Hunter has personally observed the vestiges of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic past in the black community today. “When I travel around the country … I can only think of one abortion clinic [I’ve seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.”[83]

Hunter noted the controversy that occurred two years ago in Louisiana involving school-based health clinics. The racist undertone could not have been more evident. In the Baton Rouge district, officials were debating placing clinics in the high schools. Black state representative Sharon Weston Broome initially supported the idea. She later expressed concern about clinics providing contraceptives and abortion counseling. “Clinics should promote abstinence,” she said.[84] Upon learning officials wanted to put the clinics in black schools only, Hunter urged her to suggest they be placed in white schools as well. At Broome’s suggestion, however, proposals for the school clinics were “dropped immediately,” reported Hunter.

Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes.[85] “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”[86]

In 1987, a group of black ministers, parents and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. They charged the city’s school-based clinics with not only violating the state’s fornication laws, but also with discrimination against blacks. The clinics were a “calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life [between] black parents and their children,” the suit alleged.[87]

One of the parents in the group was “shocked” when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. “I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic,” she said. “[They are worse than] the Klan … because they’re so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface it’s as ugly as apartheid.”[88]

A more recent account uncovered a Planned Parenthood affiliate giving condoms to residents of a poor black neighborhood in Akron,Ohio.[89] The residents received a “promotional bag” containing, among other things: literature on sexually transmitted disease prevention, gynecology exams and contraception, a condom-case key chain containing a bright-green condom, and a coupon. The coupon was redeemable at three Ohio county clinics for a dozen condoms and a $5 McDonald’s gift certificate. All the items were printed with Planned Parenthood phone numbers.

The affiliate might say they’re targeting high-pregnancy areas, but their response presumes destructive behavior on the part of the targeted group. Planned Parenthood has always been reluctant to promote, or encourage, abstinence as the only safeguard against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, calling it “unrealistic.”

Rev. Richard Welch, president of Human Life International in Front Royal, Virginia, “blasted” the affiliate for targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods with the bags. He said the incident revealed “the racism inherent in promoting abortion and contraception in primarily minority neighborhoods.”[90]

He then criticized Planned Parenthood:

“Having sprung from the racist dreams of a woman determined to apply abortion and contraception to eugenics and ethnic cleansing, Planned Parenthood remains true to the same strategy today.”[91]

Untangling the Deceptive Web
Black leaders have been silent about Margaret Sanger’s evil machination against their community far too long. They’ve been silent about abortion’s devastating effects in their community—despite their pro-life inclination. “The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else,” said Hunter.[92] “Blacks were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery they tried to hold onto their children.”

“Blacks are not quiet about the issue because they do not care, but rather because the truth has been kept from them. The issue is … to educate our people,” said former Planned Parenthood board member LaVerne Tolbert.[93]

Today, a growing number of black pro-lifers are untangling the deceptive web spun by Sanger. They are using truth to shed light on the lies. The “Say So” march is just one example of their burgeoning pro-life activism. As the marchers laid 1,452 roses at the courthouse steps—to commemorate the number of black babies aborted daily—spokesman Damon Owens said, “This calls national attention to the problem [of abortion]. This is an opportunity for blacks to speak to other blacks. This doesn’t solve all of our problems. But we will not solve our other problems with abortion.”

Black pro-lifers are also linking arms with their white pro-life brethren. Black Americans for Life (BAL) is an outreach group of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), a Washington, D.C.-based grassroots organization. NRLC encourages networking between black and white pro-lifers. “Our goal is to bring people together—from all races, colors, and religions—to work on pro-life issues,” said NRLC Director of Outreach Ernest Ohlhoff.[94] “Black Americans for Life is not a parallel group; we want to help African-Americans integrate communicational and functionally into the pro-life movement.”

Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America, echoes the sentiment. “Our mission is to protect the right to life of all members of the human race. CWA welcomes like-minded women and men, from all walks of life, to join us in this fight.”

Concerned Women for America has a long history of fighting Planned Parenthood’s evil agenda. The Negro Project is an obscure angle, but one that must come to light. Margaret Sanger sold black Americans an illusion. Now with the veil of deception removed, they can “choose life … that [their] descendants may live.”


End Notes:

1. The BCFA members voted unanimously at a special January 29, 1942, meeting to change the organization’s name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By then, BCFA had 34 state league affiliates. The state leagues followed suit in changing their name and bylaws. Particularly, the New York State Federation for Planned Parenthood’s old bylaws stipulated that the object was: “To develop and organize on sound eugenic, social and medical principles, interest in and knowledge of birth control throughout the State of New York as permitted by law [emphasis added].” The new bylaws replaced “birth control” with “planned parenthood.” “Eugenics” was dropped in 1943 because of its unpopular association with the German government’s race-improving eugenics theories. Robert G. Marshall and Charles A. Donovan, Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), 24-25.

2. For more information on population control you may call 800-458-8797.

3. George Grant, Killer Angel (Franklin, Tennessee: Ars Vitae Press, 1995), 50.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., 51-52.

6. Grant, rev., Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 2nd ed. (Franklin, Tennessee: Adroit Press, 1992), 56.

7. Ibid., 95-96. Rudin worked as Adolf Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and founded the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.

8. Ibid., 95.

9. Marshall and Donovan, 8.

10. Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s, 1922), 108.

11. Ibid., 116-117.

12. Ibid., 123.

13. Margaret Sanger, “The Function of Sterilization,” The Birth Control Review, October 1926, 299. Sanger delivered the address before the Institute of Euthenics at Vassar College on August 5, 1926. Sanger’s address sounds eerily familiar to the 1999 controversial Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK) program. The program offered to pay drug-addicted women $200 cash if they underwent sterilization or had long-term chemical birth control (which may actually cause abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy) inserted into their bodies. The billboard ads were placed in inner cities. See CWA’s January/February 2000 publication of Family Voice.

14. Ibid.

15. Letter to Smith, which included her essay, 7 May 1929, Margaret Sanger Collection, Library of Congress (MSCLC).

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Letter from Nathan W. Levin, comptroller for the Julius Rosenwald Fund, responding to Sanger’s request for funds, which opens with, “I am pleased to enclose our check in the amount of $2,500, representing the balance of our appropriation to the Harlem Birth Control Clinic for 1930.” 5 January 1931, MSCLC.

19. The Harlem Clinic 1929 file, MSCLC.

20. Letter from Sanger to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois, 11 November 1930, New York, MSCLC. DuBois served as director of research for the NAACP and as the editor of its publication, The Crisis, until 1934.

21. Ibid.

22. Letter from Sanger to Dr. Peter Marshall Murray, asking for his sponsorship of the clinic, 2 December 1930, MSCLC.

23. Flier, 7 December 1932, MSCLC.

24. BCCRB memo, 3 February 1933, MSCLC. Both Powell and his son, Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., were part of the black elite. The younger Powell established himself as an effective civil rights leader during the Depression years when he fought discrimination against black workers. He succeeded his father as pastor in 1936. He served on the National Advisory Council to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA) during the implementation of the Negro Project. He later served as an U.S. representative from 1945 until 1969.

25. Letter from Elizabeth G. Lautermilch, R.N., to Sanger, which included two (undated) newspaper clippings from leading black papers, 19 November 1932, MSCLC.

26. Letter from Sanger to Margaret Ensign, 17 April 1933, MSCLC.

27. George S. Schuyler, “Quantity or Quality,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 166.

28. DuBois, 166.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid., 167.

31. Charles S. Johnson, “A Question of Negro Health,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 167-169.

32. Ibid., 168.

33. Walter A. Terpenning, “God’s Chillun,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 172.

34. Ibid.

35. Marshall and Donovan, 17.

36. Ibid.

37. Letter from Sanger to Gamble, 10 December 1939, MSCLC.

38. Grant, 97.

39. Sanger to Gamble, 10 December 1939.

40. BCFA Division of Negro Service, stationery, 1940, MSCLC.

41. BCFA stationery, July 1940, MSCLC.

42. BCFA statement, 8 July 1940, MSCLC.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid., 2.

45. Ibid., 3.

46. Letter from Green to Mrs. J. B. Vandever (same form letter sent to other protestors), 17 July 1940, Chicago, MSCLC.

47. Ibid.

48. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, M.D., “Negro Project” report, BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942, 1, MSCLC.

49. Ibid., 3.

50. Charles S. Johnson, “Better Health for 13,000,000” report on Negro Project demonstration programs, 16 April 1943, 8, MSCLC.

51. Ibid., 10.

52. Ibid., 13.

53. Ferebee, 5.

54. Johnson, 15.

55. Letter from Seibels to Claude Barnett, 11 July 1940, 2, MSCLC.

56. Ibid.

57. Johnson, 14.

58. Ibid., 18.

59. Ibid., 18-19.

60. Ferebee, “Planned Parenthood as a Public Health For the Negro Race,” BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942, 3, MSCLC.

61. Ibid., 5.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid., 4-5. Ferebee was not the only black woman Planned Parenthood used to sing its praises. Faye Wattleton, also attractive, articulate and well educated, served as president from 1978 until 1992. She currently serves as president for the Center for Gender Equality in New York City.

64. Letter from J. T. Braun to Sanger, 8 December 1941, MSCLC.

65. Letter from Sanger to Braun, 22 December 1941, MSCLC.

66. Marshall and Donovan, 21.

67. Ibid.

68. Marshall and Donovan’s quote from the 18 May 1943 letter from Braun to Sanger, 21.

69. The list included: the NAACP, National Urban League, National Medical Association, National Association of Colored Nurses, Negro Newspapers Publishers Association and the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) memo to “State Legislatures and Local Committees from Field Service Department, Subject: Directory of National Negro Organizations with which the PPFA Has Developed Working Relationships,” 18 March 1949, MSCLC.

70. The National Council of Negro Women became the first national women’s organization to appoint a permanent national committee on Family Planning on October 18, 1941. Division of Negro Service, Birth Control Federation of America newsletter, Christmas 1941, 3, MSCLC.

71. Planned Parenthood, “Margaret Sanger,” October 2000. PPFA claims it has the “respect” of black leaders, like the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who compared the civil rights movement to the birth control movement. Dr. King was among the first recipients of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Margaret Sanger Award in 1966, the year of her death.

72. Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” The Birth Control Review, April 1932, 107. Sanger gave this address before the New History Society on January 17, 1932, in New York City.

73. Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 102.

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid., 103.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid., 96.

78. Ibid., 102.

79. Planned Parenthood Federation of America 1992 Service Report, “Characteristics of Abortion Patients,” 12.

80. “Who Has Abortions? Survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute contradicts popular notions about the kinds of women who receive
abortions, ” U.S. News and World Report, 19 August 1996, 8. The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) December 2000 report shows that while the number of abortions dropped more than 30,000 from 1996 to 1997, a record 36 percent—up from 32 percent in 1990—of all abortions were performed on black women, even though blacks comprised just 12 percent of the population. The report notes that abortion rates are higher in urban areas “where access to abortion is easier” (“Abortions Decline,” USA Today, 11 January 2001, 14A).

81. Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 14 November 2000.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.

84. Sharon Weston Broome, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 16 November 2000.

85. Grand Illusions, 98.

86. Ibid. The latest figures show 63 percent of school-based clinics are located in urban areas. Source: National Survey of School-Based Health Centers, 1997-98, Making the Grade, Washington, D.C.: George Washington University. We have more information on school-based clinics.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. Lisa Ing, “Condom Giveaway Based On Profiling, Pro-Lifers Contend,” The Washington Times, 31 July 2000, A2.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. “African-Americans for Life: Black Baptist pastor speaks at Catholic Interparish Council,” Gulf Coast Christian Newspaper, February 1996.

93. Michele Jackson, “Should Pro-Life Black Americans Work Separately or Join NRLC?” National Right to Life Committee News, March 1998. NRLC has 50 state affiliates and nearly 3,000 chapters. It encourages action at the state and local levels.

94. Ernest Ohlhoff, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 6 April 2001.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806

Sleeping Preachers–Slumbering Saints


Author: Jan Markell

A ministry supporter in Washington State sent me a flyer that was handed out in his church recently. It is more mocking. The flyer asks if folks have met “End-Times Eddie” in the church. It denigrates “Eddie” and suggests he is so focused on end-times that he has missed all the present opportunities and people in front of him. “Eddie” is gloom and doom. “Why isn’t he looking for Jesus to bring Heaven to earth right now?

Then the flyer suggests some questions for the church’s small groups. Here are a few samples:

— What are your emotions when you encounter “End-Times Eddie”?
— Is the end-time message one of hope or fear?
— Jesus told us to pray for “your will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” What does Heaven on earth look like today?
— Who in your life needs Heaven to come to earth right now?

Two things stand out to me:

1) Here is just one more church preaching, “Come, Lord Jesus, but not too soon.”
2) They have embraced the false teaching promoted heavily by the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) that we can have Heaven on earth now. This is called Kingdom Now or Dominion Theology.

Show me just one square mile of this planet that can demonstrate a Garden of Eden-like Heaven on earth. You will find only chaos. And the church trying to perfect the world for the next one million years won’t fix it.

Those of us who have promoted the important message that the King is coming are painfully aware that young believers no longer uphold Bible prophecy as a key component of the faith. They would rather focus on social justice, the green agenda, and Christian Palestinianism.

When I was a teenager in my church, we had regular prophecy conferences and I never once heard that Israel was “occupying” her God-given country. I never would have heard the denigrating title of “End-Times Eddie.” I was never taught that we had to “save the planet” because I learned that it was hopelessly lost until Christ’s return. I was never given the delusional teaching that in time my church would be able to “save the planet” by seizing the Genesis mandate of dominion — which is about dominion over animals and not mankind.

Kingdom Now or Dominion Theology tries to humanize God and deify man. Sadly, the world will continue to deteriorate and spiral into chaos, forcing man to consider the hope of Heaven and abandon thoughts of a glorified earth. Only when Jesus Christ returns at the Second Coming will all things be made new!

Dominionist proponent Cindy Jacobs suggests that God showed her that the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of intercession that will help bring into manifestation the original Genesis Mandate to fill, subdue, multiply and have dominion in the earth. Cindy, sin didn’t come into the world because we didn’t understand our mandate!

As I wrote in a previous article exposing the theology of Dominionism, “The church is not in the business of taking anything away from Satan but the souls of men. The world is a sinking Titanic ripe for judgment, not Garden of Eden perfection. Jesus will take dominion of the cleansed earth. For men to speak of doing that before the judgment of this earth is spiritually arrogant.”

Simpsons Sleeping

Yet “End-Times Eddie” is the one with unsound theology according to the Washington church, not those preaching this unsound theology that the church can perfect the world.

One of my conference attendees wrote me in 2014. He had been tagged an “End-Times Eddie.” He writes, “I no longer feel safe talking about the issues you deal with in your ministry. I am scorned and ridiculed by friends, family, and co-workers if I talk about the Lord’s imminent return or any headline that is prominent. To suggest that life as we know it may end soon is simply the ultimate in lunacy to all of these folks. I feel so alone.”

I so agree with Pastor David Barnhart in his magazine, The Vine and Branches, “For most Christians, the major strategy in dealing with the doctrine of Christ’s return is to ignore it.For others, the solution is to opt for some kind of socialist utopia here on earth and call it the ‘kingdom of God.'”

He continues, “There is no more important doctrine than the coming again of Jesus Christ. By His coming, Jesus will bring God’s promise of redemption into complete and total fulfillment. We’ll no longer just talk of streets of gold, we’ll walk on them. We will no longer simply talk about Jesus, we’ll talk with Him face to face and His own hand will gently wipe every tear from our eye. We’ll not only talk about seeing our loved ones who have gone on before, we’ll be together with them for eternity without ever again experiencing a single moment of separation.”

Barnhart says, “God’s prophetic clock is counting down to the appointed hour. If you don’t believe it, listen to the latest news reports or read the paper. Scriptures are replete with signs, prophecies and promises of Christ’s return. The signs are everywhere, yet the silence of the churches is deafening when it comes to proclaiming this vital truth of Scripture. Slumbering preachers and sleeping saints need to wake up to the reality that the King is coming and His coming may be sooner than any of us realize.

In the meantime, millions are perishing without the knowledge of the gospel or the hope of His coming offers. How it must grieve the heart of God to look at a sleeping church in a hell-bound world.”

Bible prophecy is given as a light shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19). Talking about it should not instill fear in the Christian; rather, provide confirmation that the “blessed hope” is ever nearer and the time ever shorter to snatch people from the fire.

There are many “End-Time Eddies” around. May their numbers increase. May our pulpits grow bolder and talk about things that really matter. Our message is hardly doom and gloom. It may be about the only good news left. The supposed ‘good news’ that we’re taking the planet back to the Garden of Eden isn’t the truth — it’s end-time delusion.

I’m honored to be among the “End-Times Eddie” crowd. I’ve got the best news there is. This world isn’t it. God believed the topic of eschatology was so important that He devoted one book exclusively to it: Revelation. Almost 30% of the Bible is prophecy-focused.

This message, when coupled with warnings, encourages evangelism and repentance like no other.

Is Obama Supporting A Shiite ISIS?


Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish – 06.22.2015


Staff Sgt. Ahmed Altaie was the last American soldier to come home from Iraq. His body was turned over by Asaib Ahl al-Haq or The League of the Righteous; a Shiite terrorist group funded and trained by Iran.

Altaie had been kidnapped, held for ransom and then killed.

It was not Asaib Ahl al-Haq’s only kidnapping and murder of an American soldier. A year after Altaie’s kidnapping, its terrorists disguised themselves as Americans and abducted five of our soldiers in Karbala. The soldiers were murdered by their Shiite captors after sustained pursuit by American forces made them realize that they wouldn’t be able to escape with their hostages.

Asaib-Ahl-al-haq Logo

Asaib Ahl al-Haq’s obsession with American hostages was a typically Iranian fixation. Iran’s leaders see the roots of their international influence in the Iran hostage crisis. Its terrorist groups in Lebanon had abducted and horrifically tortured Colonel William R. Higgins and William Francis Buckley.

Higgins had been skinned alive.

Most Americans have never heard of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, sometimes referred to as the Khazali Network after its leader, even though it has claimed credit for over 6,000 attacks on Americans. Its deadliest attacks came when the Democrats and their media allies were desperately scrambling to stop Bush from taking out Iran’s nuclear program. Asaib Ahl al-Haq’s ties to Iran were so blatant that the media could not allow it to receive the kind of coverage that Al Qaeda did for fear that it might hurt Iran.

Obama had campaigned vocally against the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment which designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, the hidden force behind Asaib Ahl al-Haq and much of the Shiite terrorist infrastructure, a terrorist organization. He had accused its sponsors of “foolish saber rattling”.

Nancy Pelosi joined the Democratic Party’s pro-Iranian turn, rejected a vote on the amendment and sneered that if the kidnapping and murder of American soldiers was “a problem to us and our troops in Iraq, they should deal with it in Iraq.” Earlier that year, she had visited Syria’s Assad to stand with him against President Bush even while Assad was aiding the terrorists massacring American soldiers.

Once Obama took power, coverage of the war was scaled down so that Americans wouldn’t realize that the rising power of ISIS and Asaib Ahl al-Haq were already making a mockery of his withdrawal plans.

But Asaib Ahl al-Haq was not merely an anti-American terrorist group; it was an arm of the Shiite theocracy. As a Shiite counterpart to what would become ISIS, it had most of the same Islamic goals.

While Obama was patting himself on the back for the end of the Iraq War and gay rights, Asaib Ahl al-Haq was throwing those men and women it suspected of being gay from the tops of buildings.

When buildings weren’t available, it beat them to death with concrete blocks or beheaded them.

Its other targets included shelters for battered women, which the Islamist group deemed brothels, men who had long hair or dressed in dark clothing. And even while its Brigades of Wrath were perpetrating these atrocities, Obama and the Shiite Iraqi government embraced the murderous terrorist group.

Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, and his brother Laith al-Khazali along with a hundred other members of the terror group were freed during Obama’s first year in office. (But to provide equal aid and comfort to the other side, Obama also freed the future Caliph of ISIS in that same year.)

“We let a very dangerous man go, a man whose hands are stained with US and Iraqi blood. We are going to pay for this in the future,” an unnamed American officer was quoted as saying. “This was a deal signed and sealed in British and American blood.” “We freed all of their leaders and operatives; they executed their hostages and sent them back in body bags.”

The releases were part of Obama’s grand strategy of reconciliation for Iraq. The miserable reality behind the upbeat language was that Obama was handing over Iraq to ISIS, Iran and its Shiite militias.


Last year, Maliki had made Asaib Ahl al-Haq and other Shiite terror groups into the Sons of Iraq that were to protect and defend Baghdad. Asaib Ahl al-Haq and its leader were now the Iraqi security forces. The Shiite death squads were in charge even while they continued carrying out ISIS-style massacres.

Obama belatedly decided to respond to ISIS, but his war strategy depends on Asaib Ahl al-Haq.

Officially his strategy is to provide training and air support for the Iraqi military. But the Iraqi military’s Shiite officers conduct panicked retreats in the face of ISIS attacks while abandoning cities and equipment. The goal of these retreats is to make Asaib Ahl al-Haq and other Shiite militias into the only alternative to ISIS for the United States. Even though he pays lip service to Sunni and Kurdish resistance to ISIS, Obama shows that he has accepted Iran’s terms by refusing to arm and support them.

While we focused on ISIS, its Shiite counterparts were building their own Islamic State by burrowing from within to hollow out the Iraqi institutions that we had put into place. ISIS is a tool that Iran is using to force international approval of its takeover of Iraq and its own nuclear program.

An Iraqi official last year was quoted as saying that Asaib Ahl al-Haq’s men give orders to the police and military. “Before they were just around, now they are high-ranking officers in the military.”

Some defense experts wonder if the Iraqi military even exists. The bulk of the forces in Tikrit were Shiite Jihadists and they are armed with American weapons that they receive from the Iraqi government. Asaib Ahl al-Haq boss Qais al-Khazali claims that soldiers and Shiite militia members both wear Iraqi military uniforms.

The capture of Tikrit became an opportunity for the Shiite terrorist groups and Qasem Soleimani, their Iranian terror boss, to boast about their victory and loot and terrorize the local Sunni residents.

Obama’s official plan to arm and train the Iraqi military and security forces is a dead end because like the mythical moderate Syrian rebels, they are fronts for moving money and weapons to Jihadists. We are arming ghost armies and funding fake political institutions and the money and weapons end up going to bands of Islamic terrorists, militias and guerrillas that are actually calling the shots.

Security Forces

By aiding Shiite militias in Iraq and Sunni militias in Syria, we’re backing both sides of an Islamic civil war.

Obama turned over Iraq to the Shiites and then backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to force the Shiites out of power in Syria. The Sunni-Shiite civil wars tearing the region apart were caused by those two decisions. His solution to the wars is to continue backing the same forces responsible for them.

Despite assorted denials, Obama’s real ISIS strategy is to have Iran do the fighting for him in Iraq.

But Obama is backing one ISIS against another ISIS. Why is a Shiite Islamic state that kidnaps and kills Americans, throws gays off buildings and massacres women better than a Sunni Islamic state that does the same things? Not only is the Obama strategy morally dubious, but it’s also proven to be ineffective.

The rise of ISIS has helped Iran tighten its hold on Shiite areas in Iraq and Syria. Iran does not need to beat ISIS. Its interests are best served by maintaining a stalemate in which ISIS consolidates Sunni areas while Iran consolidates Shiite areas. The more Obama aids Iran and its terrorist forces as a counterweight to ISIS, the more Iran sees keeping ISIS around as being vital to its larger strategy.

By aiding Iran, Obama is really aiding ISIS.

Despite depending on our air support, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and its leaders are threatening to attack American planes and soldiers making it clear that they view the fight against ISIS and for Assad as part of a larger struggle for achieving Iran’s apocalyptic Shiite ambitions for the region and the world.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently gave a speech in which he warned that, “We must prepare the country’s conditions, the region’s conditions, and, Allah willing, the world’s conditions for the reappearance [of Imam Mahdi] will spread justice.”

Like ISIS, its Shiite counterparts envision an apocalyptic struggle in which the other branch of Islam will be destroyed, along with all non-Muslims, leading to regional and global supremacy. Iraq is only one of the battlefields on which this war is being fought and Obama’s inept mix of appeasement and regime change, abandoning allied governments while aiding enemy terrorists has helped make it possible.

The Preaching of the Cross



The Foolishness of the Cross

Author: Chip Brogden
Source: The School of Christ

The Foolish Cross

How I wish taking up the Cross was a once-and-for-all thing, that you could just crucify Self and give the thing you are grasping over to God, get the imprint of the Cross on it, and receive it back in three days in its resurrected form.

But there is always a deeper death to die and a greater Life to come forth from death, so I find the process must be constantly repeated.

A ministry (or more importantly, the minister) will pass through many seasons of death, burial, and resurrection. But even in this I see that He does not turn “taking up the Cross” into a work of the flesh, and does not reject our feeble attempts to do what we think is right, even when we are wholly or partially motivated by flesh.

God had to bear with Abraham when he laughed in unbelief; God had to bear with Abraham when he sought refuge in Egypt and lied about Sarah; God had to bear with Abraham when he took Hagar as his wife and sired Ishmael. All these, we would say, prove that Abraham was not a man of faith or a man of the Cross, that Self was alive, because look at all these examples of failure. Yet God is longsuffering, and drew Abraham out and further along and eventually brought him to the place he needed to be.

I almost wonder if we glorify ourselves even in our ability to deny ourselves… judging Self in ourselves and others and taking a little pride that we are not as Self-centered as the rest, when the whole time it is God Who must bear us and them along with great patience and love until He brings us under the Cross, progressively, daily, over many seasons.

There is only One Begotten Son Who lived in perfect obedience; the rest of us are in need of so much grace. And if Abraham really is the father of all who believe, it is an encouragement as well as an acknowledgement that we, like him, are fleshly creatures who are daily coming under the government of the Holy Spirit, and not without a lot of failures along the way.

Now, the Cross is extreme all on its own. It is the basis for everything else. I’m not going to stop proclaiming it just because some people misrepresent it. Some people are gluttons, but that won’t stop me from eating. Some people have died from fasting too long, but that won’t stop me from fasting. Paul said, “I know how to be full, and how to be empty; how to abound, and how to suffer need. I can do all things through my union with Christ.” THERE’S your balance. Now where people go astray is focusing more on “I can” than on “through Christ.”

Some people just don’t get it, and that’s why God is calling “us” (me at least) back to the Cross. You will be accused of being imbalanced if you teach it long enough. Jesus said the people of His (and our) generation were like children sitting in the marketplace, complaining, “We played the pipe for you, and you wouldn’t dance. So we sang a dirge, but you wouldn’t mourn.” When John came in rough clothing and with fasting, “He has a demon,” they said. Jesus came eating and drinking, and they said, “He is a winebibber and a glutton, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” In other words, it doesn’t matter whether you play a happy tune on the flute or sing the blues, people are going to accuse you of being imbalanced. John was too hard on himself; Jesus was too “easy” on Himself.

You can’t satisfy people. They will tell you, “the Cross is not the way, Jesus is the Way.” As if you don’t know this. You know they say the same thing about the Bible now? “The Bible is not the answer, Jesus is the Answer.” As if you don’t know this. I believe some people think their whole calling from God is to be the devil’s advocate in every situation and be the “yeah, but…” of the Body of Christ. They seem to be on a perpetual mission to keep everything balanced and they’re always checking the scale to make sure it’s not tilting too far in either direction.

I figured out not long ago that no matter what I taught or did, someone would accuse me of being unbalanced. If I spoke, they would say I was a know-it-all. If I remained silent, they would accuse me of false humility. So I realized that if I was going to be criticized no matter what I did, I wanted to be criticized for something that was important so there would be some kind of blessing in it. I searched high and low to find something that was worth being misunderstood and persecuted for. The Cross is the only thing worth being attacked over.

Even the name “Jesus” has been so watered-down that His Name is no longer that offensive – the WWJD fad, for instance. Jesus: the most popular guy of the 20th century. That kind of Jesus is “cool.” But the Jesus that says, “If you don’t take up your Cross daily and follow Me, you cannot be My disciple” THAT Jesus is unpopular. So the Cross is the perfect thing to be “imbalanced” over. Wonderful, blessed imbalance. I’m going to take the Cross and make it THE MESSAGE because it’s the only thing worth getting persecuted for. It divides the multitudes of followers into the committed and the not-so-committed like nothing you’ve ever seen or ever will see. The Cross is an offense, a stumbling block, and foolishness. Properly understood and applied, it is radical, crazy, and imbalanced.

What is the worst thing that can happen to someone who takes the Cross and becomes “unbalanced” with it? He might damage his precious self-esteem, or become “too” humble and meek. Well, that kind of imbalance we need more of.

Some people would deny that a loving God would allow His Son to die on the cross for sins He didn’t commit. We know better, don’t we? That may be some people’s way of seeing love, but we who know the Cross see Love differently. The principle of the Cross shows us that God’s Love WILL allow us to suffer and even die in order to demonstrate a depth of Love that we cannot comprehend. This Love does not keep us from suffering, but uses the suffering to achieve a higher good that we certainly cannot fathom and don’t even appreciate when we are going through it. The point is that all suffering has a purpose, it is not merely punitive, but redemptive and part of an overall plan.

My crusading days are all but gone. There is only one thing worth talking about, one thing worth preaching, one thing worth living, one thing worth crusading for and that is the power of the Cross of Jesus Christ to change a man.

I am resolving to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. To hell with the rest – it is all dung, manure, refuse, crap.

I heard truth spoken today: if we all preached the same thing (the Cross of Christ as the power of God to change men from sinner to saved, soulish to spiritual, self-centered to Christ-centered, etc.) we would not be divided, everyone trying to do their own thing, everyone promoting their own little agendas in competition for ministry support and followers. If we all preached Christ, no one could say that they are more important than the other, doing a “grand” work or a “foundational” work as if the others are superfluous. To live we must die; to be great we must be made low; to be strong we must be made weak; to enter in we must be straitened; to receive all things we must give up all things. This is the Cross. It is foolishness to man, but it is the power of God.

I heard a disciple of the Lord say today, “The Christian who lives for this very hour, to die to himself, is not open to false comfort and cannot be swayed no matter what you do. He cannot be moved.”

If I am going to be persecuted, I don’t want to suffer for defending my religious opinions and doctrines on prophetic ministry, renewal, true and false movements, and what’s wrong with the Church. What’s wrong with the Church is that Christ is not preached, the Cross is not taken up, and the Self has not died. So if I am to suffer, let me suffer for preaching the foolishness of the Cross, not my idiotic opinions and teachings – what are they worth? Paul said I knew NOTHING among you, but Christ and Him crucified. This cuts all the dead weight away from our spirit. To only know Christ! To be free to say, “I don’t know, and I don’t care to know. All I know is Christ.”

Less of me, and more of Him!

Simple Truth Banner
Toiletnation, USA

Diversity is Indistinguishable from Decay

Sally's Special Services

Writer and Webmaster

That Mr. G Guy's Blog

Mike's views on politics and the world in general


Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.

American Glob

Updated Nightly

Samina's Forum for police support

A great forum of promotion of friendship and co-operation between citizens and Police Officers. Come join us.

d|gI+Al hEGeM0n ...d|g|Z|nE

Works of Thought...

Jesus Christ ( Yeshua ) Saves!!

Chastisement 2014

He is ready to separate the chaff from the wheat with his winnowing fork


America's News Feed

The Mind of RD REVILO

Conscious Thought: Driven by Intelligent Awareness


Just another site

Arlin Report

Telling You What The News Won't.


Holding Forth The Word of God to a Wicked Generation

End Times Prophecy Report

End Times Bible Prophecy and News, End Times Deception, Societal Collapse, Apostasy, False Teachers, whore of Babylon Church, Demonic Attacks, War, Rumors of War, Famine, Pestilence, Salvation in Jesus Christ, NWO, UFOs, Earthquakes, IHOP, False Christs, All Roads Lead to Rome, New World Order, Conspiracies, Nephilim, Giants, New Apostolic Reformation, heresies, Signs and Lying Wonders

Global Geopolitics

A Geopolitical Looking Glass into the Real World Around You


Taking the World one soul at a time

The Fourth Crown

Make Your News Count.

The Right of the People

Raise the Standard of Liberty

Voting American

God Bless The United States of America

“ The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility. ” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

early church revival

A site dedicated to the revival of early Christianity

With All I Am

Think. Reason. Follow

Life: Not A Rehearsal

Faith is now; Salvation is now; Life is... NOW - No Opportunity Wasted.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,356 other followers

%d bloggers like this: