The NAACP recognizes 'the right to life'--sort of; Lots of liberal 'love' in Massachusetts

Matt C. Abbott
July 15, 2013 © Matt C. Abbott
Reproduced with Permission
Renew America

When reading a June 14 story by The Associated Press regarding the George Zimmerman verdict (which was, all things considered, a just verdict), the following paragraph caught my attention:

NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous started a petition calling for the Justice Department to open a civil rights case against Zimmerman. 'The most fundamental of civil rights - the right to life - was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin,' Jealous wrote in the petition, posted on the website and addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder.

So the NAACP does indeed recognize the fundamental right to life, then?

Well, not exactly. Not when it comes to the preborn.

Ryan Bomberger, writing at, points out:

The NAACP. The nation's oldest civil rights organization claims it has not taken a position on abortion - a false assertion repeated numerous times by its vice president of advocacy, Hilary Shelton. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain, has been a corporate sponsor of the NAACP's annual conventions. The NAACP has not only taken a position on abortion, they've taken the abortion giant's money for financial gain. (It's important to note that the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood uses to market itself, as in corporate sponsorships, are made possible by the yearly $542.4 million taxpayer dollars that feed the abortion chain's annual one billion dollar budget.)

The Radiance Foundation has written numerous articles about the NAACP's actual and provable advocacy of abortion here, here, here and here. We've even created a factsheet to detail the NAACP's 'non-position' on abortion, called You Decide....

Click here to read Bomberger's article in its entirety.

From the latest MassResistance email:

If you want to see how a third-world country treats its citizens, you need look no further than the Massachusetts Legislature.

On Tuesday, July 9, the Joint Judiciary Committee held a major public hearing that included most of the major culture war bills of this session, which we described in our previous email. Much of this legislation could affect society in terrible (and unexpected) ways.

But, exactly as we predicted, it was a public hearing in name only. In fact, the committee had no interest in listening to the public - particularly those who disagree with them - and they made it horribly difficult for pro-family citizens to testify. It was basically a scene of left-wing public officials and their allies 'testifying' for each other.

Nevertheless, it was very important because we were able to experience their lobbying strategies and hear what they plan to do if these bills pass. And what they are plotting here will likely spread to other states.

Even by Massachusetts standards, this was easily the worst in years. The Legislature is getting more and more disconnected from the average person.

The Joint Judiciary Committee is run by its House and Senate Chairmen, Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty (D-Lynn) and Sen. Katherine Clark (D-Melrose). They are two of the most arrogant anti-family politicians on Beacon Hill. Neither is interested in hearing from members of the public on culture war issues. Clark in particular has ties to Planned Parenthood, the gun control lobby, and the homosexual-transgender lobby.

So they made this hearing as difficult as they could for the public to participate. Here's what citizens had to contend with:

* Overflow of people. First of all, they crammed 210 bills into one afternoon hearing. That's approximately 8 to 10 times the normal amount for a day's hearing. And many of these topics were very controversial. Usually one hearing room is used. For this, they planned two adjoining rooms. But those immediately filled up, so they moved it to Gardner Auditorium (also in the State House), which was quickly packed.

* No time limit on speaking. If the normal three-minute time limit had been imposed, many, many more people would have been able to speak. But that was never imposed. Some people spoke for ten or fifteen minutes or more without interruption. The committee simply didn't care. Often, committee members would ask questions and then let them go on even longer.

* The first four hours: Public officials (and their guests) only. The hearing started at 1 p.m. People from across the state had come and signed in to testify. But the Committee Chairmen allowed public officials and their guests speak first. It's actually a State House policy that public officials are more important than regular citizens at public hearings. In this case, all of them were liberal Democrats except for one Republican, Rep. Jim Lyons - and made Lyons wait until end of that list. The 'important people' spoke until after 5 p.m.

* The next five hours: Testimony by liberals. The order of speaking was not by bill or topic, but by liberal/conservative ideological position. When signing in, you were required to write the bills you would speak on and your position on them (for/against). From 5 p.m. until 10 p.m., the various liberal and homosexual and transgender activists - those in favor of the left's positions - were called up to testify.

* Finally, at 10 p.m., they allowed pro-family people and others still there to testify. By that time, just about all the pro-family people had given up and left. Those who testified faced hostile questioning by committee members and were basically dismissed. The hearing finally ended a little after midnight....

Shocking, I tell you (ahem)!

And while we're on the subject of Massachusetts...

I received the following email (unedited except for a blocked-out expletive) from Andrew L. Cullen, a student at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, in response to my July 11 column:


There should be ZERO, NO, ZIPPO doubt in your or anyones mind that Spencer is an Islamophobe. His work has been cited by many convicted of hate crimes, for example the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik cited the work of Spencer. He isn't talking because of liberals you f - moron, her isn't talking because he is HATEFUL! and as a catholic it makes me sick that YOU or ANY catholic would support such a hateful person who preaches hate. The church shouldn't be associated with hate, it should be associated with love ( and I don't mean priests molesting children kind of love). Listen our church has covered up the rape of THOUSAND od children throughout the world, don't act like Islam is the problem. Catholics make me sick to be part of the church, you should be ashamed of yourself. I know the lord is deeply ashamed of you!

It sure is nice to get fan mail.