Another consipiracy theory brought to you by the Rev.

Pat Robertson is not unfamiliar with controversy; however he now takes on African-Americans and Planned Parenthood. He claims that many groups that fund Planned Parenthood are doing so to support the eradication of poor black folk by abortion and birth control. He goes on to state that specific corporations want to benefit from this cause they “don’t want a whole lot of unemployed young black people. They want to cut down on the incidence of black birth. And they’re paying great sums of money to organizations like Planned Parenthood to bring that about.”

Now the fact that Pat has said this should not be surprising to anyone, but I’m curious if it had been anyone else saying this, say someone with at least an ounce of credibility, how would the public react? That’s what’s amazing about conspiracy theories and foreshadowing of doom. The theory is unimportant really. What really matters is the person delivering the message.

Remember is was in 1997 that Oliver North warned the public of a mostly unknown Osama Bin Laden claiming that the man was soon going to directly attack the United States. He was mostly ignored.

Follow the link for video of Pat’s comments.

Robertson alleged that Planned Parenthood wanted to use MLK to promote “black genocide”


~ by wiwille on August 29, 2006.

5 Responses to “Another consipiracy theory brought to you by the Rev.”

  1. I’m not sure who Pat is trying to get support from here. These comments were made on the 700 Club, but it sounds like they are against these large Republican-based organizations.

    Just a few months ago I heard other mention of Margaret Sanger and her questionable beliefs (probably from Ann Coulter) and investigated for myself. This seems to be supported pretty soundly from what I can find. Predictably there are a multitude of right-wing sites that are quick to blast her, but even her entry in Wikipedia carries some questionable quotes from her writing.

    I don’t really think it’s fair to make a connection between one person’s personal views and an independent organization 40 years after her death.

  2. I think Robertson is just trying to straight out attack Planned Parenthood, an organization he obviously opposes, and anyone who might provide them financial support. He wants to paint Planned Parenthood with the brush of racism and genocide (odd for Robertson to try to put that as a negative, given his often racist views) in order to discredit them. And he’ll attack anyone who gave them funding, and twist the reason to fit with his accusation.

    I can’t say as to whether any of the racism charges are true or not. It is clear that Sanger wrote about and in support of eugenics, but that does not necessarily mean racist views. Given the time frame of when she was active in that arena (the 1920’s and 30’s) I would say it is fairly likely she herself held some racist views. I don’t think that necessarily bleeds over into the organization she helped to start.

    An interesting tie-in to this accusation is in the book Freakanomics. In part of that book, the author theorizes that the significant crime rate drop in the 1990s was largely due to the fact that it was 18-20 years after the Roe vs. Wade decision. He posits that legalized abortion resulted in a drop in unwanted and under-cared-for children, which then translated to fewer criminals when that generation hit young adulthood, the prime time for criminal behavior.

    This does lend some creedence to claims of eugenics philosophy. They may have been trying to improve the population by reducing the number of births into poor families. I think based on what’s happened since Roe v. Wade, it’s evident they succeeded in reducing the number of births into poor families; whether or not you believe that helped society as a whole depends on whether Stephen Levitt is right about the drop in crime in the 90s.

    And let’s face facts: if your goal is to reduce births among poor families, in this country you would focus on blacks. They are one of the largest and most obvious segments of the poor population. Is it racist to try to reduce the number of black births in order to reduce the number of children born into poverty? The motive could be seen as racist (singling out blacks), or more compassionate (trying to reduce the burden on the parents by giving them more options for not having kids), or very cold matter-of-fact (reduce the number of poor, better for society).

    Perhaps part of the movement was funded and supported by racists; perhaps they were believers in eugenics; or maybe they just felt a reduction in the population overall would be best for society. It’s hard to say.

    Wow, this was a rambling long comment just to say, “I don’t really know what to think”. Sorry about that.

  3. Also, even though I feel like we’re picking on wiwille, I have to point out that Oliver North did not testify about Osama Bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. That is myth.

  4. Mattbear – The Iran Contra hearings weren’t in 1997? Really? Are you sure? Wasn’t Clinton the one who sold the guns to the Sandinistas and then traded hookers to the Swiss in exchange for fine cheese?

  5. Doh. Why do I always misread your comments?
    Need more coffee.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: