Archive for the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Category

Planned Parenthood “Heck Yes” to Ginsburg comes on heels of Gruber abortion comments

Posted in Abortion saves taxpayers, Gruber, Maafa21, Mark Crutcher, Planned Parenthood Ginsburg, Planned Parenthood poor care, Planned Parenthood Poor Women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Saves Taxpayers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

On the heels of a video by disgraced ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber who said that abortion would save the taxpayers money because it would basically eliminate the poor, comes Planned Parenthood’s “Heck Yes” on another eugenics leader who said something similar.

No sooner did eugenics documentary and Planned Parenthood history film producer, Mark Crutcher release a statement comparing Jonathan Gruber’s comments on abortion to statements made by Supreme Court Justice and radical abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg – that – abortion giant Planned Parenthood gave her the “Heck Yes” award.

Planned Parenthood Ginsburg Heck Yes

There were times in 2014 when we just wanted to stand up and give a round of applause,” writes the eugenics founded Planned Parenthood organization,”When people spoke up for women’s health and rights so boldly, so bravely, so perfectly, we couldn’t help but cheer them on. As this year comes to a close, we took a look back with Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Best and Worst of 2014, and asked you to vote for the top “Heck Yes!” moment of the year.

Drumroll please…
And the Winner Is:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Planned Parenthood continues, “U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us our “Heck Yes!” Moment of the Year for her scathing dissent in the Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. In June, she wrote that the Court’s ruling — which lets some bosses deny their employees birth control coverage — is so startlingly broad that it can override the health care needs of employees and their dependents across the country.

“There were so many gripping lines from her 35-page dissent it’s hard to pick our favorite. In one of the most ominous, she warned that the precedent being set “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

Maafa21 logo

Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher writes on his blog, “In 2009, we released Maafa 21 – a 2 hour documentary in which we proved that the legalization of abortion had nothing to do with women’s rights, or choice, or reproductive freedom or any of the other sales pitches you hear from the abortion lobby. The truth is, abortion was legalized as an instrument of eugenics and racial genocide.

RuthBaderGinsberg

“Ironically, within a few months after we released Maafa21, the most radical abortion enthusiast on the U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement to the New York Times that confirmed exactly what we were saying. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“Here’s my question: when she said that abortion was legalized to deal with populations we don’t want to have too many of, do you get the feeling she was suggesting that there might be too many rich white people in the world? Or is it possible she might have had some other folks in mind?

And the answer is clear – YES she did. if you want to know who Ginsburg was referring to- watch the film Maafa21 – which is available to view in full on the website http://www.maafa21.com.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

Ironically, just yesterday during a Congressional hearing with ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie exposed the very thing that Ginsburg stated in 2009 during his questioning of Gruber.

(Partial Transcript Below: )

MASSIE:I have a question for you have you. Have you had any ethics training at MIT or Harvard ?

GRUBER: I as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take a human subjects

MASSIE: okay so this is a little bit philosophical what I’m gonna ask you now but you’re doctor of philosophy so to speak. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit?

GRUBER: Uh…I’m not aware circumstances in which I ..

MASSIE: Could you could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit?

GRUBER: I guess

MASSIE: Now so if you understand that then you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it’s okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody’s benefit compounding the insulted you delivered to them is the fact that they pay your salary . Do you did you understand fully why it was so insulting? You patronize them you were condescending.

GRUBER: I was

MASSIE: And my colleagues on the Democrat side of the isle are upset with you simply because you committed candor- you said what you thought- you said what they were all thinking -when they wrote road Obamacare – that they knew what was best for my constituents. I submit to you my constituents are not your children. And they have the right to self-determination. So this gets me to another instance where you commit candor.

In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page twenty you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.

Is providing more access to abortion – is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government?

GRUBER: That is uh not what my paper was about. It was a philosophical paper it was about empirical facts…

MASSIE: tell us what you meant by this sentence by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of 1.6 billion dollars per year from positive selection. What did you mean by positive selection? Because in this paper you’re talking about providing more access to abortions to a socio-economic strata of our constituents.

MASSIE: What did you mean by positive selection?

GRUBER: In that paper, we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. By comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics as a ….

MASSIE: So what’s you inferred I find chilling. What you inferred is that if we reduce the number of people of children born life would be better for the rest of us still living. Specifically, you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born this will make life better for all Americans. And this gets me to my final point, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, my constituents fear that this is in fact a method by which Obamacare will ration health care for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for Medicare. So, my question to you is, is your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve outcomes, have any implications in the realm with end of life care? You argue that abortions for poor (?) children raise the average living circumstances in your paper, for the rest of us and save the government money. So, Dr. Gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn’t that save a ton of money to? As an economist wouldn’t that would save money too and do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?

GRUBER: I have no philosophy of abortion. I have no philosophy of end of life care. My job’s an economist is to deliver the empirical facts ( ??) can make the necessary..

MASSIE: And what would your facts be on the elderly?

GRUBER: I don’t understand the question?

MASSIE: the end of Life Care? Do you advocate that the federal government should ration that?

GRUBER: no I …

MASSIE: as an economist would it save money?

GRUBER: I do not advocate the federal government’s should ration end of life care.

MASSIE: thank you, I yield back.

Crutcher summarized Gruber’s comments well, “Gruber tried bobbing and weaving around Congressman Massie’s questions but, in the end, it was clear his position was that legalized abortion has allowed our country to kill off the children of the poor and, thereby, provide a higher quality of life for those who are still living. In one of his previous writings he had described the victims of abortion as “marginal children” and referred to the process of eliminating them as “positive selection.” During his testimony he refused to define exactly what “positive selection” means, but you’d have to actually be as stupid as Gruber thinks you are not to understand what he was saying.

“So let’s recap. Now we have not one, but two, radical, high-profile, godless abortion supporters, confirming what we documented in Maafa 21. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that eugenics was the driving force behind the legalization of abortion, and then Jonathan Gruber admits that it’s working exactly as it was intended. And make no mistake, everyone at the top of the abortion lobby food chain has also known that this was the agenda since day one. They know that this issue is about political power, money, race and eugenics, but unlike Ginsburg and Gruber, they don’t go out in the public and talk about it.”

Read Crutcher’s full statements here.

Worth reading is my blog: Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ” I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012″

Posted in Constitution, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , on February 3, 2012 by saynsumthn

H/T GrumpYeller

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Interview with Al Hayat TV in Egypt:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg …, posted with vodpod

Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Pro-choice Daily Kos author joins population control – eugenics pushers in dreaming of a ‘global super plague’ to stop ‘overpopulation’

Posted in Agenda 21, Al Gore, birth control in water, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, Ehrlich, Environment, Eugenics, Ginsburg, Holdren, Overpopulation, Population Control, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2011 by saynsumthn

“I’m socially liberal on a lot of things. I believe in legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. In fact, I often describe myself as “Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion. There are too many god*am people already.” And while this is meant to be facetious, nevertheless there is a seed of truth in it, because I believe that the world is wildly overpopulated and that we must take steps as a society to reduce it. This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but we would could really use is a global superplague. The Black Death may have been horrible, but without it there would never have been a Renaissance.”

Daily Kos writer: We could use ‘global superplague’ to stop overpopulation
by Jeremy KrynMon Aug 22, 2011 11:21 EST

August 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A prominent left-wing American political blog has come under fire after publishing one writer’s quip that the world needs “a global superplague” because “there are too many goddam people already.” Daily Kos contributor Jon Stafford’s August 10 post, in which Stafford described himself as “Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion,” drew immediate attention in the blogosphere.

While Stafford said that his remarks are partly “facetious,” he went on to say, “nevertheless there is a seed of truth in it, because I believe that the world is wildly overpopulated and that we must take steps as a society to reduce it.

“This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but we would could really use is a global superplague. The Black Death may have been horrible, but without it there would never have been a Renaissance.”

Read Rest here

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is nothing new…listen to this PROFESSOR of Overpopulation myths: University of Texas professor advocates the mass death of 90% of the world’s human population.
Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March of 2006 in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

Pianka suggests that we should begin to sterilize the human population now….

Recently former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth.

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

Not to long ago, another sinister plan was joked about when an ‘off-handed’ joke by new Schools Chancellor Cathie Black about using birth control as a means of dealing with school overcrowding isn’t going over well with some people.

The Chancellor has since apologized for the comment and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said people should move on.

Good Day New York co-hosts Greg Kelly and Rosanna Scotto see the issue from opposite sides.

Watch the video for the exchange.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The off-color quip came in response to concerns by public-school dad Eric Greenleaf, who said at a meeting of parents and officials at state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s downtown office that there will be “huge shortages” of classroom space in lower Manhattan in coming years.

“Could we just have some birth control for a while?” Black cracked. “It could really help us all out a lot.”

She sounds a lot like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said abortion should be legal to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of…”

Shocking fact:

In a 2009 New York Times interview , Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon that, “…I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
watch the film- Maafa21 (clip below to see why:

</a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maafa21 has a section in the DVD about how people discussed placing birth control pills in minority areas in the water and food to keep population down..hmmmmmm

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com


____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Al Gore: Population Control- (Eugenics) answer to Global Warming !

Posted in Al Gore, climate change, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Global Warming, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Population Control, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by saynsumthn

6-22-2011
( Al Gore: H/T Daily Caller)

In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth. (h/t Daily Caller) (YOUTUBE REMOVED THE VID)
Vodpod videos no longer available.

then I found it again here:

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

This is another attempt by the ELITES to PUSH POPULATION CONTROL And EUGENICS in the name of Climate Change and Global Warming:

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Maafa21 exposes racism, eugenics, and elitism all connected to Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Posted in Abortion, Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Agenda 21, Alva Myrdal, Alveda King, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Bill Gates, birth control in water, Black Abortion Stats, Black Babies, Black Church, Black Conservative, Black Deaths, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Neighborhood, Black Panthers, Black Pastor, Black Victims, Black Women, Brian Clowes, Charles Davenport, Civil Rights, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, Clinton, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Conspiracy, Constitution, Darwin, Davenport, Democrat, Dr. James Watson, Ehrlich, Elaine Riddick, Elite, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Faye Wattleton, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Galton, Garret Hardin, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Haiti, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Huxley, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, LBJ, Leon Whitney, Levon Yuille, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, MLK, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Republican, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Urban League, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

Know the Truth- Get Maafa21 here

Maafa21 racism and abortion movie: the film Planned Parenthood does NOT want you to see !

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, Black Babies, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Pastor, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Davenport, Elaine Riddick, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Fairchild, Forced Sterilization, Frederick OSborn, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, Leon Whitney, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Lyndon B Johnson, Maafa21, Madison Grant, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, Movies, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Quotes, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Video, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2010 by saynsumthn

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now.

It is called Maafa21, a Swahili word which means “A terrible tragedy” and used to define the time of the middle passage during the slave trade and “21st century” because it reveals the “Maafa” has not ended but is still being carried out today through abortion.

Maafa 21 shows the connection from slavery and eugenics to birth control, abortion and black genocide today and is routinely called “stunning,” “breathtaking,” and “jaw-dropping.” Many viewers have said they were left “speechless” by what they saw and several have told us that it filled them with anger. One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.” Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life he has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda.

Maafa21 proves with irrefutable documentation that abortion is simply an extension of racism and eugenics targeting blacks for centuries. After watching Maafa21, viewers often comment that it “connects the dots.”

Maafa 21 features noted African American leaders such as Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Pastors Johnny Hunter and Clenard Childress leaders of the nation’s largest African American pro-life organization LEARN, Dallas Pastor Stephen Broden and others. Maafa21 was the featured film in the March 2010 Jubilee Film Festival in Selma, Al. to commemorate the right to vote and remember the historic “Bloody Sunday” anniversary of the Bridge Crossing Civil Rights march from Selma-to-Montgomery In addition, Maafa21 was featured in the 2010 Real Life Film Festival in Sudbury, Ontario. Audiences across the United States are gathering for showings of Maafa21 in homes, churches, theaters, Universities, and community centers.

The 2.5 hours of stunning documentation included in Maafa21 was gathered from original transcripts, video, books, libraries, and the papers of the American Eugenics Society, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and many others. We encourage you to view Maafa21’s “credits section” to see just how credible the information presented in Maafa21 is.

Gripping Interview:

Don’t miss Maafa21’s emotional interview with an African American Woman
who was eugenically sterilized by the State of North Carolina’s Eugenics Board

The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now.
It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel.
It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.
Maafa 21 will show you things the media has been hiding and politicians don’t want you to know.
So if you’re ready to see the real agenda behind “choice,” fasten your seatbelts …

Sample quotes from the film:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg July 2009

Under the cover of an alleged campaign to ‘alleviate poverty,’ white supremacist Americans and their dupes are pushing an all-out drive to put rigid birth control measures into every black home. No such drive exists within the white American world.” Black Unity Party, 1968

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

Clergy once again used to push eugenics and black genocide

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, Black Babies, Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black Neighborhood, Black Panthers, Black Pastor, Day Gardner, Defund Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, James T. Harris, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Lloyd, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2010 by saynsumthn


… if the Negro is to be eliminated, he must be eliminated slowly so as not to hurt any living individual Negroes.” An American Dilemma, Gunnar Myrdal Chapter Seven, page 168. Footnoted – Planned Parenthood

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A recent announcement from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an extreme pro-abortion advocate, is holding a conference August 26, that will try to show solidarity among pro-abortion black members is merely an empty attempt to offset the huge success of the pro-life education campaign that Abortion is Black Genocide in the 21st Century.” This weak response by the Religious Coalition of Reproductive (Abortion) Rights is shows that eugenicists will use religion to once again push their racist agenda.

In the early 1900’s, the American Eugenics Society brought in religious people by promoting eugenic sermons. In doing this they paid preachers hundreds of dollars to submit the best “Eugenic Sermon” and preach it from the pulpit, enabling the eugenics movement to indoctrinate the church. Many religious groups found eugenics a welcome addition to their existing charity work and social services.

Sermon contests, including a national competition sponsored by the American Eugenics Society, were a popular form of religious involvement in eugenics. Entries in these contests presented scripture citations to try to support the compatibility of religious and eugenics principles. Until the Vatican ruled eugenics unacceptable in the mid-1920s, some Catholic priests and theologians promoted eugenics. They argued that the Church had always restricted marriage through rules such as bans on cousin marriages.

Between 1926 and 1928, the AES held contests for the best sermon preached on the subject of eugenics. In addition to the nine folders labeled AES Sermon Contest, the APS collection includes 45 submissions filed under the name of the minister, preached before Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Unitarian, and Jewish congregations across the country.

Read about this on Google News

Here is an old newspaper article

The largest chain of abortion clinics is Planned Parenthood, and their founder, a white member of the American Eugenics Society, Margaret Sanger formed the Negro Project to promote “Birth Control” among Black Ministers.According to Author George Grant, in 1939, Margaret Sanger, announced the organization’s new “Negro Project” in response to requests from southern state public health officials—men not generally known at that time for their racial equanimity. “The mass of Negroes,” her project proposal asserted, particularly in the South, “still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” The proposal went on to say that “Public Health statistics merely hint at the primitive state of civilization in which most Negroes in the South live.

In order to remedy this “dysgenic horror story,” her project aimed to hire three or four “Colored Ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to travel to various Black enclaves and propagandize for birth control.

The most successful educational approach to the Negro,” Margaret wrote sometime later, “is through a religious appeal. 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.

Of course, those Black ministers were to be carefully controlled—mere figureheads. “There is a great danger that we will fail,” one of the project directors wrote, “because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence, let’s appear to let the colored run it.” 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.The entire operation then was a ruse—a manipulative attempt to get African Americans to cooperate in their own elimination.

Soon taxpayer-supported clinics throughout the South were distributing contraceptives to African Americans and Sanger’s science fiction dream of discouraging “the defective and diseased elements of humanity” from their “reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning” appeared at last to be on the road to fulfillment. Planned Parenthood had its first real success in social engineering.

Listen to Planned Parenthood’s founder (Margaret Sanger) as she spews her hatred :

MEET ALAN GUTTMACHER:

Guttmacher Institute is the Research Arm for the largest provider of abortions nationally and internationally – Planned Parenthood and was named after one of Planned Parenthood’s President – Alan Guttmacher.

Alan Guttmacher , who was also a Vice President for the American Eugenics Society, said this in 1967- “ I oppose abortion on demand, at least now for the United States, there are several reason. First, the public does not want it… only 20 % of the public favors abortion for single women… Abortion on demand relives the male of all responsibility in the sphere of pregnancy control..he becomes and animal…not far removed from the status of a bull…I favor liberalization of existing [ abortion] statutes…” But…should Guttmacher be legally permitted to do abortions he continues, ” I would abort mothers already carrying three or more children…I would abort women who desire abortion who are drug addicts or severe alcoholics…I would abort women with sub-normal mentality incapable of providing satisfactory parental care…”
(Source; “Abortion: The Issues”, Dr. Alan Guttmacher – President, Planned Parenthood, December 4, 1967, Harvard Law School Forum)

In 1969, Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

Simply listen to the words of Guttmacher told a symposium at the University of California Medical Center in 1966 he stated that, “the belief that the white middle class was coercing their own poor and people with black and yellow skins to reduce family size because the middle-class whites are frightened of being outnumbered.”

The only way the mounting feeling that birth control is a tool of racism can be handled, is to involve knowledgeable leaders from the minority groups who understand and are favorable to the philosophy of birth control. They, in turn, must translate their appreciation of the contribution which birth control can make toward family stability to their own people.” (SOURCE: New York Times: Doctor blames his profession for delays on Family Planning: 1/16/1966)

So now, the eugenic founded abortion lobby, fearful that African Americans are becoming educated to the black genocide agenda of abortion, have once again called in the “Religious Black Clergy” to rally support. President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, announced their press conference this way, “Right to Life” and other right-wing groups are trying to make inroads into African American communities that have repeatedly rejected them by misinforming them about reproductive health services. With the approach of the anniversary of a historic moment in the civil rights movement, African American leaders are raising awareness of civil rights, medical, legal and religious issues at stake and of the serious threat to their community’s health and well-being posed by these unscrupulous tactics.”

But- the early black leaders in the 60’s and 70’s at the founding of abortion and Planned Parenthood in this nation saw it a different way

Contraceptives will become a form of drug warfare against the helpless in this nation.” Jesse Jackson, 1971

Under the cover of an alleged campaign to ‘alleviate poverty,’ white supremacist Americans and their dupes are pushing an all-out drive to put rigid birth control measures into every black home. No such drive exists within the white American world.” Black Unity Party, 1968

Proponents…have argued this bill is for blacks and the poor who want abortions and can’t afford one. This is the phoniest and most preposterous argument of all. Because I represent the inner-city where the majority of blacks and poor live and I challenge anyone here to show me a waiting line of either blacks or poor whites who are wanting an abortion.” Iowa State Rep. June Franklin, Democrat 1971.

The abortion law, hides behind the guise of helping women, when in reality it will attempt to destroy our people.” Brenda Hyson, New York chapter, Black Panther Party, 1971

A true revolutionary cares about the people–he cares to the point that he is willing to put his life on the line to help the masses of poor and oppressed people. He would never think of killing his unborn child.Detroit chapter, Black Panther Party, 1970

How the hell is getting the pill? The Mexican and the Negro. Do you want to wipe us out?Caesar Chavez, 1967

It is strange that they choose to start talking about population control at the same time that Black people in America and people of color around the world are demanding their rightful place as human citizens and their rightful share of the material wealth in the world.” Jesse Jackson, 1977

I believe the entire question of abortions is just one more in the continuous series of events to eliminate the Black population.” Father George Clements, Jet Magazine, 1973.

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

In addition, Planned Parenthood’s top award is called the Margaret Sanger Award, despite the fact that Sanger was an admitted Klan speaker. This is what Sanger wrote in her autobiography, “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Similar to Sanger’s associations with the Klan, Tom Metzger, a former Klan leader promoted the pushing of abortion clinics in Black Neighborhoods. From Metzger: “…abortion and birth control should be promoted as a powerful weapon, in the limitation of non-White birth. “


If a White Supremacists Klan leader knows that abortion is Black Genocide than it should also be obvious to groups like the RCRC
, but the pushers of eugenics are wealthy white elitists who know how to use money and power to buy off the pro-abortion clergy to promote their agenda. Just like they did in the early days of Eugenics by paying ministers to preach eugenic sermons, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is implementing an old tactic from Klan speaker, Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” use Black Ministers to push abortion and eugenics.

Listen to a former board member of Planned Parenthood

But, not all African American leaders are deceived by eugenics. In fact, many African American leaders have been speaking out and this is the very reason the eugenic pushers of population control are running scared.

In 2010The Rev. Ralph Bradley, pastor of Eternal Light Church in Canton said, “Margaret Sanger is only one of a long list of people in the New World Order’s plans, which will eliminate countless millions of people of color. If the New World Order members can continue in the financial banking fraud in the U.S. and around the world, abortion will be only one way to get rid of what Henry Kissinger calls ‘useless eaters.’ ”

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King

Racism and abortion are twins in many other ways. Racism springs from the lie that certain human beings are less than fully human. It’s a self-centered falsehood that corrupts our minds into believing we are right to treat others as we would not want to be treated. So it is with abortion.

Pastor Stephen Broden, Dallas, TX

Perhaps there is nothing more sinister than a deception designed to cause those targeted to participate in a deep dark plot to facilitate in their own demise. This is exactly what’s happening to black people in America through the efforts of the eugenics movement, Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry…The eugenicists and Planned Parenthood are winning the day. When will we push back against these elitists and stop our extermination?

Pastor James Leak III, MA, Executive Pastor New Harvester International Ministries (N.H.I.M),
Studies of the shift in the abortion demographics from 1974 until 2004, and the purposeful location of abortion clinics in minority communities, corroborate “MAAFA 21’s” claims that black babies are a target of black genocide.”


Dean Nelson, executive director for the Network of Politically Active Christians


dubbed the Planned Parenthood “Klan Parenthood,” saying it locates clinics in minority communities…”

Day Gardner National Black Pro-Life Union

Abortion providers are still being located for the most part in black neighborhoods and are still delivering the same old message–that black, poor children, living in urban areas–are not worthy of life. America would be a better place without black people. The KKK brutally killed about 3500 black people since it began in 1865–Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is responsible for the more than 17 million black deaths since 1973. “

Rev. Joe Ellison, vice president of the Council on Biblical Principles
Today, this African American pastor is declaring war against Planned Parenthood. We’re asking pastors to shut them down in their communities. We’re asking pastors to pray them out and we’re asking Planned Parenthood to leave our children alone.”

R. Dozier Gray , member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 Black leadership network
“There are conspiracy theories about AIDS and crack cocaine being intentionally inflicted on Blacks. What about abortion? Is there a secret KKK-Planned Parenthood alliance to extinguish the Black race in America? It’s unlikely the Grand Imperial Wizard has clandestine meetings with the president of the nation’s largest abortion provider, but Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger did once address the women’s auxiliary of the KKK…Surely no one now still thinks the same way as Sanger, right? Wrong. Just recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an New York Times interview: “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Perry
describes in a written statement/talk how the black community in general has been profoundly affected by abortion. Bishop Perry, who is African-American, writes: “Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death charted for black Americans that year.” Bishop Perry also notes that the abortion industry specifically targets the black community. He writes: “Dr. Alveda King, niece of slain Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is a pro-life activist. In August 2007, she told a meeting of Priests for Life ‘those abortionists plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope…. the great irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Mychal Massie , chairman of the black leadership network Project 21

Black Americans were brought to America in chains. After emancipation, we were subject to unfair laws restricting promised freedoms. Discrimination further robbed us of opportunity. Now, even with a level playing field, abortion is still pushing blacks into a corner. While the United States economy remains on the brink, blacks – who, as a community, are making their way up the socio-economic ladder – stand to lose the most. In promoting abortion, there is much more to lose than just our morality. Our very futures may lie in the balance.”

African American Bill Randall candidate for Congress (North Carolina)
This radical group was founded by Margaret Sanger (an avowed racist) for the purpose of bringing systematic genocide to “undesirable races of people.

Cecil Clark, pastor of True Vine Baptist Church, a black congregation
“Yes, I think they target black neighborhoods and black women, Hispanics and poor people. We stand for not aborting babies, period. We’re concerned about all kids, regardless of what their color is.”

Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress Jr

Seventy-eight percent of all Planned Parenthood’s clinics – abortuaries as I call them – are located in minority neighborhoods. The targeting of African-Americans has now been documented,”

African American Pastor, Walter Hoye

During the Civil Rights movement African-American’s were willing to be hosed down by Fire Departments, bitten by dogs, beaten by police officers, unjustly incarcerated, financially ruined and lynched by racist white folk to secure access to water fountains, restrooms and seats in the front of the bus…Today an African-American child has less than a 50% chance of being born.Every 72 seconds an African-American baby’s life is terminated by abortion.

Reverend Ceasar I. LeFlore III

Reciting facts such as “abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community,” and “black women are three times more likely to be sold an abortion than her white counterpart” didn’t seem adequate to break through the veneer that covered the eyes of black liberals and caused them to view abortion as more a basic right than an instrument of racist evil. To be honest, I began to give up hope that anything we could present would ever be enough to break through the deep-rooted skepticism that was manifesting itself in illogical political alliances between perpetrators and victims in defense of legalized abortion. Until I saw Maafa 21.

African American YouTube Post
Abortion is the #1 killer of blacks in America and no one talks about it. Preachers/politicians/Obama: no one talks about it. They just sweep it under the rug. As blacks we need to fight or else we’re going to be extinct. Check out Maafa21.”

Cecil Clark of True Vine Baptist Church
I think (Planned Parenthood) target(s) black neighborhoods and black women, Hispanics and poor people.”

Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers
“Since 1993 legal abortion has killed more black Americans than Aids, Cancer, Heart Disease..the adversary wants us to embrace their eugenic ideology as the status quo.

Ted Hayes, civil rights and homeless activist, tells people about the millions of black babies lost to abortion

Dr. Johnny Hunter national director of L.E.A.R.N, the largest African American pro-life organization

The civil rights activists did not fight to make lynchings ‘safe, legal, and rare…They ended it. We must fight to end the ugliest form of racism: abortion. More black children die in four days from abortion then the Ku Klux Klan killed in 144 years“…”We have no problem exposing the racist agenda of elitists and population controllers, regardless of race or feigned religious underpinnings, who have waged a massive, devastating campaign against us and our children.”

In response to the efforts by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Pastor Hunter also says: “I am especially offended by groups like RCRC, founded by elitist white abortion advocates, whose hidden agenda is documented in the movie Maafa 21 — Black Genocide in 21st Century America.”

LEARN MORE:

Maafa21shows the connection from slavery and eugenics to abortion and black genocide today. One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.” Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life he has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda.

See a clip from Maafa21 here

Also Read: Reading between the lines: Racist comments prove that Abortion is Black Genocide

READ: Black pro-lifer tells of racial slurs railed against him for picketing Planned Parenthood’s abortions

More African Americans Opposed to Abortion:

If video does not play – then click here

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

ABORTION: to, “Get rid of populations we do not want too many of” and what is aborted, “Little Black Bastards”

In a recent New York Times interview , Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon that, “...I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

The “Populations” Ginsburg referred to in that interview is clearly defined in, Maafa21. Get the truth- see the evidence for yourself and do not be fooled again by the eugenics agenda at Black Genocide !

President Richard Nixon

President Richard Nixon

Newly released Nixon tapes confirm the statements of racism played on the new documentary on Black Genocide: Maafa21.

This month, the Nixon Library released more Nixon Tapes. Although the quality of the recordings are poor, Nixon and an aide held a conversation recorded on January 23, 1973, discussing that day’s Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

I know that there are times when abortions are necessary. I know that,” Nixon tells an aide, then adding, “When you have a black and a white.”

The aide interrupts, “or for rape,” to which Nixon quickly responds, “or rape.”

NIXON Tape #697-29

Nixon: “A majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion, I think a majority of people in Michigan are for abortion, I think in both cases, well, certainly in Michigan they will vote for it because they think that what’s going to be aborted generally are the little black bastards.”

NIXON TAPE 700-10

Nixon: ” … as I told you and we talked about it earlier, that a hell of a lot of people want to control all the Negro bastards.”

Unidentified Staff: “Yeah

Nixon: “Isn’t that really true?

Nixon: “You know what we are talking about – Population Control?”

Unidentified Staff: “Sure

Nixon: “We’re talking really – and what John Rockefeller really realizes – look, the people in what we call the “our class” control their populations. Sometimes they’ll have a family of six, or seven, or eight, or nine, but it’s an exception.”

Unidentified Staff: Sure.

Nixon: “People who don’t control their families are people in- the people who shouldn’t have kids.”

President Nixon formed the Population Commission which was headed by eugenics members.