Archive for Clinton

Hillary Clinton advocates for elephants while pushing abortion on human babies

Posted in Hillary clinton with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 22, 2015 by saynsumthn

While being a strong advocate for abortion on demand, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has decided to advocate for elephants in the wild.

White Gold Hillary

White Gold is a documentary narrated by Hillary Rodham Clinton and according to the website:

    “illustrates the awe-inspiring complexity, beauty and emotional intelligence of the elephant, Africa’s most majestic and iconic wild animal. It documents how, as the demand for ivory escalates, the stakes rise for elephants, people and peace. And, amid growing speculation from analysts around the world that ivory is likely to have partially funded the ongoing terrorist massacres in Kenya, the film poses the question: is this luxury commodity really so desirable, considering the ugly reality of terrorism and looming species extinction?”

In the trailer, Hillary can be heard saying, “Elephants are known to possess complex intelligence and most remarkably – they mourn their dead.”

Elephants Hillary Clinton

Hillary Elephants 2

This pregnant cow was sprayed with bullets…” the pro-abortion Democrat says with shock in the film.

Pregnant Cow Hillary

The images are shocking and the story of the elephants needs to be told. But, why isn’t the story of unborn babies being told? Why does Hillary advocate for animals while promoting the slaughter of human babies in the womb?

“This is the ugly truth of the ivory trade,” Hillary says.

Ivory Trade Hillary

Hillary Clinton has supported abortion on demand for any reason for many years as I have documented on this blog before.

In this March 12, 2003 CSpan clip on the debate over Partial Birth Abortion a procedure where a baby’s head would be delivered before the abortionist sucked out brain tissue to kill the child, Hillary reiterated her support for late term abortion.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4462058/partial-birth-abortion-ban-debate-march-12-2003

Hillary Clinton once praised Planned Parenthood’s eugenic founder, Margaret Sanger.

Hillary clintonMargaret Sanger

Clinton has also praised other pro-abortion groups, like NARAL and received awards from abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Ready for Hillary

Her candidacy for president was recently applauded by abortion rights groups across the board.

Is Ms. Clinton is so eager to show the world what poachers are doing to elephants – perhaps we pro-life people could politely show Hillary Clinton what her views on abortion are doing to unborn children:

abortion17

abbabyparts

Aborted Baby

Aborted Baby 4

Tess-cradling-baby

BabyRowan2

The question is – will Hillary at least look? I doubt it !!!

Republican and Democrat Elites tied to black genocide from abortion, so says controversial documentary

Posted in Abortion, Black Genocide, Bush, Clinton, Eisenhower, LBJ, NAACP, Pelosi, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Truman with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 29, 2010 by saynsumthn

Maafa21 DVD NEW WEBSITE According to one reviewer, a documentary called Maafa21 which details how the Elite has been targeting African Americans since the days of slavery has some juicy info in it regarding Elite politicians behind Black Genocide. Maafa21 begins in the mid-1800s with Francis Galton, the British statistician who coined the word “eugenics,” or “selective breeding as proposed human improvement.” From there, Maafa 21 weaves a chilling tale of the efforts of racists in the United States to eliminate African-Americans from the population. Hitler credited them with influencing his European agenda. Through the 20th century these influential bigots planned tactics such as injecting a sterilizing agent into public water supplies. The documentary explains how their racist efforts continue to the present day and provides a legitimate explanation of the relatively unchanged size of the black population as compared with other races in the United States.

Obviously guilty parties, such as Planned Parenthood, whose founders were deeply connected to Eugenics and even had ties to racism and the Nazis, are highlighted in the film, but Maafa21’s does not shrink from pointing the finger of blame at less expected perpetrators. Maafa 21 exposes support of the abortion industry and the eugenics movement from both Democrat and Republican sources.

So, I have listed a glimpse of some of Maafa21‘s guilty elites:

T_Roosevelt


A 1913 letter written by Theodore Roosevelt to American Eugenics Society founder, Charles Davenport, Roosevelt writes, “society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. ..Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”

Dwight_D._Eisenhower,_official_photo_portrait,_May_29,_1959 (1)

In 1965, former Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, complained that the United States was spending money to slow the population growth of responsible families while at the same time providing financial incentives for ignorant, feebleminded and lazy people to have more babies. He said that history would rightly condemn the United States if we didn’t link welfare to family-planning.

Eisenhower

At that time, Eisenhower was the co-chairman of a Planned Parenthood fund-raising campaign along with former Democratic President, Harry S. Truman.

LBJ Sanger Award

Lyndon B. Johnson’s views were apparently shared by his Republican successor as well. According to the nation’s largest abortion clinic – Planned Parenthood: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963, Johnson signed the Fulbright bill into law, which funded international population research and assistance. In 1964 Johnson said, “America’s progress toward a society of decency has been marked and measured by our attitudes toward the role and toward the rights of women.” Remembered for the Vietnam War, the War on Poverty, and the Great Society, Johnson was also the first U.S. president to back federal support for birth control in social welfare and public health programs (at the urging of a Republican representative from Texas, George H. W. Bush). Margaret Sanger died midway through Johnson’s presidency in 1966, shortly after the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized birth control for married people.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson stated in a speech, that every five dollars the government spent on population control was worth more than a hundred dollars invested in economic growth. In 1966, Johnson accepted Planned Parenthood’s highest award (the Margaret Sanger Award) for his policies pushing family planning on foreign countries. (Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, was a racist member of the American Eugenics Society who admitted she gave a Klan Speech)

In 1966, (LBJ) Lyndon B. Johnson accepts the Margaret Sanger Award and it is mentioned that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman are co-chairs of a Planned Parenthood honorary council- here
( SOURCE: Lodi News-Sentinel – Oct 10, 1966)

And here ( SOURCE: Tri City Herald – Oct 10, 1966 )

LBJ Birth Control Cited: “President Johnson has been the major force in shaping a virtual revolution in government thinking to help meet the global population crisis. ” Planned Parenthood- World Population ( Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Oct 11, 1966)

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 )

1965- At the White House Conference on Civil Rights sponsored by Lyndon Johnson, NAACP’s Cecil Moore made this attack on population control, “ And I have noticed that every time that we talk about population and planned parenthood, the only country I find that wants to limit poverty by limiting the poor- they always want to do it in Africa and South America and Asia , but I never heard them talk about doing it in Paris or England. Then I hope I am not belaboring the point, but don’t take that away from Negroes because we don’t have much else.” ( SOURCE: The Historical Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1 ( Mar., 1998) pp. 259-282, The 1966 White House Conference on Civil Rights, by Kevin L. Yuill, quoting transcript records of the WHCCR)

Then In One chapter on Birth Control in Black Journalist Samuel Yette’s Book: The Choice

Yette exposes President Nixon’s White House Conference on Food and Nutrition of December 2-4, 1969. In Mr. Yette’s words it, “was worse than a farce.” President Nixon opened the conference with 3 recommendations designed to reduce the number of hungry people! He suggested no measures for the relief of hunger in America.

1. He wanted everyone to have a guaranteed minimum income of $1,600 a year. (This is less than welfare was paying at that time.)
2. A supposed expansion of the food stamp program that would be tied into and compliment the welfare reform package in #1. (His plan would have actually reduced the amount of food stamps. Less money + less food =more hunger.)
3. Provide family planning services to at minimum 5 million women in low-income families.

This last proposal was part of a plan formulated by Dr. Charles Lowe of the National Institute of Health. The plan recommended Congress pass a law that:

1. Made birth control information and devices available to any and all girls over the age of 13 with or without parental consent.
2. Allowed mandatory abortions for unmarried girls within the 1st three months of pregnancy.
3. Mandatory sterilization for any unmarried girl giving birth out of wedlock for the 2nd time.

In that book, Yette describes how black activist, Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer was there for the Conference on hunger. When she heard about the birth control proposals she grabbed about a dozen young black men, walked into the room, and demanded to be heard. She spoke about ten minutes on the evil results of this plan and the conference dropped it from consideration.

Listen to clips from Maafa21, of Richard Nixon’s conversation with his staff – defining who will support abortion:

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: … as I told you and we talked about it earlier, that a hell of a lot of people want to control the Negro bastards.
Unidentified Staff: Yeah
Nixon: Isn’t that really true?
Unidentified Staff: Yeah
Nixon: And the Puerto Ricans (Not Audible) bus station vasectomies

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 “upper 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.

Later the following tapes were released when Nixon said abortion should be allowed when the baby is between a “White and a Black”

John Ehrlichman, who was an assistant to President Richard Nixon, wrote that Nixon once told him that African-Americans could not really benefit from federal programs because they are genetically inferior to whites. Later, Nixon would label birth control a national priority and sign legislation to make it available as a service of the U.S. government. Then in March of 1972, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future which Nixon had created three years earlier with the help of Congressional Democrats, began calling for the nationwide legalization of abortion.

Republican President Richard Nixon signed legislation establishing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. The bill authorizing this new initiative had been passed with overwhelming support from Congressional Democrats and was chaired by John Rockefeller. The Executive Director of the project was to be Dr. Charles F. Westoff who was also a member of both the American Eugenics Society and Planned Parenthood’s National Advisory Council.

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.

Among the conclusions of NSSM 200 was that, “no country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.” The authors of NSSM 200 then identified three non-governmental agencies that would be funded to carry-out the government’s population-control agenda in the targeted countries. One of those agencies was Planned Parenthood.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.

On the week Bill Clinton was inaugurated, he received this letter from attorney Ron Weddington. Weddington is the ex-husband of Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who successfully argued for the legalization of abortion in the Roe vs Wade case. The letter was in reference to Clinton pressuring the FDA to approve the abortion pill RU486, because, “ … 26 Million food stamp recipients is more than the economy can stand.” • “… you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that.” • “I am not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion.” • “Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies.”

The concept that abortion and birth control could be used to save the government money was well established by this point in history. In 1969, Joseph Kershaw who was a researcher with the U.S. government’s Office of Economic Opportunity, stated that the agency had closely studied the poverty issue and found that the single most cost-effective way for the government to address it was through “family planning.” In other words, through abortion and birth control.

And that sort of thinking is still very much alive today. On January 25th, 2009, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said on an ABC News program that the government’s economic stimulus package should include a large increase in spending for population control. She said that this would save state and federal governments the cost of having to pay for the health care and education of poor children. Not surprisingly, Pelosi has a 100 percent approval rating from Planned Parenthood.

In a 2009 New York Times Magazine 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 and the rest of the Political Elite referred to is clearly defined in, Maafa21. To find out more about this topic get the DVD Maafa21, which is almost 2.5 hours of incredible documentation. Below is the trailer for the film- I recommend seeing the film in full to really connect all the dots correctly !


Watch the film in full here http://www.maafa21.com

Holy books should not be burned

Posted in Burning Book, Church, Islam, Religion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 8, 2010 by saynsumthn

I Say the military should STOP BANNING and BURNING any HOLY BOOK – this is all an outrage !!!!

2012 Vodpod videos no longer available.

2012

2009

2010

Stolen election? Documentary charges Obama campaign with voter intimidation within Democrat party ranks

Posted in Black Panthers, Hillary clinton with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 12, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.



We will not be silenced !

SCOTUS nominee: Elena Kagan on abortion and Partial Birth scheme

Posted in Abortion, Kagan, Supreme Court with tags , , , , , , , on July 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Sen. Hatch questioned why Elena Kagan pressured the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to modify its proposed statement on whether or not partial-birth abortions could ever be medically necessary. ACOG later adopted Kagan’s suggestions, and its report was cited in a subsequent Supreme Court case (Stenberg v. Carhart) View the document Sen. Hatch references at this link: http://bit.ly/9XDmUa

For more information on this troubling report – read: Exposed! Kagan’s partial-birth abortion scheme

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology is well-known in pro-life circles to be radically pro-abortion.

For instance, ACOG supports the most heinous of all abortion practices, partial-birth abortion. When in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003, ACOG released an indignant statement, which read, in part:

Today’s decision … is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women,” said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

“… The Supreme Court’s action today, though stunning, in many ways isn’t surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion,” he added.

How admirable of ACOG to stand on the principle of “scientific knowledge” in the face of “subjective opinion,” which overwhelmingly thought sucking out the brains and collapsing the skulls of almost-delivered late-term babies was gross.

But as it turns out, ACOG is the grandest of frauds.

It has just come to light through the process of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing that in 1996 ACOG let the Clinton White House, via then-associate counsel Elena Kagan, write its medical opinion of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

Documents released from the Clinton library show ACOG inexplicably (because no one from ACOG will now respond to press inquiries for an explanation) submitted its draft unhelpful opinion of partial-birth abortion for review to the White House in the face of a ban being proposed in Congress and then changed it to suit Clinton’s pro-abortion agenda.

The statement ACOG originally planned to release read:

However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances.

In other words, ACOG found no exceptional reason for the existence of partial-birth abortion. Legalized abortion could get along just fine without it. Nevertheless, in ACOG’s curious opinion, it should remain legal.

Rest here

Clinton Accepts Blame for ‘Global Warming’ Role, Ponders Link Between Climate Change and Family Planning

Posted in Cap + Trade, climate change, Copenhagen, Environment, Hillary clinton, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by saynsumthn

Monday, July 20, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Urging India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the weekend accepted responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate change.

We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” Clinton said in Mumbai, India.

We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes,” she added.

While stopping short of an apology for a U.S. role in “global warming,” Clinton’s remarks came closer than previous ones.

Last April, she told a gathering of major economies in Washington that the U.S. “is responsible for past emissions” of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change; Obama said at the G8 summit in Italy this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities,” adding, “Those days are over.”

On her first visit to India as secretary of state, Clinton was confronted by New Delhi’s determination not to accept mandatory restrictions on its greenhouse gas emissions.

India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally-binding emission reduction targets,” Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said Sunday, after he and Clinton toured an eco-friendly building near the capital and had a roundtable discussion on environmental issues.

Although the two governments both said they want to see a global agreement reached at a key climate conference in Copenhagen in December, the differences between them on the issue of what developing nations will bring to the table was evident.

Ramesh handed out copies of remarks made during his talks with Clinton, underlying Delhi’s position.

There is simply no case for the pressure that we – who have among the lowest emissions per capita – face to actually reduce emissions,” Ramesh said he told Clinton.

And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” he said. The reference was to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives late last month, which contains a clause that would impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not reduce emissions by 2020. (Obama has praised the bill, but says he opposes the “protectionist” tariff measure.)

The Copenhagen meeting is meant to produce a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires leading economies to cut the amount of greenhouse gases they produce by specified amounts by 2012.

India, China and others have long argued that climate agreements should not hinder developing countries’ economic growth – and they got their way with Kyoto.

One of the main reasons President Bush gave for rejecting the protocol was the fact it did not set emission reduction targets for developing countries, despite some of them – including India and especially China – being leading CO2 producers. Bush and anti-Kyoto ally John Howard of Australia argued that unless China and India curbed their fast-growing emissions, efforts to do so by leading developed nations would have little effect.

Clinton made a similar argument in India on Sunday.

“There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on this issue,” she said in a joint media appearance with Ramesh and the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern.

“And for our part, under President Obama, we are not only acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects.

Clinton said Obama was committed to the cap-and-trade bill before Congress.

But it is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead,” she continued. “Because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries.

Now, China is, by far, the largest emitter in the world right now, and certainly the largest among developing countries,” Clinton said. “But India’s own greenhouse gas pollution is projected to grow by about 50 percent between now and 2030. So, climate change would not be solved even if developed countries stopped emitting greenhouse gas emissions today, unless action is taken across the world.

Climate, population and family planning

In other comments, Clinton described Sunday’s roundtable discussion as “very enlightening, especially for me.”

As an example of this, she noted that “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”

That was an incredibly important point,” Clinton said. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”

Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.

In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”

Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”

In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.

Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”

The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.

Obama “No More Secrecy” Closed Door Politics- Don’t shut us out !

Posted in Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , on October 26, 2009 by saynsumthn