Archive for Holdren

Glenn Beck & Pastor Stephen Broden: “We Are Losing Our Freedom”

Posted in Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Glenn Beck, Holdren, Maafa21 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 14, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Glenn Beck & Pastor Broden: “We Are L…", posted with vodpod

get Maafa21 here

Russian Journalist promoting infanticide and eugenics, “Let me introduce myself: I am Adolf Hitler”

Posted in Death Panels, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Harrison Brown, Health Care, Hitler, Holdren, Infanticide, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 9, 2010 by saynsumthn

The Eurasia Review Reports: Russian Call For ‘Postnatal Abortion’ Sparks Outrage
Tuesday, February 09, 2010

By Claire Bigg, Lyubov Chizhova, Aleksandr Kulygin

In late December, Snezhana Mitina received a tearful phone call from her friend Svetlana. Sobbing, Svetlana explained she had just read a newspaper article calling for babies with mental disabilities to be killed at birth.

The author, Aleksandr Nikonov, used the word “debil” — a deeply offensive term in Russian — to characterize such children. He argued that parents should have the right to euthanize newborns diagnosed with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.

The article, which ran under the headline “Finish Them Off, So They Don’t Suffer,” went on to describe what Nikonov termed “postnatal abortion” as an act of mercy.

Mitina and her friend, Svetlana Shtarkova — both mothers of children with developmental disabilities — decided to take action. They filed a complaint with the Russian Union of Journalists against Nikonov, a correspondent for the popular tabloid “Speed-Info.”

The two women say their aim is not to punish Nikonov but to raise the alarm about Russia’s culture of intolerance toward disabled people. Shtarkova made an emotional appeal at a hearing last week at the journalists’ union.

“The opinion expressed by the author is not unique; statistics show that one-fourth of Russians share similar views,” Shtarkova told the February 2 hearing. “Complete strangers come up to me in the street and tell me that I’m depraved and deserve my fate. Doctors and social workers refuse to do their jobs, just because my child is severely disabled.”

The lawyer representing the two mothers, Pyotr Kucherenko, told the board that Nikonov’s proposal to put “flawed” babies to death only fueled discrimination and was dangerously reminiscent of the theories of racial superiority upheld by Nazi Germany.

Nikonov, however, was unrepentant.

Let me introduce myself: I am Adolf Hitler. This is the way people want to portray me,” Nikonov says. “But the real bastards are those who tell me, ‘Yes, it is good and fair that people are in pain. We’ll look on and say people can suffer, as long as our scholarly conception of humaneness is not affected.’ To hell with you. People shouldn’t suffer. This is my opinion, and you won’t shut me up.”

Read the rest here and here

A tabloid journalist in Russia calls for babies with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities to be euthanized, highlighting widespread prejudice against the disabled in Russia. The cas…

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Russian Call For ‘Postnatal Abortion’…", posted with vodpod

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who 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.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

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 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. ”

Are these the people we want in charge of our health care?

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 the 1970s, as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

With Professors like Singer, Harrison and others teaching our kids at major Universities – do you really believe that National Health Care will not go down the slippery slope to Death Panels and Euthanasia? Just Sayn !

Former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]

“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”

Also Read: Death Panels? Is it possible?

READ MORE HERE: Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?

Adding Birth Control to food and water supplies

Posted in Abortion, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Panthers, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water with tags , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

From the well documented film: Maafa21
Get it herehttp://www.maafa21.com

Read: Recent Survey: Birth control is a gov’t conspiracy to limit black and Hispanic populations

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

Adding Sterilizing Agents in the food and water supplies

Posted in Abortion, Alex Jones, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Victims, Holdren, Maafa21, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water with tags , , , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

From the well documented film: Maafa21
Get it herehttp://www.maafa21.com

Maafa21 – Trailer (Below) It is over 2 hours long-

You can get a copy here:

Read: Recent Survey: Birth control is a gov’t conspiracy to limit black and Hispanic populations

Also read:

UK Newspaper pic of Black Babies to solve carbon emissions appears Eugenic !

Posted in Eugenics, Holdren, Jesse Jackson, Population Control, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 8, 2009 by saynsumthn

The article printed in the UK Guardian is entitled:

Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control

This is the picture shown is this one:

And this is the caption used under the picture:
Babies in Dakar, Senegal. The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions.

The article begins:

Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change – by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.

As Frank Furedi ,Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, writes , “Looking at the article by John Vidal in the Guardian, which contained that photo of 12 black babies and reported on the OPT’s new initiative inviting people in the West to offset their CO2 emissions by sponsoring ‘family planning’ in the developing world, I am not sure what I found most shocking: the message conveyed through the photograph, or the absence of any anger over the OPT and its supporters’ casual devaluation of human life.

He continues, “What is truly disturbing about this, from a humanist perspective, is not simply that there is a silent crusade against the unique quality of human life, but that there is an almost complete absence of anger about it, a lack of any critical reaction against it. In modern times, there have always been small coteries of Malthusians, eugenic fantasists and bitter misanthropists who were estranged from children and who regarded babies as an imposition on their existences. Thankfully, these people tended to be consigned to the margins of society. Not any more.

“Why is it that, today, the provision of contraception can be promoted as a sensible way of reducing carbon emissions? How do we account for the silence of religious movements whose theology still upholds the unique status of human life? And why are prominent so-called humanists so uninterested in countering this lethal Malthusian challenge to some of the most important ideals that emerged during the Renaissance and later developed through the Enlightenment?

Once newborn babies are dehumanised and recast as little pollution machines it becomes possible to advocate their elimination as an exercise in the reduction of carbon emissions.

Here is an interview from Fox News which I find interesting?

Fox News anchor Alisyn Camerota introduced a new and controversial line of reasoning in the dispute over federal funding for abortion . While acting as the moderator for a debate about an amendment introduced by Sen Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that would place strict limits on federal funds going to abortion, she asked conservative panelist Kate Obenshain the following question:

If there is no federal money used to subsidize abortions for low-income women, doesn’t that mean there will be more low-income babies, and do any of these amendments talk about the health care for them?

Camerota’s argument — that federal funding for abortions should be provided as a cheaper alternative to the eventual cost of insuring an otherwise increasing number of “low-income” babies — was seemingly made while playing devil’s advocate for the Nelson amendment opposition.

Now children or the lack of them especially Black Ones as the above picture and this “line of questioning”: indicates will “Save the Planet” , “Save the taxpayer”, and selling “Family Planning” to “low income women” and third world nations is the way to do this. Gee..I wonder who the top dispensers of “Birth Control” to these “Black” mothers-to-be will be? My guess is Planned Parenthood the world’s top eugenic organization.

Planned Parenthood was founded on racist and eugenic goals and those who delve deep into Planned Parenthood’s records say this goal has not changed ! Perhaps Obama’s Science Czar will be pleased when he solves “Global Warming” and “Overpopulation” in one push to “Sterilize” the world thru pills and potions as Rev. Jesse Jackson once warned. The question is- which populations will these elitist preachers “reduce”? Perhaps that answer lies in a statement released in a recent New York Times interview where Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon this about the legalization of abortion, “...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.

Let’s look at where all these abortion clinics are located – African American and Minority Communities. And the stats prove that more African Americans are “sold” abortions than whites. The fix is in and who is being duped ?

Who are these so-called “low income” babies? Perhaps they too are lumped into this term “Populations we do not want too many of” and show up in pictures of articles on carbon emission reduction through family planning.

The “Populations” Ginsburg referred to in Ginsburg’s interview, the Guardian Picture, and the term “Low income babies” is clearly defined in a new film about eugenics, population control, and Black Genocide called: Maafa21. If you have not ordered Maafa21 and watched it- do it now ! You will learn that there is an agenda to limit certain peoples and races and if they can “sell” this eugenic plan through abortion funding in “National Health Care”, “Saving Mother Earth” “Global Warming” and “Carbon Emissions Reduction” they will do it !

Just Say’n!
(Short Clip of Maafa21 Below)

Kathleen Parker has it half right- we cannot tolerate forced abortions in China- but what about the US?

Posted in Abortion, Alex Jones, American Eugenics Society, child predator, Forced Sterilization, Glenn Beck, Holdren, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 12, 2009 by saynsumthn

Kathleen Parker wrote this amazing article in the Washington Post, When abortion isn’t a choice
dated: November 11, 2009.

One of the few incontrovertible assertions one can reasonably make is that no one supports forced abortion.

Yet, coerced abortions, as well as involuntary sterilizations, are commonplace in China, Beijing’s protestations notwithstanding. While the Chinese Communist Party insists that abortions are voluntary under the nation’s one-child policy, electronic documentation recently smuggled out of the country tells a different story.

Congressional members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission heard some of that story Tuesday, two days before President Obama was slated to leave for Asia, including China, to discuss economic issues. Among evidence provided by two human rights organizations, ChinaAid and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, were tales of pregnant women essentially being hunted down and forced to submit to surgery or induced labor.

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of the Frontiers group, told the commission that China’s one-child policy “causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on Earth.”

I met Littlejohn for breakfast the day before the hearing. A petite wife and mother — as well as a Yale-educated lawyer — Littlejohn gave up her intellectual property practice in San Francisco after a life-altering illness to become a full-time activist for Chinese women. She is remarkably buoyant, considering the knowledge she has absorbed. Action, she says, is her way of coping with the unconscionable.
Here’s the question Littlejohn insists we consider: What really happens to a woman who doesn’t have a “birth permit” and has an “out of plan” pregnancy?

The answer is simple and brutal: A woman pregnant without permission has to surrender her unborn child to government enforcers, no matter what the stage of fetal development.

Late-term abortions are problematic, but the Chinese are nothing if not efficient. On one Web site for Chinese obstetricians and gynecologists, doctors recently traded tips in a dispassionate discussion titled: “What if the infant is still alive after induced labor?” ChinaAid provided a translation of a thread regarding an eight-month-old fetus that survived the procedure.

“Xuexia” wrote: “Actually, you should have punctured the fetus’ skull.” Another poster, “Damohuyang,” wrote that most late-term infants died during induced labor, some lived and “would be left in trash cans. Some of them could still live for one to two days.”

To be clear, some of the doctors online expressed concern for the rights of the child. Others, however, worried only about potential legal ramifications. Technically, it is illegal in China to kill a baby, one is relieved to learn, but family-planning imperatives sometimes prevail. According to a 2009 State Department report, monetary incentives and penalties are attached to population targets, creating what amounts to bounties on the unborn.

As recently as July, officials of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission said that the one-child policy “will be strictly enforced as a means of controlling births for decades to come,” according to Xinhua, the state-run news agency.
The violence of these procedures doesn’t only kill the child in some instances. In two of the cases described in a document leaked this past August, the mothers died, too. Those who dissent, meanwhile, are persecuted.

Such has been the fate of activist Chen Guangcheng, who is serving a four-year sentence after exposing 130,000 forced abortions and sterilizations in Linyi County, Shandong province, in 2005. Named by Time magazine as one of 2006’s top 100 people “who shape our world,” Guangcheng, who is blind, was severely beaten and denied medical care the following year, according to an Amnesty International report.
The one-child policy has created other problems that threaten women and girls. The traditional preference for boys has meant sex-selected abortions resulting in a gender imbalance. Today, men in China outnumber women by 37 million, a disparity that has become a driving force behind sex slavery in Asia. Exacerbating the imbalance, about 500 women a day commit suicide in China — the highest rate in the world, which Littlejohn attributes in part to coercive family planning.

Obviously, the United States is in an awkward position with China, our second-largest trading partner and the largest holder of our government debt. But Littlejohn hopes Obama will “truly represent American values, including our strong commitment to human rights.” She is also calling on Planned Parenthood and NARAL to speak up for reproductive choice in China.

On this much, both sides of the abortion issue can agree: Forced abortion is not a choice. Averting our gaze from China’s horrific abuse of women is.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article sheds light on the severe persecution the Chinese are suffering under. But- it is disingenuous because the abortion procedure described by Ms. Parker along with the late term abortions are also legal here in the US. They are horrific and compounded by the fact that , in China, they are forced on women. However, here in the US women are sometimes forced to have abortions by parents, boyfriends, husbands, and sexual predators and many times the abortion industry covers for the crime, turning a blind eye to the helpless victim and insisting only on the money. This blog is full of such stories. Women are forced to abort in the US because it is “Sold” as a solution and every day a women is either killed, assaulted, and beaten by a boyfriend because she “refused to have an abortion”.

Often, when women , here in the United States, do go to abortion clinics and tell staff that they do not want the procedure (abortion) that such facility makes all their profits from, they are often coerced by these s-o-called champions of women’s rights. There are many post-abortion testimonies and even police reports to document this. I just posted the story of Michigan abortion doctor Hodari who is being sued allegedly forcing an abortion on a woman. (READ: Michigan Abortionist selling clinic- forced abortion allegations and abortion deaths to blame?)

Here is another investigation which may prove interesting to make my point about child predators:

But- to call out to Planned Parenthood to in any way assist China in helping women would be like sending a lion to help with a deer colony, it is an oxymoron. Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger promoted the idea of forcefully sterilizing people and even suggested that those she objected to be segregated on “farms and open spaces” . It is absurd to expect such a eugenic based organization to assist women in any way. A new film called: Maafa21 will enlighten Ms. Parker on that matter – here is a clip:

In an infamous 1989 appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, National Organization President, (then) Molly Yard described the one-child policy as “among the most intelligent in the world…”. Those within the NOW, Planned Parenthood, John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control circle approve of such “Government Limitation of Children“. How do you think China gets our “Most Favored Nation Status” year after year?

Need some examples:

Hilary Clinton was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award from teh Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), stated: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision, (…). I am really in awe of her.” Sanger was a know member of the American Eugenics Society who promoted forced sterilization and founded the nation’s largest abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood.

Abortion Doctor, Robert Crist, “We’re already overpopulated for the services we have available, and that’s just the U.S. What are the alternatives for China? What are the alternatives for Bangladesh? Let’s take some of the ultra-conservatives and put them in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and say, “Okay, now find yourself a meal.’ ” St. Petersburg Times, “A chain of tears:’ a doctor and abortion:6-3-1990

Ron Weddington, Former Husband of Sarah Weddington who argued Roe. V. Wade, in a letter to then President Bill Clinton: ” 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. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies. There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and well…Republican…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.” SOURCE: Jan 6,1992 Letter to Betsy Wright – Cliniton Administration director for public Outreach/Transition Team: From: Friedman & Weddington,Attorneys, LLP. To view this letter you can log onto http://www.judicialwatch.org, A Judicial Watch Special, The Clinton RU-486 Files.

Joyce Tarnow, former abortion clinic owner, Florida, “Fertility is an environmental issue. That’s why I try to get as many people sterilized as are in my way!…America “can’t take all the people in the world,We need to help nations that can subsist and let others wither on the vine.” SOURCE: New Times Broward-Palm Beach Adios, Abortionist Joyce Tarnow is history:7-15-2004

Clinton advisor Nina FedoroffLifeNews.Com reported on the comments by Clinton advisor Nina Fedoroff, who stated before BBC One Planet: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people. There are probably already too many people on the planet.

Ms. Parker, please get the film: Maafa21 and listen to how these groups feel about forced population control. Let’s come up with real solutions for women instead of abortion in both the US and in China !

National Health Care, Death Panels, Eugenics, and Population Control? Think Twice !

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Anti-abortion, birth control, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Black Panthers, Brian Clowes, Charles Davenport, Civil Rights, Clenard Childress, Cold Spring Harbor, compulsory birth control, Concentration Camp, Connie Eller, Czar, Darwin, Davenport, Death Panels, Elaine Riddick, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Evolution, Fascism, Forced Sterilization, Frederick OSborn, Galton, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Glenn Beck, Guttmacher, Health Care, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, Holdren, Infanticide, Jesse Jackson, Joyce Tarnow, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, NAACP, Nazi, New World Order, Obama, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Richard Nixon, Robert Reich, Rockefeller, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Seniors, Slavery, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on November 11, 2009 by saynsumthn

The recent uproar about Obama’s plan to nationalize health care has spurred much controversy. Hidden within the thousands of pages in the Bill is language that most scholars and lawyers can barely understand and includes legislation which, has scared many citizens. The mere suggestion that an elderly or dying patient would be required to appear before a GOVERNMENT employee to help them with “end of life issues” has sent Obama’s “Plan” into a tailspin.

What I would like to examine here is not the actual language, or whether the bill is really suggesting some sort of a “death panel” for euthanasia or rationing, but whether this type of idea is possible.

To understand some of what drives the fears, we need not look to far beyond the President’s own pick for his Science Czar, Paul Holdren. 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. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from 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.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…

Many people are not aware of the fact that State GOVERNMENTS within the United States openly supported Eugenics. In fact, as early as 1907 Indiana had established the first GOVERNMENT “eugenics court” and the last GOVERNMENT Eugenics court was not closed until 1984, that was in Oregon. These Eugenics Courts, were GOVERNMENT Boards and they required the poor, the infirmed, “feebleminded” and minorities, which, included a large population of black people to appear before them to decide who could and could not pro-create. Remember, Eugenics Boards and GOVERNMENT Boards – were one in the same. Many of these underrepresented people groups were forcibly sterilized and coerced into birth control clinics in order to keep their GOVERNMENT welfare! Recently a well-documented film, called, Maafa21, produced by Life Dynamics in Denton, Texas, has exposed much of this abuse. You can get a copy here: http://www.maafa21.com. You can also google Eugenics in North Carolina, and read the GOVERNMENT documents which that state has opened up and get just a sneak peak of what a run-away GOVERNMENT board with this kind of power can do to people.

Preview of Maafa21:

One other important fact you may not be aware of is the history of the founding of the first group who fought for the legalization of Euthanasia. Most people are not aware that many of the exact same people who originally founded the idea of legalized euthanasia in the US, were the same ones who were on the Board of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL). To examine this closer – all you have to do is get a copy of the New York Times from January 17,1938.

In 1938, just a few years prior to the American Birth Control League (ABCL) changing it’s name to Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in the nation, a group of American Eugenics Society Members and Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL) members got together and formed the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia. Heading this pro-euthanasia panel was a man by the name of Charles F. Potter who, in 1938 was also on the ABCL Committee for Planned Parenthood according to a February 1938, New York Times story. Potter was the leader of the First Humanist Society and organized this entire pro-euthanasia group.

Also on this pro-euthanasia board was: Sidney Goldstein who sat on the American Birth Control League’s National Council and later was on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors. Another member was Frank H. Hankins who was a managing editor for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s newsletter called the Birth Control Review. Hankins was also an American Eugenics Society member. Another more famous name who was sat on the advisory board of this pro-euthanasia panel, was Julian Huxley, who was a later recipient of a Planned Parenthood award.

Mrs. F. Robertson Jones was also on this panel, she was an ABCL President, wrote for Sanger’s Birth Control Review , was an honorary board member of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Board of Director of Planned Parenthood. ABCL Citizen’s Committee for Planned Parenthood member, Dr. Foster Kennedy, was also on the pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society Member, Clarence Cook Little, who was the President of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), at the same time he was on this pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was not on this panel, but she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and many of their members were on this panel. Sanger admitted that she gave a speech to the Klu Klu Klan and in her autobiography , she bragged that she received a dozen invites from the Klan for further speeches. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest Population Control and some would say “Eugenics Control” organization and they receive millions of dollars from the US GOVERNMENT. Care to ask why????

It is important to know this because the “population Control” , “Zero Population Growth”, “Planned Parenthood” crowds are buzzing around this administration and have been heavily involved in government decision making for years. In fact, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization receives over $1 million dollars a day from the Government to sterilize and abort this so-called over-populated society. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute , reports that Black Minorities receive 5 abortions to every 1 white baby aborted in this nation. Is this coincidence or a form of racist and eugenic targeting? ( Special Note: Alan Guttmacher was a Planned Parenthood President and was also a Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. ) Remember that when they removed the GOVERNMENT Eugenics Courts, they appear to have replaced them with Federal Funding of Population Control Groups, like Planned Parenthood.

So , could we see potential “Death Panels” in Nationalized Health Care, or Co-op Health Care? You Bet! Look at those who have been advocating for euthanasia and abortion for many years and you will see that they receive large amounts of funding from the GOVERNMENT already. Do you really believe that if we can form GOVERNMENT Eugenics Boards which forcibly sterilized thousand of Americans, murder 50 million unborn children through abortion with the blessing and funding of the GOVERNMENT to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and form euthanasia panels to legalize the act, that we would never have GOVERNMENT death panels? Then…think again !

Just Sayn !


Also View: Robert Reich: Honest about Death Panels? “If you are very old – we’re gonna let you die !”

Elaine Riddick- Forcefully sterilized at the age of 14, full interview from the film: Maafa21: