Pastor Exposes How Abortion Industry Was Founded By Nazi Eugenicist Now Lauded By Liberals

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 1, 2010

In this exclusive new unseen video interview for Prison Planet.tv subscribers, New Jersey Pastor Clenard Childress of BlackGenocide.org discusses how The Negro Project was the foundation of today’s industrialized abortion industry and how its pioneer, Margaret Sanger, who is still lauded by liberals as a human rights crusader, deliberately set out to sterilize blacks and encourage abortion of black babies in pursuit of a eugenicist drive to create a racially superior master race, a goal she shared with her close friend Adolf Hitler, and one that continues to reverberate through the generations as over 1,700 black babies are killed in the United States every day.

Childress explains how the public school system’s encouragement of adolescents to have sex by handing out condoms is circumventing the authority of parents, which has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and promiscuity. Childress leads the fight against the normalization of abortion, noting that after just a few weeks it’s now established that babies in the womb have heart beats and brain waves. Childress highlights how the Negro Project, Margaret Sanger’s eugenics plan for black Americans, targeted the systematic genocide of blacks through the promotion of abortion.

Childress explains how Sanger, a devout racist who wrote letters to and received praise from Hitler, was an advocate of social Darwinism and believed that a master race should be bred while ethnic groups deemed inferior, including African-Americans, needed to either be exterminated or their numbers reduced greatly. Sanger’s sterilization and abortion programs targeting the African-American community were set up in such a way so that the victims did not become suspicious of her true intentions. Sanger knew that to offset any distrust of her motives she would have to hire black religious leaders to deliver her programs and message, which is exactly what transpired as Childress highlights.

  

The eugenics drive to cull the black population was also achieved by withholding benefits from blacks who refused to be sterilized or have their baby aborted, thereby using coercion to force compliance with Sanger’s eugenics programs. After the end of the odious Tuskeegee experiments, wherein which African-American sharecroppers were deliberately  infected by the U.S. Public Health Service against their will with syphilis and not treated, eugenics went underground and re-emerged through organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Sanger worked closely with members of the Third Reich and yet she is still celebrated and honored today by liberals as a pioneer of women’s rights. Childress labels Sanger’s origins and her background as “the best kept secret in America” but notes that people are gradually becoming aware of her providence and her deep connections to today’s neo-eugenics movement and its adjutant abortion industry.

Sanger’s legacy lingers on in the modern era now that the African-American birth rate has dipped below the replacement rate thanks to industrialized abortion. Childress labels this process “genocide” and points out that Sanger’s program has been successful – around 52 per cent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion.

Whatever your view on abortion, the fact that its industrial growth was created by a woman whose stated goal was to eliminate the black population as part of a eugenics drive to eliminate undesirables is part of the historical record. Read these shocking Margaret Sanger quotes below.

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the 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.”

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation….

On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”

Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”

Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

“The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order…”

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children…”

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”

Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

“As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know…”

Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Libertarianism and Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Tea Party: 5 Questions for Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz

Encyclopedia Britannica Blog

With the 2010 midterms approaching and many polls showing voters want the government to intervene less in people’s lives, we asked David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute and author of Britannica’s entry on libertarianism and Libertarianism: A Primer, to break down what libertarianism is and what libertarians believe. He also weighed in on some thorny issues, such as whether or not a libertarian can be pro-life, same-sex marriage, and the Tea Party movement.

*                    *                    *

Britannica: Can you begin by explaining briefly what libertarianism is for our readers who may not be familiar with the term?

Boaz: The Britannica entry defines libertarianism as a “political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value.” In interviews, I often say that libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their own lives. In practical terms, libertarians favor smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, free trade, protection of civil liberties, personal freedom, and a less interventionist approach to defense and foreign affairs. We celebrate civil society, free association, and the social progress that they generate, and we seek strict limits on the size, scope, and power of government in order to maximize freedom.

Britannica: Capitalism is a system in which inequalities in wealth are inevitable—some people will thrive while others won’t. What is proper role of government, and what should government do to protect those who do not thrive? For example, are unemployment insurance and Medicaid-type programs appropriate?

Boaz: Inequalities in wealth are inevitable in all economic systems. In fact, the Economic Freedom of the World report finds that the share of national income going to the poorest 10 percent of the population is remarkably stable no matter what the degree of economic freedom in the country (see exhibit 1.9). What does vary is the absolute income of the poorest 10 percent, which is much higher in countries with more freedom (exhibit 1.10). Socialist states had and have huge hidden inequalities of wealth. Differences in access to privileges were staggering—special stores, hospitals, dachas and so on for party members that ordinary people could not enter, access to international travel and literature, etc. And all that in regimes that were officially dedicated to equality, in which inequality was “forbidden.” If inequality is inevitable, it’s better to have a system that gives people incentives to invent, innovate, and produce more goods and services for the whole society.

People live best when government is restricted to protecting individual rights, leaving all the rest of life to the voluntary choices of billions of people. The most important way that people get out of poverty is through the economic growth that happens when markets are free. Also fundamental is the family, which supports and sustains individuals and makes lots of very personal and nuanced income transfers. Then you have self-help and mutual aid organizations, which were prominent in society before the rise of the welfare state. And then there are charitable organizations. Only if you expect all those institutions to fail should you consider having the government take money by force from some people and transfer it to others. And I would argue that the vast expanse of welfare and transfer programs have not only led every Western country to the verge of bankruptcy, they have trapped the poor in institutional dependency. Indeed, poverty declined steadily in the United States until the Great Society, after which it leveled off. We would have more growth, a higher standard of living, and less multi-generational poverty if we eliminated harmful government transfer programs and turned instead to economic freedom, family, self-help, mutual aid, and charity.

Britannica: Rand Paul, the Republican senatorial candidate from Kentucky, who is identified with the both the Tea Party movement and libertarianism, got in trouble earlier this year when he criticized some elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandated what private business could and couldn’t do, specifically saying that they could not discriminate on the basis of race. Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with a libertarian’s view of what government should and shouldn’t do?

Boaz: Among any group who share a political philosophy there are radicals and moderates, philosophers and practitioners, and other differences. Libertarians generally believe that government should not coercively interfere with freedom of association and the way people arrange their private affairs. No one should be forbidden from contracting with another, or required to do so. And thus libertarians do generally reject laws intended to ban discrimination by private businesses and individuals. We defend private property and free association as firmly as we do free speech, even though we know that any freedom can be abused. In the aftermath of Rand Paul’s comments, some libertarians—including the eminent legal scholar Randy Barnett—argued that the historical context of government-supported racial discrimination in the United States did require a governmental response: that after 300 years of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant African Americans either liberty or equal protection of the law, the Civil Rights Act was not an interference in a previously free market, it was an attempt to counter a comprehensive government policy of discrimination.

Britannica: Abortion and same-sex marriage are two hot button issues in the United States. In a piece you wrote earlier this year, you talked about pro-choice libertarians being more supportive of Barack Obama while pro-life libertarians were more likely to back the Republicans. Can a true libertarian favor a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion or favor legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage?

Boaz: There’s no libertarian pope, so I hesitate to excommunicate people for not being “true libertarians.” I do think a libertarian can believe that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property, and interpret that to include protecting the life of the unborn child. American libertarians tend to prefer federalism and would thus probably prefer to leave the decision on abortion and other possible crimes to the states; but that’s not a first principle. Most libertarians believe that the woman’s right to control her body should prevail, but some do think the state should protect the potential life of a fetus.

Marriage is a different matter. The best libertarian answer is to separate marriage and the state. But in our current world, with government involved in every nook and cranny of legal and economic life, that’s hard to achieve. So I’d say the libertarian answer in this society is that laws should apply equally to all, including marriage laws.

Britannica: Polls indicate that about 15% to 20% of the American public hold beliefs that could be classified as libertarian, and in your research paper titled “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama,” you note that such people swing back between backing Republicans and backing Democrats. With neither party a wholly comfortable fit for libertarians, how would you like to see the libertarian movement develop to really capture this segment of the population? As a third party?

Boaz: The challenge is to get those 15 percent—or even the 44 percent of Americans who say they are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian”—to actually know, understand, and use the word “libertarian.” That’s a big job, when the political and media worlds are firmly committed to the idea of the liberal-conservative spectrum. Third parties don’t fare very well in the United States, so most organized libertarians work in one of the major parties, in issue campaigns, or in nonpolitical areas like academia, think tanks, and journalism. Libertarians should do a better job of persuading those Americans who generally like both personal and economic freedom—who like the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the economic revolution of the 1980s—that they are in fact part of the broad libertarian community. But it’s tough going. We may just have to keep developing and advancing libertarian ideas while enjoying the broad libertarian consensus in American society without actually getting credit for it!

Britannica: What is your impression of the Tea Party movement, and how well do the view of Tea Party activists and sympathizers mesh with those of libertarians?

Boaz: The Tea Party is a thoroughly decentralized movement, and it’s hard to pin down just where its many members and local organizations actually stand. But if you take the Tea Party Patriots’ slogan, “Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Market,” that’s a pretty libertarian set of principles. The tea party is not a libertarian movement, but (at this point at least) it is a libertarian force in American politics. It’s organizing Americans to come out in the streets, confront politicians, and vote on the issues of spending, deficits, debt, the size and scope of government, and the constitutional limits on government. That’s a good thing. And if many of the tea partiers do hold socially conservative views (not all of them do), then it’s a good thing for the American political system and for American freedom to keep them focused on shrinking the size and cost of the federal government. Besides, even as the tea party grows, several states have implemented marriage equality and California just decriminalized marijuana (and may actually legalize it on election day), so there’s a definite libertarian trend going on.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Blog

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

White House Science Czar Questioned The Right of Unborn Child to Live Inside Womb

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 28, 2010

Holdren believes that children during the early years after birth cannot yet be considered human beings.

Holdren believes that children during the early years after birth cannot yet be considered human beings.

It is almost tiresome, but yet another writing by White House science czar John P. Holdren has surfaced- this time questioning the right of a “potential human” to live and grow in the womb of an “actual woman”. One could fill a medium-sized library with the writings by this Malthusian monster, denouncing humans and their right to live under the sun.

In 1972, John P. Holdren and his old buddy Paul Ehrlich wrote an article in “The Canadian Nurse”. The article is entitled “Abortion and Morality”. The subtitle reads as follows: “Has a potential human the right to live inside an actual woman without her consent?”

The article goes on to list the well-known arguments for abortion, such as “If abortion is needed by individuals and by society, is medically safe, and is not patently immoral, it is difficult to be sure exactly what is accomplished in subjecting the procedure to restrictive government scrutiny”, Holdren and Ehrich say.

“Infants”, the two continue, “are entitled to due process and equal protection under the Fouteenth Amendment to the (US) Constitution, but fetuses are not. Because of this distinction, the relaxation of abortion laws could scarcely imperil the rights of infants or of elderly and otherwise dependant people. (…) Repeal of abortion laws is long overdue.”

These were not some isolated comment by two overzealous eco-fascists. In the 1973 publication Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote quite candidly about their basic view on life, providing us with yet another peek at the decaying undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged- proposing among other things a “planetary regime” to assume command of matters of life and death.

In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:

“The fetus“, Holdren writes, “given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

In other words, Holdren not only argues, as he did in 1972, that the unborn may not be considered human- he believes that children during the early years after birth, cannot yet be considered human beings. Given this presumption by Obama’s science adviser, it may not come as a surprise that he does not shy away from coercive abortion policies or other such measures to scale back the population. After all, if an infant cannot be construed as a human being, as Holdren argues, God-given rights do not apply to them nor does constitutional protection- and therefore they can be deemed as completely at the government’s mercy.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Obama Administration Financially Supports China’s Population Policies Through UN Population Fund

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com 
September 18, 2010

Steven Mosher, founder and president of the Population Research Institute put out a video recently, exposing the UN-endorsed depopulation policies in China that, as Mosher explains, “continue to this day.”

After the Bush administration in 2001 decided to cut US government funding for the United Nations Population Fund’s China program, the Obama administration is now planning to fill the pockets of the United Nations Population Fund with fresh federal funds once again. Even though recent investigations exposed the UNFPA’s intimate involvement in China’s coercive birth control policies, the new administration apparently cares not, as it allocated $50 million to the eugenicists.

Only days after his inauguration, President Barack Obama announced he would resume funding for the UNFPA and its ‘family planning’ activities in China and elsewhere around the globe. State Department spokesman Robert Wood explained the allocation with the following argumentation:

“The United States is a global leader in promoting voluntary family planning and the health of vulnerable women and children in the developing world.”

As it turns out, the concept of voluntarism is not easily reconcilable with the Chinese government’s aim of reducing its population. On July 7th, LifeSiteNews.Com reported that UNFPA’s claim that it “played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China” is patently false. Steven Mosher explained the policies of the Chinese government- partially funded by the UNFPA- as follows:

“Women continue to be arrested for the crime of being pregnant. They continue to be forcibly aborted. Minorities continue to be targeted. The handicapped are forbidden children. These violations of human rights are occurring right under the UNFPA‘s nose. It is ludicrous to suggest that the UN population controllers do not know about them.”

These facts are in stark contrast with the claims of the United Nations Population Fund, who back in 2001 maintained that reproductive health programs are “fully voluntary”. The Population Research Institute however traveled to China’s provinces and counties where the UN Population people are active. What they witnessed is heart rendering:

“In every village in one UNFPA county, billboard propaganda urges women to help the economy by complying with family planning policies. PRI interviewed dozens of other women and men, all of whom confirmed- without exception- that voluntarism is non-existent in this county where UNFPA operates.”

Even today, the website of the UNFPA uses the argument of the economic crisis to convince people to cut down on the number of children:

“In the context of the financial crisis, when resources are limited, investing in family planning is even more attractive – because it is a cost-effective intervention with both short term and long term impact.”

Based on firsthand observations by the Population Research Institute, to say that the situation is dire would be an understatement:

“Only about five miles from an UNFPA office- in a county where UNFPA claims that women are free to determine the timing and spacing of their pregnancies- PRI interviewed a young woman who reported that she came under severe pressure to have an abortion. (…) To avoid a forced abortion, this woman fled to a neighbouring town where she went into hiding (…). Unable to locate her, family planning officials attempted to force the woman out of hiding and into an abortion by arresting the woman’s mother, father, brother, sister, and mother- and brother-in-law. They were held in jail for four months. (…) While her relatives were being held in jail, to further increase the pressure on her to have an abortion, their homes were partly destroyed. The attack occurred on April 5, 2000, on the occasion of a major Chinese festival, Qingming. Family planning crews armed with jackhammers attacked this woman’s house, and her brother- and father-in-law’s homes, hammering great holes in the floors, walls, ceilings and roofs of these homes. In addition, they ransacked the homes.”

UNFPA’s response? In their ‘Draft country programme document for China’ in 2005, the organization states that “UNFPA will continue to use the results of the systematic monitoring, evaluation and research of its operational project sites to work with key partners to facilitate and advocate programme changes.”

Furthermore, the “draft” explains that: “UNFPA and the Government will build on previous experiences in the area of reproductive health in China, including those of partners such as the World Health Organization, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and The Ford Foundation.”

Who could these “family planning crews” be exactly, described by the Population Research Institute as thugs looking for pregnant women to intimidate? The UNFPA states that:

‘The UNFPA country office consists of a representative, two national programme officers, two junior professional officers, and national programme and support staff. National project personnel may be recruited to strengthen programme implementation.’

Reproductive health: the ultimate euphemism. Just like “family planning” (who will do the planning) and “cost-effective intervention”. These are cold words from cold organizations dedicated to reduce the world’s population, the sooner the better.

Documenting these atrocities in great detail within a 2001 report by the Population Research Institute forced the Bush administration to withdraw their support and funding for the UNFPA indefinitely. Despite the alarming reports however, the current administration has shaken the money-tree once again, providing the UNFPA with the necessary funding to continue their dubious undertakings in the People’s Republic of China. PRI’s lead investigator Colin Mason:

“The Obama administration has demonstrated an alarming ideological bent in favor of groups like the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood, groups that have been repeatedly shown a laissez-faire attitude toward human rights and national and international laws.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

“We believe that the evidence is conclusive”, stated the PRI-spokesman. “The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China, and should therefore be ineligible for US funds.”

The Obama administration nevertheless has said and continues to say: ‘so what?’- while pouring American taxpayer money straight into China’s eugenics programs.

Source:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070709.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032712.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/oct/011005c.html

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page