Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts

Sunday, February 23, 2014

More Black Babies Aborted Than Born in NYC

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH/EIB: If I may get solemn and serious, as this requires, there is shocking news out of New York. I don't know how shocking it is, but it's really bad, and it's Cybercast news service, but the actual source of this is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  So this is a city source: "In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758)..."

So out of a possible 56,000 black babies in New York City in 2012, 31,000 were aborted and 25,000 were killed, "and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in" New York City. This is shocking.  Let me run these numbers by you again, because I know they're tough to follow on radio and I screwed up the addition.  So there were, give or take, 56,000 black pregnancies in New York City 2012.

And 31,000 of the 56,000 were aborted and 25,000 were born.  The 31,000 aborted was almost 50% of the total number of abortions, but the African-American population is only, what, 11 to 13%.  These are striking numbers, and this is... Dare I go there?  Yes, I do.  This is exactly what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she came up with the whole notion of Planned Parenthood and eugenics. 

I've always been amazed that the white, liberal elite champion Margaret Sanger, when it wouldn't take anything for Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go back and figure out who she is what she really wanted. How in the world there's any support for whatever Margaret Sanger attached her name to is beyond my ability to comprehend.  Well, no it's not, because I know the left. Abortion is the sacrament to them.  But this is just...

These people that are relying on the Democrat Party to protect them to take care of them, to guard them against whatever extremism might be coming their way from conservative Republicans, are wiping themselves out -- with the support of and the recommendation of the Democrat Party -- which puts abortion in top two of the most important issues going.  It's just amazing here, and when you look at the reality of this and then you understand who it is they blame for their lot in life and their plight?

"The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics." Now, you'd have to say this is shocking news, and you've got Democrat Party advocacy behind it.  You've got Democrat Party identity behind it -- and if you'd add all the other abortions that Democrats are having, you may have a little bit better understanding of why they're so eager for amnesty, and you might understand why the US birth rate is now dipping below replacement levels, which has all kinds of bad connotations to it, not the least of which are economic. 

END TRANSCRIPT

CNSNews: NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born

Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

Thursday, December 6, 2012

American Nurses Association Should Not Support Assisted Suicide

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN) has responded to ANA’s call for public comments on their proposed document “Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.”

As an organization dedicated to the preservation of ethical standards in the nursing profession, NAPN finds the document an unnecessary change from the current position. While the document makes several good statements regarding respect for the patient, any accommodation to the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia has no place in the medical profession. Nurses are healers, not killers, and legalization of the practice will not make it ethical.

The document cites as one resource for their study the pro-euthanasia organization, Compassion in Choices. The use of organizations as resources which have as their primary focus the legalization of these practices does not lend to the credibility of the document. There are other sources for the same statistics that could have been cited.

NAPN notes that the current statement of the ANA position on assisted suicide and euthanasia does not require any revision. Sadly, even that document, which declined to endorse assisted suicide/euthanasia, was not sufficient for the ANA to come to the protection of the life of Terri Schiavo who was not in the process of dying as food and hydration were withdrawn from her in order to assure her death. In their official statement, the ANA sided with the controversial determination that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and as such, the proper decision was reached in the withdrawing of nutrition and hydration based on some unsubstantiated statements she supposedly made regarding the care she would have wanted under such circumstances. The stated position of the ANA does not translate into life-affirming actions on the part of the ANA. The absence of activity to protect the life of patients speaks volumes and it would be naïve to think that the new document would produce any different action on the part of the ANA.

The main objection of NAPN to the document is the lack of any real protection for the conscience rights of nurses. As an organization which has been involved in the defense of exercise of these rights, it is distressing to us that the professional organization which purports to represent nurses has been absent in the defense of these nurses in spite of any platitudes to the contrary. Yes, limits outlined in the document do exist, but it seems unlikely that the ANA will come to the defense of the nurse who declines to participate when it has not done so in the practice of abortion. More than once at the state level where conscience protections were being considered for legislation, the state affiliate of the ANA has testified, not on behalf of the nurses, but on behalf of those who would force them to violate their conscience. Where are the protections for those in the medical profession who would object to participating in the omission of care for Terri Schiavo? The ANA remained silent when President Obama rescinded the conscience protections which were put in place in the waning months of the Bush administration. Such actions lead one to question just who the ANA actually represents.

Lastly, it should be noted that the ANA position of support for the highly politicized Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act further clouds the stated position of the ANA. Support for an act which promotes wholesale practice of abortion and provides for a Patient Advisory Board which would limit treatment is counter to the stated position of the ANA. The ANA cannot have it both ways. You cannot make high minded statements to the public and then act in a manner contradictory to these statements and retain your credibility.

We pro-life nurses feel abandoned with regard to the protection of our conscience rights in the workplace. In spite of the position statement of ANA supporting a nurse’s right to be exempt from participating in procedures which transgress her moral principles, they have been absent in the defense of nurses such as Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo in New York in her dispute with Mt. Sinai Hospital for forcing her to choose between her conscience and her job. They were in absentia in the defense of the twelve nurses in New Jersey who were told they must participate in abortion or lose their jobs. In spite of platitudes in their statement, it has not translated into action. Nurses deserve better representation.

LifeNews Note: Marianne Linane is the Executive Director of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses. She holds a Masters Degree in Bioethics from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.

cardinaloconnorad

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Will Sick Babies Be Starved to Death Under Obamacare?

Doctor describes “horror” of Britain’s socialist healthcare system

Paul Joseph Watson  -  Infowars.com  -  November 30, 2012

A physician has told the British Medical Journal about the “unique horror” of watching a newborn baby shrivel up and die under a cost-cutting system of socialized healthcare that withdraws feeding tubes from sick and disabled babies, a method that could be replicated in the United States under Obamacare.

After speaking with doctors who have blown the whistle on how babies are being starved and dehydrated to death in British hospitals, an investigation by the Daily Mail has revealed that the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway end of life regime is being used to kill disabled newborns and young children. It was previously thought that the method was only being used on elderly and terminally ill adult patients.

The method has been criticized as a form of euthanasia because its primary purpose is to kill off patients quicker so as to free up more hospital beds and resources.

One physician spoke of how parents who gave permission for their babies to be put on the ‘pathway to death’ were making the decision without properly considering the abhorrent reality of what dehydration and starvation does to the human body.

“I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby,” the doctor writes. “I reflect on how sanitised this experience seems within the literature about making this decision.”

The doctor also dismissed the myth that the baby does not suffer during the process.

“Survival is often much longer than most physicians think…..Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues,” he wrote.

“Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels,” he wrote, describing the mixture of “compassion, revulsion, and pain” the care team had to experience in watching the baby slowly die.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, also revealed how parents are being coerced into agreeing to put their children on the LCP, and that she “Witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.”

“I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die,” added Lloyd.

Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), now under independent investigation by order of government ministers, is a process whereby a doctor identifies a patient who is likely to die and that patient is then heavily sedated while treatment is withdrawn, “including the provision of water and nourishment by tube.”

The investigation into LCP will “look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions” to put patients on the ‘pathway to death’.

In a recent exposé, Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, revealed that of the 450,000 patients who die annually under the care of the NHS, 130,000 of them were on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

“If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths,” Pullicino said.

The Telegraph’s Gerald Warner notes that LCP represents “euthanasia by the back door.” Other doctors such as Dr. Peter Hargreaves have highlighted the fact that patients taken off LCP have gone on to live for “significant amounts of time.”

Because death occurs on average within 33 hours of a patient being put on LCP, the cost difference between two days of morphine and treatment of a condition for months or even years means the NHS is literally euthanising people to save money.

“In fact, Hargreaves noted, some patients may exhibit signs of dying when their bodies are merely reacting to sedation combined with dehydration and then “be wrongly put on the pathway.” Once a patient is sedated under the LCP, University of London geriatrics professor P.H. Millard told the Telegraph, “it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better.”

“Pullicino echoed many of these sentiments, saying that “patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition,” that “predicting death” at a specific time “is not possible scientifically,” and that, as a result, “very likely many patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”

Could a similar system of euthanasia become commonplace in America under Obamacare?

President Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a group of doctors that would make decisions on cost cutting measures under Obamacare. Opponents of government-run healthcare have dubbed this a system of “death panels” that would have the power to refuse treatment to the elderly or severely ill patients, a de-facto form of mandatory euthanasia.

Last month, Obama adviser Steven Rattner acknowledged that rationed healthcare would be part of Obamacare, brazenly stating, “We need death panels.”

The idea that “death panels” would be introduced through Obamacare as a means of rationing healthcare was also discussed during an Aspen Institute conference in 2010 when Obama supporter Bill Gates argued that money should not be spent on treating the elderly.

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

This eugenicist mindset was also evident in a paper published earlier this year in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne which argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy.

Allowing patients to die via the horrifically slow and painful method of dehydration and starvation is not just restricted to the elderly and sick or disabled babies.

In a series of best-selling books, author and bioethics expert Wesley J. Smith has exposed how adults in the United States who regain consciousness after being comatose and are able to exhibit physical and emotional responses are also being starved and dehydrated to death.

If America mimics Britain’s notoriously bad socialized healthcare system, thousands upon thousands of sick babies will likely be left to die excruciatingly painful deaths in the name of cost-cutting measures that amount to nothing less than a cruel and inhumane death sentence.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

  1. Related:
  2. Elderly To Be Euthanized Under Obamacare?
  3. Top UK doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
  4. Elderly Woman Left to Die Under Britain’s Death Care System
  5. Why My Doctor Hates Obamacare
  6. Death on wheels: Dutch to send mobile clinics to euthanize people
  7. Sick babies denied treatment due to corp. patent on gene
  8. GlaxoSmithKline Fined Over Illegal Vaccine Experiments Killing 14 Babies
  9. Sentenced to death on the NHS
  10. Brit doctors admit practicing ‘slow euthanasia’ on terminally-ill patients
  11. Using ultrasounds to determine gestational age could result in baby’s death
  12. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Obamacare
  13. Doctors Agree: Their Jobs Suck, and the Government is Largely To Blame
  14. Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule
  15. On the Road to Death Panels
  16. ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
  17. “Death Panel” Three Years Later
  18. Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee
  19. Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president
  20. “Death Panel” Three Years Later
  21. The Bilderberg Group’s Connection To Everything In The World – Updated
  22. People of Faith
  23. Obama Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent
  24. Obama’s "Science Czar" Advocates De-Developing the US to World of Zero Growth
  25. Video: More Scary Stuff From Obama’s Science Czar
  26. Holdren Says Constitution Backs Compulsory Abortion
  27. Holdren: Seize Babies Born to Unwed Women
  28. List of Obama’s Czars Plus Two – Updated: 8.18.09 – Remember when the Czars were the hot topic… but they overwhelmed us and forgot them to do they scary dirty jobs…
  29. Science Czar John P. Holdren – Updated 9.2.09
  30. Meet Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly an Disabled for the Greater Good – But don’t forget… Sarah Palin was crazy…
  31. Complete Lives System by Ezekial Emanuel
  32. ObamaCare… the Kiss of Death - Collection of OBAMA SCARE - Articles U CAN NOT MISS!
  33. Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule
  34. Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans
  35. "People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone"– Updated
  36. Soylent Green Anyone???
  37. Great Grandmother Mary Allen Hardison: 101-Year-Old Woman Breaks Guinness World Record... Oldest Female to Paraglide Tandem
  38. Go Granny Go!!
  39. Seniors Left Behind?
  40. The 'kill granny' bill
  41. The Return of Mediscare
  42. Checkout: ObamaCare Survival Guide

Monday, August 27, 2012

Studies Confirm Women Face Depression After Abortion, Other Problems

by Steven Ertelt -LifeNews.com Editor - September 28, 2010

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new study with a very limited sample of women having abortions, just 69, has received considerable attention for supposedly disproving the plethora of peer-reviewed studies confirming women who have abortions face both depression and other mental health problems.

Other recent studies from the last two years provide nearly irrefutable evidence that abortion affects women in a myriad of ways — making it so they face everything from depression and relationship problems to PTSD and elevated risks for abusing drugs or alcohol.

An August study published in the Journal of Pregnancy and involving 374 women who had abortions — more than five times the number of women who appeared in the new study — found women having high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for women having both early and late abortions.

Approximately 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group met the American Psychological Association’s criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD).

The authors of the study say those high rates are the result of women facing pressure or coercion to have an abortion or, at minimum, ambivalence about having it — showing more pre-abortion screening is needed to rule out abortion as an option for many women.

A May 2010 study put out by researchers at the University of Manitoba in Canada found women who have had abortions are about four times more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol as those who carried their pregnancy to term. The authors confirmed a link between abortion and the substance abuse issues.

The study appeared in the April issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and it showed women having abortions were 3.8 times more likely to have substance abuse disorders.

That was the case even when other factors such as exposure to violence were included that could have raised the risk outside of abortion.

The Canadian study also found abortion associated with other mental health conditions such as mood disorders, but substance abuse proved to be the strongest link when it comes to post-abortion problems for women.

Meanwhile, three studies alone published in peer-reviewed medical journals at the end of 2008 show abortion causes problems for women.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, and her colleagues published a study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research showing an abortion-depression link exists.

The research team found induced abortions result in increased risks for a myriad of mental health problems ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders.

The number of cases of mental health issues rose by as much as 17 percent in women having abortions compared to those who didn’t have one and the risks of each particular mental health problem rose as much as 145% for post-abortive women.

For 12 out of 15 of the mental health outcomes examined, a decision to have an abortion resulted in an elevated risk for women.

"What is most notable in this study is that abortion contributed significant independent effects to numerous mental health problems above and beyond a variety of other traumatizing and stressful life experiences," they concluded.

Researchers at Otago University in New Zealand reported their findings in the British Journal of Psychiatry and found that women who have abortions have an increased risk of developing mental health problems.

The study found that women who had abortions had rates of mental health problems about 30% higher than other women. The conditions most associated with abortion included anxiety disorders and substance abuse disorders.

Abortions increased the risk of severe depression and anxiety by one-third and as many as 5.5 percent of all mental health disorders seen in New Zealand result from women having abortions.

A third study, from a team at the University of Queensland and published in the December issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, found women who have an abortion are three times more likely to experience a drug or alcohol problems during their lifetime.

The study showed that women who had experienced an abortion were at increased risk of illicit drug and alcohol use compared with women who had never been pregnant or who gave birth.

In 2009, a review of studies examining various types of prenatal loss and the effects on subsequent parenting has concluded that abortion may be "particularly damaging to the parenting process."

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption

Susanne Posel - Occupy Corporatism - July 12, 2012 – h/t to MJ

The attack on the overweight has kicked into high gear, as the pharmaceutical corporations seek out an immunization to answer the American weight problem.

Last month the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) announced that because of over-population and over-consumptive cultures, Americans have become overweight . . . and that is a problem.

Working with WHO, researchers at the BMC Public Health have published a study regarding the increasing levels of “fatness” worldwide and the impact such weight gain has on global resources. They contend that over-weight people are likening to an extra billion humans born on the planet.

The target of these researchers is North America, specifically the American population. Although Americans only account for 6% of the global population, more than a third of them are considered obese. They contend a new social meme concerning consumption, weight and population growth called “globesity” must be introduced to combat this new problem.

Prof Charles Godray from the Martin School at the University of Oxford, who chaired the process of writing the declaration , says “The overall message is that we need a renewed focus on both population and consumption – it’s not enough to look at one or the other. We need to look at both, because together they determine the footprint on the world.”

The UN blames “rapid unplanned urbanization” and the “globalization of unhealthy lifestyles” as the culprits of the obesity epidemic. The UN also declares that the cost of overweight and obese individuals in a drain on our global economy; and a burden indicative of large, affluent societies, like America.

A new propaganda study published in the Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, claims that vaccines are the answer to the chemical and psychological issues that surround obesity. The co-author of the study was also the president and chief scientific officer of a company called Braasch Biotech LLC. Braasch Biotech LLC, which specializes in the development of human and animal vaccines. Essentially, by inhibiting natural hormones, researchers hope to stop people from eating.

Big Pharma have created one-in-all vaccines before, i.e. the universal flu shot that was meant to entice the public back into a regular immunization schedule. However, this is not just about poisoning the public through vaccinations; the drug corporations see the obesity market as an untapped monetary resource – as one executive explained: “Can you imagine the potential for vaccines?”

Scientists assert that somatostatin, a peptide hormone, inhibits the action of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor, both of which increase metabolism and result in weight loss. The vaccine would modify somatostatin by engineering so that the chemical inhabitation is removed and antibodies are created against somatostatin.

Because somatostatin is secreted in the digestive system, the hormone would eventually be carried to the brain where it would have a great likelihood of interacting with the chemical makeup of the brain and thereby have an encompassing psychological reaction.

When studied in mice , somatostatin:

  • Mice who were given the vaccines experienced an initial drastic loss of weight but then gained weight over the course of six weeks – just not as quickly as the mice in the control group.
  • The weight loss after the first dose of vaccine was so drastic that the dose used in the second injection in the study was reduced out of concern for the mice’s health.
  • If the volume of vaccine given to the mice was scaled up it would be equivalent to over a litre for an average sized adult – a much greater volume than is usually used in a vaccination.

The reduction of the body’s production of ghrelin decreases hunger thereby reduces caloric intake and increases stored calories being used. This finding was presented at The Endocrine Society’s 93rd Annual Meeting in Boston.

Mariana Monteiro, MD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Porto in Portugal and lead researcher in the study said: “An anti-ghrelin vaccine may become an alternate treatment for obesity, to be used in combination with diet and exercise.”

By reducing the effects of neuropeptides that control appetite, researchers show that obesity can be controlled. Simply put, scientists are advocating altering the mental states of humans to control their consumptive tendencies.

The effects of such a chemical alteration on humans have not been completely studied prior to the praise of this new finding. “This study demonstrates the possibility of treating obesity with vaccination”, says one of the authors of the study. “Although further studies are necessary to discover the long term implications of these vaccines, treatment of human obesity with vaccination would provide physicians with a drug- and surgical- free option against the weight epidemic.”

Doctors have been admonished by the government panel, entitled the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), to become Natazi and coerce their patients into controlling their body mass index (BMI); while even suggesting pharmacological answers to obesity issues.

Arena Pharmaceuticals have developed lorcaserin, which works against serotonin receptors that correlate with appetite signals in the brain and cause the patient to become less hungry. Touted as a medical enhancement to type 2 diabetes treatments, it reduced the weight of participants in clinical trials by 5 – 10%.

The American Medical Association (AMA) announced this week that high school children will be required to attend classes that will discuss the causes, consequences and prevention methods of obesity. Taxes derived from purchases of sodas may be used to pay for these programs, suggests the AMA. However, the AMA still says they do not support taxing the public.

Since the global Elite see 90% of the world’s population expendable eaters that need to be reduced, this attack on food makes complete sense. Of course we should be conscious of our caloric intake, however considering that this assault comes from the Elite’s science-based answer by altering the bio-chemical makeup of the general public there is an obvious ulterior motive being played out.

Related:

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Vaccination Nanotechnology

Eugenics: Effective by Incrementalism

What is the Real Purpose of Birth Control? Why is it So Important to Progressives?

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

UN Ordered Depopulation of 3 Billion People by Food Malnutrition has Started – PBSpecial Report

Vaccines ARE (In Many Cases) Germ Warfare

Sterilization of Children… - See links at bottom of article as well

Eugenics and Other Evils

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Fallen… House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban – White House Agrees and Media is Silent

Have you seen this NASA photo before?  It is real.. a composite of the Helix Nubela taken by the Hubble Telescope, entitled God’s Eye. 
And for most of us it is a reminder that someone is watching…

clip_image001

Most Americans have always thought that our nation, the Founding Fathers and our Constitution were God inspired. 

And many have seen the correlation between our demise and turning our back, as a nation, on God.

House rejects sex-selection abortion ban

GOPUSA:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women's votes.

The legislation would have made it a federal crime to perform or force a woman to undergo a sex-based abortion, a practice most common in some Asian countries where families wanting sons abort female fetuses.

It was a rare social issue to reach the House floor in a year when the economy has dominated the political conversation, and Republicans, besieged by Democratic claims that they are waging a war on women, struck back by trying to depict the vote as a women's rights issue.

"It is violence against women," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., of abortions of female fetuses. "This is the real war on women." (So why aren’t the feminists screaming about this?)

The White House, most Democrats, abortion rights groups and some Asian-American organizations opposed the bill, saying it could lead to racial profiling of Asian-American women and subject doctors who do not report suspected sex-selection abortions to criminal charges.

"The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision," White House spokeswoman Jamie Smith said in a statement. "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way."

The bill had little chance of becoming law. The Democratic-controlled Senate would likely have ignored it, and the House brought it up under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 246-168 - 30 votes short of that majority. Twenty Democrats voted for it, while seven Republicans opposed it.

The bill's author, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said before the vote that regardless of the outcome, the point would be made. "When people vote on this, the world will know where they really stand."

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, said he thought the bill was introduced because "somebody decided politically that this was a difficult place to put people in."

The legislation would have made it a federal offense, subject to up to five years in prison, to perform, solicit funds for or coerce a woman into having a sex-selection abortion. Bringing a woman into the country to obtain such an abortion would also be punishable by up to five years in prison. While doctors would not have an affirmative responsibility to ask a woman her motivations for an abortion, health workers could be imprisoned for up to a year for not reporting known or suspected violations of the ban on sex-based abortions.

An earlier version of the bill also made it illegal to abort a fetus based on race.

"We are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way," said Franks, who has also collided with abortion-rights groups recently over a bill he supports to ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries where there is a traditional preference for sons. The bill notes that while the United States has no federal law against such abortions, countries such as India and China, where the practice has contributed to lopsided boy-girl ratios, have enacted bans on the practice.

Lawmakers "who recently have embraced the contrived political rhetoric asserting that they are resisting the artificial `war on women', created by Team Obama for political purposes for his upcoming election bid, must reflect on whether they now wish to be recorded as being defenders of the real escalating war on baby girls," said National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson. (Let us remember that both President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius have always supported late term and partial birth abortions.  Senator Obama even voted against giving the tiny survivors or abortions comfort after the procedure, which is barbaric!)

His group, in a letter to lawmakers, said there are credible estimates that 160 million women and girls are missing from the world due to sex selection.

But the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that favors abortion rights, said evidence of sex selection in the United States is limited and inconclusive. It said that while there is census data showing some evidence of son preference among Chinese-, Indian- and Korean-American families when older children are daughters, the overall U.S. sex ratio at birth in 2005 was 105 boys to 100 girls, "squarely within biologically normal parameters."

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said that while her group has long opposed reproductive coercion, "the Franks bill exploits the very real problem of sex discrimination and gender inequity while failing to offer any genuine solutions that would eliminate disparities in health care access and information."

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said the bill fosters discrimination by "subjecting women from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds to additional scrutiny about their decision to terminate a pregnancy."

"Doctors would be forced to police their patients, read their minds and conceal information from them," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Republicans also used the bill to continue their ongoing criticism of Planned Parenthood, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger who endorsed abortion for racial purification, citing a video taken by the group Live Action purporting to show a Planned Parenthood social worker advising a woman on how to determine if her fetus was female before she terminated the pregnancy.

h/t Jim Abrams, June 1, 2012 6:50 am

The passing of this anti-sex-selection abortion law would have been more symbolic than anything else, for nobody would have gone into a clinic and said we want to terminate this pregnancy because of the gender of the fetus, especially after the law passed.  As Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends said: “Who would ever have thought that America, the United States, would need a law like this?”  But with the surfacing of now several videos showing that this despicable practice was not just an isolated incident and now the fact that Congress could/would not pass a bill banning gender selection abortion coupled with progressive politicians trying to turn this “real” ‘war on woman’ into a political shame… we sadly see that we definitely need this law!  After this vote we can no longer call the practices of China barbaric; we have defined our own culture as the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way!  We have fallen a long way from the the God fearing people that founded our country!

As the polls indicate, pro-choice Americans are at record low and partial birth abortions and gender selection is unthinkable to most Americans; plus the Catholic Church has brought suit against the Obama Conception Mandate of ObamaCare… yet unless you watch Fox news, participate in the conservative blogosphere or perhaps receive a publication for your church, synagogue or a pro-life group you probably don’t know about any of this.  the media is silent… blacked out in support of President Obama and his administration.  This alone should be a huge flag of how they will handle the news between now and election and worry us all… blacked out news, distortion of their opponents and issues they oppose and slanted favorable news of Obama and Progressive candidates and issues… sounds a whole lot more like the USSR vs. the USA.

What we are is God's gift to us.  What we become is our gift to God.

Many feel he United States has fallen from grace… You be the Judge!

Related:

New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate – ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

America Solidly Now “Pro-Life”

Many ask themselves how we got here…  When is the last time you took your kids and grandkids to church?  Are they teaching from scripture there?  And how can a modern translation of the Bible, The Voice Bible (Paperback: The Voice New Testament), that changes the nouns for God, Jesus Christ and angels to Eternal One, the Anointed One and a messenger of God and then offers a “watered down” version of the Gospel.  Was it T.S. Eliot who said the less people read the Bible the more they translate it?”  He also said something like ‘Watered down Christianity is worth nothing.’

Sunday, March 25, 2012

The Fluke Thickens… Are Sanger and Fluke Related and Was Rush Right Afterall?

If you are not up on the Sandra Fluke story, check out: Fluke Spin

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER ECONOMIST: Rush Limbaugh Is Right, Sandra Fluke Is A 'Prostitute'

sandra fluke

Courtesy of CSPAN

It has been over a month since Rush Limbaugh first called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," but the controversy shows no sign of dying down.

Now University of Rochester economist and former Slate blogger Steven Landsburg has jumped to Limbaugh's defense.

In a blog post, Landsburg argued that while the talk radio host's language may have been off-color, Limbaugh's logic was analytically shrewd. Fluke, Landsburg writes, "deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked, and jeered" for saying that women should have access to contraception."

He adds that Limbaugh's demand that Fluke and other Georgetown students post online sex tapes in exchange for contraception was actually a "spot-on analogy":

"If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself."

Unsurprisingly, Landsburg's arguments sparked a mini-firestorm at the University of Rochester, prompting the school's president to issue a public dissent. Landsburg has resoundingly dismissed his critics as "contraceptive sponges," and devoted another blog posts to rebutting their arguments in favor of contraception access.

But Landsburg's focus on the economic benefits and drawbacks of contraception have little to do with Fluke and her congressional testimony. Fluke was not, as Limbaugh and Landsburg have suggested, "demanding" that taxpayers pay for her to have sex; her testimony was originally part of a debate about whether religious institutions should be required to provide access to contraception. Her argument focused primarily on the medical (and non-contraceptive) uses of birth control.

Fluke and Rush

By Grace WylerBusiness Insider

Sandra Fluke’s appearances on-camera thus far, as well as Rush Limbaugh’s well publicized reaction to her Congressional testimony, turned her into a martyr for the Left. But now there are not only holes in her story but she has been connected to White House advisor and former Commincations Director Anita Dunn as well as to leftist Soros sponsored media group, Media Matters.

Bill O'Reilly investigates to find out who is really behind the Sandra Fluke controversy. 'The Factor' discovers the Georgetown law student is being represented by an organization where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director, is the managing editor. He Bill O’Reilly told viewers in a segment with Laura Ingraham that he strongly believes that the White House is “running” Sandra Fluke and has been behind her from the beginning.

And then over the weekend, O’Reilly’s team uncovers that Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend is son of ‘Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl’… My, my, my!

It has become more and more evident that the appearance of Sandra Fluke is no fluke but rather has turned out to be a straw woman for Team Obama and the Progressive left…  She is  connected to Media Matters and the White House and is a professional activist for contraception, abortion and even taxpayer funds for sex change operations. While she is described as a “third year law student” they always conveniently fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

Fluke is really 30-years-old (not the 23 that has been reported), and specifically went to Georgetown to fight their contraception policy – far from the innocent, wide-eyed victim she’s tried to portray herself to be. And Fluke’s testimony for Congress, included precisely zero references to recreational sex or to abortion. Instead, Fluke would have her audience believe she’s only interested in non-sexual reasons for needing contraceptive pills – such as treating ovarian cancer. According to one study, the number of people to whom this applies is about 14 percent of all contraceptive users.

But is this really all Fluke’s agenda is? Based on the affiliations she herself has cited, that question may be more complicated. Near the beginning of her testimony, Fluke said the following (emphasis added):

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

So if Fluke has these sorts of ties to an organization and mentions them by name for the purposes of appreciation, readers will probably assume she supports their agenda.

Now there seems to be increasing speculation that Sandra Fluke might be a great grandchild of Fabian/Progressive Founder of Planned Parenthood and the Negro Project whose beliefs are rooted in eugenics.  The speculation began when someone noticed how much Sanger and Fluke look alike.

Margaret Sanger

Sandra Fluke

Fluke_150x150 B&Wsandra-fluke

Margaret Sanger had 2 sons--Stuart and Grant--still looking into Stuart, but found this death notice for Grant (he was a Dr. and it says that he was survived by his wife, the former Edwina Campbell; three sons, Michael, of Baltimore, Alexander, of Manhattan, and Morgan, of Tortola, British Virgin Islands; a daughter, Anne Sanger of Bozrah, Conn., and 11 grandchildren.

While talking to a friend about the photo likeness and they sent the following info:

KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE SANGER
| Visit Guest Book

SANGER, KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE May 13, 1910 to Sept. 12, 2010 Kathryn died restfully in her sleep in the early morning hours of September 12, 2010. She was one of six children born to Carrie and Loren Fluke on the Kansas Prairie. She moved to San Diego in 1940, where she worked during the War at Convair. She retired from civil service after 20 years. Moved to Valley Center after the passing of her husband, Clarence (Bud) Sanger in 1975. She is preceded in death by son, Jimmy McClish. She is survived by son Gary McClish and daughter Barbara Blind, her brother Loren Fluke, and devoted niece Betty Jacobs; there are eight grandchildren, 10 great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren, and too many nephews, nieces and stepchildren to count. She was the most caring and loving person and always put the needs of others over her own. She will truly be missed by not only her family, but all those who knew her. Her passion was gardening; her love was deep for her roses, humming birds, and Padres baseball. A Viewing will be on Friday, September 17, 2010, from 5 to 9 p.m., with a Service on Saturday, September 18th, at 11 a.m. at Greenwood Memorial Park. Following the services on Saturday, a celebration of her life will be held at Bayview Molibe Home Park Clubhouse at 2003 Bayview Heights Drive.

Obituary Published in San Diego Union-Tribune on September 16, 2010

Thoughts:  Are "Sanger" and "Fluke" considered typical names? And the fact that they were together is quite a coincidence?  Also, the current Ms. Fluke, her middle name is "Kay", which can be a nickname for "Kathryn". 

Family Genealogy Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~fryeandmecca/Randy%27s%20web%20tree/pafg463.htm#13307

Comment:  And here's where the "out on a limb" kicks in: Margaret Sanger/Margot Sanger--related/coincidence who knows but it sure does peak ones curiosity doesn't it??? TMH from the NoisyRoom

Related: 

Sandra Fluke May Not be a SL*T – But Is She a Liar?

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

Is This Why Sandra Fluke Went Public?

She-PAC Calls on Bill Burton and the Obama Super Pac to Denounce Misogynist Bill Maher

Sandra Fluke Back In the News

Think for a moment that this White House is not manipulating the discussion or the news?  Check out: E-mails show White House input on Sherrod ouster

You be the judge…

Ask Marion

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Australian children-sterilized without parental consent under new eugenics law

(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen the famous 1975 movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you likely recall several disturbing scenes in which mental health patients are given frontal-lobe lobotomies, or the iconic scene where actor Jack Nicholson's character undergoes electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Today, these horrific forms of so-called mental health treatment are considered to be cruel relics of the past, but a new bill in Australia proposes that young children be given these treatments without parental consent, and even be permitted to undergo sterilization procedures without parental consent.

The Government of Western Australia's Mental Health Commission (WAMHC) has basically conjured up a proposal for new mental health legislation that bypasses parental involvement in the mental health treatment process, and instead tasks children under age 18, and of any age, with making the decision about whether or not to be sterilized, or whether or not to have their brain tissue destroyed with psychosurgery procedures. If a "mental health professional" can convince children that they need such treatments for their own good, in other words, than Australia's youngest members of society will be open game for the eugenicist agenda.

It almost sounds like the plot of a sick movie, but it is all true and fully documented right in the WAMHC Mental Health Bill 2011, which you can access here: http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au

Eugenicists want to sterilize Australian children without ever telling the kids' parents

In the twisted minds of those who have seized positions of power all over the world, separating children from their parents and performing medical experiments on them in secret is a fully acceptable form of "medicine." And this form of child abuse is exactly what WAMHC has proposed in its new mental health bill.
Pages 135 and 136 of the bill (pages 157 and 158 of the PDF) cover the issue of sterilization, explaining that if a psychiatrist decides that a child under 18 years of age "has sufficient maturity," he or she will be able to consent to sterilization without parental consent. It also goes on to say that parents will never be notified that the sterilization procedure occurred, as only the "Chief Psychiatrist" will be privy to this information.

It sounds an awful lot like the euthanasia programs that emerged in Germany during the 1930s, when Nazis began secretly sterilizing individuals with physical or mental disabilities as part of "Operation T4" (http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/victims.htm). This eugenics program was later intensified, of course, when German physicians at Nazi death camps routinely sterilized men, women, and children, and later killed them, as part of the Nazi regime's utterly revolting ethnic cleansing experiments (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/aumed.html).

Medical 'authorities' want to arbitrarily commit children to mental institutions, indefinitely restrain them, and force them to undergo brain-damaging procedures

All of this gets worse, however, with other language scattered throughout the bill that would allow psychiatrists to involuntarily and indefinitely detain children who are "suspected" of having a mental illness. And during their detainment, such children can be forced to comply with drug, restraint, and seclusion protocols, as well as be forced to undergo permanently-damaging procedures like psychosurgery or ECT.

Worse, those who would be permitted to detain these children in the first place, deemed as "authorized mental health practitioners," are so loosely defined that virtually anyone could be authorized by the Chief Psychiatrist to abduct supposedly "mentally ill" children and commit them to mental institutions against their will and their parents' will.

Mental Health Commission is only accepting comments on the bill until March 9, 2012

The language in Australia's Mental Health Bill 2011 truly is horrifying, but not necessarily surprising. Similar efforts to undermine parental authority are taking place both in the U.S. and around the world.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, for instance, recently signed into law Senate Assembly Bill 499, which allows for children as young as age 12 to be vaccinated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, Hepatitis B, and various other sexually-transmitted disease (STD) vaccines without parental consent (http://www.naturalnews.com/033848_Merck_legislators.html).

But our friends "down under" need your help today in spreading the word about this deadly legislation, and sending comments of opposition to Australia's Mental Health Commission as soon as possible.

You can send your comments by email to:

contactus@mentalhealth.wa.gov.au
You can send your comments by "snail" mail to:
GPO Box X2299
Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847
Australia

If you live in Australia, you can also contact the Mental Health Minister, the Health Minister, and your local Member of Parliament by visiting:
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WAllMembers

The deadline to submit a comment is March 9, so be sure to submit your comment before then. And remember, health freedom issues, whether domestic or abroad, eventually affect all of us if left unchecked. This is why it is important to combat tyranny and injustice anywhere and everywhere it may be found.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035185_Australia_sterilization_children.html#ixzz1oYeAUpot

Source: Natural News - Thursday, March 08, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer – h/t to MJ

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035185_Australia_sterilization_children.html#ixzz1oYg47Lko

Don’t kid yourself people… If Obama is re-elected and/or ObamaCare stands, America is next!! Election 2012 is your last chance to stand-up.  Make Obama a one-term president and demand that ObamaCare is repealed and replaced.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Eugenics: Effective by Incrementalism

Short excerpt:

In a shocking little booklet (click for PDF) entitled “Ancient Eugenics” written in 1913 by “late scholar” Allen G. Roper, this incrementalism is further elaborated upon. The way to build this future eugenic state, Roper argues, is not by an open decree or oppressive measures. For the trick to work, it must be a thing of the long haul.

http://ia600302.us.archive.org/23/items/ancienteugenicsa00ropeuoft/ancienteugenicsa00ropeuoft.pdf

 

Eugenics: Effective by Incrementalism

Jurriaan Maessen  -  Infowars.com  -  February 21, 2012  -  h/t to AJ

Every time we read about another technocrat (biocrat may be a more accurate description) stating that the planet should be liberated from “excess humans”, some obscure manuscript in a long-forgotten library rattles with glee. For the eugenic idea does not originate with some sadist in a United Nations office building. It is a practice, rather, that has been tried and tested by many civilizations and tribes in earth’s history- and now perfected at the hands of a biocratic elite hellbent on seizing the human body, constricting the human mind, and by doing so, subdue all of mankind.

The biocratic thought is simply this: in order to achieve total control over the body and the mind, both components must be made dependent on a specific cure for a specific ill. A feigned ill is usually preferred, as it can be made to go this or that way just as they see fit. By presenting themselves as well-doers, the biocrats raise the perfect guise behind which they can exercise eugenic power in full impunity. They regard their work as a great work, a sacred exercise. Like the human offerings of old, this too is performed as a sacrifice to be laid at the feet of some dark deity.

True culture-changes, the biocrats know, are not spontaneous- nor are they the children of sudden revolutionary acts. It is by the hand of gradual variations, the tiniest adjustments, that humanity is led towards the biocratic society.

In a shocking little booklet (click for PDF) entitled “Ancient Eugenics” written in 1913 by “late scholar” Allen G. Roper, this incrementalism is further elaborated upon. The way to build this future eugenic state, Roper argues, is not by an open decree or oppressive measures. For the trick to work, it must be a thing of the long haul.

“(…) compulsion”, writes Roper, “or guidance, however veiled, is foredoomed to failure in the case of an institution which can only rest on inclination or an innate sense of duty. Moreover, “custom is lord of all,” and custom can only be modified gradually and in the course of centuries”

“Modern Eugenists”, the author goes on to say, “have recognized that, if there is to be Eugenics by Act of Parliament, the Eugenic ideal must first be absorbed into the conscience of the nation.”

The author, a fierce proponent of eugenics himself, also shows us a glimpse into the mind of the biocratic utopians: those who believe themselves to be equal to God and therefore permit themselves the leisure of deciding who lives and who dies.

The author traces the idea of exterminating the weak in favor of the strong’s survival back to the ancients. Roper does not, as you would expect, limit his search to the ancient Greeks. He descents even further into the past until he reaches the very beginnings of man.

“The preface to a history of Eugenics may be compiled from barbarism, for the first Eugenist was not the Spartan legislator, but the primitive savage who killed his sickly child.”

“While they (the “savages”, as Roper tends to describe early man) lived their short lives, the weakly, the deformed, and the superfluous were a burden to the tribe. Human law, superseding natural law, strove to eliminate them at birth. This was the atavistic basis on which subsequent Eugenics was built.”

Infanticide, therefore, as a means to preserve the tribe. Roper states outright that eugenics flows from the killing of baby’s. Any lapse in this human endeavor will be compensated by nature, Roper says:

“Nature, forging additional weapons, hastens the elimination of the unfit by disease.”

But the author makes clear that:

“Modern Eugenics is based on Evolution not a passive form, but one that concedes some latitude to the guiding action of the human will.”

“While infanticide is everywhere disappearing”, Roper writes, “there remain still the principles simultaneously developed. Three centuries ago Eugenics was the Utopian dream of an imprisoned monk. A century later Steele, more in jest than in earnest, suggested that one might wear any passion out of a family by culture, as skilful gardeners blot a colour out of a tulip that hurts its beauty. But neither science nor public opinion was ready to respond. It was not till late in the nineteenth century that the crude human breeding of the Spartans, in altered form and in new conditions, became the scientific stirpiculture of Galton.”

There it is. Eugenics existed for countless millenniums. Now, in the last fifty years or so, the mainstream media will make you believe eugenics does not exist. It’s a conspiracy theory, they claim. To understand where the eugenics movement of the early 20st century- and by extension the Rockefeller-funded environmental movement of today, draw their inspiration from, the following quote must be read in its entirety:

“The Ancients attempted to combat the wasteful processes of Nature by eliminating the non-viable at birth; our efforts, on the contrary, have been directed to the prolongation of their lives. Instead of sacrificing the unfit in the interests of the fit, we have employed every resource of modern science “to keep alight the feeble flame of life in the baseborn child of a degenerate parent.”” (…) “There is the female infanticide of China and the Isles of the Southern Pacific, the male infanticide of the Abipones of Paraguay, and the indiscriminate massacre of the Gagas, who, killing every child alike, steal from a neighbouring tribe. There are the Indians who offer up children to Moloch or drown them in the Ganges; the Carthaginians sacrifice them to Kronos, the Mexicans to the rain god. There is the murder of twins and albinos in Arebo, and the cannibalism of the Aborigines. In Mingrelia, ” when they have not the wherewithal to maintain them, they hold it a piece of charity to murder infants new born.” There are the Biluchi, who kill all their natural children, and there is the modern factor of shame. Co-existing with all these various practices there is the definitely Eugenic motive. Among the Aborigines, all deformed children are killed as soon as born. The savages of Guiana kill any child that is “deformed, feeble, or bothersome.” The Fans kill all sickly children. In Central America “it is suspected that infant murder is responsible for the rarity of the deformed.” In Tonquin we hear of a law which forbids the exposing or strangling of children, be they ever so deformed. In Japan, deformed children were killed or reared according to the father’s pleasure. Among the Prussians the aged and infirm, the sick and deformed, were unhesitatingly put to death.”

“Unhesitatingly put to death”, thus ends the quote. The biocrats who pull the strings of the scientific dictatorship are very much aware of the origins of their belief-system, which is firmly rooted in the ancient practice of infanticide. Roper continues to say modern eugenicists have refined the ancient practices of primitive man to the degree that in modern times the state is the deciding factor. Roper:

“Limitation of numbers, though it does not itself constitute “aggeneration” of the race, improves to a considerable degree the individuals of which the race is constituted. When the undesired children are out of the way, more attention can be paid to the desired. The savage bred recklessly, compensating his recklessness by infanticide, but a natural law of civilization has superseded the artificial law of primitive man. Control of reproduction, and resulting from it a falling birth-rate and a diminished death-rate, is a tendency which, first showing itself in Imperial Rome, is conspicuous today in every civilized community.”

Roper also mentions the obsession of the biocrats, including Plato, with numbers:

“Obsessed by the idea of the mean and a mystic doctrine of numbers, he (Plato) would fix the number of the state at an unalterable 8,000. To attain this static equilibrium the guardians are to regulate the number of marriages.”

The idea that numbers have a mystical dimension is prevalent amongst biocrats. The before-mentioned statement is also reminiscent of the Georgia Guidestones, which reads:

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

“(…) there is”, Roper continues, “the question of the numbers of the population. It is no definitely Eugenic conception that leads to the limitation of 5,040: there is a certain Malthusian element, and something of a prepossession with a mystical doctrine of numbers.”

Although Roper invokes the Platonic way of conducting eugenics- quick and openly- he states that to the modern eugenicist “the chronic pauper is the victim of the germ-plasm- heredity.”

“With increased knowledge to justify restrictions”, Roper explains, “the modern state may be purged of the pauper more slowly, but no less surely, than the Platonic state of the Laws.”

Since 1913 two World Wars have raged over the earth, leaving a pile of dead in their wake. Eugenics became a thing of the state. In Nazi-Germany, eugenics was the norm, in Europe and the United States it became a more or less covert enterprise. Finally, the UN was constructed to make sure that the ancient Eugenic ideal would be preserved and passed on into the 21st century on a global scale.

What is the Real Purpose of Birth Control?  Why is it So Important to Progressives?

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

UN Ordered Depopulation of 3 Billion People by Food Malnutrition has Started – PBSpecial Report

Vaccines ARE (In Many Cases) Germ Warfare

Sterilization of Children… - See links at bottom of article as well

Eugenics and Other Evils