Margaret Sanger, live interview video: 1 of 3, - 2 of 3, - 3 of 3
Equating abortion with genocide is well founded. Many are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Sanger's "Negro Project," "the eugenic plan to limit or exterminate the black race and others "unfit to reproduce."
[..to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in camps] to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." [..by force if necessary.] "..during 1933 in Sanger's The Birth Control Review (immediate predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Review) an article by Ernst Rudin (1874-1952) was published entitled, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need." Rudin was Adolph Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene . (Various references in Grand Illusions) History documents that Sanger supported the Nazi Party philosophies." [Planned Parenthood's Nazi roots] ; and -eugenical race-purification by prevention of births to parents from 'inferior' blood stocks ('birth control societies'). "Before the Auschwitz death camp became a household word, these British-American-European groups called openly for the elimination of the 'unfit' by [any] means including force and violence."
(excerpt from http://773.harrold.org)
From: jj Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 Subject: Saw this today
click here to hear o'bamacide's promise
bcc'd: "red diaper babies", fellow travelers, appeasers, quislings, o'commiecrats, and RINOs
"The followers of Malthus believed that if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be eliminated." The question was how?"
Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus b.1766-d.1834
Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus b.1766-d.1834
related, America's Holocaust: http://773.harrold.org
article source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamacide.html
"Obamacide"
Obamacide - By J. Matt Barber, August 23, 2008
How does one
properly describe another who would -- for purely selfish political reasons and
with deliberation -- intentionally refuse a thirsty child water or a hungry
child food?
More
specifically, what does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child
survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once
born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?
A number of
things come to mind. Mr. President isn't one of them.
Based on National Journal's vote ratings -- an objectively
tallied assessment of congressional voting records -- Barack Obama has properly
earned the dubious distinction as the single most liberal Senator in Congress
during his brief, albeit overstayed, tenure. But a cursory review of his words,
deeds and associations reveals that this ivory-towered Harvard boy is no
run-of-the-mill lefty. He's an extremist among extremists.
Put aside for a
moment some of the highly suspect (even criminal) characters within Obama's
circle of friends, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony
Resko. Forget the many anti-American sentiments to which prospective first lady
Michelle Obama has given voice. And ignore, for now, the socialist, peacenik,
MoveOn.org positions Obama holds on a host of fiscal, social and national
security-related issues. Instead, for the sake of brevity, take a look at
Obama's demonstrably radical stance on just one issue: abortion.
Last year the
U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart the federal ban on the barbaric practice of
partial-birth abortion. Congress overwhelmingly passed the ban in 2003. Even
some of the most liberal members of Congress experienced unexplained fits of
common sense, voting for the ban in the face of angry demands from mouth-foaming
feminists.
Although the
American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances, Obama threw a hissy,
nonetheless, after the opinion came down. While deriding the Court for its
ruling, he whined, "For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme
Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors."
So what,
exactly, did the ban ban? What "hard-won right" -- as he later called
partial-birth abortion -- was Obama so steadfast to preserve?
During a
partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully developed, fully "viable"
child - often kicking and thrashing -- feet first from her mother's womb,
leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. He then stabs her through
the skull with scissors or some other sharp object, piercing her brain until her
kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerk to a halt. Her brains are
then sucked out -- collapsing her skull -- and her now limp and lifeless body is
tossed aside like so much garbage.
Again, medical
science has determined that this horrific practice, which is nothing short of
infanticide, is never necessary. But Barack Obama -- the man who would be
President -- doesn't see it that way. He called the partial-birth abortion ban,
"a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women."
Although Obama's
love affair with partial-birth abortion has served to chip away at his finely
polished veneer, his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA)
has revealed to the world that backward extremism permeates his marrow.
BAIPA very
simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion - when she is
"born alive" - further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps
must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.
Makes sense,
right?
Not to Barack
Obama. While serving in the Illinois state senate, he led the fight against a
state version of Born Alive that was substantively identical to the federal
BAIPA. In 2002, BAIPA passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan
support; yet, Obama vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. This places him on
the furthest fringe of pro-abortion extremes. The man's devotion to the
pro-abortion industry is so fixed that he would rather allow the murder of
newborn babies than give an inch to the sanctity of human life.
When called on
the carpet in 2004 for his complicity in facilitating infanticide, Obama began
an extensive cover-up, accusing those who exposed the scandal of lying. But in
recent days, based on documentary evidence unearthed by
the National Right to Life Committee, the Obama campaign has been forced to
admit that it was Obama, in fact, who had been lying all along. He not only led
the charge to allow the continued practice of infanticide in Illinois, he
carried the flag.
During his
recent "not-ready-for-primetime" appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback
forum, Obama was asked at what point "a baby gets human rights." His answer was
shocking: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a
theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that
question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade," said
Obama.
What?! Above my
pay grade? And this man wants to be the leader of the free world? Even the
most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human
rights as soon as it's born, right? But Obama couldn't say that. His
opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn't believe it. And if he had said it,
he'd have been called on it.
Well, I'm
calling him on it anyway.
So, we now add a
new word with a dual definition to our modern political lexicon: Obamacide. It
means, 1) Killing the newborn survivor of a botched abortion through a
deliberate act of omission; and, 2) That which a nation commits upon itself by
electing one who would allow such a thing.
Matt
Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty
Counsel and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law. Send comments
to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes
only and views expressed are that of the author
alone.)
on "Obamacide"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please, avoid posting advertisements. Content comments are welcomed, including anonymous. Posts with profanity will not be published.