Just A Little Truth Bomb About the National Debt

As I scroll social media this morning reading heated arguments from both sides of the political aisle about where government money should be spent, who it should or shouldn’t be dispersed to- I can’t help but wonder if anyone realizes that for all intents and purposes we are rearranging chairs on a sinking ship. Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but are we just all going to pretend that the government isn’t already broke? Here is the truth- The US is ALREADY bankrupt it just hasn’t been officially announced yet. We are on borrowed time, basically at the mercy of the foreign countries we are indebted to.

On January 29th our debt topped 19 trillion. It’s like we’ve been so far in debt for so long that everyone has begun to think it can just go on forever. I assure you- it can’t and it won’t. The US has spent more money every single year than it brings in for DECADES. We the People do not force the government to reign it in. Obama ran annual budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion from 2009-2012, which is the largest expansion of debt in history. Obviously, I’m not blaming this entire mess on Obama- this has been accumulating for decades- but he didn’t lift a finger to help either. In October of 2015, Obama and Congress agreed to suspend the debt ceiling until March 15, 2017. In the meantime, the government had NO LIMIT to their spending. Convenient that Obama would leave this for another President to deal with, but that’s nothing new- our government always prefers to rig something up with duct tape rather than fix it.

What does this mean? Well, it means Trump will have to raise the debt ceiling so that we don’t default on our debt to all those foreign countries we owe. What is the debt ceiling? It’s the limit Congress sets on how much debt the US can hold before we have to stop borrowing. Congress has to agree to raise it- the President can’t do it on his own. It’s easier said than done, because obviously no one ever wants to be THAT president who has to preside over yet another increase in the debt ceiling. (It’s been raised a whopping 74 times since 1962.) The public doesn’t like to be reminded that we are spiraling into debt at break neck speeds.

What happens if we just don’t raise it? We would default on the loans that we owe to those foreign countries that keep us afloat. Our credit rating would drop- again. It has already decreased once under Obama’s watch because of our out of control budget deficits and looming debt. All that and mass pandemonium: no one would receive their social security checks, doctors wouldn’t receive their Medicare checks, and basically any other group that relies on payments from the government would get zilch. And since all our financial markets run on confidence, the stock-market will dive, consumer spending will stall, and interest rates will head for the moon. Sounds like fun.

So, yeah, whether or not the government wants to raise it- they WILL raise it. There really is no choice. The problem is, a whole lot of “We the People” seem to think that we can continue to raise the ceiling forever and ever amen. I can only assume these are the same people who were raised getting everything they wanted and told that life was fair.

Thank the good Lord some of us were raised poor and realize money runs out. For those that may not understand what I could possibly be referring to, I’ll lend you my life lessons:

1. Money does run out.

2. When the money runs out, you will NOT get things you want or even need- even if it isn’t fair.

3. When you are living by using someone else’s money (loans) that individual has way more control over you than you would like for them to have and they don’t always give a rats tail if you fall into financial devastation or any other kind of devastation for that matter.

Because our government doesn’t want We the People to be aware of exactly how far up a certain creek we already are, they lie about misrepresent the percentage our debt is of the GDP. The GDP is the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a certain time. It is also used as a gauge of the health of the economy. For example, in 2015 when the national debt was $17.9 trillion, the government told us that the debt was only 75.6% of GDP (obviously they want to keep it under 100%). This gives the illusion that we have time to balance our debt before we surpass that ominous 100% of GDP and we may be past the point of no return. They speculate and “warn” that we need to work out a balanced budget by 2040. The only problem is, this debt figure doesn’t even include ALL of our debt.

The government conveniently doesn’t include our intra-governmental debt in that figure. What is intra-governmental debt? It’s the debt that the US owes ourselves. Yeah, don’t you remember how when we couldn’t balance our individual family budgets, the government gave us the option to loan ourselves money to get us out of the hole? No? That’s right- because it’s an absolutely ridiculous concept- but here we are in the US, doing it on a national scale. Where was this money stolen borrowed from? Well the largest source is the money they forced you to put into Social Security for your own retirement so that it would be “safe” and you wouldn’t spend it. Of course, it’s not just from Social Security, the government dips into other federal trusts as well.

Since, that is technically money that we “owe ourselves” the government just doesn’t include it when making their debt calculations. Back to our 2015 example, debt held by the public was “only” $13.5 trillion- so the government came up with the figure of 75.6% of the GDP. However, when you add in our total REAL debt, we were already at 106% of GDP. So, as you can see, we have already entered the no go zone where, historically, bad things start to happen. (In case you haven’t noticed- lots of bad things are already happening.)

Currently, for some reason, foreign entities still have confidence that the US has the ability to pay our debt. But they aren’t blind or stupid. They can see that our national debt is currently higher than it has historically been for any country in the entire world- ever. Not only that- they can see that we are no where near operating on anything resembling a balanced budget in any foreseeable future. So the real question is NOT how long will WE continue to raise our debt ceilings or allow ourselves to operate at ridiculous deficits. The question is: How long will foreigners continue finance it?

This is what you call a “house of cards.” The reality is, it doesn’t matter who you think deserves help to buy their groceries, or pay their bills, or receive medical care. When the money is gone and the time is up no one will get ANYTHING no matter how “fair” or “unfair” it is and no matter how much they “deserve” it. We trusted a government that we should have never trusted and now we have to deal in reality- not “what’s right or fair”. We can either buckle down, suck it up, and balance the budget- which means there are going to be lots of people who don’t get things they were supposed to get and probably some people that have horrendous things happen because the government will not be able to assist them in meeting their needs. Bad things will happen to good people that don’t deserve it. These things may happen personally to us. If not- you can be assured that these things will happen to people in our families, people we know, and people we love. One thing is certain- the longer we put it off- the worse it will be.  Or,  we can continue on and pretend that belt tightening time isn’t already here and leave it for our children to deal with- for however long our foreign debt holders allow it.

Sources:

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2016/03/10/the-national-debt-tops-19-trillion-106-of-gdp

Just the Facts: Debt Ceiling

 

Progressives Really Hate Fascism, There’s Only One Problem…

At every single progressive protest or march you will inevitably see signs waving valiantly with some varying verbiage of: “Trump is a fascist and we will not tolerate fascism.” These signs being toted by the progressive legions always strike me as such an ironic hypocrisy and leave me wondering if in fact, ANY of these people know what fascism is or, more importantly, how a country might come to be ruled by a fascist.

Honestly, I doubt many of these sign holders have any idea of the definition of fascism beyond its racist and murderous component and the fact that they have been told fascism is a “nationalistic” right wing atrocity. Or so it would appear, since they are actually lobbying for many of the characteristics that define a fascist government. George Orwell himself refers to the flippant manner in which the term “fascist” is thrown around even back in his day, “It will be seen that, as used, the word “Fascism” is almost entirely meaningless…I have heard it apply to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.”

Fascism is defined in Mirriam-Webster as, “A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Depending on how you lean politically, that definition will cause you to conjure up the image of completely different modern individuals. However, two poster boys for fascism both sides can agree on would have to be Mussolini and Hitler.

Using these mutually agreed upon embodiments of fascism (Mussolini is not only the embodiment, but the actual “father” of fascism) I’m going to demonstrate that the agenda of the radical progressive left not only has much more in common with fascism than true conservatism, but actually paves the way FOR it. Progressive ideology strips power away from the individual and bestows it upon the state to confer as it will- leaving all citizens at the mercy of the state and whoever comes to rule it. Hitler didn’t take over Germany by force. The Germans were willingly enslaved by degrees in return for a state that would “take care” of them, until the government was so incredibly large and imposing that they were utterly defenseless against it. True conservatism, on the other hand, is fundamentally incapable of giving rise to a fascist scenario because it precludes a powerful centralized government at every turn. Conservatism holds a government accountable to its citizenry instead of the other way around- which is the way our forefathers designed the government to work. Currently, no US president has the authority or the control necessary to usher in another “Mussolini/Hitler scenario” though radical liberal progressives are working hard as we speak to surrender the last vestiges of control we still maintain under the pretenses of “humanitarianism,” “human rights,” and “tolerance.”

Is fascism right wing? Well it’s to the political right of Marxism and Communism, but that doesn’t exactly make it “right wing” now does it? Fascism is waaaaay to the left of conservatism. But conservatives can only be fascists because they are so nationalistic and progressives aren’t, right? Well, that depends on whose definition of “nationalism” you are applying to conservatives. As far as I can tell, progressives consider anyone politically to the right of communism to be overly nationalistic because progressives envision a globalized utopian government. True Hitler and Musollini nationalistic fascism seeks to be the ultimate super power that takes over the world via war. Obviously, that is NOT true conservatism. True conservatives are nationalistic to the extent of assuring that our country can defend itself and its people against any group that would seek to harm it, but stops far short of any “world domination” war.  Fascism would be more accurately described as right wing socialism on nationalism steroids- which is still “left”. Proponents of socialism are on the rise, big time, in the US. (Let’s be real, if Hillary hadn’t cheated Bernie out of the nomination there is a serious possibility that Sanders would have been the first socialist US president.)

Radical progressives are very much on the “same page” with Mussolini when it comes to the ideal role of government. Mussolini said, “The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups are relative.”

The left has been trying to get the government to assume to the role of “nanny” for decades and winning for the most part. According to them, individual and group “rights” should be subject to the government determined “common good.” If Hillary or Bernie had won the election, the left would (and did in the Obama era) relish in the huge government they have given authority to, happily demanding we on the right fall in line, accept, and embrace their ideology. Of course, that’s not what they would call it- they prefer to name what they demand “tolerance”. But if what they are demanding is tolerance then maybe I should list Mirriam-Webster’s definition of that also. Being tolerant of someone else’s beliefs has never required agreeing with or embracing said beliefs as your own. Of course, radical progressives consider anything short of that “newly defined” tolerance to be hatred. Radical progressives seem to overlook the elephant in the room: They are totally ok with a totalitarian fascist regime as long as they are the ones administering it.

The fact of the matter is radical progressives are activists for the very agendas Hitler used to enslave Germany. Here are the top 5:

      1. The creation of a welfare state. In 1934 Hitler told a reporter that he was determined to give the Germans the “highest standard of living.” Another quote- “None shall starve or freeze!” Hitler instated the NSV (“National Social People’s Welfare”) in 1933. He expanded this government agency and made it the “umbrella” over all social programs by absorbing all non-Nazi charities into it. By 1939, 17 million Germans were enslaved receiving assistance. The NSV distributed food, provided rent supplements, interest free loans for married couples, and a plethora of other services.

If we didn’t already know Hitler’s end game, we would think he was the ultimate humanitarian. Sounds fabulous, right? What could go wrong? Well, when the government controls the food and enables you to make the rent- you are effectively a slave at the mercy of that government. Maybe not a problem if you ascribe to the “approved” ideology and toe the line. But once those resources run short, or you find yourself in disagreement with a “government approved” ideology, things are going to get ugly. For an insightful account from a Holocaust survivor, please check out the link to Kitty Werthmann’s warning to the liberal left at the bottom of the page.

2.  Nationalized healthcare. Hitler’s Germany provided government funded healthcare for all!!

Hallelujah! They must have all been so happy and healthy! Well… not according to Holocaust survivor Kitty Werthmann, “Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything…If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.”

I can hear the progressive’s crying in unison now, “Universal Healthcare Works! There are SO many examples!!” Actually, no, there aren’t. You can argue this ALL DAY LONG, but this is what universal healthcare requires for success: the younger generation MUST be larger and/or generate enough tax revenue to support the older generation. Now the US (and now most other developed countries) don’t have enough kids per family to even equal a population replacement rate. Fact: Our generations are getting progressively smaller. This article in Reuters addresses the impending collapse of all these “successful” nationalized heath care programs. That is, for those who haven’t already noticed that people flock to the US for health care instead of being treated in their own countries- but I digress…

3. Free Education. Hitler was all about a nationalized education system! Why? Because Hitler recognized that whatever the government provides- it also controls. Hitler also knew that the key to the future was a bunch of indoctrinated children. In Hitler’s Mein Kampf he wrote, “…whoever has the youth has the future”. According to Lisa Pine’s book, Hitler’s ‘National Community’: Society and Culture in Nazi Germany, “ The number of nurseries rose from approximately 1,000 in 1935 to 15,000 in 1941.” You heard that right- free day care for all!

Sounds like a working mom’s dream come true, right? Not the way Kitty Werthmann describes it, “You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under total care of the government… The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.”

Oh well, at least all school age children had access to a free, quality education. Right? Of public education beyond preschool Kitty says, “The first two hours (of school) consisted of political indoctrination.” Of course the left is completely cool with this as long as they are the ones approving the educational goals indoctrination. Any given day, you can hear liberals rail on about the evils of “school choice”. Of course, why are some people even looking for alternatives to the public school system? Because the government is running it into the ground. And because the government has been given the authority to overrule the parent and decide what constitutes “real science” and to dictate what religion can be expressed in school and what cannot. The obvious solution would be to allow school choice (sorry DeVos- NOT government funded school choice. If you’re interested in pursuing that topic you can read my post DeVos and School Choice:The Good, the Bad, and the Reality) – even a progressive couldn’t argue about having the right to control their child’s education, right? Wrong. Progressives want to control what our children are taught while telling us we have no business forcing our beliefs on their children. Religious “science deniers” are unacceptable. Apparently “science denying” individuals are harmful to the “collective good”.  (Fascist much?)

4. Gun Control. Hitler took the guns away from anyone who wasn’t a part of the Nazi regime when he passed the “German Weapons Control Act” of 1938 to get guns out of the hands of the “criminals”. Who was exempt? Nazi regime members, and officials of the central government and states.

Sound familiar? Progressives protest about this every other day and most definitely never let a good tragedy go to waste. News flash- the 2nd Amendment isn’t about protecting your hunting rights. The only government concerned about whether or not you own a gun, is a dangerously overreaching one. Spare me the propaganda- we already have background checks, and the cities/states with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest occurrences of gun violence. End of story.

5. Controlled Media. Hitler knew the importance of a regime controlled, propaganda filled media. In Hitler’s words, “Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side….The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.”

The left is up in arms about this one claiming that the Trump administration is currently “repressing the media.” But, lets just be real here. The only problem they have with a controlled media, is which side controls it. (Cough, cough…Fascist) Anything that doesn’t fit the accepted progressive left propaganda is labeled “fake news”.

If no one noticed before, this year it became abundantly clear that there is extreme media bias when it comes to the agenda of the left. Not only does our mainstream media paint conservatism in a very negative light, (equating it with racism, misogyny, anti-equality and anti-human rights, bigotry, and Bible thumping) at the same time the media elevates the progressive ideology as superior on the grounds of tolerance, acceptance, and inclusivity of all. They have followed Hitler’s rules for propaganda by the letter.

This has led to the loss of free speech for those individuals who disagree with progressive ideology as all conservative speech is now deemed to be racist, bigoted, misogynistic, morally traditionalist ranting. Voicing conservative beliefs is considered “hate speech” and the left are compelled to get violent over it. Universities that once demanded free speech for all, now bow to the liberal agenda. The progressive “peaceful protests” are now prone to end in violet riots complete with looting thugs. Hitler would be proud.

To sum it up: radical progressives embrace the fascist form of government, as long as the dictator is a progressive ideologue. Rosie O’Donnell actually called for Obama to declare martial law rather than peacefully transfer power to Trump. In blunt terms, Rosie begged Obama to be a fascist and take dictatorial control to prevent a president she didn’t like.

Liberal progressives have abandoned the “democratic” ideology and replaced it with a counterfeit that Jonah Goldberg describes in his book Liberal Fascism:The Secret of the American Left From Mussolini, to the Politics of Meaning, “We tend to forget that unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink. Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always antiliberal. Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises—of class, nation, or race—and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate.” Truer words were never spoken.

While radical progressives shout, “Say no to fascism!”- the fact of the matter is- if a true fascist does rise to power, it will be because the progressive left rolled out the red carpet for him or her by creating a massively powerful nanny state beyond the control of We The People. It’s as if logic has eluded them. If you give a government the power to enforce your ideology over its citizenry, when power changes hands- the new government will have the power to enforce an opposing ideology over you. Radical progressives don’t fear a fascist totalitarian dictator- they fear not being able to assure their pick of dictator on the throne. What’s even more disturbing is that as long as said fascist dictator is a progressive liberal ideologue- the left will proudly wear his or her version of a swastika while purging the country of the “deplorable” conservative populace who dare to disagree.

Personally, I’ll take a United States- hold the fascism- period.

Sources:

Holocaust Survivor’s Warning:

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jonah-goldberg-fascism/2008/02/17/id/337618/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People’s_Welfare

Dear Pro-Choice Christian or Political Moderate, Please Stop Killing in the Name of Kindness

I could try to sit here and think of ways to word this less offensively, but instead I’m just going to tell it like it is. There is nothing that gets me more riled up than to a hear a person, Christian or not, who I KNOW is a genuinely caring and loving individual tell me they are pro-choice- not because they support abortion on demand, but rather because they want to protect the right of individuals who are victims of rape or incest, or those whose lives may be endangered by the child they are carrying, or those whose unborn child may or may not have a genetic abnormality, to have an abortion.

Before we go any further let’s get some data to roughly ascertain the numbers of those women who get abortions based on those criteria we listed above. There are only two sources that provide nationwide abortion statistics- the Guttmacher Institute privately and the CDC publicly. The CDC can no longer get accurate numbers because a few states have not been publicly releasing their abortion totals and the Guttmacher Institute is obviously associated with Planned Parenthood, but even using figures that are most likely problematic, we can get a working estimate. The numbers, if anything would be skewed in favor of the Pro-Choice movement. According to state data, 906,000 abortions took place in 2015. In 2013, in New York City, approximately 37.4% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) were aborted. (CDC) A 2004 Guttmacher anonymous survey asking women to provide the reason for their abortions yielded these results:

    • less than .5% were victim’s of rape
    • 3% cited fetal health problems
    • 4% cited physical health problems
    • 4% said it would interfere with their education or career
    • 7% said they were not mature enough to raise a child
    • 8% didn’t want to be a single mother
    • 19% were just done having children
    • 23% said they couldn’t afford a baby
    • 25% said they were not ready for a child
    • 6% checks that good old “other” box

First, I’d just like to point out that a whopping 92% of these “issues” would have been resolved by giving the child a chance and blessing a family who wishes to adopt. If only the mother was willing to “inconvenience” herself by enduring the pregnancy instead of sentencing the child to death. So, we are left with less than 8% who you may argue “need” champions. If we apply these percentages to the overall number of abortions ( I know we can’t “technically” do that because the numbers are from different years, but its close enough to get a good mental picture of what we’re talking about here) you will find that to be the champion of 72,480 women, you have been a party to the murder of 833,520 innocent lives. How’s that for perspective?

It doesn’t upset me that they believe those women need champions and that they want to stand for them. It upsets me that they have bought into the lie that in order to protect that miniscule part of the population, they MUST join with the progressive movement which lobbies for a woman’s “right” to abortion on demand for any reason- that reason usually being rooted in convenience and selfishness. Talk about a deal with the devil. The abortion on demand type of “progressives” are distasteful enough, but of even more cause for alarm are the “people behind the curtain” who take advantage of these “useful idiots” (because that’s how THEY see you, not how I see you- I told you I’m not pulling any punches) to further their horrific agendas of the age old practice of eugenics or the intellectual penchant for population control.

By now, if you identify with this group I am describing, you’re probably seething. To that I say I’m sorry- but sometimes being a real friend means you have to be willing to tell the truth even when you may anger some people in the process. I intend today to be that friend. I care enough about you, about the millions of babies who have been murdered for convenience, and about the under- privileged populations both in the US and abroad that are suffering due to the politically correct “re-branding” of evil agendas into the more palatable terms “pro-choice”, “human rights”, and “humanitarianism”, to tell you the TRUTH. Let me explain from the beginning, because that’s always the best place to start.

The movement to legalize abortion has its roots in the scarcely mentioned eugenics movement of the early 20th century which in turn has inspired the present day population control agenda. (If you think population control isn’t an actual “thing”, you might want to start paying attention to what Bill Gates credits for driving his humanitarian efforts- spoiler alert- it’s population control)What is eugenics? The eugenic“science” was introduced by Francis Galton (a cousin of none other than Charles Darwin) who was drawing from the ideas of “breeding” humans put forth by none other than Plato himself in his book, Republic. Edwin Black writing for the History News Network defines it as, “…the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype.” The Nordic stereotype being tall, blonde, blue-eyed- (sound familiar yet?) Black continues, “Elements of the philosophy were enshrined in national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions enacted in 27 states…Ultimately eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies”, and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning.” While early eugenics did have quite an extreme racist component, the broader definition of “unfit” also included individuals who were a “drain” on society- criminals, the poor, addicts, individuals with “unsavory” characteristics such as “loose” women or other traits considered immoral.

Who was “on board” with this eugenics philosophy? Early financiers of the movement were the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman family. Some of America’s most prestigious scientists from Stamford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale espoused the philosophy. Socialists like George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb advocated it. The US Supreme Court endorsed it. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his 1927 decision wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for a crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Most surprising for some however, is none other than Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger- who is elevated to nothing less than sainthood by the proponents of the pro-choice movement. Though Sanger herself denounced abortion (odd considering how her life’s work is presented to our society today), she devoted her life to ushering in a “superior” race through her fight to legalize birth control.

Legalizing birth control seems a laudable effort until you read Sanger’s own words regarding her vision for society and who she wanted to “eradicate”. Don’t take my word for it; I’ll let Margaret speak for herself:

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly…Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

“Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying…demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism…[Philathropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of the unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.”

Let me just state it plainly for those who may not be “picking up” what Sanger is “putting down” here: If you identify as a member of society who endeavors to help those less fortunate than yourself through social programs or charity, Margaret thinks you are a sentimental fool and compares you to a deadly societal disease. Feeling the love yet? Most of these quotes come from her books The Pivot of Civilization and A Plan for Peace. You can check out these books if you’d like to read up on more of Margaret’s “pearls of wisdom”. In 1921 Sanger founded The American Birth Control League. Sanger actually tried to merge her organization with the American Eugenics Association twice, unsuccessfully. In 1946, the Birth Control League became The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to Mark Crutcher’s Maafa 21 documentary, “Planned Parenthood was an integral part of the sterilization boards that operated in more than 30 states.”

One fellow who was taking notice of this new American philosophy was none other than Hitler himself. Americans were more than happy to oblige. Edwin Black reports, “More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money- to hundreds of German researchers.

Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf, “There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

I’m guessing this lady isn’t aware that the founders of her ideology were the inspiration for actual Nazis.

As much as Margaret admired the eugenics ideology and wanted to make her own contribution in the form of her legalization of birth control, many of the popular socialist eugenicists of her time couldn’t initially see Margaret’s efforts as valuable. Leonard points out in his book, “Many eugenicists feared unregulated birth control was dysgenic in its effects, because, as a progressive socialist Charles Horton Cooley warned, the ‘intelligent classes’ used it, and the inferior classes did not.” However, Margaret must have persuaded him, because Cooley notes later, “If the state delivered birth control to the inferior classes, then contraception could indeed work eugenically.” And tadaa! Just like that eugenics put on a “humanitarian” mask that the progressive movement now fights for under the re-branded cause of “human rights” to government funded birth control and now abortion. Are you feeling manipulated yet?

No? Just wait…

The problem that eugenicists faced at this point in history was the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public still viewed abortion as a practice that should only be used in the most dire of circumstances. For instance if the life of the mother was in danger. Many people believed at that time also that victims of rape or incest for example should be given the option to end the pregnancy. (We were so sweet and innocent back then.) So, in order for abortion to become an effective means of eradicating “undesirable” individuals and reducing the population of “societal drains”, they faced the monumental task of changing the societal view of the value of life, eroding maternal instinct, instilling a false “right” to idolize oneself by murdering the child you have created if said child’s existence will be “inconvenient” for you, as well as the false “right” to a promiscuous lifestyle in which you are able to “erase” the “unfortunate consequences” of said promiscuity.

Mary Meehan explains the disagreements that existed in the eugenics community regarding whether to take a more radical approach to repealing the anti-abortion laws vs more of an evolution, so to speak. “In 1963 Prof. Hardin, an environmentalist who was also an ardent population controller and a member of the American Eugenics Society, made a radical argument for repealing anti-abortion laws. In an approach that would be copied by many others, he put his population and eugenics concerns in the background and based his argument mainly on the welfare and rights of women.” (Time out! Please tell me you are drawing the obvious parallels to our current day!) Meehan continues, “Dr. Alan Guttmacher, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote Hardin that anti-abortion laws could be changed ‘inch by inch and foot by foot, but not a mile at a time.’ Later Guttmacher told another correspondent that ‘I am in favor of abortion on demand, but feel from the practical point of view that such a social revolution should evolve by stages.’”

At this stage, the “people behind the curtain” were acutely aware that they needed a cover of legitimacy with which to veil their efforts. One of many organizations that lent this legitimacy was the ACLU. Mary Meehan writes a section specifically regarding the ACLU in her book Prolife Feminism:Yesterday and Today. The ACLU handled Roe v Wade’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, in which basically resulted abortion on demand. Of course, the ACLU represented the legalization of abortion behind for “humanitarian” reasons. But were they aware of the agendas behind the push for legalized abortion. Mary Meehan writes, “Aryah Neier, ACLU executive director from 1970-78 later referred to some African Americans’ feeling that there were some whites who were eager to eliminate or limit the number of welfare mother babies out of anti-black feeling and that’s why they were supporting abortion.” Neier also added, “There was a foundation in Pittsburg that was willing to provide support for litigation efforts on behalf of abortion because of that feeling.” When Neir was asked if he was bothered by accepting that kind of money he responded, “I don’t regard it as dirty money…If you tried to go back and find out where people made their money and what all their beliefs are…you’d go crazy.” Apparently, Neier had no problem being a “useful idiot”.

Just in case you need someone to be candid about what the “people behind the curtain” think about citizens (their “useful idiots”)who are pushing their doctored up eugenics and population control agenda, Meehan clears that up with a quote from C. Lalor Burdick, a foundation executive and eugenicist. “ [Burdick] had also complained that Americans ‘seem to be deifying our scruffy and unfit by putting them in temples (welfare housing)’ and ‘recreating some ancient fertility cult where we provide breeding pads and free sustenance for the proliferation of a kind of people that hate us and would destroy us, if they could.’…Lalor also remarked, ‘ The “maternal impulse” is partly bunk. De-bunking of this might get some females off their fat duffs and into useful endeavor.’” If you’re currently “off your fat duff” (as Burdick so colorfully expressed it) furthering this abortion on demand cause- please feel free to be offended. As an interesting side note, Lalor Foundation is still up and running today. This is the mission statement front and center on their website: “The Anna Lalor Burdick Program focuses on young women who have inadequate access to information regarding reproductive health, including the subjects of contraception and pregnancy termination, and as such may be particularly lacking options in their lives.”

So, to sum up- again- these people are NOT humanitarian- they have an undeniable ulterior motive which is veiled behind the faux legitimacy of “helping our fellow man.” Sadly enough they have successfully “debunked” the existence of a “maternal impulse” in a wide swathe of our population, which is now represented by the self idolizing abortion on demand crowd. So, next time you feel like toting around a pro-choice sign in an organized march, please be acutely aware of the opinion the march financiers hold of you. While you’re at it, if you are in said march, yet you don’t believe in abortion on demand- you might consider disassociating yourself with these people and putting together your own cause to march in instead of borrowing one that doesn’t fit.

If you would like a smack you in the face insight into whose cause you are aligning yourself with, please take the time to visit this blog and be horrified as she admits the eugenic roots of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger (and claims they no longer describe her movement) and then goes on to detail how she fancies herself a “civic-minded Lesbian selflessly investing her time and energy helping poor straight women escape the unfortunate consequences of their sex lives.” I suppose the “unfortunate consequences” would be those pesky babies they need to murder so as not to be inconvenienced. She goes on to describe a circumstance in which no one should be expected to follow through with a pregnancy. “There were queer couples who planned to have children together, inseminated, and then broke up, leaving one partner to choose between abortion and single parenthood.” Upon reading this quote all I could think of was this picture in a  recent pregnancy annoucement that embodies the struggle of those that desperately want children:

If this woman’s ideology is not the definition of depravity and the fruition of the break down in maternal instinct and self responsibility the eugenicists sought to usher in, I don’t know what is. We are not talking about a calling off a pet adoption people! This is a human life that you have created and are responsible for! Pro-choicer, is THIS who you want to align yourself with?!?

Some of you may be thinking something along the lines of, “This doesn’t even apply to the progressive ideology anymore”, or “This is ancient history, these ulterior motives no longer exist.” For you, I submit this letter written to Bill Clinton from James R. Weddington (one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade) just prior to Clinton’s first term as president. (If you would like to hear the heart wrenching testimony of Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, who was manipulated into playing a false role in order to stir up public sympathies based on false information in order to legalize abortion, please watch the video at the end of this article.) Here’s the letter Weddington wrote advocating the elimination of the socially dependent class through birth control and abortion:

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies. There. I’ve said it…Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer…No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions…RUA 486 (he’s referring to the morning after pill) and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery…and then add 30 million unwanted babies into the scenario.”

We have no idea if Bill Clinton ever responded, but do we need to? His actions are clear enough. In 1996, Clinton vetoed a bill to ban partial birth abortions. Hillary ran a significant part of her campaign last year on the woman’s “right to choose” and a woman’s “right” to be funded by the government in her “health care” choices.

Would you like, perhaps, some more direct governmental proof? In 1990, the Kissinger Report, which was a top secret document compiled by the US Security Council with the subject of “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests”, was declassified and moved to the U.S. National Archives. It is a document that details the US policy on population control. (I guess that pretty much proves we do indeed have a population control policy, so that notion can’t be relegated to conspiracy theory.) Here are some of the elements of the implementation of the population control efforts stated in the report:

    • the legalization of abortion
    • financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion and sterilization and contraception-use rates
    • indoctrination of children
    • mandatory population control and coercion of other forms, such as holding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

The report also details that the US should disguise its population control activities in foreign countries so as to avoid charges of “imperialism” by using the UN and non governmental organizations. Not suprisingly, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation is specifically named, along with the Pathfinder Fund, and others. You might also be surprised to learn that the US, for many years, has funded the United Nations Population Control Fund, which has donated over $100 million to China’s population control program and even recognized China with an award for their outstanding population control program, which many of us know have been the catalyst for innumerable human rights violations.

But hey! That was the 70’s right? We already know that Planned Parenthood functions primarily as an abortion on demand provider and as a financier of the abortion on demand movement. Let’s take a look at the top funders of Planned Parenthood and compare them to the original eugenics supporters. Also notice the language (re-branding) used in describing these “humanitarian” causes.

The largest donor is the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (named for Warren Buffet’s late wife) to the tune of $230,915,706. However, Buffet makes no bones about the fact that he doesn’t want his donations publicized and the media apparently respect his wishes for the most part. Planned Parenthood received the biggest check from Buffet, but according to the Media Research Center, Buffet also gives hefty donations to Marie Stopes International ($211 million), National Abortion Federation ($85 million), DKT International ($78 million- DKT also has ties to funding India’s human rights atrocity referred to as a “family planning program”), Engender Health ($32 million), Guttmacher Institute ($29 million), and NARAL ($24 million).

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation comes in next at $22,827,000. According to Aly Nielson’s article, “The foundations Planned Parenthood support is part of Hewlett’s larger Global Development and Population Program, which claims to ‘expand women’s choices’ about whether to have children.”

Next, we have George Soros’ Open Society Institute with $18,350,000. According to Nielson, this grant was “specifically to build centers in the ‘south and southeast’ regions of the U.S.” I’d hate to sell George short, so I’ll go ahead and make mention here that Soros has indeed been confirmed to have had funding ties to more than 50 partners of the Women’s March on Washington. He also has his hands in MoveOn.org and the National Action Network which are very politically left organizations that encourage activism for liberal causes. You see, Soros has a very lucrative side hobby of manipulating currency, which unfortunately results in destroying the economies of the countries whose currency he manipulates. He bets on the devaluation of a currency in the market, then actively promotes causes that destroy the economies of these countries- very successfully I might add. Currently he is heavily vested in gold and calling for the devaluation of the US dollar, which explains his efforts to align with our nation destroying causes. So, if you find yourself agreeing with Soros’ pet projects, you may need to reevaluate your stances. Just a thought…

Also of note is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation coming in at $14,521,748. The Gates’ are also involved in sponsoring each International Conference on Family Planning.

While we’re on the topic of Bill and Melinda Gates, it bears mentioning that a while back, the Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg all met in New York to discuss how they might “harness their interests” into a common cause. I didn’t link a source because this meeting was widely reported and you can google it and take your pick. The conservative sources describe this meeting as an apocalyptic omen, while the liberal sources bill it more as a “humanitarian meeting of the minds”. According to reports, these “great humanitarians” decided that population control is our number one issue, taking their cue from Bill Gates who is reported to have “outlined an ambitious plan to cap global population at 8.3 billion.” Hmm.

How does Gates propose to do this you might wonder? Through his “humanitarian” efforts of course. James Tillman reports Gates’ comments while speaking at a conference regarding how humans can reduce our CO2 emissions, “ Because the quantity of CO2 emitted is related to the human population, Gates briefly mentioned means to reduce the projected world population, including ‘reproductive health services’- abortion and contraception- as well as vaccines.”

We’ve already belabored the “reproductive health scam” point, so let me touch on Gates’ vaccination pet project. Gates likes to spend huge sums of money providing vaccinations in poverty stricken countries in an effort to improve the health and mortality rates in these countries. Gates has explained the logical relationship between vaccinations, healthier populations, and population control in this way:

As Gates sees it, the main reason parents in these impoverished countries have multiple children, is because they know only one or two may actually make it to adulthood. So, by improving the health and mortality of these populations, these parents can begin to decrease the number of children they have, thereby reducing the overall population. Makes sense, right?

So how have the U.S.’ and Gates’ humanitarian vaccination efforts panned out? Quite scandalously. Tillman reports, “Previous vaccination programs have been shown to have been covertly used to sterilize women. In 1995, the Supreme Court of the Philipines found that vaccines used in a UNICEF anti-tetanus vaccination program contained B-hCG, which when given in a vaccine , permanently destroys a woman’s ability to sustain a pregnancy. Approximately 3 million women had already been given the vaccine.” Was this an isolated occurrence? Hardly. B-hCG “contaminated” vaccines were found in at least four other developing countries. Crazy coincidence?

In 2004, a UNICEF campaign to administer polio vaccines to Nigerian children came under fire for being a sterilization front. A pharmaceutical scientist from the University of Zaria took samples of the vaccines back to India for analysis and found the vaccines were severely “contaminated”. “Some of the things we discovered in the vaccines are harmful, toxic; some have direct effects on the human reproductive system,” says Dr. Haruna Kaita. He continues, “I and some of the other professional colleagues who are Indians who were in the Lab could not believe the discovery.” Tillman reports that, “A Nigerian government doctor tried to persuade Dr. Kaita that the contaminants would have no bearing on human reproduction.” Dr. Kaita elaborates, “I was surprised when one of the federal government doctors was telling me something contrary to what I have learned, studied, taught and is the common knowledge of all pharmaceutical scientists- that estrogen cannot induce an anti-fertility response in humans. I found that argument very disturbing and ridiculous.”

This doesn’t even count the large number of children that have incurred vaccine injury due to the polio vaccinations that Gates and the US are NOT helping. Just collateral damage I suppose.

I seem to remember reading something about these tactics in the Kissinger Report. Another horrific and current example of the US funding “family planning” in foreign countries are the atrocities being committed in India’s sterilization program. India’s program has been described as an unimaginable “assembly line” type scenario in which sterilizations are performed in “grotesquely unsanitary conditions”. These women are paid the equivalent of about $10 USD to be sterilized; some say they are sterilized without giving consent. One health official reports that “…83 women underwent surgical sterilization at the hands of one doctor in just a few hours.” Many women have died and even more have been seriously injured. Unfortunately, our very own tax dollars have gone to support this horror, as India receives “family planning aid” from USAID. Bill and Melinda Gates also privately donate to India’s “family planning” programs.

Now, with ALL of this information presented- I honestly ask: How can ANY individual who does not advocate abortion on demand, support in any way, shape, or form, the current progressive Pro-Choice movement? How? On what grounds do you justify your support? How do you rationalize these facts away? If you desire to be the champion for what is a miniscule portion of the population (regardless of what the pro-choice movement will try to sell you) who YOU feel deserve the right to end a pregnancy and you do so by supporting the progressive Pro-Choice movement, then I say to you: You are championing the few by standing on the shoulders of the millions of babies who have died and will die as a result of legalized abortion on demand. Abortion on demand is rooted in the age old effort to “breed a superior race” as well as the more modern effort to curb the population by ridding the world of “societal drains”, and supported by a depraved faction of our population who demand the “right” to murder the “unfortunate consequences” of their irresponsible sexual lifestyles. You stand on the shoulders of the millions of women who have been sterilized against their will, who have died or have suffered incomprehensible misery and injury due to coerced sterilization efforts supported by our tax dollars and encouraged by our government in our own country and abroad. You may continue your support if you wish, but if you have read this evidence, you can no longer claim innocent ignorance. OR, you may break away from a progressive movement than never represented you anyway, and form your own movement. A movement not yet named that would stand for the rights of the few and not be stained by the blood of the innocent. Stop killing in the name of kindness.

7 powerful quotes from ‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

Sources:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2017/01/27/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/star-tribune_eugenics.html

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2017/01/27/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-crutcher/eugenics-real-reason-legalized-abortion

http://www.meehanreports.com/how-led.html

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/moderneugenics.html

Letter to Bill Clinton link:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/weddington.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=_ACd-_bMgmEC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=aclu+ties+to+eugenics&source=bl&ots=38_AfLd5Km&sig=KRXK7LBnatNNJ3f-mEfR3EtsfCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz-sG-15fSAhUl6YMKHeQtBG8Q6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=aclu%20ties%20to%20eugenics&f=false

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics

http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/01/23/political-agitator-globalist-george-soros-linked-to-over-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alatheia-larsen/2015/07/31/planned-parenthoods-biggest-donors-gave-374-million-four-years

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gates-foundation-explains-bill-gates-re-vaccines-reducing-population

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unicef-nigerian-polio-vaccine-contaminated-with-sterilizing-agents-scientis

Link to Kissinger Report:

http://www.hli.org/resources/exposing-the-global-population-control/?gclid=CjwKEAiA_p_FBRCRi_mW5Myl4S0SJAAkezZrYXVpgkvEOpSmWG4bM9GgAoxf1V7UrgqwQJk3SUDVqhoC_PDw_wcB

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/13/united-states-is-funding-sterilization-camps-targeting-women-in-india/

https://www.mrc.org/articles/warren-buffett-billion-dollar-king-abortion