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.


Holocaust Survivor’s Warning:’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 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


Letter to Bill Clinton link:

Link to Kissinger Report:

Flynn, Trump, Russia, and the Media Faux Hysteria

Can we just all take a time out. Just for a minute- to stop and stare in incredulous wonder at the sheer spectacle of hypocritical media driven hysteria that has descended upon us this week regarding Russia, Trump, our intelligence agencies and Flynn. The Unites States should just be called the Twilight Zone.

Let’s rewind just a mere few months ago to an alternate United States of America, where a little thing called Wikileaks dominated the media. In these Wikileaks, massive amounts of shocking, disgusting, incriminating information was disseminated to the public regarding the train wreck that is Hillary Clinton and the progressive left. We weren’t exactly sure of the source of the information, BUT never once was anything proven to be UNTRUE.

What was the media’s response you ask? Well, the mainstream media was up in arms! Proclaiming that this information was leaked illegally! It came from the Russians! The Russians are trying to rig our election process! Wikileak’s main man, Julian Assange, is a horrific individual! Never you mind that the information is, in fact, true. The media kept screaming that we shouldn’t care what the information actually IS, we SHOULD be concerned that it “came from the Russians”! Our super intelligence agencies swooped in to investigate!

What did they find? They found that supposedly the goal of the Russians was to “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.” (Which incidentally, is the same effect this report had.) The report is mum on the fact that the information that was leaked was, in fact, all true. They make the shocking claim that this was done to ensure a Trump presidency, yet offer no proof that a Trump presidency would benefit the Russians over a Clinton presidency. Also noticeably absent in the report is the fact that their alleged hacking attempts would not even have been successful if the DNC wasn’t full of idiots who fall for password change emails. Not to mention the fact, that Hillary left HERSELF vulnerable by intentionally NOT following existing cyber safety protocol, so that she could get away with her own back door dealings with greater ease! This, Hillary actually WAS found guilty of by the FBI. The report was subsequently added to as more information was declassified. A notable addition was this line of information: DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying. So, we actually did elect our president- I guess thanks to the Russians, who were willing to let us know the down and dirty about the Democrat’s candidate- as opposed to our media who preferred to keep that information secret.

If you’d like you can read the report in its entirety here:

Flash forward to this week and the mainstream media is STILL trying to sell the story that Trump and his administration are bff’s with Russia. With evidence you might ask? Because I would be interested if evidence were to actually be presented. The thing is I haven’t seen any of that yet. The latest hysteria revolves around a phone conversation that Flynn had back in December (under the watch of the Obama administration by the way) with Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak, in which they discussed sanctions. Subsequently, Flynn either lied or inadvertently left out information when briefing VP Pence of the conversation. How do we know this? Because someone in our intelligence agencies leaked this information to the media- which, by the way, is illegal. Interestingly enough, both the NY Times and NPR have had to report that when the phone conversation was investigated- NOTHING illegal was found to have taken place. Peter Schwiezer breaks it down like this, “But what’s curious in this case is that it’s unclear what people are suggesting or what actual evidence there is,” he observed. “For example, the New York Times today has a front-page piece which I think balance is actually pretty fair. When you initially read it, it talks about the fact that U.S. intelligence was monitoring the fact that four people close to Trump had contact with Russian intelligence. Now when you hear that, you think, ‘Oh, my gosh, what’s going on?’ But when you actually read the article, you find out that, first of all, it’s unclear that they even knew they were talking to Russian intelligence officials. They all deny that they did. And when you’re doing any kind of business in Russia – the Clintons have certainly done this, as well – chances are you’re probably going to encounter an intelligence official…But you don’t know what they talked about. You don’t know what they’re inferring. And the article points out when this information was taken to the FISA court, which is the super-secret court that gives you the opportunity to wiretap, there was not sufficient evidence for them to be granted a warrant to further monitor these communications, which implies to me that, clearly, this was really much ado about nothing.”

So how are the media responding to this? Well, I have whip lash from the 180 degree flip in their reporting. NOW, the mainstream media is exhorting the public to “pay attention to the information and not where it came from”. I literally heard a liberal talking head tell someone that if they were more concerned in the source than the information they were missing the entire point. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the host, a former congressman, called the leakers “heroes.” Wow! Considering the last few months I’m really not sure how anyone in the mainstream media could make these statements with a straight face.

What are the media’s concerns regarding this Flynn issue? Well, the Trump administration’s “relationship” Russia of course! They are worried this could have left Flynn open to blackmail. Am I seriously supposed to believe the media, or ANYONE on the left is concerned about blackmail potential considering they just ran Hillary Clinton for president of the US?? Exactly how many countries including Russia could Hillary have been blackmailed by!?! We STILL don’t know what happened to, like, 30 something thousand emails!! If it’s only ties to Russia we should concern ourselves with, how about that time Hillary literally made millions in her dealings with Russia– the paid speeches, the uranium?

But who even cares about Hillary, we dodged that bullet right? So what about Obama’s relationship with Russia? According to Glenn Greenwald in his article, What’s Behind Barack Obama’s Ongoing Accomodation of Vladimir Putin, “Early last year, U.S. intelligence agencies claimed to have evidence that Russia was making increasingly aggressive military incursions into Ukraine, including with tanks and artillery. Leading foreign policy experts in both parties — including Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Obama’s own Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey — united to pressure President Obama to send arms to Kiev to ward off what they viewed as Russian aggression. But Obama steadfastly refused. Obama’s recalcitrance became so entrenched that a bipartisan alliance in Congress emerged to introduce legislation to force him to provide lethal aid. As the New York Times reported:

Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said last week that he was so “disappointed” in the administration for not using tools in past legislation authorizing more sanctions against Russia and arms for Ukraine that he was introducing a new bill to “dial up the pressure on Vladimir Putin.”

The Ukraine debate of 2015 was not the only instance in which President Obama has taken action that accommodated Putin and benefited Russian interests. Last year, Russia began bombing Syria in order to protect its long-time client Bashar Assad. While Hillary Clinton and others advocated imposition of a “no-fly zone” to stop the Russians, Obama did nothing. To the contrary, Obama — who himself has spent two years bombing the anti-Assad fighters in Syria whom the U.S. government regards as terrorists (killing many civilians in the process) — is now actively forgingpartnership with Putin whereby Russia and the U.S. would jointly bomb agreed-upon targets in Syria (ones opposed to Assad).” (Can someone please remind me why Russia would prefer a Trump presidency? I’m failing to see a motive. They seemed to be getting along quite well under the former administration also.)

So, is the media against any administration having ties with Russia or only the Trump administration? Once the irony is exposed it leaves me wondering what their agenda is? Obviously, it has nothing to do with anyone’s relationship with Russia.

It’s no secret that our intelligence agencies aren’t exactly happy with Trump. He has called them out on many occasions. How much power do our intelligence agencies wield? Interestingly, Chuck Schumer, says they wield quite a lot of power. Thomas Lifson writes in his article for the American Thinker, “Senator Chuck Schumer, of all people, laid out on January 2 what was going to happen to the Trump administration if it dared take on the deep state – the permanent bureaucracy that has contempt for the will of the voters and feels entitled to run the government for its own benefit: New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.

‘Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,’ Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. ‘So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.’”

Does the CIA have any connection to Flynn? In the same article above, Lifson continues, “Does the CIA have an ax to grind with Flynn? Gen. Flynn is the hardest of hardliners with respect to Russia within the Trump camp. In his 2016 book Field of Fight (co-authored with PJ Media’s Michael Ledeen), Flynn warned of “an international alliance of evil movements and countries that is working to destroy us[.] … The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua.” The unsubstantiated allegation that he presides over a “leaky” National Security Council tilting towards Russia makes no sense. The only leaks of which we know are politically motivated reports coming from the intelligence community designed to disrupt the normal workings of a democratic government – something that raises grave constitutional issues. Flynn is the one senior U.S. intelligence officer with the guts to blow the whistle on a series of catastrophic intelligence and operational failures. The available facts point to the conclusion that elements of the humiliated (and perhaps soon-to-be-unemployed) intelligence community is trying to exact vengeance against a principled and patriotic officer[.] … The present affair stinks like a dumpster full of dead rats.” Incidentally, Flynn was also a vocal opponent of Obama’s Iran deal, which Flynn reportedly had intimate knowledge of. Trump made no bones about his intention to “rip up” the Iran Deal, which horrified Obama and the left, because the deal is worthless has been so effective.


So, is there a link between the CIA and our illustrious mainstream media? Only, a historically diabolical one. Here’s a snippet of the CIA’s sordid history with the media from Carl Bernstein’s The CIA and the Media, “…more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.” In the same article Bernstein lists the media outlets that the CIA notably “partners” with, “Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”

Could Obama or any of the holdovers from his administration have anything to do with any of this? I don’t know, but this little tidbit from this story in the Jan. 12, 2017 edition of the New York Times, suddenly catches my attention, “In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.”

Seems a little suspect considering the events that have transpired since. The media is of course doing their job in blowing it completely out of proportion. Pam Key reports for Brietbart, “Tuesday on CNN’s “Wolf,” while discussing the resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said if members of the Trump campaign or administration have been “conspiring” with Russia, they have committed “treason.” Considering the media has been forced to concede that they have no evidence of wrongdoing, this seems indeed to be quite a premature sentiment, yet totally transparent when it comes down to the mainstream media’s agenda.

So! Did Flynn actually do anything wrong, is the Trump administration secretly run by Russia? For one, I am encouraged that if indeed, Flynn was in the wrong, he stepped down from his position.  I haven’t seen that happen much across the aisle. (Hillary certainly didn’t see the need to let those pesky indiscretions get in her way) I don’t know, but I’m gonna need something other than the drivel the mainstream media is trying to sell me to make up my mind with.