Finding truth in the minefield of lies!
As the Abortion debate in America heats up with the oncoming 2020 election looming on the horizon, there is a real danger Americans will not get all the facts when it comes to the debate? Not surprising I guess when it seems the news media, the political parties, and the politicians all have their own set of principles which apply regardless of the truth.
Since all three groups are in the business of spreading their own brand of propaganda to the masses, it is not surprising the fact checkers are tripping all over themselves trying to justify their favorite causes while feeding the fake news to the people. It is the sad state of affairs we face today.
Abortion, as an issue, has long been hijacked by special interests to mask a series of sins ever since it was first proposed as the principal building block of Eugenics. Make no mistake, it is an issue born of the darkest sides of human life based on a principal that educated nations must protect themselves from the undesirables wanting what they have, wealth and power.
Even that first central argument ignored the overriding moral issues involved in life, who or what is responsible for the entire act of procreating life, meaning how did we acquire the ability to create new life? Science, technology and education have so far failed to give us a credible explanation other than God and God's Creation, all that is what we experience. Like it or not Divine law and God's creation plan still stand alone as the source of all we are.
Under God's law it takes two people, not one, to create a new life, a male and female. The are many distinct creations of God that come into play in the procreation process including the sperm and egg uniting to create a fetus, the fetus evolving into a viable child, the mother carrying the fetus to fruition, not to mention the health of the fetus which is also dependent on the DNA of the father and mother and whatever they have done to their own bodies during their life.
We are talking about aborting what is well on the way to being a little child, a child of God first and foremost, resulting from the union of two humans. Are their valid reasons for allowing abortion, probably and we can only do our best to honor the life of the child when considering the options.
Aborted babies are not simply statistics in human evolution like the victims of other forms of death. Even the media is afraid to talk about abortion as involving real children, or even having the potential to become a real child. I suspect God gave mother's custodianship over the fetus because they have the emotional foundation, patience, and heart to give that child a fair chance in life.
The truth about abortion is not something we want to talk about. We talk about all kinds of diversionary issues like rape, incest, a threat to the life of the mother, as if all abortions faced such dire circumstances. Based on the available statistics I can find, if you add all of these cases together they represent less than five percent of all abortions.
If that is the case, then what do the remaining ninety-five percent of abortions represent? How about abortions of convenience. In this day and age of many ways of birth control, it seems there should not even be any abortions for convenience, yet they dominate the abortion landscape.
So is there something else the media and abortion advocates are hiding that could be more sinister or dark in nature. Eugenics, the purification of the races is certainly one. Yet I believe there is something even more dangerous in which the richest of the rich become the chief beneficiaries of abortions. How can that be you might ask?
What is the only thing money cannot buy? Immortality. The astonishing ability to live forever. Yet a profit center has been evolving in the abortion industry which seems to add fuel to the speculation that there is a golden lining in abortions for the super rich, genetic research, genetic modification, and yes, human cloning.
The concentration of wealth in the world and the scientific potential of using the fetus, body parts, even stem cells from aborted fetuses, seem to be fostering an entirely new purpose for abortions, and is making them exceptionally profitable in the process.
If the body parts from an aborted fetus can lead to genetic research to cure diseases, then it could also be used to master the cloning of humans, especially when money is no problem. How many impoverished women and girls in the world could resist the chance to make perhaps $100,000 by selling their aborted fetus to the minions of the rich seeking to extend life and then create life.
We need to calmly look at the real truth behind abortion. What is the role of God versus women? What is the true purpose of abortion? Are aborted fetuses creating an entirely morally bankrupt industry of body tissue and parts for sale to the highest bidder, a false promise of the eternal Fountain of Youth if you have enough money?
The aborted fetus is not just another statistic. It is a creation of God just like the creations that gave us Einstein, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, or the many women and men who have advanced the cause of humankind throughout the ages.
As you will read, in the modern era there have been over sixty million abortions in America, over 3.4 billion abortions worldwide. Listen to the debate, but remember the truth. The greatest cause of death in America is not from cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases, car wrecks, or even shootings, it is from abortion and as we approach zero population growth in America, where will the children come from needed to support the future of our nation and world?
So where do we stand at the moment. The latest available statistics, 2017, show the following.
Causes of death in America in 2017
For comparison, here are the number of abortions in America in 2017.
Abortions in US in 2017 - 879,000
Again for comparison, the highly emotional gun deaths in US in 2017-2018.
Now for the detailed facts on abortion in America and the World.
Since Roe versus Wade 1973
60,069,971 Abortions in the US
36% White = 21,625,189
25% Hispanic = 15,017,492
30% Black = 18,020,991
9% Other = 5,406,299
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since Planned Parenthood International 1952
3,564,000,000 Abortions in World
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Population 2018
327,535,104
White 61.3% = 200,778,950
Hispanic 18.1% = 59,283,835
Black 12.7% = 41,596,945
Other 7.9% = 25,875,538
-------------------------------------------------------------------
White Population = 200,778,950
White Abortions = 21,625,189
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic Population = 59,283,835
Hispanic Abortions = 15,017,492
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Population = 41,596,945
Black Abortions = 18,020,991
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Population 2018
7,632,819,325
World Abortions since 1952
3,564,000,000 Abortions
Percent of total 2018 population
47%
The Democrats Dangerous Dilemma
Revisionist History and Abortion
History has a way of protecting the truth. Take today, for example. Revisionist History has become a new art form as we experience the twenty-first century.
There are two kinds of Revisionist History. One is the practice of looking back on recorded history and finding errors or omissions that were missed by the author. When incorporated into the prior history the events may alter more recent historical facts.
I call that filling in the missing gaps in earlier recorded history and presenting the truth. In my mind it is more of an edit and addendum to what was previously written to correct the account.
The second type of Revisionist History is far more sinister in motive and deceptive in execution. Generally speaking, it is an attempt to whitewash history or falsify historical events by revising them to meet a perceived current perception. Twisting the truth to promote an alternate version of the truth, either by adding inaccuracies to the story or by erasing history to tell a different story.
For example, take the case of abortion. If you were to believe the stories being told today, you would think Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood one hundred years ago, was a champion for women’s rights, for giving women the right to control what happens to their body (abortion), and for promoting birth control.
Thanks to Ms. Sanger and her work Planned Parenthood International began a partnership with the United Nations to bring birth control and abortion to the world in 1952. By 1973 her people were the driving force behind the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court case legalizing abortion and defining the federal standards for when it could take place and what conditions must be met.
Noble indeed, but not the whole truth by any stretch of the imagination. For in the course of revising the history of Planned Parenthood a dark chapter in their evolution was simply and conveniently deleted from the books and minds.
You see, the motivation for Sanger a hundred years ago was not to help women in need, nor to give rise to the feminist and women’s rights advocates of the future, it had much darker intentions.
Here is her motivation in her own words that is missing from the Revisionist History of Planned Parenthood of today. Read them and you will realize her decades of championing birth control and abortion were far removed from the women’s health, rights and empowerment credited to her today.
Eugenics
Eugenics is a nice-sounding word, combining as it does the Greek words for “good” and “birth.” And Francis Galton, who made up the word and the idea, proposed Eugenics “for the betterment of mankind.” The actual definition is rather horrible: the controlled and selective breeding of the human race.
Margaret Sanger, who was a member of the American Eugenics Society and was the editor of the Birth Control Review, describes the philosophy of eugenics on the cover of her magazine, the Birth Control Review:
“More Children for the Fit. Less for the Unfit.”
Then she made it clear whom she considered unfit:
“Hebrews, Slavs, Catholics, and Negroes.”
She set up her Birth Control clinics only in their neighborhoods. She openly advocated the idea that such people should apply for official permission to have babies:
“as immigrants have to apply for visas.”
In her often-quoted book of 1931, "My Way to Peace," Sanger recommends that the government:
“. . . keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class . . . apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. (Jan. 17, 1932 [LCM 130:198].)”
One of the prominent supporters of that horrific eugenics program was Clarence Gamble, and Gamble was a director of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood.
In Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” the Planned Parenthood founder links the goals of eugenics with her own goals of promoting birth control, writing (emphasis added):
“We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit….”
Sanger was highly motivated to stop the procreation by those she deemed “unfit.” In a personal letter to Katharine Dexter McCormick in 1950, Sanger called for:
“a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty- stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people.”
But, Sanger added;
“Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”
In 1932, Sanger also called for those who were poor (and those she considered to be “morons and immoral”) to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called better “moral conduct.”
Sanger and the Ku Klux Klan
Margaret Sanger is usually described as a “birth control pioneer” who founded Planned Parenthood, but she also met with members of the Klan, advocated eugenics, and supported the use of sterilization to rid the planet of the “unfit.”
Sanger wrote about her meeting with the Klan in her autobiography. Yet somehow this fact is made light of, glossed over, or completely ignored by the media.
On page 366 of her autobiography, Sanger described her meeting with the Klan, where she says she received additional invitations to speak with similar groups:
“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…. I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…. I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
Sanger and Hitler’s Nazi Master Race
The birth control movement and the eugenics movement were the same movement — to the point where Margaret Sanger twice tried to merge her organization with major eugenics groups.
One eugenics expert, Eugen Fischer, whom Sanger featured as a speaker at a population conference she organized, had already run a concentration camp — in German-ruled Southwest Africa, before World War I, where he murdered, starved and experimented on helpless native Africans. It was Fischer’s book on eugenics, which Hitler had read in prison, that convinced Hitler of its central importance.
Another longtime official of Planned Parenthood, Garrett Hardin, had a decades-long track record of serving in eugenics organizations, and as late as the 1980s was calling for mass forced sterilization of Americans as a necessary solution to the “population problem.”
The same people served on the boards of the American Eugenics Society and Sanger’s organizations for decades, and they worked closely together on countless projects — ranging from researching the birth control pill as a means of diminishing the African-American birth rate (they tested the early, hazardous versions of the Pill on impoverished rural women in Puerto Rico), to passing forced sterilization or castration laws in more than a dozen states that targeted blacks and other poor people accused of “feeble mindedness” or “shiftlessness” and diagnosed as “unfit” parents.
The eugenicists, self-appointed experts on human quality of life, had peddled their theories not just in Britain and America but in Germany, where they helped to directly inspire Nazi sterilization and extermination programs aimed at the handicapped, Jews, and the small population of black or mixed-race Germans — children of French colonial troops whom Hitler considered a grave menace to “Aryan” racial “hygiene.” One of Sanger’s regular authors in The Birth Control Review wrote in a U.S. newspaper in the 1930s defending the forced sterilization of such mixed-race children, for the sake of Germany’s “health.”
Hitler’s Bible, by Sanger’s Friend
Friends and associates of Sanger (such as Harry Laughlin) accepted awards from Nazi-controlled universities, visited with Hitler and Himmler, and boasted that the forced sterilization programs which they had instituted in America were used as models by the Germans. One author who served on Sanger’s board and published regularly in The Birth Control Review was Lothrop Stoddard, a high official of the Massachusetts Ku Klux Klan, whose book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, Adolf Hitler cited in Mein Kampf as “my bible.”
Adolf Hitler officially instituted Eugenics, leading an entire country in carrying out its principles, not only to breed what he believed to be a superior race but to eliminate everyone whom he considered to be inferior. Where did Hitler find early support for his Eugenic ideas? From Margaret Sanger and her circle.
Eugenic Scientists from Nazi Germany wrote articles for Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and members of Sanger’s American Birth Control League visited Nazi Germany, sat in on sessions of the Supreme Eugenics Court, and returned with glowing reports of how the Sterilization Law was “weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.”
Margaret Sanger began publication of The Birth Control Review 1917. She was the sole editor of the Review until 1928 when the American Birth Control League (another Sanger foundation) took the reins. A new series began in 1933 and it completely ceased publication in 1940.
From Sanger's "Dream Journal"
[Tucson, Ariz.] Feb 3rd 1942.
“Last night I dreamed of Hitler–- Saw him in a room so close that I could see his eyes wink. Dream not very clear at 3 Am. just awoke–- But house I was in with others raided by Nazis. I hid under a table with others but one womans leg was discovered then we all were brought forth. Hitler came in to execute war plans & operations using this house as his base. A bird flew into the room from the window & lighted near me-– It was white & a dove-– Hitler caught it held it up high over my head & told me to pick out a feather–-I did so & awakened.”
Presidential Intervention and Politics
Most people view the Democrat Party as Pro-choice and the Republican Party as Pro-life. From a platform position that is right but both parties have walked the fine line between the two sides of this volatile issue. A decade before Roe versus Wade was adopted, the first Catholic President in our history, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was not even queried about the issue. In spite of the lack of interest in the issue, the JFK legacy is quite clear, he has a major pro-life legacy.
Kennedy appointed Byron White to the Supreme Court. Justice White was the writer of the dissent in the Roe v. Wade case that, with Doe v Bolton, legalized abortion at all stages.
Here is an excerpt of White’s dissension:
“…I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.
The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
President Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to reverse the pro-life to pro-choice position in the party platform although he was careful to avoid any hint of government funding of abortion. When his Vice President Al Gore ran for president he further advanced the cause of pro-choice and made pro-choice an essential element in the Democrat platform for decades to come.
President Obama is the first president to become a pro-abortion extremist. He never supported any meaningful restriction on it. He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.
In 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that his first act as president would be signing the Freedom of Choice Act. The act would enshrine in federal law a right to abortion more far-reaching than in Roe v. Wade and eliminate basically all federal and state-level restrictions on abortion. The National Organization for Women said it would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
The fact is that the right to abortion is at the heart of contemporary liberalism. Roe v. Wade is liberalism’s Great Writ. Nancy Pelosi considers the right to abortion more sacrosanct than the First Amendment. She would never tamper with or restrict the former; she wants to amend the latter to allow for more campaign-finance regulations.
Obama successfully cemented the Democrat Platform as the social agenda for liberal and social change, reversing years of Democrat tolerance of pro-lifers within the party. He successfully replaced the pro-life tolerance with a progressive agenda designed to lure in multiple social causes and merge them under a social(ist) umbrella.
Today we see the consequence.
When genetic research became profitable
At the same time the political parties were realigning as the Democrats flipped from pro-life to pro-choice and demanded full federal funding of abortion, the medical industry was rapidly transforming as well.
Scientific advances may not have helped determine the critical fact of when life began, but it did lead to the genetic research field and the conversion of health care from a social service to a profit center driven by profits with no regard to morals.
Perhaps the most ironic result of the advances is that cellular research and genetic engineering established a hope for genetic breakthroughs that could extend the life of humans. It was called the Human Genome Project, and it began just as Clinton was about to run for president. Remember, it was Clinton who moved the Democrat party from pro-life to pro-choice.
The Genome Project was an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint.
Launched in 1990, two years before Clinton’s election, it was completed in 2003, the year before Obama gave his famous speech to the Democrat National convention that would catapult him to the presidency just five years later.
Sadly, the results of the project created a huge demand for stem cells, tissue from human organs, and a multitude of other issues that would erase all concern for morality or ethics well into the future.
Suddenly, those millions of aborted fetuses became a potential unlimited profit center for medical research, backed by the profit-driven financial investors in the medical community.
Total abortion clinics are under active investigation by federal agencies for the illegal sale of human parts, tissue, stem cells and who knows what else from the aborted fetuses. We are talking about an industry with billions upon billions of dollars in potential revenue from the national and international sale of fetus body parts.
What is happening in the real world in light of the fact agencies are prohibited from profiting off the sale of body parts?
Statements from a whistleblower on the illegal sale of body parts by clinics or funeral homes involved in abortions.
“So A is like brain, heart, lungs, liver, spleen,” explains O’Donnell, listing the body parts that were “really high demand.”
“So if you really do your job, you get up to 11-20 specimens, you’re getting $20 per specimen. If it’s 1 to 10, you’re doing just blood, you’re getting $10 for one blood draw.”
Regarding current investigations underway:
"The facts are, Planned Parenthood took money for harvesting baby body parts and its partners charged hundreds of dollars each for arms, lungs, brains, and eyes, potentially making thousands of dollars on a single aborted child," said Live Action founder Lila Rose.
Body brokers like Donor Services are also known as non-transplant tissue banks. They are distinct from the organ and tissue transplant industry, which the U.S. government closely regulates. Suppliers of transplant tissue must obtain federal recognition and operate as charities. It is illegal to buy or sell organs such as hearts, kidneys and tendons for transplant.
But no federal law governs the sale of cadavers or body parts for use in research or education. Few state laws now provide any oversight. That means almost anyone, regardless of expertise, can dissect and sell human remains.
Reuters identified 34 body brokers that have been active across the United States during the past five years. Twenty-five of the brokers were for-profit corporations. The other nine were structured as nonprofits, including Donor Services – the only broker Reuters could find that still doubles as a funeral home.
If crooks have already infiltrated the system what are the professional crime syndicates doing, especially when there are billionaires desperate for access to life-saving body parts. For more information see the next article on how much your body parts are worth on today’s black market.
Undermining the Democratic Party of Today
Here is the dilemma facing the Democrat party today. They attracted multiple worthy and high-mind causes and coalitions into the party based on the lure of being the banner issues for the party, and for consolidating the efforts of many of these advocacy groups.
In the process the groups are losing their individual identities and focus by being diluted into the Democrat advocacy machine, and the same groups are being alienated from their original support base because social advocacy is an individual perception, issues are individual in nature, and all socials issues compete with each other for public attention.
Important social causes are being lost in the babble of politics, fund raising for political purposes, and access to public forums, because they aligned with the wrong political party. Both parties have done this, but the liberal, progressive side of the Democrat party has far more groups competing for attention.
Beyond the impossible blending of competing and explosive issues, there are some strange ironies that result from being the platform for all social advocacy by the Democrats.
Polls show that up to 65% of all legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico and South America oppose abortion.
Seven-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (70%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Among black Protestants, forty-five percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Among Catholics, forty-seven percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases
The Public Religion Research Institute found 54 percent of Latino millennial said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.
The message is clear. No matter what the Democrats do, half of their core constituents will oppose the party position. According to the latest 2018 Gallup poll, fifty percent of all Americans support conditions on abortions, while just twenty-nine percent support unrestricted abortions.
A new CBS poll has revealed that the majority of young American women do not support unrestricted abortions, take issue with a lot of feminist ideologies, and do not think the mainstream media is a reliable source of information.
The poll found that only 28% of women support abortion being legal in all cases. 34% of women supported abortion being legal in most cases. 25% think abortion should be illegal in most cases, and 13% of women think that abortion should be illegal in all cases. Lifenews points out the significance of these numbers. “In the end, that means 72% are likely in favor of some kind of abortion restriction.”
Less than half of the women surveyed thought of themselves as feminists. 46% of the respondents considered themselves to be feminists, while 54% did not.
Only 7% of the women polled said that they “almost always” trust the media to give them accurate information. Lifenews points out that “this [CBS] poll only adds to the reasons why [women distrust mainstream media]: while women’s news sites regularly assume that all “women” support abortion and feminism, that’s not the case.”
The Democrat party platform on abortion is doomed because nearly fifty percent of the core Democrats are opposed to the party position. Major decisions face the immediate future of the party.
The alliance between the liberal Democrat party and the Mainstream News Agencies has also worked against the Democrats as the news media is an even more unreliable source of honest news than the politicians.
