Chinese Mother Forced to Abort a Seventh Month Pregnancy

This link is right on target with my recent posts.Chinese Mother Forced to Abort a Seventh Month Pregnancy

The History and Practice of Eugenics, PT. 8

The History and Practice of Eugenics

So what kind of things are going on now during President Obama's administration?

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was the chair of the Department of Bioethics at the US Institutes of Health. Bioethics is basically euthanasia education. Now he is working for President Barach Obama and is seen as being responsible for the "death council" that has made the list of medical practices that will deny care to the elderly, chronically ill, and poor. Ezekiel's brother is Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

In 1953, The American Eugenics Society joined Rockefeller funded Population Council. Daniel Callahan was given a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1668-1969 to found the Hastings Center in Garrison, NY. The Hastings Center is a bioethics center, Theodore Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologists, was a founding director of the Hastings Center and was also chairman of the American Eugenics Society. And Daniel Callahan was a director of the Eugenics Society. Ezekiel Emanuel is a Hastings Center fellow, and so is his wife Linda Emanuel. Ezekiel Emanuel's deputy director of the Federal Department of Bioethics, Christine Grady, is also a Hastings fellow and director of the Hastings Center.

Dr. Emanuel wrote a book in 2008 called Healthcare, Guaranteed. In he he advocated a National Health Board to oversee and cut healthcare and to approve all payments and procedures. "To reduce political interference and allow the necessary tough choices to be made. But he believes this board should not have any pressure from elected officials, Congress or the President, and that they should be funded independently from Congressional appropriations. Basically, this board would be autonomous and would not have to answer even to Congress and they would be getting their money from rich backers and we the voters would be at their mercy.

Senator Tom Daschle was at one time the pick to be basically a health czar for Obama. He too, wrote a book in 2008, called Critical: What We Can Do About the Healthcare crisis. He feels that anyone who signs up for Medicare should have to sign a document that says to what degree they consent to be killed in an end of life situation.

You can read some of the papers written by him here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

He advocates prioritizing adolescents and young adults as far as healthcare goes, at the expense of the very young and the very old. He says that adolescents have had a lot of education and parental care invested in them whereas infants haven't got much invested in them yet. So adolescents if not saved would be a waste of that investment. He is talking about a hypothetical healthcare emergency, but the problem is, it's not so hypothetical. We could easily find ourselves in some sort of pandemic, and what he is saying is that people between the ages of 15 and 40 would get medical treatment before anyone else. While he says this shouldn't be based on their economic background, it would quickly degenerate to just that. Because he also says that "instrumental value" could also be used as criteria for deciding who gets an organ or a vaccine. This means someone is going to be deciding how useful you are to society.

In the second paper, he says that people who have dementia or children with learning disabilities, should not have basic healthcare guaranteed to them, because they are irreversibly prevented from becoming participating citizens. But healthcare should be guarantee healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation of citizens in public deliberation. Again, the more valuable you are deemed to be to society, the more likely you will be to get medical care, so that you continue to be valuable to society.

President Obama also has a man named John Holdren working for him. He is referred to as his Science Czar, because he is his senior advisor on science and technology, because he is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and he co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Before going to work for the Obama administration, he was director of Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard as well. He also served as Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

His was trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. He focused his energies on environmental change, and energy technologies and policies, how to reduce dangers from nuclear weapons, and science and technology policy. So his whole life has been dedicated to changing our national policies with regard to science. He also served on President Bill Clinton's President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

He testified before Congress during his confirmation hearing that he doesn't believe that the .government should have a role in population control and that he never supported forces sterilization.

But he has written, " if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." He believes that we should lower our population increase below replacement because, "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." He co-authored a textbook titled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, with Paul R. Ehrlich, and Anne H. Ehrlich. In this book they cover family planning, enforced population control, forced sterilization after a predesignated number of children, birth control and abortion. They call these things possible options that could be implemented. They suggest the idea of putting drugs into the drinking water to cause sterilization. They feel that teen and single mothers should have their children taken from them and given away to others to raise. Rather than calling people degenerate or unfit, they refer to them as people who, "contribute to social deterioration" and say that they "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility."And he is in support of a One World Government. He called for a "Planetary Regime" that would take control of the economy of the world and government in general, and the method of doing this would be an international police force.

After his and the Ehrlich's book laid the groundwork by saying that it is a fact that we are overpopulated, on pg. 837 of Ecoscience, it says this: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." By using phrases like "it has been concluded" he avoids taking responsibility for making the conclusion, probably so that he would meet with less criticism and was therefore able to testify in Congress that he had not supported forced sterilization.

Page 786 is the source that says children should be taken away from single mothers. "one way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption--especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

Now given that it has basically been the agenda of the elite for the last 100 years or better to undermine the traditional family, by encouraging a relaxation of morals that resulted in more children being born to single mothers, and through women's liberation, encouraging women to think that fathers are not necessary, and they are now condemning women for having children out of wedlock, they are basically showing the ultimate aim; to make as many children as possible wards of the state. This would result in easily indoctrinated and trained drone type citizens for the future world they are working diligently towards. While doing away with the legal bonds between mother and child or father and child or man and woman, they have forgotten to factor in the emotional bonds that were provided by nature. Children are irrevocably changed by being wrenched from their mothers' arms, and the mothers themselves are devastated, often in a way that they never recover from. But they want us to be robotic machines, so they convince themselves that we already are beneath feeling human emotion, in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility toward human decency and kindness.

By proposing enforced abortions, he is effectively going to the opposite extreme from anti abortion. Because he is taking away choice, just for a different reason. And his reason has nothing to do with any consideration for the sanctity of life. There is anti abortion at one extreme, pro choice in the middle and enforced abortion at the opposite end of the spectrum. Both extremes take away choice. Anti abortion supporters want to protect the rights of the unborn child. Those for enforced abortion take away both the rights of the child and the rights of the mother by forcing a medical procedure upon her. Even if a woman supported abortion, it would be horribly traumatic to be forced to undergo one. And no surgery is without the risk of complication and death.

He discusses involuntary fertility control on page 786-7, "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and remove when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

When this book was written, in 1977, we didn't have those implants, but we do now, in the form of Norplant; and when they first came on the market, the first women they were marketed to were young teen black women. Baltimore was the first city to begin offering Norplant in their high schools in 1993. And it was implemented without adequate testing. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-08-27/news/1993239014_1_norplant-clinic-public-schoolRight after it came on the market in 1991, judges and legislators started trying to mandate its use. Some states began telling women that were convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy, that they either got the implant or went to jail. Some of the bills that were introduced in some states offered financial incentive to women to get them to have the implants inserted. What that means is that if they wanted to receive public assistants, which they might need for the survival of their family, they would have to get the implant. The ACLU holds that forcing women to get these implants violates a basic constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the decision of whether or when to bear children and by forcing a medical procedure upon them, because they are not in a position to reject it.

The ACLU says that these policies are based on the notion that low income women have children indiscriminately. But according to their figures, in 1990 just before Norplant came on the market, low income families had 1.9 children, which was no larger a family than those who were better off financially. They also bring up the point, that Norplant would stop a woman from conceiving, but not stop her from using drugs or abusing her children, so really does not address the problem. I am of the opinion that what they state the problem is, is just their public spin on their real aim, which is finding legal excuses to sterilize women. The ACLU also says these laws discriminate against women, because men are not punished for drug abuse or child abuse by being forced to have vasectomies. They also say straight out that the fact that low income women and especially women of color are targeted by this type of sentencing, is overt racism and eugenics. (http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abusehttp://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse

On page 787-8, he discusses adding drugs to the water supply to sterilize people. "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock." There is no mention of whether or not it poses any moral questions. And animals seem to be more important than humans.

Page 838 of Holdren's book says that people who cause social deterioration, should be sterilized. "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility- just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource consumption patterns- providing they are not denied equal protection."

If you could understand his argument on the basis of degeneracy, you still can't possibly agree that having more children than some would like makes you a degenerate. He is reverting back to the eugenics term "degeneracy" but he is broadening the definition to include someone who chooses to have a large family as degenerate. Implying that people wouldn't be denied equal protection under the law is meant to show that he wouldn't be racist in determining who had to be sterilized. That just means that they wouldn't just be limited to race in their ability to determine who has to be sterilized. They just need to show that you are degenerate, which would be relative to the person making the determination. They need to make that distinction about "equal protection under the law" because there has already been a Supreme Court case, Skinner vs. Oklahoma, that determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibited state sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to certain types of people. It's hard to do away with a Supreme Court decision, it is easier to maneuver around one by giving the appearance that you are not being racist in your decisions.

On page 838, he suggests that if the law can tell you how many spouses to have it should be able to tell you how many children to have. "In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

You might wonder if he has trouble understanding the constitution or something. But the fact is, he would like to do away with the government we have and establish a One World Government. He thinks the UN should be able to make the decisions on population and on how all the world's resources are used. This effectively does away with US sovereignty, and makes constitutionality a mute point."Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international super-agency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."(page 942-3) Food, commerce on the oceans, because they are a source of resources, and all of the economy that is based on our resources, would then be under the control of the "Regime."

In case he wasn't clear enough there that he wants to do away with our sovereignty, on page 917, he says it straight out. "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

When the book was published in 1977, he said we had to stop overpopulation by the year 2000. It must get his gall to know that he didn't quite meet his goal. And it probably makes him even more fanatical in his desperation to see his plans implemented. "Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world." (page 944)

You can look up the book yourself. I have given citations. If you think that John Holdren didn't himself say the things in the book, ask yourself, if he doesn't agree with the ideas within the book, then why did he allow his name to be put on the book? Why are the acknowledgments in the book to people at Berkeley, where he worked and to his wife? Ecoscience is not the only book he has written though. He has written other on his own. You can go to Google books and look them up. The Obama administration tried to do a spin on him, by issuing a press statement to the Washington Times, that said that the book was "a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." I won't cut him any slack for the book being old, if he felt these things strongly enough to make sure they were being taught in a text book, and he has changed his mind, he should feel strongly enough about his supposed new opinion to see that it is taught from text books. And he should hold himself highly responsible for any student who was influenced by his older opinion.

His co-author Ehrlich said that the book was an encyclopedia and that these things were descriptions and not necessarily endorsements of the things that were defined in the book.

Which thing do you give more weight to, an opinion that they felt strongly enough to put in print and leave in print so that people could be taught from, or Holdren's reply when asked whether he believed the government should determine optimal population, "No, Senator,I do not." Has he written a book titled, No Senator I Do Not? If he thinks his earlier opinion was wrong, he should correct that wrong, and it should have taken precedence over a job on the Obama Administration.

Their more recent statements make as much sense as a child pornographer putting out a movie that depicts deviant behavior and then saying they don't endorse the behavior, but just thought people ought to be aware that it was an option.

Another point to be made is this, if John Holdren is not eugenicist in philosophy, then why does he consider Harrison Brown to be more or less his hero? H has said that Harrison Brown's book, The Challenge of Man's Future changed his personal philosophy and was the impetus for him making a career in science and population policy. Harrison Brown was a eugenicist. In 1986, John Holdren edited and co-wrote a book about Harrison Brown titled, Earth and the Human Future" Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown. I would think that if he worked on a book to honor Brown, then he must honor him.

Interestingly, his comments in the book on Brown, prove my point. "Harrison Brown’s most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed. … The Challenge of Man’s Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown’s. … As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force. … Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts."

He straight out says, that reading a book transformed his thinking and that he believed that the book changed the aspirations and career choices of not just him, but many others of his generation. Now he can't claim that his book might not have had the very same effect of people who read it. And so, he is responsible for it. The book by Harrison Brown that Holdren praises so highly calls for the sterilization and birth control of the degenerate and feeble-minded.

" The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are out-breeding the superior ones at the present time. … Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."

His co-author Ehrlich said that people should read some of their other books if they wanted to know what they believe in. I guess he was right. This book sure seems to make it clear.

The most bizarre thing about this whole issue of eugenics and Obama care is that people always thinks that if they support the government it will never turn on them. The Emmanuels, Rahm and Ezekiel are Israeli born Jews. And I read somewhere, that they have a sister born with cerebral palsy. How does a Jew support eugenics? They think it will be the other guy that is sterilized, that's how. There were Jewish scientists that worked for the Nazis too.

As a society, we have to make some decisions. They have been claiming for 150 years that the world was on the brink of a disaster because of overpopulation, and that the more valuable elements of human society were going to be extinct because they were being out bred by those deemed degenerate. So far, we haven't had this predicted catastrophe. So the first decision we have to make is whether or not they are right that the world as a whole, really is overpopulated.

If, and that is a big if, you believe it is, then the next thing we have to decide is whether or not we want people in positions of power who believe that the only thing that can stop overpopulation is the use of totalitarian government force.

Or you can decide to go for social reform and education policies. These would be designed to get people to voluntarily comply with birth control measures. In 3rd world countries where population is said to be leveling off, it is believed that better standards of living and better education are responsible. But there is a hidden danger here; education and social reform have been the method consistently used to push the very same communist/socialist agenda that was implemented by force in China, the Soviet Union and other places. Just the very suggestion that social reform and education needs to be used, smacks of people saying, "get them to decide to do it for themselves, because it is easier than pointing a gun at them, for all concerned." It indicates that we are being brain washed to believe that overpopulation exists, when it really doesn't.

So is there any evidence that that is true? How about the fact that China, which was supposedly so severely overpopulated, now has another type of crisis on it's hands. They are expected to have as many as 24 million men than women between now and 2020. The Pulitzer Center reports that it will lead to a population of life-long bachelors the size of Texas by 2020. Again governments and scientist forgot to factor in the human element. Even though it is against the law for Chinese couples to do genetic testing to see if the child is male or female, it is still routinely done in rural clinics. Some rural villages are so disproportionately male that they are called "bachelor villages." This results in other social problems, like women being sold by their families in poor regions. Because women are scarce, they have become a commodity. It has been predicted that a marriage economy could develop due to the trend of families building up large savings in order to attract women to marry their sons. And lower class families could seek upper class husbands so they could raise the status of the family. And some people predict that sexually frustrated men in such large numbers could lead to social unrest.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/175974.php

http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/china-population-women-bachelor-marriagehttp://pulitzercenter.org/projects/china-population-women-bachelor-marriage

If the ACLU feels, as I do that forced abortions and sterilization in a violation of constitutional rights, which are equivalent to human rights, in the US, then they are a violation in China. The system in China is so oppressive that one women takes her life every three seconds there.

Last month, May 16, 2012, CNS News reported a story about Chinese human rights activist, Chai Ling testified during a House Foreign Affairs Subcommitteeon Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese activist, who fled to the US Embassy iin Beijing. He was imprisoned by China because he was fighting for human rights for women.

Chai Ling told the story of a woman named Deng Lourong. She was the second of 3 girls. Her parents wanted a boy bad enough that they violated the one-child policy. Chinese officials tore down their home and took all their belongings.

The mother and father both fled, and left the three girls with their grandmother. The grandmother was subsequently imprisoned. The girls had no one to be their guardian, and Lourong was raped at the age of 12. Because this happened, her grandmother was released to take care of them but died soon afterward. The man who raped Deng Lourong one served five days for it.

Deng Lourong was sold as a child bride three years later, and her sisters were sold by traffickers and no one can find them. The man who Deng Lourong had to marry, prostitutes her out to bachelors, and as a result she is mentally ill. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/human-rights-activist-woman-takes-her-life-every-three-seconds-china)

Even if you believe we are overpopulated, should we do things that result in even greater harm to mankind? I think not. The ends never justifies the means.

In 2009 Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the comment that, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

That sounds rather elitist, but she then went on to say, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman." That sounds like she believes women should make the choice, but do the two comments taken together mean she thinks that poor women or whatever she was referring to as "populations we don't want goo many of" should be encouraged to make that choice?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

At the time the interview was taken, Obama's pick for a new Justice was Sonia Sotomayor.

Her detractors have pointed out that she is a racist. While making a speech at a gathering of La Raza Law Journal, she said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”   

You could interpret that to mean that since she is from a minority race and a woman, which is often another minority, that she would be doubly compassionate in her decisions, because she had been in their shoes. But you have to consider the circumstances the statement was made under. La Raza, means "The Race." If some white lawyers had a Law Journal and called it "The Race," it would be considered arrogant at best, and racist at worst. The point is, in our world and in our country, racism and reverse racism, happens in all walks of life, and everyone thinks they are justified in it, and that they will personally should never be the victim of it, and everyone else can fend for themselves.

On December 25, 2010, the NY Times reported that Obama's healthcare plan would pay doctors who encouraged or advised patients on options for end of life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life sustaining treatment. When this stuff came up before Republicans like Sarah Palin said that the government was going to use the healthcare bill to cut off care for the critically ill. Obama denied it saying that they weren't going "to cut off grandma's life support." But the final version of the bill that President Obama signed, has Medicare coverage of "voluntary advance care planning," to discuss end of life treatment, as part of the annual visit. Doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an advance healthcare directive. I really don't understand what's to cover. They have been making those little pamphlets that explain the whole procedure to people for years, and you can download and print one off the internet. Unless they mean they will cover the cost of printing those up, there's nothing to cover. So what it appears to really mean is that they will pay doctors and nurses for their time explaining and encouraging old people to get one set up. When someone feels bad and someone in a white coat comes at them with a bunch of pressure to make a decision, they could easily fall victim to what they perceive as a person of authority. Older persons can have trouble making decisions on a good day and sometimes need more time than a younger person to think over the pros and cons of something and work it out in their mind what they are going to do. But doctors could easily get them to agree to something like a DNR order right there on the spot, especially with a financial incentive. There is nothing in the bill that says doctors are not permitted to get an older person to make up their mind. One of the things doctors have to explain is that Medicare pays for hospice care. And basically, that is keeping a patient comfortable until they die, but no medical intervention. Who are the persons or organizations on the list of helpful resources that doctors are to tell their patients about? They might give you the address for the Hemlock Society or something.

As messed up as that seems, if you don't have something in writing, the doctors get to make the decisions rather than you and your family. I chose personally to get a Medical Power of Attorney. In my state that is the better way to go. But the states around me use the advance healthcare directives. When you go to the hospital for the slightest thing, they want to know if you have one, and they frown if you tell them you have a medical power of attorney. But that is a much better way of handling your wishes and it is what is required in my state anyway. I imagine that if you don't take care of things yourself, you could be encouraged to do all sorts of things by the doctors providing the information to you. With a Medical Power of Attorney, someone you trust is making decisions when you can't. You just do not want some doctor or doctors doing that for you, when a situation not described in an advance directive or living will comes up. When I had mine made up, no one was paid to influence me. I told my lawyer what I wanted and asked if that was legal, he said yes, and made up the paperwork which was signed and notarized.

Whether or not the end of life counseling will result in the government forcing death on people, there are other aspects of the bill that do. In July 2014, there will be an Independent Payment Advisory Board that decides how much Medicare gets reduced by if it goes over the limits of annual growth rate stipulated by the Obama administration. There is a set amount of money that can be spent for Medicare every year, and after that this board gets to decide who gets what.

I can't find the actual London Times story, but there are websites and blogs all over the internet, that say that in May 2009 they covered a story saying that , Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg, met at the New York home of Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning biochemist and President of Rockefeller University.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss population reduction. A quote from Patricia Stonsifer, who formerly headed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said that these people would continue to meet over the next few months. They were supposed to be discussing population issues as a possible environmental, social and industrial threat. http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/

I did manage to find an article on Market Watch at the Walls Street Journal on the meeting.http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-09-29/commentary/30802021_1_global-warming-collapse-bomb

Let's address the opinions, policies and actions of some of these people. In a CNN interview March 5, 2010, Bill Gates said that child deaths and sicknesses are not the only benefits of vaccinations. And population control is another benefit of vaccinations.

The $800 million dollars that his and Melinda's foundation gives yearly for global health is almost as much as the UN WHO annual budget and is close to the amount that the US Agency for International Development spends to fight infectious disease. He pays 17% of the world budget for eradicating polio. In 2005 his foundation gave the Global Alliance for Vaccines and immunization $750 million dollars. He gave $27 million to the Children's Vaccine Program, which is run by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health in2003. This was supposed to vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis. This vaccine reportedly causes sterility. They gave the University of Washington Department of Global Health, $30 million to found the department. They have given $287 million to HIV/AIDS research. They gave $280 million to Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation. In 2012 he pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children world wide.

During a speech that he gave at the TED conference in Long Beach California in 2010 he said that vaccinations, healthcare, reproductive health systems, could lower the population caused use of Co2 by 15 percent. Reproductive health systems means abortions and birth control. He also recommended reporting every birth by cell phone. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone—get fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen.” He thinks that in rural areas of the world, cell phones would be instrumental in insuring that people get vaccinations and take their TB medicines. “Malaria and TB are going to be the first things where you say, ‘Wow, without this mobile application, all these people would have died."

I guess now we are going to have an app for that. He told the audience that there is "no such thing as a healthy high population growth country." "If you are healthy, you are low population growth." He has a weird idea that if parents have healthy children, then within five years, they will decide to have less children, and that is the basis for his push for vaccinations. OR so he says. He thinks that robots are the next big thing in healthcare. He suggested that C-sections are routine, so a robot could perform them. Having had a C-section, I cannot imagine how surreal it would be to be drugged up and have a robot cut into your body from your belly button to your pubic bone and extract the life that you have carried an nurtured for nine months. It makes my incision scar hurt to think about it. Let's change the subject.

The Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation (David Rockefeller) created GMO biotechnology, and are financing The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa(AGRA). Former UN chief, Kofi Annan heads it. It's board has people from both foundations on it.

The Rockefeller Brothers' Fund and George Soros sponsor the Center for American Progress, which cooperates with Common Purpose. As I pointed out earlier, the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as the Ford and New World Foundations fund the Hastings Center. I won't get into what all it does here but the Rockefeller's are tied to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The film maker Aaron Russo was friends with Nick Rockefeller and told Alex Jones that he said the Rockefeller's bankrolled women's liberation because half of the population wasn't being taxed and if they entered the work force they would be. And their children would have to enter the public school system earlier, which would make it easier to indoctrinate them to accept the state as their primary family. Their aim was to break up the traditional family model. He also said that Rockefeller talked about the need for people to be ruled or controlled by the elite, and one of the ways of doing this was through population control. Population needed to be reduced by half. He also said that Rockefeller wanted people implanted with a chip to control their brain. This idea comes from trans humanism and post humanism. They think technologies could be used to create simultaneously better humans and more easily controlled humans.

This video will give you a little more visual understanding of what I am trying to get across. I found it after I finished writing this. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586

The History and Practice of Eugenics, PT. 7

The History and Practice of Eugenics

Up to this point, I have covered history, which might seem somewhat distant to you. Now I am going to cover information from the 1970's to the present, so that you might see that this is a current issue you should be concerned with.

In January 1973, The Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. And then the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights was formed with financial backing to the tune of $115,000, from the Rockefeller Foundation. It was organized by the United Methodist Church. It is now called the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

White House Tape 697/29--March 30, 1972

NIXON: A majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion, I think a majority of people in Michigan are for abortion, I think in both cases, well, certainly in Michigan they will vote for it because they think that what's going to be aborted generally are little black bastards.

White House Tape 700/10--April 3, 1972

NIXON: ...as I told you--we talked about it earlier--that a hell of a lot of people want to control the Negro bastards.

...we're talking really--and what John Rockefeller really realizes--look, the people in what we call our class control their populations. Sometimes they'll have a family of six, or seven, or eight, or nine, but it's exception. People who don't control their families are people in -- the people that shouldn't have kids.

In 1969, UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,

said that a Federal Population Commission "with a large budget for propaganda" should be created, and that tax laws should be changed "to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools."

Richard Nixon created the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. The bill had been supported by most of the Democratic party, and John D. Rockefeller was it's chairman. It's executive Director was Charles F. Westoff, a member of the American Eugenics Society and Planed Parenthood's National Advisory Council.

William Draper was a Vice President of Planned Parenthood, and had raised over $4 million dollars for the organization. In 1969 he was the US representative for the UN Population Commission. "to cure the present ghetto problem and deal with the population question among the poorer parts of our own population here in the United States will require valiant and much greater efforts than any exerted in the past."

In 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fulbright bill, and made it law, within a few weeks of becoming President. It funded international population research. He was the first President who supported federal support of birth control through welfare and public health programs. He did this because of the urging of Texas Republican Representative, George H.W. Bush. He said, "America's progress toward a society of decency has been marked and measured by our attitudes toward the role and toward the rights of women." In 1966 Planned Parenthood Federation of American gave him the Margaret Sanger Award, for his foreign policy on family planning in foreign countries.

Dwight B. Eisenhower said, in 1965, that "society will find itself in the curious situation of spending money with the one hand to slow up population growth among responsible families and with the other providing financial incentive for increased production by the ignorant, feeble-minded or lazy." He also said that "history would rightly condemn us", if we didn't make welfare contingent on family planning.

Both he and Harry S. Truman were fund raisers for Planned Parenthood.

In 2009, Nancy Pelosi said that the Economic Stimulus Package should also fund population control to save the government from having to pay for health care and education for poor children.

In 1970, Planned Parenthood was the 19th largest health fund raising agency in the US, after the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society. But in 2000, they were third. This is largely due to government funding.

The Laurence G. Pauquin Middle School clinic was the first site for Norplant implantation; Out of 350 girls who received the implant, 345 were black. The first 100 clinics opened to use the implant were in minority schools. Norplant was developed by the Population Council of New York. John D. Rockefeller was it's first president. Frank Notestein and Frederick Osborn were members of the American Eugenics Society. Frank Notestein was on the National Advisory Council on Planned Parenthood.

In 1970, Alan Guttmacher,President of Planned Parenthood and one time V.P. of the American Eugenics Society, said,

"If you're going to curb population, it's extremely important not to have it done by the damned Yankees, but by the UN. Because, the thing is, then it's not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproductive rate, we're immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you've got much better leverage."

In 1974, The National Security Study Memorandum 200. It was the official US policy on population control around the world. The memorandum went to The Secretaries of Defense, Agriculture, the Director of the CIA, The Deputy Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the Agency for International Development. One of the goals was to reduce population in 3rd World countries so that there was no interruption in the supply of minerals from foreign countries. It said that no country had reduced its population without resorting to abortion. It was estimated that 30 million pregnancies would be terminated around the world. About 7 percent of the world population live in countries where abortion is prohibited and 12 percent live in countries where it is only used to save the life of the mother. It said that AID had helped a number of private family planning organizations which included Plane Parenthood to expand their worldwide population programs.

The memorandum suggested withholding aid to disaster stricken countries unless they implement birth control.

In 1977, Dr. R.T. Ravenholt, Director of the US Office of Population said in an interview with the St. Louis Post Dispatch,that the U.S. intended to try to sterilize of 1/4 of the women in the world because it protected U.S. economic interests, and that if goals were met, as many as 100 million women might be sterilized.

"In some countries, however, 'political sensitivity' makes it impossible for the US to negotiate such agreements. In those cases, he said, efforts are made to set up population programs under the aegis of

other organizations, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Both groups receive heavy US funding."

Ravenholt was given an award from Planned Parenthood for innovation and vision in the population field.

Henry Kissinger , while serving as chief foreign policy adviser, personally helped Planned Parenthood to set up an abortion counseling service for Vietnamese refugees at Camp Pendleton, in California, although they hadn't asked for the service and most of them were against abortion.

There was an abortion training program conducted by the Agency for International Development, which operated under the State Department. Henry Kissinger refused to stop this when people complained;even though it was against the law, to use foreign aid funds for that purpose.

President Bill Clinton issued an executive order two days after he was sworn in, to that allowed federally funded agencies to refer women to abortion clinics, thereby repealing Bush administration bans on abortion counseling in by those agencies. Military hospitals were also to be allowed to perform abortions. American money could now, also be used again to fund UN population programs.

In September of 2005, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation awarded $1 million dollars to Planned Parenthood for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees. It was played off as being because women had had to leave behind their medicines like birth control pills. But everyone knows that more of the evacuees were black.

On page 59 of the book, RU 486, Misconceptions Myths and Morals, by Janice G. Raymond, Renate Klein, Lynette J. Dumble The Abortion Pill was originally developed by the NIH and the Center of Population Research as a "means to inhibit corpus luteum functions" as "a desirable goal." The specific intention of such research was to restrict population growth in countries that were judged to be 'under developed.' If successful, the method(s) could be extended to groups in the United States--Black, Hispanic and Native American Women (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, NIH, USA, 1969)

American companies would not produce RU 486, so the Chinese Hus Lian Pharmaceutical factory produced it, as reported in the Washington Post October 12, 2000. But the Rockefeller Foundation helped the company to upgrade its equipment and train its staff to meet international standards so that it could export the drug. It provided $2 million dollars to The Concept Foundation that was established by the WHO and World Bank in 1989 and also provided aid.

Hiechst A.G.(formerly I.G. Farben, and manufacturer of Zyklon B) has a subsidiary in France called Roussel Uclaf, which developed RU-486. Both companies are connected to the Rockefeller Foundation.

Edward Allred owns one of the largest chains of abortion clinics in the US. He said in 1980, "The Aid

to Families with Dependent Children is the worst boondoggle ever created. When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it's time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles, having babies for welfare is the only industry people have."

His clinics took referrals from Planned Parenthood, major community referral groups and private physicians as well as UC Medical Center. He said that,"We do virtually all the prepaid health care groups abortions in Orange County.

Although Planned Parenthood and other eugenics organizations never had making money as their ultimate goal, in 2006 Planned Parenthood made a profit of over 60 million dollars. And received 350 million dollars from the US government. In 2009 they received around 1 million dollars a day, from American taxes. Tax money went to fund the website, Take Care Down There.org, which is pretty offensive. It had a video that shows a black man performing oral sex on a white man, and another man walks up and begins telling them they should use a condom. Is it significant that the black man is the one servicing the white man?

Drugs, alcohol and tobacco have been shown to be targeted at black communities. Alveda King, the daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr. "Today the vast majority of Planned Parenthood Clinics are located in our neighborhoods. Are we really so naive to believe that this is all a coincidence? We all know that drugs, alcohol and tobacco are devastating, especially in the black community. We know that the big corporations target us with the adds and the marketing campaigns. And yet we don't notice that Planned Parenthood is doing the very same thing. We need to pay attention to the fact that in the 1960's, when we as African Americans began to demand our Civil Rights, for the first time in American History, there began a widespread cry in our government for legalized abortion. Was that coincidence too?

Or could it be that when we said we would no longer sit on the back of the bus, a place was being reserved for us down at the abortion clinic.

Alex Jones has said on his show that in countries that are industrialized, their start to be 1.3 children per couple. And then he pointed out what should be obvious, when you think about it. 1.3 isn't even replacement of the 2 parents. So if that continued indefinitely, people would go extinct in industrialized countries.

Historically, we look to the Supreme Court to protect us from unjust court rulings. But as we have previously seen, the Supreme Court Justices on the bench with Oliver Wendell Holmes were eugenicists at heart. We still have Justices that are of like mind.

In 2009 Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the comment that, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

That sounds rather elitist, but she then went on to say, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman." That sounds like she believes women should make the choice, but do the two comments taken together mean she thinks that poor women or whatever she was referring to as "populations we don't want goo many of" should be encouraged to make that choice?

Instead of using terms like Social Darwinism, and Racial Hygiene, we now use terms like sustainability, conservationism, environmentalism, trans-humanism, and population control. At this time the term crypto-eugenics came into being because scientists went underground with their beliefs.

The human genome has been mapped. We now have prenatal testing, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis, therapeutic cloning, stem cell therapy, and the list will continue to grow. While in many ways these things are beneficial, there remains the potential for them to be abused. We have to ensure that scientists and government, realize that they are accountable for this science being used in a responsible manner.

China has a one child per family policy, and they adopted it because Planned Parenthood and the United Nations encouraged them to do so. If families have more children, they face heavy fines and being imprisoned. This plan was implemented in a gradual fashion. Back in the 1960's if you had more than one child, you just had to pay a tax, and were not imprisoned. There are 30 Million more men in China than there are women. This is because culturally, they prefer male children, and abort female children. The lack of female children is drastically lowering China's population. Genetics is important in China. Dissidents are sent to forced labor camps, where they have their blood and tissues typed so that their organs can be harvested and sold to the highest bidder on the world market. Sometimes, if the proposed recipient of the organ wants to fly to China to have the implant, the prisoner is killed so the organ can be implanted. But if not, they have mobile execution vans and the prisoner is killed on the way to the air port and the organ is sent to the buyer. It has been reported that China euthanizes the elderly and disabled routinely. The reason nothing is done about it is that our leaders support it. Henry Kissinger, for instance, said in 1974, "Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy toward the third world." They want to spread this tyranny and depopulation around the rest of the world.

Julian Huxley argued that since eugenicists had come up with the ideas of environmentalism and conservation, they should be used to form a world government. They want a world like H.G. Wells described that is governed by the scientific community, and through the use of eugenics. Did you know that the WWF, World Wildlife Fund was founded by a former S.S. officer named Prince Bernhard from the Netherlands, Prince Philip(Queen Elizabeth II's husband) and Julian Huxley? The Prince is also supposed to be a key founder of the Bilderberg Group. Some of the things these people say are mind boggling. Prince Philip reportedly told the Deutsche Press in 1988, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." Well he hasn't died yet, but we do have quite a few relatively new and deadly viruses.

Bertrand Russell said, "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton." He also wrote that vaccines and other chemicals would effectively lobotomize people and develop a zombie-like populace. "Diet, injections and injunctions will combine from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable. And any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible." (From The Impact of Science on Society)

Julian Huxley had a brother named Aldous Huxley, who wrote Brave New World, which was amazingly prophetic. During a speech at Berkeley in 1962, he admitted that when he wrote it, it was not based on fiction but on what he knew that the elite who were in power had planned for us. He said that his Brave New World pattern would most likely be the way that the scientific dictatorship was implemented, rather than the Orwellian world of 1984, simply because it was more efficient. "If you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living, the state of servitude, the state of being, well it seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this, that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy which have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people to actually love their servitude, where people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs which by any decent standard they ought not to enjoy. And these methods, I think, are a real refinement on the older methods of terror because they combine methods of terror with methods of acceptance. Within the various other methods which one can think of, there is for example the pharmacological method. This was one of the things I talked about in Brave New World, and the result would be that, I mean you can imagine the euphoric which would make people thoroughly happy even in the most abominable circumstances. I mean these things are possible."

It is not known by most people that our public school system was established not to educate more people but to dumb them down, so that they would be easier to control.

It is a not so well known fact that several countries have used nerve gas on their own people in experiments. And people in hospitals in the US have been injected with radioactive materials like uranium and plutonium. Hospitals were commissioned by the government to give these healthy people doses which were sometimes non-therapeutic all the way up to lethal. This experimentation was conducted between 1944 and 1994. The pregnant wives of military men were given what they thought were vitamins, which actually contained uranium and plutonium. The mothers miscarried and died. Soldiers were used in hydrogen and atomic bomb tests. I have no doubt that some of these men would have volunteered to submit to this experiment in the interest of their country, if they had been given the choice. Instead, they were treated as if they were mere lab rats in return for doing their patriotic duty, and denied the choice.http://www.rense.com/general36/history.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/us/sailors-sprayed-with-nerve-gas-in-cold-war-test-pentagon-says.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

There were also Sephardic Jewish children, who were darker skinned than other Jews, subjected to radiation experiment as well. http://www.sudanesethinker.com/2006/11/28/israel-carried-out-deliberate-radiation-poisoning-of-100000-sephardic-jews/
http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/01/ringworm-children.htmlThe English people had biological agents like sarin, chemicals and radioactive materials sprayed above their country secretly, between 1940 and 1979 over 2000 times.http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_101002_biological1.html South Africa developed race specific bio weapons and sold them to Israel back in the 1970's. These weapons targeted blacks and Asians.http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260707_colbert_depopulation.html

Dick Cheney was quoted as promoting race specific bio weapons as politically useful tools, in a report from 2000, by The Project For A New American Censure.

Within the US, in 1979, the Pentagon tested bio-weapons in the subways in New York. And monitored the effects in local hospitals. Pesticides are being tested on low income children, due to EPA loopholes which allow it. There have been AIDS and other experimental drugs tested on foster children. Prisoners in US jails have been forced to be experimented on with chemicals and drugs. It has been estimated that the average foster child is on a cocktail of on average seven psychotropic drugs. Joe Burkett, Chairman of the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians, told an advisory committee subcommittee on income security and family support, during hearings to discuss the use of psychotropic drugs for children in the foster care system, that the main reason two-thirds of foster children were on drugs was because they were very sick due to a bad gene pool and were predisposed to mental illness. In 2007, The Guardian in the UK reported that unborn fetuses considered to be at risk of becoming criminals were to be targeted. Supposedly, their mothers were to be given "intensive weekly support from midwives and health visitors" from the 16th week of pregnancy, "until the unborn child reaches two years old." The article says that the program was copied from three large programs in the US.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/16/ukcrime.children Another article says that most crime is committed by a small number of prolific offenders who could be identified almost from birth, and that the net should be cast as widely as possible to prevent criminality from developing. They are keeping databases on families in order to sift out undesirable criminality. Some of the behaviors they are looking for, you or I would consider normal in children, such as short attention span, or being aggressive toward other children. The article does not say if they are looking for abnormal levels of these behaviors, just the existence. Children ages 8-13 would be referred to Youth Inclusion and Support Panels if they are considered to be potential offenders and their data will be held in databases.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546779/New-child-checks-to-identify-future-criminals.html  There have been news reports that think tanks in the UK have said that having more than one or two children should be frowned upon because too many children are what is causing all of the bad stuff like global warming. The British Commission on Population created by King George VI of England, in 1944, stated that overpopulation in 3rd World countries was a threat to elite governments like the US and UK. But they are not alone in that opinion.

National Security Memorandum 200 from 1974 decided that overpopulation in 3rd world countries was a national security issue. Kissinger came up with a plan in which the population of 13 countries were to have massive population reduction. His recommendation was that International Monetary Fund and world banks only loan money to these countries under the condition that they adopt population control programs, which included sterilization. He also felt that food should be used as a bargaining chip to get them to comply, basically as a weapon. He also suggested that wars be instigated to reduce population.

George H.W. Bush was the U.S. Ambassador to the UN under the Nixon administration. He advised China on the One child per family policy. He was also responsible for directing the government to forcibly sterilize 40% of Native American women living on reservations.

There are many organizations involved in this. The Club of Rome which is associated with the Bilderberg Group, recommended environmentalism be used as the method for population control, because they believed that people in the West would accept the idea of population control if it were disguised as saving the Earth. They also believe that people will be more willing to give up national sovereignty if it is to save the Earth. They promote the global carbon tax and trading in carbon shares to fund their implementation of a global government.

The UN Global Biodiversity Assessment says that population has to be reduced from about six million down to around one million. http://www.un.org/earthwatch/biodiversity/assessment.html

Newsweek reported that Ted Turner pledged to give over one billion dollars to the UN to spend on population reduction all over the world. During an interview with Audubon Magazine, he said, "A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal." http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerenblankfeld/2011/09/21/ted-turners-plans-to-save-the-world/  

When Bill Gates announced that he would be retiring so that he could pursue charitable causes, I thought it was an admirable thing. But he and his wife Melinda have donated 2.2 Billion in 1999, to Planned Parenthood, the UN Population Fund, and other population groups. They have given over 30 billion dollars towards population control. This has been played off as an effort to help 3rd World children. Warren Buffet has given 37 Billion to population control groups.

"And I actually think the world will be better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left." (Dr. Eric Pianka) He is a professor at the University of Texas, and he has said that AIDS was too slow at killing people and that Ebola would work better, killing 90% of the population quickly. Some of his students came out to support him saying that all humans should be killed. He also said, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop reproducing."

While there are some immensely helpful things that have come from and are yet to come from the fields of genetics, nano technology and robotics, they have been funded by eugenicists from the early days of their development. They now call themselves trans-humanists or post humanists. They say they are bringing sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf and geneticists believe they can give humans the ability to live longer lives. But the origin of trans-humanism is Julian Huxley. Ray Kurzweil is an inventor and has been involved in OCR(Optical Character Reading) technology, text to speech, and speech recognition technology. But he has also written several books on health, trans-humanism, and artificial intelligence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil Trans-humanists like him believe in using technology and science to among other things allow people to live longer, enhance human intelligence. Julian Huxley wrote in 1957, that trans-humanism was "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature". But make no mistake, they don't believe that all of us are going to be able to do that, and many of them want to make sure we aren't all here to do so. They say they believe in using technology to improve the human condition, eliminate aging, enhancing human intellect, and simultaneously, some of them study what the promises or dangers of this technology might be and the ethics of it. Obviously, if we eliminate aging, we will have to stop reproducing or we will run out of room and resources if nobody ever dies. That is where trans-humanism meets eugenics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism This Brave New World is not intended for all of us. Kursweil has said, "Biological evolution is too slow for the human species, over the next few decades it's going to be left in the dust."

"The elite who occupy the commanding heights of digital reality are suicidal nihilists. Suicidal nihilists know that there is no longer any substantive purpose to their willing. But they would always prefer to go on will than to not act at all. They can very happily ally themselves with a notion of nuclear holocaust or perfect exterminism." (Arthur Kroker)

While they tell us that they are trying to create an evolved future society, what they really want to do, it take us back to the feudal system of the Middle Ages, when there was no middle class, and there were only two classes, the elite and those who exist solely to serve them.

I am not quite sure where the proper place to insert this information would be. Between 1973 and 1976, there were 3406 Native American women sterilized in the western states. If you compared this by ratio to non-Native American women, it would be like sterilizing 452,000 of them. These sterilizations were conducted by the Indian Health Service and by those who contracted with them to perform the operations. This figure was arrived at by the Government Accounting Office, but there were problems with who they counted. Independent studies estimated that somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of Native American women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976. Many of these women were coerced into submitting to the procedures, by physicians.

On one Navajo, reservation, between 1972-1978 the rate of abortions went up by 130% and sterilization went up from 15% to 30% of total surgeries performed on the reservation. Women were threatened with loss of government healthcare benefits to any future children they might have and or losing custody of the children they already had.(Center For Bioethics and Humanity, Trinity International University(http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national. http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-nationalhttp://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national

This travesty of justice, first came to light when a young Indian woman went to see Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, in Los Angeles. She wanted to have a womb transplant. Apparently, the doctor who had given her a hysterectomy, because she suffered from alcoholism, told her that the surgery was reversible.http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v024/24.3lawrence.html 

When Dr. Uri checked the records of tubal ligation’s and hysterectomies, she found that 75% were non-therapeutic,i.e. unnecessary.(Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. "American Indian Prophecies." p. 71. )

Emery A. Johnson, who was the director of the IHS during the 1970's, told a congressional committee in 1975 that IHS "considered non-therapeutic sterilization a legitimate method of family planning... We are not aware of any instance in which such services have been abused."  

George H.W. Bush signed the Family Planning Act that resulted in the sterilization and abortions being performed on both Native Americans and African Americans. It legalized federal funding for the programs.

At the same time that the GAO was conducting it's investigation on how many women were affected, it stated that the consent forms did not comply with regulations.