Blogs » KennethSchustereit The Old Bolillo! » "The Negro Project", Malthusian eugenics and Benjamin Cordozo

Subscribe


12
 
"The Negro Project", Malthusian eugenics and Benjamin Cordozo
By KennethSchustereit in KennethSchustereit The Old Bolillo!
September 13, 2009

I decided to re-publish this piece since i have been labeled a racist so many times by educated intellectuals who assume that since I oppose Mr. Obama's politics I must be a racist! I can only chuckle at these supposedly educated individuals! Hmmm! They are indeed amusing to listen to though!

From an article by Tanya L. Green, a grisley look at the genocide perpetrated by Margaret Sanger against both the black and Hispanic population of the United States.

Genocide that continues not only unabated but now actively promoted by the president, his administration and the party in power today.

I'd like Jimmy "Foot in Mouth" Carter to look Tanya Green, Kevin Jackson, Star Parker, Pastor Ken Hutcherson or Pastor Steven Broden in the eye and repeat his race baiting garbage!

I spoke on the phone with Kevin Jackson, a black man that showed up at a tea party. I found him to be intelligent and well versed.

Article starts here!

"On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973). The significance of each case—equal rights for all Americans in the former, and abortion “rights” in the latter—converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march's sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

“'Civil rights' doesn't mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus' magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

'All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.'"

One can only wonder at the beliefs held by John Holdren, President obama's "Science Czar" that any child that has not yet been nutrured by and bonded to it's mother is eligible for termination. Could it be this was the reason for Mr. Obama's vote on the "Born Alive Protection Act?"

And then considering Holdren's ideas on forced sterilization and adding sterilization drugs to the drinking water, on can only wonder at Barak Obama's challenge to judge him by the people around him.

"Malthus' disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated—or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Critics of Malthusianism said the group 'produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.' Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them."

"...though many still believe them." Not only do many still believe them, the theories of Malthus are required reading and considered hard science in many institutions of higher learning(sic) today!

This emerging trend in today's society is worthy of closer scrutny into the sociopathy of the individuals promoting it! Indeed this trend has developed to such a degree that voters will abandon their religous beliefs, ignore anecdotal evidence and support a political candidate that advocates the death of their own race!

When reading and studying the bills promoted by the Obama administration one must use the "theory of the language of the law." What does the actual language of the law actually permit?

I have seen the liberal apologists for the Obama administration deny the healthcare bill provided benefits for illegal aliens when in fact, it did! And Barak Obama, being a Harvard educated lawyer knew it did when he said it didn't! It was denied that Obamacare provided for sex change operations and abortions when, in fact, it did!

Here we go back to the Cordozo Theory! The first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice appropriately determined, "...not what has been done under a statute, but what may reasonably be done under it is the test of it's validity!"

READ and comprehend the actual LANGUAGE used in the various versions of Obamacare THEN determine what may reasonably be done under that LANGUAGE before making a judgement as to what may "reasonably be done!"

I just don't think this can be explained any simpler.

Comments


  • joseexist joseexist Report a ViolationReport a Violation
    permalink

    It's sad that we let lawyers rule us. Laws are written in a language that few can fully understand. In the end even the lawyers twist and re-define the words and their meaning.
    Being multi-racial I can't help but feel like a micro-minority. But even so, I have left my mark on the human race. One Daughter and one son, and a handfull of grandchildren. My distrust of the current system is focused on the few individuals who keep clouding the waters from the top. I did not vote for Obama and stand by that action.'
    Excellent stuff Bro! Things many of us really need to know. Keep it coming because it's real!

    September 20, 2009 at 9 a.m.

  • sandwichh sandwichh Report a ViolationReport a Violation
    permalink

    Roe vs Wade ruling was not in any way what it has been turned into by liberal progressive judge interpretations. It was not meant to provide abortion on demand by federal law. It was not meant to provide a path for your teenage daughter to abortion all the while not being able to send her to school with a Tylenol.

    And Margaret Sanger was nut case that was able to not let a situation get in the way of moving forward the radical progressive movement. She was a racist, anti child, population control Darwinist radical. All you have to do is read her thoughts and history.

    Facts will get in the way of the propaganda that will be heaved on this blog but it is what it is.

    September 20, 2009 at 1:24 a.m.