7/19/09
Hillary Clinton will be selected by the Democrats to be their nominee for president in 2012 - this I believe. She will resign her position of Secretary of State at the proper time and seriously challenge Obama when the time is right. While most people probably think it's too early to be talking about this now, I am so strong in my belief that this will happen that I feel compelled to write about it now.
Barack Obama will have the economy in such a state of chaos by 2012 (especially if the Democrats continue to control congress after the 2010 elections) that his rock star, charasmatic personality will not be enough to carry the day in 2012 as it did in 2008. This is all he had going for him in 2008. Every time I would hear one of the pundits questioning whether Sarah Palin had enough experience to be VP, I would immediately think of how Obama had nothing in his resume' that would qualify him to be president except a good gift of gab - that is if he had a teleprompter. He commits almost as many gaffs as Joe Biden without it. Fortunate for him the "love is blind" press keeps a "mum is the word" silence about those fopars.
Congressman Chris Smith's address to members of the "House" in March of 2009 provides an interesting preview of what the Democrats will be offering in 2012:
Congressional 'Record
7//'*CON
iMtrt StatwclAmarfct PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111 CONGRESS. FIRST SESSION
Vol. 155 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009 No. 54
House of Representatives
"In Awe" of a Eugenicist?
HON. CHRIS SMITH OF NEW JERSEY
Excerpts of remarks on the House floor
Mr. Speaker, last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, presented bouquet of flowers on behalf of the American people-a very nice gesture—and then went on to Houston, Texas, to receive the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood.
In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said she was "in awe"—I repeat, "in awe"~of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To our distinguished Secretary of State, I respectfully ask: Are you kidding? In "awe" of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, "Eugenics...is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems." And who also said in 1922, "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Later, in 1939, Sanger wrote, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities." She wrote, "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she goes on, "and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger's "life and leadership" was "one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race." Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes. But not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, a person of color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called undesirables who Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.
To me, and to many, including my distinguished colleague in the well, the juxtaposition of last week's two very public events in Mexico City and in Houston bring into sharp focus two huge and irreconcilable world views.
On the one hand, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe has for five centuries brought a message of hope, faith, peace, reconciliation and protection for the weakest, most vulnerable among us. On the other hand, each year, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood kills approximately 300,000 unborn baby girls and boys in their abortion clinics scattered throughout the United States.
Worldwide, the loss of innocent human life at the hands of Planned Parenthood is in the millions. Planned Parenthood even supports the hideous brain-sucking method of abortion called partial birth abortion.
On a visit to the Basilica in Mexico City in 1999, Pope John Paul II publicly entrusted protection of all at-risk human life, including especially unborn children and their mothers, to Our Lady of Guadalupe because the miracle she wrought 500 years ago resulted in an end to the barbaric practice of human sacrifice to a serpent god that claimed anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 victims a year.
Indeed, the miraculous story of Our Lady of Guadalupe, known so well especially in Latin America, but really around the world, has been extraordinarily compelling and inspirational for centuries.
In 1531, the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego, a native American at Tepeyac, near Mexico City, and asked that a church be built on the site of the apparition. The Catholic bishop was skeptical and asked for a sign. At the behest of the Blessed Mother, and despite the fact it was winter, Juan Diego gathered roses from the site into his tilma for presentation to the Bishop.
When Juan Diego met with Bishop Juan de Zumarraga with the roses tucked under his apron, a miraculous image suddenly appeared on the cloth. The Bishop was stunned, and he believed. The image of the Blessed Mother wasn't painted. There are no brush strokes. To this day, the image defies all scientific explanation as to its origin.
Within a few years of the miracle, more than 9 million Aztecs converted to Christianity and a strong devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe began that continues to this day. Each year, some 18 million to 20 million pilgrims visit the miraculous image in Mexico City.
Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton visited the shrine. On Friday, she paid homage to Planned Parenthood and to Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a self-described pro-abortionist eugenist and a racist who considered charity care for impoverished, disenfranchised women, including women of color, especially pregnant women, to be "cruel."
In her book, "The Pivot of Civilization," Margaret Sanger devoted an entire chapter that she entitled: 'The Cruelty of Charity," to her inhumane case for not helping-and I repeat that-not helping poor pregnant women with prenatal and maternal care.
Sanger said in the book—and I read her book—"We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
In chapter 5-again, chapter 5 is called: "The Cruelty of Charity"~she writes, "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease." Sanger writes, "Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and diminish the spread of misery and destruction and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents." That's Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
She continues, "My criticism therefore is not directed at the failure of philanthropy but rather at its success." Sanger goes on to say, "There's a special type of philanthropy or benevolence now widely advertised and advocated both as a Federal program and as worthy of private endowment, which strikes me," that is to say Sanger, "as being more insidiously injurious than any other. This concerns itself directly with the function of maternity and aims to supply gratis medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers.
"Such women are to be visited by nurses and receive instruction in the hygiene of pregnancy, to be guided in making arrangements for confinement, to be invited to come to the doctors' clinics for examination and supervision. They are, we are informed, to receive adequate care during pregnancy, at confinement, and for 1 month afterwards. Thus, are mothers and babies to be saved, childbearing is to be made safe."
Construing to demean the generosity of pregnancy care centers, Margaret Sanger goes on to say, "The work of the maternity centers in the various American cities, which they have already been established and in which they are supported by private contributions and endowment, it is hardly necessary to point out is carried out among the poor and the most docile section of the city, among mothers least able, through poverty and ignorance, to afford the care and attention necessary for successful maternity.
"The effect of maternity endowments of maternity centers supported by private philanthropy would have perhaps already have had exactly the most dysgenic tendency. The new government program would facilitate the function of maternity among the very classes in which the absolute necessity is to discourage it.
"Such benevolence," she goes on to say, "is not merely superficial and nearsighted." Sanger continues, "It conceals a stupid cruelty. Aside from the question of the unfitness of many women to become mothers, aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock that such programs would inevitably hasten, we may question its value even to the normal though unfortunate mother.
Sanger concludes, "The most serious charge that can be brought against modern benevolence is that it encourages"~and I say this again~"the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents, and dependents." Such audacity, such an inhumane view of human life.
Mr. Speaker, in her speech at the Planned Parenthood gala accepting the Margaret Sanger award-and I have many other quotes from Sanger that I will put into the Record, and I invite Members and the American people to look at those quotes, and there is so much more.
But in her speech last Friday, Secretary Clinton said she admired Sanger for her vision, was in "awe of her", and that Margaret Sanger's work here and in the United States and certainly across the globe is not done.
Translated, "not done" means more abortions here in the United States, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the world. Planned Parenthood's mission statement, documents, and work in the field make it absolutely clear that they seek a global unfettered right to commit violence against unborn children at all stages of development. Planned Parenthood seeks integration of all health care with abortion, with no conscience rights whatsoever for medical practitioners, no parental consent or notification whatsoever for minors. And all of this paid for by the United States taxpayer.
Which begs the question, Mr. Speaker. Is our Secretary of State unaware of Margaret Sanger's inhumane beliefs? Was she not briefed on Margaret Sanger's cruel and reckless disregard for poor, pregnant women? Respectfully, Secretary Clinton should at a minimum return the Sanger award.
More importantly, Congress and the White House must at long last take a long, hard, second look at the multimillion, almost billion, dollar corporation called Planned Parenthood - Child Abuse Incorporated.
Let's be honest, Mr. Speaker. Abortion is violence against children. It dismembers and chemically poisons a child to death. It hurts women physically, psychologically, and spiritually. There is nothing whatsoever compassionate, benevolent, ennobling, benign, or empowering about abortion. It is a violation of a child's fundamental human rights.
Rather than partnering with Planned Parenthood and like-minded NGOs to promote abortion worldwide with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, the United States should affirm the inherent value, dignity, worth of both victims of abortion, mother and child. We need to promote nonviolent, life-affirming solutions to women both here as well as abroad. Women deserve better than abortion. We should always and in every way affirm the precious lives of both. And on that score, sadly, Margaret Sanger and far too many others would disagree.
I strongly urge my colleagues to take that second look at Planned Parenthood. It is time to respect the value and the dignity of all human life.
