Planned Barrenhood: Evil From Its Very Inceptions

Details of the now-famous undercover video that was filmed by actors working for the Center for Medical Progress that shows an executive of Planned Barrenhood calmly drinking a glass of wine in a Los Angeles, California, restaurant twelve months ago now while explaining how baby-kills are able to harvest the bodily members of “aborted babies” have created shock waves on Capitol Hill in Washington, District of Columbia:

The video is gruesome and appalling.

It purportedly shows a Planned Parenthood executive sipping a glass of wine in a Los Angeles restaurant while casually explaining how they sell body parts from aborted babies.

The undercover video was filmed in July 2014 by the Center for Medical Progress, an advocacy group that reports on medical ethics. They dispatched two actors posing as representatives of a human biologics company to a business lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services.

Nucatola describing in graphic detail how abortionists are able to harvest organs from aborted babies based on the parts that are needed. 

“Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs,” she told the undercover buyers. “Some people want lower extremities, too, which, that’s simple. That’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess if they want muscle.”

To which one of the fake buyer’s replied, “Yeah - a dime a dozen.”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola said. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

She went on to describe how they are able to acquire other organs without “crushing” them.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Understand this – she is talking about an unborn baby, folks.

Planned Parenthood issued a statement denying they’ve done anything wrong and accused the Center for Medical Progress of releasing a heavily edited video.

“A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research,” said spokesman Eric Ferrero in a prepared statement.

Ferrero went on to acknowledge they help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research and they do so will the full consent from patients “and under the highest ethical and legal standards.”

Planned Parenthood denied they made any money off the sale of aborted baby parts.

“There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” Ferrero said. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

David Daledien, lead the undercover project against Planned Parenthood – a nearly three-year-long investigation on illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.

“Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization,” he said. “Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”

The Center for Medical Progress offered a swift refutation to Planned Parenthood’s response – by posting the full and unedited video.  

They also posted an advertisement from a major purchaser of aborted fetal tissue that was posted in Planned Parenthood clinics. That advertisement mentions words like “financial profitable,” “financial profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” and “fiscal growth of your own clinic.”

Planned Parenthood did not return calls seeking comment on those allegations.

Meanwhile, the outrage over the horrific video has spread like wildfire.

Dr. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, summed it up in one word – speechless. 

“If this does not shock the conscience, what will?” Moore wrote online. ‘It is not only that infants, in their mother’s wombs, are deprived of their lives, but also that their corpses are desecrated for profit.”

Think about that for a moment – desecrated unborn babies for profit.

“This is not only murderous; it is murderous in the most ghoulish way imaginable,” Moore added.

Moore is calling on Congress and the Department of Justice to investigate.

“For years, many of us have called on government leaders to see to it that no taxpayer funds, of any kind, go to Planned Parenthood,” Moore wrote. “Is it not clear that these are not health-care providers but pirates and grave-robbers of those who have no graves?”

La. Gov. Bobby Jindal has already called on the state’s Dept. of Health and Hospitals to conduct an investigation of what he called “this alleged evil and illegal activity.”

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina posted a Facebook message calling the video tragic and outrageous.

“This isn’t about ‘choice’,” she wrote. “It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment.”

"Beyond disturbing," is what Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tweeted.

I do not believe my words can match the eloquence of Dr. Moore’s. We ask God to bless America – a nation that turns a blind eye to  the slaughter of unborn children – a nation that provides taxpayers to fund an organization that allegedly sells body parts from dead babies.

God bless America? Perhaps we should be asking for His mercy, instead. (Planned Parenthood sells dead baby parts.)

This story is inaccurate, but not in the way that officials of Planned Barrenhood contend.

It is not “dead baby parts” that are being sold or “donated” for purposes of transplantation or medical research. The bodily members of innocent preborn babies that are being sold for profit or “donated” by Planned Barrenhood have been taken out of living human beings whose deaths were caused by their vivisected alive.

Let me repeat myself.

The bodily members of the innocent preborn babies that have been sold for profit or “donated” by Planned Barrenhood have been taking out of living human beings whose deaths were caused by their being vivisected alive.

Although there is a great deal of understandable shock about the details that Deborah Nucatola revealed with such casual aplomb, Planned Barrenhood’s barbaric practices should not shock anyone as every single abortion, whether effected by chemical or surgical means, kills a living human being, not a potential human being, a living human being. To vivisect a preborn baby to harvest its bodily members is merely an outgrowth of over four decades (nearly five in a few states) of the surgical dismemberment of preborn children by means of suctioning them out of their mothers’ wombs, burning them alive with saline or similar solutions, dissecting in or partially extracted from the birth canal, and by the hysterotomy, which is a Caesarean section wherein the baby is partly extracted from his mothers’ womb so that the executioner in the smock and sterilized garment can twist his neck until it breaks. The whole bloody business is gruesome.

Alas, the vivisection of living human beings in their mothers’ wombs to harvest their bodily members, whether for sale or “donation,” is exactly what happens when a human being is said by a supposed physician to be “brain dead,” thereby making him the subject of plans to vivisect him alive while “health care” officials assure relatives and friends that their loved one is “dead” when they are alive. Alive. Living human beings.

As I have noted so many times in the past on site “brain death” is a myth devised by the medical industry to harvest the bodily members of living human beings for what has become an almost insatiable market for organ transplantation in the name of “giving the gift of life.” How ironic it is that the gift of life is “given” as a result of the killing of an innocent human being by latter-day Aztecs in supposedly sterile attire while most people in the world, including the “save the planet” maniacs within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, celebrate the fact that a person who would have died has been “saved” while a person who was not dead had been savagely vivisected.

Doubt my word?

Please see No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath, Every Once In A While, Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, Stories That Speak For Themselves, Headless Corpses?, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way?, Grand Illusion, Every Once In A While, Canada's Death Panels: A Foretaste of ObamaCare, Someone Was Killed To Keep "J.R." Alive, Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies, Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death", Good Rule Of Thumb: Reject What Conciliarists Promote, To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion, Just Obey God, Death To Us All, Choosing To Live In States Of Apoplexy, ObamaDeathCare, Dr. Byrne's Jahi is alive -- praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and an article that attorneys recently tried to use against Dr. Byrne in court in Reno, Nevada, Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation. (Dr Byrne is currently assisting the families of no less than four human beings declared to be "brain dead," one of whom has managed to the escape the clutches of the killers in white coats who were so eager to vivisect him to death and has returned to his own family. Sure, go ahead, claim that "brain death" is real. Such a contention is as false as Jorge Mario Bergoglio's is to be a Catholic, no less the Vicar of Christ one earth.)

Planned Barrenhood’s practices of harvesting the bodily members of preborn babies as they are vivisected to death, although having come to the notice of the general public in a sensational manner, are nothing new, and they are simply an application of the same evil principles upon which the chemical and surgical killing of preborn babies has been based from its very inception. The logic of killing the innocent is such that one can begin to rationalize every kind of barbaric practice once one denies the absolute inviolability of all human life from the first moment of conception to the moment of natural death. And to this, of course, one must deny the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the Catholic Church, the former by Divine Revelation and the latter by means of her power to explicate its binding precepts in concrete circumstances as its infallibly authoritative interpreter and teacher.

Thus, as gruesome as the calmness of Deborah Nucatola, who is the senior director of Planned Barrenhood’s misnamed “medical services” division undoubtedly is, though, there is nothing shocking in what she revealed. There is even nothing shocking about Nucatola’s very blasé, matter-of-fact attitude about the barbaric practices she supervises that harken back to the the practices of the Aztecs themselves. Most Americans go about their daily business without giving a moment’s thought to the killing of the preborn, and many of them participate in such killing by the use of contraceptives. As the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., said so clearly on so many occasions, “Most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort all of the time.”

After all, Planned Barrenhood has been in the business of evil from its very racialist and eugenicist origins a century ago now. Planned Barrenhood, which traces its history to the nymphomaniac racialist social engineer named Margaret Sanger, has long championed efforts to control human reproduction so as to make possible a supposedly “better” society. It has made hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of blood money from undermining the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of what is proper to the married state alone and from its killing of untold numbers of innocent preborn babies both by chemical and surgical means.

Additionally, of course, Planned Barrenhood has done great violence to the innocence of children by its development of programs designed to program the young into living lives of promiscuity and licentiousness. Its evil tentacles control the “health curricula” in most elementary and secondary “schools” that are under the control of the civil state. Variations of its programmatic assault upon the innocence and the purity of the young are part of most elementary and secondary schools under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

It must not be forgotten that the “Margaret Sanger” of breaking down the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex and Information Committee of the United States of America, worked very closely with the-then “Monsignor” James T. McHugh of the National Conference of Catholic “Bishops”/United States Catholic Conference to introduce, propagate and institutionalize “sex education” in conciliar schools (see Mrs. Randy McHugh's The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague). his has been done despite the explicit prohibition against such instruction found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri that was reaffirmed by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:  

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"

Response: In the negative, and that the method must be persevere entirely as set forth up to the present entirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, associated with the wicked, and all occasions of sin.

By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 597-598.)

It does not get any plainer than that.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have miseducated several generation of young Catholics to place themselves openly in occasions of sin. This is a denial of the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All  Graces.

How do children learn to grow in purity?

By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength.

By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Too Catholic?

Too unrealistic?

Just take a look at the statement issued by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing?

Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The fact that the conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River have seen fit to defy the prohibitions against explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments because they are penultimate naturalists. That these hideous revolutionaries have had to ask the questions that they did is the direct result of their own defiance of Catholic teaching. This is not surprising as they are living and breathing apostates whose almost every word and action is in defiance of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Yes, Planned Barrenhood has spread its evil tentacles everywhere to accustom people to speaking and thinking about “protection” so as to make evils such as fornication and adultery supposedly “free” of their physical, emotional and, most importantly, spiritual consequences of any kind. The conciliar authorities may use different front organizations to provide them with textbooks and programs. However, these front organizations march in lockstep with Planned Barrenhood. Sadly, so do many “teachers” in conciliar schools. One should read to review the late Father Theodore Hesburgh's association with the population controllers such as the Ford Foundation to discover how deep the institutionalization of evil is within the conciliar sect, which is evil from its own very diabolical origins.

Planned Barrenhood has murdered far more many souls than they have bodies, and that is quite  statement when one considers that the sheer number of preborn babies killed by chemical and surgical means, including the women who have died in its abortuary chambers as their babies were being killed, is vast. Vast.

As is well-known, Planned Barrenhood’s employees use highly-developed skills to pressure women who may be wavering going through with the execution of their preborn children to do so. These high-powered efforts designed to emotionally manipulate the weak, the confused, the uncertain and the abused. Indeed, women have been abused bodily in Planned Barrenhood facilities over and above the killing of their children. There is no “health care” being provided by Planned Barrenhood, which has helped to destabilize the family, feminized poverty, and created one-parent households all through the economic strata of the United States of America, especially in areas where black and Spanish-speaking people live in relatively poverty within urban areas.

We must remember that it is that those steeped in the anti-Incarnational lies of Modernity, including any and all variations of the naturalistic myths of Judeo-Masonry, have prepared the way for the demographic annihilation of their own by defying the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted solely to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The practice of contraception and of even "natural" forms of "family limitation" and the widespread use of surgical methods of killing innocent preborn babies in the "civilized" West has placed the indigenous populations of the formerly Catholic countries of Europe on an irreversible path to extinction. This self-annihilation has already change the demographics and hence the politics and the laws and the culture of such countries as France and Germany and England. Various "nationalist" groups have arisen in European countries to "defend" these indigenous populations when the truth is that Europeans, having rejected the true Faith entirely, including the corrupted version advanced by the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church that is the conciliar church, have brought this on themselves, thus making inevitable, barring a miraculous intervention by God Himself, there.

The systematic attack on all of the vestiges of Christendom in Europe began with Martin Luther’s and Henry VIII’s embrace of divorce and “remarriage” in the Sixteenth Century and spread over the course of time to the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. It was the very false church created by King Henry Tudor in 1534 that endorsed contraception at its Lambeth Conference in 1930L

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

This decision opened the floodgates of Protestant acceptance of contraception, which, of course, had been promoted for the previous fifteen years by the nymphomaniac revolutionary anti-Theist named Margaret Sanger. An organization known as the Federal Council of Churches in America (which merged in 1950 with other such organizations to form the “National Council of Churches”) endorsed contraception in 1931, prompting the following editorial to appear, amazingly enough, in The Washington Post:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)

Leaving aside the institutional amnesia of The Washington Post’s current editorial writers, the work of Margaret Sanger her cohorts in eugenics and social engineering and junk science gained more and more traction after these twin endorsements. Sanger’s desire to eliminate blacks and to destabilize two-parent family in black neighborhoods had received important “religious” endorsements, and there is a direct link between her work and the breakdown of the black family that has left so many black children, especially boys and young men, rootless and angry as they have never know true parental love even on the natural, no less supernatural, level.

Yes, the prevalence of crime in areas with a population of predominantly black Americans is caused, at least in large part, by the breakdown of the stable two-part family that was engineered by racialists and eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger and her equally demonic cohorts. It was the racialist social engineering of Sanger and her cohorts that was designed to break down the stability of the black family and enslave blacks yet again, this time to their supposed “benefactors,” the bureaucrats of the welfare state that was created to become, in essence, the minders of the descendants of chattel slavery. Sanger and her cohorts knew that the creation of a class of citizens dependent upon the civil state for their livelihood would give such people an incentive to keep electing the very people who enact and perpetuate programs designed to enslave them.

A 1992 article from something called Citizen magazine provided great evidence to prove Sanger’s racialist agenda of eugenics and social control of the “undesirables”. Here are some excerpts from that article:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy”. . . .

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary. (Black Genocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger.)

Sanger knew that frustrating the natural end of what is proper to marriage, the procreation of children, by means of contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, including adultery by men and women alike. Such promiscuity would result in the destabilization of the stable two-parent family, thus necessitating the intervention of the civil state to provide “assistance” upon which the children of broken families could receive their sustenance as their minders saw to it that they were “educated” about the ways to frustrate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of that which is proper to be married state and thus become as promiscuous and irresponsible as their father and/or mother had been.

Although Sanger died on September 6, 1966,  a year after the full-scale launch of then President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society, which including “Title X” funding for “family planning” programs such as those offered by Planned Parenthood, she had planted the seeds for the complete demolition of the stable two-parent family in black neighborhoods that empowered the statists of the Johnson administration, worthy inheritors and enlargers of the social engineering represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal” thirty years before, to complete the job of creating a sense of entitlement among those who had been “taught” to depend upon government programs for their every need.

Sanger’s policy racialism and eugenics was such that she embraced the director of Adolf Hitler’s own eugenics program, Ernst Rudin, who was permitted to publish an article in 1939 in her own Birth Control Review:

Ernst Rudin was director of the foremost German eugenics research institute (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy, in Munich, Germany). "On June 2, 1933, [German] Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick announced the formation of an Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy .... to plan the course of Nazi racial policy. The committee brought together the elite of Nazi racial theory: Alfred Ploetz, ..... Ernst Rudin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy in Munich;...." (4) On July 14, 1933 this committee's recommendations were made law, the sterilization law ("Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring"); the start date for exercising the law was 1 Jan 1934. What was Ernst Rudin's opinion of Adolf Hitler and eugenics ('racial hygiene')?:

Academic William H. Tucker (The Science and Politics of Racial Research, 1994, University of Illinois Press) tells us about Ernst Rudin (p. 121):

In an address to the German Society for Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] Ernst Rudin, a professor of psychiatry who was one of the organization's original members and now its head, recalled the early, fruitless days when the racial hygienists had labored in vain to alert the public to special value of the Nordic race as "culture creators" and the danger of "unnatural" attempts to preserve the health of heredity defectives. Now Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] was finally receiving the attention it deserved, and Rudin virtually slavered over the man whose efforts produced this change: "The significance of Rassenhygiene did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30 year long dream of translating Rassen- hygiene into action finally become a reality." Terming it a "duty of honor" (Ehrenpflicht) for the society to aid in implementing Hitler's program, Rudin proclaimed, "We can hardly express our efforts more plainly or appropriately than in the words of the Fuhrer: 'Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state.' (E. Rudin, "Aufgaben and Ziele der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene," Archiv Fur Rassen- und Gesellschafts- biologie 28 (1934): 228-29)

Who is author William H. Tucker? He is an associate professor of psychology at Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey. Tucker is apparently somewhat left of center politically, since he complains about the 'Reagan slash and burn spending cuts.'

How many Germans were 'force sterilized'? Most estimates are in the range of 250,000-500,000. The Germans started twenty-seven years later that the U.S. but within a few years they greatly outpaced them.

Did Ernst Rudin advocate sterilization of Americans?

Three months before the German 'sterilization law' was passed, Rudin's "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" article was published in the journal (BCR) Margaret Sanger started and continued to influence until its demise in 1940.

In addressing an American audience Rudin is much more circumspect with his choice of words:

The following essay is concerned only with sterilization as a voluntary practice, that is, when undertaken with the consent of the patient himself or his statutory guardians......

But as the essay wears on, the mask begins to slip:

My experience has led me to the conclusion that systematic and careful propaganda should be undertaken where sterilization is advisable. Such propaganda should, of course, be gradual and should be directed in the first instance at the medical directors in institutions and schools, medical officers of health, and finally at private practitioners.....

Margaret Sanger corresponded with Ernst Rudin and never once renounced his eugenic views. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization.)

Just as Woodrow Wilson believed that he could engineer “peace” in the world by breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating completely secular, Masonic states in Central and Eastern Europe, so did Margaret Sanger believe that engineering of population rates could contribute to “peace” in the world.

Here is Sanger’s “Plan for Peace,” which was published in the Birth Control Review in April of 1932:

First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace. (Black Genocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger.)

Here is what Pope Pius XI told us was the foundation of true peace:

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Margaret Sanger’s prescriptions for “peace” were founded on making warfare upon the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, thus helping to predispose men to be at war with each other at a moment’s notice in the domestic cell that is the family, in their neighborhoods and their cities and in their country. Yes, there is a direct line from Father Martin Luther to Margaret Sanger to the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Sanger was one of the most successful evangelists of evil that the world has ever known, more successful than the man under whose auspices Ernst Rudin worked, none other than the murderous Adolf Hitler himself (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

Margaret Sanger and her cohorts were not the only ones who were on the cutting edge of “progressive” social thought in the 1920s and 1930s. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) sought to curb the procreation of “undesirables,” most especially blacks and “imbeciles,” and to convince Catholics to rebel against a “rigid” teaching of Holy Mother Church that kept them from “enjoying” the “freedom” that supposedly was to be found in a debased use of that which is proper to the married state.

The eugenics crowd received judicial support from the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the infamous case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927. The Court’s majority opinion was written by the notorious utilitarian and legal positivist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Here are some chilling passages of what this “enlightened” jurist wrote as he justified a Commonwealth of Virginia law, that mandated sterilization of those deemed to be “imbecilic”:

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208]   But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of  Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1997.)

The only dissenter in this case was Pierce Butler, a Catholic who, though a Democrat, had been appointed by a Republican president, Warren Gamaliel Harding. Holmes believed that Butler’s religion caused him to dissent, thereby preventing the Supreme Court from issuing its decision in Buck v. Bell unanimously. Holmes was a “progressive.” He wanted to remake society according to supposedly “scientific” principles and believed that those principles could be enforced upon all if a legislative and/or judicial majority decided upon so.

The decision in Buck v. Bell was welcomed by Margaret Sanger and her pals just as much as Holmes’s lecture at Harvard University nine years before, that is, in 1918, came at a time she was opening “birth control clinics” in predominantly black neighborhoods:

Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so. If I may quote myself again, property, friendship, and truth have a common root in time. One cannot be wrenched from the rocky crevices into which one has grown for many years without feeling that one is attacked in one’s life. What we most love and revere generally is determined by early associations. I love granite rocks and barberry bushes, no doubt because with them were my earliest joys that reach back through the past eternity of my life. But while one’s experience thus makes certain preferences dogmatic for oneself, recognition of how they came to be so leaves one able to see that others, poor souls, may be equally dogmatic about something else. And this again means skepticism. Not that one’s belief or love does not remain. Not that we would not fight and die for it if important—we all, whether we know it or not, are fighting to make the kind of a world that we should like—but that we have learned to recognize that others will fight and die to make a different world, with equal sincerity or belief. Deep-seated preferences cannot be argued about—you cannot argue a man into liking a glass of beer—and therefore, when differences are sufficiently far reaching, we try to kill the other man rather than let him have his way. But that is perfectly consistent with admitting that, so far as appears, his grounds are just as good as ours.

The jurists who believe in natural law seem to me to be in that naïve state of mind that accepts what has been familiar and accepted by all men everywhere. No doubt it is true that, so far as we can see ahead, some arrangements and the rudiments of familiar institutions seem to be necessary elements in any society that may spring from our own and that would seem to us to be civilized—some form of permanent association between the sexes—some residue of property individually owned—some mode of binding oneself to specified future conduct—at the bottom of all, some protection for the person. But without speculating whether a group is imaginable in which all but the last of these might disappear and the last be subject to qualifications that most of us would abhor, the question remains as to the Ought of natural law. . . .

The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.

Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)

This elegy in behalf of the relativism that is legal positivism (the belief that morality is whatever “the law” says it is; in other words, that legal might makes moral right) had come into its own in the early-Twentieth Century, taking its place along with the other “scientific” ideas of “enlightened progressives,” including Margaret Sanger. Moreover, much of the language used by Holmes in 1918 reflects the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio with perfection as the Argentine Apostate rejects the certainty of Catholic doctrine and condemns as “rigid” those who believe it to be certain.

Interestingly, the Virginia sterilization statue at issue in Buck v. Bell had been based on the same set of eugenics directives that had been devised at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York (which I have driven past hundreds upon hundreds of times in my life as it was located near my beloved Oyster Bay Cove, New York; this facility of pure evil was very visible the across the body of water known as Cold Spring Harbor from the Whaler’s Cove Yacht Club where my parents had a twenty-seven foot cruise boat docked between 1967 and 1972), that Adolf Hitler himself used as the model for his own eugenics laws that were denounced in 1941 by Bishop Clemens von Galen of Munster, Germany (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

As bad as things are now, they will only get worse and worse. They have gotten worse in the past forty-five years since the wellsprings of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces began to dry up after the institutionalization of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sunday, November 30, 1969 (see ).

The downward spiral, though, was over four centuries in the making, longer yet if one considers how certain elements of the Renaissance helped to undermine the integrity of Faith and Morals in various intellectual and artistic circles in the century before the rise of Martin Luther.

This is a time of profound chastisement.

As should be abundantly clear by now, the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is not going to restore even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law under the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America, no less to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. And putative “pope” in the Casa Santa Marta actually celebrates the rot of popular culture as he promotes a “theology of encounter” with his fellow minions of the devil.

We do not, however, despair.

We are Catholics.

We trust in the motherly care of Our Lady, Who gave birth miraculously to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in piercing cold at Midnight on Christmas morning.

We just need to keep close to her, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Alexius, pray for us.