Obama and the State of the Union: A Lesson in Smoke and Mirrors

Obama started off his State of the Union Address with “…one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.” Apparently president Obama is not aware that the stock market has lost 529 points since January 19th, and that unemployment is still at 10% or higher, even though he promised it would not go over 8% once his stimulus plan was passed.

“And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.” Hold on there, Buckaroo! Once again, in true Obama fashion, the truth is distorted to an extent that it is completely false. He did sign an executive order that would prevent lobbyists from being able to “work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” However, Obama failed to mention that there is a “waiver” that allows former lobbyists to serve.

But moving right along:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.

Apparently, the President doesn’t like people playing in his back yard or looking at his playbook. Sure, he doesn’t want corporations, the likes of which the Democrats have been known to put the squeeze on, getting involved in campaign finances. And “foreign entities?” Please! Apparently the president has a chronic case of short-term memory loss. How much did he get for his presidential campaign from “foreign entities?” With that statement alone, we should challenge his current mental state with regard to his ability to make sound decisions.

Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

No he didn’t! I’m sorry, but I just have to give out a big “ROFL” with that one. I mean, come on! Obama is going to bring up posting things on the internet for all to see before a vote is passed?

Let’s see…where to begin?

During his campaign, President Obama said that he “…will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for FIVE DAYS.”

Is that so?

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act was passed on January 27th, 2009 and signed TWO DAYS LATER by the president on January 29th, 2009. A few days later on February 4th, 2009, Obama signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program only HOURS after it passed through Congress. Then the following month, Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 on May 22, 2009 – only two days after it passed through Congress.

So pardon me while I “ROFL” when the president charges Congress with upholding a standard that he will not hold himself to, even after he promised he would. I think this falls under the category of “Do as I say, not as I do!”

On this occasion, he has found a new way of blaming Bush. Instead of blaming things on the “previous administration”, he now describes it as “the last decade.” That Obama, he sure knows how to choose his words carefully, doesn’t he? Although it does seem at times that he’s struggling internally when he disagrees with the words that are scrolling on the teleprompter.

I also noticed the rise he got when he said “If these firms [big business] can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the tax payers who rescued them in their time of need.” Well, here is a thought, President Obama: If Congress can afford to give our legislators a raise when everybody else is losing money, then they can afford to give that money to the tax payers instead–who by the way pay them their salaries in the first place.

I’m glad that the president is finally focusing on jobs, but I am a bit perplexed. By the way Mr. President, why would you need to call for a “jobs bill” if your stimulus plan is working as well as you claim? Obama keeps telling of the stories of the business in Phoenix that is growing, the one in Philadelphia that has doubled its business, but he did not say what the business’ name is. He also wants to give $30 billion to small community banks, in the hopes that they’ll start lending to small businesses. It kind of reminds me of the phantom districts that received stimulus money and “saved or created” fictitious recordable jobs.

There was something I did like, no really, I’m serious. Obama said he wants to reduce the capital gains tax. I am all for cutting the capital gains tax and would have given him credit for bipartisanship had he given due credit to the Republicans (who have been pushing for that since he took office.) He also talk about persuing alternative energy. But instead, he chose not to acknowledge that, presenting it as if it was a novel idea.

As an aside, did you happen to notice where Joe Biden was reading ahead on the teleprompter and started to applaud before the prompt, when Obama was mid sentence? By the way: Way to go, Joe! That was a great rapid response in recalling the clap before everyone else noticed. Major gaffe averted. I can’t wait to find the video…that was priceless! It wasn’t necessarily of importance, but at least it was certainly humorous, and typical of Biden.

Obama said that what frustrates the American people most is a Washington in which “every day is Election Day.” Oh how wrong he is. If every day were Election Day, people like Obama wouldn’t be able to go back on promises of transparency and making deliberations public on C-SPAN. They’d be on their best behavior. He says that neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill, just because they can. Well how about if every single bill is corrupt, should we just pass it to let them win one, American people’s wishes be damned? First, he reminds the democrats that they’re still winning and should forge ahead. Then to Republicans, he says if they “are going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a Super Majority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.” I’m sorry, maybe I was flawed in my thinking all along. I thought for some crazy reason that we sent both Republicans and Democrats to D.C. to REpresent us, to present our views in our absence. Perhaps I am mistaken and the president is correct, being a constitutional law professor and all, that the Republicans should lead by not serving the ambitions of their Republican constituents. So let’s show the American people that we can do what together, Mr. President? As usual, his rhetoric doesn’t match his actions, or even the rest of his rhetoric. The entire speech is 1 hour and 10 minutes of contradictions. He says he’ll be addressing Republican leaders finally, on a monthly basis. It’s only been how long since they’ve been requesting meetings? Better late than never, I suppose.

This man, Barack Hussein Obama, just said to the American people, that we can argue all we want about who’s to blame, “but I’m not interested in re-litigating the past.” Hmmm, I am not quite sure what to make of the numerous references to “who is to blame” earlier in the speech then. He wants to put aside the schoolyard taunts about who’s tough. Kind of like a few minutes prior when he spoke to Democrats and reminded them they still had the largest majority in history and should act on it. To me that sounded oddly reminiscent of “We won, we won! We shot the b. b. gun!” but maybe I’m alone in that.

America’s greatest strength has been our ideals, says Obama, we find unity in our diversity, the notion that no matter who you are, and what you look like, if you adhere to our common [Democrat] values, you should be treated the same. I’m guessing that those who were locking the doors to keep people out of town hall meetings during the health care debates weren’t embracing our nation’s great diversity. He’s touting the idea that he’s going to ensure that gays have “the right to serve” in the military. Why on earth are their entrance exams to be accepted into the military? Could it be that it is to screen those who should be serving from those who should not? Could it be that they are looking to see who is equipped to serve and who is not? Does the overweight guy who can’t pass the physical fitness test have the “right” to serve in our military? ABSOLUTELY he does! Just as soon as he CHANGES enough to meet the high standards that the strongest fighting force known to mankind has set in place. The military does not require that a person stop being gay in order to serve, only that they not proclaim it to those they’re working alongside. Likewise if an overweight person does trim down enough to meet standards, the military doesn’t require that they stop eating the same amount they used to eat, but it does require that they not do so to the extent that it might put fellow servicemen in harm’s way.

With regard to his earlier statement about Republicans and furthering their own ambitions, Obama ends his speech with a fervent, “We don’t quit, I DON’T QUIT!” Mr. “it’s not all about me, it’s just entirely about me” President, how about, “I don’t give up on YOU,” no, that won’t do, that takes the emphasis off of him and places it on the people he’s supposed to be serving. After all, Obama doesn’t quit…when his ambitions are on the line.


Please DONATE to Natalie Nichols campaign and support a true conservative running in a county represented by only one Republican in office. “I refuse to compromise my values and beliefs!”

Natalie Nichols is currently TX District 4 Coordinator for Smart Girl Politics (SGP), a group that empowers Conservative women, and a contributing writer for Smart Girl Nation, SGP’s online magazine. She is Co-Founder of Political Integrity Now, a Conservative online news, analysis, and commentary site. Natalie is creator of the Texarkana TEA Patriots website, a site where local patriots can meet, organize, and take action. Additionally, she is a member of Star of Texas Republican Women, one of the coordinators for the TEA parties in Texarkana, and is a member of the Bowie County Patriots and is running for local office.

You can follow Natalie on Facebook and Twitter.


To Glenn Beck: Thank you for doing Black America, and the rest of us, a favor

Kevin Jackson of "The Black Sphere" - A True Conservative Voice


Thank you for doing black America, and the rest of us, a favor by giving us the opportunity to hear from black conservatives. No one else seems brave enough to expose the falsehood surrounding the myth that all black people must be liberals. Black youths need to be able to look up to strong, intelligent, and proud black conservative leaders (in and out of elected office.)

I would like to “demand” (as Cavuto suggests) that FOX devote an entire show to black conservative views. You’ve done all conservatives a great service by allowing us to hear from them, but this needs to be an ongoing thing. I would like to suggest that Kevin Jackson host the show. BET, and other “black networks”, should not be the only outlet for black voices and it shouldn’t be the only place that America is able to find out what black people are thinking. Both parties need to be made aware that there is a real body of black conservatives and that neither party “owns” their loyalties.

I’m running for local office, as a Conservative Republican. I’ve been told by numerous advisers and candidate training programs that I should concentrate on historically “red” areas, only going to predominantly black areas if time allows once I’ve canvassed all the other areas. It is no wonder that black America feels slighted by the Republican party when most of the Republicans can’t be bothered with “wasting time and resources” in black neighborhoods. I may be going against sound advice and reason, but this white Christian, mother of 4 will most definitely be campaigning in black neighborhoods just as in “white neighborhoods.” I want to know what people are thinking and I want to be elected to give a voice to ALL of my local area. How presumptuous would it be of me to just assume that I can speak for a group of people that I didn’t bother to speak TO in the first place?

Jerome Hudson (left), another true conservative voice of the truth

Please give them a continuous voice. Give the youth in their communities good role models to look up to in the conservative arena. Too many of them have been lied to and told that their “blackness” depends on exactly how liberal they are. Jerome Hudson was told that he was trying to act white because he wanted to dress nice and get an education, countless others have been as well. Let’s get rid of this ignorant fictional wall between our fellow countrymen and make America see that we’re just that…Americans, unhyphenated and unapologetic.

Thank you for your time,

Natalie Nichols
Texarkana, TX

Natalie Nichols is currently TX District 4 Coordinator for Smart Girl Politics (SGP), a group that empowers Conservative women, and a contributing writer for Smart Girl Nation, SGP’s online magazine. She is Co-Founder of Political Integrity Now, a Conservative online news, analysis, and commentary site. Natalie is creator of the Texarkana TEA Patriots website, a site where local patriots can meet, organize, and take action. Additionally, she is a member of Star of Texas Republican Women, one of the coordinators for the TEA parties in Texarkana, and is a member of the Bowie County Patriots and is running for local office.

Please donate to Natalie’s campaign and support a true conservative running in a county represented by only one Republican in office. I REFUSE TO COMPROMISE MY VALUES AND BELIEFS!”

Please join her on Facebook and Twitter.

Visit Natalie’s campaign website here

Other articles of interest:

Fill in the blank:  Obama proposing a speending freeze is like…

Pelosi and Reid plot secret plan to pass Obamacare

Obama backed Coakley, but he’s not sure why

Barack Obama, our president,  campaigned against Scott Brown on behalf of Martha Coakley.  He gave a speech the Sunday prior to the election, to try to tell the people of Boston that they needed to elect Martha Coakley on January 19th.  We try not to be overly critical, but then again, this is Political Integrity Now and we do demand integrity.  Obama stood there and lauded Coakley as a great person, wonderful Attorney General and the next Senator of MA.  He said, “Just look at her record.”  Yet he went on to deride Scott Brown, her opponent, who by the way is a Lt. Colonel in the MA National Guard (where he’s served for 29 years.)  Our president, who is supposed to be a man of honor and integrity, said that Martha Coakley had taken on cases that most of us don’t even want to know about, including child abuse cases.  Maybe he just didn’t look into her record himself, or maybe he doesn’t think it is an issue, but Martha Coakley (then DA) investigated and then allowed a sexual predator who raped his 23 month old niece with a hot curling iron go free without taking any action against him.  Only after the child’s mother filed criminal complaints against him, did Coakley go after an indictment.  And even at that point, almost 10 months after the horrendous rape of this baby, Martha Coakley (President Obama’s pick to fill “the People’s seat” in MA) and her office recommended that the monster be released on personal recognizance, WITH NO CASH BAIL.  He remained free until more than 2 years after he so violently assaulted this child, on Martha Coakley’s watch, finally being convicted and being sentenced to two life terms.

I know that the above crime is heart-wrenching and stomach churning and it pains me to even type the words, much less think about them.  But it is vital to the context of Obama’s most poignant statement to the Boston crowd in support of Coakley that you understand what her track record is.  In his usual cocky manner, Obama looked those people in the eye and said (4:35 mark of the video), “[Scott Brown] may be a perfectly nice guy, I DON’T KNOW HIS RECORD…I don’t know whether he’s been fighting for you, up until now.”  He went on to claim in jest that it was possible, although unlikely by the tone of his voice, that Brown had been fighting for the people of Massachusetts, laughing off the fact that he really didn’t know.  That’s right America, all Obama knows is that we need to elect Martha Coakley.  He doesn’t know or care what her record is, and he readily admits that he has absolutely no idea what Scott Brown’s record is, but we should just trust him.  In the same breath he says that we need someone who doesn’t just vote along party line.  I’m just left wondering, if Obama isn’t actually aware of Coakley’s record, and we know that he isn’t aware of Scott Brown’s, then what exactly is he encouraging MA to vote on?  Oh, that’s right, he wants…strike that, he NEEDS a vote right down the party line, something that even he acknowledges lacks integrity.  An interesting and relevant point that perhaps Obama might want to take into consideration before his teleprompter urges him to speak again:

Scott Brown received the 2004 “Public Servant of the Year” Award from the United Chamber of Commerce, for his leadership in reforming the state’s sex offender laws and protecting the rights of victims, according to his website, and is one of the State’s most outspoken advocates for victims of sexual abuse.

Hecklers managed to infiltrate the usually carefully pre-screened audience for the speech.  At least one man and one child were heard voicing their disagreement with Obama.  The man was escorted away by police for chanting and holding up a sign that read, “Jesus loves ALL the children” and it is uncertain whether the child was removed or stopped chanting on his own accord.  The loyal Obama groupies behind him were dumbfounded when they heard the commotion, and again, the president simply found it humorous.  Amazing!

Natalie Nichols is currently TX District 4 Coordinator for Smart Girl Politics (SGP), a group that empowers Conservative women, and a contributing writer for Smart Girl Nation, SGP’s online magazine.  She is Co-Founder of Political Integrity Now, a Conservative online news, analysis, and commentary site.  Natalie is creator of the Texarkana TEA Patriots website, a site where local patriots can meet, organize, and take action.  Additionally, she is a member of Star of Texas Republican Women, one of the coordinators for the TEA parties in Texarkana, and is a member of the Bowie County Patriots and is running for local office.

Please join her on Facebook and Twitter.

Other Articles of interest:

The uniter:  Scott Brown’s center-right-indie coalition

Pollster.com:  Brown has significant and growing lead

WH plans to cram Senate ObamaCare bill down House throat if Brown wins

Urgent APpeal RE:  Massachusetts and Other States

Snort:  Martha Antoinette Coakley calls in John French Kerry

Abortion coverage MANDATORY in Senate bill exchanges!


Previously posted at our website, Political Integrity Now

Where it is written “subsection A”, note that this is referring to “abortions for which public funding is NOT allowed.” And where it says “subsection B”, it is referring to “abortions for which public funding IS allowed. This begins on page 140 of the 1502 page newly submitted Senate Finance Committee bill.

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary [Kathleen Sebelius] shall sure that with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered in any exchange established pursuant to this title—
18 ‘‘(i) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in subparagraphs (A) [does not provide abortion coverage] and (B) [does provide abortion coverage] of paragraph (2); [line 20, pg 140]

The current bill mandates an abortion coverage option be available through any qualified health benefits plan in the exchange:

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered in any exchange established pursuant to this title—

(i) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2); and

(ii) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in paragraph (2)(A); [line 14, pg 141]

The next bit discusses segregation of funds, and in layman’s terms, this says that even though these entities may be federally funded or get large sums of government money, they have to segregate the funds which pay for (provide) abortions. What does this mean in terms of a family budget? It means a husband and wife both work. He brings home 2,000 per week and she brings home 1,800 per week. If this family budget was going to provide abortions, it would mean that even though their combined salaries benefit their household as a whole, the actual money spent on the abortions will have to come out of the 2,000 that he brings home for that week. So essentially it is the same 3,800 pool of money, but we’re splitting it up to make it sound better. Another way to describe it is if that man goes out and buys a new Corvette without discussing it with his wife. When she freaks out, he says, “Don’t worry honey, I’m going to make the payments out of MY salary, it won’t come from yours at all. See what I’m getting at here? It’s just semantics.

‘‘(c) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.—A qualified health benefits plan may not discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.’’ [line 6 pg 144]

This basically means that no plan, even one that was highly against abortion, could not discriminate (i.e. not cover services at facilities that provide abortions–like planned parenthood) against any doctor or health care provider because of their WILLINGNESS to provide or refer for abortions. This feels eerily like something we call a “loophole.” The plan itself may not cover abortions, but the plan cannot refuse to pay for services at…say…an abortion clinic.

Will be updated as time permits. It is however, a 1500 page bill!

Recent articles of interest:

Radical leftist Dede Scozzafava can’t stand the heat

Fox News Reaches Across Party Lines

Victory against Big Labor: Home health providers reject SEIU, AFSCME power grab

2010: The year of the black Conservative

Allen West is one of a small group of black Republicans who hope to capitalize on the race card controversy being perpetuated by Obama supporters, in 2010.

Allen West is one of a small group of black Republicans who hope to capitalize on the race card controversy being perpetuated by Obama supporters, in 2010.

Previously posted on our website, Political Integrity Now.

As has been reported on Political Integrity Now in the past, accusations of racism based upon political disagreements are not only wrong, but they do a disservice to those who are true victims of racism. PIN hopes that Allen West is on to something. It is a disgrace that so many citizens believe the hype that Democrats have always been a friend to black people.

As reported by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, on www.FoxNews.com.

When former President Jimmy Carter said racism was an underlying factor in attacks on President Obama, it’s safe to say he had no intention of boosting Allen West’s campaign for Congress in Florida’s Broward County.

But according to West, a retired Army colonel who is running for the second time against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida’s 22nd congressional district, that is exactly what has happened.

“Since (Democrats) have thrown out the race card, it has made me more appealing,” says West, one of a small but determined group of black Republicans running for seats in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in 2010.

Eager to overturn the “conventional wisdom” that the GOP is mainly a white bread party that offers few opportunities for minorities, these black Republicans believe they can attract increasingly agitated conservatives, as well as independents, to make 2010 their year.

They also conceded in interviews that the injection of race — a familiar theme since Obama’s election last year — has given them a certain edge and authority when they speak out against the president’s agenda. Because they’re black, they say, they can lead the charge against Democratic policies without being called “racist.” In fact, they say, their skin color may make them more attractive candidates.

“A lot of people who don’t want to be part of Obama’s policies are being called racist,” West said. “Then they say, ‘Hey, this guy, Colonel West — he’s black and I support him.'”

“It’s made me more appealing,” West told FOXNews.com, “because it shows the contrast of our principles — how different we are even though we both have permanent tans.”

Continuing from the Fox story:

The GOP still calls itself the “Party of Lincoln” because of its historical ties to the abolition of American slavery, and blacks remained loyal to the party after Reconstruction as Southern Democrats established segregationist Jim Crow laws. But the scene began to shift during the Depression, as blacks voted in large numbers for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal policies.

The Democrats cemented their lock on black voters in the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson pushed his Great Society programs and, more importantly, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. Four years later, in 1968, Richard Nixon wooed disenchanted Southern Democrats to win the presidency, setting the GOP on its current course, demographically, with voters of color. Read more.

The interesting thing to note about this particular segment is that the turning point for black loyalty to the Democrats is bathed in the facade that Democrats were the ones pushing for Civil Rights legislation under Johnson. This is something that Republicans had been pushing for over a long period of time, but were repeatedly shut down by Democrat majorities. Lyndon Johnson went against his party and some Democrats and a majority of Republicans came to his aid. THIS is how the Democrats clinched the black vote. They (as a party) did not wish to secure civil rights for blacks, however they repeatedly said that they did and expected that the public would believe them. They banked on this deception and the gamble paid off. To read more in depth and look at the Democratic and Republican party platforms, through the years (along with factual records to back up or debunk claims made in those platforms) see this document. This is a detailed 124 year side-by-side comparison of the two major political parties and their civil rights efforts–or lack thereof.

In order to maintain any level of political integrity, we must all do our own research. You sell yourself short if you just accept as fact what you see or hear reported. Find out if the facts back up the claims and then make your own decisions. Black or white, purple or green, we all owe it to ourselves to own our choices.

Will new warnings lead to coerced abortions and sterilization?

Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren has espoused controversial views on population control in the past.

Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren has espoused controversial views on population control in the past.

Previously posted on our website, Political Integrity Now

By now you’ve heard the outrageous ideas put forth by Obama’s science Czar John Holdren in Ecoscience . This is the book where Holdren, joined with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, suggested that sterilants placed into our water and essential food supply would be a good way to limit population growth. The trio also tossed around the idea of mandatory adoptions for children born to mothers out of wedlock or to teen mothers, that is if the teens hadn’t already been forced to abort-as the book also suggests.

You may be thinking that this is a far-fetched notion, that these were just wild ideas in the world of academia, and that people don’t really believe this stuff. Think again.

Youthquake is a report put out by the radical group Optimum Population Trust. It is an urgent call to action to save the planet, not only from pollution, but from people. It’s OPT’s contention that overpopulation is killing our planet, and to save it, we should push for population reduction.

Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering.

OPT released a briefing in 2007 which says the following:

Population limitation should therefore be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations – a strategy that applies with even more force to developed nations such as the UK because of their higher consumption levels. A non-existent person has no environmental footprint: the emissions “saving” is instant and total. Given an 80-year lifespan and annual per capita emissions (2006) of 9.3 tonnes of CO2 (Defra, 2007, provisional), each Briton “foregone” – each addition to the population that does not take place – saves 744 tonnes of CO2, equivalent in emissions to 620 return flights from London to New York (1.2 tonnes of CO2 each).

Well there you have it! “A non-existent person has no environmental footprint.” A non-existent person also has no dissenting political views, no burden on society, no addition to health care costs, and no demand on social services. Whether people want to admit it or not, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, believed strongly in eugenics. This is the theory that we can and should weed out the undesirables–you know, those who might be emitting too much CO2–or in her day, who were too poor, or too dumb, or too weak, or too black. Sanger’s idea was that we could use “family planning” to keep those “unfits” from reproducing.

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.

The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States

The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States

Still shaking your head thinking that forced sterilization can’t happen here? Unfortunately it already did. From 1930s to the 1970s, mass sterilization was taking place in Puerto Rico. Women were encouraged to get hysterectomies. Children in schools were taught that the key to economic success was having a small family. The average age for those who were sterilized was 26, with a full 1/3 of the island’s female population being sterilized by 1965! Many of those women were not told that the procedure was irreversible, and some were not even told that it was a surgery at all. Planned Parenthood had a hand here as well, after all, this primarily targeted poor and impoverished women–or as Margaret Sanger would say, “unfit.”

Which brings us back to recent studies on population control and dire warnings from environmentalists. Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost is literally a cost/benefit analysis of population control and pollution. Simply put, the study found that “family planning” is the “cheapest way to combat climate change.” Oregon State University statisticians have recently released a study that claims that having fewer children is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint.

While the OSU researchers make it clear they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, we cannot ignore the fact that there are groups who are advocating coercive measures and that someone who has written about such things in the past, has the president’s ear. In a political environment where every day is the potential for a new crisis, as the next big thing, we have to wonder how many ways this new research can be used by an uber-progressive administration. Holdren has written about compulsory abortions and coerced sterilization, all in the name of the environmental movement. Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, recently resigned amid revelations of his radically controversial views. Obama has said that he wants to put science before ideology–but whose science and whose ideology?

Still think Socialist is the new N-word? Watch this video and you won’t.

Previously posted on our website Political Integrity Now

Stories, like the ones below, continue to surface in the midst of any dissenting view of Barack Obama. Yes, America, Barack Obama is our first black president. But No, that does not mean that from here on out, anyone who disagrees with his policies is cloaked in the dark cloud of racism.

Carlos Watson wonders whether socialist is the new N-word.

Victor Goode ponders the use of the word socialist in “Obama’s Post-Racist Presidency” and actually says that when a dissenter refers to Obama or his administration’s policies as socialistic, it “satisfies the same gut sense that” racists satisfied when they ignorantly called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “That n–.”

Protest posters comparing Bush to Hitler did not encourage the same media outrage over racism as socialist comparisons with the Obama presidency have created.  Why?

Protest posters comparing Bush to Hitler did not encourage the same media outrage over racism as socialist comparisons with the Obama presidency have created. Why?

Please do not dishonor those in our country who actually have been victims of true racism with these accusations. It is no more racist to refer to this president as a socialist than it was to refer to a white president as socialist. I have to think that it is terribly insulting to those African-American citizens who have come before us and were subjected to the cruel realities of racism when these comparisons are drawn. We will never be a post-racist society when “playing the race card” continues to be the strategy of the day.

Articles of interest:

Deep-thinking celebrity see’s racism “everywhere”

Newest sign of American racism: HOV lanes

Obama Criticsm Flow Chart: Defines who is a Racist

*editor’s note* Video is not our original content, as indicated by the watermark. Video was produced by Paul Williams World, which can be found by clicking on the YouTube icon in the embedded video. Many thanks to http://www.newsbusters.org for the h/t, but since there seemed to be some confusion in the comments on on News Busters, PIN wanted to clear this up for all readers who may have misunderstood. Story is original content, video is not.