Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

Good grief. Is there a class Lefties attend to learn to write like that, like Marxist Magniloquence 101? Anyhow, this goes back to one of the Warmist’s biggest issues: reducing the global population. And, interestingly, this ties into what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted, namely, reducing the number of minorities, which is what happens when birth control is spread around to much of the developing world, particularly places like the African continent. You want racism? That’s racism! Planning based on the doctrine of eugenics.

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

That’s interesting, since Liberals get the vapors when Conservatives talk about liberating women from being 2nd class citizens as they are in much of the Islamic world. But, really, this is all about spreading abortion on demand around the world. Cheaply. Which is where the asterisk in the headline comes in: liberals think contraceptives, sterilization (Sanger loved the thought of sterilizing Blacks and defectives a hoot), and abortions should be free, and, by free, I mean “someone else pays.” Liberals never seem to want to pay for anything themselves. That’s why they loved Obama’s insurance mandate, as Someone Else would pay for their condoms and birth control pills, and screw what the constitution says about religious freedom.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

If this was supposed to be damage control, Susan G. Komen for the Cure proved Thursday that it has a lot to learn.

On a day when the breast cancer charity’s top official made the rounds with the national media, insisting the organization’s decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood wasn’t political, the firestorm only got worse. Top Democrats piled on; the head of the Komen chapter in Los Angeles quit; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving a $250,000 matching gift to Planned Parenthood.

I’m not seeing what Komen did wrong; do you? I see that 22 Democrat Senators are choosing to whine about what a private corporation does with their money, without mentioning that PP is known mostly for abortions, not “breast exams”, and turning this political. Same with Bloomberg.

Brinker said there was broad consensus from Komen’s board over the new policies. Additionally, she said the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings. Planned Parenthood does not have mammography equipment and refers women to providers for the service.

“We are the stewards of other people’s money, and we need to ensure that money is going to programs for women in the most impactful way,” Brinker said, echoing a statement she made on a YouTube video late Wednesday night.

I can see how that would upset liberals, who seem to expect Other People’s Money to be wasted, rather than being treated respectfully.

We also have a Memorandum pull of a story entitled “HOPE KILLS: Susan G Komen Foundation Would Rather Be Associated With A Handgun Than Planned Parenthood.” The author, Michael Brendan Dougherty, is whining about a Walther P22 that comes in pink, with part of the sales going to the Komen Foundation. Except, the gun is meant to protect the life of a woman. Liberals do not want women to have guns. Liberals want women to be raped, beaten, and die, apparently. The guns are also not performing abortions and killing unborn children, many of whom are female. Why do liberals hate women?

And then we have the whole “breast exam” thing. As Life News points out

During a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson revealed the main reason why the Planned Parenthood abortion business lost its funding. It doesn’t do mammograms.

“It was nothing they were doing wrong,” Brinker explained. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

She added, later in the day on Twitter:, saying the money “will be invested in programs to serve low-income, uninsured and underinsured women.”

PP doesn’t offer mammograms. Let’s be honest, as Life News points out, they do do breast exams. But no mammograms. No PP abortion mills have the necessary medical devices on location. That said, the Left is not upset about Komen pulling funding to PP over breast exams, they are upset about Komen dissing the Left’s favorite abortion provider.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Recently the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced that it was no longer going to be offering funds and grants to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion mill operator. This decision has sent Planned Parenthood over the edge of both sanity and civility with a new fundraising letter that dispenses with its past staid talk about women’s healthcare and goes straight for thuggish threats of retaliation, finger pointing, and attacks on other women.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, a well known breast cancer-fighting charity, decided to withhold further donations to the abortion provider for several reasons, one of which is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress for violating various state abortion laws.

Last month the Associated Press reported Komen’s new criteria and why it is excluding PP. “Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities,” the report said. “According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

The foundation gave more than $569,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2010.

As to the charges against Planned Parenthood that are pending in the congressional investigation, you might recall the stellar work of Lila Rose whose videos brought to our attention that Planned Parenthood was violating state laws by ignoring requirements to report child abuse and rape while pushing abortions on minors.

But Planned Parenthood apparently isn’t taking this lying down. They aren’t just lamenting Komen’s decision, they are getting mad.

In a fundraising letter emailed to supporters, the abortion provider proved themselves to be less a “healthcare” organization, and more the ideologically driven advocacy group that detractors say they are. The email is blunt and asks supporters to sign onto the extremist rhetoric and send it on to others. Most interesting, the letter doesn’t just attack opponents in general but specifically attacks women that oppose Planned Parenthood.

Here is the text of that shockingly harsh letter: (CLICK HERE for a screen shot of the letter)

This is for all the anti-choice, anti-women people out there.

Listen up.

You can spend every minute of every day trying to force the rest of us to live by your ideology. You can go after federal funds for health care and pressure private organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to stop funding breast cancer screenings for poor women. You can try to make it impossible to get birth control.

But you know what you can’t do? You can’t win. You can’t break us. Planned Parenthood isn’t just a family of organizations. It’s a movement. It’s women and men of all ages who believe that health care — including reproductive health care — is a basic human right. We are millions strong. We are everywhere. We act, we give, and we do whatever it takes to make sure that Planned Parenthood is there for the women, men, and teens who rely on them.

Know this: When you go after Planned Parenthood and the people they serve, you go after ME. I stand with Planned Parenthood. I stand with them against anyone who wants to stop women from receiving the health care they need. I stand with them today, tomorrow, and for as long as I need to.

I don’t now about you but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fundrasing letter like this supposedly emanating from a “health care” organization. Imagine if a hospital or other medical organization sent such a letter as this to its customers.

Also amazing is the bald attack on women who don’t agree with PP. This also proves that they aren’t an organization interested in women, but one only interested in women that agree with their ideologically extreme position on abortion.

In any case, what we seem to be seeing here is the last bit of a veneer of legitimacy ripped from Planned Parenthood. It is now fully embracing its ideological drive toward infanticide and has cast away any pretext that it is at all interested in mere healthcare. With this letter Planned Parenthood is admitting that it is a “movement,” not a healthcare provider.

What’s a Republican Feminist To Do?

Of course, we could ask “how many Republican women call themselves “feminists”?” How many have hairy legs and armpits? How many complain about “reproductive rights” and the government getting in the way of the ability to make a “choice” to kill an unborn infant?

In the winter line-up of Republican presidential candidates, a moderate pro-choice Republican woman has no choice. She might feel as if she were so, well, last century.

It is not news that the Republican Party has moved further right on social issues over the past few decades, but the 2012 campaign is a clear marker showing that the party has left legal abortion behind. All the contenders, past and present, adamantly oppose legal abortion, even the libertarian obstetrician-gynecologist, Ron Paul. Overturning legal abortion may in fact be the one thing they all agree on — so it doesn’t come up much in debates, speeches or interviews. But it is on their agenda.

What we see is that Liberals consider support for abortion on demand to be a bedrock of being a feminist. Are there “moderate pro-abortion Republican women”? Probably. Do they seem to obsess over the ability for someone to have an abortion if they so choose? Doubtful. Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not obsess over being able to kill an unborn child simply because they became pregnant after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. Republicans, including women, refuse to be tied to labels and put in boxes.

By contrast, whatever he did in his personal life, President Clinton brought a sound grasp of women’s lives to the stump and to the Oval Office. The first bill he signed into law, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, was a huge gift to working women.

Clinton also had another gift for women: taking advantage of an intern young enough to be his daughter, receiving oral sex under his desk while he smoked a cigar. And we’ll keep this post PG rated by not discussing what he also did with a cigar. How’s that for having a sound grasp of women’s lives? If a Republican did that, he’d be branded a sexist and slapped with a sexual harassment suit. Oh, wait, Clinton was branded a sexist and slapped with multiple suits. If memory serves, Liberals were concerned with….destroying the women who filed those suits. I do love how Mz. Steihm casually dismisses the issue.

President Obama signed the pay equity act named for Lilly Ledbetter. His affordable health care act would make birth control more freely available.

It’s very interesting that Mz. Steihm would bring ObamaCare up in her post: we constantly hear from Liberals that they want government out of our health decisions, especially as it pertains to “women’s health issues”, ie, abortion on demand. They always fail to mention that they love government funding abortions so that people do not have to put out their money for an abortion after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. And that they love government regulations, laws, and court decisions that keep abortion “legal and rare.” But, then we come to ObamaCare: what other legislation passed in the history of the United States has involved the government more in “women’s health issues” than this one? Real health issues. We have the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will make decisions about payments and treatments. We have massive reductions in Medicare and Medicaid funding. Most women think ObamaCare is bad for their families. ObamaCare will drive up the costs for health insurance and care. And we have supporters and proponents of ObamaCare calling for women to have breast exams later in life, because it is a waste of money to have them before 50. Those “death panels” are still there, regarding life decisions. Unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will make decisions on health and cost.

That sure seems like government is getting heavily involved in “women’s health issues”, along with everyone else’s. One would think Liberals would be against government intruding on this issue. Alas, no, their only care is that government not place any restrictions on abortion on demand, even when it comes to later term abortion and requiring parental notification (of course, in the hypocrite world of Liberalism, they’d freak out if they weren’t notified about their own child). Daring to require a 24 hour waiting period or getting an ultrasound makes even the few rational liberals out there talk as if the legislation means women are going to be chained in a cell and forced to have the baby from their casual night of unprotected sex.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Washington Post – Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood

Well, they didn’t really “defund” PP, because PP gets lots of money from other sources, including the Central Government.

The Associated Press reports that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, will cut off its funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates, where the foundation has traditionally paid for preventive screening services.

According to the AP, the move will mean “a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.” Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter.

And there we get the talking point about “breast exams”, which is apparently the only thing PP does. Why’d Komen cut support?

Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding.

That’s why. And that’s all the WP article says. Providing funds would be against Komen’s guidelines. Makes sense for them to hold off. And Liberals go crazy!

• and there go my contributions to the Kormen funds. since they’d rather have poor rural women die of cancer than stand up to the anti abortion fanatics, I hope they go under to (funny, liberals are pro-abortion fanatics)
• When I read this story I was so sad. I ran in one of the first races the Kormen foundation operated in D.C. and have been in awe of its work on behalf of women over the years. Unfortunately, this will make me think twice about giving any of more of my money to it. I would rather give to Planned Parenthood, which, despite the attacks from people and groups who seem to hate women, has managed to continue to provide the health services that women need and want. What a sad day for the Kormen foundation and for Susan Kromen’s memory. (abortions are health services?)
• Komen = scum; So they won’t fund women’s preventative health services at Planned Parenthood anymore because they are being “investigated”. Right. Like the investigation is about criminal activity — political non-sense. Komen should be ashamed.

The comments at the WP keep going strong, over 550, and most are in the vein of the above.

• Feministing Ugh. What bleak news. It seems the right-wing anti-woman agenda is continuing to creep up on us in new and damaging ways. I hope there will be considerable fallout and will post more updates as they come in. (we got the “anti-woman” talking point)
• Feminist Sadly, Planned Parenthood is not unused to falling victim to politics, but it rather smarts when the middle finger has a pink ribbon around it from an organization ostensibly devoted to women’s health. If you had some money set aside for a golf visor or a t-shirt or a cup of yogurt with a pink ribbon on it, Planned Parenthood is establishing a Breast Health Emergency Fund to try and regain some of the lost funds. (so, Komen is mean and partisan, so let’s stop giving to an organization that is all about dealing with women’s health regarding breast cancer because we support women’s health)
• Tbogg puts this under the sexist tag “shut up dumb lady, Pink is the new yellow” and recommends not giving to Komen anymore.
• The always loony Balloon Juice starts out with “Komen for the Cure is abandoning women in need” and then recommends not giving to Komen, an organization which helps women in need.

It continues like that across the left-o-sphere, at the DU, and in the comments at the blogs and Old Media articles. Liberals always say they are against war and strife, want to solve “climate change”, and want the world to have a Coke and sing kumbaya because killing is bad, yet, stand up for abortions at the drop of a hat, wrapping it in all sorts of disingenuous language, even though 91% of pregnant women who visit Planned Parenthood have abortions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

“The ACLU has managed to block North Carolina from issuing license plates with a “Choose Life” message because the state legislature declined to also issue “Choose Death” plates.

U.S. District Judge James Fox didn’t put it that way in his Nov. 28 injunction, but he did agree with the ACLU that the absence of an opposing plate violates the First Amendment. The problem arose because lawmakers refused to authorize the “Respect Choice” plate that Planned Parenthood wanted as part of its ongoing “Culture of Death” initiative.

The ruling prompts the question of whether every expression allowed on a license plate must be accompanied by a contrary view, sort of a Fairness Doctrine for motorists.

Tennessee also found itself in court over “Choose Life” plates in 2004 in ACLU of Tennessee v. Bredesen. In 2006, the 6th U.S Circuit Court overturned a district court ruling against the state, saying, “Government can express public policy views by enlisting private volunteers to disseminate its message, and there is no principle under which the First Amendment can be read to prohibit government from doing so because the views are particularly controversial or politically divisive.”

The court pointed out that nobody is forced to buy the “Choose Life” plates, unlike, say, New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” plates that all Granite State vehicles must bear.

The current controversy is likely to continue for years, as courts have been all over the map, with some ruling that message plates constitute a “public forum,” and others disagreeing. Twenty-nine states have “Choose Life” plates or have authorized them, according to the Winston-Salem Journal

Source

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

(The Politico) Was there science, and not just politics, behind the Obama administration’s decision to stop young teens from getting the morning-after pill without a prescription? Probably not.

Will it work as a political decision? That’s trickier — because for every independent voter who is reassured that President Barack Obama doesn’t want 12-year-old girls buying emergency contraception, there may be another one who thinks he ignores science for political gain.

It wasn’t just Democrats and abortion rights groups that howled when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA on Wednesday and declared that Plan B shouldn’t be available over the counter to girls under age 17. It was medical groups, too — because in their view, the evidence is already settled that the emergency contraception is safe and effective, regardless of age.

“This was a poster child of an issue of science being trumped,” said Wood, now the executive director of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at the George Washington University. “It’s very distressing.”

So, how is this related to “science”?

In her letter Wednesday to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, Sebelius said she blocked the FDA’s recommendation for over-the-counter sales to young teens because the studies submitted to the agency “do not include data on all ages” and because “it is commonly understood that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age.”

Ah. Because there isn’t enough data. But, the liberals who are slamming Sebelius and Obama think it is anti-science to restrict the use of the morning after pill for kids under 17 without parental consent. Is it science? Is it politics? No, it’s neither, it’s simply basic common sense, the same way that parents should be notified when their underage daughter wants to get an abortion, a measure that freaks out liberals. Unless the child in question is their own. Then THEY want notification. In Liberal World, it’s always about Someone Else. And, give Sebelius some credit, she did say that “that allowing girls under 17 to purchase this hormonal drug over the counter without the supervision of an adult or doctor is” a bad idea.

Abortion on demand is the holy grail of Democrat issues, and you know that any interference means that the legislation/measure and the people who propose them are “anti-women” or something.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The indefatigable Steven Ertelt reports another outrage from the infanticide fanatics at Planned Parenthood. Apparently Planned Parenthood is advocating that families use the Thanksgiving holiday (and the upcoming Christmas break) as a day to push their ideas on abortion onto friends and family.

What could be more heartwarming? Friends and family, good food, and a little convivial conversation about killing babies? I mean, what is more fun to talk about around the Thanksgiving table than killing babies? Besides, remember how the Pilgrims were so concerned with killing babies? Yeah, so the discussion is a natural Thanksgiving Day topic, ya know?

As Ertelt says, the page on Planned Parenthood’s website is, “sure to upset millions of pro-life advocates who are busy spending the day thanking God for the gifts and blessings they’ve been given, especially the gift of human life…”

PP wants to help you for the holidays, you see? They offered a nice list of “eight easy steps” for pushing infanticide on family and friends for the holiday.

For instance, one of the helpful hints PP offered to drum up a great holiday discussion is to urge people to kill babies with disabilities.

How uplifting!

Tiny Tim beware, Planned Parenthood is gunning for ya!

PP’s webpage is also odd in another way. Whereas most people’s first assumption for a family-oriented holiday is that it should be a joyous time (especially if you are writing about it for public consumption), Planned Parenthood apparently sees Thanksgiving as a terrible, “stressful” time.

The PP site starts oddly with this: “Going home or getting together with relatives for the holidays is always a stressful time…”

Really? It’s not a wonderful time for family and friends? It’s just a “stressful time”?

I guess it should be no surprise that people that love infanticide are down on family even during the holidays, eh? What hateful, ignorant people are these? On Thanksgiving, only Planned Parenthood could be thankful for death.

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

Since when is it unconservative to believe the government should stay out of people’s personal social decisions? A Federalist opinion would leave issues like this to the States. A libertarian view would simply state it is none of the government’s business. However, he clearly states in the interview that “abortion should not be legal.”

Let me break it down. In this interview conducted by Piers Morgan the question is asked to Cain what his stance on abortion is. His answer is clear. He is against it even in the case of incest or rape. Morgan continues with, “But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own? ”

The topic has clearly changed from “abortion” to “bring up that baby as her own”. This is an obvious change in subject from abortion to raising the child. Herman Cain makes this distinction when he says: “You’re mixing two things here, Piers?”

Cain then goes on to say, “No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.”

This last part that everyone is disecting is obviously in answer to the choice of raising the child or putting the child up for adoption that he is referring to…not abortion. I must admit his answers were more confusing in his interview with John Stossel. He does need to come out and clarify his views for everyone. Regardless, Cain was clearly speaking in the context of rape and incest exceptions.

And here is his clarification:

Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.”

(The following is not an endorsement or lack thereof, it is an observation.)

When it comes to evolution, Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman (R-UT) reveals a serious character flaw for a man who wants to become president. He ignores facts and disregards the latest findings by experts in the field of science while accusing others of “running from science.” It is Huntsman who is clearly “running from science” as he displays an Obama-Pelosi-Reid dictatorial style of declaring an issue settled when clearly the debate is far from over.

Huntsman appears to be a politician who suffers from a lack of basic knowledge and shows no desire to explore or correct it. Real science requires the full spectrum of information as Huntsman remains stuck in evolution’s hypothesized “mud-puddle.” Long-standing and recent scientific data reveal that the scientifically exposed flaws and frauds of evolution are so numerous that evolution should be relegated to no more than a scientific curiosity devoid of empirical scientific data. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman does not understand the difference between micro-adaptations to the environment vs. macro-evolution’s claim that one species evolves into another. Macro-evolution has never occurred anywhere in nature. Micro-changes occur, such as the darkening of one’s skin in sunnier climes, but too drastic a change to the human species (or any species) results in deforming or killing the species. Clearly, that is the direct opposite of “evolving.”

Crass proposal or not, $250,000 has been offered to anyone who can prove that macro-evolution occurs. The response to that quarter of a million dollar offer?: Crickets. Nothing, nada, zippo, dead silence as the money goes uncollected. The reason no scientist can step forward to collect a quarter of a million dollars with their evidence of evolution – is because none exists. Surely Presidential candidate Huntsman could use an additional quarter of a million dollars in his campaign coffers. Just “name it and claim it,” “put up or shut up” – whichever idiom applies.

It is true that Governor Huntsman is a politician and I am a news commentator and contributor. But, the primary difference is that I have studied evolution and co-wrote a book on the topic. Since Huntsman appears driven to portray himself as the final say, it is my pleasure to challenge the former Governor to a debate. If he does not want to debate the issue (since he appears to prefer a “science-stifling the debate is over” mentality), then I suggest he order a copy of the book, “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” (www.DarwinsRacists.com). He will read the conclusions of brilliant scientific minds who dismiss evolution as mere theory and recognize that it has been and continues to be an obstacle to real scientific study. He will find that proponents for evolution are, for the most part, either on the government-grant dole or are such hyper-secularists that the idea of a Creator God is abhorrent to them. The latest polls show that the majority of Americans, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other faiths, do not believe in evolution which puts them in disagreement with Huntsman.

Huntsman accuses others of “running from science.” The conclusion is that it is Huntsman who is uninformed, outdated and a threat to serious science. Brilliant men and women of science from top biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, cosmologists to rocket scientists have denounced “evolution” as a man-made, anti-science theory with racist underpinnings. World renowned and revered pro-evolutionist scientist, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Harvard professor of Geology and Paleontology who devoted his entire career to studying evolution has written: “We are not evolving.” After years of probing the tenuous claims of evolution, this top scientist, Dr. Gould, concluded and stated clearly on record:

“For all practical purposes we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to believe we ‘re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever – we are what we are.” This career Darwinian evolutionist went on to say: “The fossil record does not show gradual changes [of evolution] and every paleontologist has known that since Cuvier.” Stephen J. Gould, Harvard Scientist and Professor

Many other top-tier scientists are named and quoted in the book, “Darwin’s Racists,” should the former governor wish to give it a read. (Also see peer-reviewed I.D. studies at: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 )

Jon Huntsman is the product of a program of misinformation long taught and perpetrated by Fabian Socialists who gave birth to the American Progressive-Liberal party. At its core, evolution is a racist theory that declares people of color as less evolved and more closely connected to African apes. It is a belief stated by Charles Darwin, who introduced his theory of evolution over 150 years ago. Famed Fabian-Socialist and fierce eugenicist, George Bernard Shaw, thought evolution was a dandy idea. The liberal-environmentalist Shaw first proposed using gas chambers for population control and ridding the planet of lesser human beings. That Huntsman’s position on evolution is opposed by the majority of Americans, is anti-science and is, by association, racist at its core should be noted by every American. It is a good thing that former Governor Huntsman opened that can of worms from which he believes all humans evolved. Once again in national discourse, Americans can decide what is fraud and what is truth.