Through Dialectic Process, The art of deception by brainwashing and lying, the Democrats have been able to perpetuate the Big Lie to the lower income population of America. Democrats do NOT believe in individualism; they want to keep you in the peasantry class.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels quotes **Propagandist for Adolph Hitler**
First let’s start with a Racist President and the one that started Segregation: President Woodrow Wilson
TAKE A MOMENT TO SMELL THE RACISM. Progressive Racism. Americans Need to LEARN the Sobering History of President Woodrow Wilson’s Segregation Policy.
April 11, 2013
Over at NRO, Paul Rahe reminds us that today is a very special occasion for our progressive friends — the 100-year anniversary celebration of Woodrow Wilson’s institutionalized racism:
One hundred years ago today, Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to the North. He had been inaugurated on March 4, 1913. At a cabinet meeting on April 11, his postmaster general, Albert S. Burleson, suggested that the new administration segregate the railway mail service; and treasury secretary William G. McAdoo, who would soon become Wilson’s son-in-law, chimed in to signal his support. Wilson followed their lead. He had made a bid for the African-American vote in 1912, and he had attracted the support of figures such as W. E. B. Du Bois, but, as he put it at the meeting, he had made “no promises in particular to Negroes, except to do them justice.” Burleson’s proposal he welcomed, but he wanted “the matter adjusted in a way to make the least friction.” […]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, ordinary Americans may generally have been in the grips of ethnic prejudice of one sort or another. The Progressives of that time were not, however, ordinary men, and they knew it. Like their successors today, they dominated America’s universities. With some justification, they thought of themselves as an intellectual elite; and, with rare exceptions, they enthusiastically embraced eugenics and racial theory. That the inchoate racial prejudices of their contemporaries were grounded in fact they took to be a truth taught by science; and, being devotees of rational administration to the exclusion of all other concerns, they insisted that public policy conform to the dictates of the new racial science.
Wilson, our first professorial president, was a case in point. He was the very model of a modern Progressive, and he was recognized as such. He prided himself on having pioneered the new science of rational administration, and he shared the conviction, dominant among his brethren, that African-Americans were racially inferior to whites. With the dictates of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement in mind, in 1907, he campaigned in Indiana for the compulsory sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded; and in 1911, while governor of New Jersey, he proudly signed into law just such a bill.
‘Washington Post’ Catches Democrats Rewriting Civil Rights History. Since the Democrat Party Likes to Play the “Race Card” and “Racism”… Let Historical Facts Prevail
In any number of cynical moves, Team Obama has appealed to the worst in the Democratic base through the waging of a campaign of bitter divisiveness. We’ve seen the phony War on Women, the demagoguery of class warfare, the unilateral decision to stop enforcing certain immigration laws for a special demographic (Hispanics), and now we’ve learned that Democrats have gone so far as to manufacture an Orwellian rewriting of history on the DNC Website. 20 paragraphs of nonsense are in support of this opening sentence:
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights.
The idea that Democrat Party has led the fight for American civil rights for over 200 years is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. Even the Washington Post’s fact-checker found the claim too preposterous to ignore:
The Web history mentions the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson in helping pass the 19th Amendment, without noting that he was a racist or that he repressed civil liberties — even to the point of jailing one of his rivals for the presidency in 1914 (socialist Eugene Debs).
The history also highlights the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Certainly President Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, played an essential role, but it is worth remembering that 80 percent of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Democrats, including the late Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Albert Gore (Tenn.), father of the future vice president. Republican votes, in fact, were essential in winning final passage of the bill.
And let’s not forget that The Great Emancipator, the president who spent his legal and political career making some of the most persuasive, moral, common sense, and elegant cases against slavery in our nation’s history — was a Republican. Oh, and he freed the slaves.
And since that time, we have always been the Party of Lincoln:
What the Progressives like to hide from America are the FACTS.
#1 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. WAS A REPUBLICAN.
#2. Racism and threats actually were initiated by Southern Democrats and the KKK.
KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice
History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials,Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”
Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.
On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”
Excerpted; Continue reading at:
#3. Democrats Smeared MLK in the 1960′s
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being
physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while
referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where
a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the
Excerpted; Continue reading at:
Greg Lewis at American Thinker writes:
January 20, 2010
The Obama Administration’s Rampant Racism
The racist bias of the current administration cuts both ways. The fact that our president accepted Reid’s apology as if he (Obama) were the only one damaged by Reid’s remarks speaks to two things: the president’s own narcissism and the fact that he agrees with the underlying racist premise that speaking with a “Negro dialect” is negative. Obama was sending a subliminal message to tens of millions of African-Americans that they weren’t damaged by the implication that they’re inferior and not politically marketable as national leaders because they speak differently from white massas like Harry Reid. Reid’s comments were insulting to every “Negro” in America, and Reid should have apologized to all of the country’s African-Americans, not just to the president.
The president was one of the leaders of the lynch mob that eventually succeeded in getting talk show host Don Imus fired from his post for the sin of calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy-headed ho’s.” Then-candidate Obama declared that “[Imus] didn’t just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.” Thank God Harry Reid wasn’t guilty of that.
By appointing a racist as his Attorney General, Obama effectively cemented history’s judgment of his administration’s racialist policies. Eric Holder, who called Americans “cowards” because they were unwilling to engage in a public debate about “race,” has proven himself to be both a coward and a racist. When it’s politically convenient for him to support blacks, he’ll subvert the law to do so, as he did in dismissing the prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation on election day 2008 in Philadelphia. The Justice Department had won the case by default when the defendants failed to respond to the charges, yet Holder dismissed the charges against all but one of the miscreants. The one against whom the charges remained was told not that voter intimidation was illegal, but that he had to wait until after 2012 before brandishing a nightstick at an election site again.
Holder is the Obama administration’s “Bull” Connor. Where Connor called out firemen and policemen to prevent blacks from demonstrating in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, Holder tacitly condoned behavior equivalent to that of Connor’s brownshirts by dropping prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party when they brandished weapons and shouted insults at white voters, intimidating them in a way similar to that of Connor’s thugs 45 years earlier. The difference is not in the degree of the offenses committed, but in the fact that in this case, when committed against whites, the offense doesn’t lead to punishment.
Reid, Holder, and Obama all cling to deeply racist convictions, not only in branding those who disagree politically with them as racist, but also in their own attitudes toward African-Americans, whom they implicitly see as inferior to whites and “light-skinned” blacks. Their selective condemnation of “racism” by their opponents is deeply disturbing because it reveals, without their apparently being aware of it, that they themselves harbor the same racist convictions as those they excoriate for being racist.
In their cynical exploitation of blacks through accusations of racism for political gain, contemporary liberals are following in the footsteps of leftist predecessors dating back to the 1920s with the publication of communist activist Josef Pogàny’s pamphlet, “American Negro Problems.” In “American Negro Problems,” Pogàny framed the “Negro question in America” as an issue that was best understood “in its relation to the liberation struggle of the proletariat against American imperialism.” Thus was introduced into blacks’ struggle for equality in this country the cynical overlay of their cause’s being used to advance the agenda of the ruthless and imperialistic political movement that communism was rapidly becoming.
This article can be found HERE.
With a bit of Chicago-machine swagger about him, Bill Clinton, a “war room” veteran, is back in the spotlight and stumping for Obama.
Speaking to Campus Progress last Wednesday, Clinton asked the crowd of young progressives, “Are you fighting?” Taking talking points almost directly from the mouth of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D.-Fla.), the former President asserted, “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today.”
Likening Republican policies aimed at preserving voter integrity in states from Florida to California to poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow era proves Democrats are desperate. Obama’s tax-and-spend agenda stinks on ice. So his segregation mudslingers—in this case, Clinton—must rely on shopworn clichés that stir racial animus to fire up his left-wing base.
Are Clinton and Shultz insinuating that minorities, college students and the elderly are all born Democrats, that they are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates? Is this what Democratic elites think of their constituents? Do Democrats believe blacks and Latinos, old people and youngsters, are too stupid to acquire a photo I.D. by next November?
Moreover, decrying all Republicans as racists is a Democrat article of faith. But why dredge up Jim Crow?
In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.” [Emphasis added here]
When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:
“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”
How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.
Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.
With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.
This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning.
May 28, 2013
Democrats Have Not ‘Evolved’ Since 1964
One of the central tenets of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ)’s “War on Poverty,” declared on January 8, 1964 in his State of the Union speech, was that “[w]e must distribute more food to the needy through a broader food stamp program.” Sargent Shriver, in 1964, after being charged by LBJ to implement and administrate the “War on Poverty,” said:
The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good — because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want — because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes — because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived — and that is humanism.
Where are we today? In its war on poverty, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), who oversees the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, as the food stamps program is now known), has implemented an “outreach” program to increase the number of people on the food stamp rolls. Some states have even gone so far as to hire “food stamp recruiters” and have assigned them monthly enrollment quotas. One recruiter, in her pitch to elderly prospects, says, “Help is available. You deserve it. So, yes or no?”
The USDA has a web page explaining how states can establish their own outreach programs, and how the states can recover approximately 50 percent of their administrative costs.
The USDA even has grants available. I’ll bet that neither LBJ nor Shriver thought of those little wrinkles.
A May 16, 2013 article by Chad Stone entitled “The Facts About Food Stamps Conservatives Don’t Want You to Hear,” states that reports of “‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ and ‘explosive’ growth in enrollment and benefit costs have produced a [food stamps] program bloated well beyond what’s needed to serve the truly needy” should not be believed.
But a May 27, 2013 article by Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser, entitled “The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear,” meant as a direct rebuttal to Stone’s article, states that:
- Over half of food stamp recipients performed no work during a given month in 2010, while another 1.5 million to 2 million performed fewer than 30 hours of work per week.
- Government welfare spending has increased to nearly $1 trillion annually, a 1,600-percent increase since the 1960s.
- Welfare is the fastest-growing part of government spending.
- Total welfare spending will increase from 4.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 6 percent of GDP under Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s FY 2013 budget.
The Heritage Foundation’s welfare experts Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, in July 2012, wrote, “[F]ood stamps has been transformed from a program for the truly needy to a routine bonus payment stacked on top of conventional unemployment benefits.”
Gosh, Stone seems to have missed (on purpose?) those facts!
As Cato Institute researcher Michael Tanner, in 2012, concluded about the War on Poverty:
- “The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.”
- “… the answer to poverty lies not in the expansion of the welfare state, but in building the habits and creating the conditions that lead to prosperity.”
- “Shouldn’t we judge the success of our efforts to end poverty not by how much charity we provide to the poor but by how few people need such charity? By that measure, our current $1 trillion [per year] War on Poverty is a failure.”
- “Clearly, we have been doing something wrong.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that Shriver’s words are exactly what Democrats are doing today?
Jada Williams is a 13-year-old student from Rochester, New York. Earlier this school year, she was given a copy of the book The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, written by the great patriot Frederick Douglass. Her assignment was to read the book and write an essay about her impressions. Her essay was to be entered in a contest. Jada Williams happens to be black. Many of her teachers are white.
Reading Douglass can — and should — incite rage and astonishment at the depths to which barbaric slaveowners and their deputies sank in treating their fellow men. The violence perpetrated upon Douglass and other slaves by the protected class of overseers is relayed in stark detail — to wit, an anecdote about an overseer named Mr. Gore:
Mr. Gore once undertook to whip one of Colonel Lloyd’s slaves, by the name of Demby. He had given Demby but few stripes, when, to get rid of the scourging, he ran and plunged himself into a creek, and stood there at the depth of his shoulders, refusing to come out. Mr. Gore told him that he would give him three calls, and that, if he did not come out at the third call, he would shoot him. The first call was given. Demby made no response but stood his ground. The second and third calls were given with the same result. Mr. Gore then, without consultation or deliberation with any one, not even giving Demby an additional call, raised his musket to his face, taking deadly aim at his standing victim, and in an instant poor Demby was no more…He (Gore) was asked by Colonel Lloyd and my old master, why he resorted to this extraordinary expedient. His reply was, (as well as I can remember,) that Demby had become unmanageable.
Ms. Williams struggled with the initial part of the assignment. She found it difficult to encounter some of the vocabulary used by Douglass. Exasperated at being unprepared to confront the text, she sought definition to that which she did not comprehend. Once she became satisfied that she grasped Douglass’s use of the language, she understood what Douglass was describing. She was struck by comparisons between her life and Douglass’s characterizations of the plantation overseers and masters and mistresses who denied him knowledge for fear of his becoming aware of his humanity.
In her essay, Ms. Williams drew a parallel between what she saw as a group of self-satisfied “white teachers” overseeing dysfunctional students (characterized by Ms. Williams as “so-called ‘unteachable’” students) who were not being properly taught, illiterate and perpetually ignorant. This she considers a form of slavery. Ms. Williams quoted an arresting passage from Douglass’s description of one of his masters, a Mr. Auld, happening upon his wife instructing Douglass in basic reading:
If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.
One wonders if the copy of Douglass’s book read by Ms. Williams included, as do some editions, a letter written to Douglass by Massachusetts abolitionist Wendell Phillips. Phillips surmised that Douglass’s experiences as a slave amounted to “[t]he cruel and blighting death that gather over his soul.” An oft-quoted phrase about writers or by writers is that “writers write what they know.” So Ms. Williams wrote.
Perhaps Ms. Williams’s use of the phrase “white teachers” was provocative. Yet this is her reality. Her plea was not that her teachers should be fired or punished in any way. Her plea was conciliatory and did not limit blame for what she sees as an intolerable situation to them alone. She asked that her teachers — and her fellow students — work in concert to spread knowledge and prepare their students and themselves in such a way so as to be able to engage a mind like Frederick Douglass without frustration:
A grand price was paid in order for us to be where we are today; but in my mind we should be a lot further, so again I encourage the white teachers to instruct and I encourage my people not to just be a student, but become a learner.
The essay that Ms. Williams wrote was never entered in the essay contest. Instead, she was harassed out of her school by the very people whose assistance she requested.
The teacher who gave Ms. Williams the original assignment was so enraged at her essay that copies were distributed to fellow teachers and the principal. Soon after, Ms. Williams’ parents began receiving several phone calls from faculty claiming that their daughter was “angry.” Suddenly Ms. Williams, a model student prior to the essay, began receiving low grades in her classes. In several meetings, these same teachers refused to show Ms. Williams’ parents the papers and tests that garnered lower grades. During at least one such meeting, according to Mrs. Williams, a teacher union representative was present.
Her parents decided to enroll her another school in the district. They were told that that school was full and to try another school. The recommended school was full of actual unmanageable children, one of whom asked Ms. Williams if she were there because she fought too much in her old school.
It is impossible to believe that some member of the White House staff did not hear of this story. Why did the incumbent president decline to comment? Could he not identify with Ms. Williams? Perhaps not, since the education he received from high school forward cost somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars. Could it be that he could not personalize it enough? Perhaps not, since his daughters attend the best schools money can buy.
Or perhaps the incumbent president did not wish to gamble with the endorsement of the overlords of the overseers in Ms. Williams’s school, the National Education Association (NEA). Certainly the NEA and other teacher unions have had their share of disagreements with the incumbent president. Yet their ranks are foursquare behind his re-election ideologically and financially.
Is it really the case that this president, a purported author of African descent, would have nothing to say about a young black girl who was intimidated and bullied out of a school by a group of white overseers who were upset at her impertinent behavior? Are the NEA and manifold union backers of the incumbent president a protected class who cannot suffer any consequences for ejecting a student who had become “unmanageable”?
Happily, not everyone has ignored Ms. Williams. She was awarded the first “Spirit of Freedom“ award by the Frederick Douglass Society of New York on February 18, 2012.
Do you know the name Jada Williams? She is a bright young lady with a searching literary mind that should be nurtured by her teachers, celebrated as an engaged and engaging pupil. Instead, she was hounded out of her school as the members of the early 21st century’s protected class proved her thesis.
***Written by Matthew May***
Allen West a Republican Conservative was chided by the Black Congressional Caucus for speaking against slave mentality. West even described himself as the modern Harriet Tubman.
Allen West has:
1. Exposed Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a “liar” and “not a lady”.
2. Exposed the Congressional Progressive Caucus as Communists (Rosa DeLauro is one, Dennis Kucinich backed by Communists), Progressives (look at the name of their Caucus. Progressives = Far left Social Democrats. Agenda: Social Justice and equality for all). Jan Schakowsky is a Chicago Progressive, a BIG backer of Obama and is married to Robert Creamer (the one that says he devised the Obama Healthcare while sitting in prison).
3. Called himself the modern “Harriet Tubman” to lead liberal Americans off the government “plantation”. Government subsidized (now at 47% of Americans) welfare, unemployment compensation, now disability compensation and food stamps have let to infantilizing the lives of Americans. Government = “Parent”….those on government assistance “children”. Whatever the government giveth; it can also take away. Then what will these people do? Cities in California now filing bankruptcy; soon other cities may follow this action.
4. Has spoken out about radical Islam and the intent of the “Jihad”. Allen West has been followed and attacked by CAIR and withstood. Allen West is PRO-ISRAEL.
5. Fully supports our military and their families.
What did the Democrats do to Allen West?
“It’s not surprising that the hard Left is seeking to beat West” Florida Tea Party leader Eric Von Tausch told the Tank. “West’s a conservative hero.”
MUST WATCH VIDEO: ****Listen to Allen West talk about attacks on his family. Allen West and his family’s Social Security numbers were put on mailers/flyers for Ron Klein (D)!***** Their excuse?
Trouble viewing video? Click Here.
Rep. Allen West: “Not A Chance” I’ll Apologize, Wasserman Schultz Is Still A Liar & Not A Lady
Black Caucus member Confronts Allen West on Sarah Palin & Tea Party Ties
HistoryTest: Dare YOU to take this test….
BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY
What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[X ] b. Democratic Party
For all those pushing abortion as a “Woman’s right to choose”…….Planned Parenthood started by Margaret Sangor as a method for Black Genocide; to rid society of “unwanteds”……
The Truth About MARGRET SANGER(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America
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.