Archive for the ‘kids’ Category

h1

D.A.C.A.

September 2, 2017

Bleeding heart liberals and conservatives for some reason wish to continue to reward illegals for coming to America illegally by breaking the laws, their first response is its not their fault. They still broke our immigration laws and should not be rewarded by being able to stay in America.

Since 2012 and Obama’s illegal DACA program there have been close to 2,000 dreamers who have committed serious felony crimes including murder and rape. The dreamers claim that they are victims because their parents forced them to come to America, but to commit crimes and still claim to be dreamers is a falsehood in itself. Had Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama had actually enforced our current constitutionally legal immigration laws we would not have this abomination program designed illegally by Obama called D.A.C.A..

To be given preferential treatment for college over actual American citizens is a slap in the face. To American citizens with children that are hoping to get into college, while the illegals get to go to college literally for free.

The Dreamers are not experiencing undo harsh treatment, they are well fed at taxpayers expense, educated at taxpayers expense, medical care at taxpayers expense as well. They are not malnourished, nor wearing rags for clothing.

Who paid for their trips to congress to plead their case, for a program that is unconstitutional to begin with, does Mexico have a similar program, no they don’t but the Mexican government expects American taxpayers to provide for the illegals they help send to America. Nobody should be rewarded for breaking the laws of one nation, but liberal democrats and liberal republicans in congress are all for rewarding them.

Call your congressional member and senators to demand they take no action on the D.A.C.A. Program or the dreamers, for they should not be given preferential treatment over American citizens to begin with.

Advertisements
h1

California

May 1, 2016

I am not surprised that the media is all agog in regards to the illegals rioting in Costa Mesa all because Donald Trump went to speak and exercise his right to freedom of speech.  Because the illegals disagree with his speeches they have the right to riot and destroy public and private property in Costa Mesa.

Freedom of speech is for everyone as long as you are a progressive, liberal, democrat, socialist, and or illegals.  If you are a conservative in anyway form or fashion your right of free speech or the right to gather or assemble for meetings and or conventions of any kind that is never to be tolerated.  Proof is in the media and they are glorifying the rioting and blaming trump for his speeches, for the cause of the riots.

If a republican or conservative disagrees with a democrat, liberal and or progressive they are considered to racist, homophobic, religion hating, and gender hating.  If a conservative disagrees with Obama regarding his politics that person is considered 100% racist.

I do not feel that a person breaking our nations laws by entering this nation illegally should not be rewarded and we need to get rid of the notion that if you are an illegal and your baby is born an American citizen, that was already decided by the Supreme Court that citizenship is passed onto your children only if one or both parents are already citizens of the United States.

The illegals should be arrested for making threats against legal citizens and legal immigrants who wish to have legal political rallies that the illegals disagree with so they have threatened to use violent demonstrations and rioting to disrupt all and any rallies for Donald Trump.  What’s fascinating is you do not see republican or conservative to even libertarians using violence at any Hillary or Bernie political rallies.

Hillary and Bernie are both accomplices to those who are using violence and riots because they disagree with what Trump is saying in his political speeches.  So if you disagree with Trump it is okay to destroy both public and private property because you do not hear or see either Hillary or Bernie asking their followers to stop the rioting it’s more of a wink and nod to those who riot.

Just because Trump is making speeches that people disagree with that does not give them the right to riot in the first place.  Demonstrate peacefully to get your point across, is more effective than rioting, Dr. Martin Luther King had the right approach. Demonstrate peacefully and let the other side commit the violence, during the civil rights marches you had the democrats fighting back with the police and national guard against peaceful demonstrators.  Dr. Martin Luther King had all peace marchers sign pledge cards not to respond with violence no matter what happens.

It’s time for those that are here illegally to go home demonstrate against their own governments, instead of demanding the right to vote and live in a country where they are living illegally.

h1

Obama And Living On 15,000 A Year

January 22, 2015

In obama’s state of the union speech he dared congress to live on minimum wage for a year aka 15,000 a year

only one problem in his poorly written speech, regarding the total yearly income.  obama forgot that each state has

income taxes or none at all.  in states like New York and California  an individual will pay total taxes including federal

taxes.nearly 55% of their income (all federal income taxes, obamacare taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, sales

taxes, gas taxes, (some states the sugar tax), cigarette tax, property taxes(these pay for fire, police, school, infrastructure city

government, county government, roads) , (some states driving on the road tax), utility taxes(water, gas,land line phone, and

cell phone), prescription taxes, doctors office visits.

So basically a single person tries to live on 7,500 or less a year, and that barely gives the single person a chance to actually

live. From the number of federal programs that could be cut is outrageous, there are almost 50 or more federal jobs training

programs that overlap or duplicate older programs that are just as effective, you could cut 39 to 41 programs and nobody

would notice except for the federal employees union would.

I was living in a state that was taking the same as federal income taxes each month because I was single and making over

31,000 a year, I was placed into the top 10% income earners tax bracket all because I had no dependents and no

deductions. Total taxes that I was paying each month was 1600, I was paying 61% of my income in total taxes…….

I am now  living in a state to where I am able to start saving for my retirement, and start investing my spare money that that

it will help with my retirement when I do retire.

We have a federal government that uses what is called base line budgeting that builds in a 10% budget increase for the

next federal budget and when congress gives itself a pat on the back for cutting the federal budget all they are cutting is just

the pace of the increase, not actually cutting the budget. Under the years of Sequester the budget that was used the

federal budget 2007, less than 10 pennies on 100 dollars was lost on each federal agency budget…….

Obama dares congress to live on 15 grand a year, when all the vacations that he has taken is over 44 million dollars,

compared to George W, Bush his vacations cost the tax payers 4 million total…………

Talk about not walking the talk, he challenges others but wont do it himself, he was born with a a silver spoon in his mouth

and expects others to pay for his life style.

I challenge obama himself to live on 15 grand and nothing else pay for his gas when local in D.C., live on bag lunches and

eat ramen noodles 3 to 5 nights a week…….and live on peanut butter toast during the mornings and powdered milk and no

govt programs……….

But like all democrats they are all show and emotions but no substance or ideas to actually solve a problem….

h1

The Real Truth Is Exposed About The Housing Bubble!!!!

November 5, 2011

This ties the C.R.A. bill signed into law in 1976, bill clintons secret commission that found their

findings on false information and used the findings as a loaded gun to the banking, savings and loans

and the mortgage companies.  It is these two actions that created and caused the abuses and the

economy that we have today, it can be laid at the feet of the Democrats and obama is taking it even

more to the left of the left…………

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

By PAUL SPERRY, FOR INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 10/31/2011 08:05 AM ET

 View Enlarged Image

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a “broad-based frustration” among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

“You’re seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,” he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those “abusive practices”?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

Bubble? Regulators Blew It

The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

“The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement “tool,” and would apply to “all lenders” — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial “discrimination.” But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants’ net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.

When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards — the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington’s bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

“HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,” the official policy statement warned.

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend “customary” underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

“Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible,” it said. “In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible.”

To that end, lenders were directed to “make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market.” They were also advised to “change commission structures” to encourage brokers and loan officers to “lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods” — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as “predatory.”

FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making “multicultural” loans. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” the agency said in a separate advisory.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a “fair-lending tool kit” to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a “fair-lending” contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.

“Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans,” the policy statement decreed.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios” of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%).

It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to “be prepared” to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren’t racist. “The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority.”

It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.

Clinton’s task force survived the Bush administration, during which it produced fair-lending brochures in Spanish for immigrant home-loan applicants.

And it’s still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.

As IBD first reported in July, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. “racist” banks.

“It’s a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now,” said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. “It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration.”

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division “continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force.” And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to “enhance fair-lending enforcement.”

The fair-lending task force’s original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker “greed,” though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

h1

IT’S SURPRISING THE TEACHER GOT PERMISSION FOR THIS

October 29, 2011

Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, did something not to be forgotten.  On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of her classroom. 

When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks. 

‘Ms. Cothren, where’re our desks?’ 

She replied, ‘You can’t have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right to sit at a desk.’ 

They thought, ’Well, maybe it’s our grades.’ 

‘No,’ she said. 

‘Maybe it’s our behavior.’ 

She told them, ’No, it’s not even your behavior.’ 

And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom. 

By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren’s classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.

The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, ‘Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are  ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you.’ 

At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it. 

Twenty-seven  (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked  into that classroom, each one  carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and  stand alongside the wall. By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started  to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned… 

Martha said, ‘You didn’t earn the  right to sit at these  desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it’s up to  you to sit in them.  It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an  education. Don’t ever forget  it.’

This is being reposted from another persons blog on another site here is the link the person gave me persmission to repost

Because of her actions I am pretty sure the national teachers union has a target painted on her back for doing the right thing called educating the students and not indoctrinating them

LINK

h1

OVER TAXATION

March 24, 2007

Over Taxation by the Minnesota Legislature is in the process of creating a new class of poor, and at the same time creating the governmental class Elite by over taxation on the residents of Minnesota.

You have many different types of people living and working here in Minnesota but by the complete and utter stupidity they feel it is their right to use taxation to collect monies for them to spend with no oversight, and at the same time tax the middle class into the poor house with total disregard to budget constraints.

They wish to tax the citizens on anything and everything while the legislature becomes the Governmental Elite whom they feel are far superior to the average Minnesotan, just how much of a tax burden do they have if any at the rate of spending they want.

It is time to put the cost of Education and reign in spending by placing the total cost back on the school districts and letting the parents decide the curriculum in each respective school district and get the state out of the process where they cant screw it up like they do everything else.

h1

DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND WHOM THEY SLEEP WITH

February 19, 2007

This is the true belief of the Demorcratic party on minorities!

This is courtesy of the Author

THE HISTORY OF

PLANNED PARENTHOOD


BY
MIKE PERRY

About The Author

Mike Perry is a free-lance writer and historian.

THE HISTORY OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD

 

We are merely walking down the path that Mrs. Sanger carved for us.
–DR. ALAN GUTTMACHER, PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD, 1962-74.

 

Planned Parenthood is powerful. It has the enthusiastic support of
influential organizations and extensive connections inside the government. It
invariably gets favorable coverage in the news media and each year it
receives large sums of money from taxes and community charities. Yet the
public knows nothing about its history. This silence has a reason.

 

Rooted in Fear

 

In the years after World War I, a number of competing organizations formed
to promote birth control. The most controversial of these was the American
Birth Control League (ABCL). In 1933, Eleanor Dwight Jones, the President of
ABCL, described the organization’s founders as “a devoted group of liberals
and feminists led by Margaret Sanger.”[1]

 

These organizations arose out of the fears of America’s affluent, educated
elite. To have more money and time for themselves, they were having fewer
children. As a result they were alarmed by the high birth rates of poor and
working-class people.[2] They considered the prolific poor, as Sanger put it,
“the most far reaching peril to the future of civilization.”[3]

 

Two Movements

 

Two movements developed in response to these fears. Both considered the
nation a “race” that could be strengthened by keeping the birth rate of the
“fit” (the affluent) above that of the “unfit” (the poor). They differed
only in whose birth rate they wanted to change.

 

The eugenicists warned of “race suicide” if the nation’s dominant group,
educated people of Northern European descent, did not increase its birthrate.
President Theodore Roosevelt expressed their view in March 1905 when he
attacked women who used birth control as “criminal against the race.”[4]
This group wanted more children from the “fit.”

 

The other movement, birth controllers, was more attractive to feminists such
as Margaret Sanger.[5] It did not demand that affluent women abandon careers
for large families. It planned to achieve race building by forcing down the
birth rate of the “unfit.” In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger summarized
the differences between the two movements:

 

Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
built upon sands…The eugenicists wanted to shift the
birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
to more children for the rich. We went back of that and
sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit.”[6]

 

To stop this “multiplication,” Sanger could be harsh. Her book The Pivot of
Civilization has a chapter called “The Cruelty of Charity.” In it she blasts
as “insidiously injurious” programs to provide “medical and nursing
facilities to slum mothers.” Such programs “facilitate the function of
maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” Sanger believed
that a poor woman who died in childbirth gave other poor women more incentive
to visit her conveniently located birth control clinics.[7]

 

Problems Develop

 

For a time the birth control movement had the radical but trendy image often
used by the elite to disguise its selfish agenda. It successfully conveyed
the impression that birth control clinics were for the poor rather than
directed at them. Their opponents were branded as religious reactionaries.
By the late 1930s, however, the birth control movement faced serious problems.

 

First, worried about the political impact of high minority birth rates, they
targeted inner-cities with birth control clinics. Today, that population is
primarily black and Hispanic. In that era, however, it was made up of Eastern
European Jews and Southern European Catholics. Birth controllers considered
them a threat to democracy. (This is the source of Planned Parenthood’s
present-day anti-Catholic bigotry.) Instead, Jews and Catholics used the
opportunities America offered to become politically powerful. Opposition to
birth controllers by orthodox Jews and Catholics was not just theological. It
countered a veiled but vicious bigotry.

 

Second, the birth controllers equated “unfit” with poor. With a
characteristic lack of compassion, they saw the Great Depression as an
opportunity to promote birth control under the guise of reducing welfare
costs.[8] The Depression, however, had another result. The millions of
ordinary Americans thrown into poverty by unemployment resented suggestions
that because they were now as poor as inner-city immigrants, they were
“unfit” to have children. Potential support for birth control shrank rather
than grew.[9]

 

Third, in the late 1930s people noticed similarities between the arguments of
eugenicists, birth controllers and Nazis. All talked of race building and all
divided humanity into the fit and the unfit. All even saw the fit as
primarily of Northern European stock.[10]

 

Nazism and the birth control movement had one major difference. The Nazis
used both positive and negative approaches. They encouraged “Aryan” births
with financial rewards while legalizing sterilization (1933) and abortion for
Jews and the genetically unfit (1935). After occupying Eastern Europe, Nazi
Germany eagerly provided Slavs with legal abortions.” Sanger objected to
measures encouraging births, but neither she nor the birth-control movement
as a whole ever found “it necessary to denounce fascist ‘negative-eugenics’
policies.”[12] In fact, as late as November of 1939 (two months after Germany
began World War II by invading Poland) Birth Control Review was still
commending the Nazi birth control program and noting that, in comparison to
that of the Italians, “The German program has been much more carefully worked
out. The need for quality as well as quantity is recognized.”[13]

 

Eugenicists went even further in their praise. They were openly enthusiastic
about what the Nazis were doing. At the World Population Congress held in
Berlin during the summer of 1935 Dr. Clarence Campbell, president of the
American Eugenics Research Association, gave what Time magazine termed a
“warm, approving speech” in support of Nazi policies. His speech went on to
criticize those with sentimental and religious views of marriage while
claiming his view was that of “enlightened minds.”[14]

 

Race Building

 

By the late 1930s, growing public hostility meant eugenicists and birth
control groups could no longer afford to compete for the dwindling funds from
foundations and wealthy donors. As Gordon notes, “In 1938 rivalry in the
birth control movement was ended with the reunification of Sanger’s friends
and enemies in the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).”[15]

 

In January 1940 the BCFA held its annual meeting in New York City. The title
of the symposium, “Race Building in a Democracy,” showed little had changed.
The same title was given to a luncheon speech by Henry Fairchild, president
of the American Eugenics Society.

 

At that meeting, the eugenics movement, tainted by public hostility to their
Nazi-like ideologies, united with the birth controllers. In his speech Dr.
Fairchild noted, “One of the outstanding features of the present conference
is…that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now
come together as almost indistinguishable.”[16]

 

Planned Parenthood was the product of that union. The luncheon at which Dr.
Fairchild spoke also began the 1940 fund drive for “The Citizens Committee
for Planned Parenthood.” Birth Control Review noted that the two events would
give “an unusually comprehensive portrayal of the Federation of today and
tomorrow.”[l7]

 

A New Name

 

The birth control leaders realized that more than a new organization was
needed. A new image had to replace the tainted one. To create that new image,
Sanger, now their Honorary Chairman, hired D. Kenneth Rose as public
relations consultant.[l8] Rose recommended that they drop “birth control”
from their name and use “planned parenthood” instead. Sanger objected, but
“In 1942 the new organization changed its name to the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA). It was the only national birth-control
organization until the abortion-reform movement that began in the late
1960s.”[l9]

 

New language came with the new name. Old arguments based on heredity and
racial stock disappeared, tainted by their association with Nazism. The new
rhetoric focused on the environment, and birth control clinics became family
planning centers. But the movement’s basic tactic, using poverty to force the
poor to have fewer children, remained unchanged. Gordon explains:

 

Furthermore, in its new emphasis on health, Planned
Parenthood continued its eugenic traditions. Class, or
income level, now replaced “stock” as the determining
criteria, but many planned-parenthood arguments rested
on the assumption that the children of the poor would
be less healthy than the children of the rich; and since
they did not suggest that better nutrition or medical
care could change these health destinies, their arguments
continued to reinforce hereditarian views.[20]

 

Sanger herself felt that these changes made no difference in the
organization’s basic purpose and shared that conviction in a 1948
conversation with a colleague, Mariann Olden. During the 1930s, Olden had
been chairman of the social hygiene department of the Princeton branch of
the National League of Women Voters. In 1943 she founded an organization
dedicated to the forced sterilization of the “unfit.”

 

Before World War II, groups promoting sterilization and immigration
restriction had an agenda much like that of birth controllers. Because,
of their efforts, laws permitting the forced sterilization of people judged
“unfit” were passed in some 37 states. In its never overturned 1927 Buck v.
Bell decision the Supreme Court declared such laws constitutional.
Conservative Protestants had joined Catholics in fighting such laws and in
bringing a legal challenge before the Court. At the time of the decision,
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, author of the Court’s opinion, wrote the
British socialist, Harold Laski, that “the religious were all astir” about
the case. In his reply, Laski told Holmes, “Sterilize all the unfit, among
whom I include all fundamentalists.”[21]

 

After the war many of the sterilization groups, including that founded by
Olden, changed their stress from eugenic to voluntary sterilization. Olden,
however, remaind committed to the original objective and its rabid religious
bigotry. As a result, in 1948 she was forced to leave the organization. She
described the difference between her situation and that of Margaret Sanger
this way:

 

Margaret Sanger had gracefully allowed herself to
be removed from all guidance over her Birth Control
organization. Unlike me, she did not have to fear the
reversal of the basic policy toward the organized
opposition nor the much greater evil of abandoning the
primary objective, which in our case was to obtain the
passage of sterilization legislature. I realized that to
most people it would be a temptation to take the easier
course of sponsoring merely voluntary sterilization, a
progam I felt would be dysgenic.[22]

 

In short, Margaret Sanger herself believed that the organization she had
founded had not altered its “primary objective”-stopping the “multiplication
of the unfit.”

 

Shifting Targets

 

Revealingly, the public relations consultant who recommended the name change
was not the first to suggest “Planned Parenthood” as a name. The suggestion
came in a 1938 letter from Dr. Lydia DeVilbiss, a Florida physician, birth
controller and racist. Choosing a name suggested by an open racist
illustrates once again that the new name didn’t mean a new agenda.[23]

 

Dr. DeVilbiss’ influence also reflects a new priority. Racial minorities were
now more threatening than immigrants. The reason is obvious. The same elitist
fears that created the birth control movement also led to the restrictive
1924 immigration laws. (Blocked from immigrating by elitist American
anti-semitism, millions of Jews would die under the Nazis.)

 

In its place came a new migration. The nation’s black population was on the
move. At the turn of the century 90 percent of the nation’s blacks lived in
the South. But racism, depression, and war industry brought them north, where
they replaced immigrant Catholics and Jews in the ghettos. By the 1960s half
the nation’s blacks would live outside the South. Similar conditions brought
Hispanics to this country.

 

Reaching these people with birth control required new tactics. As the 1940
symposium title hints, “race building” in a democracy has to be subtle.
Coercion cannot be overt. Deception must take the place of force. The victims
must never know they are a target. A number of tactics were used to deceive
the victims.

 

Visible Blacks

 

First, birth controllers hoped (correctly) that black leaders would be easier
to manipulate than Catholic leaders had been. The movement planned to win
black cooperation by placing blacks in highly visible positions. Sanger
described this to Clarence Gamble in October 1939. In that letter she
described how “colored Ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds”
could be used and added ominously, “We do not want word to go out that we
want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious
members.”[24]

 

Clarence Gamble advocated the same tactic in a private memo that year when he
said, “There is a great danger that we will fail because the Negroes think it
a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to let the colored think it run
it as we appear to let south do the conference at Atlanta.”[25] Under this
policy PPFA hired a full-time “Negro Consultant” in 1944.[26]

 

Government Support

 

Second, the movement realized its radical tactics had to be abandoned. For
programs on the scale they required, government funding and influential
contacts inside the medical and social welfare systems were needed. They had
to work within rather than outside the system. In a March 1939 letter,
Margaret Sanger explained this to Frank Boudreau, director of the Milbank
Memorial Fund:

 

…statisticians and population experts as well as
members of the medical profession had courage to
attack the basic problem at the roots: That is not asking
or suggesting a cradle competition between the intelligent
and the ignorant, but a drastic curtailment of the birth
rate at the source of the unfit, the diseased and the
incompetent…The birth control clinics all over the
country are doing their utmost to reach the lower strata
of our population, but as we must depend upon people
coming to the Clinics, we must realize that there are
hundreds of thousands of women who never leave their
own vicinity…but the way to approach these people
is through the social workers, visiting nurses and
midwives.[27]

 

Liberal Alliance

 

Third, in a move that would not bear full fruit until the drive for abortion
legalization in the late 1960s, Planned Parenthood began developing the
political alliances necessary for government funding and legal change. In the
South, birth control officials found they merely had to show local officials
the difference between black and white birth rates to win enthusiastic
support. Beginning with North Carolina in 1937, seven Southern states
pioneered government-funded family planning.[28]

 

Political support was also growing outside the South. The motivation for this
can be seen in the different attitudes toward birth control held by the two
Roosevelts (distant cousins) who have been President. In 1905 Theodore
Roosevelt, a Progressive Republican, alarmed feminists by blasting birth
control as “criminal against the race.” Almost exactly forty years later, in
March of 1945, Franklin Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, expressed a far
different view, though one with the same goal in mind. The historian
Christopher Thorne described it this way:

 

Subjects to do with breeding and race seem, indeed, to
have held a certain fascination for the President…
Roosevelt felt it in order to talk, jokingly, of dealing
with Puerto Rico’s excessive birth rate by employing,
in his own words, “the methods which Hitler used
effectively.” He said to Charles Taussig and William
Hassett, as the former recorded it, “that it is all very
simple and painless. You have people pass through a
narrow passage and then there is a brrrrr of an electrical
apparatus. They stay there for twenty seconds and from
then on they are sterile.”[29]

 

The Stage Is Set

 

The stage was set for a new strategy. Support from the wealthy and powerful
was assured. As in the days of Moses and the Pharaoh, such people were eager
to curtail the birth rates of the poor and socially troublesome.

 

The cooperation of the news media could be counted on. Given the large
minority populations of most big cities, journalists who never exposed the
ugly anti-immigrant bigotry of the earlier “race building” birth controllers
could be relied on to keep silent about Planned Parenthood’s new agenda and
particularly its impact on black and Hispanic families.

 

As it had been for decades, feminist support was unwavering. Like Sanger,
their leaders had no desire to lay aside well-paying careers for a cradle
competition with poor women. They would provide the all-important illusion
that the agenda was for all women, not directed at some for the benefit of
others.

 

Like Franklin Roosevelt, liberals were little troubled by the parallels with
Nazism. In the fight for tax-funded family planning, liberals quietly
followed in the footsteps of Southern racists, and were motivated by much the
same reasons.

 

Getting the black elite to cooperate was critical for, as Sanger noted, the
suspicion of a major target group had to be allayed. Legalized discrimination
in their favor, well-paying careers, and political support would win many to
the liberal cause. The black male elite, with its chronic womanizing, was
quick to see the personal advantages of abortion legalization. Nor was
bigotry absent. Many in the black elite view the black underclass much as
the white elite does the white poor. Margaret Sanger, for all her hatred of
immigrants and Catholics, had an Irish immigrant father and a Catholic mother.

 

The Play Begins

 

The play began in earnest during the 1960s and was motivated by several
factors. First, the civil rights movement eliminated the worst aspects of
Southern racism. The Northern liberal elite supported civil rights, in part,
to reduce the pressures driving blacks northward. (As a number of blacks have
noted, liberals never displayed much enthusiasm for combating Northern
racism.) This paralleled the post-World War I tactic of restricting
immigration and then forcing down birth rates. In a 1926 speech at Vassar,
Sanger spoke of that very tactic when she said that the nation needed to
follow the “drastic immigration laws” of 1924 with methods “to cut down on
the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home.”[30]

 

Second, during the fifties Planned Parenthood had purred contentedly at the
high birth rate of white suburbia. Its eugenic (“more from the fit”) side
was in control. But after the advent of the birth control pill in 1960,
middle-class birth rates plummeted. As a result, the birth rates of racial
(black and Hispanic) and religious (conservative Catholic and Protestant)
minorities became disproportionately high.

 

The “less from the unfit” side of Planned Parenthood again became dominant.
In the latter half of the 1960s, Planned Parenthood and similar groups spent
millions of dollars promoting the idea that the U.S. was in the midst of a
dangerous population explosion. The idea was so absurd it could be disproved
in five minutes at any public library. Caught up in the hysteria, however,
the nation’s news media never questioned why groups were warning of a
“population bomb” in the midst of plummeting birth rates.

 

Among friends, Planned Parenthood officials described the real situation. On
August 11, 1965, Dr. Robert Nelson, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of
metropolitan Washington, spoke at the Senate “Baby Boom” hearings. He noted
that in Washington, DC, “the less well-off economic section birth rate is
29/1000 and going up; the rate of the economically more secure group is
16/1000 and going down.”[31] (As if to underscore his point, the rioting in
the Watts ghetto broke out that same day.) All the public warnings of a
“population explosion” hid the real agenda, reducing the birth rates of
socially troublesome groups. The problem was compounded by a third factor,
the “sexual revolution” of the late 1960s. High rates of promiscuity meant
still more troublesome births in both the white and black communities.[32]

 

Inconsistency and hypocrisy make the real agenda clear to anyone willing to
see. Mention abortion and liberals are eager to provide the poor with the
same choice (abortion) as the rich. Mention education for that same child and
liberals become openly hostile.

 

Nor is that the only area where abortion supporters want more abortions
rather than more choices. Over and over again, the “pro-choice” movement has
opposed legal steps that would offer women the freedom to do something other
than abort. Giving women accurate information, preventing young girls from
being railroaded into abortions by strangers, regulations setting standards
for abortion clinics-all have met with “pro-choice” opposition. What
“pro-choicers” support is also revealing, including the coercive population
programs of countries such as China.

 

The last and most revealing example of the deep-seated hostility many
abortion supporters feel is illustrated by their vocal opposition to “mixing
religion and politics.” That attitude surfaced not with the rise of the “New
Right” in the late 1970s but in the 1960s following the enormous success of
the black pastor-led civil rights movement. A highly powerful and highly
privileged group, abortion supporters fear any social change that might alter
their advantaged circumstances. In their efforts to maintain the demographic
status quo in spite of their low birth rate, Planned Parenthood is one of
their most useful weapons. Christianity, on the other hand, is one of their
most potent enemies.

 

The original research for this article began during graduate work in
Biomedical History at the University of Washington’s medical school.

 

References

 

1. Eleanor Dwight Jones, “To the Readers of Birth Control Review,” Birth
Control Review, Vol. XVII, No. 7 (July, 1933).

 

2. Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman, 1974,
1976), 156-57. Gordon is a feminist and a strong abortion supporter.

 

3. Sanger, Margaret, The Pivot of Civilization (Elmsford, NY: 1969 [reprint
of the 1922 book]), 127.

 

4. Gordon, 136. Nineteenth-century feminists were genuinely concerned about
all women and, virtually without exception, opposed to legalized abortion.
The “race suicide” conflict that Theodore Roosevelt and others created
between affluent and poor women led many affluent feminists to adopt
attitudes similar to those of Sanger. Vocal support for abortion, however,
did not become a part of feminist dogma until the late 1960s. Abortion is
not even mentioned Betty Friedan’s 1963 The Feminine Mystique.

 

5. Gordon, 137, 157-8, 295-96, 327-28.

 

6. Gordon, 287, 278-79.

 

7. Sanger, Pivot, 114-115.

 

8. Gordon, 304.

 

9. Gordon, 302-03.

 

10. Gordon, 303. Even today the organization treats “Aryan” Sweden as a model
society even though its illegitimacy rate exceeds 50 per cent.

 

11. M. W. Perry, “The Sound of the Machine,” The Freeman, Vol. 38, No. 7
(July, 1988), 257f.

 

12. Gordon, 351.

 

13. Robert C. Cook, “Birth Rates in Fascist Countries,” Birth Control Review,
Vol. XXIV, No. I (November 1939), 8.

 

14. “Praise for Nazis,” Time (September 9, 1935), 20-21. Dr. Campbell was a
fashionable Manhattan physician. Historically birth controllers alternate
between arguments based on quality (1920s-30s) and quantity (the
Malthusianism of the nineteenth century and today).

 

15. Gordon, 341.

 

16. Gordon, 290.

 

17. “Annual Meeting” and “The 1940 Campaign, “Birth Control Review, Vol.
XXIV, No. 2(December, 1939), 26.

 

18. Gordon, 344.

 

19. Gordon, 341. Sanger probably objected because she felt she had coined the
expression “birth control.”

 

20. Gordon, 352.

 

21. Alan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press, 1975), 316. The correspondence is from: Mark de Wolfe Howe, ed.,
The Holmes-Laski Letters, Vol . II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1953), 939-941. Buck v. Bell has never been overturned and Justice
Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade refers to it without criticism. Supporters of a
Roe-like “right to privacy” seem little concerned about the fact that
states can order a woman sterilized. A liberal law professor at the
University of Washington became outraged when I suggested to him that
someone needed to come up with a test case that would force the Supreme
Court to rehear Buck.

 

22. Olden, Mariann S., History of the Development of the First National
Organization for Sterilization (No publisher, no date), 109.

 

23. M. W. Perry, “How Planned Parenthood Got Its Name,” International Review
of Natural Family Planning, Vol. X, No. 3 (Fall 1986), 234.

 

24. Gordon, 332-33. Clarence Gamble is a Gamble of the Proctor and Gamble
fortune-yet another hint of the enormous wealth that lies behind those
who support Planned Parenthood and its agenda.

 

25. Gordon, 333.

 

26. Gordon, 353.

 

27. Sanger to Frank G. Boudreau, March 12, 1939. Gordon, 359.

 

28. Gordon, 329f. David M. Kennedy, Birth Control in America (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1970), 258f.

 

29. Thorne, Christopher, Allies of a Kind. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1978), 158-59. Before WWII, Charles W. Taussig had been FDR’s
“personal representative” in the West Indies and “chairman of a
presidential commission to study the natives in the Caribbean Islands.”
Fulton Oursler, Jr., “Secret Treason,” American Heritage (December, 1991),
55. Fortunately for the Puerto Ricans, FDR ‘s information about Nazi
sterilization was flawed. For an accurate description of Nazi attempts at
mass sterilization, see: Alexander, Leo. “Medical Science Under
Dictatorship,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol . 241, No. 2
(July 14, 1949), 41. For the medical report from the experiment see:
Alexander Mitscherlich, Doctors of Infamy (Henry Schuman: New York, 1949)
136-137. The report notes: “If persons are to be rendered permanently
sterile, this can be accomplished only by X-ray dosages so high that
castration with all its consequences results.” It concludes by noting:
“It appears to be impossible to carry out such a program without the
persons affected sooner or later ascertaining that they have been
sterilized or castrated by means of X-rays.”

 

30. “The Function of Sterilization,” delivered at Vassar College, August 5,
1926. In Chase, Allan, The Legacy of Malthus, (New York: 1977), 658.

 

31. Strickland, Stephen P., ed., Population Crisis (Washington, DC, 1974),
74. These statistics, like all from Planned Parenthood, should be treated
with skepticism. The birthrates of virtually all groups fell during the
1960s. The fall was merely more rapid among the affluent, secular elite
and thus altered only the relative birth rates. The same arguments apply
to global policy. Virtually all the Western European countries fund
domestic programs intended to increase their birth rate while funding
international programs to lower the birth rates of non-Caucasians. A
genuine concern for the environment would place great stress on forcing
down the birth rates of the affluent members of wealthy countries and pay
little attention to the limited environmental impact of the Third World
poor.

 

32. The bigotry that underlies support for Planned Parenthood is not the
traditional and often irrational “skin color” racism. Its affluent
supporters can easily afford to live in communities, belong to clubs, and
send their children to schools separated from any racial or religious
group they might dislike. What they are driven by is evil but quite
rational. They dislike above all else the economic and social problems
that disadvantaged groups create. This dislike ranges from white teenage
girls and children with Down’s Syndrome to the world’s growing proportion
of non-Caucasians.