Restore Sanity | Indy Week

Restore Sanity 
Member since Oct 6, 2010



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “With Crawford on his heels, Barefoot not a shoe-in

If you think Obama progressivism has worked well, vote for Sarah Crawford. Crawford is what you get when you cross Kay Hagan with Sandra Fluke. You forgot to mention that Crawford is a former David Price aide and that the majority of her big donors are supporters of big abortion...a huge and deadly lobbying group...not to mention Jamie Sexton and his consulting firm which supports interests like Obama for America. Nice whitewash of Crawford's husband who is an extreme enviro-activist committed to limiting the development of North Carolina energy resources which reasonable people understand can be done responsibly via hydraulic fracturing, as has been done for over forty years. Pursuing such common sense policies would lead to job growth, a big boost to the North Carolina economy and increase the support needed for America to become energy independent. Look at North Dakota. Expalin to North Carolina what would be bad about 2% unemployment and an economic boom.

Re Barefoot, he has led, sponsored and supported legislation in an NC Senate which has already led to economic growth, reductions in unemployment, improvement in the ranking of North Carolina as a preferred state for businesses, strenghtened second ammendment rights, increased the integrity of North Caqrolina elections, required abortion clinics to adhere to basic medical standards and demanded that such clinics protect the health of women seeking those services, opened the opportunity for an energy industry in this state and led on legislation to support salaries and the recruitment of teachers in North Carolina.

Critique Barefoot if you like but please at least try to be honest in your evaluation of the candidates. Crawford has taken no stands of substance on any issue, is running a dogpile on the incumbent and offer nothing in return campaign, and is the darling of leftists from Chicago and DC who could care less about Highway 401 or Louisburg. They want a brick taken out of the conservative wall in North Carolina which is committed to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of North Carolina citizens. And if the ratings of the NC Center for Public Policy Research are the bar we should use to judge the effectiveness of political candidates, will the "Indy" be supporting Thom Tillis for Senate given his NUMBER ONE rank as the most effective House member? Not holding my breath.

Could the so called "Indy" at least try to disguise the fact that Barefoot is on the hit list as a key conservative in the Senate who has frightening leadership skills and the courage to do exactly what he tells voters he is going to do. Look up the motto of this state. Barefoot epitomizes "Esse Quam Videri."

12 likes, 23 dislikes
Posted by Restore Sanity on 10/02/2014 at 2:46 PM

Re: “The American eugenics movement after World War II (part 2 of 3)

Kevin...Still no mention of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and her relationship with Clarence Gamble? At this point what you are relating is a dishonest and incomplete presentation of key players in the eugenics movement peri and post WWII. From the website of Pathfinder International, the current evolution of Clarence Gamble and Margaret Sanger's dream, an international eugenics/birth control movement:

"With interruptions caused by World War II, Gamble reaches agreement with Margaret Sanger to focus on family planning work overseas rather than at home. In initial overseas venture, Gamble makes first of many grants to family planning projects in Japan. In the 1950s Gamble and his field workers visit more than 50 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America to discuss family planning and initiate small family planning and information projects. These visits result in the establishment of private Family Planning Associations (FPAs) in more than 30 countries. Most FPAs subsequently become members of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) once it is organized and established."

Gamble served on the Executive Board of Planned Parenthood through 1942, Afterwards Sanger tried to have him named chair of the IPPF. Sanger was obsessed with reducing reproduction in poor populations. In 1940 Sanger's Birth Control Federation of America held a forum called, "Race Buiulding in a Democracy." It was based on a comment made by her in "Pivot of Cvilization";

"The danger of recruiting our numbers from the most fertile stocks is further emphasized when we recall that in a democracy like that of the United States every man and woman is permitted a vote in the government and that it is the representatives of this grade of intelligence who may destroy our liberties, and who thus may be the most far reaching peril to the future of civilization."

In 1950, in accepting the Lasker Award, Sanger stated, "The brains, initiative, thrift and progress of the self-supporting, creative human being are called upon to support the ever increasing and numerous dependent, delinquent, numerous and unbalanced masses." Sanger suggested "decreasing the progeny of these humans afflicted with transmissible diseases and dysgenic qualities of body and mind" through the provision of a pension in return for the sterilization of "the feeble-minded and the victims of transmissible, congenital diseases." (Address by Margaret Sanger, Lasker Conference, 10/25/1950).

The woman who handed Charles Gamble the Negro Project, who named him to the Planned Parenthood Executive Board, who tried to get him to head the IPPF, who encouraged pensions for those agreeing to be sterilized, has no place in the discussion of eugenics and involuntary sterilization? Not one mention? Are you looking for work at the NY times Kevin?

So, your bias being clear, the same woman who founded Planned Parenthood, an organization responsible for the majority of abortions performed in this nation, performed on blacks at a rate 3-5x that of whites, surely would not be mentioned in a eugenic discussion.

Funny though, if Sanger, Planned Parenthood, and abortion have no place in the eugenic discussion, why would Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg say in 2009,"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Any why would then Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2009 say, "Family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost.."?

Abortion kills more black Americans every year than cancer, heart disease, homicide, and accidental death combined. If forced sterilization and eugenics was a way for some to fight poverty in the 60's, what is abortion given a body count of 12M aborted black babies since 1973.

Your thesis is that eugenics ended with forced sterilization. Is abortion used to support eugenics Kevin?

3 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Restore Sanity on 05/31/2011 at 11:26 PM

Re: “The American eugenics movement after World War II (part 1 of 3)

Kevin...Your thesis is Eugenics didn't end until the 70's.

Answer this question: Has Eugenics ended?

Your answer will tell us all we need to know.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Restore Sanity on 05/27/2011 at 5:46 AM

Re: “The American eugenics movement after World War II (part 1 of 3)

Oh well, my hope for a series that would be a real effort to expose the eugenic agenda in America appears to be unlikely to be realized…but hope springs eternal.

So Kevin, involuntary sterilization and eugenics died in the 70's. Sure, OK, involuntary sterilization ended in the ‘70s but what happened in '73? Hhhmmm? Oh yes, Roe v Wade and the legalization of abortion. Will you be addressing the fact that the folks you were so worried about being forcibly sterilized, black women, now undergo abortions at 3 times the rate of whites in NC? Will you be addressing the fact that sterilization is no longer needed now that we have a eugenic methodology that has been implemented on a massive scale? Will you report that annually black abortions kill more blacks than all other causes combined? We have 17,000,000 terminated unborn black infants since '73 and they cry out for equal time with the 80,000 black women who were brutally sterilized by nefarious forces operating over 70 years.

Will you be analyzing Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg's statement in 2009,""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."? Will you be discussing Speaker Pelosi's statement that "family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost."?

Will you at least have the courage to offer a defense of why such comments and the facts regarding abortion prevalence in the black community are not greater evidence of eugenics than involuntary sterilization could ever hope to be?

I don't think I’ll hold my breath waiting for you to report on the massive prenatal diagnostic hunt going on daily for imperfect unborn infants. We are stalking infants with Down syndrome, chromosome anomalies, cystic fibrosis and other "imperfections" daily. We are terminating in the womb 92% of unborn infants diagnosed with Down syndrome. You purport that eugenics was horrific because it promised simple answers to complex problems. Isn't saying someone shouldn't live because they have Down syndrome, a "simple answer to a complex problem?" Medical "experts' laud maternal public health policy and report the "incidence" of Down syndrome is decreasing. Sure, if you eliminate 3000 babies a year in this country with Down syndrome the incidence will drop. This is not eugenics?

Conveniently and inaccurately defining eugenics as motivated purely by racism and ending in “the 70’s” is laughable. Your piece Kevin is a transparent effort to stir the race pot while asking for suspension of disbelief as regards the intent of the liberal movement today. Modern liberalism, progressivism, has always been based on a belief that man or the state is capable of perfecting man. That becomes a little bit easier to believe in a society in which any greater power has been swept from the public square.

Your determination to keep Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood out of this discussion is clear but absurd. Sanger exerted her eugenic influence through the 1960’s. She was the President of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation from 1952-59! The woman was a driving force for eugenics throughout her lifetime. It can only be called disingenuous to invoke the despicable Dr. Clarence Gamble, a wealthy and unaccomplished trust fund baby, without mentioning the brains behind The Negro Project, Margaret Sanger. It was Sanger who wrote Gamble in 1939, "We propose to hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And 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 that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." This was the genesis of the post-World War II movement to sterilize not just the feeble minded but blacks. How can you seriously expect black Americans to believe that this malevolent woman had nothing to do with their 80,000 compulsory sterilizations and the subsequent abortions of 5,000,000 black unborn babies by an organization she built?

Kevin will you report on how Ginsburg, Pelosi, Planned Parenthood and American Liberals channel the words of Margaret Sanger today, “We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”?

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Restore Sanity on 05/25/2011 at 7:15 AM

Re: “The American eugenics movement after World War II (part 1 of 3)

At this point this is an incomplete, misleading and sanitized history of the origins of the eugenic movement in America. The eugenic movement in the US started gaining real momentum in the early 1900s, not after WWII. There were at least 21,000 compulsory sterilizations between 1907-1935. It was in 1927 that America's "great jurist", Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, made the detestable comment "three generations of imbeciles is enough" in hearing Buck vs. Bell.

America was the inspiration for Hitler's eugenicists and there was no stronger proponent of eugenics in America than the founder of the American Birth Control League, later Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. In 1921 Sanger wrote in "The Birth Control Review", "Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems." In 1932 she published in her journal "The Birth Control Review" a series of articles written by blacks on the "virtues" of birth control. It was called "The Negro Number" and focused on reducing the birth rate in the American black community.

In 1939 Sanger wrote to the same nefarious Clarence Gamble reported on here by Mr. Begos. She was writing to Gamble on the management of The Negro Project, "We propose to hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And 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 that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Mr. Gamble did not operate alone in carrying out The Negro Project. Mr. Gamble was partnered with Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

In parts 2 and 3, perhaps Mr. Begos will focus on Sanger and other players in the American eugenic drama. A full discussion of this subject requires moving beyond a discussion of the horrors of involuntary sterilization , which tortured blacks as well as those deemed "feeble-minded", but to the transition of eugenics to a strategy which relies on abortion and the lucrative industry that supports it . If black women suffered disproportionately the nightmare of involuntary sterilization, shouldn't we be equally outraged that black women experience abortion at 3 times the rate of white women in NC?

The author appears to be making eugenics in America a race issue. In large part it is, but that is not the whole story. I hope Mr. Begos will fully examine the larger eugenic movement in America. Eugenics is about perfection, and perfection means different things to different people. Unborn infants with Trisomy 21, Down syndrome, are aborted at a rate of 90-95% in this country when a prenatal diagnosis is made. Similar rates of abortion exist for other prenatally diagnosed conditions, including Trisomy 13 and 18, spinal cord defects, cystic fibrosis and others. Abortion based on gender is perhaps less common in the US but it occurs, enough so that the American College of OB Gyn has made a statement discouraging its practice. Prenatal testing for autism and perhaps homosexuality may be reality in the not so distant future. What will we say when abortionists come for these unborn infants?

It is my hope that if the author intends to truly discuss eugenics, these issues will be dealt with in future work. The open commitment of Margaret Sanger to a eugenic revolution is historically documented in multiple sources, including her memoirs housed at Smith College and Harvard. Not including Sanger in this discussion equates with a discussion of WW II that does not include Hitler.

The stream of eugenic consciousness runs deep, and not very silently, today. Rather than forced sterilization, abortion is the tool for population control...the means for eliminating lives not worth living. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg made the point clearly in an interview with the NY Times in 2009, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."

I hope in the next 2 installments Mr. Begos will have the courage to examine the full range of eugenics as it has infected American society. It will require temerity as a true accounting of American eugenics will be most uncomfortable for members of the American left and the editors of the Indy. I pray he is up to this considerable task.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Restore Sanity on 05/23/2011 at 1:04 AM

Re: “Grier Martin

I am confused by Mr. Martin reporting he is self-employed. His website gives no indication of the business he is engaged in. Can you ask him to clarify what self in his employment status refers to? He is not currently a practicing attorney. It would appear that he and his family live on a $13K year legislator's salary and his Reserve Officer pay. He must be a far more creative investor than the rest of us.

Posted by Restore Sanity on 10/06/2010 at 11:55 PM

Re: “Grier Martin

Why is someone who claims to be so ethical and transparent refusing to debate his opponent? Surely Mr. Martin saw scarier things in Afghanistan than his opponent Steve Henion? I was at the North Hills Candidate Forum on Sept 21. All candidates made introductory remarks and were then to take questions. Intros for a total of three candidates were concluded and then it was Mr. Martin's turn. As he went well over his 5 minute limit Mr. Martin looked to the moderator and said thank you, thanked the crowd and apologized for leaving early. Told us he was a daddy and "had to get home and tuck his little girl in to bed." He referred those with questions to his website and left.

Someone in the crowd yelled out, " Will there be a debate with Henion?" Mr. Martin turned and said nothing, then turned to leave. The question was yelled again, he stopped on his way the door, sneered "Yes, of course" and left. It was the most cowardly perfomance I have ever seen from a political candidate.

Posted by Restore Sanity on 10/06/2010 at 7:25 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation