“The Less Black Kids, the Better” “Understandable”

Liberal support for abortion on demand is well known, as is their support of African-Americans. (It wasn’t always that way.)

But what if the abortion industry begins to target blacks for abortion? Will liberals speak out? Wouldn’t protest of such a blatantly racist organization like Planned Parenthood be an admission that abortion is in fact a holocaust on the unborn?

Sticky situation, isn’t it, libs?

But this isn’t really new. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist (1) , a Nazi supporter, and harbored intense dislike for blacks. Nor did her ignorance stop there. On population control, Sanger wrote:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

“These things.”

Sanger supported eugenics to cull those she considered unfit from the population. In 1921, she said eugenics is “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

At one point, Sanger lamented “the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Another time, Sanger wrote, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

According to Bryan Fisher, executive director of Idaho Values Alliance, Planned Parenthood, which gets an estimated $200 million annually from U.S. taxpayers, has located nearly 80 percent of its clinics nationwide in minority neighborhoods, and about one-third of all abortions are performed on blacks, even though they make up only 13 percent of the population.

Some of Margaret Sanger’s more revolting quotes here.

Recordings of the phone calls are at You Tube. Autumn Kersey, Director of Development for Planned Parenthood, Idaho, isn’t remotely troubled when she receives a phone call from a “father” who wishes to make a donation in his son’s name to Planned Parenthood. The Father claims that he is troubled by affirmative action and feels that “the less black kids, the better.” Ms. Kersey claims that this is “understandable.”

Transcripts of the calls can be found here.

Abortion supporters will likely remain silent in the face of this obvious outrage. What could be more important than the wholesale $laughter of innocent babies?

“Choose life, then, that both you and your descendants may live.” — Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)

____________

(1) In his novel, State of Fear, author Michael Crichton observed that supporters of eugenics “included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support.” It also “had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council.”

Wishful Thinking for CBS

Apparently Dan Rather has returned to work at CBS and is now writing the headlines. Or so it would seem.

NY Times Smears Opponents of Illegal Immigration

In a recent New York Times article, David Leonhardt compares those who favor border control with the burning of a Catholic Church in Philadelphia (in 1844).

He inaccuately refers to Representative Tom Tancredo as “the most emphatically anti-immigration candidate.” Except Tancredo favors legal immigration. He opposes illegal immigration. The first is legal. The second is illegal. See?

Leonhardt includes this lie: “The mere fact that so many immigrants are here illegally, living in the shadows, may make it harder for them to achieve the usual American success story.”

Except they’re not “in the shadows.” Atleast they were not when they were protesting (publically) while disrespecting the United States flag.

My e-mail to Leonhardt and his bosses: leonhardt@nytimes.com

Dear Editors,

I was surprised and disappointed at the unfair depiction David Leonhardt made of illegal alien opponents. For Mr. Leonhardt, if you favor the enforcement of immigration law, then you are much like the “nativist,” violent, racist mobs from over a century ago.

Leonhardt misleadingly refers to “anti-immigration movements” of long ago as if people today are “anti-immigrant.” This is inaccurate and insulting. Nor is Representative Tom Tancredo “anti-immigrant.” I will clarify for Mr. Leonhardt, who has permitted his ideology and personal biases to confuse him thoroughly:

Tancredo and those like him oppose the flauting of immigration law and thus oppose ILLEGAL immigration; they favor LEGAL immigration.

It is unfortunate Mr. Leonhardt must desperately resort to smearing the many Americans who merely want our borders controlled, our laws enforced, and our jobs protected. He misleadingly compares the current political environment to the history of the past as if to give his essay a tone of authority, but this reader was not fooled.