The Twelve Days Of Epstein

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Sun And Moon / by Aleksey Tugolukov

On the 1st day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

Dershowitz with Epstein 2004 / photo: by Rick Friedman/Polaris

On the 2nd day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

On the 3rd day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

On the 4th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

On the 5th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

On the 6th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

Epstein’s body wheeled out 10 August 2019 / photo: by William Farrington

On the 7th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
St. Baden at the autopsy,
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

Celebrity forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden 2014 / photo: by Robert Cohen/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP, File

On the 8th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Broken bones in neck,
St. Baden at the autopsy,
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

On the 9th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Uncle Bill says: “I Want You,”
Broken bones in neck,
St. Baden at the autopsy,
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

Parsing Bill / by Petrina Ryan-Kleid (2012)

On the 10th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Blue intern’s dress?
Uncle Bill says: “I Want You,”
Broken bones in neck,
St. Baden at the autopsy,
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

Prince Andrew & Queen off to church 11 August 2019 / photo: by REX

On the 11th day of Epstein, the news came in to me-
Prince Andrew prays with Queen,
Blue intern’s dress?
Uncle Bill says: “I Want You,”
Broken bones in neck,
St. Baden at the autopsy,
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, Dershowitz swears he didn’t do it on Pedo-Isle!

Ghislaine Maxwell at Los Angeles In-N-Out Burger 12 August 2019 / photo: by New York Post

On the last day of Epstein, the lyrics still don’t fit-
Ghislaine dines at In-N-Out?
Prince Andrew prays with Queen,
Blue intern’s dress?
Uncle Bill says: “I Want You!”
Broken bones in neck,
St. Baden at the autopsy,
Hanged with paper bedsheet?
Screams from down the hall,
Guards asleep, then lied,
Cellmate reassigned,
Full surveillance off,
And, the weeping victims safe in God’s embrace.”

Stacked Stones In Sea / by Aleksey Tugolukov

written: by s.a. bort / 16 august 2019

additional photographs:

Prince Andrew with 17-yr-old Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell 2001 / © by Virginia Roberts
Ghislaine Maxwell looking on as Bill escorts Chelsea down the aisle 2010 / © by Getty Images
Jeffrey and Ghislaine 2005 / photo: by Patrick McMullan via Getty Image

Something Touched Me Deep Inside

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I often hear Don McLean’s masterpiece of a song, “American Pie.” It almost always tears up my eyes. Maybe, because I lived through the loss of the America that it’s written about—that over the years since has become as lost as my long, blonde hair.

A couple mornings ago, on the car radio, I heard it again. This time, it struck me that “the day the music died,” February 3, 1959, that McLean began his song with has, in fact, happened again—recently.

I’m not saying that there has literally been another plane crash, stealing another young life like that of Buddy Holly’s. I am saying that something has happened in the same kind of specific, pinpoint manner of the plane crash that, in Holly’s case, forever separated the America before his death (the Fifties and the late Forties) from the America after the singer/songwriter’s death (The Sixties and the early Seventies—and beyond).

Buddy Holly’s Glasses Signpost – Crash Site – Clear Lake, Iowa / photo: Dsapery  CC BY 3.0

There’s so much to glean from McLean’s song, recorded on May 26, 1971. This link to an understanding of the song dissects it verse-by-verse.

This second link is a youtube video of the song set to archival images that sync with each musical and cultural reference that McLean makes in his lyrics.

There was definitely a post WWII, chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, to boot, live and let live, romantic innocence that underscored Holly’s music and that preceded his death. Then, as with a flash of lightning, there came the Sixties—and with it, a rising hell of violent turmoil, culminating with the December 6, 1969 Rolling Stones Altamont Speedway Free Concert, during which four festivalgoers died (one of which having been brutally knifed and kicked to death by members of the infamous Hells Angels motorcycle gang right in front of the stage, causing Mick Jagger to stop the band in the middle of their song “Sympathy For The Devil” while he shouted out for a doctor to help the victim).

Altamont Speedway Free Concert / photo: Anonymous/AP/Shutterstock (6650142a)

For an excellent, almost minute-by-minute account of that Stones concert, here is a link to a January 21, 1970 Rolling Stone Magazine article—from little more than one month after the tragic event. A truly frightening read that, really, sums up that whole decade! A 1970 feature-length documentary of the Altamont Free Concert also was made, complete with all of its madness and aptly titled “Gimme Shelter.”

RS050

I heard about the concert on the TV news, just as I had heard about the Charles Manson murders only four months before Altamont, in August of 1969. The year before, Martin Luther King had been assassinated on April 4, and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated on June 5. On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was gunned down with a sawed-off shotgun and then pistols. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident occurred on August 2, and 4, 1964, which caused Lyndon Johnson to escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, approved by Congress on August 10, 1964. And, on November 22, 1963, John Kennedy had been assassinated in Texas.

Perhaps JFK’s death was the real pivot point, but still, it was Buddy Holly’s bone-scattering death in that frozen Iowa cornfield that foreshadowed the rampant bloodshed that accompanied the ten years that followed.

Crash Site – Clear Lake, Iowa / photo: Kevin Terry

Whoever thinks that the Sixties was all tie-dyes, bell-bottoms, leather sandals, and sunrise doobies in the park must not have been there.

One thing that I think has not been so discussed, though, about that decade, regards the Democratic-Socialist revolutionaries who began, in earnest, to act upon their political beliefs, first using riots, stones, molotov cocktails, and improvised explosive devices to attack the American “establishment” from the outside. The Students For A Democratic Society (SDS). The Weather Underground. The Black Panthers. Just to name the big three.

Influential mentors appeared, some employed as professors at universities like those at Berkeley and Columbia, for example, Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven, and Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules For Radicals. They began to teach many of those revolutionaries that the more effective way to fundamentally transform America was not from the outside, with stones and bombs, but from the inside—by rising up within. And, so they did.

Sixties revolutionaries, like Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, became small-community organizers, school and small-town administrators, and worked their way up through civic and educational systems. Ayers, ultimately, became an instructor at the University of Chicago, where he, his wife, and the young Barack Obama socialized and practiced community organizing together. Obama worked his way farther up to the Illinois Senate, and from there, he obtained the ultimate prize—the American presidency. The idea for how they made that happen originated, primarily, with the “Cloward-Pivens Strategy” and Alinsky’s book of rules for radicals, in the Sixties, not so long after Holly’s death.

Which brings me back to the other morning when I was listening to “American Pie” on the car radio and came to a clear belief that once more, a plane had crashed, shattering what came before and heralding another violent tumult, so far, too close to being alike the Sixties. Not yet the Sixties. It would take an awful lot to match that decade, but already too close! Antifah. The Occupy Movement. The Squad. Maybe, that could be what tears up my eyes when I hear the song.

There was the time before November 8, 2016, and there has been the time that has come after and that is now racing recklessly forward, already dangerously close to out-of-control. Instead of Buddy Holly nose-diving into an icy Iowa cornfield and dying instantly upon impact on February 3, 1959, Hillary Clinton’s campaign for following upon Obama’s heels into the American presidency crashed, burned, and died on that November election day, 2016. Then, as with a flash of lightning, there came Donald Trump.

The Instant That Hillary Lost / photo: Andrew Gombert/EPA

Don McLean mourned, “bye, bye, Miss American Pie,” and Trump shouted out, “Make America Great Again!”

s.a. bort / 10 August 2019

The last day of Spring / Ten photos

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I took these photos yesterday, 20 June 2019, the last day of Spring. They were taken at home in Bailey, Colorado, elev. 8750′. –s.a. bort

Boobs and a Muledeer
Boobs and a Muledeer, eye-to-eye
Wild Iris, partially obscured
dream – Aspens with Mountain Goldenbanner
Aspen with Pine growth
Wild Iris
Wild Iris
Fleabanes
Fleabanes and ominous sky
Fleabanes along path

Doing the math

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Tailgaters on my ass. Speeders in a rush to get past me. To where? To our imminent days of judgment? Hell-bent on making it a competition.

Motorcyclists with their girls in summer tank tops, showing off browned skin. No helmets. “Overall, the number of motorcycle deaths increased by 30 percent after the [1997] repeal of the [Texas] helmet law:” the result of a 2010 University of Arkansas study, by Laura Walter, cited in ehstoday.com.

The road demons passing me don’t care about cautionary statistics, speed limits, or about laws at all, upping the odds of a grim scene in the accident of an accident.

I cruise along, no more than 5 MPH over the speed limit. Pisses them off when they come at me so fast from behind, then have to gear down until it’s clear for them to pass. Makes me smile.

VOX.com recently published an online exposé by Dara Lind spinning a thing that she, likewise, doesn’t care about.

Far and away more lawless than tailgaters, speeders, or helmetless bikers, that thing being spun is the no worries mindset toward the butcherous MS-13 gang from south of the border, species of which already infest our states.

The sum of these blood-lustful, victim-beating then dismembering, soulless killers, Lind casually tosses aside, is minimal compared to the greater sum of the true victims–the immigrants (mostly illegal border-crossers) who just want a little free love offered toward their [cutting in line] desperate need for asylum in America, el Norte!–“just a kiss away,” as the Rolling Stones’ song Gimme Shelter passionately peddles.

She would have us open wide our southern border and bus these illegal victim-immigrants into city-sanctuaries, then shun citizen-protection altogether by abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Pay no attention to the accompanying multiplication of MS-13 rapist-murderers within our country.

Tailgaters. Helmetless motorcyclists. Dara Lind. All flaunting disdain for a pocketful of laws, a knapsack full of laws, or a trainful of any consequences at all for criminal–even MS-13’s unquestionably satanic–actions? Time and again choosing carelessness.

Chelsea Clinton recently spoke at a Rise Up For Roe event. With a statistical spin similar to Lind’s, she pleaded, in defense of abortions, that: “you have to care about this . . . American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three-and-a-half trillion dollars to our economy. . . . The net, new entrance of women – that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

In other words, abortions allow more women to enter the workforce which in turn bumps up our economy by trillions of dollars. Can it be argued that Clinton cares more for new money and less for new life? The sum of the one is greater and more righteous than the minimal value of the other?

Micaiah Bilger of LifeNews.com quickly countered that abortions have “caused a cumulative GDP deficit of $62.6 trillion that continues to climb with each passing year. By 2040, that cumulative deficit will likely reach $400 trillion.”

We’ve traveled from 5 MPH over the speed limit to a deficit of $400 trillion dollars due to abortions. If there’s 1 thing that I’ve noticed along this road, caring has value that can be measured with numbers. I believe caring is best practiced as all-inclusive–and infinite in measure.

by s.a. bort / photo by s.a. bort: 2 September 2018

What five books would you preserve (in case of digital erasure)?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Some of my preserved books from my ancestors – s.a. bort

I transcribed the below talk by Glenn Beck from his podcast on Monday, 17 June 2019. On his website, which he references in his talk, regarding his request for the five books that you would preserve, he writes:

“We are living in a day and age when technology makes life so much easier for us than those who have come before. Individuals all have a voice and are their own publisher, and messages can be shared to all corners of the earth. But what happens when tech turns political and voices can be silenced with a single keystroke or tweak to an algorithm?

Forget book burning, digital erasure is a far more effective way to make sure only the popular or politically correct speech is heard.

Join us in preserving hard copies of the most important books and submit the titles you feel are needed to keep the wisdom of the ages alive and well.”

Transcription:

GLENN BECK: For instance, we should all have The Geneva Bible. You should have The King James Bible, but also The Geneva Bible because that’s the one that led us into freedom. David Barton has a good version of this. It’s The Patriot’s Bible, where it explains it in today’s language. You need to have a Geneva Bible or a Patriot’s Bible from David Barton.

You need to have a King James Version because who knows how those things are changed or if they’re just outlawed. Wealth of Nations along with Moral Sentiments. If we are looking at a bunch of people who say that capitalism is bad and the free market just needs to be destroyed, you have to destroy Wealth of Nations. We’ve already destroyed Moral Sentiments. Those are both by Adam Smith. You need both of them together because Moral Sentiments is what keeps the wealth of nations actually happening because it makes it more moral.

Road To Serfdom. You can’t have a Road To Serfdom. You can’t have Mark Twain. How about Churchill by Boris Johnson? Churchill is going to be destroyed. Now, you need to have both sides. And, I don’t remember, it’s the Empire something; I can’t remember, but I’ll find it. The way Churchill was looked at in India, which is true! He was a bad guy in India. So, you have to have both.

I just think that there are so many books that we need to preserve that could so easily be wiped out. Again, you don’t own your library if it is on Kindle, Google books. They can take them. They own it. You’re renting. I know it says “buy this book,” but you don’t own it. They can just remove it.

So, we need to look at the things that are really about America, about the truths of America, about the truths that are so easily being lost right now. I think Coming Apart by Charles Murray is a really important book because it shows what was happening to us. It shows all those controversial things that nobody wanted to talk about, that shows the original divide.

I think we need books like Gregg Easterbrook books—It’s Better Than It Looks, or, Stu, what’s the one that you would say? What’s his name—that is the really positive—Stephen Pinker, and the positive look at the West. That’s all going to be destroyed. You can’t let that out there.

Now, this is obviously for crazy scenarios. This is for the losing of voices. But, we’re seeing the losing of voices. We’re seeing the loss of Stephen Crowder. My voice. Rush’s voice. Sean’s voice. Mark Levin’s voice. Any of these voices that will try to stand. We have a shot of being erased into a digital ghetto.

You need to preserve these things. Somebody needs to hold on to them, and I think this goes back to an early prompting of mine—clay pots. It’s why we started our museum, because somebody has to preserve the good and the bad.

By the way, we’re doing a museum. It opens the last week of June and goes through the seventh of July, and it’s under Mercury Studios. It’s a quick pop-up museum about the history with Abraham Lincoln and slaves and racism. It asks the question: “What is racism?” Is that an American problem? What is slavery? Is that an American problem? What are these things? How do they start? What does it mean? Are they done?

And, it is very powerful, and, quite honestly—quite controversial, I think, because it tells the truth, and I have a feeling we’re going to get a lot of pushback on it. But, we’ll see. Please come and see our museum. You will see the real Gettysburg Address, the real Emancipation Proclamation, and it’s only open for a few days at the Mercury Studios. You can find tickets now at mercuryone.org. But, bring your family and learn the truth.

I also would like to know, if you had to preserve the Nation, if you had to tell its story— We obviously would put the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in there. We would put the Federalist Papers. Everyone should have the Federalist Papers in there.

But, what books need to be saved, both good and bad, from digital ghettoization, or like we will talk about coming up in just a second? What the real point of the story from the New York Times this weekend on Donald Trump— The point of the story with Russia is that we are trying to be in place with Russia and other countries, where we can shut all electronics down, all electricity, everything, just shut it all down. Because that’s the way, according to Putin, the next war will be fought. It will be fought with ones and zeroes. So, how do we shut everything down? Well, if you shut everything down, you lose everything.

So, I want you to please help us with this project. Go to glennbeck.com/savebooks and submit the books that you think need to be preserved the most. Just give us the name of the book and why you think it needs to be preserved. Glennbeck.com/savebooks . Go there now.

I’d also like to know who would you like to talk to or hear talk about their books because I’m going to write different people and say: “If you could save only five books, what would the five most important books be, to preserve the West?” And, if you have someone that you would like to hear from, let me know on that, as well. Again, it’s glennbeck.com/savebooks.

***

For the record, the five books (or sets of books) that I chose (other than the obvious inclusion of The Bible were: Fahrenheit 451, The Odyssey (tr. Robert Graves), The Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard de Chardin, The Compact Version of the Oxford English Dictionary (two volumes), and The Great Ideas: Great Books of the Western World (54 volumes). –s.a. bort

Charlie Kirk on the Interstate National Vote Compact (INVC), also known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I transcribed the following interview of Charlie Kirk by Glenn Beck, re: the Interstate National Vote Compact (INVC), from Beck’s Friday, 14 June 2019, podcast.

In future elections, if progressives successfully enact the above-mentioned compact, all electoral votes from each state then would go to the candidate who wins the popular vote for the whole country—a little known, but legal, move toward allowing our state governments to force on us citizens the nearest thing to a national, quote-unquote pure democracy. Instead of the states, with us, controlling the federal government, the reverse would take effect. The federal government would control the states–and you and I.

However, until they’ve won and the compact becomes law, we still are able to try and sway our own state’s representatives, senators, and governor one way or the other–the way of our Constitution and an individual’s natural, God-given rights, or the other way, the progressive direction.

Democrats are now only 70 electoral votes away from the 270 that they need to pass the compact. That’s right—only 70 more votes are needed toward reaching the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

Are you aware of this? Did you know that the passing of this compact is legal and quietly, but very effectively, being pursued behind our backs? People need to be aware of where their state is—right now—in this active process of pushing the compact through each state’s house, senate, and office of the governor.

Once in effect, the compact would severely alter the results of future elections—positively in favor of states with large-city, mostly-progressive populations and negatively against states with small, mostly rural populations—for generations to come. States’ rights would diminish to nonexistence, and a big, centralized government—with all of its bureaucracies and regulatory agencies full of progressive, elitist experts—then, merrily, would wield absolute power over our American citizenry. Mob rule. Woodrow Wilson’s dream-come-true. –s.a. bort

Charlie Kirk/Glenn Beck Interview:

Charlie Kirk: A Constitutional Republic. We use democratic means to elect individuals and representatives. A Constitutional Republic recognizes certain natural rights that can’t be taken away just because the mob wants those to be taken away. And, in The Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers realized and recognized the potential danger of the tyranny of the mob.

One of the big historical fallacies that is taught to students is that America was the first exercise in quote-unquote democracy. That’s just not true. It was tried many times before. Cicero, who I believe is the most important thinker and writer, who was council of Rome for one year, warned against the tyranny and majority, warned against–that total outright mobocracy, essentially, would turn into class warfare. He argued that the middle-class needs representation that, first and foremost, recognized their natural rights.

And, so, what the Electoral College has done over a long period of time is; it forces the states– First of all, it recognizes the sovereignty of the states. It recognizes that the states create a Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states. And, it allows the states to appropriate their electorate as they see fit. Now, this is really important because each state might have a different way that they want to send their electors to the Electoral College.

So, for example, two states right now, Maine and Nebraska; they carve out one of their congressional districts that allow the winner of that congressional district to maybe be different than the entire voice of the state. So, for example, Donald Trump won a singular electoral vote, Maine, in 2016. In 2008, Barack Obama won a singular electoral vote in Nebraska, when he won that Eastern Nebraska congressional seat.

Now, what does that mean? It means that voices that otherwise would not have had as big of a platform, all of a sudden are now competitive in the national election and discourse. And, what’s happening now is actually predicted and prophesied by The Founding Fathers in The Federalist Papers, and the construction of our country, where you have the exacerbation of the coastal elites that want to then enact their viewpoints and their ivory tower, philosopher-king agenda over middle-America and middle-class America, and that’s most important because the needs and wants of Malibu and Manhattan are not the needs and wants of Michigan and Missouri.

So, how do we peacefully go about this without turning ourselves into factions and pitting people against each other? Well, the only way you could possibly come to compromise and build big-base coalitions is through the decentralization of elections, which is what the Electoral College offers. If you look at other countries that just have straight mobocracies, as I call it; it’s not going so well, is it?

For example, in France, no one can possibly say that the ideas that were rooted in the French Revolution have been better for human freedom and prosperity than the ideas rooted in the American Revolution, of Scottish Enlightenment. And what we have right now is; the Left realizes that the idea of decentralized control of the protection of the individual and state’s rights; it is a hindrance; it’s almost an annoyance and an obstacle for them to be able to get the power that they wish, that they want to get, and so what they’re doing right now, just to talk very specifically, Glenn, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to share this with your audience because this is not Siri; this is not something–”Oh, the Left wants to do this.” The Left is doing this, and they’re getting help from far too many Republicans.

I would venture a guess that many people in your audience don’t know that fifteen states have already passed what’s called the Interstate National Vote Compact (INVC). What does that mean? Fifteen states—has essentially passed through the state legislators—and signed by the Governor—agreeing that their electoral votes will be given to the winner of the national popular vote.

So, in short, the Left, with the help of far too many Republicans; it tends to be a trend—isn’t it, Glenn; it seems like Republicans tend to agree—go along with the Left far too often. They’ve realized that they’re not going to be able to get this through Congress, that they’re not going to be able to get this through the House of Representatives or through a Constitutional Amendment. So, instead, they saw their window to go through the states. Since the states are allowed to appropriate their electors however they see fit, [?]. So—

Glenn: What the Left is trying to do is perfectly legal. It’s perfectly Constitutional and perfectly legal.

Charlie: I would believe so. There are some scholars that think it isn’t. I actually don’t agree. I actually think it’s perfectly legal. I think the framers allowed this sort of window to go through the states. It’s hard. It’s difficult.

Now, let’s talk specifically. It’s already passed fifteen states, Glenn. Now, this does not go into action until they hit that magical two-seventy number, that two hundred and seventy number. They’re right at about two hundred right now, and on Wednesday, two days ago [12 June 2019], Oregon just signed it into law. Now, I want you to think about that. This is sweeping the country!

Now, the Democrat Governor of Nevada, Steve Sisolak, vetoed it a week and a half ago. Good on him! He has more bravery than most Republicans, a Democrat Governor of Nevada. It accelerated to the House, into the Senate, and he surprisingly vetoed it. This is now being discussed in states such as Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio. They are seventy votes away from changing the way that we elect a president. And, what does that mean?

Glenn: So, let’s go through those. Maine will absolutely do that. Let’s go through these state-by-state. Where do we have a chance of turning the tide. Let’s look at it state-by-state.

Charlie: Yeah, and so Maine is now discussing it again in their House and will eventually try to kick it up to the Governor, and it would just be so foolish, Glenn, for Maine to do this. Because you talk about a state that respects the idea of the individual, generally, and has not necessarily always gone along with the traditional Northeastern stereotype of leftism. It would be such a mistake for them to give up their sovereignty and the attention that they’re able to get to the mob, those people who have nothing to do with their needs, wants, or desires.

The other one is Minnesota. They’ve already introduced this into Minnesota. And, the other one that we have to keep a very close eye on, a rapidly changing state in a variety of ways. If we’re asleep at the wheel, this state will become a blue state. It’s Arizona. It’s been introduced into Arizona State House. It’s getting far too much traction in Arizona. And Arizona, of course, just elected Senator Kyrsten Sinema.

Donald Trump did not win a majority of votes in Arizona back in 2016. The only one, I think, 49.1%. I could look up the exact number. And then, more specifically, North Carolina. North Carolina’s another dangerous state with a Democrat Governor and with very weak Republicans. And, that’s a dangerous and lethal combination.

Glenn: All right, so what do people need to do, Charlie? If you’re in Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, you need to organize yourself again. You need to get on your phone with your legislature and your state senate and say, “Stop this! You Governor’s office. Do not pass this!” Right?

Charlie: That’s correct. Yes. And so, at Turning Point USA, we’re the nation’s largest student organization focused on the Constitution and American Exceptionalism. And so, we feel it’s incumbent on us to fight for this as hard as we can. And, so [at] our website, TPUSA.com, you’ll be able to find some resources of what you can do to get engaged and involved on this fight.

And, what I found, Glenn, which always gives me such hope for the future of this country is that this is already organically kind of being fought through some great grassroots activists in these states. And, we’re already connecting with them and giving them some resources and funding. And, that’s what I love about America; is that whenever there is a crisis, individuals tend to voluntarily and almost magically step up, and now we need to give them a call for action. And, that is a uniquely American virtue and value that when there is crisis our patriots step up time and time again. But, now we have to raise the level because there’s a sense of urgency on this.

Glenn: I will tell you, Charlie, that I’ve talked to you about this for a few weeks, and I’ve told you that this audience is a remarkable audience. They’re the most giving. They are the hardest working. And, I don’t say this to dismiss any other audiences, because I know the power of other audiences. This one’s just different, and they will engage.

And, so I urge you, please, this will make the entire election and everything you’re about to go through worthless in the end if they get up to two-seventy. It’s got to be stopped—Maine, Minnesota, Arizona, North Carolina are the ones that are closest, but they’re working this everywhere, so please get involved. If you can, donate money for this to TPUSA. Go to TPUSA.com. Charlie is really leading this, and I look to him on how we can assist Turning Point to be able to stop this, because this changes us overnight, and, really, forever. I think, we lose this—we lose. We lose!

Charlie: Right. Exactly. Thank you, so much, Glenn, for the opportunity. Thank you.

Please note: Charlie Kirk references the INVC above. The compact is also popularly known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Here is a great article from americanthinker.com explaining their idea of how to defeat the NPVIC, or INVC. –s.a. bort

Ode To A Woman’s Breast

Tags

, , , , , , ,

naturally formed stone / Golden, Colorado / 15 June 2010 / s.a. bort

Nothingness.
Stone.
Monument to nature,
Imagination,
Aesthetic beauty,
All that is soft and smooth,
That which best comes in pairs,
Creation of motherhood,
All unaborted, suckling children,
First nourishment for each and all of us once pulled from the womb,

by s.a. bort / 6 June 2019

Elitist Progressives, rural bumpkins, and the gathering storm

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Amtrack – Somewhere in the southwest / 1 October 2013 / s.a. bort

ELITIST PROGRESSIVES AND RURAL BUMPKINS

Woodrow Wilson profoundly influenced today’s Progressive Movement. Most uptown Democrats now view themselves and their kindred of good birth as more adept at overseeing our country than constitutionally-inspired voters—-those rural bumpkins.

Heritage.org‘s Ronald Pestritto wrote of Wilson having envisioned an administration “properly the province of scientific experts in the bureaucracy. The competence of these experts in the specific technological means required to achieve those ends on which we are all agreed gives them the authority to administer or regulate progress unhindered (italics mine) by those within the realm of politics. Persons or institutions within politics can claim no such expertise.”

Wilson wanted the constitutionality of “popular consent” and “elected representatives” out of the way of his bureaucracies of unelected regulators.

FRIENDS OF THE PEOPLE – Wilson’s 1916 Campaign

Today’s Progressives, in the vein of New York Times’ Jill Lepore (her quote cited here by reason.com‘s Radley Balko), talk up Wilson as “an intellectual, the first U.S. president to hold a Ph.D., and not just any intellectual: he had a law degree.”

“Conformity will be the only virtue. And every man who refuses to conform,” Balko quoted from Wilson, “will have to pay the penalty.”

He “believed in an activist, imperialist presidency,” Gene Healy wrote (cited by Balko), stressing: “Wilson believed God ordained him to be president, and acted accordingly.”

Contemporary Progressives like astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye “the science guy,” and former Vice President Al Gore, garner esteem from the Left as Great and Powerful regarding predictions of climate change.

Dailycaller.com‘s Michael Bastasch reported an Instagram quote from Progressive, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) [AOC], who warned her supporters on May 23, 2019: “The climate crisis is real y’all. [G]uess we’re at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country?”

Meteorologist Ryan Maue, Bastasch noted, quickly interjected: “I thought this was fake but it’s from @AOC Instagram story. No idea what she means with ‘casual tornadoes’ and how this line of severe thunderstorms is proof of any ‘climate crisis’. It’s just the weather in D.C. pic.twitter.com/r015cScVZg— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) May 23, 2019″

The next day, per Bastasch, Maue added: “The Congresswoman @AOC does not know the difference between weather and climate. Let’s try an easy analogy: Weather is what outfit you wear heading out the door. Climate is your closet wardrobe. pic.twitter.com/mmdLr6F2mD — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) May 24, 2019″

Inappropriately outfitted for weather change?

These Wilsonite, elitist experts peer down their noses at Hillary Clinton’s simple-minded, rural deplorables who dare to challenge Nobel-Prize worthy, climate-science equations.

A May 14, 2019 Zogby poll statistically supported Trump owning a 60% job-approval rating among rural residents.

In an Apr 17-30, 2019 Gallup overall job-approval poll, Trump earned his highest Gallup overall-rating up to that time period—46%.

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary won a 48.2% plurality of the countrywide popular vote. Trump won a 46.1% plurality of that vote. Third-party candidates and non-voters made up for the rest. None of them won a majority (more than 50%). Trump lost the popular vote, per above, but he won the EC vote, 304 to Hillary’s 227.

Progressives, today, have prioritized abolishing the Electoral College (EC). Hillary lost the 2016 election to Trump largely due to the existence of the EC, so they have deduced that abolishing it will help eliminate the possibility of another presidential loss.

Citizens can’t vote on everything that needs voting on in government. They have jobs, families, and their own multitude of responsibilities. So, they elect qualified, full-time representatives to vote for them. Because America is a Representative Democracy, in 2016, Electoral College electors were voted for, in a purely democratic, popular-vote manner, to represent the citizen voters (you and me) within each state.

All of each state’s EC electors, then, were allocated to whichever candidate received the most citizen votes within their respective state (except in Nebraska and Maine, which have more complex, proportional rules). The candidate who gathered the most EC electors from the citywide and countrywide sum of states became the president.

There are good reasons for having a Representative Democracy with an Electoral College that represents all of the individuals within their states toward the election of our president instead of a purely democratic vote—minus the representative electors in-between.

Peter J. Wallison of realclearpolitics.com (after clicking on url, scroll down for article) warned: “If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

There would [be] candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.”

We the People / Alexander Hamilton / U.S. $10 bill

Marc Schulman of historycentral.com explains from the founders’ perspective: “Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3.”

Without the EC, the above Zogby poll’s recent 60% rural job-approval ratings for Trump, effectively, would be eliminated in 2020 along with any rural voting power. Progressives, solely, would steer our country for as long as cities remain larger and more progressive than rural areas, a fact that they’re no doubt aware of.

The Electoral College and Representative Democracy have worked just fine for over two-hundred years. Since America’s founding, there have been only five times that a president won the EC vote and lost the popular vote. The EC should not be abolished by unelected, progressive regulators.

THE GATHERING STORM

Ten years ago, in 2009, a rural storm gathered strength from the fury of the Tea Party and the 9-12 Movement. Balance of power in the government, after the November election, shifted positively for the Right as a result. That same fury is swirling again.

We Surround Them! / The late Andrew Breitbart speaks on the steps of the Colorado State Capital / 13 September 2010 / s.a. bort

This new storm was conceived in the immediate days following two careless mistakes by the Progressives.

First came the heartless smiles and applause as New York Governor, supposedly Roman Catholic, Andrew Cuomo, proudly signed legislation allowing abortions up to birth.

The second came, not long afterwards, when the apparently mindless Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, opened his mouth on a radio program about what really happens behind closed doors in Planned Parenthood-funded abortion clinics—abortions after birth.

Because of those two events, Eight states already have enacted (or are set to enact) “heartbeat” legislations which effectively make it a federal crime for doctors to perform abortions after a heartbeat is detected.

Expect more rural-controlled states to follow. Expect the storm to build. Northam really helped out his fellow Democrats on that one—seemingly, for Progressives, a genetic trait of arrogance and naivety.

Perhaps under the spell of certain young, far-Left, House of Representatives members, Progressives have started pushing a too-far-Left agenda, too fast and too furious. What Cuomo and Northam did was to cross a line that the far Left doesn’t seem to think exists anymore. It does exist. Cuomo and Northam traveled way too far beyond Roe v. Wade, way too fast. Two big mistakes.

Whatever happened to the moderate Democrats from before the last election? Suddenly, there doesn’t appear to be any left.

Here’s their biggest mistake of all. Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders out of becoming the 2016 Democratic nominee to run against Trump. Bernie had the support to win the nomination. Hillary and the DNC cut a deal so that Clinton would become the nominee. Bernie, apparently with no guts to fight back, kneeled to their majesty.

High-powered Democrat, Donna Brazile (who is now, curiously, a “contributor” for Fox News Channel) actually opened up and wrote honestly about that fatal deal in her book, Hacks.

Bernie had the support to beat Trump. With Bernie as president, there presently would be no Benghazi scandal, no Hillary private-server scandal, no Fast and Furious scandal, no Wikileaks effect, no Mueller Report, no phony FISA dossier, no Russia hoax, no Uranium One scandal, no questions about Biden and son making millions in Ukraine, China, and Romania and leaving a crack-smoking pipe in a rental car, absolutely none of that at all. It would all have been swept under the rug by Bernie.

But, Hillary wanted it, and she wanted it all. She really helped out her fellow Democrats on that one, just like Northam did. Add greedy to the genetic makeup of Progressives.

Hillary’s loss to Trump in November of 2016 was, without doubt, the biggest mistake that the Democrats have made in decades, maybe even centuries. Democrats (actually just about every voter, despite their party affiliation) didn’t even conceive of a Hillary-loss. The Progressives should have gone with Bernie.

A girl hugs a woman as she watches voting results last night at the Jacob K Javits Convention Center, where Hillary Clinton held her election night event. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

Democrats and Republicans alike agree that Trump is set to win the 2020 Republican nomination. If the House, before then, succeeds in impeaching him, and they very likely will, then the Senate most likely won’t complete the job.

With Trump’s positive job approval ratings, the highest of which are with rural states at about 60%, and with his stellar re-working of the American economy, the elitist-expert Progressives are set to run out of tricks from their bag sooner rather than later. That doesn’t mean they won’t keep dogging him, though. That will happen until the 2020 election and probably beyond. Add obstinate to their genetic makeup.

All because Hillary lost the election–we now have the coup-planners from Obama and Hillary’s DOJ and State Department within weeks, at the most, of going down with indictments and prosecutions from the grand jury that’s already been in session in Connecticut, the Inspector General (IG) Horowitz report that’s about to come out, the upcoming report from Utah’s U.S. Attorney Huber on the Clintons’ role in all of this, the zeal of Attorney General (AG) Barr for cleaning up the DOJ’s reputation, Barr’s recently appointed Special Council Durham (with prosecutorial power) for investigating the Obama/Clinton scandals and coup attempt, and Trump’s recent de-classification of the “Bucket 5” of DOJ evidence that certain House and Senate Committee members and Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch have been trying to obtain for years now to put the final pieces of the plot together.

The Russia Hoax / Gregg Jarrett

Hillary wanted it all and lost it all, Then, Progressives stupidly attempted a coup to take Trump down, and the far-Left is traveling too far too fast. Arrogant. Naive. Greedy. Obstinate. Oh, and did I mention them being Wilsonite elitists? They have been and are self-destructing, while the new storm swirls, and abolishing the Electoral College won’t change the coming weather.

by: s.a. bort

Go away snow! / life at 8750′ in photos / May 10-29, 2019

Tags

, , , , , , ,

muledeer / 29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
BORTS / 29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
dream / 29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
snow-capped aspen buds / 29 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
23 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
23 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
23 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
23 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
broad-tailed hummingbird / 21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
21 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
snow-capped aspen buds / 20 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
20 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort
blue flower moon / 18 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by j.m. bort
broad-tailed hummingbird / 10 May 2019 / Bailey, CO 8750′ / by s.a. bort

Abortion and Eugenics / by Clarence Thomas / 5.28.19

Tags

, , , , , , ,

eugenics / blonde-haired blue-eyed boy / racial purity

My (s.a. bort) previous three posts regarding eugenics can be found here: [ https://whenisapartynotaparty.wordpress.com/category/eugenics/ ] Hush hush, liberal-propagandist pact among high school history teachers in Massachussetts–and beyond… (12 August 2018), Hound of Spring: a tale (posted 29 July 2013, originally completed 19 February 1997), and Party Eugenics (12 January 2012).

My post, from 12 August 2018, describes the History Department of Newton North High School in Newton, Massachussetts and its progressive history teacher, David Bedar, who holds a Master’s degree in Teaching from Duke University. Bedar complains: “I don’t feel good about protecting [a nativist] student’s right to a so‐called ‘political’ view. . . Do I really have to avoid saying ‘I think nativism is bad?[‘] The eugenics movement was based in large part on immigrants destroying our country.”

The Federalist writer Ilya Feoktistov corrects Bedar: “the early twentieth-century eugenics movement was based less in conservative nativism than in the same New England progressivism Bedar preaches today. The eugenicist Immigration Restriction League was founded in Boston by three Harvard progressives. As The Guardian well puts it, eugenics is ‘the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet.’”

My post, from 12 August 2018, a science-fiction short story, invokes the voice of George Bernard Shaw, a firm believer in eugenics, who once advised: “When you are asked, ‘Where is God? Who is God?’ stand up and say, ‘I am God and here is God, not as yet completed, but still advancing toward completion, just in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole of society and whole world, instead of merely looking after my personal ends.’” Shaw believed in tweaking humanity toward his idea of perfection–toward becoming God. Eugenics.

In a third post, on 12 January 2012, I printed my response to a blaze.com article, titled: “NC to Recommend Compensation for Eugenics Victims.” That article, in part, had reported:

“Many states ended their eugenics programs because of associations with Nazi Germany’s program aimed at racial purity, but North Carolina in fact ramped up sterilizations after World War II. The state’s sterilizations peaked in the 1950s, with about 70 percent of all sterilizations performed after the war, according to state records. The program didn’t officially end until 1977. It is one of about a half-dozen states to apologize for eugenics programs.

Most victims were poor, black women deemed unfit to be parents. People as young as 10 were sterilized for reasons as minor as not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous. Although officials obtained consent from patients or their guardians, many did not comprehend what they were signing.”

Now comes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. who today, after “the [Supreme] Court denied to review an Indiana law prohibiting abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability,” published his opinion in response to the court’s denial. Following are extensive excerpts from that opinion, published today by firstthings.com. In the most controversial section, Thomas argues that we can deny dealing with it now, but eventually, it will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. –s.a. bort

Thomas writes in that section: “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the twentieth-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination. Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever.”

firstthings.com

FIRST THINGS is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.

In the Supreme Court’s May 28 decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, the Court denied to review an Indiana law prohibiting abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, excerpted below, describes the connections between abortion advocacy and eugenics, and the ways in which abortion is a tool of modern-day eugenicists.

This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was particularly open about the fact that birth control could be used for eugenic purposes. These arguments about the eugenic potential for birth control apply with even greater force to abortion, which can be used to target specific children with unwanted characteristics. Even after World War II, future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher and other abortion advocates endorsed abortion for eugenic reasons and promoted it as a means of controlling the population and improving its quality. As explained below, a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.

Like many elites of her day, Sanger accepted that eugenics was “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” She agreed with eugenicists that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” was “the greatest present menace to civilization.” Particularly “in a democracy like that of the United States,” where “[e]quality of political power has . . . been bestowed upon the lowest elements of our population,” Sanger worried that “reckless spawning carries with it the seeds of destruction.”

Although Sanger believed that society was “indebted” to “the Eugenists” for diagnosing these problems, she did not believe that they had “show[n] much power in suggesting practical and feasible remedies.” “As an advocate of Birth Control,” Sanger attempted to fill the gap by showing that birth control had “eugenic and civilizational value.” In her view, birth-control advocates and eugenicists were “seeking a single end” “to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” But Sanger believed that the focus should be “upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health.” Thus, for Sanger, forced sterilization did “not go to the bottom of the matter” because it did not “touc[h] the great problem of unlimited reproduction” of “those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.” In Sanger’s view, frequent reproduction among “the majority of wage workers” would lead to “the contributing of morons, feeble-minded, insane and various criminal types to the already tremendous social burden constituted by these unfit.”

Sanger believed that birth control was an important part of the solution to these societal ills. She explained, “Birth Control . . . is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation,” “and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science.” Sanger even argued that “eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment” could not “succeed” unless they “first clear[ed] the way for Birth Control.” If “the masses” were given “practical education in Birth Control”—for which there was “almost universal demand”—then the “Eugenic educator” could use “Birth Control propaganda” to “direct a thorough education in Eugenics” and influence the reproductive decisions of the unfit. In this way, “the campaign for Birth Control [was] not merely of eugenic value, but [was] practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.”

Sanger herself campaigned for birth control in black communities. In 1930, she opened a birth-control clinic in Harlem. Then, in 1939, Sanger initiated the “Negro Project,” an effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities. Noting that blacks were “‘notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a “caste” system,’” she argued in a fundraising letter that “‘birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.’” In a report titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” Sanger and her coauthors identified blacks as “‘the great problem of the South’”—“the group with ‘the greatest economic, health, and social problems’”—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘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.’”

Defenders of Sanger point out that W. E. B. DuBois and other black leaders supported the Negro Project and argue that her writings should not be read to imply a racial bias. But Sanger’s motives are immaterial to the point relevant here: that “Birth Control” has long been understood to “ope[n] the way to the eugenist.”

To be sure, Sanger distinguished between birth control and abortion. For Sanger, “[t]he one means health and happiness—a stronger, better race,” while “[t]he other means disease, suffering, [and] death.” Sanger argued that “nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide,” and she questioned whether “we want the precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our racial development, to perish in [the] sordid, abnormal experiences” of abortions. In short, unlike contraceptives, Sanger regarded “the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year [as] a disgrace to civilization.”

Although Sanger was undoubtedly correct in recognizing a moral difference between birth control and abortion, the eugenic arguments that she made in support of birth control apply with even greater force to abortion. Others were well aware that abortion could be used as a “metho[d] of eugenics,” and they were enthusiastic about that possibility. Indeed, some eugenicists believed that abortion should be legal for the very purpose of promoting eugenics. Support for abortion can therefore be found throughout the literature on eugenics.

Abortion advocates were sometimes candid about abortion’s eugenic possibilities. In 1959, for example, Guttmacher explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion.  He explained that “the quality of the parents must be taken into account,” including “[f]eeblemindedness,” and believed that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy . . . in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.”  He added that the question whether to allow abortion must be “separated from emotional, moral and religious concepts” and “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” Similarly, legal scholar Glanville Williams wrote that he was open to the possibility of eugenic infanticide, at least in some situations, explaining that “an eugenic killing by a mother, exactly paralleled by the bitch that kills her misshapen puppies, cannot confidently be pronounced immoral.”  The Court cited Williams’ book for a different proposition in Roe v. Wade.

But public aversion to eugenics after World War II also led many to avoid explicit references to that term. The American Eugenics Society, for example, changed the name of its scholarly publication from “Eugenics Quarterly” to “Social Biology.” In explaining the name change, the journal’s editor stated that it had become evident that eugenic goals could be achieved “for reasons other than eugenics.” For example, “[b]irth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.” But whether they used the term “eugenics” or not, abortion advocates echoed the arguments of early twentieth-century eugenicists by describing abortion as a way to achieve “population control” and to improve the “quality” of the population. One journal declared that “abortion is the one mode of population limitation which has demonstrated the speedy impact which it can make upon a national problem.” Planned Parenthood’s leaders echoed these themes. When exulting over “‘fantastic . . . progress’” in expanding abortion, for example, Guttmacher stated that “‘the realization of the population problem has been responsible’ for the change in attitudes. ‘We’re now concerned more with the quality of population than the quantity.’”

Avoiding the word “eugenics” did not assuage everyone’s fears. Some black groups saw “‘family planning’ as a euphemism for race genocide” and believed that “black people [were] taking the brunt of the ‘planning’” under Planned Parenthood’s “ghetto approach” to distributing its services. “The Pittsburgh branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” for example, “criticized family planners as bent on trying to keep the Negro birth rate as low as possible.”

Today, notwithstanding Sanger’s views on abortion, respondent Planned Parenthood promotes both birth control and abortion as “reproductive health services” that can be used for family planning. And with today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics. Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child. As petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs point out, moreover, abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.

In Iceland, the abortion rate for children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero approaches 100 percent. Other European countries have similarly high rates, and the rate in the United States is approximately two-thirds.

In Asia, widespread sex-selective abortions have led to as many as 160 million “missing” women—more than the entire female population of the United States. And recent evidence suggests that sex-selective abortions of girls are common among certain populations in the United States as well.

Eight decades after Sanger’s “Negro Project,” abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity. The reported nationwide abortion ratio—the number of abortions per 1,000 live births—among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women. And there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area. Whatever the reasons for these disparities, they suggest that, insofar as abortion is viewed as a method of “family planning,” black people do indeed “tak[e] the brunt of the ‘planning.’”

Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion. According to one economist, “Roe v. Wade help[ed] trigger, a generation later, the greatest crime drop in recorded history.” On this view, “it turns out that not all children are born equal” in terms of criminal propensity. And legalized abortion meant that the children of “poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers” who were “much more likely than average to become criminals” “weren’t being born.” Whether accurate or not, these observations echo the views articulated by the eugenicists and by Sanger decades earlier: “Birth Control of itself . . . will make a better race” and tend “toward the elimination of the unfit.”

Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the twentieth-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination. Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. 

Clarence Thomas is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

2019 First Things. All rights reserved. ft@firstthings.com

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

photo from: https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/blonde_hair_blue_eyes.html?sti=n2fdui8c7nbsf1fjfd|