The political left, including the Democratic Party, seem hell-bent on toppling any statue that hints of past racism, white supremacism and neo-Nazism, as I’m sure you have noticed.
That raises this question in my mind: What about the patron saint of the left and Democratic Party – Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger?
Her whitewashed resume includes the following ignoble distinctions:
- She addressed the Ku Klux Klan, fans of Sanger because of her own racism and plans for reducing the population of blacks in America;
- Her eugenics plans inspired the Nazi sterilization law of 1933 and the subsequent Nazi euthanasia laws;
- Her close associates Clarence Gamble, who funded Sanger and spoke at her conferences, and Lothrop Stoddard, who published in Sanger’s magazine and served on the board of her American Birth Control League, both knew about the Nazi sterilization and euthanasia programs and praised them, while Stoddard traveled to Germany where he met with top Nazi officials and even secured an audience with Hitler;
- In 1939, as Hitler was devising his “final solution,” Sanger proposed her infamous “Negro Project,” in which she wrote “the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. 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”;
- Sanger was closely tied to Ernst Rudin, who served as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization. An April 1933 article by Rudin – entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need” – for Sanger’s monthly magazine, The Birth Control Review, detailed the establishment of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene and advocated its replication in the United States. A subsequent article by Leon Whitney published the following June by Sanger, entitled “Selective Sterilization,” praises and defends the Third Reich’s pre-holocaust “race purification” program.
Maybe you’re asking, right about now, “So, where can I find a statue of Margaret Sanger so I can join the protests by Democrats and leftists to tear them down?”
Well, you can find a sculpture in the Smithsonian Institution – inappropriately, to say the least – in the “Struggle for Justice” section of the museum.
In recent years, a group of African-American pastors have asked the Smithsonian to move the bust to a more appropriate part of the museum such as a section devoted to historical figures who promoted genocide, such as such as Stalin, Mao, Mengele and Hitler.
How did the Smithsonian react?
“I received your letter regarding the legacy of Margaret Sanger and respectfully decline to remove her portrait from the museum,” wrote Smithsonian director Kim Sajet. “The Struggle for Justice gallery brings attention to major cultural and political figures from the 19th century to the present day who fought to achieve civil rights for disenfranchised or marginalized groups. … Her association with the eugenics movement shadowed her achievements in sex education and contraception, making her a figure of controversy, one whose complexities and contradictions mirror her times. There is no ‘moral test’ for people to be accepted into the National Portrait Gallery.”
Uh-huh.
But, surely, some Democrats and leftists see this matter differently. After all, Sanger had ties to the KKK and the Nazis and was a white supremacist.
Au contraire! Sanger remains an absolute heroine to the left.
In March 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award. Here’s what she said: “Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
So, how do we explain that some white supremacists, KKK sympathizers and Nazi fans are admirable and some are not?
All I can conclude is this: Sanger’s brand of white supremacism – based on atheism and radicalism and hatred of the poor – is fine with “progressives” because of all she did for womankind, meaning the promotion of abortion on demand.
Among so-called “progressives,” advocacy of killing unborn babies goes a long way to the expiation of other sins.
