Janice Shaw Crouse
Saturday, March 20, 2010

What we’re seeing in Washington, D.C. is not “politics as usual” with the arm twisting and “horse trading” that is typical in getting a bill passed; instead, it is ideological warfare. What Obama, Reid and Pelosi are doing is not legislating, it is an act of tyranny – overturning all the rules and principles of government in a representative democracy. Attempting to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare in the House under the ironically named “Slaughter Rule” (to circumvent the objections of the Stupak coalition to taxpayer funding of abortion) is an exercise in raw power akin to the many acts of judicial tyranny the American public has endured over the last 40 years from judges who have little regard for the Constitution.

Apparently Obama, Reid and Pelosi aren’t worried about losing control of Congress in 2010 or even the presidency in 2012, because their higher goal is to irrevocably institutionalize their ideology. Once government control of health care is established, their leftist principles will be implemented by an unelected bureaucracy which rules without accountability to the general public whether or not the Democratic Party is the majority in Congress or holds the presidency.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi have learned nothing from history; they are as blind to their own tyranny as were King George and the British Parliament. They show no comprehension of the moral outrage that will ignite in this country if they ram through ObamaCare, a bill that requires taxpayer funding for abortion, usurps individual rights to choose their own personal health care options, and saddles the nation with a growing flood of debt which will drown our children and grandchildren.

Friday morning you could see workers beginning to set up barricades around the Capitol in preparation for the demonstrations they expect in response to their autocratic actions. They mistakenly think that the tea party protests are temporary flare ups that mere barricades can contain, but their legislative and executive tyranny is unleashing emotions that have the potential to rival the anti-slavery movement of the Civil War era and the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s. Having abandoned those transcendent moral principles upon which this nation was founded for a false ideology of their own imagining, they have no understanding of the righteous fury that will build in this nation when her citizens see their government sanction morally reprehensible acts.

Leaders across the nation –– nearly half a million strong –– have already signed the Manhattan Declaration declaring that moral principles take precedence over laws that ignore the value of human life and individual freedom. These deeply-held religious beliefs are inviolable, non-negotiable, and they are protected under the U.S. Constitution. Thousands of America’s Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders have laid down a gauntlet: By reaffirming the fundamental truth that life and liberty come, not from man-made laws, but from God, we have joined together “to defend the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.”

We have, in good faith, expressed our objections and righteous indignation over and over again only to be repeatedly rebuffed and ignored. Poll after poll demonstrates that U.S. citizens are strongly opposed to ObamaCare and its impact on our nation. Yet the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis is determined to ignore the will of the people that they were elected to represent and to dictatorially impose on the nation their ideas of what’s best. They have lived so long in the rarified air of elitism that they think the “masses” will simply accept their “superior wisdom.” These unprecedented assaults on basic American principles compel Manhattan Declaration signers to forcefully mount a defense of human life, marriage and religious freedom.

Manhattan Declaration signers have said that civil disobedience is necessary when faced with gravely unjust laws requiring submission to laws that violate our principled moral beliefs about abortion, marriage, and religious freedom. As the Manhattan Declaration states, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

Austin Hill
Sunday, March 21, 2010

If a frontal assault on the foundational principals and values of American life can qualify as being “at war” - then yes, Barack Obama is in combat with our country. And while the belligerence of both his administration and his party’s congressional leadership have seemingly created a sense of alarm across the U.S., their apparent disregard for their own self-inflicted political damage is all the more staggering.

Taking aim at America’s foundations has impacted us both here at home, and abroad. European allies France and England have both made note of our President’s “short shrift” treatment over the past fourteen months, while earlier this month French President Nicolas Sarkozy chastised Obama for his protectionist, anti-free trade policies ( “this is not the right way to behave” Sarkozy told our President). And just last week Vice President Biden took U.S.-Israel relations to a new low point by criticizing the nation on their own soil.

But domestically, Obama’s greatest offense to American life is fundamentally economic in its nature. And at its root, his assault on our sensibilities is best described in terms that he himself has used to criticize others.

In a quickly produced campaign commercial back in the Fall of 2008, candidate Obama addressed the then- melting down American financial system, stating that “this crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism, and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary…” At that moment in time, long-standing American financial institutions were being crushed, mostly by their overexposure to sub-prime mortgages, while the stock market was tumbling precipitously.

Was “cronyism” in the financial system really our problem back then? Arguably it was one of many problems at that time, although Obama’s insinuation that our capitalistic free market economy is “un-regulated” was phony (completely un-regulated capitalism does not exist).

But today, cronyism is so flagrant and blatant at the highest ranks of our government, that the President and the congress have lost the confidence and the trust of both America’s cultural “right” and “left.” The stunning, “we’ll-stop-at-nothing” fight to take-over the healthcare industry and the medical profession has put Obama-styled cronyism on full display – and therein lies the greatest assault on America.

The cronyism, however, didn’t begin with the healthcare fight. After taking office, President Obama got to work right away buying-off people who would serve his interests, as he continued the destructive precedent established by George W. Bush and handed over billions of our tax dollars to Chrysler and General Motors. He then established his special “Automotive Task Force,” and appointed as the head of the task force Steve Rattner, a Wall Street investor with no experience in the car business but with lots of experience in raising campaign money for Obama and Democrats.

When GM and Chrysler ended-up in bankruptcy, President Obama insisted that everybody involved needed to “sacrifice,” yet the only people to experience a loss were the companies’ secured creditors. The Obama Administration used the full power of the White House to force the creditors to accept debt payment of thirty cents on the dollar, and then during the “re-structuring” of the companies managed to have chunks of each corporation “gifted” to the United Auto Workers Union (the UAW currently owns about 17% of GM, and slightly over 50% of Chrysler).

President Obama had a good reason to provide “gifts” to the UAW – labor union members frequently make great, loyal, campaign foot soldiers for Democrats. And for this reason it was no surprise when President Obama negotiated an exemption from the mandates of his nationalized healthcare plan for UAW members – they already receive healthcare benefits, and it made no sense to entangle into government healthcare a group of people who could be politically beneficial to Barack Obama.

Then there are the “gifts” to individual members of Congress. The “Louisiana purchase” with Senator Mary Landrieu and the “Cornhusker kickback” happened months ago. Yet all within the last week, we saw Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich go from a “no” to a “yes” vote on Obamacare after his wife was given a job working for Michelle Obama. And the Obama Administration used the power of the Department of the Interior to expand California’s water allocations, in exchange for the votes of on-the-fence Representatives Costa and Cardoza.

And why, exactly, does the Obamacare agenda require all Americans to buy health insurance? Using the force of government to create more “demand” for their product was a great way for President Obama to garner the political support of the insurance industry.

Yet at the epicenter of all of this – all the bribes, manipulations, and heavy-handed mandates – is the narrow, political self-interest of one man: Barack Obama. America’s cultural “right” decries the loss of freedom and the rise of abusive government, while the “left” decries a government that lines the pockets of for-profit corporations (companies that are presumed to be “greedy”), all for the benefit of one self-serving politician.

This is the assault on America’s foundational principals and values. It is the assault of governmental cronyism, on our basic understandings of what is right, and fair.

Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, March 22, 2010

The Messiah sacrificed his life to save all who believed in Him, offering them eternal life. In contrast, the Obamessiah has called on his followers in the House of Representatives to sacrifice their political lives in order to save his presidency in pursuit of health care legislation that’s massively unpopular in the country.

Perhaps the biggest problem for Obama and the Democrats is this: Even though they have railroaded a “victory” on the health care bill, it will be a pyrrhic one. The President has revealed a ruthless arrogance – and the complete absence of any decent respect for the opinions of a majority of his fellow Americans – that will prove costly to him in the long run.

Health care is an issue that will touch each and every American (aside from our elected representatives, who are conveniently exempted from the “reform” the President is attempting to impose on the rest of us). If the staged presidential health care “summit” proved anything, it was that there are principled differences between the parties when it comes to reforming health care. Rather than acknowledging that truth and using the best ideas from both sides, however, the President attributed any congressional disagreement with him only to the basest motives – selfish political gain, a desire to block all reform, an improper embrace of the insurance companies (ironic, coming from an administration that itself sought to make a deal with “Big Pharma”), and indifference to the plight of suffering Americans.

But the contempt the President has manifested for his congressional opponents pales in comparison to the disregard he has shown for the honest objections of American citizens – many of whom voted for him. When a deep blue state voted a Republican into Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, largely on the basis of his opposition to ObamaCare, the President and Democrats simply changed the rules of the game, attempting to shoehorn a massive expansion of the welfare state into a procedure intended to correct minor discrepancies between House and Senate legislation.

Apparently, House Rules committee member (and impeached, then removed judge) Alcee Hastings (D-FLA) was right when he insisted, “There are no rules here . . . we simply make them up as we go along.” But Americans understand that a Congress with “no rules” is a frightening beast – especially when its lawlessness is actively encouraged by the nation’s Chief Executive.

The underhanded process through which passage has been pursued highlights the dramatic deficiencies of the health care overhaul bill. Democrats – with their largest congressional majorities in years – wouldn’t have had to resort to a procedural trick like reconciliation if the substance of the bill warranted support on the merits. Nor would the President and his congressional allies have had to offer so many special deals: The union tax exemption, the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the UConn – the list of infamy goes on, with no doubt more to come when the final bill can finally be scrutinized. And there would have been no need to rush the vote through before the bill’s costs could be thoroughly analyzed and digested.

Americans, a majority of whom oppose the health care bill, can see through all of this. They aren’t stupid. But apparently, their president believes that many of them are – they simply don’t understand the beneficence of the legislation that he is prepared to force upon them, presumably for their own good. As for the rest, it seems he thinks they’re wickedly opposing a bill that would benefit others for nothing more than their own selfish reasons.

Can a president successfully govern a nation when he apparently believes that a majority of its citizens are either stupid or wicked? We shall see. One thing, however, is certain: In a dazzling irony, through the ugly procedural health care “reform” drama in which he has embroiled the country, the most enthusiastically pro-government president in recent American history has demonstrated once and for all just how corrupt, cynical and inept government can be.

In the wake of this debacle, many of Obama’s Democrat allies in the House of Representatives will no doubt be the first lambs to the slaughter. But because her citizens are now more divided, demoralized, disillusioned – and disrespected – than ever, America as a whole is suffering for the Obamessiah’s triumph.

Michael Barone
Monday, March 22, 2010

As this is written, the lobbying of House Democrats on the health care bill is going on apace, and every hour brings news of another no vote converted to yes, or a yes vote switching to no.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership is expressing confidence that the jerry-rigged bill they've put together will pass -- which is evidence either that they have the 216-vote majority pretty well in hand or that, like any party's House leadership, they're professing confidence to prevent a stampede against them. Republicans are saying the Democrats haven't gotten to 216 yet but admit they're getting close.

At a rally Friday, Barack Obama called on critics to stop talking about public opinion polls or the messy legislative process and to focus on the specifics of the bill. O.K.

The first thing to be said is that it would vastly increase government spending. Democrats have been focusing on the Congressional Budget Office's (preliminary) finding that it would reduce the federal deficit. But that's misleading because the CBO is required to assume that Congress won't increase the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors (the doc fix) as it has done every year for a decade -- and as the Democratic leaders may be planning to do permanently later this year.

Over the last 40 years, federal government spending has hovered around 21 percent of the gross domestic product. The Obama budgets have pushed that up to 25 percent. The health care bill threatens to keep it in that vicinity indefinitely. And that, as the CBO has said, means deficits around 5 percent of GDP as far as the eye can see -- or higher taxes. Pelosi and other Democrats have been eyeing a value-added tax, i.e., a national sales tax.

The bill begins the march to higher taxes. High earners will pay 3.8 percent more in Medicare tax, on top of a promised increase, from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, in their income tax rate. Economists of every ideological stripe agree that raising taxes in a recession will slow or prevent recovery. The bill also creates a 3.8 percent tax on interest and dividend income above certain levels beginning in 2013. That's another growth-killer.

More important, in the long run the tax increases on high earners and supposed cuts in Medicare spending in this bill will not be available to solve the long-term fiscal problems of Social Security and Medicare. They will have been used up. What that will mean is this: A future Congress will have to scale back benefits or increase taxes on the middle class.

In his campaign and in the White House, Barack Obama has talked from time to time about solving the American government's long-term fiscal problems. The bill he is urging the House to pass will make that much harder.

This is unfortunate. Obama, elected with 53 percent of the vote and with large Democratic majorities in both houses, entered office better positioned to champion fundamental reforms in entitlement spending than any other president in the last three decades. The tenor of his campaign, and of the 2004 national convention speech that introduced him to the American people, suggested that he was disposed to do so.

On health care, he had an opportunity to address fundamentals by eliminating the tax preference for employer-provided health insurance established in 1943 that has made health care consumers and providers insensitive to costs.

There was even a bipartisan vehicle headed in that direction, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and Republican Sen. Bob Bennett with a dozen bipartisan co-sponsors. Their idea was to provide universal private insurance coverage with premium support for low earners and to eliminate the tax preference whose benefits go disproportionately to high earners.

Obama chose to ignore this initiative and to hand off the task of crafting legislation to Democratic congressional leaders and committee chairmen. That process has produced monstrosities like the Cornhusker kickback that was in the bill before the House morphed it into an open-ended subsidy for high-tax, high-spending state governments.

The result is a highly unpopular piece of legislation that has gotten worse with each iteration, driving down the president's approval ratings and threatening an electoral disaster for members of his party next fall. The bill, if it passes, will threaten the economic recovery and make our long-term fiscal problems even harder to solve.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

—Samuel Adams

[Impeachable conduct is] misconduct by public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

—Alexander Hamilton

I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves.

—Andrew Jackson (1834)

• Our country has far more problems than it deserves and far more solutions than it applies. The reason: excessive concentration of power and wealth in a few hands. Instead of government of, by, and for the people, we have a government of the Exxons, by the General Motors, and for the DuPonts. Such concentration serves the interests of the few over the many. History has taught us the perils of this degree of concentrated power and wealth. This concentrated power in the service of greed, together with short-term thinking, prevents our country from foreseeing and forestalling looming problems on the horizon.

  —Ralph Nader

• We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

  —Davy Crockett

• Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself. ... [I] hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

  —Ronald Reagan

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.

—Andrew Jackson

• No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.

  —Edmund A. Opitz

If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to all of us, as did Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere... Now it is time to take longer strides - time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth. ...we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule... Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share...

—John F. Kennedy (25/05/1961)

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.

—Barry Goldwater

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

—Patrick Henry

The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free government.

—Sam Houston

A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under.

—Sam Houston

I shall earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical recognition of the old Revolutionary maxim. 'Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.'

—Susan B. Anthony

One-half of the people of this nation to-day are utterly powerless to blot from the statute books an unjust law, or to write there a new and a just one.

—Susan B. Anthony

Without a vision, the people perish.

—Proverbs 29:18

ohn Hawkins
Tuesday, March 09, 2010

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan

One of the reasons liberals tend to do such an incredibly poor job of governing is that they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the American people. Given that liberals also fundamentally misunderstand Christianity, the Constitution, economics, and human nature, I guess it's no big surprise that they don't get the American people either. Come to think of it, I guess it's pretty much par for the course. I mean, let's face it, without conservatives around to help keep them in check, liberals would utterly destroy everything that is good about America and most of them would be baffled about what they were doing wrong right up until the end. But enough about the Left's general lack of common sense -- let's talk about how they misjudge the American people.

They believe the American people want liberal policies. When you're a conservative, it's almost impossible to filter out liberal views. Your kids are exposed to liberalism at school, Hollywood forces liberal ideas down your throat when you watch TV, the local paper leans left -- you just can't get away from it. On the other hand, if you're a liberal, you really don't have to hear what conservatives think. This can lead to the sort of groupthink that once inspired film critic Pauline Kael to exclaim,

"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where (Nixon voters) are I don't know. They're outside my ken."

Now, some liberals know better -- which is why every Democratic President runs as a centrist even though they immediately intend to veer way off to the left the moment they're elected.

However, the belief that liberalism is genuinely popular with the American people is still pervasive. For example, on a daily basis, you can hear the netroots claiming that Obama's approval rating is slipping because he's not getting enough of his legislation passed. This ignores the fact that Obama's legislative agenda is having trouble getting passed because it's about as popular as strychnine milkshakes in our center-right country.

Liberals believe that many Americans don't know what's in their own best interests. Liberals tend to falsely believe that they're better, smarter, and more caring than the average person. This often leads them to make rather glib and far reaching assumptions about the "best" way for OTHER people to live.

Why would anyone need a SUV or a gun? You don't REALLY need those things. Also, liberals know what your salary should be, how your children should be taught, and what words you should be allowed to use without hurting anyone else's feelings. Oh, you want to pick your own lightbulb? Nonsense: You might do it wrong! Let liberals tell you which one you need.

There's just something about liberalism that turns most of its practitioners, no matter how dumb or incompetent they may be, into finger wagging professors who want to lecture the rest of the country about how to live their lives. See the man running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a real world example of how that works.

Liberals believe that the American people want to be treated like children. Sure, there are always going to be losers who want the government to do everything for them, but bottom feeders who want to be taken care of by the government have never represented the majority of the American people. If they ever do, liberals will undoubtedly be happy about it, but the rest of us won't because it'll mean the end of America as a great nation.

However, for the moment at least, a large percentage of Americans not only don't want the government's help, we would be pleased if the government didn't even know we existed. In essence, we want the government to defend the country, maintain the roads, enforce the law and leave us alone as much as possible. This, by necessity, puts us at loggerheads with liberals who are obsessed with controlling as much of people's lives as possible.

Liberals believe that most conservatives are evil. The problem with pegging people who merely disagree with you as greedy, evil, malevolent racists is that it tends to lead to kneejerk disagreement with everything they believe. That's why people go to such great lengths to compare their political opposites to Nazis -- because the thinking goes, the Nazis are bad and if they're like Nazis, no matter what they're saying, then it must be bad. Incidentally, the Nazis were socialists, animal rights activists, advocates of bigger government, supporters of the social welfare state, and supporters of unions -- just like liberals -- but that's neither here nor there.

The problem with believing that conservatism is evil, besides the fact that it's not true, is that it leads even well-intentioned liberals to disregard conservative ideas. That's especially relevant because if you look through American history, you'll find ideologies are much more malleable than people might think. For example, at times in our history, liberalism has looked favorably upon tax cuts, Christianity, and patriotism as opposed to fighting against all those things while pretending to do otherwise. Put another way, if liberals were to examine conservative ideas with an open mind, they might learn something.

Liberals believe they can lie to the American people without consequence. Saying that politicians lie is like noting that rats like cheese. Without question, politicians from both parties are guilty of lying.

However, in the political realm, liberals lie much, much more often than conservatives. Why? There are two reasons for it. Conservatives tend to believe liberals are stupid, but liberals tend to think conservatives are evil. Is it wrong to lie about someone who's dumb? Yes. Ok, now would it be wrong to lie to stop Hitler? Ehr -- probably not. Because so many liberals view conservatives as evil, in their culture it's considered acceptable for them to lie about the Right. Very, very seldom will you ever hear a liberal criticize another liberal for lying about a conservative even though it's an every day thing in the liberal media.

Also, because the Left controls the mainstream media, they can often get away with lies no conservative ever could. Put another way, conservatives tend to be more honest because they have to be while liberals are used to having the mainstream media cover up, ignore, and explain away their lies.

The problem with that is that over time, the MSM has become less powerful and the new media has filled the gap. For example, when a cranky Harry Reid claimed at the health care summit that no one has talked about reconciliation, a video was quickly put out proving him wrong. Now that same video is in circulation, in the new media, proving that Harry Reid is a shameless liar with no personal integrity. The mainstream media is no longer the only gatekeeper for the news and it's allowing Americans to see through the lies of the Left faster than ever. That's why Barack Obama, who sometimes has trouble keeping his story straight from day-to-day, has dropped so far, so fast.

Future Generations    

Future Generations is about eugenics - creating a better world by improving the human gene pool. ... Future Generations is about humanitarian eugenics. Humanitarian eugenics strives to leave a genuine legacy of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence, and noble character. We advocate measures to...

· www.eugenics.net/

Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement    

Learn from science’s past. Search and browse 2,400 photos, pedigrees, charts, letters, and articles from the American Eugenics movement of the last century. ... The Eugenics Archive utilizes Flash for enhanced search features, cross referencing, and interactive images created with Zoomifyer. Get the Flash plugin at...

· www.eugenicsarchive.org/

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

Source
<!--
var wikiImage = new Image();
wikiImage.onload = function() {if(this.height < 45){document.getElementById('wiki7').height = this.height;};}
wikiImage.src = http://66.235.120.66/ts?t=6679184064007801614";

// -->

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Eugenics - a planned evolution for life.    

The application of molecular eugenics to the human. ... BACKGROUND; HISTORY OF EUGENICS; A NEW EUGENICS; EUGENICS IN THE FUTURE; INVESTING IN THE FUTURE ; ... Eugenics - It's a dirty eight letter word in most circles, and it's been out of circulation for quite a while, but better start getting use to it. It's coming back.

· www.onelife.com/ethics/eugenics.html

EugenicsArchive.Org: Image Archive on American Eugenics Movement    

The buttons below link to essays (using the Flash Player plugin) that introduce the key events, persons, and social conditions that contributed to the development of eugenics. We suggest you visit these exhibits before searching the images in the Archive.

· www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics    

Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.

· hnn.us/articles/1796.html

A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Eugenics movement reaches    

Eugenics movement reaches its height; 1923; ... Photo: This family was awarded Honorable Mention, Large Family Class, as part of a eugenics exhibit at a Kansas fair in 1923. ... Local eugenics societies and groups sprang up around the United States after World War I, with names like the Race Betterment Foundation.

·  Privacy Protection:   Transaction Protection:  · www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html

American Bioethics Advisory Commission    

Eugenics is an ideology, a movement, not a conspiracy. ... The great work of her life was enlisting the feminist movement in the service of the eugenics movement. ... Eugenics is not dead at all. You can look at their own up-to-date seductive material!

· www.all.org/abac/eugenics.htm

The Eugenics Movement in the U.S.    

Popularity of eugenics and social Darwinism continued in the USA during WWII. In 1942, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a "debate" on the ethics of killing children with severe disabilities. The following was written by Foster Kennedy:

· www.notdeadyet.org/eughis.html

eugenics: Definition from Answers.com    

eugenics n. (used with a sing. verb) The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective ... There have been a number of proposals regarding negative eugenics in the United States. Several of the states have laws providing for sterilization of persons with severe mental or physical...

·  Privacy Protection:  · www.answers.com/topic/eugenics

Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History    

Eugenics--the quest for human betterment through selective breeding--is a largely forgotten chapter in American history. This site offers the story of how eugenics emerged and flourished in Vermont during the first half of the twentieth century, as told in the voices of those involved.

·  Transaction Protection:  · www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/

eugenics - definition of eugenics by the Free Online Dictionary,    

Definition of eugenics in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of eugenics. Pronunciation of eugenics. Translations of eugenics. eugenics synonyms, eugenics antonyms. Information about eugenics in the free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. ... eugenics; Eugenics and sterilization; Eugenics Board of North Carolina;

· www.thefreedictionary.com/eugenics

The eugenics movement    

Eugenics -- Breeding a Better Citizenry Through Scienc ... According to Davenport, in his major work, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (1911), ... The plan of the eugenics movement was that since the poor had these genes for feeblemindedness, which led them to misery, vice, and crime, the obvious solution to American...

·  Privacy Protection:   Transaction Protection:  · personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

Eugenics    

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. ... Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on,

· www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2007/eugenics.html

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

Source
<!--
var wikiImage = new Image();
wikiImage.onload = function() {if(this.height < 45){document.getElementById('wiki1').height = this.height;};}
wikiImage.src = http://66.235.120.66/ts?t=18195429654894665830";

// -->

Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics