A harrowing timeline of Eugenics in America. Spoiler: It's STILL ongoing.

Do you believe ALL life is sacred? We have learned all too well the consequences of when societies quantify the sanctity of human beings on physical characteristics... or have we?

Glenn recently interviewed Scott Schara, who tragically lost his daughter, Grace, with Down syndrome, to alleged medical malpractice. What was the malpractice? After Schara and his wife took Grace to the hospital when her oxygen levels dropped due to contracting COVID, her doctors and nurses gave her a deadly cocktail and a "do not resuscitate" order WITHOUT her parents' consent. Schara alleged Grace's doctors didn't deem his daughter's life "worth saving" because she had Down syndrome—and allegedly expedited her death.

Glenn recently said, we are becoming a "culture of death" as our society is dangerously edging closer to the mistakes of the past. From New Mexico's law requiring ALL doctors to offer assisted suicide to Canada's expansion of euthanasia laws to include mentally ill and handicapped patients, it is harrowingly clear we are close to repeating the horrors of the 20th century when the sacredness of life was disregarded.

As Glenn recently said, we are becoming a "culture of death."

We often point to Nazi Germany as the prime example of a society that devalues life based on physical characteristics. However, we have been too quick to forget the seeds that resulted in the Holocaust were planted here during America's eugenics movement. We laid the egg that Hitler later hatched.

The seeds that resulted in the Holocaust were planted here during America's eugenics movement.

Here is a harrowing timeline of the history of eugenics in America. Many of these eugenics-based laws are STILL in effect to this day. America's continued history of eugenics demonstrates our culture stands on an ever-thinning razor between good and evil.

1883: Francis Galton coins the word "Eugenics"

This was a popular image promoting eugenics, describing it as the "self-direction of human evolution."

Famous British scientist and zoologist Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" in 1883. Galton was the cousin of the "Father of Evolution" himself, Charles Darwin, and he took inspiration from his cousin's insights into "natural selection"—if species "naturally select" towards those with stronger and fitter traits to weed out the "weak" and "undesirable" traits, why couldn't humans expedite their own natural selection process?

The cousin of the "Father of Evolution" himself, Charles Darwin, Galton took inspiration from his cousin's insights into "natural selection."

Thus, Galton coined the term "eugenics"—taken from the Greek, which literally means "good genes." He called for the new practice of humans directing their own natural selection process—their own evolution into a stronger, fitter species. Galton defined eugenics as the practice of giving “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”

Eugenics emerged alongside "Social Darwinism," the popular 19th-century theory that promoted the similar ideal that society was ruled by “survival of the fittest." These two movements morphed into the "positive eugenics" that took hold in Britain, which promoted purposeful breeding to ensure the greatest possible genetic outcome for offspring.

Many would assume that such an enterprise emerged from Dr. Mengele out of Auschwitz rather than from one of Britain's most praised scientists. However, the roots of Mengele's practice started in Britain, and would soon be exported to America.

1896: Connecticut bans "negative-eugenics" marriages

The "Mongol Family" is an American family that was often put on display as an example of the result of when those with "negative eugenics" were allowed to "breed." The origin of the term "Mongol Family" is unclear.

Smithsonian

While "positive eugenics" flourished across the pond, "negative eugenics" took hold in America. Instead of facilitating the "breeding" of the high class, "negative eugenics" attempted to ensure that the "lower" or "unfit classes" weren't able to breed at all.

"Negative eugenics" attempted to ensure that the "lower" or "unfit classes" weren't able to breed at all.

In 1896, Connecticut became the first state to enact a law to this end, prohibiting epileptics, imbeciles, and the feeble-minded from marrying. Many states followed suit in the first few years of the 20th century, such as Kansas, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.

1906: American Breeders' Association

This image was taken from a phrenology textbook from the 1960s, a practice used to collect "eugenics data" alleging physical differences could distinguish an "idiot" from a "malefactor" from a "poet."

As eugenics became a renowned scientific practice, the American Breeders Association established its eugenics branch in 1906—the first official consolidation of organized eugenics research. The eugenics branch was first chaired by ichthyologist and Stanford University president, David Starr Jordan.

1907: Indiana passes first state-level sterilization law

Indiana became the first state to legalize forced sterilization of criminals, "feeble-minded," or the disabled held in state custody.

Indiana became the first state to pass a forced sterilization law, allowing doctors to castrate or sterilize people in institutions against their will. Due to the rise of social Darwinism, it was believed that criminal behavior and poverty were hereditary traits that could be "bred out."

It was believed that criminal behavior and poverty were hereditary traits that could be "bred out."

Indiana's law, therefore, made sterilization mandatory for certain individuals with those "negative traits" in state custody. The law wasn't permanently repealed until 1974. Approximately 2,500 total in state custody were sterilized in Indiana.

1910: Eugenics Record Office

Dr. Charles Davenport spearheaded the Eugenics Office and served as the head of multiple "racial hygienic" boards in Germany, which eventually morphed into the Nazi's Aryan movement.

In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was established. As opposed to a single branch of the American Breeding Society, the ERO was dedicated entirely to eugenics research. The ERO was led by the "father of eugenics," Dr. Charles Davenport, and its activities were directly superintended by Harry H. Laughlin, a professor from Kirksville, Missouri, who would become one of the nation's leaders in eugenics-based legislation.

The ERO had multiple "missions," including compiling an index of traits in American families, training field workers to gather data throughout the United States, and providing guidance on the "eugenic fitness" for couples considering marriage. Some of America's greatest industrialist titans were the main funders behind the ERO, including the Kellogg family and the Harriman railroad empire. Yes, that's the same Kellogg whose name you probably see on your box of cereal.

1913: 29 states have banned mixed-eugenics marriages.

The "Feebleminded Family" was often displayed at Eugenics meetings and the World Fair to display the effects of "negative eugenics."

Francis Curtis | The Smithsonian

Connecticut passed the first eugenics-based marriage law in 1896. By 1913, more than half of the states have adopted eugenics-based marriage laws, prohibiting "mixed marriages," whether it be of race or socioeconomic class.

More than half of the states have adopted eugenics-based marriage laws.

1914: Laughlin's Model Eugenical Sterilization Law

Junius Wilson, a deaf man from North Carolina, was falsely accused of attempted rape in the early 1900s. He was incorrectly judged incompetent and sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. In 1931, Wilson became one of the 70,000 who were castrated under state law.

Everett Parker, Jr. | Smithsonian

1914, Laughlin from the ERO created the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" which proposed the sterilization of the “feebleminded” and those that had physical and mental defects. By this time, 11 states followed suit with Indiana to pass their own sterilization laws.

After Laughlin published his "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" and proposed it before Congress, 18 more states followed soon after. 33 states in total enacted sterilization laws, leading to 60,000 known forced sterilizations without consent under state/federal custody. California, Virginia, and Michigan led the staunchest sterilization campaigns.

1916: Margaret Sanger opens up the first Planned Parenthood clinic in Brooklyn.

Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger encouraged birth control to "[weed] out the unfit."

Bettmann / Contributor | Getty Images

Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was one of the largest proponents of eugenics. She routinely touted birth control and abortion as a means of controlling the reproduction of the "undesirables" and facilitating a stronger race through purposeful breeding. She regularly spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies and other white supremacist groups championing a "stronger race."

This quote from Sanger sums it up:

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.

1925: 'Mein Kampf'

In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler praised the American eugenics movement, particularly the successful sterilization laws in California. American eugenics continued to influence the Aryan movement in Germany. Davenport, founder of the ERO, was a vocal supporter of Germany’s racial hygiene and eugenics and was on two editorial boards for the Zeitschrift für menschliche Vererbungs- und Konstitutionslehre, which were German racial hygiene journals.

American eugenics continued to influence the Aryan movement in Germany.

American policies and scientists like Davenport played a massive role in influencing Hitler’s forced sterilizations in Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, the Nazi Party requested help from California eugenicists on how to run their own sterilization program. Christina Cogdell, a cultural historian at the University of California-Davis, said:

Germany used California’s program as its chief example that this was a working, successful policy [...] If you were deemed worthy of being sterilized by a doctor, there was no board where you could have a hearing to protest.

1927: Buck v Bell

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. supported the majority opinion in favor of state sterilization laws in Buck v Bell.

Bettmann / Contributor | Getty Images

The Supreme Court upheld state-level sterilization laws in the landmark case, Buck v Bell. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. claimed:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

Margaret Sanger spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey in support of the Supreme Court’s decision. By the 1970s more than 60,000 individuals had been forcibly sterilized under thirty-three state laws, protected by the Supreme Court.

1933-34: Chicago World Fair exhibit: "Pedigree Study In Man"

These "goodly heritage" medals were given to family members in the "fitter families contests" held by the American Eugenics Society in venues like the World Fair in Chicago.

Smithsonian

The 1933-34 World Fair in Chicago featured a eugenics exhibit titled “Pedigree-Study in Man” in coordination with the fair’s “Century of Progress” theme. Stations were organized to demonstrate how "favorable traits" in the human population could best be passed down. In addition to the World Fair, the ERO sponsored “fitter families” contests at state and county fairs, awarding medals to "eugenically sound" families.

Presentations contrasting the Roosevelt family and a "degenerate" family were displayed. Fairgoers were urged to adopt the progressive view that a responsible citizen should pursue marriage mindfully based on eugenics principles to promote a genetically stronger generation.

Present Day: 31 States STILL have forced sterilization laws. 

31 states and the District of Columbia still retain the forced sterilization laws pushed by Laughlin and other eugenicists in the 20th century. Though the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v Wade, Margaret Sanger's legacy still lives on in the thousands of abortions that are still carried out every day. ELEVEN states have active state-assisted suicide laws, which is a glossier term for "euthanasia." How many other cases have there been, like Grace Schara, whose lives weren't deemed living because of their genetic condition?

It is ironic, to say the least, that eugenics emerged during America's "Progressive Age," where leaders and scientists trampled over basic human dignity for the sake of "progress." Are we headed toward a similar fate in our current century? If you ask the Schara family, we are already there.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.