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.


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.


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.

As many of you now know, Glenn has taken off for a much-deserved, two-week vacation with strict orders not to watch the news. Well, two weeks is a long time in the news world, and a LOT can happen while Glenn is away.

What do you think will happen while Glenn is away? Will Biden take another fall? Will the government finally confess knowledge of alien lifeforms? Let us know what you think below.

Will the Government confirm the existence of aliens? 

Is Biden going to fall again?

Will Kamala Harris become president?

Will Hillary Clinton announce her candidacy for president?

Will AI start an uprising?

Will World War III start?

Will Bud Light go out of business?

Will it be confirmed that Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau's father?

Will California criminalize pianos due to their historic associations with the ivory trade?

Will Joe Biden give a speech where he recounts an encounter with Bigfoot?

How my family's Target boycott is affecting my wife (satire)

Bloomberg / Contributor, nito100 | Getty Images

If you've been tuning in this month, you'll know that my family and I have been boycotting Target since they released their problematic Pride collection. We are determined, but boy has it been difficult... particularly on my wife.

I'm not saying that I kept a diary of my wife's Target withdrawals... but I'm not saying that I didn't either.

Here are the "alleged" entries of my family's first week of boycotting Target.

Day 1

My wife began the day optimistic. Determined. She kept saying, "I can do it. I can do it. For the sake of what is right, I can do it."

For a moment there, I thought this boycott was going to be kind of easy. I thought she would bounce into action, and never look back.

At about noon on day one, she started to crack just a little bit. She looked at me and said, "The only jeans that fit me properly are from Target. Where am I going to get my jeans? What will I do without my favorite jeans?"

One weird thing. She has been speaking differently. It's almost like a nervous tick. Random words come out at random times. Day one, I kissed her good night and said, "I love you." She said, "I love Lindt Lindor Milk Chocolate Candy Truffles."

And I think that has something to do with Target, but I'm not really sure.

Day 2

My wife began laughing today... a LOT. But then, abruptly, her laughter broke into a disconcerting grimace that reminded me ever so slightly of a gargoyle.

I tried to remind myself, "This is going to be a good thing. This is going to make a difference," and my wife proceeded to give me a long-winded rant about how Satan tempted Jesus, and how this is my temptation in the desert. Shortly after, I found her reading her Bible in Matthew chapter 4, repeating, "40 days of THIS?!"

She tried to go to Walmart and even made it about 10 feet into the store... but then she sped home and took a shower for 45 minutes.

Day 3

Have you seen The Shining? The way Jack Nicholson slowly becomes unhinged?

It's beginning to feel like that on day three, at the house. Several times, I caught her petting picture frames. When I asked if everything was okay, she said, "I can't find gallery frames for an excellent price anywhere. You know. Think of the frames."

Later, I caught her piling bath bombs onto her side of the bed.

I said, "Honey, what are those for?"

And her answer was a little terrifying. I can't really remember. Only something about the onslaught of a war of sparkles and tiaras. So I don't know what that means.

And I didn't ask.

Day 4

The shakes have begun. Confusion has overtaken her eyes. Every couple of minutes she gasps and looks around, face full of panic.

She cries in agony, "WHERE will I find oversized blouses?" She gasps again, "What if somebody has a birthday? Where am I going to go? Where am I going to go? What if there is a birthday?"

Day 5

Midway through lunch, my wife shrieked, realizing she was only seven decorative pillows away from an empty bed top.

Our day somehow got worse when news broke that Chip and Joanna Gaines had just released their new candle trough.

That was day five.

Day 6

The rations have vanished.

The boycott now has begun to affect the family's food supply. This morning, I asked my wife, "Do we have any milk?

My wife whispered, "Don't you know where the milk comes from? Don't you know where I get the milk?"

I answered, my voice quivering, "Milk? What milk? I don't need any milk!"

She was almost out of Meyers soap and nearly caved when the revelation kicked in that she might have to go to Walmart.

To make matters worse, Target had just released their new Meyers fall scents, including, but not limited to pumpkin spice—and if you don't have pumpkin spice Meyers soap, who are you, really?

Then things really spiraled when she needed to pick up Starbucks honey flat white and some new laundry detergent. For the first time in a long time, this was going to require TWO stops, and let me tell you, those two stops did not make her happy.

At bedtime, she locked herself into the guest bedroom and insisted on being left alone.

Day 7

For the first day, I have a little hope.

The whole thing was awful. Terrible. Miserable. Heartbreaking.

But still not bad enough to make me or any of my friends want to chug down a Bud Light.

Do aliens... EXIST? Or is it a distraction?

Rastan | Getty Images

Yesterday, whistleblower David Charles Grusch, a decorated Air Force veteran claimed the Department of Defense has a secret team aimed at "retrieving non-human origin technical vehicles, call it spacecraft if you will, non-human exotic origin vehicles that have either landed or crashed."

Talk about UFOs and aliens has typically been siloed to the realm of sci-fi and "conspiracy theories." However, in recent years, publicized evidence of UFOs and whistleblowers, like David Grusch, have brought the once fantastical subjects into the mainstream. Could it be that alien life forms do, in fact, exist? Have they already arrived and been kept secret underneath the government's nose? Or could this all be a ruse to distract us from more pressing stories in the news cycle?

We want to hear from YOU! Do YOU think aliens and UFOs are a distraction tactic, or do you think there's truth behind these whistleblowers?

Do you believe the government has intel about UFOs?

Do you believe the government has intel about alien life?

Do you believe the government is hiding this intel from the general public?

Do you believe alien life exists? 

Do you think the media is using this story to distract us from other issues?

Remembering D-Day: We are called to the same standard

Universal History Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

79 years ago today, my grandfather jumped out of a plane. He was 17 years old when he joined the 101st Airborne Division, and at the ripe age of 18, he boarded a C-47 aircraft with the rest of his company destined for Normandy. On June 6, 1944, he jumped out of that plane onto Utah Beach, becoming a part of what would become the largest amphibious invasion in military history, Operation Overlord, or, as it's more commonly known, D-Day.

Though only 18, my grandfather was one of the oldest soldiers in his company. He recounted how many, like himself, lied about their age in order to have their shot at fighting for their country. As Omaha Beach veteran Frank Devita recounted:

We were all kids. We were too young to drink. We were too young to vote. And we were too young to die.

And many of them did.

On June 6, 1944, almost 160,000 troops from the United States, the British Commonwealth, and their allies began what would become the ultimate demise of the Third Reich, concluding one of the darkest chapters in human history. 2,500 of these soldiers were American boys who gave the ultimate sacrifice in Normandy, where most of them remain, their bodies never making it back home to the country for which they paid the ultimate price.

2,500 of these soldiers were American boys who gave the ultimate sacrifice in Normandy.

Underwood Archives / Contributor | Getty Images

In an age seemingly devoid of courage and virtue, it is natural to picture these soldiers as the greatest of men. And they were. However, we must remember these exemplars of manhood were boys, young boys, who exhibited the courage and virtue that we so seldom see in those twice their age today.

We must remember these exemplars of manhood were boys.

Remembering D-Day is not only sobering regarding the loss of life and innocence; it's sobering to consider how far our country has strayed from the ideals exemplified by the "greatest generation."

79 years ago, Americans knew what they were fighting for. As a Jewish man born in Berlin, witnessing the rise of fascism and socialism at the expense of individual liberty and the sanctity of life, my grandfather was eager to go back to his birthplace as an American soldier to fight for the fundamental principles of life and liberty that he and his family had been denied in Nazi Germany.

They were some of the lucky individuals who were able to escape—and there's a reason why he and his family chose America as their new homeland. The life and liberty they had been denied in Germany were regarded as sacred in the United States.

Yet, do we still regard these things as sacred?

JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER / Contributor | Getty Images

Most of the United States still hold that the sanctity of life is contingent upon convenience and circumstance. Economic policies continue to morph closer to the socialism adopted by the rest of the world in the 20th century, penalizing the success and merit that was once tantalizing to immigrants like my grandfather. Moreover, 2020 extinguished any doubt that the freedoms we hold dear are expendable at the whims of our ruling class.

This isn't the same America that provided refuge to my grandfather's family nor is it the same country that he and his brothers-in-arms fought for.

On this anniversary of D-Day, it is important that we remember the sacrifice given by the young American boys, who became the greatest of men, on the beaches of Normandy. However, perhaps it is just as important to remember that we are called to the very same standard as they so powerfully exemplified: to love our country and the principles of life and freedom that stand in stark contrast to much of the onlooking world and to have the courage to defend it, even if it requires the level courage that these young men were called to.