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.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.

The tides have turned — and now the very same banks that were pushing heavy-handed environmental, social, governance rules are running away from them.

In a significant victory, a federal judge in Texas has ruled that employers and asset managers cannot use environmental, social, and governance factors in employee retirement accounts. If this ruling holds up — which is likely, given the conservative composition of the appellate court — it will dramatically shift the balance of power between corporations and their employees.

This decision represents one of the most substantial blows to the ESG agenda to date. Companies that have been steering employees into ESG-focused investments, which prioritize progressive values over financial returns, now face legal repercussions. Continuing such practices would directly violate federal law. The ruling forces companies to re-evaluate their commitment to ESG initiatives, and many may withdraw from these funds before the case even reaches the appellate court.

Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying.

The impact of this ruling could very well be the beginning of the end for the ESG movement as it’s been pushed by elites.

In even better news, BlackRock, a major player in the ESG movement, has officially left the United Nations’ International Association of Asset Managers. This is a direct rebuke of the global push for ESG initiatives and a major sign that the tide is turning. In contrast to the Glasgow Net Zero Conference in which the Global Financial Alliance for Net Zero — an organization championed by global elites — was pushing for ESG to be a central focus, BlackRock’s departure from the group signals that even those who were at the forefront of this movement are starting to distance themselves.

But it doesn't stop there. Every major U.S. bank has now announced that they too are leaving the U.N.’s Association of Net Zero ESG Bankers, another key part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance. For years, we’ve been warning that ESG in banking was one of the primary ways elites like Biden, the Davos crowd, and others were planning to reset the world’s economy.

The tides have turned — and now those very same banks are running away from ESG, a powerful signal of things to come. They know they’re on the losing side, and they’re scared that a new administration will come down hard on them for their involvement in these globalist initiatives.

In another win, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled a shocking new rule that, if it survives, would prohibit many financial institutions from de-banking customers based on their political or religious views, or even certain types of speech. While the rule is not as comprehensive as we need it to be, it’s a step in the right direction — and it includes concerns raised by our allies about the dangers of ESG. The Trump administration has promised to come down even harder on the banks with tougher rules, and this is a very good start.

Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying. Some are running for cover while others are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be. It’s clear that the backbone of these companies is made of rubber, not steel. They don’t really believe in the ESG values they preach — they’re just playing the game to get in bed with the political elites.

Now that Trump is back in town, these corporations are showing their true colors. They never cared about their customers or the values they forced upon them. It was always about the power they could acquire through catering to those in power at the time.

No company should be afraid of the president of the United States. But they’re not afraid of Donald Trump. They’re afraid of the return of the rule of law. They know that fascistic public-private partnerships between the government and corporations are on the way out. That’s a victory for freedom and a victory for the American people.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.