Hillary: ”I admire Margaret Sanger enormously… there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her”

I saw an intriguing post online called: Who said it: Adolf Hitler or Margaret Sanger?

Quotes are offered. Guess who said it.

May I observe that Hillary Clinton thinks that Margaret Sanger was wonderful?  She is is “awe” of her.  We can learn a lot from Margaret Sanger.

And yet it is really hard to tell who said what.  Hillary or … someone else.

“What is social planning without a quota?”

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature”?

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people”?

“Sterilization would go far in reducing human misery, not to speak of the financial saving in the upkeep of the unfit offspring”?

Who wrote about “protect[ing] society against the propagation and increase of the unfit”

Who declared that the “destruction” of “sick, weak, deformed children” was more “decent” than the current “wretched” preserving of the “pathological”?

Who encouraged limiting reproduction “to make the coming generation into such physically, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are..ideal”?

Who advocated a “rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted”?

I got only a 62% on the quiz.

Hillary and Sanger HERE and HERE and HERE.

 

Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Hillary: ”I admire Margaret Sanger enormously… there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her”

  1. TheDude05 says:

    I got 87%, not sure what that says about me.

  2. JustaSinner says:

    What a vision: Maggie Sanger, Teddy Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton all slow roasting on a spit in Hell. Once there, prayers are useless, right Fr. Z.?

    [While I don’t think that any sincere prayer is ever wholly useless of in vain, it is without question that those souls who wind up in Hell will never be released. It is eternal.]

  3. Adeodata says:

    I scored a 100%. Apparently, I have studied these adversaries well.

    P.S. A trip to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC is a worthwhile stop.

  4. Grant M says:

    I got 62%. Right at the top of the bell curve.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    62% ditto …

  6. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    There’s an old clip of Margaret Sanger, courtesy of British Pathe, on YouTube titled “No More Babies.” In 1948, Miss Sanger told her interviewer that Europe was overpopulated, and the continent should stop having children for 10 years.

    Consider that tens of millions of people had been murdered by Hitler, Stalin, and others and killed in World War II.

    But Margaret Sanger STILL believed that there still too many people left alive in Europe. Let’s keep in mind that she wasn’t an expert on economics, resources, or population.

    Enjoy, see https://youtu.be/ChCjgYGTL4Y

  7. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    Hell exists, but only God knows who’s in there. I don’t think we should assume that any particular person is in there since we could find ourselves next to them because of our own sins.

  8. DonL says:

    And we ought not neglect the public display of sheer joy Obama (the kill them if they survive the abortion president) showed the world because Planned Parenthood had a centennial celebration. There were rumors that some 60 million souls were shut out from helping with the celebration.

  9. Kerry says:

    We are rightly stunned at the Hildabeest’s blindness; may God preserve me from my own blindness.

  10. Dan says:

    62% here as well but I am in good company I guess.

    Pray pray pray for a positive outcome to this election. And to not beat around the bush as I hear far to many people doing. Pray pray pray that Hilary gets no where near the white house.

  11. Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA | Big Pulpit

  12. Clemens Romanus says:

    Whoa, got 100% correct. There was much guessing, though.

  13. Joseph-Mary says:

    Admiring Sanger? Hmmm….for helping to exterminate many ‘undesirables’?

  14. Ralph says:

    75%

    How many innocents were lost at the hands of these two and their minions?

  15. un-ionized says:

    100. I’ve studied these crazy people. Not any more though!

  16. pannw says:

    75% And now I feel nauseous after reading how these people felt about human beings, created in the image of God. Blechhhh…

  17. Wryman says:

    And HC will get the lion’s share of the Catholic vote in November, no question about it.

  18. Dan says:

    “And HC will get the lion’s share of the Catholic vote in November, no question about it.”

    And priest and bishops. And all of us faithful Catholics should be embarrassed about that. We have not spoken or taught the Catholic faith and the evidence is in this election. The proof is in the pudding.

  19. frjim4321 says:

    Hey, well, when Hillary wins I suspect the nomination of Merrick Garland will be withdrawn and HRC will nominate more liberal justices. Karma is a bi*ch.

  20. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    Hey, well, when Hillary wins I suspect the nomination of Merrick Garland will be withdrawn and HRC will nominate more liberal justices. Karma is a bi*ch

    It depends. If Hillary wins with 45% of the popular vote, wth the Repubs still holding the Senate, she won’t have carte blanche with nominees to SCOTUS.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    Well, there is that, but I’m thinking the senate is looking pretty good for the dems right now. Fivethirtyeight.com is showing a nearly 75% chance that the d’s take the senate. But you make a good point.

    Also, with the new populism we’ve seen (e.g., “Brexit”) it’s possible that polling is no longer representative of the electorate at large.

  22. Grant M says:

    Fluctuat nec mergitur Ecclesia, sed mergatur Margaret.

  23. robtbrown says:

    FrJim,

    We’ll see how the Senate goes. I’m not assuming anything, except that the Repubs now hold the Senate.

    I wonder how many people realize that polling does not deliver raw data. Rather, it uses a weighting factor to adjust raw data.

  24. frjim4321 says:

    Robert, the polls are indeed weighted and there are metapolls that attempt to correct for that. I think the RCP metapoll offers correction values for the various polls.

    I’ve been out of that game for quite a while. I know that the old randomization techniques relied on land lines.

    As you no doubt know the value of a sample is based on the degree to which it is truly random. I suspect with cellphones it has become much more difficult to assemble a random sample.

  25. CrimsonCatholic says:

    538 has correctly predicted the 2012 election of which state would go Republican or Democrat, and correctly predicted all but 2 of the races in the 2008 Presidential election.

    Also, Karma is not part of the Christian faith, FYI.

  26. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321,

    My understanding is that RCP is just an average of various polls. I don’t know whether averaging can mitigate any flaws in particular polls. Anyway, any poll is only as good as the model (random, as you say), and modeling depends on being able to predict the nature of the incoming data. (When I was working in software, the maxim was that 25% of every program is devoted to error routines.) Political modeling is dependent on the stability and accuracy of its categories–and voters seem to float in and out of them.

    Although I don’t pay nearly as much attention to polls as I used to, I tend to prefer Rasmussen Reports–and not just because he and his father founded ESPN.