Glenn Beck's new book club pick: Nazi sympathizer who praised Hitler and denounced the Allies
June 04, 2010 5:21 pm ET by Eric Hananoki
Glenn Beck holding
Elizabeth Dilling's The Red Network.
On his radio show today, Glenn Beck heralded and promoted the work of Nazi sympathizer Elizabeth Dilling, who spoke at rallies hosted by the leading American Nazi group and praised Hitler. Today, Dilling is heralded by white supremacists and White Aryans who revere her "fearless" work against Jewish people.
As Media Matters' Simon Maloy noted, Beck had kind words for Dilling's 1934 anti-communist book, The Red Network, saying: "This is a book -- and I'm a getting a ton of these -- from people who were doing what we're doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of this nation that took this seriously, and they documented it." Maloy noted that Dilling has a long history of rabid anti-Semitism, such as calling President Eisenhower "Ike the Kike" and labeling President Kennedy's New Frontier program the "Jew frontier."
Professor Glen Jeansonne and writer David Luhrssen note in the encyclopedia Women and War that Dilling wasn't only anti-Semitic, but a sympathizer and supporter of the Nazis and Hitler:
When World War II began in 1939, Dilling was part of the national network of anti-Semitics, anti-Communists, and Nazi sympathizers such as Father Charles Coughlin, Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, Reverend Gerald Winrod, and William Dudley Pelley. Material generated by Nazi organizations in Germany to inspire race hated and exploit dissatisfaction in the United States found its way into Dilling's publications. She spoke at rallies hosted by the leading U.S. Nazi organization, the German-American Bund, and had traveled to Germany, pronouncing the country as flourishing under Hitler.
Dilling called for appeasing Germany; she blamed the war on Jews and Communists and accused the Roosevelt administration of being controlled by Jewish Communists. ... After Pearl Harbor, Dilling resisted wartime rationing and denounced the Allies.
So Dilling "spoke at rallies hosted by the leading U.S. Nazi organization, the German-American Bund." Who's the German-American Bund? Let Glenn Beck, Elizabeth Dilling fan, tell you:
BECK: The Bund gathered socially and ran Nazi camps. The camps were advertised as summer retreats where you could escape the city, celebrate German heritage, dance, drink, at places like Camp Nordlund in New Jersey and Camp Siegfried in Long Island. The camps hidden as pro-German/pro- American were attended by adults and families.
On the outside, they looked like any other camp. But the children were indoctrinated in the ideals of Nazism, breeding young Americans to become full-fledged Nazis. They marched, performed drills in Nazi uniforms. And they were taught about their racial superiority, their potential as Aryan youth.
As media scrutiny of the Bund increase, so did anti-Nazi protests, including other Americans who hated the Nazi image and Jewish-American veterans. Instead of quieting down, Bund leader Fritz Kuhn decided to hold the largest rally in their history, Madison Square Garden. These American Nazis showed their true colors, beating a Jewish protester who rushed the stage. Kuhn and other speeches were nothing more than anti-Semitic rants wrapped in the American flag protected by the First Amendment. [Glenn Beck, March 11]
British Professors Christopher Partridge and Ron Geaves wrote that Dilling was a "pro-Nazi anti-Semite" who disseminated Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The ADL describes Protocols as "a classic in paranoid, racist literature. Taken by the gullible as the confidential minutes of a Jewish conclave convened in the last years of the nineteenth century, it has been heralded by anti-Semites as proof that Jews are plotting to take over the world."
Dilling's Nazi sympathies have made her a cult hero among Aryan groups and white nationalists/supremacists. For instance, the group Women for Aryan Unity features Dilling in a publication whose purpose is "to honour Aryan Women past and Present." Women for Aryan Unity writes of Dilling:
She visited the Soviet Union in 1931, where she found impoverished people, diseased and ill dressed. She saw genocide. Barely clothed children, begging. Half empty stores. The houses were dingy; roads were cracked and badly kept. She saw state-run orphanages and abortion was rampant. The women of the Soviet Union were suffering badly; the government was raising harassment, grueling work, and their children. What Elizabeth was witnessing was the aftermath of Communism. The Soviet Jews had torn down Russian churches. But she was no pacifist - she believed it was time to fight the infidels.
She decided then to acquire as much knowledge about Communism as she can, and use it as her weapon to fight it. She spoke to large audiences, and did extensive research on Communism and the Jew. She wrote excerpts exposing the Communists in the U.S. The lady was not afraid, and worked endlessly for years to expose the followers of Communism. She spoke on the radio, and met with men such as Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Charles Hudson, and others who helped support her cause.[...]
Many positive words come to mind as a description for such an admirable woman, but I believe the gentleman she met in the dining room of that small Denver hotel used the best word. The gentleman was University of Illinois Professor, Dr. Revilo Oliver, and it was there, paying no mind to anyone else present, she mouthed her famous words at her friend, "Do I see an anti-Semite?" The word he used to describe Mrs. Dilling? Fearless. My sentiments exactly.
Infamous racist David Duke, meanwhile, excerpts Dilling's work on his website and states that as a 16-year old, he "found a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling." Stormfront.org, which describes itself as a "community of White Nationalists," features numerous posts in its forum praising Dilling. "The Official Website of The Knights Party, USA" lists Dilling as one of its "Important Christian Women in History" and praises her for "Knowing the Jewish roots of Communism."
Jeansonne and Luhrssen conclude their summary of Dilling by writing that she "had long been dismissed as a crank before her death in 1966." And now half-a-century after her death, Dilling has found a new audience thanks to Glenn Beck.
UPDATE: In addition to attending Nazi rallies in the United States, Dilling also attended Nazi party meetings in the 1930s.
---------------------------------------------
These people are sofa king stupid.
I really think you liberal have some serious mental problems that need to be worked on before you continue whining about ONE guy on the radio.
As for "all you liberals" defending Sanger? LINK please? I'm not aware of this defense, so I'd like to see what you're refering to. In the absence of context, I'll never put it past you to have distorted and perverted the REASONING behind this "defense." Though, if I may go out on a limb, calling "advocacy of birth control" an "avenue to promote genocide of the African race" is beyond the pale. Only FORCED and COERCED use of birth control could amount to this and that has NEVER been part of the mainstream liberal agenda.
You people have a well-established anti-contaception and anti-abortion agenda (an anti-woman agenda, really) and I think it's despicable the lengths you'll go to to try and defend it.
But nice attempt at deflection, anyway. Why you keep defending Beck is beyond me. Do you actually think it's GOOD That he's promoting this book? Why can you people never accept any crticism, at all? Are you really THAT convinced that you can do no wrong?
You're the sheep here, Floyd. If you can't even take Beck to task from promoting Nazi sympathizers then there's nothing you WILL take him to task on, and that makes you a sheep. Pure and simple. And, BTW, you still oh me a reponse to our last discussion. It's over one my blog under, "How NOT to argue a point."
---------------------------------------------------
Good Luck.
Here's what you ask for
eddie-- are you just allergic to staying on topic?
Uhh, the TOPIC is about supporters of nazi tactics. Which Sanger did. Do you have a hard time figuring simple things like that out?
eddie-- Do you actually think it's GOOD That he's promoting this book?
No. And, I don't think it GOOD that liberals support a promoter of genocide of the African race. If you people are so gullible, then you need to step back and regroup your thought patterns. Unless you actually support genocide of the African race.
Margaret Sanger saw terrible tragedies in the slums and tried to give women a chance to control the number of children they were having. She may very well have been a racist, and she may very well have advocated for eugenics. It wasn't an unpopular position in the pre-1935, It wasn't until after the Nazis came into power and tried to implement the policy that the true horrors were seen. The fact is, women and their babies are healthier because of fewer, planned, and medically supervised pregnancies.
So, leave the racist rhetoric behind. I am not advocating for Sanger's racist views, and I am not advocating that those principles be implemented or even diseminated now. Elizabeth Dilling was an anti-Semite who advocated against her own government during a time of war. She hated her country. Glennie was holding up a book written in 1936 as being correct now, that she was right about how evil and dangerous unions were and how we should get rid of them. He was using her work to do his: smearing teachers and unions. There is a difference. And that is why he should be condemned for bringing her up.
That's because YOU can't read. I didn't bring it up, I just googled it as was requested by another poster. Did you ever google "Margaret Sanger Negro Project"? Probably not, but either way it wouldn't matter, because you can't read anyhow.
epk-- Margaret Sanger saw terrible tragedies in the slums and tried to give women a chance to control the number of children they were having.
And she did so by doing this?:
"[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." from here
That's fine, you can believe whatever you want. I don't need to change YOUR mind, I just need to protect my own from weirdos like the ones you seem to support.
If Margaret Sanger forever taints all those who favor women having responsiblity for their own birth control, then certainly Mrs. Dillings interesting ideas taint everything Beck says.
Beck however is the one who wants to play this deep association game: Woodrow Wilson = racist therefore all ideas associated by him are racist, therefor progressives are racist.
Yes, I did Google the Margaret Sanger Negro Project. I saw that most of it comes from blogs of eternal stench which spout the pseudo-con lines and seek to smear Progressive or Liberal figures by cherry picking quotes and painting them in the worst possible light. Of course, the simple minded, folks like you, for example, bite right into and take it for gospel and then spread it around with a heaping helping of righteous indignation. Theses sites are just like Glennie's chalk board, minus the multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporate backing.
Black Americans have often suffered at the hands of Whites. Some are very distrustful of Whites because of it. There are pockets of severe poverty and ill-health here in the U.S. where Blacks will not seek out or trust the help of Whites trying to help them. They need to work through members of Black churches to work their aid. Sanger found the same thing to be true decades ago. She believed that birth control would help people and she wanted people to make informed decisions about their families, including heritary diseases. She chose to work with people who could deliver that message to a community in need. I don't think that W.E.B. Dubois was a fool, don't you think he would have recognized that he was working with someone who wanted to kill his people? Or do you think that Black people can't think for themselves?
Racism and eugenics were common ideas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was Nazi attempts at implementing eugenics that demonstrated to most people that they were horrific in reality. To judge Sanger by present standards is not fair. She is not of our time. She was considered very courageous and forward thinking for HER time. We still have people who counsel people from having children if they have heritary disorders. We call it "Genetic Counseling" but I am sure that people like you think it is "Eugenics" and people should pass on things like Tays-Sachs, and Huntington Corea with out a thought to their children.
No, you won't be changing my mind. I must say that you have been very successful in protecting yourself from ANYONE who wants to deprogram you from the weirdos that you get your information from. Congratulations!
Floyd-- I didn't bring it up, I just googled it as was requested by another poster.
epk-- doughpro brought Margaret Sanger up, and then you pitched in to run her reputation down.
Can I take that as an apology that it wasn't ME who brought Sanger into the conversation, as you so vehemently claimed.
epk-- It was Nazi attempts at implementing eugenics that demonstrated to most people that they were horrific in reality. To judge Sanger by present standards is not fair. She is not of our time.
Well, she WAS of the time of nazi's, wasn't she? She even had similar ideas for reasoning to use that plan, didn't she? I don't think either of the ideas (Sanger's or nazi's) should be followed today. I think both ideas stink ... then and now. Why would you support the implementation of a plan to create "better" humans through breeding "choices" of one race but not from another? Considering that BOTH plans follow the same thought patterns and expected the same conclusion. Hitler wanted a 'super race', Sanger wanted ...? Who knows what Sanger wanted. In HER words, she wanted to eliminate blacks in a way that would make them feel like they were choosing to eliminate themselves. She had no intention of implementing that plan on any other race, other than blacks. Did she? Why did she think blacks were so inferior as to need her help in this way where others did not?
What negatives did she have?
Or are you saying that her support of the KKK is outweighed by developing a system where blacks can self-prevent numerous births?
Pearl did not answer that question either. Neither has epk or even eddie. All of you run from the key question, and reside in the same ole--'but she gave us women's rights' rhetoric.
The only game being played is by you and the other supporters of the promoter of nazi ideals (Sanger) while decrying Beck for supporting a promoter of nazi ideals (Dilling). Typical liberal hypocrite
From the time I started lecturing in 1916 I have appeared in many places - halls, churches, women's clubs, home theaters. I've had many types of audiences - cotton workers, churchmen, liberals, Socialist, scientist, club men and fashionable philanthropically minded women.
All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and in Hel-singfors, I have found women's psychology in the matter of child bearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, religion or economic status. Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku-Klux-Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.
My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or a bite to eat, because no supper would be served later.
I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted 10 minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back.
Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she stepped on the self-starter. For fifteen minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane, and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water besides a large, unpainted, barnish building.
My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely "Wait here. We will come for you." She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through the chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chiller and chiller.
After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.
Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.
In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.
Margaret Sanger an Autobiography by Margaret Sanger...
Floyd, repeating the same lie told over and over again by the anti-choice folks is not a question!
By Margaret Sanger's account, she spoke to ANY group that would listen, and one of those groups was the women's branch of the KKK. She was not a member nor did she support them, she was however, desperate and determined to get people to listen to her.
Floyd, you traffic in lies and dirt. Does that make you a filthy liar or just a dirty fool?
They also have the highest ranking senator in the democratic party. I can show where Byrd support AND was a member of the KKK. Does that count?
No, there was no apology there for you, that you would take it as such shows your lack of comprehension. Liberals didn't bring up Margaret Sanger, and they weren't trying to defend her, that was you and doughpoo. Or was it just you under another name? It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that done. You were also the one doing most of the posting on Sanger, so even if doughpoo really drop the first line, you made it your own.
Margaret Sanger wanted to help Blacks help themselves to stronger, healthier children, and to make their own decisions about when best to have children. And that would lead to a better society. She opposed the Nazis and viewed them as dangerous. You have twisted her words into something she isn't her to defend. You are a smear monger just like your hero Glenn Beck. You traffic in filth and attempt to pass it off as fact.
You don't want discussion, you just want to throw more dirt. What does that say about you? What kind of a person trolls in this manner? You're defending someone who uses the words of someone who was considered, in her own time, to be a vicious, seditious, anti-Semitic crackpot. YOu are defending Beck, who uses hate, anger, and smears to try to win his way into power. Glenn Beck is dangerous because of the deception he pulls. Now, do you want to think for yourself as you claim or do you want to help him continue his religious and patriotic hoax? The choice is yours, either way.
Your either an unabashed liar or a god-damned fool. Really.
I didn't see ANYTHING in that link that showed LIBERALS defending MARGRET SANGER. Not a G-D thing. You are (once again) attempting to pull of on of the most monumental false equivalencies I've ever seen, and that's saying amething.
Being "pro-choice" is not at all being "pro-Marget Sanger's overall agenda" anymore that being "pro-Arizona's Immigration Law" is. (After all, she supported reducing imigration, just like you lot do. Using your absurd logic that would mean you're pro-eugenics and thus pro-abortion as well!) Do I support planned parenthood? Yes. Abso-f*&%ing-lutely, 100%. They provide MANY valuable services that the health care system you lot champion fails to. (They provide both pre-natal care, as well as contraception to the poor and uninsured, for example.) Do they perform abortions? Yes. Yes they do. And as the proedure is a LEGAL one, why the hell shouldn't they?! You lot use that ONE POINT to try and paint the picture that this is ALL they do. And they wouldn't be brealking a SINGLE LAW even if that were the case! So what's your problem?! You tried to change the law, and you failed. Get over it. It's LEGAL. That's the LAW. Period. Done. End of story.
As for Sanger? She sounds like a pretty mixed bag politically speaking, but (as usual) you lot sieze on one small part of her overall politics and then seek to marry the entire mess to Liberals. It's like saying that becuase Hitler was a vegetarian, eating vegetibles must inevitably lead to the extermination of the Jews. It's absurd and assinine. But that's exactly what you've done here!
I really thought you were going to show me something that was going to challenege me, something that would really make me think. Shame on me for overestimating you. As usual you just pointed to something unintellible that shows nothing at all. Hey moran: The next time I ask for a link, please give me a RELEVANT ONE that actually SUPPORTS YOUR POINT, assuming you have any idea how to make one.
That was PATHETIC. There was nothing to even argue against, since there weren't any liberals "defending Sanger."
---------------------------------------------------
Tell me: What does it feel like to be wrong all the time? Does it sting a little, or do you just get numb to it after awhile?
Eddie, you obviously have no clue. You are a sheeple who does what you are told. Good for you. I'm glad you're happy with that kind of life. But, I do find it funny that you do everything in your power to denigrate those of us who choose to think for themselves. You are so blinded by your leftist theology, you could hold your right hand in front of your face and deny it was there.
I have never, one time, read any post here at MMfA that supported eugenics. Not once. You have attempted to say that while Beck supports an anti-American Nazi sympathizer, so do people on the left with Margaret Sanger as your example, in the mistaken belief that this makes Beck shilling for Dilling an okay thing to do. It does not. He is advocating an author who rooted against her own country, your country, during World War II. Beck should be ashamed, but he's too well paid. You should be indignant, but you are so deeply invested in 'us vs. them' mentality that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Let me ask you a simple question. What country did YOU support during the Iraq invasion and subsequent battles against terrorists that led to the deaths of over a thousand US troops? Are you saying that anyone who didn't support America during WWII is no longer worthy having support given them? Hmmm, that could end up being quite a long list. Wonder how many, among that list, would end up being those who YOU have hero-worshiped.
the-- I have never, one time, read any post here at MMfA that supported eugenics.
By supporting Sanger, you support eugenics. That was her plan as she started PP. You know it, and so does everyone else. Just because you can make up excuses for it, doesn't make it something that it isn't. It IS eugenics.
I'm not defending Beck, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the left (mmfa) that finds sudden faux horror that someone could advertise for a nazi supporter. Something that the left has been doing since the 30's (maybe even the 20's). If you're so horrified and disgusted with Beck for supporting a nazi supporter, then I find it quite odd that you have NO problem with Sanger, when the two ideals are similar in nature and practice. You are being extremely hypocritical for claiming disgust with one, yet defend the other.
I am dismissing this argument as false equivalence. It is a logical fallacy, and easily ignored as such.
No. However, I refuse to make heroes out of Americans like Dubya's grandpa and Ms. Dilling who rooted for the Nazis as Beck has done.
Most of my heroes are opposed to war. Of course, most of my heroes also understand what war actually is, and how horrible it is, and so their decision is based in reality, and not cowboy mentality. As for my heroes, you have no idea who they are, do you? So, this is really merely idle speculation on your part, and not actually an argument per se at all.
I have made it fairly clear that I supported planned parenting, but not eugenics. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they per force mutually required. I can support the planning of families and be repulsed by eugenics. There can be a point at which Ms. Sanger and I agree, without total and complete and utter agreement on all points between the two of us. You are using guilt by association and an ad hominem attack, both of which, again, are logical fallacies. You are really quite bad at argument as a rhetorical pursuit, aren't you Floyd?
I am hardly horrified, whether it would be faux or not. Very little that Beck does surprises me any more. He is merely a clown, performing for rubes, as he himself admitted in the Forbes interview.
Oh? Liberals have been advertising for Nazi supporters for ninety years? And your proof of this assertion is what exactly? Those in America who did business with the Nazis were highly placed conservative businessmen, like Henry Ford and Grandpa Bush. Liberals are opposed to fascism, as it is antithetical to their beliefs.
You claim Sanger was a Nazi or a Nazi supporter, one or the other, I'm not really sure which. Again, you saying it does not make it so, and you have provided no evidence to back up your claim. Have you any?
Concerned Women for America is a Conservative Christian political action group active in the United States. The group was founded in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye, wife of Christian Coalition of America co-founder Timothy LaHaye, as a response to activities by the National Organization for Women and a 1978 Barbara Walters interview with noted feminist Betty Friedan.[1] Concerned Women for America says of itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerned_Women_for_America
Then Jefferies Kent Peterson another christian conservative. Seems you are blinded by the theological rightwing and you call that "free" thinking. lol.
Public Triumphs, Private Rights
Estelle Griswold and Margaret Sanger helped women gain access to birth control and abortion — but just one Supreme Court justice could take it away
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/birthcontrol.asp
by Ellen Chesler
Here's an excerpt:
"...The Griswold decision overturned an 1879 Connecticut statute that placed broad criminal sanctions on sexual speech and commerce, including all materials related to sexuality, birth control and abortion. It was the last vestige of the long and infamous legacy of Anthony Comstock, a self-appointed moral arbiter whose evangelical fervor had captured Victorian-era politics and left an enduring web of state and federal statutes intended to root out and prohibit behavior that he, and those who embraced his cause, considered obscene or sinful...
In his later years, he famously indicted (though failed to convict) birth-control pioneer Margaret Sanger for daring to encourage women to practice family planning. He then framed, arrested and jailed her husband, William, for handing out a pamphlet that provided explicit instructions on various traditional birth-control techniques. A year later, following Comstock’s death, Margaret Sanger did serve time in jail for handing out diaphragms to immigrant women — in a clinic she opened as a direct challenge to New York’s Comstock laws.
On appeal, she established the right of doctors in some states to prescribe birth control. Such incidents emboldened Sanger to devote her life to fundamental social change. Over the course of the next 50 years, she built a fledgling coalition of women’s-rights advocates, civil libertarians, physicians and social scientists into an enduring family-planning apparatus.
Intent on anchoring law and public policy in rational argument and not religious belief, these courageous women and men overturned much of Comstock’s handiwork through incremental victories in courts and legislatures. They were not able, however, to supersede local regulations in Catholic-dominated states, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts.
These pioneers of modern feminism also understood that the ability to plan and space one’s family is a necessary condition for women to achieve equality in all walks of life.
Despite these constraints, the modern family-planning movement continued to grow. During the 1960s, the birth control pill was successfully marketed by a team of scientists and doctors whom Sanger had encouraged and helped fund. Under President Lyndon Johnson, the federal government incorporated family planning into the nation’s domestic antipoverty programs and began to commit the nation’s foreign-policy resources — if only a small fraction — to international population programs.
When Sanger was past 80 and confined to a nursing home in Tucson, Ariz., she learned of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut that finally offered universal, constitutional protection for these advances.
What motivated Margaret Sanger and Estelle Griswold was more than a simple desire for freedom in this most private of matters — the decision of whether or not to bear a child. These pioneers of modern feminism also understood that the ability to plan and space one’s family is a necessary condition for women to achieve equality in all walks of life. .."
A far ,far different depiction of Margaret Sanger then the one you and your conservative religious right want to portray. Why you cons want to march backward bewilders me. The advances we've made in racial and women's equality cannot be ignored nor will we go back to the dark ages
If you noticed. I included a link to the planned-parenthood web site description of Sanger. And they included several quotes that I have already linked to and posted. Are you saying the PP site is a "conservative religious right" site?
I think you are just another sheeple (like eddie) who does and says as you are told.
SANGER and Eugenics
Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Unable to foment popular opposition to Margaret Sanger's accomplishments and the organization she founded, Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on "fitness" with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists, like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by healthy and “fit” women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger’s books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning (“Sanger on Exhibit,” 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany (“Margaret Sanger and the ‘Refugee Department’,” 1993). Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:
Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).
Margaret Sanger clearly identified with the issues of health and fitness that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s, when treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown. However, Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that effected passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other inherited traits vary by individual and not by group..."
Taken from your own linked article.
(1) You take one small part of MY political philosophy, and you disort it: I'm not PRO-arbottion. I'm against abortion, but I'm far MORE against shoving my opinion down other people's throats. It's call pro-CHOICE for a reason. In the absence of CLEAR DEMONSTRABLE, TANGIBLE HARM, I'll defend CHOICE as a matter principle, even in cases where someone is making a choice that I don't agree with.
(2) THEN you take that distorted view of my position, and say that since I have the ONE THING in common with someone else (who's positions you are also distorting, BTW) that must mean that I agree with EVERYTHING THEY STAND FOR.
Floyd? That's utterly assinine. It's completely idiotic! You know what? I don't know nearly enough about Margret Sanger to criticise or defend her, but what I DO know is they you have a well established history here of distorting the liberal position (we call "strawman") and from what little I've read, you've pretty much distorted Sanger's as well. And in any case, the part of Sanger's agends that involves eugenics - whether you've distorted it or not - is NOT PART OF THE MODERN-DAY PROGRESSIVE AGENDA! Duh!
I'll say it again: You are either a fool or a liar. And as most liars would have given it up by now, I'm forced to conclude the former.
And another thing: I spend WAY too much of my time arguing with LIBERALS to be called a "sheeple" by the brainwashed likes of you! And BTW, moran, as clever as you think you are, "sheeple," even as a made-up word, would be plural. And as awesome an intellectual presence as I represent on the 'net, I can assure you that there's only one of me! (So the correct slur woudl be 'sheep') If you're going to fall back on that lame-brained insult, at least use proper enough grammer that you don't look like an even bigger fool.
--------------------------------
And you still owe me an answer on 'how not to argue a point.' But I'm not holding my breath.
“Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. Another of my great friends, Ellen Chesler, is here, who wrote a magnificent biography of Margaret Sanger called Woman of Valor. And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
(here)
See, by championing reproductive freedom, Margaret Sanger made possible the womens liberation movement. No longer could an accident of biology constrain them to a domestic lifestyle. They could choose whether or not to bear children.
Did she champion eugenics? Yes. Is this an indictment of planning your family's offspring in a rational and sane manner? No. People are far more complicated than the black and white world Glenn, Floyd, and you, OOzinEvil, seem to want to live in.
Say, do you have kids of your own? I have two, and as much as I love them, yes, sometimes, it does feel a little like punishment.
(I'm a tom, not a queen, by the way)
"As for "all you liberals" defending Sanger? LINK please? I'm not aware of this defense, so I'd like to see what you're refering to."
What's ironic is in the same series of posts that NiceGuyEddie needs proof or refuses to believe liberals defend Margarer Sanger, (I will assume you are a liberal) you defend her. "See, by championing reproductive freedom, Margaret Sanger made possible the womens liberation movement. No longer could an accident of biology constrain them to a domestic lifestyle. They could choose whether or not to bear children."
I have two children.
by pearlene_scott1602 (May 28, 2010 4:52 pm ET) 12 1
You forget, too, that the right is typically pro-life. It is those on the left of the aisle that make abortion readily available to women of all races, particularly to blacks
The "right" is a bunch of lying hypocrites! They're the "do as I say, not as I do" party.
They're the "it's ok for ME to cheat on my wife with (take your pick)a hooker, married woman, single woman, married man, single man or child", and claim "family values" but it's not ok for you for you. They're the "it's ok for MY daughter to have an abortion, but if your daughter had one do, it's called murder".
And please, STOP hold up Plan Parenthood as some type of example of the left trying to exterminate African American children. As an African American and a woman, it's insulting to my intelligence!
Google "Margaret Sanger Negro Project", and tell me it's a conservative mindset.
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Upon Accepting THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA MARGARET SANGER AWARD...
Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern
by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.
There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.
What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.
It is easier for a Negro to understand a social paradox because he has lived so long with evils that could be eradicated but were perpetuated by indifference or ignorance. The Negro finally had to devise unique methods to deal with his problem, and perhaps the measure of success he is realizing can be an inspiration to others coping with tenacious social problems.
In our struggle for equality we were confronted with the reality that many millions of people were essentially ignorant of our conditions or refused to face unpleasant truths. The hard-core bigot was merely one of our adversaries. The millions who were blind to our plight had to be compelled to face the social evil their indifference permitted to flourish.
After centuries of relative silence and enforced acceptance, we adapted a technique of exposing the problem by direct and dramatic methods. We had confidence that when we awakened the nation to the immorality and evil of inequality, there would be an upsurge of conscience followed by remedial action.
We knew that there were solutions and that the majority of the nation were ready for them. Yet we also knew that the existence of solutions would not automatically operate to alter conditions. We had to organize, not only arguments, but people in the millions for action. Finally we had to be prepared to accept all the consequences involved in dramatizing our grievances in the unique style we had devised.
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.
Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element — Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.
For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.
This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.
The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.
Some commentators point out that with present birth rates it will not be long before Negroes are a majority in many of the major cities of the nation. As a consequence, they can be expected to take political control, and many people are apprehensive at this prospect. Negroes do not seek political control by this means. They seek only what they are entitled to and do not wish for domination purchased at the cost of human misery. Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.
For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity.
For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.
About two weeks after the award ceremony, Dr. King wrote the following letter to Cass Canfield, chairman of the Executive Committee of the PPFA — World Population Emergency Campaign:
Dear Mr. Canfield:
Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts.
Again let me say how much I regret that at the last minute urgent developments in the civil rights movement made it impossible for me to be in Washington to personally receive the award. My wife brought glowing echoes of the wonderful reception and impressiveness of the total occasion.
I am happy to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award and I can assure you that this distinct honor will cause me to work even harder for a reign of justice and a rule of love all over our nation.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Luther King Jr.
No, I do not defend the entirety of her life or the entirety of her belief system. I merely point out that she helped women achieve a more equal place in our society through her willingness to champion birth control by opposing the social forces that wanted to keep any and all such information hidden. That was all. Assume I am a 'liberal' at your peril, as with anything you assume.
What a cop-out! What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean: since she promoted women's right, I'll ignore she was a racist who loved speaking to the KKK?
his sadness hidden by the painted smile.
It means I can recognize the good she did for our society while also being opposed to eugenics. It's not all or nothing. Again, you are making an ad hominem attack against someone. You are committing a logical fallacy. Have you never learned to reason?
Slam!
It's like saying that becuase Hitler was a vegetarian, eating vegetibles must inevitably lead to the extermination of the Jews.
Double Slam!
Beck has his comprehensive, I got it all figured out broadbrushed view for our nation. He pretends to guide his listeners through the entangled maze of reistence to the idea that hours and hours of his analysis are somehow relevent to reality. It is real insulting to think that so many of his followers buy into the idea that if Beck associates someone with his disapproval, that is all you need to know.
and then say they support the AZ immigration law, that had the senator who introduced the law has long been supported and had his pic taken with a known Neo Nazi, and has forewarded, white supremecist emails that he gets, to supporters and the neo nazi who got his picture taken with the good senator bragged how he had contributed to the law.
or even how they can be fine with sister sarah bitching about the guy who moved next door to her just by virtue he is writing a book that more than likely will be critical of her. but yet are silent on the fact that the previous renters were drug abusers and alcoholics.
but none will. they dont have the stones. they are cowards and gutless wonders and nothing more
I NEVER said that. Apparently YOU cannot read. Try posting again after someone tells you what was written. Obviously, you cannot do it yourself.
Uhh, go back and read what "I" said. If you'll notice, I put 'cugas' name before reprinting what he/she said. You'll notice that's how I do ALL of my quote applications. When YOU say something that I am replying to, I put YOUR name and two dashes before your statement. Here's the link to the statements. This is the one I quoted; by cugagcmu805031 (May 28, 2010 1:05 pm ET) and my response appeared here: by Floyd (May 30, 2010 10:54 am ET)
I am assuming you have a couple brain cells that function.
Merrium/Webster dictionary:
womanizer = : to pursue casual sexual relationships with multiple women
rape: : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent
Sounds fairly similar to me. Both include sex, but consent isn't necessary.
This is used quite frequently by right wing media hosts to defect and excuse controversial words and actions over a recent conservative figure by grabbing that one example of a non-conservative (and therefore MUST be liberal to the dichotomous conservative mindset).
Unlike with their leaders and prominent figures, where misdeeds are "old news" mere days after the controversy, there is absolutely no statute of limitations on how far you can go back to find the liberal example of someone doing something improper or controversial.
You will also note the conservative commentators will spend more time dredging up an ages old example of a liberal misdeed then talking about the current conservative controversy.
Some key examples:
Rev. Wright's one minute video clip -this one minute video clip "proves" to conservatives that Rev J. Wright has made his life's work denouncing America with all his fervor and might, and that President Obama faithfully went to hear his explicitly anti-american sermons for 20 years. Therefore, from now until the end of politics as we know them, Rev Wright will be trotted out to divert attention from whatever major conservative evangelist is caught in a scandal.
Jimmy Carter -Jimmy Carter was president during a difficult economic time. Now his failures to maintain steady growth and stop inflation are used to convince conservative media consumers that all liberals are worse then all conservatives in dealing with all economic matters.
Bill Clinton -His affair with Monica Lewinsky will forever allow conservative politicians to cheat on their wives without suffering the wrath of their so-called "family values" followers. (notable example: Newt Gingrich)
Dan Rather -Not really a liberal, this institution of American Journalism was found to have not thouroughly checked a source he used for a story that turned out to be ultimately true. Now, conservative leaning journalists use less credible sources and jump onto unconfirmed stories regularly. Dan Rather was forced out of his position after decades of award winning journalism for his actions...mainstream conservative news anchors and journalists are simply excused and allowed to keep their jobs.
These are just some of the more egregious examples from recent memory, there are plenty more, but I think you get the idea.
------------------
IMHO
Alright, let's put that to the test. Do you support Margaret Sanger? Do you defend her right to develop eugenics among the black community?
I'm anti-abortion and pro-life [two different things] because of my religious beliefs. Having said that, as an American citizen, I can't push my religious beliefs on another woman. Abortion is legal in this country [and was during the time of this country's founding] . . . . it is not my place to tell another woman what to do or not do. Preferably, the child would be carried to term and put up for adoption, but that's MY choice, not hers.
As for Margaret Sanger . . . no, I don't support her beliefs on eugenics nor much of anything else. I mean, the woman's DEAD and died when I was 13 years old. She did do some good things for women, but nothing she did has had any personal affect on MY life.
This woman that Beck's promoting was a known Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite. He is promoting her writings as good things for this country. I don't think he KNEW that because I don't think Beck has the intelligence or education to know the difference between the lies he tells and truth. I further think that he doesn't care. He's got people like you defending him because he claims to be a "conservative." He's not. You aren't either if you believe he is . . . you're a groupie. The fact that you are attempting to defend the indefensible is very telling and very sad.
Well, someone who has the ba!!s to say what they feel. Too bad you're not a liberal, otherwise that would have proven my statement incorrect.
Now, on to the topic. How is the 'liberal' support of Margaret Sanger any different than the support Beck is giving Dilling? How can liberals justify denigrating Beck while supporting Sanger? Both seem to have unwanted 'connections' to nazi's. Yet one is given unconditional support, while the other is given unheralded hatefulness.
So, if you've paid any attention at all, you can see I am not defending Beck, but rather I am condemning liberal hypocrisy.
By your response, I take it you have nothing to say about the liberal hypocrisy of their 'pick+choose' support of nazi favorites?
You have not shown any liberal hyprocrisy. You have not shown Sanger to be any of the things you have alleged. Each allegation you've made has been answered and shot down.
Has Beck been informed of this vicious woman's true past yet?
Hence Glenda's attraction to Dilling, another pro-Nazi, anti-socialist manipulator of proud Ignorant- Americans.
---------------------------------------------
But that doesn't stop the Right from using the Nazi's own lies to try to paint them as liberals.
I guess the same way liberals can be pro choice yet support the genocide promoting Margaret Sanger. BTW, she also promoted and participated with several KKK groups.
just ripped your whhole defense of Beck below. Try reading it before you post more of your diahrrea of the mouth.
I've NEVER defended Margaret Sanger in my life. She has had absolutely NO influence on my life. When you use false arguments to protect and defend a man who has called people like you "idiots" for believing his bullsh*t, you prove his point.
Beck isn't my hero, and I'm not defending him. I AM showing proof of liberal hypocrisy by showing that liberals support one person with direct connections to the KKK and nazi's, while out of the other side of their mouths denigrate Beck for showing support for a nazi supporter.
As for the rest of your drivel, I don't know what you're trying to say. What false argument have I used? Show me where my arguments are FALSE, as opposed to unpopular among liberals.
You're beginning to make Sean Inanity's factually impaired rants look almost reasonable in contrast to your determined idiocy.
And, Dilling is yours and mmfa's STRAWMAN. You only have a slight connection with nazi to find a way to denegrate Beck. But, you ignore the slight connection Sanger has in order to support her women's rights advancements. Liberal hypocrisy is a danger to society, and you only help prove it.
Rape and womanizing are the same because they both involve sex? Hitler promoted safe work environments? Whewweeeee! Kook is not a strong enough word to describe your thinking.
To conservatives, every issue is boiled down to a two-side matter of absolutes...unless you need to deflect criticism away from the conservative, then liberals can be painted as both negatives simultaneously. Doesn't make sense to rational thinkers, but we're talking about modern conservative media consumers here so anything goes on any given day if it allows them a platform to attack liberals.
Wow!
Beck certainly acts like a nazi, but he ususally likes to over-use the term to slander his enemeis.... AND HIS PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE HIM!
I hope this fact might get some part of the Tea Party movement to actualy think about who they are listening to for a change. I hope that maybe it might give them some degree of pause and review.
I mean, Glen is constantly scaring those folks with the idea that anyone left of the far, far, FAR right is a nazi... and now he is actively encouraging them to study actual, bona-fide nazi material.
While I'm sure most of those folks do consider Birth of a Nation to be a heartfelt expression of patriotic love, I wonder how they will reconcile Becks advocacy for actual nazi material, with his accusations that almost everyone else is a nazi?
Then again, too many people in the Tea Parties seem to be WAAAY too comfortable with contradictions, hyperbole and explcitly proven lies.
"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."
.
.
If they put up with GWB, Cheney, Ensign, Vitter, Foley, Gingrich, McCain, Greer, Santorum, Hannity, Beck, Craig, Haggard, etc, even though they know they don't live up to the "values" they say they stand for, imho, they have no values. The only thing these people are interested in is wielding power for the sake of political/personal gain. Those who support them get very few/no benefits in exchange.
And since many conservatives continue to think GWB was such a "great" president, surely after 8 years under his "leadership" we shouldn't be struggling to emerge from a deep recession. After 8 years, a booming economy would be proof that his was a successful presidency. In the case of GWB, the proof is not in the pudding because instead of pudding, we have slop.
If I believed in reincarnation, I'd swear that Dilling is now walking the earth as Ann Coulter. Same politics, same level of hatred, same weak attempts at humor.
Are you really so deluded as to act like there's a comparison?
There were a great number of 'casual bigots' who, when they saw, in Germany, the effects of bigotry and hatred in action, not only regretted their words but enlisted and fought Hitler. Mrs. Dilling fought for Hitler.
Defending the indefensible again, huh? All in the name of faux conservatism . . . disgusting.
It's easy to see why Beck would find this work so appealing; she pretty much used the same paranoid speculation and guilt by association that Beck does to attack his opponents. The similarity is uncanny.
But an even better source, if you can find a copy -- they used to be in almost every second-hand store, but that was NYC -- is "John Roy Carlson's" UNDER COVER. 'Carlson" (in fact, Avedis Derounian, whose brother was a conservative Republican Congressman from Staten Island) went underground, actually producing an anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi magazine to gain entrance into the 'Fifth Column' that, in fact did exist promoting Nazi ideas. One of his first contacts was 'Mrs. Dilling" and there is a lot in the book about her, including the line "She...mailed me copies of Your Crucifixion and other vicious anti-Jewish stickers."
But the best description focuses on her anti-communism -- and remember this was written contemporaneous with the events -- and at a time (1943) when the ending of the war was still in doubt. This is "Carlson's" description -- sorry for the length and my typing fingers are as well
"In her book, The Red Network, she branded as "Communist" such institutions as the Y.M.C.A. the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ and the Civil Liberties Union. Reverend Harry fosdick, John Dewey, and Sinclair Lewis were all Reds in her eyes. Eeven Monsignor John A. Ryan, professor of moral theology at Catholic University, did not escape her branding irons, while the Catholic Association for Internal peace and the American federation of Teachers were placed in the same category as the Communist Party."
...
[After listing people involved as consultants to her writing, names that would probably be meaningless] "It is little wonder that with such super-Patriotic help her views should take on a distinct fascist hue. Speaking of fascism, she wrote in her Red Network:
"'It seeks a harmony between all classes and concedes to Industrialists, white collar, professional, as well as laboring workers, a place in the social order as necessary parts, not 'class enemies' of the whole, but under state control. It defends some property rights and religion... Fascism in Italy is not anti-Semitic.'"
---
It's hard to say this, but the person who compares Dilling to coulter actually insults Coulter, as hard as that is to imagine.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593910,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593963,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594005,00.html
The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
The angel Gabriel is not one of his visitors.
John Stewart is right and Glen Beck has Nazi Tourette Syndrome, or he has actually been praising liberals all this time and saying someone is a Nazi is actually a compliment from him. He just pick a really messed up way to show it :?
Oh, wait...
I'm curious, though: How exactly is promoting pro-Nazi, antisemitic, extremist writers "pro-Jewish"?
Well, say hi to the other 'thinkers' in Bizarro World.
And if he couldn't even be bothered to even look up Dilling on Wikipedia before praising her work, how will you react to his ignorance at best and irresponsibility at worst?
Oh please do go on about Margaret Sanger's Nazi ties. You mean these?