Sanger, Margaret

A racist leader in the American eugenics movement and founder of Planned Parenthood with an agenda to limit the births of minorities and the genetically inferior. Born in 1879 in Corning, New York to parents of Irish descent, she was the sixth of 11 children, and she writes of the struggles her family and the others around her endured, primarily due, she believed, to the large number of children in the family. As she grew up, she related hardships to large families and happiness to small ones. In her autobiography, Pioneering Advocate for Birth Control, Sanger wrote, “Large families were associated with poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, fighting, jails; the small ones with cleanliness, leisure, freedom, light, space, sunshine.” This limited perspective she gained as a child. Instead of expanding with adulthood to view life in all its truths and complexities, she remained indrawn and biased and grew the germs that only the stagnant mindset can offer.

Her marriage to William Sanger, an architect and socialist, would place Margaret amid the radicals of her day. “Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and I.W.W.’s [Industrial Workers of the World] could meet,” she wrote. This period of her life would prove to shape and more clearly define her beliefs and offer her the connections and encouragement necessary to begin putting her ideals into action. These experiences and connections, added with her view that “Any great concept must be present in the mass of consciousness before any one figure can tap it and set it free on its irresistible way,” combined to create a force that would ultimately be foundational in the achievement of her goals.

Sanger worked tirelessly to fight against the “breeding” of too many children, which she considered “the most immoral practice of the day,” according to her manifesto Woman and the New Race. In this book, Sanger insists that “The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society,” asserting that not only is the large family the greatest evil of the day, but also the cause of other evils, including prostitution, oppressed labor, and war. Her bias, it seems, did not end with the number of children in society, but reached further to the worth of the child. “Birth control itself,” she insisted, “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.”

What criteria did Sanger consider in deciding who was either “unfit” or “defective”? Sickliness and poverty were certainly factors. Race was another. In Woman, Morality and Birth Control, Sanger wrote, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” To bring about this “cleaner race,” Sanger sought a way to eliminate the races she considered inferior — especially blacks. In a letter to Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, Sanger addressed her fear that “the Negro population” was figuring out the plan “to exterminate” them. She wrote:

We should 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. We don’t want the 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.

It is noteworthy that today the vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics, just as the first in Harlem, are in neighborhoods that are predominantly black. The organization seems to still be following Sanger’s vision.

To bring these ideas to action, in 1923 Sanger began the Clinical Research Bureau, the first legal birth control clinic in America. A large portion of its funding came from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. — a strong advocate for population control — who also undrwrote other causes for Sanger.

As Sanger continued to hammer her concepts into the concience of the masses, birth control clinics became less appalling to the average mind. Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood in 1946, which evolved into the Planned Parenthood we know today. Is it any wonder that an organization that disregards the sanctity of human life has, as its founder, a woman who viewed children as a burden to society and struggled against all odds to rid society of this “plague”? It was, no doubt, this struggle that won Sanger her honorary place in the Smithsonian exhibit.

Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without the exception.” And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area–those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].

She concluded,

The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that is encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.

The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:

It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.

Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.” She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.: Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be ” of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”

?In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established “in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.” For this was the way “to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds.”

Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:

  • the woman or man had a “transmissible” disease such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, syphilis, etc.;
  • the children already born were “subnormal or feeble-minded”;
  • the father’s wages were “inadequate … to provide for more children.”

Sanger said “such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.”

Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.

The Harlem Clinic

In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:

  • were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s         population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
  • comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
  • had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
  • had a death rate from tuberculosis–237 per 100,000–that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.

Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois, one of the day’s most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.

That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.

Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem’s leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.” She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.

Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem’s largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker. But that event received criticism. At least one “very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist” spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, “received adverse criticism” from the (unnamed) minister who was “surprised that he’d allow that awful woman in his church.”

Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family’s income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.

Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks. Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.

Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic, and indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger’s labyrinth.

Birth Control as a Solution

The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among black about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, the believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the “rationale” of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called “The Negro Number,” featured a series of articles written by blacks on the “virtues” of birth control.

The editorial posed this question: “Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?” The answer: “Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality … if they only knew how.”

DuBois, in his article “Black Folk and Birth Control, ” noted the “inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.” He criticized the “mass of ignorant Negroes” who bred “carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] … is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”

DuBois called for a “more liberal attitude” among black churches. He said they were open to “intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added].”

Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, wrote “eugenic discrimination” was necessary for blacks. He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.

Further, “the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief.” Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.

Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as “pathetic.” In his article “God’s Chillun,” he wrote:

The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous [emphasis added].

Terpenning considered birth control for black as “the more humane provision” and “more eugenic” than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust. He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured.

Sadly, DuBois’ words of black churches being “open to intelligent propaganda” proved prophetic. Black pastors invited Sanger to speak to their congregations. Black publications, like The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender, featured her writings. Rather than attacking the root causes of maternal and infant deaths, diseases ,poverty, unemployment and a host of other social ills–not the least of which were racism–Sanger pushed birth control. To many, it was better for blacks not to be born rather than endure such a harsh existence.

Against this setting, Sanger charmed the black community’s most distinguished leaders into accepting her plan, which was designed to their own detriment. She peddled her wares wrapped in pretty packages labeled “better health” and “family planning.” No one could deny the benefits of better health, being financially ready to raise children, or spacing one’s children. However, the solution to the real issues affecting blacks did not lay in reducing their numbers. It lay in attacking forces in society that hindered their progress. Most importantly, one had to discern Sanger’s motive behind her push for birth control in the community. It was not an altruistic one.

Web of Deceit

Prior to 1939, Sanger’s “outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.” Her vision for “the reproductive practices of black Americans” expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” He suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people.

Another project director lamented:

I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.

Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:

The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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 [emphasis added].

Sanger’s cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA’s National Advisory Council reads like a “who’s who” among black Americans. To name a few:

  • Claude A. Barnett, director, Associated Negro Press, Chicago
  • Michael J. Bent, M.D., Meharry Medical School, Nashville
  • Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, president, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, D.C., special advisor to President Roosevelt on minority groups, and founder of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach
  • Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, cum laude graduate of Tufts, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha (the nation’s oldest black sorority)k, Washington, D.C.
  • Charles S. Johnson, president, Fisk University, Nashville
  • Eugene Kinckle Jones, executive secretary, National Urban League, New York
  • Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York
  • Bishop David H. Sims, pastor, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia
  • Arthur Spingarn, president, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Even with this impressive list, Sanger ran into resistance when she tried to present a birth control exhibit at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, a fair that traces the progress blacks have made since the Emancipation Proclamation, in Chicago. After inviting BCFA to display its exhibit, the Exposition’s board later canceled, citing “last minute changes in floor space.”

Sanger did not buy this and issued a statement urging public protest. “This has come as a complete surprise,” said Sanger, “since the Federation undertook preparation of the exhibit upon an express invitation from a member of the Exposition board.” She said the cancellation resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition.

Her statement mentioned BCFA prepared the exhibit in consultation with its National (Negro) Advisory Council, and it illustrated “the need for birth control as a public health measure.” She said the objective was to demonstrate how birth control would “improve the welfare of the Negro population,” noting the maternal death rate among black mothers was nearly 50 percent higher, and the child death rate was more than one-third greater than the white community.

At Sanger’s urging, protesters of the cancellation sent letters to Attorney Wendall E. Green, vice chairman of the Afra-Merican Emancipation Exposition Commission (sponsor of the Exposition), requesting he investigate. Green denied there was any threat or pressure to withhold funds needed to finance the Exposition. Further, he said the Exposition commission (of Illinois) “unanimously passed a resolution,” which read in part: “That in the promotion, conduct and accomplishment of the objectives (of the Exposition) there must be an abiding spirit to create goodwill toward all people.” He added that since the funds for the Exposition ” came from citizens of all races and creeds, any exhibit in conflict with the known convictions of any religious group contravenes the spirit of the resolution,” which seemed to support Catholic opposition. The commission upheld the ban on the exhibit.

“Better Health for 13,000,000”

The propaganda of the Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So on this premise, the BCFA designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated into existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.”

The BCFA opened the first clinic at the Bethlehem Center in urban Nashville, Tennessee (where blacks constituted only 25 percent of the population), on February 13, 1940. They extended the work to the Social Services Center of Fisk University (a historically black college) on July 23, 1940. This location was especially significant because of its proximity to Meharry Medical School, which trained more than 50 percent of black physicians I the United States.

An analysis of the income of the Nashville group revealed that “no family, regardless of size, had an income over $15 a week. The service obviously reached the income group for which it was designed,” indicating the project’s tar get. The report claimed to have brought “to light serious diseases and making possible their treatment, … [and] that 55 percent [354 of the 638] of the patients prescribed birth control methods used it consistently and successfully.” However, the report presented “no definite figures … to demonstrate the extent of community improvement.”

The BCFA opened the second clinic on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Robert E. Seibels, chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association. BCFA chose this site in part “because leaders in the state were particularly receptive to the experiment. South Carolina had been the second state to make child spacing a part of its state public health program after a survey of the state’s maternal deaths showed that 25 percent occurred among mothers known to be physically unfit for pregnancy.” Again, the message went out: Birth control–not better prenatal care–reduced maternal and infant mortality.

Although Berkeley County’s population was 70 percent black, the clinic received criticism that members of this group were “overwhelmingly in the majority.” Seibels assured Claude Barnett that this was not the case. “We have … simply given our help to those who were willing to receive it, and these usually are Negroes,” he said.

While religious convictions significantly influenced the Nashville patients’ view of birth control, people in Berkeley County had “no religious prejudice against birth control. But the attitude that treatment of any disease was ‘against nature’ was in the air.” Comparing the results of the two sites, “it is seen that the immediate receptivity to the demonstration was at the outset higher in the rural area. ” However, “the final total success was lower [in the rural area].” However, in Berkeley, “stark poverty was even more in evidence, and bad roads, bad weather and ignorance proved powerful counter forces [to the contraceptive programs.” After 18 months, the Berkeley program closed.

The report indicated that, contrary to expectations, the lives of black patients serviced by the clinics did not improve dramatically from birth control. Two beliefs stood in the way: Some blacks likened birth control to abortion and others regarded it as “inherently immoral.” However, “when thrown against the total pictures of the awareness on the part of Negro leaders of the improved conditions, … and their opportunities to even better conditions under Planned Parenthood, … the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed,” said Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.

A hint of eugenic flavor seasoned Ferebee’s speech: “The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population [emphasis added].” She peppered her speech with the importance of “Negro professionals, fully integrated into the staff, … who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks] in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race [emphasis added].”

Sanger even managed to lure the prominent–but hesitant–black minister J. T. Braun, editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Publishing Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web. Braun confessed to Sanger that “the very idea of such a thing [birth control] has always held the greatest hatred and contempt in my mind. … I am hesitant to give my full endorsement of this idea, until you send me, perhaps, some more convincing literature on the subject. Sanger happily complied. She sent Braun the Federal Council of Churches’ Marriage and Home Committee pamphlet praised by Bishop Sims (another member of the National Advisory Council), assuring him that: “There are some people who believe that birth control is an attempt to dictate to families how many children to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Sanger’s assistants gave Braun more pro-birth control literature and a copy of her autobiography, which he gave to his wife to read. Sanger’s message of preventing maternal and infant mortality stirred Braun’s wife. Now convinced of this need, Braun permitted a group of women to use his chapel for a birth-control talk. “[I was] moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition,” Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger. “At first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers and children [emphasis added].”

By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.

Sanger’s successful duplicity does not in any way suggest blacks were gullible. They certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. Sanger used their vulnerabilities and their ignorance (of her deliberately hidden agenda) to her advantage. Aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Surely, blacks would not have been such willing accomplices had they perceived her true intentions. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement–and Sanger’s embracing of that ideology–the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized.

“Scientific Racism”

Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to repudiate the organization’s eugenic origins. It adamantly denies Sanger was a eugenicist or racist, despite evidence to the contrary. Because Sanger stopped editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the organization tries to disassociate her from the eugenic and racist-oriented articles published after that date. However, a summary of an address Sanger gave in 1932, which appeared in the Review that year, revealed her continuing bent toward eugenics.

In “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a “Parliament of Population.” One of the main objectives of the “Population Congress” would be “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” This would be accomplished by applying a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [ in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

It’s reasonable to conclude that as the leader of Planned Parenthood–even after 1929–Sanger would not allow publication of ideas she didn’t support.

Sanger’s defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control’s “health benefits.” However, she counted the very people she wanted to “educate” among the “unfit,” whose numbers needed to be restricted.

Grant presents other arguments Sanger’s supporters use to refute her racist roots:

  • blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other minorities are well represented in the
  • the former, high-profile president of the organization, Faye Wattleton, is a black woman;
  • “aggressive” minority hiring practices have been standard procedure for more than two decades;
  • the “vast majority of the nation’s ethnic leadership solidly and actively supports the work” of the organization.

These justifications also fail because of what Grant calls “scientific racism.” This form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. “The issue is not ‘color of skin’ or ‘dialect of tongue,’” Grant writes, “but ‘quality of genes [emphasis added].’” Therefore, “as long as blacks, Jews and Hispanics demonstrate ‘a good quality gene pool’–as long as they ‘act white and think white’–then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, ‘the best of their race,’ then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens [emphasis added].” By the same token, “individual whites” who shoe “dysgenic traits” must also have their fertility “curbed right along with the other ‘inferiors and undesirables.’”

In short, writes Grant, “Scientific racism is an equal opportunity discriminator [emphasis added]. Anyone with a ‘defective gene pool’ is suspect. And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the elite.”

The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, “The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. … It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.”

“There is no way to escape the implications,” argues William L. Davis, a black financial analyst Grant quotes. “When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when it goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn’t take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.”

Sanger’s Legacy

Its is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood’s past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. This poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood’s own record reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent.”

“Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America,” says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. “We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community … say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”

Some blacks have even made abortion “right” synonymous with civil rights.

“We’re destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here,” Hunter laments. “Who knows the musicians we’ve lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers?” He recites an old African proverb: “No one knows whose womb holds the chief.”

Hunter has personally observed the vestiges of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic past in the black community today. “When I travel around the country…I can only think of one abortion clinic [I’ve seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.”

Hunter noted the controversy that occurred tow years ago in Louisiana involving school-based health clinics. The racist undertone could not have been more evident. In the Baton Rouge district, officials were debating placing clinics in the high schools. Black state representative Sharon Weston Broome initially supported the idea. She later expressed concern about clinics providing contraceptives and abortion counseling. “Clinics should promote abstinence,” she said. Upon learning officials wanted to put the clinics in black schools only, Hunter urged her to suggest they be placed in white schools as well. At Broome’s suggestion, however, proposals for t he school clinics were “dropped immediately,” reported Hunter.

Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes. “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”

In 1987, a group of black ministers, parents and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. They charged the city’s school-based clinics with not only violating the state’s fornication laws, but also with discrimination against blacks. The clinics were a “calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life [between] black parents and their children,” the suit alleged.

One of the parents in the group was “shocked” when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. “I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic,” she said. “[They are worse than] the Klan … because they’re so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface it’s as ugly as apartheid.”

A more recent account uncovered a Planned Parenthood affiliate giving condoms to residents of a poor black neighborhood in Akron, Ohio. The residents received a “promotional bag” containing, among other things: literature on sexually transmitted disease prevention, gynecology exams and contraception, a condom-case key chain containing a bright-green condom, and a coupon. The coupon was redeemable at three Ohio county clinics for a dozen condoms and a $5 McDonald’s gift certificate. All the items were printed with Planned Parenthood phone numbers.

The affiliate might say they’re targeting high-pregnancy areas, but their response presumes destructive behavior on the part of the targeted group. Planned Parenthood has always been reluctant to promote, or encourage, abstinence as the only safeguard against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, calling it “unrealistic.”

Rev. Richard Welch, president of Human Life International in Front Royal, Virginia, “blasted” the affiliate for targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods with the bags. He said the incident revealed “the racism inherent in promoting abortion and contraception in primarily minority neighborhoods.”

He then criticized Planned Parenthood: “Having sprung from the racist dreams of a woman determined to apply abortion and contraception to eugenics and ethnic cleansing, Planned Parenthood remains true to the same strategy today.”

Untangling the Deceptive Web

Black leaders have been silent about Margaret Sanger’s evil machination against their community far too long. They’ve been silent about abortion’s devastating effects in their community–despite their pro-life inclination. “The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else,” said Hunter. “Blacks were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery they tried to hold onto their children.”

“Blacks are not quiet about the issue because they do no care, but rather because the truth has been kept from them. The issue is … to educate our people, ” said former Planned Parenthood board member LaVerne Tolbert.

Today, a growing number of black pro-lifers are untangling the deceptive web spun by Sanger. They are using truth to shed light on the lies. The “Say SO” march is just one example of their burgeoning pro-life activism. As the marchers laid 1,452 roses at the courthouse steps–to commemorate the number of black babies aborted daily–spokesman Damon Owens said, “This calls national attention to the problem [of abortion]. This is an opportunity for blacks to speak to other blacks. This doesn’t solve all of our problems. But we will not solve our other problems with abortion.”

Black pro-lifers are also linking arms with their white pro-life brethren. Black Americans for Life (BAL) is an outreach group of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), a Washington, D.C. based grassroots organizations. NRLC encourages networking between black and white pro-lifers. “Our goal is to bring people together–from all races, colors, and religions–to work on pro-life issues,” said NRLC Director of Outreach Ernest Ohlhoff. “Black Americans for Life in not a parallel group; we want to help African-Americans integrate communicational and functionally into the pro-life movement.”

Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America, echoes the sentiment. “Our mission is to protect the right to life of all members of the human race. CWA welcomes like-minded women and men, from all walks of life, to join us in this fight.”

Concerned Women for America has a long history of fighting Planned Parenthood’s evil agenda. The Negro Project is an obscure angle, but one that must come to light. Margaret Sanger sold black Americans an illusion. Now with the veil of deception removed, they can “choose life … that [their] descendants may live.”

Dr. Angela Franks, author of the incredibly well-researched and scholarly book “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy,” is perhaps the nation’s foremost authority on the issue of Margaret Sanger’s troubling history of eugenic activism.

Franks draws out and clarifies the image that Planned Parenthood has attempted to create of its infamous founder. The organization has turned a blind eye to her eugenic history, and when challenged on issues such as her support for sterilization, Planned Parenthood has a habit of saying that Sanger did not, in fact, endorse sterilization, or changing the uncomfortable subject to something else to divert attention from Sanger’s troubling views.

What did Sanger think about the issue of sterilization?

First of all, Franks points out, Sanger stringently pushed a policy of the government compensating poor citizens in exchange with a poor person’s agreement to be sterilized as a means of population control. “In this way,” Sanger said, “the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their condition.” (Franks points out in her book that bribing a poor person with money in exchange for sterilization is in fact a deeply immoral and unethical act.) Franks points out that this bribery is something that has frequently occurred in other developing countries.

Franks points out that Planned Parenthood, in the past, has dealt with this embarrassing history of Sanger encouraging sterilization in three ways:

  1. Sanger is not a eugenicist, this is a terrible lie.
  2. But even if she were, lots of other people were at the time, too.
  3. Let’s talk about something else. “We do sooo many great things for poor people…”

Frank points out that the first strategy is hard to utilize, since it’s simply untrue. Strategies two and three, however, have really come to the fore.

Frank discussed the anecdote of Hilary Clinton receiving Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award. When Clinton was questioned by legislators as to why she had accepted an award named after a confirmed eugenicist given her position in government, Clinton defended Sanger. She said that Thomas Jefferson was a great guy, but he supported the possession of slaves. Similarly, she posited, Sanger was a great woman who just had the little flaw of supporting forced sterilization and eugenics. Franks, as she is apt to do, took hold of the contradiction, clarifying that unlike Sanger, Jefferson did not dedicate his entire life to the slavery movement. Sanger dedicated the sum of her life’s work to furthering the eugenic cause, however. So Clinton’s comparison was not very valid.

Franks then touched on Planned Parenthood’s defense of Sanger as “primarily a feminist,” rather than a eugenicist. However, another contradiction emerges here: if Margaret Sanger was a true-blood feminist, why did she not pursue the woman’s right to vote (the premier feminist issue of Margaret Sanger’s time)? Why did she work for a cause that promoted the forced sterilization of women? This is not genuine feminism, Franks acknowledges, but Planned Parenthood suggests that Sanger was simply making eugenic statements because it was the popular notion among the white elite of her time, and not because she actually sided with the ideology. Once again, this is a lie: if eugenics were not Sanger’s personal ideology, why did she gush about it in private letters to friends?

“For [Sanger], female liberation was primarily about sexual liberation,” Franks points out. Sanger was by no means “pro-choice” or a true feminist. She only believed that certain populations had a right to bear children, and was comfortable dictating the reproductive futures of everyone.

Planned Parenthood may try to characterize its founder as a pro-woman, pro-choice individual who benefited the society in which she lived, but the reality is that she was an elite member of society whose ideals were shaped by bitterness towards child-bearing, and did not look out for the common good as much as they looked out for the comfort of other people like herself.

History Events Involving Margaret Sanger:

Roe v Wade Movie Begins Production

Roe v Wade Movie Begins Production

"Roe v. Wade: The Movie" will document the leadup to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision striking down legal protections for the unborn, exposing the popular narrative as a pro-abortion whitewash — a distortion of history by abortion sympathizers in politics and the media. According to its website, the film opens with a look back at where it all began: the work of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger ...
Read More
Lecture by Dr. Colin Ross: The CIA and Military Mind Control Research: Building the Manchurian Candidate

Lecture by Dr. Colin Ross: The CIA and Military Mind Control Research: Building the Manchurian Candidate

The Canadian psychiatrist and specialist on trauma and dissociation, Dr. Colin Ross, presented a paper at the 9th Annual Western Clinical Conference on Trauma and Dissociation in Orange County, California, where he showed that he encountered evidence from released CIA-FOIA documents that the agency did research on the creation of Manchurian candidates since World War II. Dr. Ross and research organizations like the New York based ...
Read More
The US Supreme Court Issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Decisions, Which, in Effect, Legalized Abortion-On-Demand.

The US Supreme Court Issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Decisions, Which, in Effect, Legalized Abortion-On-Demand.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade. That same day, the Court also decided Doe v. Bolton. In Roe, the Court struck down a Texas abortion law. In Doe, the Court threw out the restrictions on abortion in a more liberal Georgia law. The combined result overturned the laws that restricted abortion in every state. In 1970, Norma ...
Read More
The FDA Approves Enovid, the First Birth Hormonal Control Pill Conceived by Eugenicist Margaret Sanger

The FDA Approves Enovid, the First Birth Hormonal Control Pill Conceived by Eugenicist Margaret Sanger

Did you know that Aspartame producing corporation Searle also manufactured the first birth control pill? The pill helped catalyze a sexual revolution began in the 50's by the false and criminal data propagandized to America by Alfred Kinsey. After Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford, he was the CEO of Searle, engineering their merger with Monsanto. A testament to his influence, he became Secretary of Defense again during ...
Read More
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger: "“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”

Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger: ““We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” ...
Read More

Open Society Foundations

The Open Society Foundations (OSF), founded by liberal financier George Soros in 1979, is a liberal network of more than 20 national and regional foundations operating in 120 countries, making it one of the largest political philanthropies in the world. While posing as a charity, the real mission is social anarchy throughout the world. Built on Soros’ anti-capitalist redistributionist political philosophies, the organization gives away nearly a billion dollars per year to left-wing organizations around the world.[1] OSF is the successor to the Open Society Institute (OSI), a Soros philanthropy that was folded into OSF. In the U.S., Open Society Foundations U.S. Programs have given hundreds of millions to left-wing political organizations including multi-million dollar gifts to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Robin Hood Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Brennan Center for Justice, Alliance for Citizenship, Black Lives Matter, and ANTIFA among countless others with more than 32 billion going to radical leftist organizations over the years.[2]

In late 2017, George Soros transferred $18 billion of his personal wealth to his Open Society Foundations. Not all of the organizations financed by Soros are likely to be benevolent, and he has been accused of financing militant organizations such as ANTIFA. There is concern that the $18 billion transfer was not to finance public awareness campaigns (as claimed), but that it is a war chest to be used to finance armed insurrection in the United States and elsewhere.

Documents stolen from the organization indicate that The Open Society Foundations’ U.S. Programs agenda prioritizes a number of liberal issue prerogatives and funds left-wing organizations to carry out these policies.[3] Some of these prerogatives include creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, cutting the number of prison inmates by 50%, enacting comprehensive immigration reform, increasing welfare handouts, and raising taxes to redistribute wealth.[4]

Across the globe Open Society Foundations have been criticized for undermining American foreign policy.[5]

Open Society Foundations’ operations are extraordinarily complex,[6] and the group was labeled the least transparent think tank in the United States reviewed by an OSF-funded transparency group in 2016.[7] In spite of this, the group has become a stalwart left-wing non-profit financier, financially supporting a large number of left-wing organizations in America[8] and exporting leftist policies to countries across the world.[9]

The OSF, and its subsidiaries and affiliates, are subsidized with U.S. taxpayer money, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Senior U.S. government officials have leveraged their positions for post-government employment with OSF programs, sometimes seeking taxpayer funding for the very same specialties, functions and regions that involved their government employment.

A Judicial Watch Special Report describes the activities of billionaire philanthropist George Soros and his Open Society Foundations (OSF), which are partially financed by U.S.  taxpayers. Soros, his foundation and their affiliates promote and advance a radical, progressive agenda that seeks to destabilize legitimate governments, erase national borders and identities, target conservative politicians, finance civil unrest, subvert institutions of higher education, and orchestrate refugee crises for political gain. The Soros network is engaged in an active and ongoing effort to affect politics, economics, and societies in Europe (Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Hungary), Latin America (Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico), and across the globe. Judicial Watch has successfully investigated and litigated to document the paper trail left by the OSF network as it operates, at taxpayer expense, to subvert and manipulate the sovereignty of constitutional republics and allies of the United States.

The Soros operations are highly sophisticated and multi-faceted, working across academia; the courts; labor and agriculture; “social justice” organizations; religious associations; and, of course, political groups. OSF operations also utilize U.S.-based nonprofit organizations to further their agenda. Key personnel in the Soros/OSF network (and their affiliates) are former U.S. government officials capable of leveraging their government status and access to benefit the OSF’s progressive goals.

It is important to contextualize the operations and financing of the Open Society Foundations. A year ago, Soros took dramatic action to step up his leftist political activities. As reported by the Wall Street Journal on October 17, 2017, Soros transferred $18 billion to his Open Society Foundation:

“The pioneer of hedge-fund investing has transferred the bulk of his wealth to Open Society Foundations”


“Open Society today has a broad mandate driven largely by its founder’s values. It operates through a network of more than 40 foundations and offices in countries from Afghanistan to South Africa.

Mr. Soros has urged developed countries in Europe and elsewhere to share the burden of increased migration from conflict-ridden countries [conflict, it appears, Soros groups help foment]. AntiSoros politicians in Macedonia, Poland and some other European countries have attacked foreign-funded groups, including Open Society, for what they see as outside interference in their affairs.”2

Three years before this massive transfer of wealth to the Open Society Foundation, Inside Philanthropy reported:3

“The Open Society Foundations is bigger than you think. In fact, it may be the largest philanthropic organization ever built, with branches in 37 countries. While the Gates Foundation spends more money, OSF has a larger footprint worldwide thanks to its many local offices, including throughout Africa. OSF’s budget will be around $930 million this year—which is substantially more than Ford’s [Foundation] total grantmaking.”

One might reasonably wonder why U.S. taxpayers would be asked to fund the  activities of such a wealthy, sophisticated, highly politicized, “philanthropic” organization.

In 2018, OSF projected expending $537,000,000 in grants and program funding throughout the world.4 The 2018 OSF budget exceeds $1 billion. While the OSF’s selfprofessed goals of strengthening the rule of law, supporting democratically elected governments, promoting fairness in political, legal, and economic systems, and safeguarding fundamental rights may seem innocuous – or even noble – the reality is far different. Soros promotes a radical left agenda. In the United States, this has included:

  • Promoting an open border with Mexico and fighting immigration enforcement efforts;5
  • Fomenting racial disharmony by funding anti-capitalist racialist organizations;6
  • Financing the Black Lives Matter movement and other organizations involved in the riots in Ferguson, Missouri;7
  • Wakening the integrity of our electoral systems;8
  • Promoting taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand;9
  • Advocating a government-run health care system;10
  • Opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts;11
  • Promoting dubious transnational climate change agreements that threaten American sovereignty;12 and,
  • Working to promote gun control and erode Second Amendment protections.13

The Soros foundations funded the liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP) (founded by former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who remains on the CAP Board of Directors14), and the related 501c(4) CAP Action Fund to the sum of $1.835 million dollars in 2016 and 2017.15 OSF program strategy documents describe CAP as an “anchor” grantee of the organization.16 The current President of CAP, Neera Tanden, was Policy Director of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and domestic policy director for the Obama campaign. Additional CAP Board members include Tom Steyer and Sen. Tom Daschle.17

Soros foundations also funded the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its related entities, and democratic voter turnout initiatives. In 2003, Soros described defeating President George W. Bush as, “the central focus of my life,” and donated more than $15 million to anti-Bush organizations and efforts.18 At the January 2018 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Soros attacked President Trump and described him as a “danger to the world.”19

Similarly, in Europe, Soros and his foundations have sought to erase national borders and identities,20 targeted conservative politicians,21 financed civil unrest,22 infiltrated institutions of higher education,23 and orchestrated a massive refugee crisis24 that will leave the continent forever changed.25

Judicial Watch has filed four lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia directly related to uncovering the facts about the global Soros-funded network of left-wing activist groups – what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban calls Soros’ “Mercenary Army”26 – organized in part through the Soros Open Society Foundation and his East West Management Institute. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch through a series of lawsuits reveal that the Obama administration turned over key State Department activities to George Soros’ OSF. Judicial Watch reporting suggests the Deep State continues to be aligned with Soros as career and holdover State Department officials in countries such as Albania, Colombia, Guatemala, Macedonia and Romania help OSF push its radical agenda.

What U.S. Taxpayers Fund

The vast majority of U.S. Government funding for Soros’ entities is to the East-West Management Institute (EWMI), which he founded in 1989.27 A Director of the EWMI, George Vickers, was previously the Director of International Operations at the Open Society Institute (OSI).28 The EWMI manages project for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) around the world, including in Azerbaijan29, Georgia30, Macedonia31, and Albania32. EWMI has received $72.5 million in USAID contracts since 2004.

Approximately $19 million in contracts are currently active. The organization has also received $118.7 million in grants since 1999. $49.2 million worth of grants are currently active. 33

In 2014, the Department of State awarded a $24,000 grant to Soros’ Central European University (CEU). The end date for that program is not listed.34 The Orban government of Hungary has criticized CEU for failure to meet the accreditation requirements in Hungarian law, stating that CEU, “…erected something like a Potemkin campus at the Soros-funded Bard College … [and]. . . Other US universities complied with the law and have a signed agreement with the government of Hungary.”35

The Alliance for Open Society International received nearly $650,000 from the State Department between 2011 and 2014.36 Its president, Christopher Stone, is the former president of OSF and a current OSF board member.37 In 2006, the Alliance for Open Society International sued USAID over a Congressional requirement that organizations receiving federal anti-AIDS funding to have a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution.” The issue was ultimately decided in AOSI’s favor by the Supreme Court in 2013.38

Additional taxpayer support for Soros’ projects goes to organizations that receive funding from both OSF and taxpayers. Examples include:39

  • International Budget Partnership: $240,000 awarded by USAID in January 2018, $6 million from OSF for 2016-2018.40 Julie McCarthy, the director of Open Society Foundations’ Fiscal Governance Program, is on the International Budget Partnership’s Board of Trustees.41
  • Natural Resource Governance Institute: $5.5 million awarded by State and USAID since 2011, $4.5 million from OSF in 2016.42 The Chair of the NRGI’s Board of Directors is former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo. The board also includes Sean Hinton, who works for OSF as the CEO of the Soros Economic Development Fund.43
  • National Fair Housing Alliance: Nearly $16 million awarded by HUD since 2008, $475,000 from OSF in 2016.44 The NFHA is a liberal housing policy activist organization that describes itself as, “the nation’s only national civil rights agency solely dedicated to eliminating all forms of housing discrimination.” In May 2018, the organization sued the Department of Housing and Urban Development over the
    department’s decision not to implement the Obama-era “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment” tool.45
  • International Crisis Group: $4.2 million from USAID from 2007 to 2016, $2.25 million from OSF in 2016.46 The ICG’s President and CEO, Robert Malley, was previously Special Assistant to the President, Senior Adviser to the President for the Counter-ISIL Campaign, and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region in the Obama administration.47 George Soros and his son, Alexander, both serve on the organization’s board of trustees, as do former Clinton State Department official and campaign advisor Jake Sullivan and Australian diplomat and “Russiagate” figure Alexander Downer.
  • Casa de Maryland: More than $5 million from various U.S. agencies (incl. Treasury, Justice and Labor) since 2010; $370,000 from OSF in 2016 – 2017.49 The organization is an affiliate of UnidosUS (formerly known as the National Council of La Raza) and operates several day labor centers in Maryland. Casa de Maryland has been criticized for providing illegal aliens with information regarding how to avoid detection and arrest.50
  • National Immigration Law Center: More than $200,000 from DOJ since 2008, $1.575 million from OSF in 2016.51 The NILC is a pro-immigration legal and advocacy organization. According to the organization’s 2017 Annual Report, it “helped spearhead the fight for No Muslim Ban Ever, pushed in the courts and with Congress to defend Dreamers, and co-led a coalition to preserve immigrants’ access to basic necessities.”52 The Chair of NILC’s Board of Directors, Sara Gould, also serves on the board of the Soros-affiliated Proteus Fund, which received nearly $4 million from the Open Society Foundations in 2016 and 2017.53 On October 25, 2018 the organization issued a press release in response to the administration’s plan to halt the “caravan” at the border in which its Executive Director, Marielena Hincapié, says:
    • “This is one more disturbing and dangerous development in a string of xenophobic attacks on immigrant communities. With this threat to ban Latinx [sic] immigrants, Trump is once again showing us that his racism-driven cruelty has no bounds, as he did with the implementation of the Muslim ban and separation of families at the border. Since day one of Trump’s presidency, he has made it clear that his administration will do anything in its power to make immigrants feel unsafe and unwelcome in this country. . . We will continue to stand with our civil rights, Latinx, immigrant, Muslim, and refugee communities to fight these xenophobic and hateful attacks. We are strong. We are resilient. We will use every tool to stop Trump from undermining the Constitution and international laws and from instituting his administration’s agenda to impose a Latinx ban in any form.”54
  • The NILC launched a project called “United We Dream” which describes itself as the country’s largest immigrant youth-led community. The nonprofit has more than 400,000 members nationwide and claims to “embrace the common struggle of all people of color and stand up against racism, colonialism, colorism, and xenophobia.” Among its key projects is winning protections and rights for illegal immigrants, defending against deportation, obtaining education for illegal immigrants and acquiring “justice and liberation” for undocumented LGBT “immigrants and allies.”55
  • Perhaps most notoriously, U.S. taxpayer subsidies and OSF funding assisted United We Dream in launching a smartphone application to help illegal immigrants avoid federal authorities. The app, Notifica (Notify), is described in a Texas news article as a tool to protect immigrants living in the U.S. illegally by utilizing high tech and online social communications. With the click of a button, illegal aliens can alert family, friends and attorneys of encounters with federal authorities. “Immigration agents knocking at the door?” the news story asks. “Now, there’s an app for that, too.”56
  • Center for a New American Security: In FY 2017, it received between $250,000 and $499,999 from the Open Society Foundations and more than $500,000 from the U.S. government.57 CNAS was founded by Kurt Campbell and Michele Flournoy, who were later appointed to senior DOD posts by Obama. In January, it hired Victoria Nuland as CEO.58 Nuland was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration. The organization’s Executive Vice President and Director of Studies, Ely Ratner, was the Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Biden.59

There are also millions of dollars in taxpayer grants going to groups led by OSF board members and others closely associated with the Soros network. A sample of the grants includes:

  • Chris Stone, mentioned above, was the President and Director of the Vera Institute of Justice from 1994 to 2004.60 There are currently more than $23 million in active government grants to the Institute.61
  • Maria Cattaui, a member of OSF’s global board, is also on the board of the Institute of International Education, which has hundreds of millions of dollars in active USG grants.62 Cattaui is also on the board of the aforementioned International Crisis Group.
    63 She is a former head of the International Chamber of Commerce and an official with the World Economic Forum.64
  • Cecilia Muñoz, former Domestic Policy Council director under Obama and Senior V.P. at La Raza, is currently on OSF’s U.S. Programs board.65 She is also a Vice President at New America Foundation, which has received $4.5 million in USG grants, including $580,000 in grants that are currently active.66
  • Bryan Stevenson, also on OSF’s U.S. Programs board,67 is the founder and director of the Equal Justice Initiative,68 which received a $347,000 grant from DOJ in 2013.69
  • Yoeri Albrecht, a member of OSF’s European Advisory Board,70 is also the director of De Balie, a non-profit based in the Netherlands.71 De Balie received a $3,000 Department of State grant in 2009.72
  • Kofi Marfo, a member of OSF’s Early Childhood Program Board, is also on the board of the Society for Research in Child Development,73 which has received more than $6 million in USG grants since 2011.74
  • David Holiday is OSF’s regional manager for Central America. According to his biography, he “worked for a USAID-funded project in support of civic advocacy organizations in the aftermath of the Guatemalan peace accords and managed a project in El Salvador that supported civil society advocacy as well as transparency initiatives.”75
  • Michelle Scott, the Chair of the EWMI Board of Directors, is the General Counsel at Fair Health, Inc.76, which has received nearly $700,000 in contracts from various government agencies since 2012.77

Government/Soros Foundations Nexus

The nexus between OSF and U.S. government agencies are not just a matter of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to dubious programs and OSF operating affiliates. It is also about power, policy and influence. Staffing and employment facts illuminate the breadth and scope of the connections between OSF political operatives and the taxpayers’ employees inside the USG. Here are a few examples worth examining (n.b.: This list of OSF/U.S. government personnel is not exhaustive):

  • Patrick Gaspard, OSF’s President, was the Director of Political Affairs in the Obama White House and the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa.78 Gaspard has a long history in Democratic party politics and community organizing in support of left-wing causes. This included serving as the political director for ACORN’s New York Chapter, an organizer for the socialist New Party, and for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign. He went on to a position as the political vice president of a powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chapter in New York and an activist with the ACORN-aligned Working Families Party. He served as the director of President Obama’s Office of Political Affairs from 2009 to 2011 and as the executive director of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to 2013, when Obama appointed him to be the Ambassador to South Africa. Shortly after the ruling African National Congress proposed a constitutional amendment to expropriate land from predominately white farmers without compensation, Gaspard sent a tweet lauding South Africa’s constitution as “more inclusive” than that of the United States.79
    In November 2018, Gaspard entered into a very public feud with Internet giant Facebook, calling for congressional hearings into the operations of the social media platform for hiring a consulting firm to explore the link between an anti-Facebook group called Freedom from Facebook and Mr. Soros.80
    Gaspard accused Facebook of spreading, “hateful and blatantly false and anti-Semitic information … actively engaged in the same behavior to try to discredit people exercising their First Amendment rights to protest Facebook’s role in disseminating vile propaganda … But at bottom, this is not about George Soros or the foundations. Your methods threaten the very values underpinning our democracy.”81
    Facebook reportedly hired a research consulting firm to look into Mr. Soros after he called internet “monopolies” a “menace” in a January speech at the World Economic Forum. In an interview on PBS with Christiane Amanpour, Mr. Gaspard went further in his conspiracy theory defense, claiming Facebook’s investigation of Soros funding was a “black ops false flag operation,” and that, “I find it hard to believe that one would go after someone like George Soros, who as you said is a figure of some note, a figure who recently received a pipe bomb in his mailbox as a consequence of these kinds of virulent, hate filled campaigns…”82
    In a published internal posting, Facebook executive Elliot Schrage wrote, “We had not heard such criticism from him [Soros] before and wanted to determine if he had any financial motivation.” Mr. Schrage stated that Facebook’s consulting firm, “… researched this [the link between an anti-Facebook group called Freedom from Facebook and Mr. Soros] using public information.”83
    According to the New York Times, Facebook’s research consulting firm (Definers Public Affairs), “… also relied on Mr. Schumer, the New York senator and Senate Democratic leader. He has long worked to advance Silicon Valley’s interests on issues such as commercial drone regulations and patent reform. During the 2016 election cycle, he raised more money from Facebook employees than any other member of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Schumer also has a personal connection to Facebook: His daughter Alison joined the firm out of college and is now a marketing manager in Facebook’s New York office, according to her LinkedIn profile.”84
    Mr. Gaspard’s public relations strategy includes ad hominem smears as a technique to silence critics and discourage investigation of OSF and Mr. Soros. Mr. Gaspard made his claims of Facebook anti-Semitism despite Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg85 and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sharyl Sandberg,86 both of whom are reportedly Jewish. Interestingly, in July 2017, Israel’s foreign ministry denounced Soros, “… who continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments,’ said foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon, adding that Soros funded organizations, ‘that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.”87
    Clearly, Mr. Gaspard is highly reactive and an aggressive advocate on behalf of OSF and Mr. Soros. As Ms. Amanpour commented in her PBS interview of Mr. Gaspard, “Well, boy oh boy, you are laying down the gauntlet there.”88 It is worth noting that public, open source scrutiny of a U.S. taxpayer financed “philanthropic” foundation calling itself “Open Society” generates reactions from Mr. Gaspard including demands
    for congressional hearings; conclusory accusations of anti-Semitism and incitement to violence; and, claims of Facebook policies threatening the values of democracy.
  • In October 2018, Tom Perriello was named the new Executive Director of OSF’s U.S. Programs office.89 He is a former Democratic congressman from Virginia and State Department official. Perriello was appointed by Obama as Special Representative leading the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review and the Special Envoy for the African Great Lakes. OSF described Mr. Perriello’s duties as: “Perriello will oversee the Foundations’ grant making and advocacy in the United States, which focuses on promoting full participation in American civic, political, and economic life and ensuring that the core institutions of civil society are effective and accountable to the public.” 90
  • Denis Reynolds, OSF’s Director of Global Security, was formerly a Supervisory Special Agent with the Diplomatic Security Service at the Department of State.91
  • Nicolas Mansfield, the Director of Legal Programs at EWMI, was former a prosecutor with the Department of Justice. Mansfield “is responsible for designing and managing rule of law programs in developing countries, including programs related to reform of the judiciary and justice sector institutions, access to justice, legal education and the engagement of civil society in rule of law reform.”92
  • Eugenia McGill, a Director at EWMI, was a consultant to USAID from 2005 to 2006. McGill advises development agencies, governments and nongovernmental organizations on social policy, law and development issues, and on addressing gender and other social concerns through development plans, programs and projects.93
  • Delina Fico, EWMI’s Director of Civil Society Programs, was previously the Public Outreach and Organizational Development Director at Chemonics,94 a contractor with ties to the Clintons.95 “Fico is the former wife of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and wife of former Minister of State Bledi Çuçi. Fico, who has worked for the Soros Foundation in Albania since the 1990s, recently received a $9 million USAID grant in Macedonia through a collaboration between the EWMI and the local Soros Foundation.”96
  • Emily Renard, a Senior Policy Advisor at OSF, was formerly a Foreign Service Officer and the Africa Policy Officer for State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Renard also worked for the, “Africa Center for Strategic Studies at the U.S. Department of Defense where she developed programs to promote human security. Renard also worked for the National Film Board of Canada in Montreal and the Modern American Language School in Sana’a, Yemen.”97
  • Jeff Goldstein, currently the Deputy Head of Mission at the OSCE Mission in Skopje, was formerly a Senior Policy Analyst at the Open Society Institute. Prior to that, he was a Foreign Service Officer at state for 25 years.98 Goldstein was one of the people present at Hillary Clinton’s 2010 meeting with Soros (as was Michael McFaul – the first non-career diplomat to be the U.S. Ambassador to Russia (2012 – 2014); and, an Obama national security advisor credited with being the architect of the “Russia Reset.”).99
  • Diana L. Morris is the Director of Open Society Institute – Baltimore. She was previously an attorney-advisor in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State.100
  • Morton Halperin is a Senior Advisor at OSF. He was previously the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department under the Clinton administration.101 Halperin was suspected of being a spy for the Soviet Union while working at the State Department.102
  • David Mandel-Anthony, a Senior Policy Advisor in the State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice, was formerly a researcher at the Open Society Foundation. He also worked for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Humanity in Action, Human Rights Watch, the Public International Law and Policy Group, and the International Center for Transitional Justice.103
  • Mary Gardner Coppola is a Foreign Policy Advisor for the U.S. Marine Corps and was a Foreign Service Officer at State for ten years. She was previously and Analyst with the Open Society Institute.104
  • Lauren Troy is a State Policy Advisor with the Department of Justice. She previously worked for the Open Society Foundations for two years in an unspecified capacity.105
  • James Graham Wilson is a Historian at the Department of State. He previously interned for the Open Society Foundations.106 Wilson received his Ph.D. in diplomatic history from the University of Virginia in 2011 and his B.A. from Vassar College in 2003. He currently works on Soviet and National Security Policy volumes for the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series.107
  • W. Bryce Kincaid is a Foreign Service Officer with State currently posted in Ukraine. She was formerly a legal clerk with OSF.108
  • Sarah Cross, a Senior Policy Advisor with OSF, was formerly a Policy Analyst with the Department of State and was the Director of Human Rights at the NSC from 2016 to 2017.109
  • Elisabeth Socolow is a Foreign Service Officer currently serving in Seoul. She was previously the Assistant Director for Forced Migration Projects at OSF.110
  • Luis De Baca is currently a Fellow at OSF. Until February 2017, he was the Director of DOJ’s Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehension, Registration, and Tracking (SMART) office. He was previously an Obama-appointed Ambassador to Monitor and
    Combat Trafficking in Persons.111
  • Gabi Chojkier was the Obama White House’s Senior Director of Hispanic Media. She was previously a Senior Communications Advisor at USAID a Communications officer at OSF.112
  • Andrew Lohsen, Monitoring Officer at OSCE’s mission to Ukraine, was previously a Research Consultant at OSF.113

Continued on next page…

Harris, Kamala

(born Oct 20, 1964) a dirty American lawyer who launched her political career by having an adulteress affair with SF Mayor, Willie Brown, who was 30 years older than her. Harris is now the junior US Senator from California (since 2017), and was previously the 27th DA of San Francisco from 2004-11 and 32nd AG of CA from 2011-17. She was deep state promoted candidate for the Democratic nomination for US President in the 2020 election and their choice as Biden’s VP, not his. The non-partisan website rated Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) the most left-wing member of the Senate in 2019 — further left than communist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Like her running mate Joe, she, through her hubby Doug Emhoff, has strong ties with China as he is a well connected attorney at a law firm that consults for several companies owned by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that employs former CCP officials.

As California AG, Harris abused her power repeatedly by (1) imposing onerous requirements on Prime Healthcare Services efforts to purchase another healthcare company in a conspiracy to force them to unionize; (2) conducted a raid on the apartment of David Daleiden, the brave journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s selling of aborted baby parts; (3) covering up for a pedophile ring giving zero help to the victims; (4) and more…

Extramarital Affair Kickstarts Political Career

Willie Brown, the corrupt past mayor of San Francisco at 60 years of age had an ongoing affair with Kamala Harris who was 29 and unemployed at the time.  Not only did it break up Brown’s marriage, it was Hebert Caen who called Harris “the Speakers new steady”.  This lead to Harris’ appointment to numerous high paying government jobs. From there, once a part of the apparatus of the Willie Brown progressive agenda, Harris had a clear path to any position available. Even journalists in California have called Harris “a show horse” and there isn’t “much there-there”.

A week after Sen. Harris announce that she was running for president, on a weekend when the California Democrat held a big rally in her hometown of Oakland, the former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, confessed that Harris was once his mistress. Brown, 84, also stated that he used his influence to essentially launch her political career. In a weekly column Brown does for the San Francisco Chronicle that was focused on Harris’ presidential run, he spoke of an extramarital affair he said he had with Harris.

Almost as an afterthought, in a segment titled “Elephant in the Room,” Brown wrote:

I’ve been peppered with calls from the national media about my “relationship” with Kamala Harris, most of which I have not returned.

Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.

And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.

The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I “so much as jaywalked” while she was D.A.

Harris was found to be guilty, by the city of San Francisco’s Ethics Commission, of violating campaign spending limit of $211,000 by spending more than four times more than any candidate had spent in the history of running for the office – $625,000, and defeated Halihan. The DA that was helping Joey Piscitelli bring the Catholic  that covered up a pedophile ring that operated.2

Brown, following the affair with Harris, rewarded her with two lucrative appointments, earning her over $400,000 in a five year period, according to the online news source, which cited the SF Weekly. The positions were on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. Harris also received a BMW as a gift from her then-lover, The Free Beacon noted.1

Brown, 84, pointed out that he also helped the careers of other prominent California Democrats, such as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I ‘so much as jaywalked’ while she was D.A.,” Brown wrote. “That’s politics for ya.”2

Dirty Lawyer and Attorney General

There are some people that get into politics because they truly want to serve the American people, and there are others that get into politics for the fame and the power.  Tom Del Beccaro actually ran against Kamala Harris in California, and he assures us that she is squarely in the latter category

For Harris, politics is a game of ambition not something of substance.

She is not a policy person. Her convictions aren’t with respect to the issues; they are with respect to power and the limelight.

And once she gets her hands on power, she is not afraid to abuse it.

In sharp contrast to the kid-glove treatment of corporations and the rich, Kamala Harris was harsh and unrelenting toward rank-and-file people accused of crimes even when there was clearly false testimony and evidence tampering used to convict. The story is a long one, studied and recounted in depth by San Francisco School of Law Professor Lara Bazelon and published January 17, 2019 in The New York Times. Bazelon concluded that Kamala Harris was not a “progressive prosecutor,” writing that “time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or remained silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.” Harris even refused to investigate officer-involved shootings when called upon by the California State Legislature and appealed a ruling by a federal judge in Orange County that the death penalty was unconstitutional, bizarrely arguing that the ruling undermined defendant protections!

As Attorney General of California, Harris faced a lawsuit by Prime Healthcare, a national healthcare company in the purchase of a failing healthcare company, The Daughters of Charity Health System. The SEIU which donated to the Harris campaign for Attorney general sought to organize the workers at DCHS which would have been thwarted by the purchase of the company by Prime Healthcare. Harris attempted to expand the five year level of services required to purchase the company to ten years making the purchase “financially unviable”. This was the first and only time in the history of the California Attorney General office that these requirements have been forced upon any company.

Harris turned her office as Attorney General into a bastion of unconstitutional government backed to bring the full weight of her office down on her political enemies.  In a ruling by Federal District Court Judge Manual Real, Harris was stopped in her abridgment of free speech by demanding that confidential donor lists be given to her office if conservative entities like the American for Prosperity Foundation. In a blatantly political move, Harris actually identified 1,778 confidential donors posted on the Registry website.

In 2013, Harris did not prosecute Steve Mnuchin’s bank OneWest despite evidence “suggestive of widespread misconduct” according to a leaked memo from the Department of Justice. In 2017, she said that her office’s decision not to prosecute Mnuchin was based on “following the facts and the evidence…like any other case”. In 2016, Mnuchin donated $2,000 to her campaign, making her the only 2016 Senate Democratic candidate to get cash from Mnuchin.

And then there’s the Planned Parenthood scandal where in 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) began releasing footage of a 30 month undercover investigation it conducted of Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and sale of tissues and organs retrieved from aborted unborn children. Harris abused her office as Attorney General to assist Planned Parenthood, a major political backer and major donor to Kamala Harris’s Senate and other campaigns, in a witch hunt against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress. Daleiden gives some of the details:

“… Top-level Planned Parenthood executives were caught callously haggling and negotiating and talking about the way that they can supply tiny aborted baby hearts, and lungs, and livers, and brains, like it was just on an assembly line, and basically treating their patients — whom they claim to care about so much — treating pregnant women like they’re just harvesting pods, or a cash crop to pad Planned Parenthood’s profit margin and increase their bottom line.”

“For decades, Planned Parenthood has been one of the major suppliers of the dismembered body parts of aborted children for various kinds of experimentation — none of it life-saving or contributing to cures, by the way, all of it just basic biological tinkering, some of it very scary Frankenstein-type stuff where they’re stitching organs into lab rats and seeing how long they can keep them growing — things like that.”

“Planned Parenthood said to Kamala Harris, ‘We need you to seize those unreleased tapes, so that they can never be released to the public. Take them away from Daleiden, make sure he doesn’t have them.” Kamala Harris then “ordered a search warrant to be served on my apartment in Orange County for the unreleased video recordings.”

“They came in. They took everything that I had. Fortunately, we have back-up copies in lots of different places, so they were not completely successful, but that search warrant — ordered by Kamala Harris and executed by 11 of her agents in April of 2016 — brings us to where we are today with her successor, Xavier Becerra, prosecuting this completely bogus 15-felony charge complaint against me, all under the California video recording law.”

“The California video recording law, by the way, does not make it a crime to record an open conversation in a crowded public area like a restaurant or a hotel lobby, which is what we did, and what regular local journalists in California do every single day and every single week, and publish, and not a single one of them has ever had a search warrant served on them for doing undercover video in the state of California. My case is the first and the only one.”

Kamala Harris is the greatest threat to civil rights [and] our constitutional natural rights … that we’ve seen in our country in generations…”

A California court dropped 14 of 15 charges as legally insufficient. Even the Los Angeles Times stated that “Never in the history of California has anyone been charged with a crime for an undercover investigation”.

Believing that human trafficking is worsened by the internet’s anonymity, the sponsors of California’s Proposition 35 thought they had a simple solution to combating the problem: require convicted traffickers to register as sex offenders. Then require all individuals on California’s sex offender registry to disclose their online identities and service providers. The measure passed in the November 2012 election with 81 percent voter approval, but after a corrupt and rogue Ninth Circuit Court judge blocked the new law, Harris, the state’s attorney general, decided not to petition the Supreme Court to examine the ruling that block the voter-approved, common sense law.3 With her advocating for open borders and playing the race card for anyone who advocates for controlling the borders where trafficking of women and children are rampant, gives one the impression that she aiding or covering for sex traffickers. There’s more…

Pedophile Ring Cover Up

In the 1970s, Joey Piscitelli, was repeatedly raped by the principal of his Catholic High School, Father Stephen Whelan. Others were also abused at the school, but the church covered it up and protected the pedophile priest. In 2004, Piscitelli was pursuing a civil case against the church that oversaw his high school and seeking help to strengthen his case.4

Piscitelli had previously gone to the District Attorney’s office, when Terrance Hallinan was the D.A., and was receiving the assistance he requested. Hallinan’s office provided Piscitelli with access to files it had obtained in 2002 after Hallinan directed investigators to try to build a case against the archdiocese and forced the archdiocese to turn over 75 years of its own records. The files implicated high-level church officials and how they internally handled pedophile priests. The files had been successfully used to indict a priest –– Father Austin Peter Keegan.

Piscitelli intended to use the files in a similar manner, seeking to find any information that could be helpful in his civil suit against the church that oversaw his high school. At the time, a civil trial was the only avenue for restitution available to victims following a Supreme Court decision which overturned a California law that retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution of child molestation cases. Many sexual abusers, who were facing criminal charges prior to the ruling, were set free, including Keegan. However, in 2003, California passed a state law that allowed victims to file civil lawsuits against their alleged abusers if they could prove that the employers of the abusers knew of the misconduct and did nothing to stop it. Piscitelli’s civil suit was already underway when he contacted Harris, shortly after she defeated Hallinan.

Piscitelli says Harris’ office did not respond to his letters or calls, and would not allow him to access the files. In response, Piscitelli and his family and friends began mounting posters across the city to force Harris to respond. He sought help from the media, which requested access to the files under California’s Public Records Act, but Harris’ deputy, Paul Henderson, denied the request, stating that Harris’ investigative files “were not subject to California’s government transparency laws.” In 2005, when San Francisco Weekly writer, Ron Russell, attempted the request again, a Harris spokesperson told him:

“If we did it [granted access to files] for you, we would have to do it for everybody. Where do you stop, and where do you start?”

Repeated attempts by reporters to access the files were similarly denied over the years, with Harris’ spokesperson, Erica Derryck, not responding to calls or emails from reporters. Eventually, in 2010, Harris’ office released a statement:

“District Attorney Harris focuses her efforts on putting child molesters in prison. We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper. When this case was brought under Terence Hallinan, prosecutors took the utmost care to protect the identity and dignity of the victims. That was the right thing to do then and it’s the right thing to do now.”

Critics charged that the statement was “dangerous,” as not exposing predators could endanger more children. They argued that releasing such records was not only “routine,” but also cruel, in that it further burdened victims with having to resort to costly litigation if they wanted to obtain records that documented the crimes that happened against them. Critics also charged that the statement implied that the District Attorney’s office was incapable of simply redacting victims’ names from the released material. They speculated that Harris, considering her political future, gave deference to the Catholic Church, noted to be a major political influencer in San Francisco.

Author Peter Schweizer requested the same documents in 2019, through an attorney in California. “The San Francisco district attorney’s office responded they no longer had them in their possession,” he noted. “Were they destroyed? Were they moved somewhere else?” Schweizer asked. “It remains a disturbing mystery.”1

In 2006, Piscitelli won his civil case, doing so without the help of Harris’s office.

Survivors of clergy abuse and their attorneys say that Harris’ record on fighting sex abuse within the Catholic Church is relevant as the U.S. senator from California campaigns for the presidency as a tough-on-crime ex-prosecutor who got her start prosecuting child sexual abuse cases. They complain that Harris was consistently silent on the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal — first as district attorney in San Francisco and later as California’s attorney general. During her seven years as District Attorney, Harris did not bring charges, or proactively assist in civil cases, against any sexual abusers in the church. Harris claims a campaign promise to make the sexual abuse of children her top issue.

Marijuana loans

While Harris effectively jailed nearly 2,000 people for marijuana-related offenses as her time as a prosecutor and California’s attorney general — despite joking about smoking weed herself — she released a sweeping criminal justice reform plan last year, which promised to facilitate government loans for “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” in the marijuana industry.

At the time, Harris explained that she would help end the War on Drugs via the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, “which according to her website ‘legalizes marijuana at the federal level by removing the substance from the Controlled Substances Act,’” as Breitbart News reported. Additionally, it teased loans to “assist small businesses in the marijuana industry that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”1

Prosecuting Parents for Kids who play Hooky

As San Francisco’s district attorney, she spearheaded a controversial law that resulted in some parents being jailed, but only as an “unintended consequence” of the law. The law, however, specifically included a section that allowed prosecutors to fine and/or jail a parent “who has failed to supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance,” according to The law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, meant that negligent parents could face up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. In an interview with CNN, Harris claimed her truancy initiative improved school attendance and that “not one parent was sent to jail.” Twenty parents in San Francisco were prosecuted for truancy in 2008 under Harris’s direction, according to the Los Angeles Times.

None of these parents were put in jail, but a later bill she sponsored—SB 1317—did result in some parents being jailed.

“People were thrown into jail under that law,” CNN host Jake Tapper said to Harris.

“Not by me,” Harris replied.

“Not by you, but you supported that law,” Tapper continued.

“I supported the law,” she said, “and if I could do it over again, I would have made sure that it would not have increased penalties or the ability anywhere in the state to prosecute parents, because that was never the intention. And it was never anything that I did.”

This isn’t the first time Harris has lied about her truancy program. Last month, The Washington Post assigned Harris “Two Pinocchios” for failing to include context when talking about her role in regards to the truancy law.

“When she is asked about her anti-truancy initiative these days, Harris carefully frames her answers in terms of what happened in San Francisco when she was district attorney,” The Post wrote in its “Fact Checker” blog.

“No parents were jailed there, so her responses cannot be faulted for being inaccurate,” it said. “But they can be faulted for lacking context. Harris went on to become the attorney general of California. She championed a law that other district attorneys outside San Francisco used to jail at least a handful of parents.” (source)

The real reasons for truancy – poverty, drug use, survival issues for parents, lack of community support – were ignored in this law which disproportionately affected low-income people of color.

Fails to Prosecute Mnuchin on Financial Crimes

She let Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin off the hook following the financial crisis. As David Dayen wrote in his hugely important piece published in 2016.

Onewest Bank, which Donald Trump’s nominee for treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, ran from 2009 to 2015, repeatedly broke California’s foreclosure laws during that period, according to a previously undisclosed 2013 memo from top prosecutors in the state attorney general’s office.

The memo obtained by The Intercept alleges that OneWest rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions.

In the memo, the leaders of the state attorney general’s Consumer Law Section said they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” in a yearlong investigation. In a detailed 22-page request, they identified over a thousand legal violations in the small subsection of OneWest loans they were able to examine, and they recommended that Attorney General Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the Pasadena-based bank. They even wrote up a sample legal complaint, seeking injunctive relief and millions of dollars in penalties.

But Harris’s office, without any explanation, declined to prosecute the case.

That’s not all. Harris was also coincidentally the only Democrat Steven Mnuchin donated to in 2016. As The Sacramento Bee reported:

Donald Trump, promising to drain the swamp, picked former Goldman Sachs executive and Hollywood financier Steven Mnuchin to be his Treasury secretary, fitting because Mnuchin helped fatten Trump’s campaign treasury as his campaign finance chairman. Mnuchin donated $592,600 to Republicans in 2016, including $430,000 to Trump, Federal Election Commission records show. A onetime Hillary Clinton donor, Mnuchin gave one donation this year to a Democrat, $2,000 to help elect Attorney General Kamala Harris to the U.S. Senate.

Thanks for keeping me out of prison Kamala!
– xoxo, Steven Mnuchin.

In August 2019 antiwar renegade Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard BLASTED Senator Kamala Harris on her controversial record as California Attorney General.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Harris, as California attorney general, “used her office’s prosecutorial powers for political purposes. She led assaults against conservative non-profits, energy companies, and parents, but not violent gang members or criminal illegal aliens. Now, she wants to turn America into San Francisco.”

Failure to Prosecute MS-13 Gang Members, Illegal Aliens

Here is one instance, as reported by Breitbart, of how Kamala Harris’ choice to not prosecute illegal aliens turned out:

On June 22, 2008, 48-year-old Tony Bologna and his three sons — 20-year-old Michael, 18-year-old Andrew, and 16-year-old Matthew — were driving home from a family barbeque in San Francisco, California, when illegal alien MS-13 gang member Edwin Ramos, driving alongside them, randomly opened fire. Ramos killed Anthony, Michael, and Matthew in the shooting. Prosecutors said Ramos shot the Bolognas because he misidentified them as rival gang members who were involved in a gang murder that day.

Ramos, three months before the Bologna murders, had a run-in with San Francisco police officers. According to the San Francisco Gate, police had warned Harris’ office that Ramos was a known MS-13 Gang member with multiple run-ins with the law.

Despite his record, Harris’ office did not prosecute Ramos, the San Francisco Gate reported in 2008:

In March, three months before the killings, Ramos was arrested in San Francisco after police pulled him over because his car had illegally tinted windows and no front license plate. An alleged gang member in the car tried to discard a gun, but police recovered it and later concluded that it had been used in a double killing, authorities said. [Emphasis added]

The police report of the incident cited “numerous documented contacts” that officers had with Ramos and the man who allegedly discarded the gun, and said both were active members of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang. [Emphasis added]

San Francisco prosecutors, however, declined to file charges against Ramos, saying they couldn’t prove that he knew his companion had the gun. [Emphasis added]

An account of Ramos’ arrest in March 2008 was published in the Los Angeles Times in July 2008. The report notes that after Harris’ office failed to press any charges against Ramos, he was released a couple of days later:

Ramos was also arrested March 30 on a weapons violation, along with an alleged gang member riding in his car. After he spent several days in jail, authorities decided to file charges against the other man but not him, and Ramos was released, said Eileen Hirst, a sheriff’s spokeswoman. [Emphasis added]

Deportation proceedings against Ramos could have been initiated but were not because of an apparent mix-up between the federal Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Agency and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, which runs the jail. [Emphasis added] […]

But ICE spokesman Tim Counts said the jail contacted federal immigration officials only once — at 3:44 a.m. April 2, two hours after Ramos had been released. [Emphasis added]

After the Bologna murders, Angel Mom Danielle Bologna pleaded with Harris to seek the death penalty against Ramos. Harris refused and instead sought a life sentence without parole. Ramos was convicted in 2012 for the Bologna murders and appealed his conviction. A California appellate court upheld his conviction in 2014. Harris supports a national sanctuary policy that would shield arrested illegal aliens from being turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency for deportation proceedings.

Kavanaugh Hearings

Harris was among one of the most vocal senators during the Democrats’ effort to take down now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as Breitbart News extensively detailed. Despite the gross discrepancies in Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and Kavanaugh’s vehement denial, Harris concluded, based on her unsubstantiated attacks, that he “lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people” and called for his impeachment. Stunningly, Harris tried to used her crusade against Kavanaugh as a personal highlight during her presidential campaign, bragging that she has “taken on Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, [and] Brett Kavanaugh“.1 She berated Kavanaugh and treated him as guilty of rape until he could prove himself innocent, all because the left feared they might lose their right to kill babies.

She did not mention that she lost all three battles, as all were ultimately confirmed. President Donald Trump reminded the public on Tuesday that Harris was “extraordinarily nasty to Kavanaugh. She was nasty to a level that was just a horrible thing the way she was, the way she treated now-Justice Kavanaugh, and I won’t forget that soon.”


The California senator vehemently supported what has since been dubbed as the Democrats’ impeachment witch hunt against President Trump. Throughout the process, Harris repeatedly referred to Trump as a “criminal” and “unpatriotic,” and said he “President Trump needs to be impeached.” Breitbart shows several tweets in point #4 HERE.


In January 2018, Harris and Mazie Hirono attacked Judge Brian Buescher for his membership into the Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus is an esteemed Catholic men’s group founded in 1882 and dedicated to charitable work. Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association, said Harris “has built a career out of opposing the work and values of Catholics, harshly prosecuting a whistleblower for exposing Planned Parenthood’s criminal sale of aborted baby body parts and supporting efforts to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their beliefs and provide employees with abortion pills, for example.”

Ties to Jussie Smollet’s “Attempted Modern Day Lynching” Hoax

In September 2019 TGP reported on ties between Jussie Smollett and US Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, noting these connections:

Jussie Smollett held a number of conversations with Cory Booker and Kamala Harris about supporting their sponsored Justice for Victims of Lynching Act and providing the needed public momentum for the bill to pass the Senate and House.

The timeline of these conversations (December 21-January 18, 2019) suggests that the death threat letter he sent himself (January 22-23) and his staged attack (January 29), were timed to create an opinion groundswell to support the bill and prop the political and professional career of the three masterminds.

It is noteworthy that both, Harris and Booker released separate statements condemning Smollet’s attack using the following identical language “an attempted modern-day lynching” –

At the time Booker released his statement at 12:09 PM and Harris hers at 1:30 PM they could not have possibly known what the motive for the attack was because the police were only a few hours into the investigation.

TGP also pointed out that, “All material evidence suggest that parts of the event were influenced by Booker and Harris”, as well as Smollett’s friendship with the Obama’s.

Presidential Run

On January 21, 2019, Harris officially announced her candidacy for President of the United States in the 2020 United States presidential election. Marc Elias, who heads Perkins Coie’s political law group, became general counsel for Harris’ presidential bid. Elias, who held the same position in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is named in two pending Federal Election Commission complaints and in a recent federal lawsuit alleging that the Clinton campaign broke campaign finance laws when it used Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS, the company that used Christopher Steele to make up the phony dossier that began the Russian collusion coup. Birds of a feather flock together!

Harris received an endorsement from Maxine Waters, the chief proponent in the impeachment push of President Trump. Maxine Waters runs a “pay for Play” where money is funneled to Waters in order to get her endorsement on her mailers, which she pays her daughter to accomplish for $650,000. Kamala Harris had paid tens of thousands of dollars to be listed on the Waters fliers of endorsements. Latest counts have shown the somewhere around $65,000 has been paid by Harris to the Waters campaign funds according to the Federal Election Commission.

Kamala Harris’s earlier campaigns and cross-endorsements (candidates agree to endorse each other) allowed her to build up the key staff needed for a presidential campaign. Here members of her family became central, together with a reliance on an informal alliance with Hillary Clinton. Clinton and Harris endorsed each other in 2016, Harris was an enthusiastic supporter of Clinton and has recruited a number of Hillary Clinton’s staff for her own campaign. These two themes come together in the person of Harris’s sister and presidential campaign chair Maya Harris. Maya Harris, formally an official with the Ford Foundation, is currently a commentator for the MSNBC, one of the three key cable news outlets (with Fox and CNN) covering the presidential campaign. Positive news coverage for media favored candidates is a key feature of presidential campaigns in the U.S., and having a connection to possibly receive this kind of advantage is central to a successful campaign. Maya Harris also has other important ties to key political networks. In 2015 Hillary Clinton appointed her to lead a small team of policy advisers to develop the agenda for Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Then she became a senior policy adviser for Clinton in 2016. Maya Harris also brings to the table membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, “Wall Street’s Think Tank” with the numerous connections and favorable treatment that membership in this 5000-plus member capitalist class think tank brings. The Council (CFR) is the world’s most powerful private organization, the ultimate networking, socializing, strategic planning, and consensus-forming institution of the dominant U.S. plutocratic billionaire class, the think tank of monopoly-finance capital. Its connections extend deeply into key American corporations, leading media, top universities, powerful non-profits, foundations, other think tanks and international organizations, as well as meetings groups like the Bilderberg group, Trilateral Commission, and Davos (see Laurence H. Shoup, Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics 1976-2019, Monthly Review Press).

Just to cite one concrete example of corporate and CFR connections, Maya’s employer, MSNBC, was founded in 1996 as a partnership of General Electric’s NBC unit and Microsoft. Microsoft has since divested its interest, leaving GE/NBC in charge. GE has many CFR connections and Council members in leading roles in MSNBC include Brian Williams, Mica Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, and Andrea Mitchell (who is also Council member Alan Greenspan’s wife). The CFR’s broad network also includes key print media, resulting in favorable coverage for some candidates. For example, the Financial Times (FT), a “world business newspaper” has a special relationship with the Council, the FT often has CFR leaders, staff, and active members writing opinion pieces for it, and the Council often invites key FT staff to speak at one of their two headquarters. The FT had a long favorable article on Kamala in their weekend edition June 22-23, 2019 ending by quoting a political strategist who concluded that Kamala “obviously has great political talent” (Financial Times June 22/23, 2019 Life and Arts: 18-19). Another FT opinion writer stated that if you are looking for someone “…who could beat Donald Trump next year, the answer without a shadow of a doubt is Californian Senator Kamala Harris” (Financial Times June 29/30, 2019:9). Having a CFR member as her sister and campaign chair means that a Kamala Harris administration would very likely bring many Council on Foreign Relations members into government and into leading roles in the policy formation process. Having the FT on your side means that wealthy campaign donors and other media outlets will take you seriously.

Kamala’s family’s corporate ruling class connections do not end with her sister, because Maya’s husband is Tony West, a leading corporate lawyer whose father was an IBM executive. West is politically close to Kamala, he co-chaired her 2016 Senate campaign, and recently stated that he is with her 100% (San Francisco Chronicle July 14, 2019). West was chief counsel for Pepsi Cola, a giant multinational corporation prior to taking his current job. He is now the highly paid chief counsel for Uber. Uber’s business model relies on maintaining that their working class drivers are not employees and so not subject to regulations on wages and benefits. This means that West is a central figure defending the interests of the company’s owners against the claims of their exploited drivers. Many Uber drivers want the status of employees so they can gain minimum wages, paid holidays, healthcare and other benefits. Australia’s workplace regulator ruled that Uber drivers are not employees, but a U.K. court ruled they are. Uber’s legal team, led by Tony West as chief counsel, has now appealed this ruling to the U.K. Supreme Court.

Kamala Harris’s other staff members represent a combination of people connected to the Bay Area Democratic Party political machine, former Barack Obama operatives, and former Hillary Clinton staff members. The connection with Clinton appears especially close. Besides Maya Harris at least four other top staff members for Kamala played similar roles in Clinton’s 2016 campaign. General counsel Mark Elias was general counsel for Clinton in 2016; communications director Lily Adams was Iowa communications director for Clinton in 2016; media consultant Jim Margolis served in the same role for Clinton in 2016; and advance director Joyce Kazadi served in an identical role for Hillary in 2016.

The Kamala Harris connection to Hillary Clinton extends to at least on one Hillary’s election clients. A firm named Legion AVS worked for Hillary for America. Harris hired this firm to organize her kickoff rally in Oakland. Legion AVS was reportedly paid $485,000 to organize this one, evidently lavish event. The Oakland Police Department was also paid $187,000, and there were other expenses. So this one event cost the Harris campaign in excess of $672,000, quite a sum for an event of this kind.

Harris, who once bragged about her status as a “top tier candidate,” resorted to desperate measures after her steady collapse in the polls. She embraced a number of unconventional and cringey methods in efforts to garner support.

In July 2020, the Wikipedia page for Kamala Harris was edited to censor and delete anything that could potentially be used against her.

Breitbart reports:

Wikipedia Editors Sanitize the Page of Potential Biden VP Kamala Harris

An article in the Intercept last week reported that a Wikipedia editor was scrubbing the page of former Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), considered a prominent member of the shortlist to be Joe Biden’s Vice Presidental pick. The piece mentioned changes such as removing a past campaign finance scandal and Harris’ record as a hard-line prosecutor.

Changes not mentioned include removals of the alleged role nepotism played in her early political career and significant favorable additions about Harris.

Other Wikipedia editors have begun working to undo the changes made to the Harris page, although many details remain missing. On Twitter, the Wikipedia editor responsible for most removals was identified as Bao Nguyen, a former volunteer organizer for the Harris campaign.

Similarly, editors previously created pages for fellow Presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang without disclosing their connections to them.

The Intercept article by Aida Chavez notes that in 2016, editors had been heavily involved in contributing to the article on Tim Kaine prior to him being announced as Hillary Clinton’s Vice

In addition to Wikipedia’s censorship, Tammy Bruce wrote at the Washington Times:

Democratic Party sets rules for criticizing Biden’s VP pick Kamala Harris

Media organizations have just been warned by the Democratic Party machine that they better be very, very careful with how they cover Joe Biden’s vice presidential choice — just revealed to be Kamala Harris.

Any criticism of the expected woman will be considered racist and sexist, we are told. Oh, they wrap up that threat in a word salad, but that’s the bottom line: There should be second and even third thoughts about any criticism of Mr. Biden’s VP pick.

An actual memo went out from an ad hoc group of Democratic operatives (pretending to be advocates for women) to media organizations with orders on how to proceed with their coverage. The fact that they expected this partisan missive to be accepted and adhered to by media entities tells you all you need to know about the problem with today’s legacy media…

Hiding Mr. Biden in a basement has been absurdly accepted by the media. Unable to toss Ms. Harris into a literal basement, they’re now trying to construct a virtual bunker for her.

John Daniel Davidson responded at The Federalist, pointing out the liberal leftist medias treatment of VP pick Sarah Palin.

Hollywood stars also joined forces with the Time’s Up movement for the “We Have Kamala Harris’s Back” campaign — an attempt to pressure media outlets into protecting the vice presidential candidate from “sexist and racist” political attacks. Washed up stars including Alyssa Milano, Reese Witherspoon, Julianne Moore, Kerry Washington, Debra Messing, Amy Schumer, Rosanna Arquette, and Sarah Paulson are using the hashtag #WeHaveHerBack to spread the message.

Continued on next page…