Archive for Time Magazine

Time Magazine cover out of the pages of Margaret Sanger’s eugenics ideology

Posted in Margaret Sanger Children, Margaret Sanger Interviews with tags , , , , , , , on August 5, 2013 by saynsumthn

Time Magazine’s August 2013 cover reads: “The Child Free Life

Sub title ” Having it all w/o having children”

From the article, “Even so, women who choose not to become mothers are finding new paths of acceptance. As their ranks rise, so do positive attitudes about leading a life in which having it all doesn’t mean having a baby.”

Time Mag Sanger

This mirrors what racist founder of Planned Parenthood , Margaret Sanger said often. Sanger was a member of the racist American Eugenics Society.


In this vintage interview- Margaret Sanger advocates that European Women should stop having babies for the next ten years

(If the vid below doesn’t play in full- view it here)

Vodpod videos no longer available.

ONE MINUTE NEWS – British Pathe, posted with vodpod


Below is the edited version of what was placed on YouTube

There is this disclaimer in the YOUTUBE description- but why not play it…unless they do not want you know know what a BIGOT PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FOUNDER MARGARET Sanger was: , “Although this clip is cut short, Mrs. Slee’s proposition was actually that there were no more babies in developing countries for the next ten years.” JUST WHO ARE THOSE SUPPOSED “STARVING COUNTRIES”?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Planned Parenthood Founder: Margaret Sanger (Sl…, posted with vodpod

Mrs. Margaret (Sanger) Slee, President of America’s Planned Parenthood Federation, maintains that European Women should stop having babies for the next ten years:

John Parsons – Don’t you think such a theory, such a radical theory is anti-social?

Margaret Sanger: On the contrary, it seems to me that it is more practical and Humane.

John Parsons What about the women who want babies now and in 10 years won’t be able to have babies? Impractical don’t you think?

Margaret Sanger: O John you do ask hard questions, I should think that instead of being impractical, it is really very practical and intelligent and humane.

John Parsons But Mrs. Slee in this country having babies is the only thing left which is both unrationed and untaxed, do you think we really ought to stop?

Margaret Sanger: Well I suppose a subject like that is really so personal that it is entirely up to the parents to decide, but from my view I believe there should be no more babies ( Film cuts off here – why???)

And this part was left off????
in starving countries for the next ten years….


This photograph shows a theatre marquee during the late 1920’s. The show is “No More Children with Dr. Lee Krauss”. Krauss and daughter Elaine explained the subject of birth control to the audience. The photograph forms part of the collection of Margaret Sanger’s papers.The film was also the subject of an article in the Margaret Sangers Papers Project newsletter. The article refers to some correspondence between Sanger and Dr. L. Lee Krauss, who was involved with the film. That correspondence is at the Library of Congress. Margaret Sanger had very little to do with the film except that she was invited to speak to audiences before showings.


1957 Margaret Sanger interview with Mike Wallice:


In 1932, Margaret Sanger called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.”


Eugenics and BC

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger was a Member of the RACIST Eugenics Society – learn more in the documentary film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America (clip below)

Time uses graphic image of Afghan woman whose nose and ear has been cut off- for cover

Posted in Abortion, Graphic Images, Islam with tags , , , , , , on August 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Time uses graphic image of Afghan woman whose n…, posted with vodpod

The Plight of Afghan Women: A Disturbing Picture

TIME Magazine Defends Use of Graphic Images

Columbus, OH – August 2, 2010 – The August 9, 2010 issue of TIME Magazine defends the use of graphic images in showing the brutality of the Taliban in their treatment of women.

Interestingly, TIME makes a case for children seeing these images as well.

This is part of the magazine’s rationale:

“I’m acutely aware that this image will be seen by children, who will undoubtedly find it distressing. We have consulted with a number of child psychologists about its potential impact. Some think children are so used to seeing violence in the media that the image will have little effect, but others believe that children will find it very scary and distressing – that they will see it, as Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston, said, as “a symbol of bad things that can happen to people.” I showed it to my 2 young sons, 9 and 12, who both immediately felt sorry for Aisha and asked why anyone would have done such harm to her. I apologize to readers who find the image too strong, and I invite you to comment on the image’s impact.”
–Richard Stengel, Managing Editor, TIME Magazine

Could this same case be made for using graphic images to show the abuse of unborn children from abortion?

The pro-life group – Center for Bio-ethical Reform (CBR) argues “Yes” :

TIME, interestingly enough, makes the same case CBR has made for years. Photos of abortion need to be seen to understand the brutality of abortion.
Question: Why does TIME or any other mainstream magazine have a double standard when it comes to showing abortion in their publications?
Answer: Americans are not complicit in, or complacent towards the mangling of women, but they are responsible for millions of abortion deaths. Few Americans will defend the type of injustice visited on Afghan women by the Taliban, but millions of Americans are killing their children and TIME doesn’t want to offend that portion of their readership who support abortion.
Sadly, it is a simple as that.