POPULATION CONTROL MARXISTS PEDDLE OLD POISON IN NEW BOTTLEGrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary By Don Feder 02-12-09
What do Arie Hoekman, John Porritt, Barry Walters, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Karl Marx the United Nations Population Fund, Britainâ€™s Optimum Population Trust and The New York Times have in common â€“ besides the fact that all are/were delusional?
They are points of darkness which, when connected, present a grim picture of the leftâ€™s anti-family, anti-human agenda.
Arie Hoekman is a representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) â€“ Killing Kids R Us. Heâ€™s also from the Netherlands â€“ the embodiment of social leftism, land of legalized everything awful.
Speaking at a forum in Mexico City last month, Hoekman (whoâ€™s considered a UNFPA expert on social and economic issues) said that far from being an epidemic, high-rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births were blessings in disguise.
â€œIn the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean the family is in crisis,â€ Hoekman observed. â€œIn crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of human rights.â€
Hoekman is peddling an old value whose failure is written in blood across the pages of the 20th century â€“ Marxism.
While ruling his own family like the commandant of a concentration camp, Marx pronounced the family a repressive institution that enslaves women, serves as a repository of bourgeois values and retards the revolution â€“ which is why cultural Marxists loath and constantly seek to undermine the â€œpatriarchalâ€ family, through public school indoctrination, the sexual emancipation of children and the deconstruction of marriage.
Marxists are willing to take the crime, violence, addiction, poverty and degeneracy which come with family dissolution, or the failure to form families. For them no sacrifice (on the part of others) is too great if it leads to the demise of the natural family.
Americaâ€™s own Arie Hoekman is more discreet or disingenuous. On January 26, Nancy Pelosi had a revealing exchange with ABCâ€™s George Stephanopoulos over the Democratsâ€™ decision to insert a multi-million dollar IUD in the Porky Pig-ulus package.
Stephanopoulos: â€œHundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?â€
Pelosi: â€œWell the family planning services (contraception and abortion) reduce costâ€¦ The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisisâ€¦ (and) the contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.â€ (The appropriations were taken out of a bill that cleared the Senate this week.)
In other words, children are a fiscal burden and drain on the economy. In â€œA Christmas Carol,â€ Scrooge put it another way â€“ starvation decreases the surplus population, so the poor had better get on with it.
The Party of Death (Democrats should change their symbol from a donkey to a vulture) is in the vanguard of the population control movement.
Of course, the person not conceived or born today canâ€™t pay taxes tomorrow.
For the Social Security System, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries has gone from 4-to-1 in 1960, to 3-to-1 today. By 2030, the ratio will be close to 2-to-1. The fastest growing age group in America is those over 85.
How do you care for a growing number of septa- and octogenarians with a shrinking number of workers in their twenties and thirties? The left has an answer to this too â€“ euthanasia and rationing medical services for the elderly.
Buried in Obama's stimulus package is a provision that sets up a "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" to be sure doctors aren't wasting medical resources on certain patients. Guess which ones? Say goodbye to Grandma.
Peering beyond the Planned Parenthood pamphlet affixed to the end of her nose, Pelosi can barely see to the next election, let alone discern the coming demographic train-wreck, with declining birth-rates and longer life-spans on a collision course.
About the time Hoekman was celebrating the demise of the â€œpatriarchal familyâ€ and Pelosi was explaining how preventing conceptions stimulates the economy, John Porritt â€“ who chairs the British governmentâ€™s Sustainable Development Commission â€“ was making the same case from the Global-Warming, carbon-footprint, polar-bears-floating-away-on-pieces-of-what-were-once-the-polar-icecap perspective.
â€œHaving more than two children (per family) is irresponsible,â€ Porritt told a British newspaper. â€œI am unapologetic about asking people to connect their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.â€
Global Warming driving population control is using an absurdity to justify an obscenity.
Chief environmental advisor to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Porritt is expected to deliver a report next month calling for aggressive government spending to promote more abortions and birth control, as well as campaigns urging British families to be socially responsible and have fewer children.
Porrittâ€™s commitment to national suicide (the British birth rate is 1.89, well below replacement level) only makes sense to carbon-footprint fetishists, like Britainâ€™s Optimum Population Trust, which squawks that a child born in the British Isles today will produce 100 times more â€œgreenhouse gasesâ€ in his lifetime than an Ethiopian newborn â€“ unless he's a member of a Labor government, in which case his production of gas is virtually limitless.
Congregants of the Church of The Holey Ozone Layer and advisors to socialist governments think of children only in terms of consumption and pollution â€“ never as future producers and innovators.
That segment of the British population most immune to Porrittâ€™s advice is the one which worships in the U.K.â€™s growing number of mosques. Even without aggressive government promotion of abortion, contraception and small families amongst Anglo-Saxons, the most popular name for newborns in Britain is â€œMohammed.â€ The day is fast approaching when the average Englishman is called on the carpet thrice-daily to wail toward Mecca.
But massive government spending on abortion and contraception is merely a way station on the road to the leftâ€™s final destination â€“ totalitarian population control. Barry Walters, a clinical professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia, has proposed what he calls a â€œbaby levy.â€
A family with two children would be assessed $5,000 for each additional child, as well as an annual tax of $800 for each child above the prescribed limit. Australiaâ€™s birthrate is 1.75, less than half its 1960 level, and even further below replacement (2.1) than the United Kingdom â€“ though higher than the average in the European Union (1.5).
The New York Times makes its own inimitable contribution to the demise of the natural family by singing hosannas to single-motherhood.
In a lengthy death-style piece in its Sunday magazine on February 1 (â€œ2 kids + 0 Husbands = Familyâ€) The Times was ecstatic in disclosing that while unmarried mothers produced 5% of Americaâ€™s children in 1960, today the figure hovers around 40%. As Hoekman would say, here is another triumph for human rights over the patriarchal oppression of two-parent families.
Author Emily Bazelon admits that most single mothers are still in their 20s, often with no more than a high-school education. But she also claims that a lot are â€œcollege-educated and in their 30s, 40s and 50s.â€
Well, hip-hip hooray for the I-want-what-I-want-when-I-want-it and screw my kids mentality.
In her book â€œGuilty: Liberal â€˜Victimsâ€™ And Their Assault On America,â€ Ann Coulter notes that children from female-headed households represent â€œ63% of youth suicides, 70% of teenaged pregnancies, 71% of adolescent substance abuse , 80% of prison inmates and 90% of homeless and runaway children.â€
The Times can't comprehend that children need more than a casual sperm-donor or a parade of mommyâ€™s live-in boyfriends called â€œUncle Hal.â€ You can almost hear the left saying: â€œFathers? We donâ€™t need no stinkinâ€™ fathers!â€
The White House is now GHQ in the war on the family.
Speaking at last weekâ€™s National Prayer Breakfast, the messiah-in-chief intoned: â€œSome of our beliefs will never be the sameâ€¦ but no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember thatâ€¦there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.â€
If only he meant it.
But for Barack Obama, words are stage props used for effect, like ply-wood Grecian columns. Like Clinton, who claimed the meaning of â€œisâ€ is ambiguous, Obama uses words to mesmerize the credulous.
Reality lies elsewhere. In one of his first official acts as president, Obama reversed Reaganâ€™s Mexico City policy, thus allowing hundreds of millions in U.S. funds to once again flow to agencies that promote abortion and abortion-related services around the world. UNFPA, Hoekmanâ€™s gang, is the conduit.
â€œBy resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance in 154 countries,â€ Obama observed in signing death warrants for millions of unborn children in the Third World, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
He forgot to mention that the U.N. Population Fund also whitens teeth and builds strong bodies seven ways.
Does Obama actually believe that abortion reduces poverty, improves the health of children (except for those aborted) and prevents HIV/AIDS?
Then again, Mr. Yes We Can doesnâ€™t know what abortion involves, because he doesnâ€™t know when life begins. Thatâ€™s â€œabove his pay grade,â€ as he explained in last yearâ€™s debate at Rick Warrenâ€™s Saddleback Church.
He doesnâ€™t even know when an infant becomes an infant.
As a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted three times against a born-alive bill, which required doctors to care for babies who survive late-term abortions. Comparable legislation at the federal level passed the House of Representatives in 2003 with only 15 dissenting votes and the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
The president of the United States also doesnâ€™t know when coercion becomes coercion.
Among other horrors, UNFPA funding supports Chinaâ€™s one-child-per-family policy â€“ which includes dragging women to clinics for forced abortions or sterilization. Think of it as the Chinese Politburoâ€™s contribution to combating Global Warming.
The Beijing way is so much more efficient than trying to scare women into not having children, because human life is bad for the environment, or taxing families with more than two children to reduce carbon foot-prints on the kitchen floor.
As Secretary of State, pro-choice Colin Powell announced: â€œI determined that UNFPAâ€™s support of, and involvement in, Chinaâ€™s population-planning activities allowed the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.â€
Marxists of the 20th century killed with guns and gulags. In the 21st century, Marxists kill with abortion, population control and other attacks on the family.
Old poison in a new bottle.
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.