- Spoiler: show
Obama and the Resurrection of the UNFPA
...and discussion of the UN steering committee eugenic policies I referred to in my post from the other thread...In a 2007 questionnaire prepared by RH Reality Check, a pro-abortion organization, the Obama Campaign stated: “Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA” (Lynch, "Sen. Barack Obama's RH Issues Questionnaire"). Representative Carolyn Maloney would later express her confidence in the Obama promise to fund the UNFPA during a press conference at the National Press Club (Starr, "Congresswoman Confident Obama Will Fund UNFPA, Which Supports China's Coercive Abortion Program"). The conference, which highlighted the release of the 2008 UN report on the state of the world’s population, gave Maloney an opportunity to take the podium and declare that the Obama Administration would reinstate funding for the UNFPA (ibid).
...yet in the face of imploding population growth, the "pro-abortion" forces intimidate Obama into re-funding the UN's eugenic programs...The Eugenical Heritage of the UN
It should come as little surprise that the UN actively supports and finances eugenical practices. The organization’s eugenical heritage is made evident by the ideological pedigree of those who worked to form it. A majority of the framers of the UN Charter were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Lawrence Shoup and William Minter document the role of the CFR in the UN’s inception:
The planning of the United Nations can be traced to the secret steering committee established by Secretary Hull January 1943. This informal Agenda Group, as it was later called, was composed of Hull, Davis, Taylor, Bowman, Pasvolsky, and until he left the government in August 1943, Welles. All of them, with the exception of Hull, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the Department’s Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all the State Department postwar planning…
In late 1943, the Agenda Group began to draft the U.S. proposal for a United Nations organization to maintain international peace and security. The position eventually taken at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference was prepared during the seven-month period from December 1943 to July 1944. Once the group had produced a draft for the United Nations and Hull had approved it, the Secretary requested three distinguished lawyers to rule on its constitutionality. Myron C. Taylor, now on the Council’s board of directors, was Hull’s intermediary to Charles Evans Hughes, retired chief justice of the Supreme Court, John W. Davis, Democratic presidential candidate in 1924, and Nathan L. Miller, former Republican governor of New York. Hughes and Davis were both Council members and John W. Davis had served as president of the Council from 1921 to 1933 and a director since 1921. The three approved the plan, and on 15 June 1944. Hull, Stettinius, Davis, Bowman, and Pasvolsky discussed the draft with President Roosevelt. The chief executive gave his consent and issued a statement to the American people that afternoon.
Although the Charter of the United Nations underwent some modification in negotiations with other nations at the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco conferences during 1944 and 1945, one historian concluded that “the substance of the provisions finally written into the Charter in many cases reflected conclusions reached at much earlier stages by the United States government.” The Department of State was clearly in charge of these propositions within the U.S. government, and the role of the Council on Foreign Relations within the Department of State was, in turn, very great indeed. The Council’s power was unrivaled. (149-50)
The CFR’s involvement in the formation of the UN ensured the international entity’s usefulness as a conduit for elitist interests. The CFR was merely a stateside branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) (Quigley 132-33). In turn, the RIIA was founded by the Round Table Groups (132-33). These Round Table Groups owed their existence to a directive presented in the last will and testament of genocidal British imperialist Cecil Rhodes. This directive mandated the formation of a secret network committed to the imperialist objectives of the British Empire. Rhodes’ Weltanschauung was inspired by a speech delivered by John Ruskin at Oxford in 1870. Carroll Quigley synopsizes Ruskin’s message:
Ruskin spoke to the Oxford undergraduates as members of the privileged ruling class. He told them that they were possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline, but that this tradition could not be saved, and did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world. If this precious tradition were not extended to these two great majorities, the minority of upper class Englishmen would ultimately be submerged by these majorities and the tradition lost. To prevent this, the tradition must be extended to the masses and to the empire. (130)
Two characteristically oligarchic themes can be identified within Ruskin’s speech. First, Ruskin’s contention that the British ruling class possessed a “magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline” echoes the eugenical contention that there is a superior stock of man culturally and genetically preordained to dominate the mass of brutes. Second, Ruskin’s contention that the lower class and non-English majorities could demographically overwhelm the upper class minority reiterates the oligarchic preoccupation with fertility differential. Historically, the ruling elite have consistently struggled with demographic disparities. Simply stated, they have always been outnumbered. Needless to say, greater numbers of people are more difficult to control.
It is with fertility differential that one identifies the true rationale underpinning population control. E. Michael summarizes this rationale:
The ideology of population control is, simply a combination of fact #1: people produce economic wealth and military power, and fact #2: the affluent have smaller families. The English upper classes converted to Darwinism at the same time that they stopped having large families. As a result, they began to be concerned about something they referred to as “differential fertility,” which meant that while the “best people” (i.e., people of class) limited the size of their families, the rest of the world, especially the pullulating races of the Southern Hemisphere, did not. As good Darwinians they realized that the population with the higher fertility rate would eventually replace the population with lower fertility rate. Out of that fearful realization the idea of population control was born. (536)
...and a public statement as to the UNFPA current programs dealing with the "underclass", poverty-stricken populations, ensuring their access to birth control and abortion...Perceptive observers of the political and social landscape experienced just such a feeling when they learned of Obama’s intentions to revitalize the UNFPA. The cases of China and Albania painfully illustrate that such a move is tantamount to funding forced abortions, stealth sterilizations, and anti-natal campaigns. Obama could not select a worst time in human history to restore eugenical practices. Underneath the multitude of neo-Malthusian voices warning of the dire consequences attached to unchecked population growth, there is the hissing sound of demographic deflation.
One of the first indications that the people bomb was fizzling out came in a 2001 article in Nature Magazine entitled “The end of population growth.” In the article, the authors concluded that there is “around an 85% chance that the world’s population will stop growing before the end of the century” (Lutz, Sanderson, and Scherbov). Furthermore, the authors predicted that the coming population decline “will pose major social and economic challenges” (ibid).
By 2004, the negative impact of the population implosion upon global economic, political, and social stability could no longer be ignored by national governments. David Frances describes the situation:
For decades, much has been written about the world’s exploding population. But 60 countries, about a third of all nations, have fertility rates today below 2.1 children per woman, the number necessary to maintain a stable population. Half of those nations have levels of 1.5 of less. In Armenia, Italy, South Korea, and Japan, average fertility levels are now close to one child per woman.
Barring unforeseen change, at least 43 of these nations will have smaller populations in 2050 than they do today. (“Now, dangers of a population implosion”)
Anxious governments, once eagerly involved in depopulation campaigns, were now desperately switching course and implementing measures that encouraged procreation. Francis listed some of those measures:
Starting this year, France’s government has been awarding mothers of each new baby 800 euros, almost $1,000. In Italy, the government is giving mothers of a second child 1,000 euros.
South Korea has expanded tax breaks for families with young children and is increasing support for day-care centers for working women. Last year parliament members in Singapore called on the government to do more to keep Cupid and the stork busy.
Japanese prefectures have been organizing hiking trips and cruises for single people – dating programs to halt the bust. (ibid)
All of these pro-natal measures were meant to prevent the baby dearth from having a serious affect on nations’ economic vitality, pension programs, and healthcare (ibid). Unfortunately, years of depopulation campaigns and eugenical regimentation carried out under the guise of “reproductive rights” have made some of the consequences unavoidable.
In the United States, the effects are already being felt with the “graying” of society. During an interview with one of the authors of this article, Judith Baker, an executive director with the Association of Lutheran Older Adults, stated that, for the first time in history, older adults outnumber teenagers (ibid). By 2011, there will be around 11,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day (ibid). Will these people be able to retire? Looting has left Social Security and pension programs insolvent, so it is highly unlikely that boomers will be leaving the work force any time soon. A decent amount of replacement births could have generated a labor force that could replenish the Social Security fund and pension programs. But, abortion and other eugenical practices have contributed to dismal replacement levels, so retirement may disappear entirely.
Working later in life will prove to be a challenge for many. According to Baker, 20% of people have to deal with an Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) limitation by age 75 (Baker). By age 85, one out of 3 men and 1 out of 2 women have one or more IADL limitations (ibid). For the older workers, these IADL limitations will instantly preclude several jobs that call for a lot of physical activity. This sad trend shows no sign of abating. In the next 20 years, there will be a 74 % increase in people over 50 and only a 1% increase in people under 50 (ibid).
When Obama financially reinvigorates the UNFPA, the floodgates of demographic catastrophe will be opened wide. With the UNFPA once again leading the power elite’s depopulation campaign, no amount of pro-natal measures will be effective in preventing serious complications stemming from the population implosion.
http://www.unfpa.org/pds/poverty.htm
and run away... 
