Archive for Brian Clowes

UN to Kenya: No More Children

Posted in Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Eugenics, Eugenics in Africa, Guttmacher, Life Dynamics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 20, 2013 by saynsumthn

NoMoreChildren3c18854uw

For Kenyan parents who want three or more children, the United Nations has a message: Your desires cross ours.

Life Dynamics, a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, calls this approach pure eugenics at work.

This information is from a recently published report by the Kenyan government and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) entitled “Kenya Population Situation Analysis” which says that the demand for children in Kenya is too high and needs to be reduced. The Kenyan Government through the National Council for Population and Development (NCPD) and Population Studies Research Institute (PSRI) with the support of UNFPA undertook the population situation analysis.

According to an article published by Religion Today, the 300 page report basically says that women in Kenya want more children than the UN and the Kenyan government deem desirable for the country’s development.

World News Service reporter, Jamie Dean writes in the article that the report flatly states Kenyan parents’ “demand” for children is too high: “The demand for children is still high and is unlikely to change unless substantial changes in desired family sizes are achieved among the poor in general … thus the challenge is how to reduce the continued high demand for children.”

Life Dynamics says that it is not surprised that the United States funded UNFPA would conclude that a reduction in African children is a solution for Kenya.

According to the UNFPA website, the goals of the United Nations Population Fund is: achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health (including family planning) and promoting reproductive rights.

Maafa21 with DVD

As we documented in our film Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America, although eugenics and population control efforts are largely financed by the United States, they are carried out by the United Nations in cooperation with their partners at Planned Parenthood and other population control organizations.
NSSM200

According to Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics and producer of Maafa21, “ In 1974, the National Security Council issued a document that was intended to outline official U.S. policies on world population. It was called the National Security Study Memorandum 200, or NSSM 200, and was formulated in cooperation with the United States Agency for International Development, the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. One of its goals was to establish a strategy for reducing the populations of third-world countries so that the United States could have increased access to their natural resources, particularly minerals and metals. Among the conclusions of NSSM 200 was that, “no country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion”. The authors of NSSM 200 then identified three non-governmental agencies that would be funded to carry-out the government’s population-control agenda in the targeted countries. One of those agencies was Planned Parenthood.

Ravenholt sterilize 25 percent

According to research we uncovered for Maafa21, three years after NSSM200 was issued, the Director of the United States Office of Population, Dr. Reimert T. Ravenholt publically stated that it was the US government’s intention to sterilize one-fourth of the world’s female population.

According to Revanholt, one of the driving forces behind this campaign, was the need to protect American financial and commercial interests.

Ravenholt UN PlannedParenthood

Crutcher explains, “Ravenholt said that some foreign governments were refusing to give the United States permission to come into their country and control their population. He said that, in those cases, the plan was to be carried out by two private organizations, with an enormous amount of financial support from the American government. When asked by a St Louis newspaper to name the two organizations, he said that they were the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and Planned Parenthood.”

Guttmacher VP AES article

Then, in 1970, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide.

Guttmacher explained his reasoning, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

GuttmacherColorfulUNForce

As Maafa21 further documents, black civil rights leaders warned America and the world that there was a deliberate effort to control the black population.

This agenda was clearly spelled out by Jesse Jackson in 1977, when he stated, “It is strange that they chose to start talking about population control at the same time that Black people in America and people of color around the world are demanding their rightful place as human citizens and their rightful share of the material wealth in the world.”

JJ It is Strange

Crutcher says that Life Dynamics documented in Maafa21 how the United Nations and the U.S.A would refuse to assist African nations unless they accept birth control. Even after disasters, Maafa21 documented that there was no anesthesia or bandages – but there were crates and crates of birth control pills and condoms.

Brian Clowes, Director of Education and Research For Human Life International, and an expert in Maafa21 responded, “I doubt if the same disasters hit a middle class white area that the first response would be condoms and birth control. Why it is that our commitment to birth control in African nations is going up every year, while our commitment to authentic economic development is dropping? We see less clean drinking water funding, less school funding, see less medical clinic funding.

As Dean writes in his article, “UN efforts to discourage population growth in many regions aren’t new, but the findings of the Kenya report are striking. It doesn’t just call for broader access to birth control, it faults Kenyans—particularly poor ones—for desiring more children than the UN or Kenyan government deem best. “The achievement of [lowering fertility] is complicated by differences between individual fertility preferences and desirable fertility levels,” the report states.

“While the report doesn’t call for the kind of government-enforced quotas the Chinese government has imposed on its citizens for over 30 years, it does recommend “education” efforts to persuade Kenyans to have fewer children. Meanwhile, the UN, USAID, and dozens of non-profit groups spend millions to offer family planning services in Kenya each year. Planned Parenthood distributed 1.3 million condoms in Kenya in 2011 alone. (Surgical abortion remains illegal in Kenya, except in cases where the mother’s health is endangered.) And while the UN and other groups might persuade some women to have fewer children, a more important challenge remains: Working toward decent living conditions for the children who do arrive. Though USAID has spent millions on worthy efforts in Kenya, the group’s spending on health programs in 2011 was revealing. The organization reported spending $60,000 for nutrition. The budget for family planning and reproductive services: $10.9 million.

Crutcher concludes, “This kind of eugenics by the United Nations and their population control conspirators is not helping the black family but simply turning large poor families into small poor families.

For an interview call the office at (940) 380-8800

Does abortion reduce welfare costs?

Posted in Abortion Welfare with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 28, 2012 by saynsumthn


by Brian Clowes Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:29 EST

November 27, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) – Supporters of the Culture of Death tend to lack foresight, and do not seem to possess even a rudimentary understanding of human nature. These defects inevitably lead to many cases of the “law of unintended consequences.”1

One good example of this principle is the ongoing effort by population control groups to flood Africa with condoms in an attempt to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Condom manufacturers refuse to publicize their high failure rate, however, and so African nations where more condoms are used have much higher rates of HIV/AIDS than those nations whose people widely reject their use.2

Another example of this lack of foresight is the claim that, when the State pays for a poor woman’s abortion, it saves a lot of money by avoiding the costs of a delivery and another child added to the welfare system. In fact, this is one of the most persuasive arguments offered by pro abortionists in support of Medicaid funding of abortion.

In support of this belief, pro-abortionists grossly exaggerate the costs incurred by a child on welfare. They began using this tactic in their battle against the Hyde Amendment, which banned most federal funding of abortion. Senator Charles H. Percy (R Ill.) testified, “If we can avoid a $100,000 cost for a $200 [abortion] investment ― and make a humanitarian investment at the same time ― what sense does it make to say, `We cannot afford $200 for this expenditure [for an abortion]?’”3

Leaders of the pro-abortion movement sometimes accidentally reveal the naked racism behind these comments. Notorious California abortionist Edward Allred said, “When a sullen Black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it’s time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles, having babies for welfare is the only industry these people have.”4

Of course none of this is new, and abortion is not the only weapon targeting poor women in the United States in the name of cost-cutting. Donald Kimelman of the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed the true goal of our domestic population controllers in a 1990 article ominously entitled “Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?” He wrote:

As we read these two stories [about Norplant and Black poverty], we asked ourselves: Dare we mention them in the same breath? To do so might be considered deplorably insensitive, perhaps raising the specter of eugenics. But it would be worse to avoid drawing the logical conclusion that foolproof contraception could be invaluable in breaking the cycle of inner city poverty ― one of America’s greatest challenges.

Kimelman went on to suggest that welfare mothers could be implanted with Norplant for free and perhaps receive increased welfare benefits as a reward.5 And speaking of unintended consequences, Norplant was later banned by the FDA for the harm it caused women, resulting in a massive class action lawsuit against Norplant’s producer.
It seems reasonable to ask why, if Kimelman was truly concerned about poverty in general, did he not also recommend the use of Norplant for poor White women?

Others asked this same question. Vanessa Williams, president of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists, called Kimelman’s article, “A tacit endorsement of slow genocide.”6 Four days after Kimelman’s article, Inquirer columnist Steve Lopez sarcastically suggested that contraception would not reduce the underclass quite as fast as “just shooting them.” The Inquirer quickly apologized for Kimelman’s article after a wave of complaints. But the racist and eugenicist thinking of many of those who want to “help” poor women had been exposed once again.

Abortion As Human Culling

Kimelman was not the only journalist to step on his tongue after the introduction of Norplant. Anthony Bouza, former Minneapolis Police Chief and columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, wrote an editorial with the oxymoronic title “A Mother’s Day Wish: Make Abortion Available to All Women.”

He described the “at risk” population as “poor, Black and Indian,” and said that their offspring are “marked for failure.” He went on to say:

When abortions are illegal, poor women deliver and keep their babies. Then they plunk them in front of a TV set, watch them get abused and conditioned to violence by parades of males, and expose them to all the factors the criminologists describe as the precursors to a life of crime … Making abortions freely available to the impoverished young women who produce our criminals is very likely the most important crime prevention measure adopted in this country in the last 25 years.7

If Bouza’s allegation is true ― that abortion is our “most important crime prevention measure” ― why are 7.2 million adults in prison or on parole or probation, 3.1 percent of all adults in the entire population?8 This is a fourfold increase since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, when only 0.8 percent of all adults in the United States were subject to the criminal justice system. If abortion is so effective at fighting crime, why does the United States possess the dubious distinction of having the largest percentage of its population imprisoned among all the countries of the world, including the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and South Africa?

Don’t expect answers to these questions from abortion advocates ― especially pro abortion journalists. They have a very big axe to grind, and nobody had better bother them with the facts.

Taking the Long View

Obviously, an abortion does indeed cost much less than delivery and care for a baby, but as always, the pro-abortion view is extremely short-sighted and completely neglects the future benefits to society provided by a child over his or her lifetime.

To begin with, pro-abortionists invariably assume that welfare children will be “on the dole” until they are eighteen. However, less than five percent of all children born into welfare families will remain on welfare until they are adults. In fact, the average period of welfare dependency for a child is just two years.9

A first-trimester Medicaid abortion currently costs about $515.10 By comparison, the cost of all kinds of public assistance for a child, including prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care, and two years of all types of public assistance for the child is about $22,300.11 So, at first glance, abortion seems to be a very good financial deal indeed for the long-suffering taxpayer.

But hold it ― not so fast. What about the future benefits that a child generates during his or her lifetime?

The Federal, state and local taxes paid by a child and his or her employers during 30 years in the work force amount to about $955,900.12

Pro-abortionists consider only the short-term benefits to the State, which is the difference between the cost of caring for a child and the cost of an abortion, which is ($22,300 – $515), or $21,785; but the long-term benefit to the State of paying for the child’s delivery and care is ($955,900 – $22,300), or $933,600. In other words, the State pays on average $22,300 and gets $955,900 back, a benefit-cost ratio of 43.8 dollars received for every one dollar spent, which is a very good deal indeed.

But this is not the only part of the equation. We must also consider that each person continuously generates wealth during his working career and consumes goods and services that help support the livelihoods of many other people. At current levels, this sum amounts to an average of about $2,764,000 per person.13

Therefore, we see that every person aborted costs society at large a total of about $3,720,000. So, for every single dollar spent on a Medicaid-funded abortion, society loses ($3,720,000/$515) = more than $7,200.

Does anyone other than hardcore abortion advocates think that this is a fiscally sensible or responsible position to take?.

Dr. Brian Clowes is the director of education and research at Human Life International (HLI), the world’s largest international pro-life and pro-family organization. A version of this article appeared in The Wanderer

Endnotes
1 This term originated when the occupying British government became concerned about the proliferation of venomous cobras in Indian urban areas. The government offered a reward for every dead snake brought in, and people began breeding the cobras for extra income. When the British learned of this practice, they discontinued the reward. The breeders then released their thousands of cobras, resulting in the problem being much worse than it was before.
2 Calculations and references are contained in the short book The Case against Condoms. For an electronic copy of this book, e-mail Brian Clowes at bclowes@hli.org.
3 July 29, 1977 testimony by Sen. Charles H. Percy (R Ill.) against the Hyde Amendment, 95th Congress Congressional Record of that date.
4 Abortionist Edward Allred, quoted in the San Diego Union, October 12, 1980.
5 Don Kimelman. “Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1990.
6 Clarence Page. “Hope Best Way to Fight Poverty.” The Oregonian, December 31, 1990, page C5.
7 Anthony Bouza. “A Mother’s Day Wish: Make Abortion Available to All Women.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mother’s Day 1990 editorial, quoted in Mary Ann Kuharski. “Aborting the “At Risk” Population: Racism Rears its Ugly Head.” ALL About Issues, Winter 1991, pages 16 and 17.
8 United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office], 2012 [132nd Edition]. Table 348, “Adults under Correctional Supervision.” The entire Statistical Abstract is on the Census Bureau’s Web site at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.
9 Greg J. Duncan. Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty [Detroit: University of Michigan Press], 1984, pages 77 and 90.
10 Guttmacher Institute. “Are You in the Know: Cost of Abortion Services in the United States.” The average cost of a first-trimester surgical or medical abortion is shown at $470 at 2009 prices. Updated to 2012 prices, this is about $515. See http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/abortion-costs.html.
11 The cost of delivering a baby averages about $13,000 in 2012 (Cost Helper Web site at http://www.costhelper.com). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program costs: United States Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 2012 [132nd Edition], Table 570, “Federal Food Programs: 1990 to 2010.” Women, Infants, Children Program (WIC) costs: 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 570, “Federal Food Programs: 1990 to 2010.” Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program): 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 565, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ― Families and Recipients: 1980 to 2009,” and Table 567, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ― Expenditures by State: 2000 to 2009.”
12 2012 Statistical Abstract, Table 475, “Federal Budget Receipts by Source: 1990 to 2011;” Table 475, “Federal Budget Receipts by Source: 1990 to 2011;” and Table 442, “State and Local Governments — Revenue by State: 2008.” Personal expenditures are in Table 677 of the 2012 Statistical Abstract, “Personal Consumption Expenditures by Function: 2000 to 2009.” This Table shows that personal expenditures in 2009 were about 10,001.3 billion dollars. To account for inflation and population growth, which increased about a combined total of five percent per year, this number is about($10,001.3 billion) X 1.05^3 = $11,578 billion in 2012 dollars. If we divide this number by the July 1, 2012 population of the United States, we get ($11,578 billion/316,300,000) = $36,605 of personal expenditures per person annually. The category “personal expenditures” includes many items. Some of these subcategories are “Household and Household Operation,” which includes household furniture, semidurable household furnishings, cleaning and polishing preparations, and household utilities (electricity, water, gas, fuel, oil, coal, and sanitation), and telephone or telegraph. The subcategory “Medical Care” includes drug preparations and sundries, dentists and physicians, health insurance, and hospital costs. The subcategory “Transportation” includes purchase price of new and used vehicles and their upkeep public transportation, and airlines, bus, train, and other fares. The subcategory “Recreation” includes toys, magazines, newspapers, radios and televisions, records, etc. The subcategory “Personal Business” includes attorneys, life insurance, and funeral and burial expenses.

Opening the Gates Wide to Population Control Abuse

Posted in Bill Gates, Brian Clowes, Melinda Gates, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2012 by saynsumthn

Opening the Gates Wide to Population Control Abuse
Brian Clowes
Human Life International

In July 1912, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, and other leaders in the early race-cleansing eugenics movement held their first international conference in London. Among the leading topics of discussion were how to stop poor and “unfit” African women from breeding.

Exactly 100 years later, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the British Government sponsored the Summit on Family Planning in the same city. This is most likely a coincidence, but the irony is stunning. The objective of the Summit on Family Planning was to raise enough money to “provide 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries with access to contraceptives by 2020,” with a heavy emphasis on Africa. Atop the list of the Gates Foundation’s partners were ― you guessed it ― International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, the two largest abortion providers in the world, back to finish the work their founders had started a century before.

According to the Summit’s “Summary of Commitments,” getting this many women on birth control will require an additional $4.3 billion over the next eight years, one-fourth of which will be donated by the Gates Foundation.

The Summit was headlined by Prime Minister David Cameron, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, and Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland. It was heralded by many as “A rebirth of family planning,” as if the entire international development industry had not spent the last two decades devising ever-more-aggressive but friendlier-sounding ways to stop Africans, Asians and Latinos from having children. Indeed, the so-called “developed” nations have poured one hundred billion dollars into population control in the Southern Hemisphere since 1995.1

Eighteen of the 24 nations represented at the event were African, so it not was difficult to discern the geographical emphasis of this Summit. Also present as “donors” were the dozen or so “developed” world governments that currently provide 95 percent of all population control funding.

And, of course, Big Pharma was more than adequately represented. Participants such as Bayer, Cipla, Helm, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer stand to gain billions annually should 120 million more women be hooked on their products.

There is nothing new under the sun, especially at “family planning” conferences. Although the more honest language of “population control” is no longer in vogue, the same old disinformation and outright propaganda was the order of the day. For example, the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, a “supporting organization” for the Summit, distributed its grandly titled “Atlas of Birth,” in which it claimed, without a trace of ironic awareness, that “Access to family planning massively boosts women’s chances of surviving pregnancy,” and compares the UK’s maternal mortality rate of 12 per 100,000 live births (where contraceptive prevalence is 86%) and the MMR in Chad, which is one hundred times higher at 1,200 per 100,000 (and which has a contraceptive prevalence of only 3%).

White Ribbon Alliance is implying, of course, that all we have to do is flood Chad (and the rest of Africa) with contraception, and the MMR will miraculously plunge. This simplistic and very dangerous assumption will cost many more lives than it saves, because it entirely neglects far more effective maternal lifesaving measures ― such as prenatal care, attended childbirth in a clean environment, and surgical care for obstetric complications.

In fact, the dangers posed by the Summit are so extreme that many population control groups (including the Center for Reproductive Rights, which never met an abortion it didn’t like) issued a warning before the Summit. The “Civil Society Declaration” condemns “Policies that accept or tacitly condone forced sterilization [and] the coercive provision of contraceptives. … Any return to coercive family planning programs where quality of care and informed consent are ignored would be both shocking and retrograde.”2

One certainly does not want to be perceived as “retrograde,” after all, but these groups have good reason to be concerned. The co-sponsor of the London Summit on Family Planning was the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID). This government agency contributed $261.4 million to India’s most recent forced sterilization program. This type of quota- and bounty-based population program inevitably leads to gross and widespread human rights violations. Many Indian women were rounded up and sterilized without their knowledge or consent. Bribery and threats were routine; women were offered $11 and a sari if they were sterilized, or were entered in a lottery where one woman out of thousands sterilized might have won a car, which she could not have afforded to drive anyway. NGO workers who convinced women to have sterilizations received a cash bounty, so the program was ripe for abuse and corruption, as all such programs are.3

One DfID-funded doctor did 53 sterilizations in just two hours by flashlight and botched all 53 procedures, leaving women to lie in agony on a filthy straw-covered floor. He did not even sterilize his instruments between operations, because he was in such a rush to collect as much bounty money as he could.

A 2010 DFID report said that the purpose of its programs was to reduce greenhouse emissions. Since DfID knew that its money would go towards funding forced sterilizations under filthy conditions, we can properly conclude that the agency considers environmental issues more important than the most fundamental rights of poor Indian women.4

Knowing this, the Gates Foundation motto “All Lives have Equal Value” rings a bit hollow.

Another partner of the London Summit was Marie Stopes International (MSI), which makes Planned Parenthood look like a bunch of underachievers by comparison. MSI peddles pornographic posters and movies for public consumption in Great Britain and has admitted to committing illegal abortions all over the world.5 MSI is especially active in Africa, and women commonly refer to illegal abortions as the “Marie Stopes procedure.” Workers at the MSI center in Tororo, Uganda, testified that it did many illegal abortions and also injected women with Depo-Provera shots, telling them that they were malaria treatments.6 In July of this year, the government of Zambia expelled Marie Stopes International for committing hundreds of illegal abortions over a period of just five months.7

Melinda Gates takes the well-worn road that so many other lapsed Catholics have trod by claiming that “The [Gates] foundation doesn’t take a position on abortion.”8 This is like someone saying that they don’t take a position on racism while contributing millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan National Alliance.

The Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to the most virulent pro-abortion groups in the worlds specifically for “family planning” activities.9

These include the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has lavishly praised the Chinese forced-abortion program and has actually helped to implement it; CARE International, which is pushing hard to legalize abortion in several African nations; Pathfinder International, which has been doing illegal “menstrual extraction” abortions in many nations for decades; and, of course, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which does more to push abortion all over the world than any other organization on Earth.

The most persuasive propaganda in support of the London Summit on Family Planning was provided by Melinda Gates herself, who said that “When I travel and talk to women around the world they tell me that access to contraceptives can often be the difference between life and death. Today is about listening to their voices, about meeting their aspirations, and giving them the power to create a better life for themselves and their families.”10

These encounters were obviously carefully choreographed photo ops with African women who all obediently parroted the “we must have contraception!” line they had been fed by the Gates advance teams. It seems very odd that, of all the women quoted by Melinda Gates, not a single one spoke of the need for prenatal care, delivery in a safe and clean environment, and surgical treatment for obstetric problems, measures that would save many more lives in the long run.

While preparing for her carefully-planned gala Summit, Melinda Gates entirely ignored the voices of those women who disagreed with her goal of flooding the world with birth control.

One of these was a Nigerian mother who said “With her incredible wealth she wants to replace the legacy of an African woman (which is her child) with the legacy of child-free sex. … Even at a glance, anyone could see that the unlimited and easy availability of contraceptives in Africa would surely increase infidelity and sexual promiscuity as sex is presented by this multi-billion dollar project as a casual pleasure sport that can indeed come with no strings ― or babies ― attached. … I see this $4.6 billion buying us misery. I see it buying us unfaithful husbands. I see it buying us streets devoid of the innocent chatter of children. I see it buying us disease and untimely death. I see it buying us a retirement without the tender loving care of our children. Please, Melinda, listen to the heart-felt cry of an African woman and mercifully channel your funds to pay for what we REALLY need.”11

Mrs. Gates ― are you listening?

Endnotes

1 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities [annual reports]. Table A.1, “Primary Funds of Donor Countries for Population Assistance, by Channel of Distribution.” For complete details and calculations, see Excel spreadsheet F-18-05.XLS.
2 “Women’s Human Rights Must be at the Centre of the Family Planning Summit: Civil Society Declaration.” http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Civil-Society-Declaration_06_19_2012.pdf, September 17, 2012.
3 Gethin Chamberlain. “UK Aid Helps to Fund Forced Sterilisation of India’s Poor.” The Observ er/The Guardian, April 14, 2012.
4 Ibid.
5 Paul Cornellisson, Marie Stopes International Program Director for South Africa, YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cf7Rg8zxds, September 17, 2012.
6 Face-to-face discussions with Brian Clowes and Father Jonathan Opio at Sacred Heart Parish in Tororo, Uganda, on December 15, 2010. One of the daughters of an HLI counselor went to MSI for malaria treatment but got a Depo-Provera shot instead without her knowing what it was. She lost her cycles for three months, and then started bleeding so heavily she had to seek hospitalization. I heard this very same story from several other women. MSI personnel have boasted about performing illegal abortions all over the world. In fact, abortion in Uganda is called the “MSP” ― the “Marie Stopes procedure.”
7 “Zambia: Gov’t `Aborts’ Marie Stopes.” AllAfrica.com, July 26, 2012.
8 Deborah Solomon. “Questions for Melinda Gates: The Donor.” The New York Times Magazine, October 22, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24fob-q4-t.html, September 18, 2012.
9 “Search Awarded Grants” feature on the Gates Foundation Web site at http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx.
10 Julio Godoy. “Family Planning Essential for Development.” Inter Press Service News Agency, July 18, 2012.
11 Obianuju Ekeocha. “Unlimited Contraceptives for Africa ― Why Not? The Catholic Free Press, August 10, 2012.

Kristof’s Error: Population Control is an Easy, but Wrong Solution

Posted in Abortion, Black Women, Brian Clowes, China One Child Policy, Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Holdren, NSSM200, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Commentary by Bryan Clowes, Research Manager, Human Life International
October 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Nicholas Kristof’s entire article “Birth Control over Baldness” [New York Times, Sept. 25, 2010] is constructed around a single sentence: “It’s impossible to fight poverty effectively when birthrates are sky high.”

His answer to this problem, of course, is the simplistic, short-sighted and dangerous solution that many others seem to endorse: Put everyone on birth control. He thus falls into the pit occupied by so many others – the fallacy that complex social problems have a “quick fix” that will make everything better, or at least greatly improve the situation.

Let us get one thing straight before proceeding: The goal of the developed nations is not to improve the standard of living of the people in developed nations. If it were, we’d see billions going toward building schools, investing in business, and other proven methods of helping the people of Africa and Asia flourish. The true objective of population control efforts is neatly summed up by the 1974 top-secret U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200, revealingly subtitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” which said that:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. … Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.
We must also be clear about another thing: The ultimate objective of the population controllers is not to ensure the widespread availability of contraception, but the worldwide availability of abortion.

NSSM-200 said that, “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.Shortly after NSSM-200’s release, Malcolm Potts, former Medical Secretary of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the world about population matters, said that “No developed country has brought down its birth rate without a considerable recourse to abortion, and it appears unlikely that developing countries can ever hope to see any decline in their fertility without a massive resort to induced abortion, legal or illegal.”

Today, the most powerful population control groups in the world are quite frank about their desire to legalize abortion worldwide. For example, in its 1996 Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, the IPPF claimed that “All women have the right to information, education and services necessary for the protection of reproductive health, safe motherhood and safe abortion and, which are accessible, affordable, acceptable and convenient to all users.” The 1994 Program of Action of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) demanded that all nations make abortion available and free to all women by the year 2015.

Perhaps this impending deadline is goading these groups into getting more and more extreme in their rhetoric; in 2008, one United Nations “expert group” ludicrously claimed that “Withholding legal abortion is a form of gender-based discrimination and violence against women.

Trampling the Rights, Laws and Traditions of Developing Nations

In their rush to legalize abortion worldwide, the population controllers have no trouble with trampling on the laws of pro-life nations. In its 1984 document The Human Right to Family Planning, the IPPF baldly stated that “Family Planning Associates and other nongovernmental associations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, or even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change.” Other population control groups, including Marie Stopes International and Medecins Sans Frontieres, have admitted to committing illegal abortions in nations with pro-life laws.

When the only objective is to meet population control quotas, human rights are the first thing to go out the window. NSSM-200, which has never been officially repudiated as United States population policy, outlined the possibility of forced population control programs and the withholding of food as coercion:

… mandatory [population control] programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now. … On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?

Most of us are familiar with the hideous Chinese one-child and forced-abortion program, which “celebrated” its 30th anniversary this week. It is telling indeed that no population control organization has ever condemned or criticized this inhumane program. In fact, many of them have actually praised it. Nafis Sadik, former Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has said that

China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.

This slavish dedication to suppressing the population has inevitably led to horrible abuses all over the world. Forced abortion and sterilization programs have been exposed in many countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Tibet, Vietnam, and even the United States.

This trend seems to show no signs of slowing down. John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s “Science Czar,” wrote a 1977 book entitled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Development, with Paul and Anne Ehrlich [Paul Ehrlich is the author of the thoroughly debunked but still influential The Population Bomb]. In this book, Holdren and the Ehrlichs said that minority women and other undesirables should be forced to have abortions against their wills; that sterilizing agents should be put in the water supplies of the United States to help hold down the population; and that a “Planetary Police Force” should enforce population control measures.

This callous attitude is reflected in the public statements of countless population controllers around the world. After a number of Bangladeshi women died due to the side effects of injectable “contraceptives,” gynecologist Josas Kon said that “In order to have a good thing there is always a price to pay. If two or three women die — what’s the problem? The population will be reduced.”

This kind of uncaring attitude led Indian citizen Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize for economics, to remark that “Promoting a “family planning first” strategy can send a message to poor people: `Wish you weren’t here’.”

Having traveled to nearly forty poor nations in the Southern Hemisphere, this writer can confirm from personal experience that nothing contributes more to the image of the “Ugly American” than our attempts to compel the citizens of other nations to adopt our values ? particularly in the most sensitive area of deciding how many children they should have.

The Poor of the World Need Plows, Not Pills
What the poor people of the world need is not pills and condoms, but authentic economic development. Studies have demonstrated that, when the standard of living of poor people is raised, they tend to have fewer children. Urbanization, the education of women, increased consumerism, and job opportunities for women outside the home are among the factors that influence people to have smaller families.

But correcting such deficiencies is too difficult and complex for the population controllers. They prefer the simpler and more direct policy of “Find ‘em, bribe ‘em, neuter ‘em and forget ‘em,” which does nothing more than make large poor families into small poor families.

The world’s richest nations, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, have poured more than $75 billion into population control over the past two decades, wreaking havoc in the families and cultures of the developing world. Imagine how many tens of millions of people could have been raised out of poverty to a higher standard of living had all that money been invested in the future of these nations’ future rather than in eliminating their future, their children.

Brian Clowes speaks about NSSM200 in the film on eugenics called- Maafa21 (Clip Below)

Here is a segment with Dr. Clowes in the powerful 2.5 hour film- Maafa21

Pastor Stephen Broden on black genocide from abortion in Maafa21

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, Black Babies, Black Conservative, Black History Month, Black Pastor, Civil Rights, Clenard Childress, Connie Eller, Eugenics, Johnny Hunter, Life Dynamics, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Samuel Yette with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2010 by saynsumthn

Here is a small segment from the documentary (2.5hours long) Maafa21 which features Pastor Stephen Broden, Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Johnny Hunter, Rev. Clenard Childress, Brian Clowes, Pastor Levon Yuille, Connie Eller, and LIfe Dynamics President Mark Crutcher.

Stephen Broden and Dr. Alveda King were both featured in the powerful documentary- Maafa21. http://www.maafa21.com

Maafa21 : New film exposes Eugenics and Black Genocide from Abortion

And now, a stunning new movie lays it all out with incredible documentation.

The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now.

It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel.

It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.

Maafa 21 will show you things the media has been hiding and politicians don’t want you to know.

So if you’re ready to see the real agenda behind “choice,” fasten your seatbelts …

IT’S SHOCK AND AWE TIME!

Watch Maafa21 and get more on Black Genocide in 21st Century America: http://www.maafa21.com
(Short Clip:)

Two films expose secret government documents like, NSSM 200 and the plan for Black Genocide and global population control

Posted in Abortion, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Victims, Brian Clowes, Eugenics, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, NSSM200, Population Control, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2010 by saynsumthn

Apocalypse Africa: Made in America
Secret recordings. Once classified films. Hidden documents. From in side the archives of the United States government comes a story of racism and manipulation that reveals how the actions of a nation ultimately brought about the collapse of a continent: Africa.

It took the deaths of six million Jews before we finally said, “never again.” Yet, with at least twenty million Africans killed so far, due to wars in Darfur, Uganda, Rwanda and many, many more, the body count continues to rise.

With powerfully haunting images, this controversial new film exposes the story of Africa’s collapse and will fill you with an intense passion for the importance of human life.

“There is blood on America’s hands.”
– Randall Robinson, Former Director of TransAfrica

Executive Producer:Del Walters

Producer:Del Walters, John Anglim, Abraham Stubblefield

More here

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.

The second film dealing with this and the way Government Officials like President Nixon, Eisenhower, Clinton and others felt about population control is :

Maafa21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now.

http://www.maafa21.com

Maafa 21 Rocks! by producer Mark Crutcher

Posted in Abortion, birth control, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Darwin, Eugenics, Evolution, Forced Sterilization, Hitler, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Religion, Richard Nixon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Supreme Court with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2009 by saynsumthn

maafa-dvd

Maafa 21 Rocks!
by producer Mark Crutcher

MarkCrutcher

October 6, 2009

By any measure, the response to Maafa 21 has been astonishing.

3309t29

It is routinely being called “stunning,” “breathtaking,” and “jaw-dropping.” Many viewers have said they were left “speechless” by what they saw and several have told us that it filled them with anger. One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.” Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda.

It has never been a secret that one of the pro-life movement’s biggest frustrations has been its inability to effectively recruit the African-American community. Despite the fact that polls consistently show that blacks are more pro-life than whites, that reality has not translated into them joining the battle in significant numbers.

But with the launch of Maafa 21, that is changing and even though we are just getting started the message is spreading like wildfire. The internet and YouTube are buzzing with Maafa 21; one conservative radio talk show purchased 750 copies for his audience and it has been shown twice in the Capitol Visitor Center Theater in Washington. This was done through the help of Congressman Trent Franks and, after the showing, one African-American woman who works as an aid to a pro-choice member of the Congressional Black Caucus said, “I was moved to tears. I came in here with an opposite mindset and I am leaving with another. My life has been changed forever.”

Another example of the power of Maafa 21 was seen when Rev. Clenard Childress assembled a team of black street activists who gave out 400 copies of Maafa 21 to credentialed members of the NAACP at their recent four-day national convention. The response was incredible with many people taking the DVD back to their hotel room to watch at night and then returning the next day to ask what they could do to help. In fact, one of those who did exactly that was an NAACP attorney. Clenard also found strong support among the younger convention goers and one professor at a historically black college said he was going to make Maafa 21 part of his curriculum.

Maafa21 Clenard

One thing that made Clenard’s NAACP effort so successful was a statement by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Just days before the convention began, she was quoted in the New York Times saying, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

black genocide

Think about that for a moment. Here is the most radically pro-abortion member of the United States Supreme Court admitting that the driving force behind the legalization of abortion was not “women’s rights” or “privacy” or “reproductive freedom” as we’ve been told. She says that the motivation for it was EUGENICS, which is precisely what Maafa 21 documents! We could not have bought a public relations victory like that for a billion dollars and here it was being given to us for free. Clenard told me that whenever his team repeated that quote to the convention participants, even those who were the most skeptical about Maafa 21 were suddenly quite interested. It seems they were aware of who the “population” was that Ginsburg and her cronies did not “want to have too many of.”

justice ginsburg

We are especially excited about how Maafa 21 is opening doors for us into areas where the pro-life message has seldom been heard and often unwelcomed. Liberal “peace and justice” groups are starting to have Maafa 21 showings on college campuses. And some “Afro-Centric” groups who are not necessarily Christian and have generally been disinterested in the abortion issue, are now actively promoting Maafa 21.

An example of this is a California man named Keidi Obi Awadu. Keidi is the founder of Black Star Media and the Living in Black Radio Network and he has an international audience. Already, he has personally bought over 100 copies of Maafa 21 and has helped us secure someone to distribute the film in England. Keidi has also become instrumental in an effort to have it shown at predominately black colleges and universities across America. To put it mildly, Keidi and his people are on fire for Maafa 21.

Keidi_profile_small

Another thing we are finding is that Maafa 21 is not simply impacting the African-American community. We are already seeing whites–especially those who are high school and college aged–becoming outraged and then activated by what it documents.

Those who are familiar with Life Dynamics know that we have been responsible for some of the most explosive revelations about the abortion industry in the history of this battle. In just two high-profile examples, we uncovered the lucrative trade in baby body parts and we later exposed the abortion industry’s nationwide pedophile protection racket. But as enormous as those stories were, I can honestly tell you that I have never seen anything have the impact of Maafa 21. Although we are only at the beginning, it is clear that this film is going to grow our movement and change our image for the better. It is also bringing a fresh level of energy and excitement by recruiting the reinforcements our battle-weary troops have desperately needed for years.

So stay tuned. Like I said, we’re just getting started. By the way, if you haven’t seen Maafa 21 yet, check out the two-minute trailer for it at Maafa21.com. That website also contains some insightful comments from previous viewers.

nixon
nixon2
nixon3
nixon4
nixon5

nixon6

screenpics

BCWater