Our Coming Demographic Winter, Part I
(source:)
Should nations view the children as a blessing or as a burden during economic hard times? What about families?
Within one day of taking office the President gave his answer to the first question. He would use the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade to lift the ban on overseas abortion funding. The message: In tough economic times, it is important for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent preventing more life from coming into this world.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was even more overt in her baby-banning agenda. In a national television interview she made it clear that one important way to stimulate the economy was for people to stop having babies.
Pelosi was defended her plan to make tax-payer subsidized child prevention an important part of the $825 billion economic stimulus package, explaining that “contraception will reduce the cost to the states and to the federal government… No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.”
Translation: We must control the population because children are a burden on the economy—-especially, children from lower class families. The less of these children, the less money the government will have to spend on schools and healthcare.
The same day Speaker Pelosi was urging her vision for anti-recession population control measures, a top adviser to the British Government made the case that more abortion and contraception is needed to save the environment. Jonathan Porritt, the former Advisor on the environment to Tony Blair and the Chairman of Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission stated, “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.”
Ironically, the same day that both Speaker Pelosi’s and Chairman Porrit’s comments were circulating, a very different story was breaking on CNN: “Workers Urged: Go Home and Multiply.”
Kyung Lah reported “Japan is in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country’s low birthrate.”
After decades of social pressure to drastically limit family size, the Japanese economy is on the verge of implosion. With a birthrate of 1.34, they are an aging population without the labor force to maintain their own economy.
Lay writes: “Keidanren, Japan’s largest business group, with 1,300 major international corporations as members, has issued a plea to its members to let workers go home early to spend time with their families and help Japan with its pressing social problem.”
Who is right?
FYI
A certain post has been moved to the private section for confidentiality reasons, so you will need to login in order to view it.
Thanks!
The Call to Dunkirk
This message needs to be spread.
It is as I have been saying for years. Who ever control the schooling of the kids, controls the future of the entire country.
Who do you feel is qualified to teach your children?
The Next Big Battle on the Horizon…
I’m just going to copy an update here on a situation which is going to become very much more publicized in the next coming months.
Read it for yourself.
—
Dear Friend of Parental Rights,
I was in the United States Senate this past week meeting with lawyers for a Senate office. They told me directly what I have been hearing indirectly on a regular basis ever since the election.
Those who want to change family policy in America to comply with international law are preparing a full-scale effort to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child during this next Congress. Barbara Boxer recently told a planning group that they intend to use children’s health care as leverage to seek ratification of this UN children’s rights treaty.
Please link to our website to see a succinct summary of the problems with this UN treaty.
The strength of their forces has been greatly increased with the addition of Hillary Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State. She will have direct control over the submission of this treaty to the Senate and will acquire the authority under international law to sign any other treaty on any subject.
Hillary Clinton was the person who made the announcement for the Convention on the Rights of the Child when her husband’s administration signed the treaty. Seeking its ratification is a lifelong dream for her.
Our situation is grim if we were to look only at the position of the elected officials.
However, recent post-election polling demonstrates that almost 70% of Americans do not believe that the use of international law in American courts on such matters is appropriate. Less than 20% favor the use of international law. (The rest are undecided). Virtually every sub-group in America opposes this kind of use of international law.
America is on our side. However, we have to be able to get the word out to help people hear the truth about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Our proposed Parental Rights Amendment will permanently stop this treaty. So we have a one-two punch planned for the internationalists.
First, we must build a huge grassroots movement of patriotic Americans who believe that good families should be able to raise their children without worrying about compliance with international law.
Second, these same grassroots forces need to convince our elected officials that we are not content with defeating this treaty for today alone. We insist on a permanent solution. We need the Parental Rights Amendment.
I need you to do two things to help this become a reality. First, please send a copy of this letter to everyone you know who believes in parental rights and American patriotism.
Second, we need to raise a war chest to get prepared to launch a massive grassroots campaign. The other side has millions of dollars left in their campaign coffers, and they have the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and all the media waiting to carry their message.
We can win the debate because we have the truth on our side. And we have public opinion. But we won’t win if we can’t reach people.
Will you please make as big a gift as you can to support Parentalrights.org?
Here is what they are saying about us. At the hearing which featured Barbara Boxer, one of the speakers said that the people who will oppose this treaty are the “narcissistic sovereignty crowd.” In other words, those who love America first are so guilty of excessive self-love that he describes us as having the mental illness of narcissism.
This is their real heart. Not only do they want international law to control our families. They think that we are mentally ill for loving America.
It is time for those of us who believe in loving our families and loving America to rise up! We will not surrender this country or our children to such people.
Get involved today! The battle is about to begin.
For God, family, and America,
Michael Farris
—
Vert Insightful little Antidote
From a 3rd Grade teacher: “The most eye-opening CIVICS LESSON I ever had was while teaching third grade in 2008. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”
She surely would say more, but she didn’t. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide. … So now we have had OUR election and 52.7% took up the offer like eight and nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 46% also know that THEY are the ones who are going to have to pay the bill.”
Global Warming?
So it is 1:20AM right now, November 15′th, and I just went out side and it is plenty comfortable in a t-shirt and shorts…
Something is wrong with that.
A Government For the People, By the People?
So we probably all know by now that prop 8 has passed. In spite of the MASSIVE campaign put out there by those who would corrupt marriage and take away the right of a man and a woman to have a special and sacred relationship, the truth has prevailed. However when we look at the margin, we see that it is quite close, ~4%. Clearly, much of our population has bought into the lie that somehow, by keeping the definition of marriage the same as it was this time last year is taking away the rights of a certain radical segment of the population. I do not understand the reasoning, as if you tried to argue it in a structured debate, you would really have no grounds to stand on.
As of yesterday, I have heard that there is now 3 lawsuits that have been started to attempt to overturn or repeal prop 8. While I am not sure how that could happen, since this is a amendment to the state constitution, I fear that we may be in for another case of the judges somehow ruling the land.
Twice now, have the PEOPLE of the state of California voted to support the definition of marriage as between one Man and one Woman. The first time, in spite of the will of the people, 4 liberal activist judges overturned what had been voted into law by a fair election, by a vast majority. This time, we have once again voted in an amendment which should not be able to be altered.
What ever happened to E pluribus unum?
What ever happened to a government BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE?
Is this now a dictatorship? Do judges rule the land? Does the will of the people bear no weight any more?
It appears that it is so.
How was the country founded?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How have the people allowed their authority to be taken away? Where is the Justice? Has “Fairness” been substituted? Do we even understand that Liberty and the blessings that come from it?
What happened to the constitution? Does it mean anything any more? Let’s find out.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let’s see. Right now, we are free to practice religion, unless we are, teaching it to others (in the school system), unless it steps on someone else’s toes, or as long as it doesn’t support a political agenda or party.
Don’t see any government involvement preventing the “free exercise” if religion here do you? /sarcasm
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Interesting that it doesn’t say the “right of the Militia”, or that the “right to bear arms may not be eliminated”. It says that the right of the PEOPLE (general populace), to bear arms (knives, swords, guns, etc) may not be INFRINGED. That means that the government, abiding by the constitution it not authorized to restrict, touch, get involved with in any way a US Citizen’s right to be armed.
Today, we have to get background checks to even by a .22. Many guns are totally illegal. You say, but most of the gun bans are the State’s choices. Remember, if something is expressly prohibited in the nation’s constitution, then it can not be enforced by the states.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
Two words for an example of a violation, “Patriot Act”. There are many other violations of this, but it is common knowledge that certain government agencies no longer need any cause, or warrant to listen in to citizen’s private communications. This is done in the name of “National Security”. It is still a violation of the constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is a good one. Basically it says that any authority that is not given to the National Government by the constitution, is not a national issue. It is for the States to take care of. Want to know if it is being violated? Just take a look around at the various regulations imposed by the National government and try to find any base for them in the Constitution. Most of them you won’t find any allowance for. Why is the National government then delving in them? Where did they get that authority?
This has already become long enough so I will leave it at this:
Are we really ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, A NATION BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE?
You decided. I think that the answer is quite clear.
Welcome!
Thank you for taking the time to visit my blog! Take a second to peek around and check out some of my articles and posts. Of course, I would love to find out what you think as well, so make sure to comment. See you around!
Recent Comments