30 votes

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

'During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt.

According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve "family planning" services around the globe over the next six years. In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.'

Full article: http://howtohelpsavetheenvironment.com/archives/hillary-clin...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Brilliant

You would favor government controlling people's lives. The government is the biggest monopoly on the planet. That is quiet sick that you would favor allowing them that kind of control. If people believe a place is overpopulated, they coulod take voluntary personal actions to remedy that immediately by getting rid of themselves.

"I don't agree that the whole nation should be subject to the law if it is not necessary."

Tell me, when is it not necessary? Who determines when it is necessary/ If you give government the power to control the population when they deem it necessary, you are giving them a blank check to do it whenever they want. If I am a politician, I am loving that. All I would have to do is deem it necessary. Just like how they deem it necessary to pat us down whenever the hell they want in the name of safety, so would the government deem it necessary to put control on population whenever they want. Excersising the power to control population will not happen "only when it is necessary" it will happen whenever the government damn well pleases if you give them that type of power.

I do not think they should have that sort of power, nor do I think it is necessary ever. Above all, I do not ever think it is morally justified.

I guess we can agree to

I guess we can agree to disagree then. You think people should be allowed to have children only to let them die, I do not.

Sure

You think that government can accurately identify when and when not to allow children to be born. I think that the individual is the best judge of that.

I just want to say

that although maybe you and I may recognize when it is not appropriate to bring a child into this world, there are other individuals who do not have as much discretion over their own lives and therefore would not be competent to judge if the circumstances are such that birthing a child would not be self-destructive.

In other words, there will always be people who think they know, but don't.

So

In this last comment you seem to be making the case that the government knows what's better for people than the people themselves right? As far as I know that's not very in line with Ron Paul's ideals at all. In fact it sounds down right tyrannical and authoritative, nothing I'd expect from the liberty movement.

Sorry for having thoughts of

Sorry for having thoughts of my own and not parroting every word from someone else's mouth. In fact, part of liberty is being able to speak freely.

Consider Dr. Paul's position about ending the war on drugs (which I agree with), there will always be irresponsible drug users. Apply this underlying fact to the birthing of children into an overpopulated environment with not enough food and water to go around and to me it can not be applied becuase of that fact that there are always irresponsible parents. If you also subscribe to Paul's pro-life position, I don't think we would be having this discussion, for there are lives who are unable to advocate for themselves at risk.

So

You think it is not okay to tell someone to take drugs(I agree) but you think it is okay to use government to tell people how many children they have? How then are you pro liberty?

I'm for as much liberty as

I'm for as much liberty as possible. I am also a sensible person, and a sensible person would agree that it is not right to increase population exponentially if deaths would be inevitable over a certain ceiling.

Go ahead and call me "not pro-liberty" or something I really don't care, but I am done commenting on my views on this, I have been quite clear.

Arbitrary lines....

I know this is an old post, but anyways....What your saying is drawing arbitrary lines, not based on principles. You know the people that say we should outlaw assault rifles also claim to be sensible...so do the people who say we need welfare and food stamps.

How in the world could we determine deaths would be inevitable over a certain ceiling? How do we determine the ceiling? How do we know who is allowed to continue to populate and who's not? I see you say your done commenting on this and that's fine if that's the case, but I can't help but encourage all of us to collaborate (and not argue).

Overpopulation is a myth

If you took every person on this earth and gave each of them a square mile to live on for their own it would cover less than 1%.

If every couple has two children our population still declines. If every couple has 3 children our population *might* break even due to the fact that not everyone has a 'mate' and due to early deaths.

The argument for overpopulation is nothing but a straw man for people who have some perverse desire to implement eugenics.

A myth?

Is it a myth that the amount of fresh water available for direct human use is ~0.007% of the total water on Earth?

Is it a myth that thousands of people starve to death in the world each day because there is not enough food available?

Is it a myth that millions of people live in tent cities and are malnourished in third world countries because there a no jobs or good food for these poeple?

Is it a myth that arable land to farm on is decreasing throughout the world due in large to desertification?

Just because you don't see it firsthand doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

In regards to your statement about giving everyone in the world a sq. mile of land: these people would survive only assuming that they have access to fresh water(or any at all), food, shelter, electricity, and all of the other goods and services we enjoy in our modern time. Without these things, spread out the population and that just ensures death.

The myth of overpopulation...

Where do you get that first statistic? You do realize that of course there is way more salt water in the world than fresh water...especially fresh water that qualifies for this definition of "fresh water available for direct human use"...whatever that means.

Besides, there are plenty of ways to get clean fresh water, and coastal areas can just take ocean water, and distill it to separate the salt...then they have salt too!

Thousands of people starve to death sure. But why? What is the cause of this terrible event? Maybe tyrannical authoritarian type governments? Maybe the lack of a system of limited law meant only to protect people's rights?

From the practical stand point...have you ever heard of hydroponics Mr. Sativa? Ever heard of aquaponics? These are readily available 'advanced' technology food growing/raising methods. They drastically reduce water use, labor involved, increase production and quality, and could be made out of bamboo or w/e resources are local.

It would also take up much less space, especially considering the increased production from the reduced growing times, and that would take care of your other statement saying that there is not enough arable farm land (which there are loads of btw, owned by gov't, not being used productively).

Once again, why are people living in tents? What's the cause? Besides, what's wrong with a tent?

Also, consider the fact that throughout history, when a civilization has been allowed to advance, they usually have population decreases (along with living standard increases), so if these third world countries were allowed to advance, maybe the 'problem' of overpopulation would go away.

Well force is not the answer to the problem, it's the problem itself. Kinda like trying to solve the problem of too much debt by getting further in debt...just doesn't work...or make any sense.

I think you're right on some points -

Such as that when societies become more affluent their
birth rates often drop - this has recently happened in
Thailand and pretty dramatically in Brazil, for example.

OTOH - when you get a situation like Nigeria or Pakistan
where there is a mostly poor population that is expanding
rapidly and is already at or greater than capacity for food
production, clean water, etc. the idea that overpopulation
is a myth is not even close to in touch with reality.

In Pakistan, thirty percent of children under five years of
age are malnourished now, and the population is predicted
to double in a little over thirty years.

It's pretty much a disaster now, what do you think it's going to
look like if they continue on the same trajectory?

Good point...

But I was thinking more in the macro sense of the whole world. Sure there are plenty of localized overpopulation problems at times all around the world, and it's unfortunate, but what to do? Yes the idea that overpopulation is a myth can definitely be out of touch with reality, when you consider specific areas and specific times.

Also, doesn't it seem like giving those countries food and medicine is like artificially stimulating their growth...I mean they probably couldn't sustain themselves in such large numbers from the surrounding resources naturally. But aid from other countries makes them reliant on it, whereas if we let them develop themselves, or at least help them become self-sustainable they'd be much better off. So maybe this 'overpopulation' problem we see currently is, at least partly, a result of 'artificial stimulation'.

Nailed it

The "experts" have been saying that for a long time. Technological inovation has been taking place that makes it possible for population to expand. I am sure the hunter-gatherers had people saying there would not be enough game to hunt so population had to be controlled. Agriculture happened. Then there were too many people for agriculture. Rotation of soils happened. It will keep happening.

Getting a higher limit on your credit card

will enable your consumption to expand for a while.

But if your income does not expand commensurately
your credit-dependent consumption will eventually crash.

A lot of the innovation you cite has enabled faster and more
extensive exploitation of limited resources more so than
expanding their supply. Like an economic bubble, the further/
faster/longer it expands, the more severe the crash when it eventually
hits. When the increase in population driven demand hits the wall
of finite resources (as it already is) the crash is not going to be
a pretty sight.

There is a good case to be made that we have passed not only
peak oil, but peak topsoil, peak usable fresh water, peak fish and
- maybe most critically - peak phosphorous:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosph...

That is to say, we are looking at shortages of all the critical underpinnings
of food (in particular) production just as demand is being driven up by
dramatically expanding population.

...

Talmudic pig...

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Well yeah

you don't want americans to be outnumbered now do we?

Earning her nickname

Hitlary Clinton

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Goes without saying that Hillary

is evil..

Which isn't to say that population isn't an issue -
the world's population is increasing by over 200,000
people per *day* (should we send the next couple days'
increase to your neighborhood?)

Consider Syria, for example.

According to this:

http://www.populstat.info/Asia/syriac.htm

the population of Syria went from under 900,000
in 1911 to 23,000,000 or thereabouts by 2010.
And is on track to add over three million more
by 2015...

It would be a miracle if it *wasn't* bloody chaos.

update:

another site puts the current population at still under 23 million, but still...

http://worldpopulationreview.com/syria-population-2012/

I support depopulation

of the world's zionist, neocons, commies, fascist and war mongers.

Bump

to shame the devil.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

bumping--

I've already written on here that I believe she is a monster--

She and Romney in a room alone together--

they would probably compare notes on what the 'big boys' have instructed them to do--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--