Posted on | February 3, 2017 | 1 Comment
In an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the executive director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, advocated abortion to reduce human population, saying that abortion “helps to address the number of the people that we have on this planet. We feel that one of the ways in which we can get to a sustainable population is to empower women to make choices about their own families.” Ironically, Brune was being interviewed because of his support for an open-borders immigration policy:
Today, the Sierra Club is mobilizing its members across the country to join Center for Community Change, United We Dream, SEIU, Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and other allies in national-day-of-action rallies to support immigrants and oppose Trump’s xenophobia.
If Brune wants to kill babies in the womb as a way “to address the number of the people that we have on this planet,” how can he claim is it wrong for America to protect its own borders “to address the number of the people that we have” in our own particular part of the planet? Why does Michael Brune consider it “xenophobia” for America to enforce its own laws, in order to defend our own people?
As for Brune’s neo-Malthusian claims about abortion as necessary for population “sustainability,” let him take those arguments to any one of the Top 10 countries with the highest total fertility rates:
1. Niger …………………….. 6.62
2. Burundi ………………… 6.04
3. Mali ……………………… 5.95
4. Somalia ………………… 5.89
5. Uganda ………………… 5.80
6. Burkina Faso ………… 5.79
7. Zambia …………………. 5.67
8. Malawi …………………. 5.54
9. Angola …………………. 5.31
10. Afghanistan …………. 5.22
What is Michael Brune doing about “sustainability” in Uganda and Afghanistan, Burundi and Burkina Faso? Why is he supporting abortion to kill American babies while supporting open-borders policy to add millions of foreigners to our population? The total fertility rate in the United States is already substantially below the so-called “replacement” level (2.1 average lifetime births per woman), so why is “the number of people we have” such a problem for the Sierra Club? Isn’t the real problem that the Sierra Club is a Democrat Party lobbying group, which is trying to reduce the number of Americans who vote Republican?
The Sierra Club’s annual budget is about $100 million. How much of that money are they spending in Somalia and Malawi? None, I’ll bet.
No, the Sierra Club spends its money from liberal donors to elect Democrat politicians whom it then lobbies to enact liberal policies. Whether these policies are actually helping the environment is less important to liberal donors than whether they’re helping the Democrat Party. Like feminism and the so-called “labor movement,” environmentalism is just another partisan scam, foisted upon weak-minded people who don’t believe in God, but who have a quasi-religious faith in the Democrat Party and “a woman’s right to choose” (so long as her choice doesn’t involve voting Republican).
There is not now, nor has there ever been, an “overpopulation” problem, and certainly not in the United States. The myth of overpopulation was created by a bunch of rich guys including David Rockefeller and Hugh Moore, and was popularized in Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich wrongly predicted that “overpopulation” would soon lead to worldwide mass starvation, but here we are, nearly 50 years later, and America is suffering from an obesity epidemic. (You can read more about the history of the population-control scam in Donald Critchlow’s Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America.) My point is that the kind of myth-making about “sustainable population” that Michael Brune peddled on Tucker Carlson’s show has been as thoroughly debunked as “Haven Monahan.”
The Sierra Club isn’t worried that there are too many people on the planet; they’re worried that too many people who live in the part of the planet called “America” vote Republican.
The planet is not “endangered,” there is no “overpopulation,” the scientific “consensus” about global warming is phony propaganda, and you should never trust a word anyone from the Sierra Club says.