We're all tea-partiers now
By Alisa Craddock
web posted January 25, 2010
The people have sent a great message to Washington: We don't want government take-over of our health care system. We don't want rationing and special deals and more taxes and corruption. We don't want someone in Washington deciding what our health care will be, whether directly or indirectly. We don't want Washington to drive our nation into bankruptcy, or shove a health care reform bill nobody has read down our throats. Good for us. We spoke. They didn't listen. We gathered and waved signs, they said we were a fringe. We converged on Washington in unprecedented numbers. They called us racists and "Far right-wing tea-partiers". Well, we're all tea-partiers now. The People have sent an undeniable message to Washington with the election in that ultra-liberal state of a Conservative Republican to the seat held for 50 years by Mr. Health Care Reform himself, Ted Kennedy: They elected a man who ran on a platform of derailing the ObamaCare Express, and who won in what can only be described as a landslide victory, with well over a 100,000 votes to spare—too many votes for even Acorn to rig. We can give a sigh of relief, at least for the moment.
But don't relax. We have been given a break, but not a victory. While the Democrats are deciding whether to try and pass the Senate version intact, or to use Reconciliation to put a bill through, already the Republicans are talking of Brown as a Presidential hopeful. Is Scott Brown the one? Is he the conservative Messiah? Honestly, I heard someone mention him in Messianic terms, just as they spoke about Obama, and like Obama, he doesn't have any experience, either. His win is undoubtedly a victory for Conservatives and Republicans as well, and a victory for subsidiarity (the organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority), that is, it's a victory for the people in terms of slowing the progressives from imposing tyranny on us. He is, if he has been straight about what he stands for, everything Conservatives want to hear—save one thing. He is pro-choice. And that's a problem.
People want to believe in a political remedy for our problems. They want to have their cake and eat it to. But our problem is a spiritual one, playing out in a political and social arena. Our problem is that we have killed the next generation, and our own conscience along with it, and now the former generation doesn't have enough resources to pay for their healthcare. So any healthcare reform package will inevitably be aimed at rationing healthcare to those most in need of it—to the elderly. Our gradually emerging attitude of eliminating suffering by eliminating those who suffer must, if not immediately, inevitably be turned on those we love: our parents, our handicapped children, . Our most defenseless. This is the flip side of the population control agenda that we have bought into and participated in with a religious zeal. "As you sow, so shall you reap," Our Lord tells us. Or to express it more colloquially, there is a reason you shouldn't"spit into the wind." Of course, we have played right into the hands of the wealthy global elite whose diabolical plan is being implemented in the name of population control
And this problem is worldwide. With so many countries where contraception and abortion have become embedded in the culture, family life has declined, fewer elderly are being cared for by their children, placing them in nursing homes instead; fewer couples are choosing to even have children, so there are insufficient numbers of children being born to replace those who are dying. The population control plan has worked brilliantly—to the detriment of those societies where it is most successful. And not only in terms of population reduction, but in the formation of a population whose conscience has been seared by anti-life attitudes and indoctrinated to a "mother earth" religious fervor that places the lives of plants and animals and even insects above that of humans. But while this may be pleasing to those whose grand design envisions a world population of 1-3 billion, the reality is that demographic decline is affecting the economies of countries where babies are in short supply. It's hard to get people to have babies when you've taught them the joys of selfishness and promiscuity and the evils of too many people.
Now some of these countries are asking their young couples to make babies—even paying them to do so. Bribing them. Rewarding them. And, of course, if you don't have enough of your own people to replace the dying, you must accept them from somewhere else. We're getting most of ours from Mexico, though they have not come invited. But what will xenophobic Japan do? Demographic suicide is a slow, painful death to a society, and entirely preventable.
Sometimes we have to learn the hard way that God's plan is better than ours. We find out when we try to do it our own way and ignore the Lord's instruction. "But there are too many people," I hear you say. Well, no, not really. There is insufficient desire to extend charity to them. They are disposable people, "useless eaters" a drain on resources desired by the wealthier nations. And as I reported before when I wrote about the NSSM 200 (aka the Kissinger Report), the policy for less developed countries (LDC's) at one time was targeted toward helping them to develop their resources and people; later those finite resources became coveted by first world countries who wanted to exploit them for their own purposes, and those "useless eaters" were/are viewed as a source of stress and potential violence within those countries. That is why population control programs were implemented and encouraged. That is why the NSSM 200 stresses that "the effort to develop and strengthen a commitment on the part of LDC leaders [must] not be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use by the "rich" countries." (In fact, that is precisely what the purpose is). So a clever lie, a con if you will, had to be devised to persuade these LDCs that population control is in their best interest by stressing "the right of the individual couple to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children…" and by tying the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries to lower population, demonstrating that "rapid population growth is both a contributing cause and a consequence of widespread poverty." Therefore, the report says, "we must develop a worldwide commitment of key LDC leaders to population stabilization while bypassing the will of the people."
To view this scheme in action, one only has to look at the literature of PROFAMIL, the IPPF project in Haiti. Read what their brochure says:
"Haiti is a neglected country – a country in crisis. The volatile political situation has led to civil and political unrest and the country lacks basic infrastructure such as electricity, sanitation, roads, health facilities, and schools. The PROFAMIL Project, improving and extending sexual and reproductive health services of PROFAMIL – focuses on the needs of underserved communities."
That comes right out of NSSM 200's playbook of misleading these populations about the purpose of the "reproductive health" services these organizations provide for them. You may have a tendency to think that I am putting my own slant on this agenda, painting, if you will, a demonic face on a well-intended and benign plan to reduce stress in famine-plagued countries by encouraging population control, and voluntary regulation of births. Not at all. The Report lays it all out, and it is breathtaking in its arrogance, and since it was not intended for public consumption, it makes no attempt to spin its contents to appear benign. "There is [a vew],," the report states bluntly, "which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted…The conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now." Such programs have been implemented among some of the poorest societies in the world.
Is this the future in store for us? We too are top-heavy. Are mandatory abortions and sterilizations, termination of imperfect pregnancies, euthanasia of those who might not be physically or mentally able to pull their weight the way that this will be imposed on us? Is this what Harry Reid had in mind when he declared that the Senate Health Care Bill passage was "merely the beginning. We'll continue to build on this success to improve our health system even more." Knowing what's in NSSM 200, that doesn't make me feel particularly reassured. Nor does the secrecy and deal-making that has gone on to get this infamous and dangerous bill passed.
The unimaginable tragedy that befell the impoverished nation of Haiti just under two weeks ago has had an inspiring, though naturally gut-wrenching effect on the world—money is pouring into relief organizations from all over the world. People are texting small donations, the wealthy are sending large, magnanimous donations, the world with one unified human heartbeat is extending all it can to help the poorest of the poor in the tiny country of Haiti. People are moved to such pity and consciences stagnant with disuse have been reborn. Human life and dignity are recognized once more in the colossal scale of this human tragedy, and in the individual faces of those devastated by this natural disaster of unimaginable proportion. Though PROFAMIL is soliciting donations for their "reproductive health" emergency efforts, it seems a bit out of place in an atmosphere of determined preservation of life amid the sickening death toll and the unfathomable pain of these survivors, many with amputated limbs and no anesthesia. A baby born here is a miracle and a sign of hope. A sign of contradiction, if you will. Yes, condom distribution seems rather absurd in the face of the enormous magnitude of the loss of life, and of the suffering, but also the triumph of life!
Like many others, I have wondered why a loving God would permit such a thing. It is always tempting, when you believe in God, to jump to the conclusion of divine vengeance or justice being meted out for some perceived evil. Oh, they practice voodoo. Idolatry brought God's wrath down on them. They made a pact with the devil, or whatever. God has his reasons, and he never answers "Why." But I was taken aback the Sunday after the earthquake at the readings for that Sunday (the reading was for the Latin Mass, not the Novus Ordo) and was taken from Romans, Chapter 12. The part that struck me with its poignancy was this: "Let love be without pretense. Hate what is evil; hold to what is good. Love one another with fraternal charity". And later in the same passage: "Be of one mind with one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but condescend to the lowly." It is not for us to presume to know the mind of God, but to do what is virtuous in the eyes of God in the charity we show to one another. Can there be true charity that does not also extend to the womb.?
We too, we Tea-partiers, must be of one mind. We must hate what is evil and embrace what is right. We must be of one mind with one another if we are to prevail. We must seek the spiritual remedy as well. We cannot, must not abandon our pro-life plank, nor allow ourselves to be mesmerized as the progressives were by a human "messiah". If we are to take back our country, we must return to first principles, and the most important of these is the right to LIFE! 
Alisa Craddock is a columnist for Enter Stage Right (www.enterstageright.com) and an activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at
alisa.craddock@hushmail.com