Friday, April 25, 2014

The Global Indifference for Africa

Does skin color really matter when 200 school girls are abducted?

In the state of Borno, in north-eastern Nigeria, there is an uncommon war being waged.  Teachers, students and schools are on the front lines as Boko Haram, an al-Qaida-linked jihad group, wars against Nigerian security forces purposed to defeat the influence of western education, the Guardian reported.  This past February, 59 students were murdered in this conflict.  World news has been virtually silent.

Ten days ago, forces broke into a schoolhouse in Chibok, Nigeria and kidnapped 200 school girls during their exam.  30 of the girls managed to escape while the rest disappeared as captives into the Nigerian forest. Parents racing to find their daughters before dark were unassisted and still the world news is virtually silent on this abduction but fixated on the ferry tragedy in South Korea. The indifference to humanity in Africa is glaring.

The indifference is not new.  It was not so long ago that vital aid was provided to Africa with the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (“DDT”).  DDT wiped out malaria here in the U.S. and was impacting the malaria epidemic in Africa until environmentalist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Sprint in 1962.  Notwithstanding Dr. Paul Müller was credited with discovering its application as a pesticide in 1939 and awarded a Nobel Prize in medicine, the pesticide was banned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1972 on the hypothesis, not fact, the drug caused cancer and destroyed wildlife in Africa.  The EPA says, “DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S. and international authorities. This classification is based on animal studies in which some animals developed liver tumors.”  (Notice the weak case here.) It takes more effort to open up a business in California than it does to institute a pesticide ban that virtually wipes out a population. I cannot make this stuff up.

By-in-large, Africa is disproportionately impacted by the unsubstantiated findings that DDT is harmful. Since 1996, a global ban has been placed on the use of DDT through the United Nations Stockholm Convention on POP’s (“persistent organic pollutants”) and now over 50 million, that’s right, 50 million, are purported to have died on the continent and 100,000 children die each year in Africa because DDT, now only allowed indoors, cannot be used outdoors where the mosquitos actually live and breed.  It is frightening to appreciate the complete disregard for humanity by those who worship environmentalism.

While every life is precious and my heart goes out to the 238 missing and the 64 confirmed dead from the sinking of the Sewol ferry, when will we also mourn for Africa’s dead children and demand the protection of those there who can be saved? Hello—are you there?

Friday, April 18, 2014


There are hundreds of millions of little ones around the world who live in orphanages, on the streets, or in refugee camps. Some of these children are available for international adoption by families in the United States. However, UNICEF’s policy favoring domestic adoptions over inter-country adoptions leave most orphans with no hope in cultures that are either not adoption-oriented or left to families too poor to take on the additional mouths.  The effect of the UNICEF policy leaves many of these children to perish rather than adopted internationally.

The U.S. State Department effectively relinquished its policy role on international child welfare to UNICEF and consequently international adoptions in the U.S. are down from 22,991 in 2004 to 8,668 in 2012, a 60% decrease.  This decrease is an abysmal failure under the treaty signed by the U.S. in 2008 titled “Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption” in order to increase international adoptions.

International adoption indeed has been plagued with corruption and trafficking around the world and serious effort must continue to protect children.  One of the greatest moral failures of our time is the evil perpetrated on vulnerable children (in and out of orphanages) and is only eclipsed by our inability to protect them.  However, the answer is not to abdicate our role to the UN, as we have, and institute adoption bans against Cambodia and others but rather to lead by focusing on international child welfare.  The UN’s policy through UNICEF that international adoption is a last resort is diametrically opposed to our goal under the treaty to increase international adoption. The best interest of the child should be the only priority and if international adoption is available it must always be considered.

UNICEF is radical and well-funded.  In Ethiopia they actually occupy space in the office where licensing occurs for international adoption agencies and routinely interferes with the licensing of these agencies.  It is outrageous where qualified law abiding operators are shut out and turned away from helping abandoned children.

A bipartisan group of legislators, including Michele Bachmann (R-MN), answered the call to fix this problem in a bill titled Children in Families First Act (CHIFF).   The legislation, co-authored by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), has 45 co-sponsors in the House and 20 in the Senate. The bill transcends politics, values the family, makes government smarter not bigger, and encourages more adoptions of foreign orphans on the premise that every child needs and deserves to grow up in a family.

Specifically, the bill (1) fills the gap in leadership by establishing a hub within the State Department focused on international child welfare, (2) streamlines the adoption process through the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS), and (3) increases protection for children and families.  The bill proposes an annual budget of $60 million paid for from a reallocation of existing foreign aid. 

The bill is not yet law and needs the support of those who agree with the urgent need to change course.  Learn more about CHIFF at and find a way to join the effort.  My wife and I, caught in the maze of international adoption, understand the challenges children and families face.  We and they ask you to raise your voices – today!

Friday, April 11, 2014

Melinda (Margaret Sanger) Gates: Hands Off the Black Family

Is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation trying to destroy Africa’s future?

I am fed up with progressive policies masquerading as cures for what ails the black diaspora while they annihilate generations in the name of reproductive liberty, family planning or population control.

Eugenicist Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League and began the contemporary crusade against the black family when she promoted negative eugenics (“race suicide”) under The Negro Project founded in 1939. 

In 1942, her organization became Planned Parenthood and is now the largest abortion provider in the U.S.  Sanger’s vision advanced and now 30% of the black population in the U.S. has been erased since Roe v. Wade.

My wife and I traveled to Ethiopia last November and noticed the advertisements hanging high for the International Conference on Family Planning (ICFP) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, sponsored in part by The Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health.  I discovered that Melinda Gates, the world’s wealthiest woman, is targeting Ethiopian women much in the same way as Sanger.  While Mrs. Gates likely believes she is advancing social justice, open eyes can see there is no justice.

“We are thirsty and they give us condoms! We are hungry and they offer us contraceptive pills! We are sick and they offer us the most modern techniques of abortion! …..We are imprisoned by poverty and they offer us sexual liberation! Silent tears roll down for Africa in a modern world that can neither see our pain nor hear our cry for help,” wrote Obianuju Ekeocha, an African woman and founder of Culture of Life Africa, in response to the ICFP conference.

Mrs. Gates is leading the charge for legalized abortion in Africa! To that end, she committed millions of dollars to the spread of hormonal contraceptive use in Africa and hosted forums on abortion at the ICFP in order to reverse the high maternal mortality rate of African women.

Mrs. Gates’ failure to attack the real causes of the high maternal mortality rate exposes her eugenics agenda.  The women of Africa would be better served if Mrs. Gates focused on the lack of properly equipped health care facilities, skilled health care providers, proper nutrition, clean water, and educational opportunities.

“[Mrs. Gates’] misguided efforts to flood Africa with injectable hormonal contraception also carry grave health risks for African women. The Gates Foundation actually funded a study by the University of Washington that found contraception doubled the transmission rates of HIV. It makes no sense to introduce this increased risk of HIV infection in an area already plagued by AIDS and with inadequate medical infrastructure to support the subsequent need for increased testing and treatment,” said Denise Hunnell, MD, a Fellow of Human Life International.

Let’s not pretend. Melinda Gates is the “Margaret Sanger Remix”. We must force the Gates to abandon their eugenics agenda and take their hands off of the black family. Most emphatically they must be told the birth of black babies is none of their concern. 

Friday, April 4, 2014

Obamacare Deals a Deadly Blow

Did you know that Americans will involuntarily pay to abort millions of babies a year because of Obamacare and others will be forced under the threat of huge penalties?

I recently attended a Covered California enrollment event for Obamacare as a leader in the inner city.  Covered California is the marketplace for Californians to shop for affordable health insurance. Nearly 150 attendees enrolled--some enrolled for Medicaid and the others enrolled in private plans through the state exchange.

However, the underbelly of this train wreck, called Obamacare, is its assault against religious freedom.  Millions of low and middle-income families qualify for an “affordability tax credit” or subsidy.  The assault occurs where the subsidy allows the purchase of a plan that covers elective abortion.  That’s right. The law is an end-run around the prohibition of tax payer funded abortions by providing subsidies for health plans that include elective abortion coverage.

The Hyde Amendment has been passed every year since 1973 in the appropriation bill to the Department of Health and Human Services; it prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. The amendment has been the only barrier to tax payer funded abortions before Obamacare.  That is no longer the case.

Notwithstanding that Obamacare includes a so-called “abortion surcharge” to be paid and segregated away from insurance premiums, the proverbial horse called “tax payer funded abortion” is out of the barn.

But the law does not stop at tax payer subsidies. It goes further.  It also mandates employers to include contraception coverage in their plans as well.  The law does not intend to leave any stone uncovered.  The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga case against the contraception mandate currently before the High Court highlights the aggression of the “family planning” agenda and the difficulty it intentionally places on the practice of religious freedom under the First Amendment.

Hobby Lobby in particular, a national arts and craft chain, is a for-profit corporation privately owned by the Green family who are devout evangelical Christians at risk to pay a tax of $475 million if it fails to provide the mandated coverage or $26 million if it drops its coverage altogether, their lawyer stated. 

They will likely go out of business if they lose before the Supreme Court.  That any corporation in America faces annihilation for choosing to practice the faith of its ownership is simply shocking.

The question the High Court must answer is whether or not the liberties afforded an individual extend to a corporation.  In the case of Hobby Lobby or any individual forming a for-profit corporation guided by their faith, I hope the answer will be a resounding “Yes.”

President Obama’s history as a state senator and president on the issue of life and abortion are clear.  He favors a woman’s choice to murder her child over the unborn child’s right to life.  The record is clear.  Through Obamacare, the president deals a silent and deadly blow to the unborn and to every American opposed to funding abortions or abortifacients.