Last week, Vice President Kamala Harris received a round of applause when she said “when we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.” And with that, she pulled back the curtain to expose one of the many horrors that is usually endorsed not quite so openly by the political left.
We acknowledge that Harris might have lost another one of the many battles she and her White House boss have with teleprompters and public speaking in general. The official transcript scrubs “population” and replaces it with “pollution,” as if that was the term the speech called for.
Maybe it is the word she was supposed to use. But we can’t rule out the likelihood she made a Kinsley gaffe, revealing a truth she didn’t intend to, because her side of the aisle has long been aligned with population-reduction cranks.
One Democrat who hasn’t been shy about population limits is Bernie Sanders, the Vermont bedlamite. During a 2019 town hall meeting, Sanders said “yes” when asked if he asked about “the need to curb population growth” in order to “address climate catastrophe.” He spoke for many that day.
Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich was not the first to advocate cutting the planet’s population, but he did blow up the world in 1968 with “The Population Bomb,” in which he shared his conviction that unless humanity was culled, the near future was one of “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.” To get to the beginning we’d have to go back at least as far as the late 18th century, when Englishman Thomas Robert Malthus wanted to “court the return of the plague” and forbid “specific remedies for ravaging diseases” to stop what he thought was the pestilence of overpopulation.
But there was no American Democratic Party in 1798, nor was the media in that era as perverted as the modern (Democratic Party operative) journalists who provide oxygen to the enemies of humanity, such as Les Knight and Ehrlich.
Neither did the Population Connection Action Fund exist at that time. But it’s around now, and this group that “advocates progressive action to stabilize world population” has “endorsed and funded exclusively Democratic candidates in some of the most competitive House races in the country,” the Washington Examiner reported during the 2018 election cycle.
Not every Democrat is a Malthusian or Ehrlich-ite. But Obama science czar John Holdren is certainly the latter, having co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich “Ecoscience,” the 1977 book that, says the Baptist Press, “discussed such compulsory measures to limit population as abortion, sterilization after a second or third child, a sterilizing capsule implanted at the onset of puberty and a sterilant given to the population in drinking water or food.”
Democrats also have to answer for Lyndon Johnson, who in 1965 said he was “not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.” And the 1968 party platform, which listed “population control” as an objective. More recently, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said asking if it’s “okay to still have children” is “a legitimate question.”
Then there’s Scott Wallace, a failed Democratic congressional candidate and co-chairman of the Wallace Global Fund, which has bankrolled the aforementioned Population Connection Action Fund, the lovely outfit that wants to punish those guilty of “irresponsible breeding.”
Though it might seem as if the population-control Democrats we’ve mentioned are the outliers in their party, they’re not. They’re just the ones saying the out loud what most of their comrades are afraid to.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board