Buffett, Soros, Turner.. Doing Damage with their Fortunes

[Bonnie]

Buffett's Liberal Causes
By Cliff Kincaid (07/24/2006)

Billionaire Warren Buffett has been depicted as a great humanitarian and philanthropist when he has poured tens of millions of dollars into the morally objectionable cause of promoting abortion not only here but throughout the developing world. Billionaire liberals like Buffett, Ted Turner and George Soros apparently believe it's easier to control and reduce the number of people in the world than help Third World countries develop their economies.

But abortion is not Buffett's only liberal cause. He is also a big supporter of public television, the United Nations, and U.S. nuclear disarmament.

The latter was euphemistically dubbed by USA Today to be "prevention" of nuclear war. Can anything be better than that? The paper also referred to one of Buffett's sons, Peter, as running a foundation concerned with education, the environment and human rights. Those causes sound good, too. It turns out that his NoVo foundation is just as far-left as his father's.

The NoVo Foundation provided more than $1 million in one year alone to the New World Foundation in New York, which became famous at one time for including a person then known as Hillary Rodham Clinton as a member of its board. At that time the group provided money to the extreme left, including the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), a group that tried to facilitate a communist takeover of that country. The Reagan policy of fighting communism in the Western hemisphere, which was resisted by a liberal Congress, saved Central America from communism. The Salvadoran terrorists saw the handwriting on the wall when the communist Sandinistas were defeated in an election in neighboring Nicaragua. The Salvadoran terrorists gave up the fight, to pursue their goals politically.

CISPES, which is still agitating for a communist victory in El Salvador, admits, "We channeled direct financial support to projects that advanced the strategic needs of the revolution…" But don't look for the media to remind us of Hillary's involvement with funding that Marxist front group.

While many of the NoVo Foundation grant recipients are concerned with promoting abortion, more than $3 million went to the Tides Center in San Francisco, an unusual left-wing group that works with a network of more than 250 "progressive" organizations.

One big recipient of money from Warren Buffett's foundation (The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation) has been the San Francisco-based Ploughshares Fund, a group that has made a name for itself by sponsoring one of Bill Richardson's "peace" trips to North Korea, hosting actor Sean Penn at one of its briefings, and promoting a book praising J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American A-bomb scientist exposed as a communist and Soviet spy. Hollywood actor Michael Douglas serves on the group's board.

The Ploughshares Fund boasts that its "program officer" for North Korea, Paul Carroll, became "one of only a few foundation representatives ever allowed into North Korea," when he visited the country from July 4-8 at the invitation of North Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was not disclosed if Carroll would be registering with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for North Korea.

On another foreign affairs issue, the Buffett Foundation provided $500,000 to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a group founded by Ted Turner whose slant can be seen in its posting of a story accusing the media and U.S. officials in Washington of having "significantly overstated the capabilities of both North Korea's ballistic missiles and U.S. national missile defenses…" during the recent crisis. This group believes in dealing with dictators to reduce the threat, rather than building up our own military strength.

Conservatives on Capitol Hill should take note of the fact that Buffett's support for public broadcasting includes $100,000 for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and grants to Nebraskans for Public TV and KQED in San Francisco.

Why not a congressional resolution urging Buffett-and not the taxpayers-to pay for public broadcasting? That would be real charity.

A U.N. booster like Ted Turner, Buffett gave $10,000 to the Federation of United Nations Associations. Perhaps Warren and Ted can take over paying U.S. "dues" to the U.N. and get U.S. taxpayers off the hook for that financial burden. That would be real philanthropy.

Media Monitor: http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4731_0_2_0_C/

 

[Mr.Conley]

They earned their money honestly and have every right to spend it as they see fit; without government interference.

 

[theHawk]

Yea they did, but we also have the right to point out their actions. I just love how the Democratic party tries to portray itself as the party of the poor and middle class, when in reality they would no where without the help of these billionaire asswipes.

 

[Mr.Conley]

WTF, J. Robert Oppenheimer was no communist. Why on Earth did they buy into that propaganda.

 

[Mr.Conley]

My God, donate money to NPR. That's like helping to keep the station off of government money. COMMUNIST BASTARDS.

 

[Mr.Conley]

The recepiant of money from a charity where Buffet's son worked might is supposedly evil. Buffet is definitely plotting to overthrow the United States government and replace it with a totalitarian body known as **duh, duh duh** BerkshireHathaway.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Warren Buffet doesn't want a nuclear war to ever occur. Surely he is plotting our ultimate destruction.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Warren Buffet gave money to a charity that had Michael Douglas sitting on the board. Why not just give it directly to Osama?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Warren Buffect **only** gave the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation $31 BILLION to fight poverty and improve global health. That means he wants to massacre the entire third world. Yes it all makes sense in the magical, mystical world of Cliff Kincaid.

 

[Bonnie]

You would think since they are so fortunate to have that kind of money they would at least give money to help pregnant women to keep their babies instead of promoting abortion, but that would be too much of a positive thing I suppose....:scratch:

 

[Mr.Conley]

You would think since they are so fortunate to have that kind of money they would at least give money to help pregnant women to keep their babies instead of promoting abortion, but that would be too much of a positive thing I suppose....

Yea, instead he donated to money to fight the spread of malaria, cholera, tuberculosis, AIDS, and Polio among children in third world countries. I know of only three words to describe that kind of person: cold, heartless bastard.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Besides, the birth rate in most third world countries is so high and the poverty already so vast that ensuring women have a lot of kids is partically a death sentence for most.

 

[Bonnie]

The Myth of Low Industrial Growth. By historical standards, economic growth in the Third World during the past three decades has been spectacular. Per capita income for the Third World as a whole has grown more than 3 percent per year - three times faster than in Western Europe during the 19th century.

Still, the gap in living standards is widening. The reason can be illustrated. If a country with income per person of $100 grows by 10 percent and a country with income per person of $1,000 grows by 2 percent, the gap between the countries widens by $10 per person after one year. Thus the gap in living standards between rich and poor countries will continue to grow well into the next century.


The Myth of Population Explosion. The Third World birth rate is not enormous by historical standards. For example, the birth rate in England in 1821 was 40.8 per thousand, not much lower than the 42.5 per thousand in East Asia in 1950. The birth rate in the United States in 1820 was 55.2 per thousand, higher than anywhere in the Third World in 1950. The reason for the more rapid rate of population growth lies with the death rate. Life expectancies are far greater in the Third World today than they were in England in the early 19th century. And birth rates are likely to fall in the future. Demographers have already discovered a decline in much of the Third World, first in Latin America and now in Asia.


The Myth of Food Shortages. Although many people believe that famines in the Third World are caused by recent population surges, mass starvation in Asia and Africa has a long history. Rather than increasing, famines have actually disappeared from much of the world. Where they are still found, they are almost invariably due to a distribution problem rather than a shortage of food.


As so many developing nations deal with debt crises, population problems, polluted cities, inequality and temporary economic setbacks, it is important to remember that the 19th century industrializing countries experienced the same growing pains. Despite these problems, the Third World has done very well by the standards of history.

Jeffrey G. Williamson Oxoford Press books

Every human being on earth today could stand side by side within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida. These same people could be given a house and a plot of ground and reside within the state of Texas. The rest of the "world" would be uninhabited.

Does this sound like a "world" population crisis'? It is, however, simply another scheme by special interest groups, such as, The International Planned Parenthood Federation, who promises to rake in billions of dollars.

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens.

The truth is there is no "world" population crisis and no rapid population growth for Scrooge, or Planned Parenthood, to control.

Why is the developed world so determined to reduce population growth in the developing world? One answer comes from Dr. Charles Ravenholt, former Director of the Population Office of USAID: "Population control is needed to maintain the normal operation of the United States commercial interests around the world."

This view is more than just Dr. Ravenholt’s personal opinion, for it is enshrined in the official document of the U.S. government entitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." Drafted by the National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger, and secretly published as National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) on 10 December 1974, this document declares that:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.

To mask U.S. involvement and allay Third World suspicions, population control aid is funneled through the UNFPA and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). For the same reason, strenuous efforts are made to create the appearance of an international "consensus" on the need for population control at the 1994 Cairo Conference of Population and Develo0pment and elsewhere. The "surplus population" of the third world must not suspect that it is being deliberately "reduced."

Here are some facts, which you probably haven’t heard reported:

The total annual number of children being born into the World is predicted to reach it's peak in the early 21st Century. According to the latest U.N. Population Division (not to be confused with the UNFPA) figures, fully 71 countries representing almost half the world's population now have below replacement fertility rates.

For the first time in recorded history the worldwide birth rate is now falling faster than the mortality rate. Europe is dying. The average woman in Europe is now bearing 1.48 children in her lifetime. In order to maintain a level population with replacement births, the average woman in her lifetime must bear 2.1 children. Malta, Ireland, Poland, and surprisingly Sweden are the only countries reproducing themselves. The birthrates of Norway, France, and England are so low that the maintenance of their present population levels are threatened. France's Prime Minister has stated, "Europe is vanishing... Soon our countries will be empty." The French fertility rate dropped 32% in eleven years. The birthrate in, what had been Soviet Russia, is around 1%. Only five Muslim countries are replacing themselves by natural increase. The average Russian woman has seven abortions in her lifetime. Latin America, Africa, and Asia are also experiencing declining fertility rates, though not as rapid."

In 1972 fertility in the U.S. dropped below the level needed to achieve zero population growth. It has been below replacement level ever since. Some time ago, the U.S. Census Bureau had to change its population forecast by reducing it for the year 2000 AD by over 100 million fewer people.

In 1980 there were over four working people to support, with tax dollars, every one retired person over sixty-five. By 2020 there will be only one worker paying into Social Security to support one retiree-an impossible situation for our government to live with. Such a burden for young working taxpayers could push them into an intergenerational revolt against paying high taxes to maintain the elderly. The over-population extremists' only logical solution will be to "legalize" euthanasia and eliminate the elderly and non-productive.

Fifty years ago, when our soldiers invaded the Normandy Beaches in Europe our national debt stood at $260 billion. It now stands at more than $5-1/2 trillion. It took a little over 200 years for our country to reach a debt of one trillion and less than ten years to reach five trillion. This figure could more than double in ten years.

To date over 35 million young Americans - more than the population of the entire nation of Canada - have been killed by "legal" abortion. The cost to every American has been devastating, at the very least, both as a moral decay of our society, as well as financially. It is estimated the lifetime economic loss to our country from these killings would amount to somewhere between 12 and 15 trillion dollars - more than enough to eliminate our National Debt.

The Clinton Administration was obsessed with spreading its track record of failure to the "world" in the prevention of poverty. The fact is, since 1960, the U.S. government has funded, with your tax dollars, enough money into poverty programs to purchase all Fortune 500 companies and all American farmland.

News commentator Paul Harvey pointed out something interesting. "If we took all of the people in the country, at this time, who are living below the poverty level, making less than $10,990 for an urban family of four, and simply gave them fifteen thousand dollars per family to raise their income out of the poverty level to about $25,000, that would cost our government $126.3 billion. Yet, $642 billion is being spent a year to relieve poverty and we are not accomplishing it. Why not?"

It is a proven fact, and most economists will agree, that most of the tax dollars collected to fight poverty end up in the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants, and staff. It is like taking a bucket of water to put out a fire, but the bucket has all sorts of holes in it. You run fifty feet to throw it on the fire, but by the time you reach the fire, most of the water has leaked out. The same illustration holds true for tax dollars funded for World Population Control. International Planned Parenthood Federation and other special interest groups will be the recipients of most of the funding.

Is the world running out of food? Prophets of doom would have us believe the world population will soar to 11 billion in 50 years and as a result we will all starve. Paul Ehrlich has been the most notorious. In 1972, he warned that 65 million Americans would die of starvation by 1985 and that hundreds of millions would perish elsewhere. Needless to say, this predicted decimation never happened.

Dr. Colin Clark of Oxford University in England, in his book Starvation or Plenty, states that given agricultural methods common today, "the potential agricultural area of the world could provide for the consumption requirements, at contemporary maximum dietary standards of 53.1 billion people, or over ten times the present world population. (Siccus Circle, P323)

Dennis Avery, Director of the Center for Global Foods Issues, at the Hudson Institute has written, "We can be thankful that in the decades ahead our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy bountiful harvests even though the number of mouths the world has to feed will double to 11 billion in the first half of the next century. Biotechnology, including the genetic engineering of higher yielding pest-resistant rice, corn, vegetables, and other crop plants and the widespread adoption of modern farming methods that conserve soil and water resources will give us the opportunity to banish hunger from even the poorest nations in the Third World. This is not a pipe dream. High-yield agriculture has already doubled the output of food in the last three decades." (Washington Times, 11-24-93)

A study done by the New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs showed that about two-thirds of New Jersey's land remains unsettled, an interesting finding considering that New Jersey is the nation's most densely populated state. Only 1% of the United States is paved.

Much of our agriculturally rich American farmland remains unharvested because of economic reasons. A drive around the state of Wisconsin will substantiate that fact. Give American farmers a fair price for their product and they can more than feed the world.

If famines exist today, they are restricted to isolated geographical areas, and are as a result of wars and political disagreements, not over-population. In areas where food shortages exist, the problem is not the world's ability to supply food, but to transport food to the source.

Because of wars and political strife most countries reject outside efforts to help.

Does population growth necessarily produce more poverty? The fact is some of the world's most populous places like Japan and Holland also offer some of the highest standards of living.

Mahbub-Ul Hag, a former Finance Minister of Pakistan, and now advisor for the UN Development Program, says "increases in rich nations' patterns of consumption is the world's primary problem, not population increases in poor countries."

Natural resources, far from becoming more scarce, are becoming more plentiful. Although there's not more oil, coal, iron, etc. in the ground, ever-creative mankind just keeps finding alternative resources or ways to use the old resources more efficiently.

THE WORLD HAS ENOUGH RESOURCES:

The world’s known oil reserves are the greatest ever.
The world’s natural gas reserves are the greatest ever.
The earth’s rivers and lakes contain enough fresh water to cover all of the earth’s land 13 feet deep.
The U.S. has approximately 800 trees per person.
The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has vastly increased tree growth.
The U.S. solid waste (trash) can now be disposed more cheaply.

It is a known fact that when people must earn more to solve problems, they become more creative. International Planned Parenthood has used the overpopulation myth to justify its push for sex education programs funded by your tax dollars. Sex without pregnancy, pregnancy without children, children without parenting. The end result will be forced abortion and infanticide
worldwide such as now practiced in parts of India, China, and Russia.

The poor will get poorer and the rich will continue to get much richer.


For further information, visit the Population Research Institute.

http://www.mdccc.org/PAGES/Articles/World%20Population%20Crisis%20A%20Myth%20that's%20about%20Money!.htm