₦airaland Forum

@ Ileke Idi
Cosign, God never gave us a one child policy

" Try telling a Yoruba woman she cant have more than one child. "

exactly a Yoruba women will never tolerate that, Nigeria will never implement a law like that

this is so sad, what are these obeise people eating?, no self control what so ever

she's beautiful, and I congratulate her, just found out myself after reading this article: http://tv.yahoo.com/news/leila-lopes-angola-crowned-miss-universe-030158499.html?nc

@ Ileke Idi
"So when will this "one-child" policy be implemented in the USA? "

exactly, especially since that country has a bigger population then Nigeria. India is right behind China in population and I don't see that happening in that country.

I don't think any country besides China will practice that rule, they can recommend it but will the Nigerian government listen to that, Nope. If I am not mistaken there was a 4 child policy in Nigeria decades ago but was never implemented, so I think it's all talk
http://bristolboy.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-Countries-With-The-Largest-Population

any opinions

lol

I don't think this "one child" policy will work in any country besides China, so I think it's a joke what do you think?

The United Nations Wants To Recommend China's "One Child" Policy To Nigerians


[b]"Washington (CNSNews.com) – A U.S. congressman says the United Nations and China have been working hand-in-hand to spread China’s “One Child” population control policy to Africa and that recent comments by a top U.N. adviser calling on Nigeria to limit births to three children per family reflect that partnership.

Last week, after meeting with Nigeria’s new president, liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs told Agence France Presse (AFP): “I am really scared about population explosion in Nigeria. It is not healthy. Nigeria should work towards attaining a maximum of three children per family.”

Sachs is a special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, directs the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and is the author of The End of Poverty.

At a press conference on Wednesday,  Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) told CNSNews.com that this was not the first time a top U.N. adviser has pushed for population control in Nigeria. In fact, he said, the U.N. has been working with China to spread the population control message to Sub-Saharan Africa.

“I think two years ago the U.N. Population Fund and the State Family Planning Council of China invited the health ministers and other high officials of every sub-Saharan Africa (country) to Beijing for about a week,” Smith said during a Capitol Hill news conference.

“They gave them world-class hotel accommodations, and fed them the line that, ‘If you want economic growth, get rid of the children, follow China’s lead.’ And as our eminent demographers and scientists would tell you, it is a matter of when -- and not if --given the aging of the Chinese population that will begin in earnest in the very near future, that the economic miracle of China will quickly dissipate and become a nightmare,” Smith said.

Smith, who is the chairman of the Africa, Global Health and Human Rights subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said recent congressional hearings he conducted revealed the growing influence of China on world population control.

“Now we see they’re exporting the ‘one-child-per-couple’ mantra, which in Nigeria’s case or Rwanda’s case, to say may be two or three (children per couple),” Smith told CNSNews.com.

He stressed that restricting the number of people stunts a nation’s economic growth.

“The impact will be disastrous," said Smith. "If women decide they do not want to have children, that is their prerogative, but government stepping in and using the coercive power of the State to either incentivizing no children by putting penalties on as China does."

At the press conference, the congressman quoted a work by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, entitled “The Pivot of Civilization,” which contains a chapter “The Cruelty of Charity”, in which Sanger asserts that  “is cruel to help and to assist an indigent woman (to) have a child because you get more of those useless breeders.”

“It is eugenist and racist to the core and yet that’s the mindset being exported by China to Nigeria," said Smith.  "Now UNFPA has at its helm Nigeria. So you can be sure that very anti-human rights policy of China will have additional favor because UNFPA has enabled it right from the beginning and now they are targeting Africa."

Nigeria is currently the most populated country in Africa. The United Nations has predicted that the population of Nigeria will climb from its current 160 million to 730 million by the year 2100. The data are taken from the United Nations Population Fund.

If the U.N. predictions are correct, Nigeria would become the third most populated country in the world behind India and China. According to data from the UNFPA, currently the average number of children per Nigerian household is four.

Kyu-Young Lee, media spokesperson for Sachs, told CNSNews.com: “Research has shown time and time again that economic growth is tied to population control. The two go hand-in-hand.”

According to Lee, the goal of the UNFPA is to raise the standard of living for impoverished nations. To reach this objective, a mind-set change must take place. A multi-pronged approach involving family planning measures and reproductive health awareness would be necessary.

Currently, more than 70 percent of Nigerians live below the international poverty line, according to the UNFPA.

Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, agreed with Smith that Sachs – a Nobel-nominated economist -- was trying to pressure Nigeria on behalf of the U.N.

“By bringing the weight of the U.N. to bear on Nigeria, Sachs is potentially contributing to a China-like situation, where the government will impose by force a limit on the number of children that couples can have, and impose this limit by forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and forced contraception,” Mosher said.

Mosher said Smith is correct that implementing a three-child-per-family limit would have disastrous effects for both Nigeria and the globe.

“It always starts being called voluntary, as did China’s, and very quickly matriculates into coercion, because in the end, women and men will want to build families. And then the government tells you how many,” Smith said.

“Neither the U.N., nor its special advisors, have any business encouraging countries to intervene in the personal decisions of their citizens whether or not to have children.  Couples have a fundamental right to determine for themselves the number and spacing of their children,” he added.

A transcript of CNSNews.com's exchange with Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) is presented below:

CNSNEWS.COM: "Jeffrey Sachs recommended that Nigeria adopt a three child per family maximum. Do you think Nigeria will accept this recommendation? If so, what do you think the effects will be?"

REP. CHRIS SMITH (R-N.J.): "I think two years ago the UN Population Fund and the State Family Planning Council of China invited the health ministers and other high officials of every sub-Saharan Africa (country) to Beijing for about a week. They gave them world class hotel accommodations, and fed them the line that if you want economic growth, get rid of the children, follow China’s lead. And as our imminent demographers and scientists would tell you, it is a matter of when and not if given the aging of the Chinese population that will begin in earnest in the very near future that the economic miracle of China will quickly dissipate and become a nightmare."

REP. SMITH: "But they are selling that (and I do chair the Global Human Rights Committee, which is also the Africa and Global Health Committee), we’ve held hearings on the influence of the Chinese form of governance and its dictatorship, and now we see they’re exporting the “one-child-per-couple” mantra, which in Nigeria’s case or Rwanda’s case, to say may be two or three (children per couple). The impact will be disastrous. If women decide they do not want to have children that is their prerogative, but government stepping in and using the coercive power of the State to either incentivizing no children by putting penalties on as China does. It always starts being called voluntary, as did China’s, and very quickly matriculates into coercion because in the end women and men will want to build families. And then the government tells you how many."

REP. SMITH: "And it all goes back, if you go back and read -- Margaret Sanger wrote a number of books and I’ve read most of them. One of them was called “Child Limitation,” in which she argues for one to two children per couple. Ted Turner recent said at a Global Climate Change Summit in Cancun, “We need a word of one-child-per couple policies just like China’s. Forgetting perhaps, not forgetting, that coercion is the only means to that end. And there was one book written by Margaret Sanger called “The Pivot of Civilization” and in chapter five, the chapter title is called, “The Cruelty of Charity.” And she argues that it is cruel to help and to assist an indigent woman have a child because you get more of those useless breeders. It is eugenist and racist to the core and yet that’s the mindset being exported by China to Nigeria. Now UNFPA has at its helm Nigeria. So you can be sure that very anti-human rights policy of China will have additional favor because UNFPA has enabled it right from the beginning and now they are targeting Africa."[/b]
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-smith-un-and-china-exporting-one-child-policy-nigeria-africa

[b]"SOUTHCOM

To understand the composition and purpose of this attempt to dominate Africa, one only has to look at the government's "Southern Command" known as "SOUTHCOM". Origins of SOUTHCOM can be traced all the way back to 1903 when U.S. Marines arrived in Panama "to protect" the Panama Railroad, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They remained in Panama "to provide security" for the construction of the Panama Canal. Through the decades, U.S. military presence steadily grew to dominate additional territory under a number of other pretexts and in 1946 the Truman regime placed military control of the region under a single commander.

In 1963 the plan for U.S. military domination in Latin America was designated "SOUTHCOM" and the government formally declared all of Central and South America to be its "area of responsibility". When the Panama Canal treaties were implemented in 1977, SOUTHCOM headquarters were moved from Panama to Miami, Florida. In 1996 and 1997 the U.S. DOD completed another plan it named the "Unified Command Plan" (UCP). Leading up to 1997, each change in the UCP added more land to the SOUTHCOM domain. These geographic areas include a number of U.S. and European "territories". They include 13 island nations, currently occupied by the U.S. and Europe, the Gulf of Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In 1999 an additional portion of the Atlantic Ocean was added to SOUTHCOM's "area of responsibility" and in 2000 the waters adjacent to the northern quadrant of Brazil were added
Today, SOUTHCOM assumes the right to dominate 32 nations (19 in Central and South America and 13 in the Carribean). These encompass 14.5 million square miles or 23.2 million square kilometers. In the late 1980s, powerful resistance to this U.S. military domination of Latin America began to develop in the people of Venezuela. This resistance has grown under the leadership of Hugo Chavez Frias who was democratically elected president of Venezuela in 1998 and re-elected twice since then. Resistance to U.S. military domination has now spread to other countries in Latin America. For example, Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, elected in 2007 promised that the country will not renew the 30 year lease that allows the U.S. access to its Manta Air Base when it expires in 2009. The Manta Airbase was opened under a corrupt U.S.-backed Ecuadoran regime in 1978.
Economic Dependency and Military Domination

The U.S. used "protection" of the Panama Canal as a reason to move U.S. Marines there in 1903. It continues to use a number of other pretexts for SOUTHCOM's military domination of Latin America. It claims the Manta Air Base is being used to fight cocaine trafficking. It incorporated "humanitarian assistance and disaster relief programs" to justify its military domination throughout Latin America. It constructed disaster relief warehouses, emergency operation centers, shelters and schools "to promote peace and stability" and developed "civilian infrastructure for economic and social reforms , [to] improve the living conditions of impoverished regions in its area of responsibility". Meanwhile, the U.S. has created "impoverished regions" in these nations through its exploitation of natural resources and domination of Latin American economies via the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Thus, economic dependency has become the midwife of U.S. military domination.

Behind AFRICOM

AFRICOM's spokesman, Ryan Henry, is the leader of the U.S. delegation to Africa to sell AFRICOM to Africa. He is the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. Of AFRICOM's mission he stated that "the main mission for the command would be to stabilize weak or poor countries by training local security forces and doling out humanitarian aid." After meeting with Morroccan officials, Henry stated, "It's mostly a headquarters and planning focus. AFRICOM doesn't mean that there would be additional U.S. forces put on the continent." The Washington Post adds, "Defense officials acknowledge that one reason they are paying more attention to Africa is because the continent provides an increasingly large share of the United States' supply of imported oil and natural gas."

It is also interesting to note that Israel also has a "Southern Command" which it imposes on the Negev (6,700 sq miles, 13,000 sq kilometers), Arabah (103 square miles, 166 sq km) and Eilat, rich in marine resources and favored tourist site on the Red Sea - all in the name of "security" in ravaged Palestine.
In 2001, the U.S. created the "perfect war" for military domination anywhere in the world - the war that knows no temporal or geographic boundaries - the "war on terrorism". It assumes the right to attack with bombs, missiles, troops, economic sanctions or covert operations - anywhere it can dig up a "terrorist". In the last few weeks it uncovered a spurious "terrorist cell" to justify putting U.S. military in the nation of Guyana. The corporate media ramped up fear of a terrorist plan to blow up Kennedy Airport - providing support for this insertion of U.S. military in this sovereign nation on Venezuela's northeast border. In the case of AFRICOM, according to the Washington Post, the U.S. government has "touted the new command as a key part of their strategy for countering terrorism threats on the continent". The Post continues, "Al-Qaida-affiliated groups have experienced a resurgence in North and East Africa in recent years."

The People's Resistance

As in Latin America, the resistance to U.S. agression in Africa is first and foremost coming from "the people" - and not the regimes under which they live. Rachid Tlemcani is a professor of political science at the University of Algiers and also a scholar with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (a Washington-based organization that also supports the wealthy, minority opposition in Venezuela). He indicated that the rejection of AFRICOM "was a reflection of public opposition to U.S. policies in the predominantly Muslim region". Tlemcani stated,

"People on the street assume their governments have already had too many dealings with the U.S. in the war on terror at the expense of the rule of law , The regimes realize the whole idea is very unpopular."

The peoples of North Africa are students of history and their parents didn't rear fools, regardless of the racial stereotypes cultivated by western propaganda. They have learned from other U.S. occupations and regional dominations of the world including Latin America and the Middle East. The beast's smile has turned to a grin and baring its fangs in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, it is bleeding itself dry, both economically and militarily. Revealing its true nature, it has underestimated the intelligence of "the people" and opened the door for formidable world-wide rejection and even military resistance. One of the U.S. government's mouthpieces, the Washington Post, opens it's news report of Northern Africa's rejection of AFRICOM with the following line: "Nations in mostly Muslim region are reluctant to host military command". So according to the Post, the U.S. plan is rejected by Algerian and Lybian "Muslims" - not the peoples of North Africa. But the WP article also laments,

"Morocco, which has been mentioned as a possible site for the new command and is one of the strongest U.S. allies in the region, didn't roll out the welcome mat, either."

You bet the 4th World War is being played out, fought out in these post 9/11 years. It is a war between those in control of governments and the people who are realizing their own power. As responsible citizens of the United States we must do everything in our power to stop our government's international aggressions, not only for the sake of those being exploited and dominated in foreign lands, but also for the survival of our own civil rights, our economy and ironically for the survival of our own national sovereignty."[/b]
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_26083.shtml


[b]"The US military has decided to keep the base of its new Africa Command in Germany for now, after only one African nation, Liberia, offered to host it.

Most African countries have been wary of plans to base the command, Africom, on the continent.

Africom's commander, Gen William Ward, said there were no plans to create large US garrisons on the continent.

The military command was created last year to unite responsibilities shared by three other US regional commands.

The US plan had been misunderstood by some African countries, Gen Ward told the BBC.

The key aim of Africom was to build the capacity of African countries for security and peacekeeping, he said, adding there were no plans to move the headquarters for at least a year.

African doubts

Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua announced in November that he would not allow his country to host an Africom base and that he was also opposed to any such bases in West Africa.

South Africa and Libya have also voiced strong reservations.

Only Liberia, which has historic links to the US, has offered to host it.

There has been concern that Africom is really an attempt to protect US oil and mineral interests in Africa, amid growing competition for resources from Asian economies, says the BBC's Alex Last in the Nigerian capital Abuja.

Then there are fears about the continent being drawn into the US war on terror, our correspondent adds.

Gen Ward said Africom was not about militarisation but consolidating existing operations under one single command, while helping Africans with military training and supporting peacekeeping and aid operations."[/b]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7251648.stm

[b]"NEW YORK (Reuters) - She has graced countless magazine covers and dresses sell out hours after she has worn them, but experts at New York Fashion Week say Britain's Kate Middleton is a style follower, not a trendsetter like her royal spouse's late mother Princess Diana.

Middleton has been compared and contrasted with Diana, whose style, charity and scandalous divorce from Prince Charles made her arguably the world's most famous woman.

When Middleton married Prince William in April, hundreds of millions of people around the world watched on television, eager to see the wedding dress designed by Sarah Burton for the British label Alexander McQueen.

Then during the a visit by the couple to Canada and the United States in July, all eyes were on Middleton's wardrobe.

"She is stylish, but she's not setting trends, she's following trends," said Gregg Andrews, a fashion director at U.S. department store chain Nordstrom.

"If you take Kate out of the royal family, put her on a street in New York, you wouldn't look at her twice. She's a beautiful woman, but she blends into a crowd," he said.

While experts debate her fashion status, they say there is no question that the new Duchess of Cambridge and wife of the person second in line to the British throne is influential.

"Is she a style icon of the likes of a Kate Moss? Absolutely not. Is she in the public eye? Are people going to become obsessed with everything she wears regardless of what it is? Yes," said Elle Fashion News Director Anne Slowey.

Much like U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, Middleton has been praised for wearing affordable Main Street labels.

A blue Issa crossover knee-length dress that she wore when her engagement to William was announced sold out within 24 hours and cheap knock-offs vanished almost instantly.

"GREAT ROLE MODEL

And the cream "Nannette" gown by British fashion retailer Reiss, which Middleton wore in the official engagement portraits, sold out several times over.

"Is she iconic at the moment? Time will tell. She's certainly influential. In the position that she's in you can't be simply stunning as she is and not have influence," said Neiman Marcus Fashion Director Ken Downing.

While more polished lady-like looks have been shown at New York Fashion Week -- such as evening wear with sleeves -- some experts were not expecting to see many styles on the runway inspired by Middleton.

Almost 100 designers are showing collections for spring/summer 2012 to retail buyers, media and celebrities, with dozens more showing at other venues around the city to coincide with the semi-annual event, which ends on Thursday
Saks Fifth Avenue Senior Fashion Director Colleen Sherin said Middleton's style could be aspirational for many women.

"She seems to be starting to experiment a bit, to try some different looks and some different designers which I like to see but also still remaining thoughtful and appropriate in her choices and that's the key to her success," she said.

Jill Martin, author of "I Have Nothing to Wear!", described Middleton's style as classic. "I think this spring you will see many brides walking down the aisle in dresses with sleeves and that will pay tribute to Kate," she said."[/b]
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-fashion-experts-middleton-no-trendsetter-164410713.html

Kate Middleton
https://gossip.whyfame.com/files/2011/03/kate_middleton.jpg