Image 01 Image 03

Dem candidate Scott Wallace funded population control groups fighting “irresponsible breeding” (#PA01)

Dem candidate Scott Wallace funded population control groups fighting “irresponsible breeding” (#PA01)

Wallace also previously took a hit for his foundation’s funding of anti-Israel groups.

The campaign of Scott Wallace, the Democratic candidate in PA-01, took a big hit in May 2018, just after he won the primary, when it was revealed that the Wallace Foundation, which he headed, funded the worst-of-the-worst anti-Israel pro-BDS groups.

In early July, the Cook Political Report moved the race from toss-up to leans Republican. From the Cook ratings change:

…. Wallace’s general election efforts have gotten off to a very rocky start. The day after the primary, the Forward published a piece documenting that the Wallace Global Fund gave $300,000 to groups supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. Wallace says he didn’t control the expenditures and disavows BDS, but it took a month for one local Jewish Democratic group to reinstate its support for him.

On June 21, the Republican Jewish coalition began running a brutal ad attacking Wallace for owning “mansions in Maryland and South Africa” and “donating $300,000 to anti-Semitic organizations that promote boycotting Israel.” The final tag line? “At home in South Africa, too radical for us.” The ad forced Wallace to respond with an almost unheard-of June damage-control ad noting that he “lives in the house he was born in” and is a “strong supporter of Israel.”

…. But even in waves, candidates still matter, and there’s a wide path for Fitzpatrick and Republicans to disqualify Wallace as out of touch. The race moves from Toss Up to the Lean Republican column.

There seems to be little enthusiasm for Wallace’s campaign.

Wallace, a wealthy philanthropist, is self-funding his campaign:

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick outearned his Democratic challenger in contributions this reporting period, but another $2.3 million in loans to his own campaign helped Scott Wallace outraise the incumbent.

Numbers from the Federal Election Commission posted this week show Wallace entered July with $1.7 million on hand, bolstered by a $1.23 million loan to himself on June 29, the day before reporting closed. The boost helped Wallace squeak past Republican Fitzpatrick’s $1.65 million on-hand total at the reporting deadline.

Wallace’s deep pockets and willingness to self-fund made the longtime philanthropist an easy pick for the Bucks County Democratic Committee, which eagerly endorsed his bid to unseat Fitzpatrick after he announced early this year. The candidates are vying for the seat in Pennsylvania’s new 1st Congressional District, which is currently the 8th District seat held by Fitzpatrick.

In addition to the late-June loan, Wallace fed his campaign $1.1 million at the top of the reporting period with a loan on April 30. So far this year, FEC numbers show Wallace has provided $4.8 million of the $5.3 million the campaign has raised since January.

Wallace has taken other hits as well. The Free Beacon revealed that Wallace Never Voted in District He’s Seeking to Represent Until He Voted for Himself:

A Democratic candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania never voted in the district he is seeking to represent prior to voting for himself, despite claiming otherwise, and also has never voted in any municipal or odd-year elections while registered in another state, voting records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

Perhaps equally important is Wallace’s perception problem as an out-of-touch elitist. That perception was furthered when it was recently revealed that Wallace has an obsession with population control.

Matthew Walther writes at The Week, This gazillionaire Democrat is obsessed with population control:

If Democrat Scott Wallace beats Rep. Bryan Fitzpatrick (R.) in Pennsylvania’s 1st congressional district in November, he will become at least the third richest member of Congress, which is saying something: Nineteen of our legislators have net assets totaling more than $30 million. Wallace, a grandson of a vice president, is worth between $127 million and $309 million.

But Wallace isn’t just extremely wealthy. He is also apparently kept awake at night by the thought of the rest of us poor slobs breeding.

Wallace has for many years been at the helm of the Wallace Global Fund, his family’s nonprofit foundation, which has given more than $7 million in the last two decades to groups that advocate state-sponsored population control, including China-style limits on the number of children families are allowed to have.

One of these outfits, Population Connected, founded as Zero Population Growth in 1968, had this to say in a lovely brochure for new members:

We advocate: 1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population. 2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available — and at no cost in poverty cases. 3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding. [Population Connected]

“Irresponsible breeding!”

Will Wallace claim he didn’t know about the donations to fight “irresponsible breeding” just like he denied knowing of the funding of some of the most vicious anti-Israel groups?

Fox New, which broke the story, reported, Top Dem candidate gave millions to groups advocating for taxing families ‘to the hilt’ for ‘irresponsible breeding’:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

Anything can happen. But it seems that in PA-01, Scott Wallace’s money may not be able to buy him voter love.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



JusticeDelivered | August 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm

“Wallace has an obsession with population control.”

US population has more than doubled since I was born. Frankly, livability, quality of live has significantly decreased due to too many people competing for available resources.

It is my opinion that if humanity does not do a better job of controlling our population, that nature will.

If nature steps in, it will be brutal.

    Your Malthusian concern trolling is without any scientific merit. Paul Erlich remains noted for getting every single one of his predictions of doom and gloom in The Population Bomb wrong. Technology outpaces any population growth and we enjoy standards of living far above what people experienced 50 years ago, despite there being more of us.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to rdmdawg. | August 3, 2018 at 8:40 am

      Antibiotic resistance is building, higher density population facilitates more rapid spread and more opportunity to mutate. There is a very real risk of a killer plague. Progress on replacement antibiotics has been painfully slow.

    Colonel Travis in reply to JusticeDelivered. | August 2, 2018 at 11:28 pm

    What the heck are you talking about? You were born about 1950, give or take. Between 1900-1950 the population doubled. Between 1850-1900 the population tripled. Between 1800-1850 the population quadrupled. Between 1750-1800 the population quintupled. Who cares what the population does. We have more than enough land and resources to handle it.

    Quality of life has decreased since 1950? How? I live in Texas. Was central air standard in all homes in 1950? Nope. Was anyone typing to people on a computer in 1950 about how the quality of life was better in 1900? Could you drive all over America on an interstate in 1950? How many 757s were flying in 1950? Were bed mattresses better? Could you use credit cards at any restaurant? Was there a cure for polio in 1950? Measles? Could you find 20 different kinds of allergy medicines at a 24-hour Walgreens? Could you listen to hundreds of satellite radio stations on your phone?

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 3, 2018 at 9:07 am

      In addition to the issue of spread of disease and antibiotic resistance, higher population density brings all sorts of social problems, all you have to do is look at city life versus country life to see this.
      Of course, population density is far higher outside the US, and that is where killer plagues are more likely to arise. With a global economy, those will be damn near impossible to stop spreading here.

        I know a lot of people who choose city life over country life for a myriad of reasons. In any case, that’s a very subjective assessment you made there. Let’s stick to facts and objective data to decide whether or not ‘more people’ is ‘bad’, and sadly for you, the facts are not on your side.

    Ragspierre in reply to JusticeDelivered. | August 2, 2018 at 11:45 pm

    I keep looking for that vaunted intelligence.

    All I see is psychopathy.

      C. Lashown in reply to Ragspierre. | August 3, 2018 at 8:14 am

      Thanks Rags for the coherent comment. Ya, he sounds like a loon. I wonder what he has a home in ZA for? To house his mistress?

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Ragspierre. | August 3, 2018 at 8:41 am

      Rags, you are not smart enough to understand.

        Obviously you’re in favor of border walls, severe restrictions on legal immigration, and deportation of all illegal aliens, including visa overstays, right?

          JohnSmith100 in reply to txvet2. | August 4, 2018 at 7:50 pm

          I think that for the good of any countries citizens that they need to have complete control of their borders. In the case of our south border, and considering how many illegals and their offspring are already here, I believe that immigrants form the south should be limited to those who are well educated (IE, the cream of the crop)who will not be a burden on American taxpayers.

    Given that the US birth rate has recently been just barely at, or just below, replacement rate, it would seem that immigration, in particular illegal aliens, is the current issue causing the population increase of concern to you.

    So you support Trump and the wall – right?

    artichoke in reply to JusticeDelivered. | August 3, 2018 at 7:47 am

    Your quality of life is decreased by regulations that appear to be justified by population growth, but not by the population growth itself. We have plenty of space here, I do worry about using up aquifers but aside from that, if we control unwanted immigration we have plenty of room here to expand our population.

    I knew you were a leftist moby. Treating people as a problem rather than a blessing is a key indicator of a leftist pessimist outlook on life.

    Julian Simon demonstrated that population is a nation’s most valuable resource, and that all else being equal the more people a country has the more prosperous it will be, because people create more wealth than they consume. The most densely populated places, even without natural resources, such as Hong Kong and the Netherlands, are the most prosperous, while underpopulated places like Mauritania are the most desperately poor.

      rdmdawg in reply to Milhouse. | August 3, 2018 at 11:14 am

      This is a beautiful response actually, to the dismal nihilism of the zero-population growth nihilists.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to rdmdawg. | August 4, 2018 at 7:38 pm

        Have you ever been in any high population density country? Endlessly adding more people eventually ends in disaster. It also means there is less cushion in resource availability. I agree that technology might allow us to stay ahead of demand. I sure would not want to have children without knowing there is a reasonable chance I can feed and educate them, that they have a reasonable chance of achieving their potential.

        For an example, look at Palestinians, and the hole they have dug themselves into. How has reproducing in excess worked out for them?

          Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | August 5, 2018 at 6:32 am

          Read Julian Simon. Now. People are a resource, the most important one of all. Endlessly adding more people has never ended in disaster, and can’t, because people create more wealth than they consume. Having children is what will create the resources to feed them. The “Palestinians'” problem is not overpopulation, it’s their dictators’ insistence on keeping them as dependent refugees so as to blame Israel for their misery.

We mainly need to stop illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration in order to minimize population growth. Stop anchor babies. End chain migration and the diversity lottery. Make being an illegal immigrant a felony with 3 years in federal prison as punishment. No government benefits for immigrants legal or illegal.

We’re a bit messed up here in the new court-ordered gerrymandered 1st PA district. While we’ve had a long line of Republicans being elected out of here, we’re being overwhelmed by wealthy New Yorkers fleeing to the upper parts of Bucks County, driven by high taxes and crummy city life. We’re also receiving people fleeing Philadelphia for the same reasons, and they’re settling in the lower part of the county. Meanwhile, the newest influx seems to be people from New Jersey coming across the river to settle here trying to get away from the heavy taxes imposed by NJ legislation this past spring. All these blue-state people are bringing their silly blue-state ideas with them and I fear Bucks County is about to go forever Democrat.

Meanwhile, our current congressman, Fitzpatrick, is about as RINO as one can get, demonstrated by his early and highly vocal criticism of President Trump. He’s still a never-Trumper to this day as far as I know, and never fails to support the Democrats on bills in congress.

World population: 7.5 billion
Land area of U.S.: 3.80 million square miles

If you tried to fit the entire world’s population within the United States, the population density (1,974 people/sq. mile) would be #6 in the world after Monaco, Macao, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Gibraltar.

Gee thats awkward eh… its not because its right in line with the Democrats love of planned parenthood!

    Tom Servo in reply to mailman. | August 3, 2018 at 8:27 am

    I have a brother in law that used to love to go on about how the world is overpopulated, about how this is a desperate problem that has to be solved. I pointed out to him (repeatedly) that the overwhelmingly Caucasian nations of Europe were all reproducing at less than replacement rates, as was the Caucasian population of the United States. But, I would go on, that since of course he must be right, that meant that all of the Rich White People had to start working very hard to figure out how to get rid of all the surplus brown and black babies – that was the only possible solution to his problem.

    He refuses to ever talk to me about the topic anymore.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Tom Servo. | August 3, 2018 at 8:53 am

      rather than bringing and subsidising immigrants into America, especially those who are uneducated & dull witted, why not offer tax and other incentives to encourage citizens to have a third child? Why isn’t Europe doing this?

      RSConsulting in reply to Tom Servo. | August 3, 2018 at 9:02 am

      Well – here’s an interesting note (for all the lefty communism/socialism fans).

      In EVERY country that goes hard socialist/communist (government control of all food, employment, education, healthcare, etc.) – what’s THE.FIRST.THING they do?


      Mao (50mil), Stalin (23mil), Kim (the first one – 1.6mil), even Castro.

      In order for the government to control/support an entire population – they have to REDUCE that population to manageable numbers. If you have xx number of people, but you can only feed/control x number of them?

      What happens when the Bernie/Ocasio-Cortez get their way – and give everyone free jobs, healthcare, housing? Gotta kill a whole sht-ton of folks to support it.

      Can’t happen HERE? Jews in Germany & Poland said the same thing…

      Just sayin…

Margaret Sanger is looking up from somewhere and just smiling at Scott Wallace and those like him.

“…one local Jewish Democratic group to reinstate its support for him.”

Supporting a person who is against your home country? I guess they no longer care about being Jewish.

    rdmdawg in reply to harleycowboy. | August 3, 2018 at 11:16 am

    I would hope that Jews living and voting in Bucks County, Pennsylvania would view the USA as their ‘home country’. If not, then we have some serious problems.

      Milhouse in reply to rdmdawg. | August 3, 2018 at 11:31 am

      Sorry, no matter where a Jew lives, and what citizenship he holds, his true home is always the Land of Israel. “One who makes his permanent home outside the Land is as if he has no God.” (Ketubot 110b)