Posted on 11/29/2002 6:39:31 PM PST by Polycarp
PRESIDENT BUSH SURPRISES PRO-LIFE LEADERS BY SELECTING KISSINGER FOR 9-11 POST
Kissinger Strongly Implicated in Population Control and Abortion
WASHINGTON, November 29, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. President George W. Bush announced Wednesday that he had selected former secretary of state Henry Kissinger as chairman of a new independent commission to investigate the September 11 attacks. Pro-life leaders were surprised by the selection given the President's aversion to coercive abortion and Kissinger's close association with it.
President Bush was praised by the pro-life community internationally for his defunding of the United Nations Population Fund due to their association with the forced abortion and coercive sterilization practices in China. However, Kissinger was intimately associated with coercive population control as he is the author of the now-declassified national security study memorandum calling for population control - coercive if necessary, in the third world.
Gilles Grondin, a veteran United Nations diplomat and past President of Le Mouvement en faveur de la Vie/Campaign Quebec Vie, (the pro-life movement in Quebec), told LifeSite that he was surprised by President Bush's selection of Kissinger. Grondin, who with his vast UN experience has been one of the most successful pro-life lobbyists at the UN, points out that Kissinger's memo NSSM 200 formed the basis of U.S. foreign policy in the area of population.
Grondin explained that the Memorandum suggested that competition from new world powers would rise when developing nations had sufficient populations to utilize their national resources to their full potential. Thus, NSSM 200 was about ensuring U.S. strategic, economic, and military interest, at the expense of developing countries, by proposing population control including by coercive means if mere propaganda could not succeed.
For more on NSSM 200 including the actual document see LifeSite at:
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/nssm200/index.html
See Bush's announcement of his selection of Kissinger: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021127-1.html
Of course. Problem solved.
uh...except in this case, you do understand that you will now either die of disease or starve to death.
Problem solved though.
Goebbels was know for " THE BIG LIE " propaganda machine. Seems as though you've decided to use his methods.
Jews can be Americans, Brits, French,or anyother nationality, dear . Being Jewish, is like being Catholic, Methodist,Anglican, Baptist, or Hindu; it a r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n .
Being an advocate for birth control, isn't the same thing as advocating abortion. Sanger saw birth control ( and abortion, BTW )as a good way of lowering the numbers of blacks and Irish and anyone else, whom she thought of as " inferior ". It has also been a GODsend, to couples of every social strata, who otherwise would have had to have more children than they could afford to raise, feed, clothe, and educate. Historically, the Catholic church used to sanction abortion, before " quickening " occurred. They also didn't have anything to say about what was tantamount to infanticide ... i.e. leaving children on church steps,in front of other people's homes, exposed to the eliments.
It matters not one whit, what Henry has written about, concerning population, in the past. THis commission has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with anything, except our own internal intelligence cockups, prior to 9/11. That's it ; n-o-t-h-i-n-g more and n-o-t-h-i-n-g less. This isn't about abortion, birth control, world population, or even what you and polycrap think about any / all of the garbage you keep posting.
uh...except in this case, you do understand that you will now either die of disease or starve to death.
Which would seem to point out the need for birth control wouldn't it?:) That don't have to mean abortion now does it. There are lots of ways to prevent pregnancy thus eliminating the need for abortion.
They are responsible for their own misery by having children they can't feed. Maybe you could ba a good Samaritan and adopt a few thousand of them. I'm not a good Samaritan and never played one on TV.:) I think people, all people should live within their means and not expect someone else to pay for it.
Novel idea isn't it?
WarHawk42
Again, this is NOT a catholic nation, forum, and ALL Conservatives are NOT RCs. Frankly, if this is all ( and apparently it is ! )you care to talk about, then FR is NOT the site for you . I don't care if you're the Pope ; don't attempt to push your overtly zealous religious views here, as the only " truth " / way.
Yes, I know some people in high positions of our government, past and present, have been, and are, for world population control. However, since many of these third world countries rarely ever repay any amount of their loans, why would they even worry about decreasing their population?
Only God can control a nation's population.
If we (USA) are trying to control the Muslim population, it’s not working, they are multiplying like rabbits.
Having spent time doing medical missionary work in Haiti, I know first hand the effects of the contraceptive imperialism the West imposes on the third world. It costs pennies to effectively treat many of the diseases from which Haitians suffer. But when a Haitian mother brings a dying child to a government clinic for a couple cents worth of antibiotics or antimalarial medications necessary to save his life, often there are few or none available on the shelves. I've personally seen this in government clinics there. Yet there are millions of dollars worth of contraceptives available in Haiti.
Of course, we justify the need for our contraceptive imperialism by pointing out the "overpopulation" of the developing countries. The concept of poverty versus overpopulation needs close scrutiny. Poverty can be defined as too many people for the resources available in a geographic region. When we see humans living in poverty, we feel a certain solidarity with them. Our consciences tell us of our duty to help them out of their misery with food, shelter, infrastructure, and the means to develop their economy.
Remember that verbal engineering always precedes social engineering. By calling poverty by a new name, "overpopulation," we remove the burden for their suffering from our conscience. No longer do we feel the need to feed them. We now can say, "It's your fault. If you'd just stop making babies, you wouldn't be living in poverty. Your suffering is your own creation." So instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. Instead of the blessing infrastructure would bring, we send the curse of infertility.
This is truly sinister. In America we can provide enough food to feed the entire world population. The problem is lack of distribution of available resources, not "overpopulation." Yet our government pays our farmers not to farm their fields to keep the price of grains up on the world market. Meanwhile Haitians an hour and a half flight from our shores starve to death and die of diseases we eradicated here decades ago.
Well, I want a refund...my copy is defective. ;-)
The problem is they can't feed their own kids. It's not my job to feed them. I raised six and I fed them. Not the UN or anyone else. Unlike the ones you are talking about I made sure I could feed mine. I didn't have them and expect anyone else to feed them.
Another novel idea.:)
WarHawk42
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.