PRESIDENT BUSH SURPRISES PRO-LIFE LEADERS BY SELECTING KISSINGER FOR 9-11 POST

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | November 29, 2002 | LifeSiteNews.com

[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

[Polycarp]

That says volumes about your mind.

Mind???

How very generous and truly charitable of you to give him the benefit of the doubt ;-)

PHILIPPINE POLITICIAN AND BISHOPS SLAM AMERICA FOR NSSM 200 POPULATION CONTROL AGENDA

MANILA, December 2, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Nov. 25, Sen. Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr., told the Philippine Parliament that the promotion of population control in the Third World comes from United States policy spelled out in the 1974 US National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests". Pimentel explained that the self-serving purpose of the document, developed by Henry Kissinger, was to protect U.S. economic and military interests from growing populations in the developing world.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), backed Pimentel's assertion, noting that NSSM 200 and U.S. policies it spawned are the reasons behind the "huge funding in the millions of dollars of USAID promoting contraceptives and population control." So far, U.S President Bush has not indicated any concerns or even awareness of NSSM 200 and the many anti-third world programs and policies that it has created.

Pimentel also attacked House Bill 4110 and Senate Bill 2325 bill as being unconstitutional since they would legalize abortifacient contraceptives. He stated, "The two bills would make all sorts of contraceptives available to women regardless of whether or not those contraceptives may be suspect as abortifacients. Women would have the power to end unwanted pregnancies. In blunt talk, that means aborting the fetus; safely, perhaps for the mother, but most certainly unsafely for the baby whose life would be terminated with extreme prejudice," he said.

The bills proponents claim that the bills do not promote abortion but only contraception, but Pimentel exposed their duplicity by recalling the origin of the bills. "The original explanatory note [of the bill] advocated the legalization of abortion. It was only because it had drawn a furious outcry from the public that the authors beat a hasty retreat and changed it with a less confrontational one," he said.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), in a statement, agreed with Pimentel's opinion that artificial birth control methods run counter with the Constitution. "I personally express my concurrence with the insights and invaluable thoughts of Senator Pimentel on this issue of population management," said CBCP spokesman Msgr. Hernando Coronel.

For more on NSSM 200 including the actual document see LifeSite at:
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/nssm200/index.html

See coverage from the Filipino news service ABS-CBN:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Metro&OID=10052

[Polycarp]

These are the same folks who are in a snit because Kissinger is heading a 9/11 committee but does not fit their agenda in areas having nothing to do with the job at hand.

If you think its OK to appoint a man who has orchestrated the mass export of abortion as national security foreign policy, resulting in literally millions of innocents being ripped from their mother's wombs worldwide, to any post whatsoever in a pro-life Republican president's administration, that is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

But even if your standards have fallen this low, don't expect conservatives to stay silent over this travesty.

[gcruse]

I'm prochoice. Need I say more?

[Polycarp]

Not at all. "I'm prochoice" speaks volumes. It also makes one wonder what you're doing posting here on a Conservative News Forum.

[gcruse]

I'm reminded of what HL Mencken said in answer to a similar question. "For the same reason people go to the zoo."

[nanny]

[I'm prochoice. Need I say more?

Actually, it says a lot - I would prefer 'prochoice' people be a little more honest and say they are pro abortion - but there you go.

Now are you 'pro-choice' or other things or just the murder of babies? Would you still be 'pro-choice' if the the law was changed and it became illegal? Just would like to know how people arrive at the believe it is OK to kill babies.

[nanny]

[Fewer unwanted children/or bastards is bad? ]

Just what kind of people have 'unwanted' babies? And no baby is a bastard - I know what you mean, but that is cruel. The baby's parents may be - but not the child.

[gcruse]

And I would prefer prolifers to be more honest and stick with antiabortion. Funny how it works, eh? Truth is just too harsh to leave out there naked for long.

Otherwise, it's what you've heard before. I believe a woman has the right to control over her own body, particularly when the fetus cannot live outside the womb on its own. No matter where you are, though, partial birth abortion is murder. That is a viable entity. A blastocyst, to me, is not.

[Catholicguy]

Otherwise, it's what you've heard before. I believe a woman has the right to control over her own body, particularly when the fetus cannot live outside the womb on its own.

<> So, it is ok to kill a baby if the baby is unable to live on its own. At what age, in your considered opinion, is a child able to live on its own and, therefore, no longer subject to execution?<>

[nanny]

[And I would prefer prolifers to be more honest and stick with antiabortion. Funny how it works, eh? Truth is just too harsh to leave out there naked for long]

I am antiabortioin and say it proudly - I don't like euphemism - I like the truth - so I will always proudly say I am anti-abortion - if you will say you are pro-abortion. Fair enough? I am not sure what you mean about the truth being out there. It was a mistake for people who are against abortion to allow themselves to be pushed into using the title pro-life and it was a mistake for them to allow pro-abortionist to hide their hideous deeds and beliefs behind the nice words 'pro-choice'. It is nice words to hide some so vile.

A life is never anything but a life. It is a viable as any person that must have medication to survive - no difference. So should we just give everyone the opportunity to off any person that must have medication to survive? That is not just rhetoric - it is the way I feel. And a woman's body is no longer her own when she becomes pregnant. The time to decide if you want a child or not is before you do what it takes to create that child.

As far as I know, I have only known one person who had an abortion. But what does a woman say to a child she has later when she has killed it's sibling? How does she explain that their brother/sister was an inconvenience and she 'disposed of it'. What do you think that child will feel about the mother. Will they wonder all their lives if they become an 'inconvenience' will mother off them also? Do they wonder if they become helpless, will mother decide they can't survive without her and get rid of them also. Those are real questions I have. I would have thought that as a child if my mother had told me she killed my sibling.

[MEGoody]

"After standing for the Saudi national anthem, the Commission will report the 9-11 hijackers acted alone. Just 21 White Christian American-born gun-owning male U.S. citizens of European ancestry who destroyed the twin towers to protest Waco and Ruby Ridge."

Nice sarcasm. It MUST be sarcasm, because everyone already knows the guys who crashed the towers and Pentagon were Saudis.

[MEGoody]

"As I always said - social conservatives aren't interested in individuality or freedom, they're only interested in control."

With freedom comes responsibility, and to whom should we feel more responsible than the most helpless in our society?

[MEGoody]

"as if a person's sex life has something to do with their suitability for government work"

So you had no problem with Clinton's antics. I see.

[finnman69]

What does 9/11 have to do with abortion? NOTHING!What a stupid asricle.

[MEGoody]

"I'm reminded of what HL Mencken said in answer to a similar question. "For the same reason people go to the zoo."

Must be why many from FR visit DU. . .just a day at the zoo. LOL

[HIDEK6]

My point exactly.

[Polycarp]

If you think its OK to appoint a man who has personally orchestrated the mass export of abortion as national security foreign policy, resulting in literally millions of innocents being ripped from their mother's wombs worldwide, to any post whatsoever in a pro-life Republican president's administration, that is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

A sordid history of basic human rights violations has everything to do with any appointment a so-called pro-life evangelical Christian Republican President makes, even if its just chief janitor or dog catcher.

[Man of the Right]

That was sarcasm. The people who brought the Twin Towers down use their left hand instead of toilet paper.

[Chess]

"I belive that 99% here want Roe v Wade overturned. "

You delude yourself!

Many of us are here because we believe in unfettered capitalism and limited government.

Abortion should be a personal, private decision between a woman and her doctor. The government has no business in our personal lives.

[Lorianne]

If you read the so-called Kissinger Report on Population (and I have read most of it) it is not entirely a bad document.

In the report it identifies MANY parts to the population control issue that have nothing whatsoever to do with contraceptives or abortion .... such as reducing corruption in governemnts, education and skill training (particularly for girls/women), non-reproductive health care and nutrition initiatives (particularly for women and children) .... etc. Unfortuntely, it also talks about contraception and abortion in coercive terms (basically bribing countries to include contraceptive measures and abortion as part of "health care" or they don't get aid).

The report itself is much broader based than contraception/abortion as a means to population control. Only about 10% pertains to those. To characterize the report as only about contraception/abortion would be inaccurate.

The criticism that the impetus to population control is for USA financial and security interests, non humanitarian on behalf of developing countries, IS, a fair criticism of the report.