Monthly Archives: June 2008

NSSM 200

Jason Solley Cantontruth.com

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
April 24, 1974
National Security Study Memorandum 200
————————————–
TO: The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Deputy Secretary of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development
SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests
The President has directed a study of the impact of world popula-
tion growth on U.S. security and overseas interests. The study
should look forward at least until the year 2000, and use several
alternative reasonable projections of population growth.
In terms of each projection, the study should assess:
– the corresponding pace of development, especially in poorer
countries;
– the demand for US exports, especially of food, and the trade
problems the US may face arising from competition for re-
sources; and
– the likelihood that population growth or imbalances will
produce disruptive foreign policies and international insta-
bility.
The study should focus on the international political and economic
implications of population growth rather than its ecological, socio-
logical or other aspects.
The study would then offer possible courses of action for the United
States in dealing with population matters abroad, particularly in
developing countries, with special attention to these questions:
– What, if any, new initiatives by the United States are needed
to focus international attention on the population problem?
– Can technological innovations or development reduce
growth or ameliorate its effects?
– Could the United States improve its assistance in the popu-
lation field and if so, in what form and through which agen-
cies — bilateral, multilateral, private?
The study should take into account the President’s concern that
population policy is a human concern intimately related to the
dignity of the individual and the objective of the United States is to
work closely with others, rather than seek to impose our views on
others.
The President has directed that the study be accomplished by the
NSC Under Secretaries Committee. The Chairman, Under Secre-
taries Committee, is requested to forward the study together with
the Committee’s action recommendations no later than May 29,
1974 for consideration by the President.
HENRY A. KISSINGER
cc: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
NSSM 200:
IMPLICATIONS OF WORLDWIDE POPULATION GROWTH
FOR U.S. SECURITY AND OVERSEAS INTERESTS
December 10, 1974
CLASSIFIED BY Harry C. Blaney, III
SUBJECT TO GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 AUTOMATICALLY DOWN-
GRADED AT TWO YEAR INTERVALS AND DECLASSIFIED
ON DECEMBER 31, 1980.
This document can only be declassified by the White House.
———————————————————-
Declassified/Released on 7/3/89
———–
under provisions of E.O. 12356
by F. Graboske, National Security Council
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 65 – 82
(Reader: For Parts One and Two, see Appendix 2)
Part One — Analytical Section
——– ——————
Chapter I World Demographic Trends
Chapter II Population and World Food Supplies
Chapter III Minerals and Fuel
Chapter IV Economic Development and
Population Growth
Chapter V Implications of Population Pressures
for National Security
Chapter VI World Population Conference
Part Two — Policy Recommendations
——– ———————-
Section I A U.S. Global Population Strategy
Section II Action to Create Conditions for Fertility De-
cline: Population and a Development Assis-
tance Strategy
A. General Strategy and Resource for A.I.D. Assistance
B. Functional Assistance Programs to Create Condi-
tions for Fertility Decline
C. Food for Peace Program and Population
Section III International Organizations and other Mul-
tilateral Population Programs
A. UN Organization and Specialized Agencies
B. Encouraging Private Organizations
Section IV Provision and Development of Family
Planning Services, Information and Tech-
nology
A. Research to Improve Fertility Control Technology
B. Development of Low-Cost Delivery Systems
C. Utilization of Mass Media and Satellite Communi-
cations System for Family Planning
Section V Action to Develop Worldwide Political and
Popular Commitment to Population Stability

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – Index
WORLD DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS – Index 1. World Population growth since World War II is quantitatively and qualitatively different from any previous epoch in human history. The rapid reduction in death rates, unmatched by corresponding birth rate reductions, has brought total growth rates close to 2 percent a year, compared with about 1 percent before World War II, under 0.5 percent in 1750-1900, and far lower rates before 1750. The effect is to double the world’s population in 35 years instead of 100 years. Almost 80 million are now being added each year, compared with 10 million in 1900.
2. The second new feature of population trends is the sharp differentiation between rich and poor countries. Since 1950, population in the former group has been growing at 0 to 1.5 percent per year, and in the latter at 2.0 to 3.5 percent (doubling in 20 to 35 years). Some of the highest rates of increase are in areas already densely populated and with a weak resource base.
3. Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion in the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.
4. U.N. estimates use the 3.6 billion population of 1970 as a base (there are nearly 4 billion now) and project from about 6 billion to 8 billion people for the year 2000 with the U.S. medium estimate at 6.4 billion. The U.S. medium projections show a world population of 12 billion by 2075 which implies a five-fold increase in south and southeast Asia and in Latin American and a seven-fold increase in Africa, compared with a doubling in east Asia and a 40% increase in the presently developed countries (see Table 1). Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.)
ADEQUACY OF WORLD FOOD SUPPLIES – Index 5. Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs. While under normal weather conditions and assuming food production growth in line with recent trends, total world agricultural production could expand faster than population, there will nevertheless be serious problems in food distribution and financing, making shortages, even at today’s poor nutrition levels, probable in many of the larger more populous LDC regions. Even today 10 to 20 million people die each year due, directly or indirectly, to malnutrition. Even more serious is the consequence of major crop failures which are likely to occur from time to time.
6. The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions. World needs for food rise by 2-1/2 percent or more per year (making a modest allowance for improved diets and nutrition) at a time when readily available fertilizer and well-watered land is already largely being utilized. Therefore, additions to food production must come mainly from higher yields. Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by 2 to 4 percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge. Capital and foreign exchange requirements for intensive agriculture are heavy, and are aggravated by energy cost increases and fertilizer scarcities and price rises. The institutional, technical, and economic problems of transforming traditional agriculture are also very difficult to overcome.
7. In addition, in some overpopulated regions, rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production: through cultivation of marginal lands, overgrazing, desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion, with consequent destruction of land and pollution of water, rapid siltation of reservoirs, and impairment of inland and coastal fisheries.
MINERALS AND FUEL – Index 8. Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.
9. There will be serious problems for some of the poorest LDCs with rapid population growth. They will increasingly find it difficult to pay for needed raw materials and energy. Fertilizer, vital for their own agricultural production, will be difficult to obtain for the next few years. Imports for fuel and other materials will cause grave problems which could impinge on the U.S., both through the need to supply greater financial support and in LDC efforts to obtain better terms of trade through higher prices for exports.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH – Index 10. Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes. In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDCs.
11. Adverse economic factors which generally result from rapid population growth include:
reduced family savings and domestic investment;
increased need for large amounts of foreign exchange for food imports;
intensification of severe unemployment and underemployment;
the need for large expenditures for services such as dependency support, education, and health which would be used for more productive investment;
the concentration of developmental resources on increasing food production to ensure survival for a larger population, rather than on improving living conditions for smaller total numbers. 12. While GNP increased per annum at an average rate of 5 percent in LDCs over the last decade, the population increase of 2.5 percent reduced the average annual per capita growth rate to only 2.5 percent. In many heavily populated areas this rate was 2 percent or less. In the LDCs hardest hit by the oil crisis, with an aggregate population of 800 million, GNP increases may be reduced to less than 1 percent per capita per year for the remainder of the 1970’s. For the poorest half of the populations of these countries, with average incomes of less than $100, the prospect is for no growth or retrogression for this period.
13. If significant progress can be made in slowing population growth, the positive impact on growth of GNP and per capita income will be significant. Moreover, economic and social progress will probably contribute further to the decline in fertility rates.
14. High birth rates appear to stem primarily from:
a. inadequate information about and availability of means of fertility control;
b. inadequate motivation for reduced numbers of children combined with motivation for many children resulting from still high infant and child mortality and need for support in old age; and
c. the slowness of change in family preferences in response to changes in environment.
15. The universal objective of increasing the world’s standard of living dictates that economic growth outpace population growth. In many high population growth areas of the world, the largest proportion of GNP is consumed, with only a small amount saved. Thus, a small proportion of GNP is available for investment — the “engine” of economic growth. Most experts agree that, with fairly constant costs per acceptor, expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC country seeking to improve overall welfare and per capita economic growth. We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.
16. The interrelationships between development and population growth are complex and not wholly understood. Certain aspects of economic development and modernization appear to be more directly related to lower birth rates than others. Thus certain development programs may bring a faster demographic transition to lower fertility rates than other aspects of development. The World Population Plan of Action adopted at the World Population Conference recommends that countries working to affect fertility levels should give priority to development programs and health and education strategies which have a decisive effect on fertility. International cooperation should give priority to assisting such national efforts. These programs include: (a) improved health care and nutrition to reduce child mortality, (b) education and improved social status for women; (c) increased female employment; (d) improved old-age security; and (e) assistance for the rural poor, who generally have the highest fertility, with actions to redistribute income and resources including providing privately owned farms. However, one cannot proceed simply from identification of relationships to specific large-scale operational programs. For example, we do not yet know of cost-effective ways to encourage increased female employment, particularly if we are concerned about not adding to male unemployment. We do not yet know what specific packages of programs will be most cost effective in many situations.
17. There is need for more information on cost effectiveness of different approaches on both the “supply” and the “demand” side of the picture. On the supply side, intense efforts are required to assure full availability by 1980 of birth control information and means to all fertile individuals, especially in rural areas [emphasis added]. Improvement is also needed in methods of birth control most acceptable and useable by the rural poor. On the demand side, further experimentation and implementation action projects and programs are needed. In particular, more research is needed on the motivation of the poorest who often have the highest fertility rates. Assistance programs must be more precisely targeted to this group than in the past.
18. It may well be that desired family size will not decline to near replacement levels until the lot of the LDC rural poor improves to the extent that the benefits of reducing family size appear to them to outweigh the costs. For urban people, a rapidly growing element in the LDCs, the liabilities of having too many children are already becoming apparent. Aid recipients and donors must also emphasize development and improvements in the quality of life of the poor, if significant progress is to be made in controlling population growth. Although it was adopted primarily for other reasons, the new emphasis of AID’s legislation on problems of the poor (which is echoed in comparable changes in policy emphasis by other donors and by an increasing number of LDC’s) is directly relevant to the conditions required for fertility reduction.
POLITICAL EFFECTS OF POPULATION FACTORS – Index 19. The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs — rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration — are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the U.S. is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the U.S. In a broader sense, there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values [emphasis added].
20. The pace of internal migration from countryside to over-swollen cities is greatly intensified by rapid population growth. Enormous burdens are placed on LDC governments for public administration, sanitation, education, police, and other services, and urban slum dwellers (though apparently not recent migrants) may serve as a volatile, violent force which threatens political stability.
21. Adverse socio-economic conditions generated by these and related factors may contribute to high and increasing levels of child abandonment, juvenile delinquency, chronic and growing underemployment and unemployment, petty thievery, organized brigandry, food riots, separatist movements, communal massacres, revolutionary actions and counter-revolutionary coups. Such conditions also detract from the environment needed to attract the foreign capital vital to increasing levels of economic growth in these areas. If these conditions result in expropriation of foreign interests, such action, from an economic viewpoint, is not in the best interests of either the investing country or the host government.
22. In international relations, population factors are crucial in, and often determinants of, violent conflicts in developing areas. Conflicts that are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.
GENERAL GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEALING WITH RAPID POPULATION GROWTH – Index 23. The central question for world population policy in the year 1974, is whether mankind is to remain on a track toward an ultimate population of 12 to 15 billion — implying a five to seven-fold increase in almost all the underdeveloped world outside of China — or whether (despite the momentum of population growth) it can be switched over to the course of earliest feasible population stability — implying ultimate totals of 8 to 9 billions and not more than a three or four-fold increase in any major region.
24. What are the stakes? We do not know whether technological developments will make it possible to feed over 8 much less 12 billion people in the 21st century. We cannot be entirely certain that climatic changes in the coming decade will not create great difficulties in feeding a growing population, especially people in the LDCs who live under increasingly marginal and more vulnerable conditions. There exists at least the possibility that present developments point toward Malthusian conditions for many regions of the world.
25. But even if survival for these much larger numbers is possible, it will in all likelihood be bare survival, with all efforts going in the good years to provide minimum nutrition and utter dependence in the bad years on emergency rescue efforts from the less populated and richer countries of the world. In the shorter run — between now and the year 2000 — the difference between the two courses can be some perceptible material gain in the crowded poor regions, and some improvement in the relative distribution of intra-country per capita income between rich and poor, as against permanent poverty and the widening of income gaps. A much more vigorous effort to slow population growth can also mean a very great difference between enormous tragedies of malnutrition and starvation as against only serious chronic conditions.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS – Index 26. There is no single approach which will “solve” the population problem. The complex social and economic factors involved call for a comprehensive strategy with both bilateral and multilateral elements. At the same time actions and programs must be tailored to specific countries and groups. Above all, LDCs themselves must play the most important role to achieve success.
27. Coordination among the bilateral donors and multilateral organizations is vital to any effort to moderate population growth. Each kind of effort will be needed for worldwide results.
28. World policy and programs in the population field should incorporate two major objectives:
(a) actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billions by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and
(b) actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billions rather than permitting it to reach 10 billions, 13 billions, or more.
29. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000 [emphasis added]. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000. Compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs [emphasis added]. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.
30. The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential [emphasis added]. The strategy must include the following elements and actions:
(a) Concentration on key countries. Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest. Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. Together, they account for 47 percent of the world’s current population increase. (It should be recognized that at present AID bilateral assistance to some of these countries may not be acceptable.) Bilateral assistance, to the extent that funds are available, will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth, need for external assistance, long-term U.S. interests and willingness to engage in self-help. Multilateral programs must necessarily have a wider coverage and the bilateral programs of other national donors will be shaped to their particular interests. At the same time, the U.S. will look to the multilateral agencies — especially the U.N. Fund for Population Activities which already has projects in over 80 countries — to increase population assistance on a broader basis with increased U.S. contributions. This is desirable in terms of U.S. interests and necessary in political terms in the United Nations. But progress nevertheless, must be made in the key 13 and our limited resources should give major emphasis to them.
(b) Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning. As called for by the world Population Plan of Action, developing countries and those aiding them should specifically take population factors into account in national planning and include population programs in such plans.
(c) Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology. This is a vital aspect of any world population program. (1) Family planning information and materials based on present technology should be made fully available as rapidly as possible to the 85% of the populations in key LDCs not now reached, essentially rural poor who have the highest fertility. (2) Fundamental and developmental research should be expanded, aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control. Support by all federal agencies for biomedical research in this field should be increased by $60 million annually.
(d) Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline. For its own merits and consistent with the recommendations of the World Population Plan of Action, priority should be given in the general aid program to selective development policies in sectors offering the greatest promise of increased motivation for smaller family size. In many cases pilot programs and experimental research will be needed as guidance for later efforts on a larger scale. The preferential sectors include:
Providing minimal levels of education, especially for women;
Reducing infant mortality, including through simple low-cost health care networks;
Expanding wage employment, especially for women;
Developing alternatives to children as a source of old age security;
Increasing income of the poorest, especially in rural areas, including providing privately owned farms;
Education of new generations on the desirability of smaller families. While AID has information on the relative importance of the new major socio-economic factors that lead to lower birth rates, much more research and experimentation need to be done to determine what cost effective programs and policy will lead to lower birth rates.
(e) Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy. The provision of adequate food stocks for a growing population in times of shortage is crucial. Without such a program for the LDCs there is considerable chance that such shortage will lead to conflict and adversely affect population goals and developmental efforts. Specific recommendations are included in Section IV(c) of this study.
(f) Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action. The U.S. should encourage LDC leaders to take the lead in advancing family planning and population stabilization both within multilateral organizations and through bilateral contacts with other LDCs. This will require that the President and the Secretary of State treat the subject of population growth control as a matter of paramount importance and address it specifically in their regular contacts with leaders of other governments, particularly LDCs. 31. The World Population Plan of Action and the resolutions adopted by consensus by 137 nations at the August 1974 U.N. World Population Conference, though not ideal, provide an excellent framework for developing a worldwide system of population/family planning programs [emphasis added]. (The Plan of Action appears in Appendix 1.) We should use them to generate U.N. agency and national leadership for an all-out effort to lower growth rates. Constructive action by the U.S. will further our objectives. To this end we should:
(a) Strongly support the World Population Plan of Action and the adoption of its appropriate provisions in national and other programs.
(b) Urge the adoption by national programs of specific population goals including replacement levels of fertility for DCs and LDCs by 2000.
(c) After suitable preparation in the U.S., announce a U.S. goal to maintain our present national average fertility no higher than replacement level and attain near stability by 2000 [emphasis added].
(d) Initiate an international cooperative strategy of national research programs on human reproduction and fertility control covering biomedical and socio-economic factors, as proposed by the U.S. Delegation at Bucharest.
(e) Act on our offer at Bucharest to collaborate with other interested donors and U.N. agencies to aid selected countries to develop low cost preventive health and family planning services.
(f) Work directly with donor countries and through the U.N. Fund for Population Activities and the OECD/DAC to increase bilateral and multilateral assistance for population programs. 32. As measures to increase understanding of population factors by LDC leaders and to strengthen population planning in national development plans, we should carry out the recommendations in Part II, Section VI, including:
(a) Consideration of population factors and population policies in all Country Assistance Strategy Papers (CASP) and Development Assistance Program (DAP) multi-year strategy papers.
(b) Prepare projections of population growth individualized for countries with analyses of development of each country and discuss them with national leaders.
(c) Provide for greatly increased training programs for senior officials of LDCs in the elements of demographic economics.
(d) Arrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level officials and comparably influential leaders from private life.
(e) Assure assistance to LDC leaders in integrating population factors in national plans, particularly as they relate to health services, education, agricultural resources and development, employment, equitable distribution of income and social stability.
(f) Also assure assistance to LDC leaders in relating population policies and family planning programs to major sectors of development: health, nutrition, agriculture, education, social services, organized labor, women’s activities, and community development.
(g) Undertake initiatives to implement the Percy Amendment regarding improvement in the status of women.
(h) Give emphasis in assistance to programs on development of rural areas. Beyond these activities which are essentially directed at national interests, we must assure that a broader educational concept is developed to convey an acute understanding to national leaders of the interrelation of national interests and world population growth.
33. We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.
34. To help assure others of our intentions we should indicate our emphasis on the right of individuals and couples to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have information, education and means to do so, and our continued interest in improving the overall general welfare. We should use the authority provided by the World Population Plan of Action to advance the principles that 1) responsibility in parenthood includes responsibility to the children and the community and 2) that nations in exercising their sovereignty to set population policies should take into account the welfare of their neighbors and the world. To strengthen the worldwide approach, family planning programs should be supported by multilateral organizations wherever they can provide the most efficient means.
35. To support such family planning and related development assistance efforts there is need to increase public and leadership information in this field. We recommend increased emphasis on mass media, newer communications technology and other population education and motivation programs by the UN and USIA. Higher priority should be given to these information programs in this field worldwide.
36. In order to provide the necessary resources and leadership, support by the U.S. public and Congress will be necessary. A significant amount of funds will be required for a number of years. High level personal contact by the Secretary of State and other officials on the subject at an early date with Congressional counterparts is needed. A program for this purpose should be developed by OES with H and AID.
37. There is an alternate view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed. These include, for example, our own consumption patterns, mandatory programs, tight control of our food resources. In view of the seriousness of these issues, explicit consideration of them should begin in the Executive Branch, the Congress and the U.N. soon. (See the end of Section I for this viewpoint.)
38. Implementing the actions discussed above (in paragraphs 1-36), will require a significant expansion in AID funds for population/family planning. A number of major actions in the area of creating conditions for fertility decline can be funded from resources available to the sectors in question (e.g., education, agriculture). Other actions, including family planning services, research and experimental activities on factors affecting fertility, come under population funds. We recommend increases in AID budget requests to the Congress on the order of $35-50 million annually through FY 1980 (above the $137.5 million requested for FY 1975) [emphasis added]. This funding would cover both bilateral programs and contributions to multilateral organizations. However, the level of funds needed in the future could change significantly, depending on such factors as major breakthroughs in fertility control technologies and LDC receptivities to population assistance [emphasis added]. To help develop, monitor, and evaluate the expanded actions discussed above, AID is likely to need additional direct hire personnel in the population/family planning area. As a corollary to expanded AID funding levels for population, efforts must be made to encourage increased contributions by other donors and recipient countries to help reduce rapid population growth.
POLICY FOLLOW-UP AND COORDINATION 39. This world wide population strategy involves very complex and difficult questions. Its implementation will require very careful coordination and specific application in individual circumstances. Further work is greatly needed in examining the mix of our assistance strategy and its most efficient application. A number of agencies are interested and involved. Given this, there appears to be a need for a better and higher level mechanism to refine and develop policy in this field and to coordinate its implementation beyond this NSSM. The following options are suggested for consideration:
(a) That the NSC Under Secretaries Committee be given responsibility for policy and executive review of this subject:
Pros:
Because of the major foreign policy implications of the recommended population strategy a high level focus on policy is required for the success of such a major effort.
With the very wide agency interests in this topic there is need for an accepted and normal interagency process for effective analysis and disinterested policy development and implementation within the N.S.C. system.
Staffing support for implementation of the NSSM-200 follow-on exists within the USC framework including utilization of the Office of Population of the Department of State as well as other.
USC has provided coordination and follow-up in major foreign policy areas involving a number of agencies as is the case in this study.
Cons:
The USC would not be within the normal policy-making framework for development policy as would be in the case with the DCC.
The USC is further removed from the process of budget development and review of the AID Population Assistance program.
(b) That when its establishment is authorized by the President, the Development Coordination Committee, headed by the AID Administrator be given overall responsibility
Pros: (Provided by AID)
It is precisely for coordination of this type of development issue involving a variety of U.S. policies toward LDCs that the Congress directed the establishment of the DCC.
The DCC is also the body best able to relate population issues to other development issues, with which they are intimately related.
The DCC has the advantage of stressing technical and financial aspects of U.S. population policies, thereby minimizing political complications frequently inherent in population programs.
It is, in AID’s view, the coordinating body best located to take an overview of all the population activities now taking place under bilateral and multilateral auspices.
Cons:
While the DCC will doubtless have substantial technical competence, the entire range of political and other factors bearing on our global population strategy might be more effectively considered by a group having a broader focus than the DCC.
The DCC is not within the N.S.C. system which provides a more direct access to both the President and the principal foreign policy decision-making mechanism.
The DCC might overly emphasize purely developmental aspects of population and under emphasize other important elements.
(c) That the NSC/CIEP be asked to lead an Interdepartmental Group for this subject to insure follow-up interagency coordination, and further policy development. (No participating Agency supports this option, therefore it is only included to present a full range of possibilities). Option (a) is supported by State, Treasury,Defense (ISA and JCS), Agriculture, HEW,Commerce NSC and CIA.**
Option (b) is supported by AID.
Under any of the above options, there should be an annual review of our population policy to examine progress, insure our programs are in keeping with the latest information in this field, identify possible deficiencies, and recommend additional action at the appropriate level.***

SOME KEY POINTS FROM THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT – IndexAll readers are urged to read the detailed main body of the report which is presented in full in Appendix Two. This will give the reader a better appreciation of the gravity of this new threat to U.S. and global security and the actions the many departments of our government felt were necessary in order to address this grave new threat — a threat greater than nuclear war. These 20 important points will be discussed in the remaining chapters of this book.
On the magnitude and urgency of the problem:
“…World population growth is widely recognized within the Government as a current danger of the highest magnitude calling for urgent measures.” [Page 194]
“…it is of the utmost urgency that governments now recognize the facts and implications of population growth, determine the ultimate population sizes that make sense for their countries and start vigorous programs at once to achieve their desired goals.” [Page 15]
“…population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources — in this rough order of importance — all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence…Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.” [Page 66]
“Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence.” [Page 69]
“In developing countries, the burden of population factors, added to others, will weaken unstable governments, often only marginally effective in good times, and open the way to extremist regimes.” [Page 84]
The report gives three examples of population wars: the El Salvador-Honduras “Soccer War” [Page 71]; the Nigerian Civil War [Page 71]; and, the Pakistan-India-Bangladesh War, 1970-71. [Page 72]
“…population growth over the years will seriously negate reasonable prospects for the sound social and economic development of the peoples involved.” [Page 98]
“Past experience gives little assistance to predicting the course of these developments because the speed of today’s population growth, migrations, and urbanization far exceeds anything the world has ever seen before. Moreover, the consequences of such population factors can no longer be evaded by moving to new hunting or grazing lands, by conquering new territory, by discovering or colonizing new continents, or by emigration in large numbers.
The world has ample warning that we all must make more rapid efforts at social and economic development to avoid or mitigate these gloomy prospects. We should be warned also that we all must move as rapidly as possible toward stabilizing national and world population growth.” [Page 85]
Leadership is vital: – Index
“Successful family planning requires strong local dedication and commitment that cannot over the long run be enforced from the outside.” [Page 106]
“…it is vital that leaders of major LDCs themselves take the lead in advancing family planning and population stabilization, not only within the UN and other international organizations but also through bilateral contacts with leaders of other LDCs.” [Page 112]
“These programs will have only modest success until there is much stronger and wider acceptance of their real importance by leadership groups. Such acceptance and support will be essential to assure that the population information, education and service programs have vital moral backing, administrative capacity, technical skills and government financing.” [Page 195]
What must be done: – Index
“Control of population growth and migration must be a part of any program for improvement of lasting value.” [Page 81]
“…the Conference adopted by acclamation (only the Holy See stating a general reservation) a complete World Population Plan of Action” [Page 87]
“Our objective should be to assure that developing countries make family planning information, education and means available to all their peoples by 1980.” [Page 130]
“Only nominal attention is [currently] given to population education or sex education in schools…” [Page 158] “Recommendation: That US agencies stress the importance of education of the next generation of parents, starting in elementary schools, toward a two-child family ideal. That AID stimulate specific efforts to develop means of educating children of elementary school age to the ideal of the two-child family…” [Page 159]
“…there is general agreement that up to the point when cost per acceptor rises rapidly, family planning expenditures are generally considered the best investment a country can make in its own future,” [Page 53]
Contradiction of the Holy See’s answer to the population problem: – Index
“Clearly development per se is a powerful determinant of fertility. However, since it is unlikely that most LDCs will develop sufficiently during the next 25-30 years, it is crucial to identify those sectors that most directly and powerfully affect fertility.” [Page 99]
“There is also even less cause for optimism on the rapidity of socio-economic progress that would generate rapid fertility reduction in the poor LDCs, than on the feasibility of extending family planning services to those in their populations who may wish to take advantage of them.” [Page 99]
“But we can be certain of the desirable direction of change and can state as a plausible objective the target of achieving replacement fertility rates by the year 2000.” [Page 99]
Abortion is vital to the solution: – Index
“While the agencies participating in this study have no specific recommendations to propose on abortion, the following issues are believed important and should be considered in the context of a global population strategy…Certain facts about abortion need to be appreciated:
” — No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion”. [Page 182]
” — Indeed, abortion, legal and illegal, now has become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today.” [Page 183]
” — It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques…” [Page 185]
* AID expects the DCC will have the following composition: The Administrator of AID as Chairman; the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs; the Under Secretary of Treasury for Monetary Affairs; the Under Secretaries of Commerce, Agriculture and Labor; an Associate Director of OMB; the Executive Director of CIEP, STR; a representative of the NSC; the Presidents of the EX-IM Bank and OPIC; and any other agency when items of interest to them are under discussion.)
** Department of Commerce supports the option of placing the population policy formulation mechanism under the auspices of the USC but believes that any detailed economic questions resulting from proposed population policies be explored through existing domestic and international economic policy channels.
*** AID believes these reviews undertaken only periodically might look at selected areas or at the entire range of population policy depending on problems and needs which arise.

National Security Decision Memorandum 314

Jason Solley Cantontruth.com
Source:www.lifesitenews.com
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
November 26, 1975
National Security Decision Memorandum 314
TO: The Secretary of State
The Secretary of the Treasury
The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
The Administrator, Agency for International Development
SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for United States Security
and Overseas Interests
The President has reviewed the interagency response to NSSM 200 and the covering
memorandum from the Chairman of the NSC Under Secretaries Committee. He believes that
United States leadership is essential to combat population growth, to implement the World
Population Plan of Action and to advance United States security and overseas interests. The
President endorses the policy recommendations contained in the Executive Summary of the
NSSM 200 response, with the following observations and exceptions:
AID Programs
Care must be taken that our AID program efforts are not so diffuse as to have little impact
upon those countries contributing the largest growth in population, and where reductions in
fertility are most needed for economic and social progress.
Research and Evaluation
An examination should be undertaken of the effectiveness of population control programs
in countries at all levels of development, but with emphasis on the LDC’s. The examination
should include an evaluation of AID program efforts as well as other efforts by national or
international groups. The study would attempt to determine the separate effect of the population
program, taking account of other economic or social factors which may have also influenced
fertility.
Research on broader issues should be undertaken examining the factors affecting change
(or lack of change) in the birth rate in different countries.
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
1.Funding for Population Programs:
The President desires that a review be undertaken quickly to examine specific
recommendations for funding in the population assistance and family planning field for the
period after FY 1976. The President wishes a detailed analysis of the recommended funding
levels in the NSSM 200 study bearing in mind his desire to advance population goals. This
analysis should include performance criteria to assure that any additional funds are utilized in the
most effective manner. The appropriate level of funding of multilateral programs which
effectively support this objective should be included in this review. The Chairman of the USC is
responsible for preparing this analysis which is due 60 days from the date of this NSDM.
The Role of Other Countries:
Emphasis should be given to fostering international cooperation in reducing population
growth in pursuing the recommendations of the World Population Plan of Action. It is important
to enlist additional contributions from other developed and newly rich countries for bilateral and
multilateral programs.
Basic Approach to Developing Countries’ Population Programs:
Leaders of key developing countries should be encouraged to support national and
multilateral population assistance programs.
The objective of the United States in this field is to work closely with others rather than
to seek to impose our views on others. Our efforts should stress the linkage between reduced
population growth and the resultant economic and social gains for the poorest nations. In all
these efforts, we should recognize the basic dignity of the individual and his or her right to
choose freely family goals and family planning alternatives.
National and World Population Goals:
The President believes that the recommendation contained in paragraph 31(c) of the
Executive Summary dealing with the announcement of a United States national goal is outside
the scope of NSSM 200. Of course, domestic efforts in this field must continue in order to
achieve worldwide recognition that the United States has been successfully practicing the basic
recommendations of the World Plan of Action and that the nation’s birthrate is below the
replacement level of fertility. In order to obtain the support of the United States citizens for our
involvement in international population programs, it is important that they recognize that
excessive world population growth can affect domestic problems including economic expansion
as well as world instability.
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
CONFIDENTIAL (GDS)
Concerning the consideration of World Population Goals in paragraph 31(b), it should be
understood that the general goal of achieving global replacement levels of fertility by the year
2000 does not imply interference in the national policies of other countries.
The Under Secretaries Committee, in conjunction with all appropriate agencies of the
Executive Branch, may wish to make further recommendations to the President on these subjects.
Coordination of United States Global Population Policy:
Implementation of a United States worldwide population strategy will involve careful
coordination. The response to NSSM 200 is a good beginning, but as noted above, there is need
for further examination of the mix of United States assistance strategy and its most efficient
application.
The President, therefore, assigns to the Chairman, NSC Under Secretaries Committee,
the responsibility to define and develop policy in the population field and to coordinate its
implementation beyond the NSSM 200 response.
The Chairman is instructed to submit an initial report within six months from this date
on the implementation of this policy, with recommendations for any modifications in our
strategy, funding programs, and particularly, the identification of possible deficiencies.
Thereafter the Chairman is instructed to submit reports to the President annually.
The Chairman is authorized to request other appropriate bodies and agencies to assist him
in this task as required. For the purpose of implementing this NSDM, the Under Secretaries
Committee should include’ in addition to the addressee members, ex officio representatives of the
following agencies:
Council on Environmental Quality
Office of Management and Budget
The President’s Science Adviser
BRENT SCOWCROFT
cc: The Chairman, NSC Under Secretaries Committee
The Director, Office of Management and Budget
The Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Chairman, Council of Environmental Quality

Two Young Women Die From Vaccine

Jason Solley Cantontruth.com
2 More Girls Die After Receiving Gardasil Cervical Cancer Vaccination
Published on Wednesday, June 11, 2008.
Source: Natural News

The European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has reported that two young women died shortly after receiving Merck’s Gardasil, a vaccine against several varieties of human papillomavirus (HPV).Gardasil and Glaxo SmithKline’s Cervarix protect against the two strains of HPV that are responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. Gardasil also protects against two HPV strains that cause 90 percent of genital warts.The EMEA did not release the names or ages of the women who died, and said the cause of death was still unknown. It described their deaths as “sudden and unexpected.””In both cases, the cause of death could not be identified. No causal relationship has been established between the deaths of the young women and the administration of Gardasil,” the agency said.The recent deaths mark the fourth and fifth to occur shortly following vaccination with Gardasil and the first in Europe. Previously, three young women, aged 12, 19 and 22, died in the United States within days after receiving a Gardasil shot. In addition, 1,700 cases have been reported of patients suffering non-lethal adverse reactions.Health officials believe that adverse effects of medication are widely underreported.Starting in September, the United Kingdom’s Department of Health is launching a yearlong campaign to vaccinate British girls between the ages of 11 and 13 with one of the HPV vaccines. The program is expected to prevent 1,000 cervical cancer deaths per year, the department says.In response to the EMEA’s announcement, the Department of Health said it had no plans to reconsider the program or change its advice on vaccination against HPV.An estimated 1.5 million people in Europe have already received an HPV vaccine.In the United States, three states have passed laws mandating HPV vaccines for school-age girls, and 38 others have considered similar laws. Mandatory vaccination has been opposed by the American College of Pediatrics and the New England Journal of Medicine

Free Speech Restrictions

Jason Solley Cantontruth.com

Cantontruth comments in blue

Free Speech Restrictions In Most Of West

Published on Wednesday, June 11, 2008.
Source: International Herald Tribune

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.
Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.
Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean’s magazine, the nation’s leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.
As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.
“It’s free speech!” yelled another.
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions – even false, provocative or hateful things – without legal consequence.
The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone.” The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.
“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”
“But in the United States,” Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.
Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined €15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.
By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.
Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps “basically a Puerto Rican program.” The First Amendment, Justice Eve Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase “the general level of prejudice.”
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.
But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.
The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article – or any publication – aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.
Lewis wrote that there is “genuinely dangerous” speech that does not meet the imminence requirement. “I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.”
Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Boston, disagreed.
“When times are tough,” he said, “there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom.”
“Free speech matters because it works,” Silverglate continued. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.
“The world didn’t suffer because too many people read ‘Mein Kampf,”‘ Silverglate said. “Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea.”
Silverglate seemed to be echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States eventually formed the basis for modern First Amendment law.
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Holmes wrote. “I think that we should be eternally vigilant,” he added, “against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”
The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by race hate. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.
But merely saying hateful things about minority groups, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.
In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel,” to “bury” blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.
Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement.
In his opening statement in the Canadian magazine case, a lawyer representing the Muslim plaintiffs aggrieved by the Maclean’s article pleaded with a three-member panel of the tribunal to declare that the article subjected his clients to “hatred and ridicule” and to force the magazine to publish a response.
“You are the only thing between racist, hateful, contemptuous Islamophobic and irresponsible journalism,” the lawyer, Faisal Joseph, told the tribunal, “and law-abiding Canadian citizens.”
In response, a lawyer for Maclean’s all but called the proceeding a sham.
“Innocent intent is not a defense,” the lawyer, Roger McConchie, said, in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia hate speech law. “Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which has intervened in the case, was measured in his criticism of the law forbidding hate speech.
“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”
Many foreign courts have respectfully considered the U.S. approach – and then rejected it.
A 1990 decision from the Canadian Supreme Court, for instance, upheld the criminal conviction of James Keegstra for “unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements.” Keegstra, a teacher, had told his students that Jews are “money loving,” “power hungry” and “treacherous.”
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert Dickson said there was an issue “crucial to the disposition of this appeal: the relationship between Canadian and American approaches to the constitutional protection of free expression, most notably in the realm of hate propaganda.”
Dickson said, “There is much to be learned from First Amendment jurisprudence.” But he concluded that “the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression.”
The distinctive U.S. approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.
“It would be really hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa, given their histories,” for laws banning hate speech, said Schauer, the professor at Harvard, in an interview.
In Canada, however, the laws seem to stem from a desire to promote societal harmony. Three time zones east of British Columbia, the Ontario Human Rights Commission – while declining to hear a separate case against Maclean’s – nonetheless condemned the article.
“In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be,” the commission’s statement said. “By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’ this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others.”
British Columbia human rights law, unlike that in Ontario, does appear to allow claims based on statements published in magazines.
Steyn, the author of the Maclean’s article, said the court proceeding illustrated some important distinctions. “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re about feelings.”
“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

This is why we must defend our rights. Even if it means defending them to the death. They make us free, and seperate us from the rest of the world. Long live the Republic.

Wisconsin National Guard, Police Storm High School In WMD Exercise

Michael Neibauer and Bill Myers
FDL Reporter
June 4, 2008

JUNEAU — A clandestine operation for manufacture of weapons of mass destruction in Juneau?

That’s the impression some Dodge County residents may have had Tuesday while watching the Wisconsin National Guard and the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department storm the vacant high school on the south side of Juneau during a training exercise.

“The unit being evaluated is the 54th Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team (WMD CST),” said Dodge County Sheriff Todd Nehls, who also holds the rank of colonel in the Wisconsin National Guard. “This is a highly specialized 22-person unit that is available to first responders to handle nuclear, chemical and biological hazards that are outside the capabilities of the local communities.”

The exercise scenario includes a militant group holed up in the old Dodgeland High School building hatching a plan to develop and release a biological warfare agent. The group is also laying the groundwork to launch an attack on various Wisconsin government officials, including the governor.

Believing that a laboratory may have been established to produce weapons of mass destruction, the Sheriff’s Department requests the support of the 54th WMD CST to apprehend the militia.

Activities ran throughout the day.

Cooperating agencies include the Dodge County Airport and Wisconsin Aviation, City of Juneau Police and Fire Departments and Public Works crews, and Dodge County and Juneau Emergency Management teams.

U.S. Leads World In Prison Population


By Warren Mass
jbs.org

The United States, with less than five percent of the world’s population, has almost one fourth of the world’s prisoners. One of 100 American adults is incarcerated.

Follow this link to the original source:Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’

“Go to Jail. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.”

Maybe it’s part of our culture. Almost every American has been sent to the fanciful Monopoly jail at one time or another, but according to statistics from the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London, 2.3 million American criminals are currently incarcerated, more than any other nation. One in 100 Americans is behind bars.

The writer of the New York Times article reporting on this phenomenon sought to discover the reason why the United States has more people in prison than authoritarian China, which has four times the U.S. population, but only 1.6 million people in prison. (Of course, some would say that all of China is one vast prison!) Compared with the U.S. incarceration rate of 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population, Russia has 627, England, 151; Germany, 88; and Japan, only 63.

The reporter cited factors such as America’s “higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net.” In a nostalgic look at “America past,” the reporter also quoted Alexis de Tocqueville, who, after visiting many American penitentiaries in 1831, wrote in Democracy in America, “In no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in the United States.”

Several points immediately come to mind. First, America’s founders never intended for the United States to be governed as a democracy, though they accepted a democratic non-governmental social structure. James Madison, called the father of our Constitution, wrote that: “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

When Alexis de Tocqueville bestowed lavish praise on our system in Democracy in America, he found a land of freedom and prosperity that outshined his native France, burdened as it was by the after-effects of the notorious French Revolution — which was, itself, an example of democracy carried to its logical extremes.

During the time of Tocqueville’s visit, America was still very much the republic created by our founders, and American society was in full bloom, reaping the benefits of growing in such fertile soil. As a nation that adhered closely to the rule of law, rather than, democratically, to the whims of the majority, justice was swift, certain, and (usually) fair. The proverbial lynch mob, in which the majority rules — with the only dissenter swinging from the end of a rope — is often used by instructors of the American system as an example of “democracy in action.”

However, the Times writer’s statement, “Several specialists here and abroad” pointed to a surprising explanation for the high incarceration rate in the United States: “democracy.” This has more than a little merit. The explanation for this statement is that many U.S. judges are elected and therefore “yield to populist demands for tough justice.”

When justice is administered strictly by the rule of law, it tends to be dispassionate and punishment is more likely to fit the crime. When Thomas Jefferson returned from France, where he had served as minister from 1785-89, he asked George Washington why the delegates at the constitutional convention had agreed to the establishment of the Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” asked Washington. “To cool it,” replied Jefferson. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

The Senate performed its “cooling” function even better prior to the adoption in 1913 of the 17th amendment, which provided for the direct election of senators, thereby pushing the United States along the road to becoming a democracy.

As to why the U.S. prison population should increase after our nation became more democratic, while parliamentary democracies such as England and Sweden have much lower rates, much can be attributed to the decline in our society’s moral standards in recent decades. The decline has made the republican form of government envisioned by our founders much more difficult to administer. As John Adams put it in 1789: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

But isn’t immoral social behavior also rampant in Europe? Why the higher U.S. incarceration rate?

For one thing, governments in such European “nanny states” tend to keep closer tabs on what their citizens are doing, preempting some crime at the expense of freedom. Another factor is the differences in the average length of prison sentences among nations. While the United States actually has lower rates of nonviolent crime, such as burglary, than Australia, Canada, or England, the United States tends to sentence criminals to longer sentences for such crimes than other nations, increasing the size of the prison population. Furthermore, according to James Q. Whitman, a specialist in comparative law at Yale University cited in the Times article, the United States is the only modern nation that incarcerates people for minor property crimes such as passing bad checks.

I am far from being a “bleeding-heart liberal” who is soft on criminals, but it seems to me that in many cases where our system incarcerates non-violent or white-collar criminals (from the unemployed housewife passing a bad check at the supermarket, to fathers who owe child support, to Martha Stewart), it would benefit the perpetrator, the victim, and society if the convict were ordered to engage in productive work for a fair wage and then required to pay monetary restitution.

While it may make us feel better, in certain cases, to lock up the criminal and “throw the key away,” encouraging that mindset may come back to haunt peaceful, previously law-abiding citizens who run afoul of increasingly intrusive laws. If the neighborhood informant mistakes you for a member of al-Qaeda, you may hope that our nation’s legal system respects the Bill of Rights while safeguarding our “homeland security.”

Yet another point to consider: Our nation’s prisons have become home in recent years for collateral casualties of our “War on Drugs” and our “War on Illegal Immigration,” such as former Immigration and Naturalization Service agent Joseph Occhipinti (who was set up on specious civil rights charges and sentenced to 37 months in a maximum security federal prison) and former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean (who were sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, in prison for shooting a known drug smuggler who resisted arrest and fled to the Mexican border.)

Conservatives who became advocates of “law and order” in response to the growing rate of crime in our nation’s cities in recent decades may wish to reevaluate their positions, as respect for the rule of law (the hallmark of a republic) has diminished, and the demand for order (which can exist in a dictatorship more easily than in a free state) has increased.

Americans must not make the same mistake that the German people did in the 1930s. Filled with fear of the breakdown of their society and culture, they succumbed to the rantings of Nazi Party leaders that Germany was threatened by communist anarchists and saboteurs, as was “proved” conclusively by the February 27, 1933, burning of Germany’s Reichstag (parliament) Building. Hitler’s “Enabling Act” followed. The decree announced that, in light of the terrorist attack on the Reichstag, “restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications [sound familiar?]; warrants for house searches; orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property, are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

Whether we are talking about a war on crime, a war on drugs, a war on illegal immigration, or a war on terrorism, the solution will never be found in trampling on rights, granting more surveillance powers to government, or indiscriminately locking up all criminals for long prison terms, regardless of the severity of their offenses. (What? Ten years for ripping the tag off one’s mattress!)

The proper balance between law and order and individual freedom can only be achieved if both government officials and citizens submit to the rule of law. But the law must be written intelligently, limited to areas that are properly the concern of government (which excludes telling parents how to raise their children, for example), and enforced uniformly and dispassionately.

The second part of the formula for individual freedom in a peaceful and secure society was alluded to by John Adams. America must once again become a nation of moral and religious people. It is far better to have “a conversion experience” outside of prison than inside one!

Or, as the founder of a nationwide membership society dedicated to preserving our freedom once summed up the formula for freedom: “Less Government, More Responsibility, and — With God’s Help — a Better World.”

The SPP And Merging Military Command Structures

Dana Gabriel
New World Order Must Be Stopped
June 6, 2008

Portions of the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in mid-February were just recently posted on the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and Canada Command websites. The plan would allow for military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency, including one that does not involve a cross-border crisis. Some fear that this agreement could lead to foreign troops being used for gun confiscation and marital law. CAP, along with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), are further advancing the merging of U.S.-Canadian military command structures and represent steps towards a North American Union.

In 2002, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced the creation of NORTHCOM, and boasted that it would have jurisdiction over all of North America. In an article by Michel Chossudovsky, he states the, “redesign of Canada’s defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).” He went on to say, “Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated.” In addition, this is taking place through the SPP and poses a serious threat to Canadian sovereignty and any resemblance of an independent foreign policy.

Canada Command and NORTHCOM have established close bilateral ties, meeting regularly and planning as well as participating in joint military exercises. American, Canadian, and even Mexican troops have held military training exercises in advent of a possible natural disaster or terrorist attack during the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver. It is unclear whether American troops will be providing any type of security at the Olympics. On top of merging command structures, binational integration is also taking place in areas of intelligence and law enforcement.

In advance of the SPP Leader Summit in Montebello, Quebec back in 2007, it was reported that the RCMP, along with the U.S. Army, blocked the Council of Canadians from renting a municipal community center to hold a forum in. The reason cited was that it was located inside the reported 25 km security perimeter. There is little doubt that the SPP is also further advancing the police state.

The majority of Canadians reject the SPP, and deeper integration with the United States. It is not surprising that the Harper Conservative government and the Canadian military failed to announce the signing of CAP. This agreement was not signed by the governments of both countries, but by military commanding officers with no public debate or Parliamentary and Congressional oversight. There was no Canadian Forces press release, and the government refused to answer questions on the agreement in the House of Commons. It is hard to imagine that an agreement of such magnitude, which would allow U.S.-Canadian troops on each other’s soil and threaten the sovereignty of each nation was not debated or voted on. Just like the SPP, CAP is shrouded in secrecy, with many missing annexes that remain classified. This agreement goes hand in hand with parts of the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, which was announced at the SPP Summit in Montebello.

Canadian military command structures are further merging with the U.S., and it is becoming more aggressive in its operations. The Canadian government’s tone and language directed towards other nations is becoming more hostile. There has been a shift from its more traditional role as a peacekeeping nation, which has garnered praise and respect from around the world. Canada might play a more active role in the war on terror, including posible participation in future U.S. military operations. The SPP is further advancing Canadian security and military assimilation into the U.S. and a North American Union.

« Older Entries