Bush refuses to sign UN population agenda

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   




Women Across the Country Stand with President Bush

“The country and my administration have benefited from the strong women who serve as senior members of my White House team. I know my life is enriched by remarkable, American women – starting with my wife Laura, my daughters and mother – who are making a difference, bringing dignity, compassion and integrity to our communities and our country."
-President George W. Bush

W Stands for Women is a national grassroots effort designed to mobilize support for President Bush and organize women to:

* Communicate the President’s vision to move America forward;
* Engage in the political process by volunteering for the President’s campaign;
* Recruit more women to support the President.

For women, the stakes in the next election are high: the safety and security of our families and homeland, the future of our nation’s economy, the health and education of our children and the path we take in a global war against terrorism.
George Bush Official Website


I wonder if those women know this:



Eighty-five nations endorse U.N. population agenda - but Bush administration refuses to sign

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Eighty-five heads of state and government have signed a statement endorsing a U.N. plan adopted 10 years ago to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and to make choices about childbearing. President Bush's administration refused to sign because the statement mentions "sexual rights."

A decade after the landmark International Conference on Population and Development, the statement signed by more than 250 global leaders in all fields was handed Wednesday to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette by media mogul Ted Turner, who founded and funds the United Nations Foundations.

Frechette called it "a brilliant idea" that will renew the commitment of governments and leaders to achieve the goals that 179 nations agreed to in Cairo.

The United States was a strong supporter of the Cairo plan of action. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, who was a key player in drafting the 20-year Cairo blueprint as a top official on the U.S. delegation, helped spearhead the global statement in his current job as president of the U.N. Foundation.
FOX23News



"Every woman's right to education, health care, and to make choices about childbearing" sounds good to me! Could this guy be even more out of touch?
Is this another case of where the rest of the world is wrong but us?

Bush has a pre-1911 mindset. The year 1911!

EDIT: Title

[edit on 21-10-2004 by curme]




posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
choices about childbearing

is probly the kicker there. Bush is against abortion and that is a whole nother debate about that. So dont try to candy coat that by sayin bush is against womens education and equality im positive the "BIRTH CHOICE" was the thing that made him decide not to sign it.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
So, Bush hates women? Or hates UN? Or believes women are his property and is able to tell them what to do with their bodies?



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Maybe Bush has the sense to know that the UN has a pretty sorry record of success for any of the programs it has pushed forward (except oil-for-food, that seemed to do exactly what they intended it to). Maybe Bush knows better than to trust anything the UN does or believe anything it says. Maybe Bush knows that while we would spend $34 million per year, others in the UN would be looking for a way to take a piece of that pie before passing the crumbs along to the warlords and dictators that usually seem to get the spoils from UN scams.

Bush refused to sign over $34 million per year to the UN? Good Job!



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Bush refused to sign over $34 million per year to the UN? Good Job!


How many BILLIONS did he sign for an illegal war?



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Well, Intrepid, I'm not sure how the war in Iraq (which I don't agree is illegal, not that I would care if the UN does) relates to giving money to the UN for population control. They've had 10 years already. Has the population problem improved any?

Anyway, how do Wars not cut down on population?

For that matter, the Birth Rates in Islamic and African countries are around four times higher than those in the Western Developed Nations and even higher than in China. In the case of the population explosion, we're not the ones you ought to be talking to. This is one problem that the US cannot possibly be blamed for or expected to take responsibilbity for.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Maybe Bush has the sense to know that the UN has a pretty sorry record of success for any of the programs it has pushed forward (except oil-for-food, that seemed to do exactly what they intended it to). Maybe Bush knows better than to trust anything the UN does or believe anything it says. Maybe Bush knows that while we would spend $34 million per year, others in the UN would be looking for a way to take a piece of that pie before passing the crumbs along to the warlords and dictators that usually seem to get the spoils from UN scams.

Bush refused to sign over $34 million per year to the UN? Good Job!


and i thought the warlords and like that get money from the US
as easy as pie


[Edited on 22-10-2004 by astrocreep]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
My point was 34 Million, a paltry sum, matters little but Billions are being spent, your money, on a war that is killing your youth, your future really.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Single working poor women with children are the ones that have the worst time in this country, so I guess that the women that "support" do not have to deal with low pay jobs and high cost of child care, they probably has nice husbands and their children goes to very nice schools.

And yes we are making sure that iraq war gets all the money for reconstruction.


[edit on 063131p://444 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
President George Bush would not endorse that U.N. garbage legislation because he is a defender of the unborn. But don’t worry ladies the law in America still grants you the honor of killing your children as you see fit.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
What in the heck your coment has to do with the rights of women.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Eighty-five heads of state and government have signed a statement endorsing a U.N. plan adopted 10 years ago to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and to make choices about childbearing. President Bush's administration refused to sign because the statement mentions "sexual rights

I guess you think like bush the only human with "sexual" rights are to be the male of the species.

Deny Ignorance.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
marg6043,

It’s simple. If you believe that every woman should have the right to kill her unborn child then you are for this U.N. legislation.

If you do not believe woman have the right to kill their unborn children you would stand against it.

Don’t be fooled by the title when it states, “sexual rights”. That is only a part of the pig. The other pig part is hidden within the text of the article.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
So let the women sufer for lack of eduction lack of fair health care and away from birth control pills or other means, as long as it makes people like you happy.

Dear God if is a god out there deliver us "women" from people like you and bush.

No wonder women can not get ahead anywhere including our own country, open your mind and see the realities of life, I hope that if you don't have any girls now may all your children be females, let see how you handle the female "problmes"



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Marge dont you see taht women in america get the best treatment in the world. I mena my God yall get watever yall want pretty much. Im kinda being sarcastic but kinda not. I dont see us denyin girls public schooling or a college education but heck girls get an advatage in the University level.

This was not signed by one point the termination of unborn babies. Bush doesnt agree with it and neither do i nor does more then half of the country. Good job bush for representing america.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
marg6043,



So let the women sufer for lack of eduction lack of fair health care and away from birth control pills or other means, as long as it makes people like you happy.


I encourage all women to obtain an education, receive fair health care and have access to birth control pills. Why do you assume otherwise? My primary stance against that U.N. legislation is that it promotes the killing of our unborn children. I love and protect all of our children born and unborn.



Dear God if is a god out there deliver us "women" from people like you and bush.


In time you will indeed be “delivered” from men like President Bush and myself. Then this world will experience a new dark age, the likes of which, have never been seen before.



No wonder women can not get ahead anywhere including our own country, open your mind and see the realities of life, I hope that if you don't have any girls now may all your children be females, let see how you handle the female "problmes"


I’ve been married for 12 years and rejoice in the life of my 3 year old daughter. She is bold, courageous and is developing a right heart for her God. I’m raising her to be a blessing to the world full of joy and good works.

Before we even conceived our daughter I prayed that God would send me a girl!

Girls rule!



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Then machine as a mother of a 20 year old young women let give our girls the rights that they diserved and keep the government away of their female uterus and reproductive organs.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Thast right. Regulation, not control, is the solution to this problem. Women have to have the right to choose.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Machine, what gives ANYONE the right to tell a woman that she does not have control over her own body. The only reason Bush is against abortion is to keep the religious followers happy. What about the seperation of church and state? One man's beliefs should not dictate the laws of the country.

How do you feel about a woman that was raped and became pregnant because of it? Should she be forced to carry it to full term?

While your at it, do a google search on MARGIE SCHOEDINGER



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
The thing is that bush not only denies the right to better live to other women in the world when he did not sign the un population agenda, just so he can get points to re-elections in this country is a shame and a disgrace, he is no more religous than than me an at least I do not hide the facts about it.

[edit on 073131p://555 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Eighty-five heads of state and government have signed a statement endorsing a U.N. plan adopted 10 years ago to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and to make choices about childbearing. President Bush's administration refused to sign because the statement mentions "sexual rights"...


So, if everyone else jumps off a cliff, should we jump off the cliff too? Just because X number of nations signs a U.N. treaty doesn't mean the U.S. has to. Most U.N. "treaties" have nice titles and topic sentences to draw you in, but are total garbage when you read the fine print.


Originally posted by marg6043
The thing is that bush not only denies the right to better live to other women in the world when he did not sign the un population agenda, just so he can get points to re-elections in this country is a shame and a disgrace...


Bush isn't denying the rights of a single woman, in the U.S. or in any other country, to equality and freedom. Nor does his not signing the treaty automatically mean that he doesn't endorse most of the ideas in the treaty.

First, because this "treaty" is really just another piece of paper the U.N. drafted in the hopes of getting more money. You really think the U.N. is going to back this up (something this vague can't be backed up anyway), when half its member countries (including those who signed the treaty as a symbolic gesture but clearly won't even try to back it up) treat women as second class citizens, or worse, sub-human?

You're going after the wrong man, and the wrong country. For example, Bush's U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan freed almost 13 million women who were living as caged slaves. That doesn't count for anything?

Here are some real culprits to complain about regarding women's rights... How about India, where it takes two women testifying in court to 'equal' one man's testimony! How about Arab Muslim countries, where in many of them women have no rights, their getting an education is either restricted or banned altogether, and in worst cases the murder of a woman is not even a crime! Also, in many of these countries, men can walk around in public almost naked, but if women aren't covered from head to toe, they can get arrested. How fair is that?





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join