Why the powerful hate brown kids
One of the first thing that President Obama did was to remove the "gag rule" from US foreign aid.
By using the word "gag rule", it made a lot of people support it's removal, since freedom of speech is popular in the US.
But this is a ruse: the "gag rule" has little to do with "freedom of speech" and everything to do with promoting abortion with taxpayer money.
From IPPF:
Note two little things: "provide counselling" can mean intimidate into having an abortion, or in China, where second children are forbidden, it could mean ordering them to do so.
The second slight of hand is:"even in countries where abortion is legal "...
This means those clinics in places like the Philippines or South America that don't "do" abortions, but will send a lady to a pharmacist who will provide them with medicines that will induce abortions, or to practitioners who will abort them illegally, often by changing paperwork to claim the procedure was for a miscarriage.
But IPPF admits it the gag rule that was removed went furthur:
Heaven knows there is a need for midwives and public health in the rural areas, but the dirty little secret is that this would mean more money to divert into politician's pockets, while those who want to limit population would have the ability to pressure midwives and doctors to do abortions and tubal ligations or lose their jobs.
And, of course, poor women will be pressured into using contraception or sterilization that they may or may not want...something that has happened in Peru and India, and something that I have seen done in the US...
Finally, the IPPF lamented that the gag rules prevented paying for
As for cutting clinics, seems to me that Bush's funding of HIV programs saved a couple million folks, but that doesn't matter, because he didn't fund condoms.
Notice the irony: The European Union is good because it funds abortion.
Bush is evil because he stopped funding abortion, and instead funded and encourage private funds to treat HIV, TB, Malaria etc. Could it be that they resent that this money saved millions of lives?
As for condoms, , the fact that other sources of funding could have supplied condoms is overlooked...not to mention the real problem is family breakdown and promiscuity, not simply HIV transmission.
But of course, the "elephant in the living room" is the dirty little secret that all of this is about population control.
Of course, many of those who work so fervantly to promote abortion are doing so because they are trying to quiet the ache in their heart because they aborted children who stood in the way of their education or careers, or because their modern boryfriends deserted them, and refused to marry them or assist them to raise the child.
Why else would Sarah Palin be so vehemently condemned? Not only didn't she abort a "change of life" baby with Down's syndrome, but she (horror of horrors) even offered to adopt her daughter's child to free her to finish school.
But underlying all of this is population control, especially of "inferior races".
A hundred years ago, these "inferior races" meant the Irish (in the UK) but in the US, it also meant the Irish, the blacks, and the Jews.
We are much more sophisticated nowadays, of course. No one would use race as a criteria to slow population growth.
In the 1970's, the emphasis was on the "population bomb" that would cause massive starvation in the 1980's...
The "Green revolution" stopped that hysteria (albeit the NGO's did their best to stop this from being implemented in Subsahara Africa, so people there still lack food).
The bad news is that the "global warming" hysteria is now being used to fight global warming.
But the real emphsis is to eliminate poor children.
In the US, since most people used to be poor, saying that is taboo. But Europe, who is facing a population collapse, is more open about these things.
Just google: need population control UK, and you find:
But presumably, even if too many US taxpayer refuse to stop their relatives freom being seen as a human virus, there are other ways to do it.
from the (London) Times (May 2009):
By using the word "gag rule", it made a lot of people support it's removal, since freedom of speech is popular in the US.
But this is a ruse: the "gag rule" has little to do with "freedom of speech" and everything to do with promoting abortion with taxpayer money.
From IPPF:
- provide counselling and referral for abortion, even in countries where abortion is legal
Note two little things: "provide counselling" can mean intimidate into having an abortion, or in China, where second children are forbidden, it could mean ordering them to do so.
The second slight of hand is:"even in countries where abortion is legal "...
This means those clinics in places like the Philippines or South America that don't "do" abortions, but will send a lady to a pharmacist who will provide them with medicines that will induce abortions, or to practitioners who will abort them illegally, often by changing paperwork to claim the procedure was for a miscarriage.
But IPPF admits it the gag rule that was removed went furthur:
- advocate to make abortion legal or more available in their country, even at the request of their own government
Heaven knows there is a need for midwives and public health in the rural areas, but the dirty little secret is that this would mean more money to divert into politician's pockets, while those who want to limit population would have the ability to pressure midwives and doctors to do abortions and tubal ligations or lose their jobs.
And, of course, poor women will be pressured into using contraception or sterilization that they may or may not want...something that has happened in Peru and India, and something that I have seen done in the US...
Finally, the IPPF lamented that the gag rules prevented paying for
- abortions in cases other than a threat to the life of the woman, rape, or incest
There you have it. The gag rule stopped paying for abortions, and now removing the "gag" rule means that the US taxpayer is funding abortions overseas.
And although it is denied that US taxpayers are paying for forced abortions in China, that too is a slight of hand.The IPPF funds clinics that do forced abortions. But they don't fund the abortions, only part of the clinic's operations, not the forced abortion part.
The IPPF propaganda machine condemned the anti abortion funding ban was the same as killing women and shutting down clinics:
The result was that clinics closed, medical staff were lost and family planning, sexual and reproductive health and HIV services were cut back, affecting many communities in developing countries.
Overlooking the fact that the clinics could simply have stopped doing abortions. And, of course, pretending that the funding was not immediately replaced by the European Union.As for cutting clinics, seems to me that Bush's funding of HIV programs saved a couple million folks, but that doesn't matter, because he didn't fund condoms.
Notice the irony: The European Union is good because it funds abortion.
Bush is evil because he stopped funding abortion, and instead funded and encourage private funds to treat HIV, TB, Malaria etc. Could it be that they resent that this money saved millions of lives?
As for condoms, , the fact that other sources of funding could have supplied condoms is overlooked...not to mention the real problem is family breakdown and promiscuity, not simply HIV transmission.
But of course, the "elephant in the living room" is the dirty little secret that all of this is about population control.
Of course, many of those who work so fervantly to promote abortion are doing so because they are trying to quiet the ache in their heart because they aborted children who stood in the way of their education or careers, or because their modern boryfriends deserted them, and refused to marry them or assist them to raise the child.
Why else would Sarah Palin be so vehemently condemned? Not only didn't she abort a "change of life" baby with Down's syndrome, but she (horror of horrors) even offered to adopt her daughter's child to free her to finish school.
But underlying all of this is population control, especially of "inferior races".
A hundred years ago, these "inferior races" meant the Irish (in the UK) but in the US, it also meant the Irish, the blacks, and the Jews.
We are much more sophisticated nowadays, of course. No one would use race as a criteria to slow population growth.
In the 1970's, the emphasis was on the "population bomb" that would cause massive starvation in the 1980's...
The "Green revolution" stopped that hysteria (albeit the NGO's did their best to stop this from being implemented in Subsahara Africa, so people there still lack food).
The bad news is that the "global warming" hysteria is now being used to fight global warming.
But the real emphsis is to eliminate poor children.
In the US, since most people used to be poor, saying that is taboo. But Europe, who is facing a population collapse, is more open about these things.
Just google: need population control UK, and you find:
Mga Resulta sa Paghahanap
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Population control 'needs debate'
- [ Isalin ang pahinang ito ]13 Nov 2007 ... A Lib Dem Euro MP warns that mankind is "swamping" the earth like a "virus" and calls for talks on population control.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7093099.stm - Naka-cache - Katulad -UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt - Times Online
- [ Isalin ang pahinang ito ]22 Mar 2009 ... The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if ... Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth. ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece - Katulad -Population control 'vital' to curbing climate change | Environment ...
- [ Isalin ang pahinang ito ]Agencies; guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 January 2006 15.53 GMT. The world's booming population growth needs to be reined in before there is any hope of ...
www.guardian.co.uk/.../climatechange.climatechangeenvironment - Naka-cache - Katulad -Dominic Lawson: A retort to the population control freaks ...
- [ Isalin ang pahinang ito ]6 Nov 2007 ... The BBC's peerless economics correspondent, Evan Davis, points out that if the whole of the UK had the population density of Jersey then we ...
www.independent.co.uk/.../dominic-lawson-a-retort-to-the-population-control-freaks-399128.html - Naka-cache - Katulad -
and that's just from British papers
But presumably, even if too many US taxpayer refuse to stop their relatives freom being seen as a human virus, there are other ways to do it.
from the (London) Times (May 2009):
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
So there you have it.
The forces of death are pushing at all sides, and one can only wait for the Filipino people and the Catholic church to be their next traget.
posted by Nancy Reyes at
7:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home