Immediately after coming to power, Obama allowed government funding for US maternity planning organizations in other countries. What does it mean? And this means that now, in a completely legal way, with the money of American taxpayers, women in third-world countries will be put in spirals, undergo abortions and sterilization. In other words, the deaths of the populations of countries moaning under the yoke of American hegemony, in the course of military operations, will now be accompanied, so to speak, by the “extermination of the peaceful” with the help of an abortmacher curette and other unpleasant details. American side dish and main course are served in a number of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
It should be recalled history a question. The fact is that the American Republicans are always a little more conservative, and the Democrats are a little "more progressive." Therefore, when Republicans come to power, they usually take, if not too radical, but still anti-abortion measures, and the Democrats do the opposite. Republicans, as a rule, prolife, and Democrats - Proc (“for choice” = Pro-choice, Proc). In the already distant 1984, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting state funding for family planning organizations. This law was called the "Policy of the City of Mexico", because in the same year the UN Conference on Population Issues took place in this city. Democrat Bill Clinton signed a decree repealing this law in 1993. Republican George W. Bush again enforced it. And now Democrat Obama, quite in the spirit of the political program of his party, again signed the repeal of this law, respectively, pushing through state funding for family planning organizations operating abroad.
It would be nice to ask, in connection with what has been said, from where and what exactly the funding of the Russian non-profit organization RANIR (Russian Association “Population and Development”) goes. It is characteristic that the RANIR is still the same RAPS (Russian Association “Family Planning”), only replacing the signboard, in view of its extreme odiousness and intolerant attitude towards it by Russians, who finally began to understand what exactly is meant by the phrase “family planning”. As far as RAPS-RANIR is a branch of the American organization Family Planning (exact translation: “planned parenthood”), it is difficult to judge, but in the current Russian political situation it is possible and even necessary to verify this.
But back to Obama and the law he signed on financing family planning organizations. The reaction of the prolife, conservative circles of the United States and, above all, the Catholic Church followed immediately. The most gentle expression to the Obama from the side of the cardinals was: “We are disappointed.” But was there something to be fascinated by? After all, the Obama program was obviously known. All are well aware that the Democrats are proc. And now, voices calling to excommunicate Democratic priests are heard from all sides in the Catholic Church. But words do not follow deeds. Alone figurative expressions. A rare exception is priest Jay Scott Newman, rector of the parish of St. Mary’s Church in Greenville (South Carolina), who didn’t like or understood figurative speeches. He simply ceased to allow, without repentance, to the communion of those who voted for Obama. Effective suggestion. But this, as we have said, is an exception.
Under current US law, a child who has survived an abortion must be killed. He is usually just left to die in the cold without any support. At public meetings with the participation of Barack Obama, women abortionists, much accustomed to many and heartfelt, often talked about it with tears in their eyes and asked the president to go into the matter more thoroughly. But Obama answered only one thing: "This is the choice that America must make." Here is a clear allusion to the proabort movement of the United States. In short, the picture of King Herod and Rachel in all colors.
In addition, Obama advocates the legalization of abortions through "partial birth." This method in the serpentine language of abortmakers is also referred to as "intact expansion and evacuation." But this formulation, of course, means not careful (intact) extraction (evacuation) of a child from the mother’s body. “Partial birth” is a procedure carried out in late periods, during which the child is removed by the legs, leaving his head inside ways, and then make an incision at the base of the skull, sucking the brain through the catheter, crushing the skull so that it is easier to come out of - the tongue does not turn to say "maternal" - the belly.
B2003 Mr. George W. Bush, being a Republican, signed the Law on the Prohibition of the Termination of Pregnancy in Late Periods. The law was bad because it could be widely interpreted and in fact allowed the abortmacher to bypass it. However, this was not enough for Obama. Even before his election as president, he stated publicly that he would have lifted this ban. Moreover, in the Illinois Senate in 1997, Obama voted against the law aimed at preventing partial birth abortions. And in March, 2001. Obama was the only Illinois senator who abstained from voting on a law protecting the rights of babies who survived an abortion at a later date. Finally, the National League for the Protection of the Right to Abortion (NARAL), in other words, Proc, argues that Obama, by voting in the US Senate in 2005-2007, actually acted in her interests. Not surprisingly, in connection with all of the above, that Obama is a supporter of euthanasia. The law on it is not yet forced through only because the voter has not been sufficiently processed. Gradualism is the main feature of all the changes taking place in the republican-democratic world. Two steps forward, one step back. The movement in the right direction in any case occurs, but not quickly. And the protests are choking. It's like the old, well-known way of interrogation by two investigators - evil and good. At first one mocks, then another comes and “comforts” the interrogated person in order to psychologically manipulate them.
Human stem cell research on the human embryo is a direct consequence of Obama's proabort program, being the trend of modern democracy based on the ideas of progress and transhumanism. From now on, a person is no longer even thought of as an atomic individual, existing only from birth (using IVF and other biotechnologies) to death (from euthanasia). And as a bioconstructor, a kind of "Lego". The individual becomes a "dividual". Bioprostheses grown for diseased organs are only the very beginning of the path on which insane humanity is now embarking on a desire to be humanized. Growing on yourself additional members of the body, a radical change in the basic traits of human appearance, the creation of cyborgs, as well as human and animal hybrids, the cultivation of clones for black work and as food, and finally, as the main bonus — surrogate immortality for the elites — here are the near future. Research on human embryonic stem cells has long been banned in the United States. Obama removed all previous restrictions by signing the relevant law. The path to the "island of Dr. Moreau" is now open. And the main point is that abortive material from late pregnancy is best suited for the study of stem cells. This, it turns out, the “choice” must be made by America.
Another important point in Obama’s program is the fight against so-called “gender discrimination” and active support for the rights of sexual minorities. In the election, Obama was supported by feminists, gays and lesbians. Now, however, the time has come to fulfill these promises, which were already viewed as an essential component of Obama’s presidency. Democrats rightly call gays and lesbians "the vanguard of democracy." In February, the Obama Administration 2013 appealed to the US Supreme Court with the intention of repealing the Federal Marriage Protection Act. This Marriage Protection Act was signed in 1996 by Bill Clinton. At that time, the society was not ready to take such decisions, and therefore the Democrat President Clinton did not encroach on the age-old foundations of marriage and its very definition. Now the situation is such that the Act will most likely be rewritten. In particular, this concerns its main formulation, according to which “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”. Changing this wording would entail a huge number of amendments to other laws relating to family and marriage, which would have disastrous consequences.
While still a senator, Obama was engaged in the development of contraceptive programs and, as well as programs for the sexual education of adolescents. Now he is trying to introduce contraception as an element of compulsory health insurance, which violates the rights of the church and religious employers, for example, Catholic schools and hospitals, who are forced to pay for contraception (including abortive) to their employees from their own pocket and thus participate in sin . This caused a flurry of indignation in the Catholic environment and forced Obama to make concessions. However, the rules regarding the free provision of contraception to women stem from Obama’s 2010 large-scale health care reform and are only a small part of innovations unacceptable to a Christian. In particular, Obama allocated $ XXMX million to various kinds of sex education programs for schoolchildren. The latter, unfortunately, means not only the propaganda of abstinence, but also training in the use of contraception. However, more than 250 states have abandoned this kind of funding.
Another homicide element of the democratic program is genetically modified products (GMOs). In March, 2013, Barack Obama signed a law lobbying for the interests of the odious company Monsanto. This company has long been engaged in biotechnology and the production of genetically modified crops. Corruption ties firmly unite the company with the White House and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USFDA). Monsanto employees, the presidential administration and the FDA are constantly rotating their employees to lobby for mutual interests. This technology is called “revolving doors.” “Once inside the cage,” employees move from Monsanto to the presidential administration, from there to the FDA and back. With repeatedly proven by independent experts, the harm to human health rendered by the products of Monsanto, the latter continue to be actively pushed from above, in spite of any protests of seriously affected citizens. Among other things - the seeds from "Monsanto" are the intellectual property of the company. Harvest can be sold, but not to let on seeds. And to the farmers, convicted of the fact that they sowed their fields with seeds from the harvest obtained apply strict sanctions. Farmers are monitored by biopoly, somewhat reminiscent of juvenile justice, encouraged by mutual informing. This cannibalistic system operates almost throughout the world, causing a large number of deaths from the product itself and the suicide of impoverished farmers. With the accession to the WTO, Monsanto will also act unceremoniously in Russia. And there is another small, but significant detail. GMO cultures have the ability to interbreed with ordinary cultures, which then become genetically modified, and therefore, are henceforth the intellectual property of Monsanto. There is also an opinion that this kind of pollination is carried out deliberately. As is known, GMO cultures lead to second-generation infertility, as there are extremely disturbing studies of the Russian doctor of biological sciences Irina Eremina. They are grown to feed the masses, and for elites, the now-popular “organic”, that is, natural crops, is grown. So eating control is still the same birth control. And even more fascist, because it allows not only to reduce the birth rate, but also to destroy the population directly, arranging from time to time famines. In this direction, however, it is weapon not really used yet. Unless, of course, tens of thousands of people who become ill with cancer are counted in places where there have been illegal emissions of Monsanto production waste. As well as hundreds and thousands of ruined farmers' families, allegedly caught on the illegal use of Monsanto seeds, all of the cases are almost deliberately falsified. Biopolitical raids are essentially Bolshevik surplus, differing from them only in that the surplus was the goal of the idiotic idea to “take away and divide”, that is, a uniform redistribution of agricultural products among the citizens of the country, which, incidentally, still led to a terrible famine and numerous deaths. Here, the goal is only terror against the citizens. The ruined farmers lose everything that once belonged to them and turn into the so-called “white trash”.
Traditional farmers, having learned of the adoption of the “Law in Defense of Monsanto”, collected 200 000 signatures from all 50 states with a requirement for Obama to veto this law. However, Obama decided to temper the agility of the villagers, who decided to teach democracy to the most important democrat. A member of the US Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, acted as a procurator from the White House administration against farmers, as if she wrote off a caricature lesbian with a masculine appearance from Dr. Klimov's paranoid fantasies. Now it is clear that in making legal decisions regarding the “gender policy” of the United States, one should not wait for good either. Moreover, the fact that Mrs. Kagan, promoted by Obama to such a responsible post, does not have judicial experience, also leads to sad reflections.
This is the spectrum of biopolitical activities of Barack Obama. Even with a brief overview, it becomes quite obvious that this activity is systemic in nature. So why is Barack Obama possible? What were the prerequisites for his entry into the scene of world history?
It is well known that the American political system is bipartisan. The periods of Democratic rule are replaced by the Republican periods. All this is covered by democratic procedures, but in reality we have a clear state mechanism, where there are no random elements. The presidents themselves are a kind of “interface” through which financial and geopolitical elites and clans communicate with the people. Presidents as specific charismatic personalities created by the state PR machine allow to promote certain specific political lines. Also on the outgoing president in the case of unpopular measures, political or economic failures, you can write off all the blame. The essence of the mechanism is as follows.
The program, launched back in the days of the Enlightenment, which in fact was its foundation, implied a gradual unfolding and realization in the history of two seemingly mutually exclusive plans. We are talking about the liberalization of the economy, in other words, the self-sufficient "freedom of the market" and the so-called "human rights". At first glance, it may seem that market freedom limits human rights and freedoms and vice versa. But there is no contradiction here. Freedom of the market relates to the field of economic, and human rights, including the right to abortion, the adoption of children by same-sex couples, etc. - to the area of political.
Elites do not care in what sequence to promote parts of their political and economic program. Most importantly, they should all be implemented "in a timely manner or somewhat later." For this, the United States, which is a classic example of the implementation of the ideas of the Enlightenment, including the admissibility of abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and needed a two-party system, which is nothing more than the most ordinary leapfrog. Replacing Republican and Democratic presidents promote various parts of this program. Republicans solve financial problems and strengthen the dollar by means of wars far away from the US, Democrats fight for the rights of women, black people, homosexuals and everyone who they think is discriminated against.
It seems to the average American that successive trends in American politics are true “freedom”, true “democracy”, that this is a popular “choice” - they wanted to turn the wheel of a state machine here, they wanted to go there, but nobody will leave the road , the final destination of the route has long been set, and in the eatery on the sides of the road there is a choice between a cheeseburger and a hamburger, pepsi-cola and coca-cola. Otherwise, why would such consistent sustained US development in one direction - as if clearly drawn oh plan?
Those who speak directly about this logic of the development of the United States and Western democracies are often ridiculed as adherents of a "conspiracy theory". But there is no “conspiracy” here, of course. There is no conspiracy, there is control. It is just that the institution of the rigid capitalist power of the past centuries showed its inefficiency in pushing through the programs of the Enlightenment, and it was replaced by mild control. Soft, however, does not mean weak.
So, why did the elites need an interface called Barack Obama? But just for the further implementation of the “human rights” program described above. The black president is a symbol of the total emancipation of black people. The absolute and ultimatum of their rights, including the right to become president. The next Democratic president of the United States will almost certainly be a woman. But for now they have decided to consolidate the rights of blacks. Moreover, Obama, as a black-skinned elite, was elected even with a number of violations of the law. It has been repeatedly asserted that Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore has no right to be elected to the presidency. (According to the official biography, Obama was born in Hawaii in the 1961 year - two years after they became an American state.) And all for the sake of "human rights". What are these notorious "human rights"?
The idea of human rights in its present form appears at the time of the Enlightenment and is a direct consequence of individualism. Neither God, nor the Church, nor the state, nor the father and the mother, nor the family, nor the elders, from now on, are regarded as absolute authority, but eventually cease to be perceived as authority in general, and attempts to restore the traditional state of things are considered “authoritarian” or even “totalitarian”. . Only the individual and his rights matter. Only the desires of the individual are the ultimate source of power in society. As a result, the individual has the right not only to life, freedom and property, but also the right to self-destructive nihilism, to abortion (“my body is my business”), to the choice of sexual orientation. The final and the apotheosis of human rights would probably be the rights to murder and cannibalism if human rights were not limited to the rights of other individuals. But even without this, minority rights today are becoming genuine terror against the majority. Because the minority wants to forcefully impose its “norms” on the majority. This is the notorious "democracy" of the American type. It was Barack Obama who was called to promote just such a democracy.
It would be objected that Obama is a “people's president.” Not any Pentagon hawk. “A simple guy from the backwoods,” who won the Nobel Peace Prize for the worldwide detente. All right, but exactly the opposite.
In the first year of Obama’s reign in Iraq and Afghanistan, more American troops were killed than in both terms of George W. Bush. Characteristically, Obama began his campaign by criticizing Bush’s actions in Iraq. But then, as the elections approached, the criticism became less and less. And after the inauguration, Obama actually continued the military policy of Bush, expanding the military contingent in Afghanistan, slowly withdrawing troops from Iraq, and in the end also unleashing an unprecedented insolence war against Libya. The fact that the world elites nominated this war criminal for the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a postmodern mockery of the memory of dead civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and, finally, even the memory of American soldiers who fell for false values and fake ideals.
As for the "simple guy from the provinces," there is still more odious. First of all, it is worth noting that he graduated from Columbia University, which can be reached only by a very good patronage. A separate layer, which we will not reveal here, is the infernal associations of Obama constantly pop-up in the American press almost with the antichrist. Constantly mentioned is the very uneasy origin of Obama from some old clans for his father, who, according to some reports, belongs to the community of Kenyan fellaches - immigrants from the tribe of Dan. The same theme was also taken up by the Orthodox Internet community, which is greedy for all sorts of prophecies. The mother of future President Stanley Ann Dunham, who was a teenager in semi-pornographic nudity (and died of ovarian cancer, which is typical), comes from an old American aristocratic family whose roots go to Scotland. So, if Obama and the "guy from the backwater," it is not "simple."
Summing up, it should be noted that in Russia conservative republicans often like to compare with democrats, in favor of the latter. However, the idea of the stabilizing role of Democrats coming to power in the USA is not true. Yes, the hot phase of the classic war that the elites of the USA and Britain are waging against all of humanity temporarily stops. (Although this has not happened for a long time already.) But the lull, or at least the less acute phase of hostilities, is used to produce biopolitical weapons against humanity, which are much worse than missiles, planes, nuclear submarines and tanks. For these weapons — abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, GMOs, sex enlightenment — come directly to our house, bypassing all borders, doors and props, and target not only us, but also our entire family — for many generations. However, biopolitics and biopolitical weapons alone are a topic for a separate serious discussion.