Does It Matter If You Are Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice?

I have been seeing about an equal amount of posts that are Pro-Choice and Pro-Life on my FaceBook wall. And the Presidential candidates have made it an issue by tying it to the issue of rape. But it really matters not in this country which side you are on, because you don't get to make the decision. There is no such thing as Pro-Choice in this country, and there damn sure isn't a policy of Pro-Life in our government, because it doesn't value life.

Way back in the 1960's the Rockefeller Foundation started working towards the development and implementation of an "Anti-fertility Vaccine." By 1972, the World Health Organization and the UN were working with them, and the program had been given a more politically correct name "Fertility Reduction Vaccine." They had a task force, the Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation. They were studying the large scale manufacture and administration of this type of vaccine at low cost.

"In 1972 the Organization...expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continued basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO's technical assistance programme to governments at the service level."(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/77164?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101157334641)(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/77164?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101157334641http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/77164?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101157334641

As you can see from the following report at the NIH, they have decided that since hormonal methods of rendering men infertile don't work too well, they intend to use chemical methods.(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2490936/pdf/bullwho00079-0002.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2490936/pdf/bullwho00079-0002.pdf ) This report also shows that the Rockefeller Foundation is funding this research.

Please do not be naive enough to believe that people as rich as the Rockefeller's have any truly altruistic reason for caring how many children you have. They just want to make sure that there are less of us, so there is more for them.

The study at the above link says that the chemical gossypol that they researched caused menstrual disorders in women, so if it caused these problems for women, it would logically follow that just because it caused male infertility, it isn't healthy. In fact it caused neurological problems. So they decided to experiment on Chinese people with it, and decided that if the dose was low enough it wouldn't hurt you and was reversible. Really?

If you read my other posts on eugenics, you will soon learn that organizations like Planned Parenthood are not as benign and helpful as you are led by the nose to believe. They were established by eugenicists prior to WWI and their main purpose is NOT to allow women to have the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant or to have an abortion once she becomes pregnant. Their true purpose is to control and ultimately to stop the birth of whomever they determine to be undesirable.

To point out what may not be obvious, the very fact that they are calling this a vaccine, shows that they are going to be messing with peoples immune systems in order to cause infertility. You might not get pregnant, but at what cost to your health? They don't care if you suffer and die early. So much the better, because there will be one less mouth feeding off the resources they want to hoard.

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

I found the fact that they mentioned using fetal and embryonic cells very interesting, because it has recently become public knowledge that they are putting fetal cells in our food.(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1987/Vol65-No6/bulletin_1987_65(6)_779-783.pdfhttp://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1987/Vol65-No6/bulletin_1987_65(6)_779-783.pdf )(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_HRP_WHO_93.1.pdfhttp://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_HRP_WHO_93.1.pdf )

As a person who suffers from an autoimmune disorder, I can't help but feel very angry and betrayed by my government for allowing this experimentation. They have obviously been experimenting with better vaccine delivery systems and more effective ones for years now so that they can tell us we need all these new vaccines for new and old diseases, and as an added benefit to them, you and your children will be infertile. I fail to see how that is Pro-Choice.

It's something to think about the next time you get into a Pro-Choice argument with someone or the next time you and your family get in line to get your vaccinations.

In addition to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation has a BIG hand in population control around the world. One of their latest projects is research and development of nano-particles that could be administered to you without your knowledge to render you infertile by introducing foreign DNA into your body. (http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology/(http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology/http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology/ )

The Gates Foundation has proudly been partnering with other organizations to force people at gunpoint to be vaccinated in Malawi.(http://www.faceofmalawi.com/2011/07/131-children-vaccinated-at-gunpoint-in-malawi/(http://www.faceofmalawi.com/2011/07/131-children-vaccinated-at-gunpoint-in-malawi/)(http://www.gatesfoundation.org/maternalnewbornandchildhealth/Pages/melinda-french-gates-malawi-slideshow.aspxhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/maternalnewbornandchildhealth/Pages/melinda-french-gates-malawi-slideshow.aspx)

While they pretend to be philanthropic, it is obvious that they are talking out both sides of their mouths, just in the fact that they have 2 opposite agendas: reducing childhood death and population control. The two things are really not compatible because if you want to control population, you don't really value ALL human life. The following excerpt from one of Bill Gates' statements shows that what he is truly after is controlling the consumption of resources and stability, which is a nice way of saying control of the peoples of the world through government.

" then you would have all the tools to reduce childhood death, reduce population growth, and everything -- the stability, the environment -- benefits from that."(http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health/http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health/ )

The Gates Foundation is also sponsoring anti-vaccine surveillance and alert systems. http://jonrappoportmedia.blogspot.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to.htmlhttp://jonrappoportmedia.blogspot.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to.html

With regard to vaccines in general and the way people are being manipulated, the Council on Foreign Relations actually felt that it would be a good idea to make think people think there was a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine so that people who were resistant to getting it would get it because they were afraid they might not be able to change their minds later, and because if everyone else was rushing to get it, it must be a good idea.(http://www.cfr.org/health-and-disease/session-council-foreign-relations-symposium-pandemic-influenza-science-economics-foreign-policy/p20442(http://www.cfr.org/health-and-disease/session-council-foreign-relations-symposium-pandemic-influenza-science-economics-foreign-policy/p20442 )

“I think what would work better would be to say that there was a shortage and people tend to buy more of something that’s in demand. (Laughter.) We saw that — there was one season where, really, people lined up all night to get a flu shot.” Simonsen says, much to the amusement of the other attendees at the symposium."

In an article at infowars.com, a very valid point was made in reference to a statement made by Andrew Jack about the people who were hesitant to take the vaccine.

"“I’m not sure that we’re countering these people very well.” Jack concludes before suggesting that the CFR put out soundbites about there being more mercury in a Tuna sandwich than in the H1N1 vaccine in order to convince “the crazy people” that it is safe.

The fact is however, you do not directly inject a tuna sandwich into your bloodstream. Is it more likely that a two fold increase in autism over the last six years is directly related to thimerosal in vaccines or to tuna sandwiches?"(http://www.infowars.com/cfr-recording-suggests-creating-false-scarcity-to-drive-up-demand-for-h1n1-vaccine/(http://www.infowars.com/cfr-recording-suggests-creating-false-scarcity-to-drive-up-demand-for-h1n1-vaccine/ )

In my other posts on eugenics, I have shown that there are people in this country, in the UN and around the world who believe that if you are not of the elite, you shouldn't be having children. And one of President Obama's own advisers believes that if you happen to be Pro-Life, or just choose to have your baby and you are unmarried, that it automatically makes you an unfit mother, and your child should be taken away from you and put into foster care. That's almost funny when you are familiar with the circumstances of Barach Obama's childhood. But wait, he's a wealthy, successful, politician, so it's different.

What it all boils down to is this: You do not have the final say-so on your fertility, unless you happen to be one of the power elite in this country.

CDC now calling U.S. households and demanding Child Immunization Records as part of Vaccine Surveillance and Tracking Program

CDC now calling U.S. households and demanding Child Immunization Records as part of Vaccine Surveillance and Tracking Program When my children were small, I read and heard all of the concerns people had about the bad reactions to immunizations. At that time, the statistics said that only a small percentage of autism cases were indirectly linked to immunizations. So, I decided that if my children contracted a disease because I did not get their shots, they would definitely have a chance of dying, and a high chance of permanent side effects and things like, blindness, deafness, being crippled, or other things. If I didn't get them the shots, those things would be my fault. I would be the guilty party. If I got them the shots and they had bad reactions to them, that would be the governments fault. My mother barely survived Whooping Cough, and my father had rheumatic fever and was left with rheumatoid arthritis and a damaged heart, because he had not had antibiotics available to him. My kids, my decision.


Things are different now. The governments have much more say in how we raise children. Rather than arguing over whether or not immunizations cause problems, we need to figure out ways for parents to be the ones who get to make the call on their kids health care. When people decided to homeschool their kids, the government resisted that. They go so far as to teach people who work for Children's Services that the only possible reason you would do that is because you want to hide abuse and that it is socially damaging to the child. Homeschooling is a red flag to DCFS. If someone reports you to them, they come to your home already thinking you are mentally unstable and in need of their guidance. People had to start hiring lawyers to fight back.

This is what people need to do in regard to immunizations. If you decide to not have your child immunized. I do not feel that you have the right to expose other kids to it. But, there should be some system in place to accomodate your decision. The government is already taking steps to force you to give them the shots. You are going to have to decide to take your chances with the side effects of the shots, or you are going to have to decide how to legally defend yourself.

There have already been parents sent to jail for not getting their children medical care that the courts and DCFS feel that they should have had. They were charged with endangerment and neglect. Their religious beliefs were not even a defense. I'm not saying I think these parents were right. The CDC is now calling people to get them to give access to their children's medical records. Do not fall for this. I can tell you for sure, that if you give them access to immunization records, and they find something in that information that gives them a reason to feel suspicious of you, they can then apply for a court order to get the rest of the medical records through probable cause. Almost anything from a child's life can be twisted to look like you are a bad parent, and the courts do not assume you are innocent until proven guilty when it comes to your children. You have to prove you are not guilty. What if they find in those records that your child has fallen down a lot? They won't assume your family comes from a long line of clumsy accident prone people. If the CDC calls you, do not participate in the phone survey. Take legal recourse if necessary. It does not matter if you have gotten the shots or not. This is not just an attempt to make sure you have, it is an attempt to start systematically having access to private medical records. And to ultimately have the final say in your child's medical care.

The Kennedy's didn't realize that when you check into a hospital to give birth, you are giving the hospital, and through it, DCFS, temporary custody of your newborn. This is how they are legally able to come in and take immediate custody of crack babies and to force you to get a proper car seat before you can leave the hospital. While those two things seem like they are good things, they ultimately mean you go through child birth and the hospital has custody of your child. I actually read the papers they gave me in order to check in and to be discharged from the hospital. They say that they are "releasing" your baby into your care when you go home. They took the excuse of people stealing babies from hospitals as an opportunity to install high tech security. You cannot get out of a maternity ward now without permission. Many hospitals have doors that have to be disarmed for you to get to an elevator and then the outside world. Your child will have a band on their arm or leg that keeps you from leaving without setting off an alarm. These measures are a double edged sword. They keep your child safe from strangers, but they also keep them safe from YOU, and safely in the care of the state, until they give them back to you.

If the government has the power to do this to you and allow you to think it is in your best interest, then you had better face the reality that you ultimately have to be on guard to retain your parental rights.

  The Institute of Medicine receives funding from the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.

 Your child now comes into this world owing it's soul to the government. They only let you have them back until such a time as they feel you are no longer useful as a babysitter and they are constantly on the lookout for a reason to take them back from you. This is because they ultimately want that soul back. If you are not helping to program your child to take it's place in the society that the government wants it to be a part of, then you are going to run into legal resistance from them. Or not so legal, infringements on your rights.

The government has already been conducting practice drills, in which they enter schools, armed and using mock explosives, round up all the kids and take them to holding centers. I bet you thought you would be informed if your child was arrested, and that they would have to do something wrong first. Not so, because the government does not believe they belong to you. The following is the news story detailing the phone call you will be receiving soon from the CDC.There are links and sources. No hype and no bull
  http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1905/066/CDC_now_calling_U.S._households_and_demanding_child_immunization_records_as_part_of_vaccine_surveillance_and_tracking_program_Learn_more:_http:_www.naturalnews.com_033717_CDC_National_Immunization_Survey.html_ixzz1nssoelNi.html