Avoiding The “A” Word: DNC Hopes To Secure Democratic Victory With Good-Sounding UN Euphemis ms | ExplosiveReports.Com


Avoiding The “A” Word: DNC Hopes To Secure Democratic Victory With Good-Sounding UN Euphemisms


Jurriaan Maessen
September 5, 2012

As Politico reported yesterday, the current Democratic platform is carefully avoiding taking a stand on one of the most divisive issues in the United States today: the practice and principle of terminating unborn life. Instead the current Democratic convention hopes to avert the looming spectre of electoral defeat, addressing the issue indirectly, framing the issue in such euphemistic words as “human rights”, “empowering women to make their own decisions”, and last but not least: “reproductive health”.

As national polls indicate, a majority of Americans now favours stricter regulations in regards to abortion. The Democratic National Convention therefore, from its own point of view, is wise to avoid using the “a” word as campaigning history has shown such words can and will be used by the other side to slam the democrats for recklessness at election time. Rather than taking their positions on the subject, the Democrats have included typical UN euphemisms designed to make abortion an issue of “human rights”.

As yesterday’s Politico article puts it:

“(…) don’t expect them to focus on abortion- or even necessarily use the word. Instead, they’ll defend Obama’s record on reproductive health and reproductive rights. And, as they have before, they’ll accuse GOP nominee Mitt Romney and his party of waging a “war on women.””

In their rhetorical manoeuvring, it looks like the democratic party is attempting to play into the feelings of the majority of “pro-choice” party-members, while at the same time avoiding a direct clash with a majority of the American people, not quite as inclined to embrace abortion as a morally viable option. By utilizing good-sounding euphemisms, the convention tries not to step on too many toes, but still defend and promote Obama’s intention of including contraceptive technology, including abortion, in insurance-packages- and what’s more: requiring American businesses to pay for them.

By the admission of many-a-demographer, abortion must be legal and easily accessible because it drives down the fertility rate. In one particular 2006 meeting, attended by the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the speakers admits to and utterly rejects the use of this “code” language.

“No more shrouding our statements in code. Because code just confuses people.”, the speaker said (page 33 in the document).

“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic.”

The United Nations Commission on Population and Development recently put out an announcement illustrating how euphemistic this language now emanating from the Democratic convention really is:

“Young people as much as all people share the human right to health, including sexual and reproductive health”, the document explains on page 3. Buried in the footnotes on the same page, the document explains what they mean when they say “young people”:

“young people: 10-24 year olds.”

This means that 10 year old children may be subjected to the UN’s defenition of sexual and reproductive health. We must not forget that by “reproductive health” the UN includes to mean “access to safe abortions”.

This is completely in line with a statement made not too long ago by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)- also present, by the way, at the convention. According to C-FAM the IPPF sent in their endorsement of the UN’s conference by stating:

“laws that restrict young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health services, including parental or spousal consent laws” must either be removed or be refrained from being implemented. IPAS goes even further and argues that youth should be considered independent actors free of any obstacles that ignore their own “capacity to make informed decisions.”

In a 2007 publication by the UN Population Fund several proposals for pro-abortion propaganda are openly being discussed, among which:

“(…) reproductive health education in the schools; programmes for out-ofschool youths and early married girls, social marketing of condoms; using mass and entertainment media to disseminate messages (…)”.

A 2009 draft report on International Guidelines on Sexuality Education proposes desensitizing children as young as 5 to the concepts of masturbation and incrementally preparing them for the concept of aborting life. Although the report sparked a mild controversy in the beginning of September, the final Conference Ready Version of the report has not removed the proposals.

In the 2009 report authors Nanette Ecker and Douglas Kirby propose five different age ranges and just as many teaching methodologies for ‘sexuality education’ to confront children with. The reason given for all this is ‘HIV prevention’ in order to achieve ‘Universal Access Targets.’ According to the Ecker and Kirby, the first thing to impress upon 5 year old children (under the header “Key Ideas”) is that “many different kinds of families exist around the world (e.g. two-parent, single parent, child-headed, guardian-headed, extended and nuclear families, same-sex couple parents, etc.).”

Proposed as “Key Ideas” to impress the impressionable with are, in the age range of 5 to 8:

1: “People receive messages about sex, gender and sexuality from their cultures and religions”.
2: “How harmful cultural/traditional practices affect health and well-being.”
3: “Difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sex.”
4: “Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”
5: “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation.”
6: “Some people masturbate and some do not.”
7: “Bodies can feel good when touched.”
8: “Some people are unable to care for a child.”

The last-mentioned “Key Idea” is obviously meant to prepare the children for the possibility of an abortion- for one of the “Key Ideas” mentioned in a later age range, 9 to 12, includes “definition of abortion” and “legal status of abortion locally and globally”. The learning curve is made complete when the authors propose, in the age range of 15 to 18, “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”

In a section called ‘common concerns about the provision of sexuality education’, the authors try to ‘debunk’ possible concerns about delivering this information to the very young. One of the concerns the authors toss up is “sexuality education deprives children of their ‘innocence’.”

“Parents”, according to the authors, “are often reluctant to engage in discussion of sexual matters with children because of cultural norms, their own ignorance or discomfort.”

To quote co-author Nanette Ecker: “We (…) need to start sexuality education young, such as teaching 5- to 8- year-olds the correct terminology about their bodies and how they work so they have the language to ask questions or report abusive, coercive behaviour or sexual violence.”

The World Health Organization shares this point of view. In the appendix to the above mentioned monstrosity can be read: “The World Health Organization (WHO) concludes it is critical that sexuality education be started early (…).”

“The International Guidelines”, say the authors, “will have immediate relevance for education ministers and their professional staff, including curriculum developers, school principals and teachers. However, anyone involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of sexuality education, in and out of school, may find this document useful.”

The Democratic party and Barack Obama are not only supporting an agenda that has been outlined some time ago by the United Nations, they are- as the record now shows- also using its deceptive vocabulary to sell this agenda to the party and the nation.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

September 5, 2012 Leave a Reply






By Jon Rappoport


Yes, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelette, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, can help engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In Europe, the financially embattled nations of Greece and Italy brought in Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti as prime ministers. Both men are Trilateral members, and Monti is the former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

In the US, since 1973, author Wood counts eight out of 10 US Trade Representative appointments, and six out of eight World Bank presidencies, as American Trilateral members.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Even in what many people mistakenly think of as the TC’s heyday, the 1970s, there were few who realized its overarching power.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

Source: Patrick Wood, “Trilateral Commission Endgame,” http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick133.htm

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.


The Cold Reality News Reportwww.oraclebroadcasting.comwww.blogtalkradio.com/sholman
Twitter: @coldrealitynews

Email: shollyac


Gerald Celente Trends Blog: Max Igan : The System is based on manufactured scarcity and infinite Fear


Max Igan : The System is based on manufactured scarcity and infinite Fear

Max Igan : there is a hidden agenda there is a global governance being put in place , a global corporation is being formed the whole human experience is basically being reduced to commerce everything is based on commerce everything we do has a commercial value even the people are given a commercial value , everything is about money it is about the paper it is about supporting this economic model all the time , global governance is basically global corporation says Max Igan which will be controlled by the financial institutions and financial interests who control the corporation it is

Globalism by stealth , globalism by distraction where everybody is pointing the finger at everybody else and not really paying attention to what’s going on around them and gradually things are becoming more and more interdependent , nations are becoming more and more interdependent and they say this is a good thing it is bringing us all as a global family but in fact it is reducing everything to commerce and makes no country able to achieve self sufficiency , the system is designed to create scarcity and when you create that scarcity in human psyche it promotes greed and selfishness