It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by burntheships
What I see is that with a supplemental civilian force, this is a way around
Posse Comitatus Act, which is very concerning.
Brown shirts will never be the U.S. military.
Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."
There was a White House executive order signed yesterday, signed into law yesterday. I want to read it to you.
“When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
This is from the WhiteHouse.gov press office:
“President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors.”
Now, this seems to be federalizing the National Guard. This is why I need to get legal opinion on this.
“When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States;” integration, synchronization “and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
Now, Obama said in the campaign, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” He said that in 2008 in the campaign.
You stop and think about that: Just as well funded as the US military? The military budget is, what, $600 billion a year? Stop and think of that: We spent more on the stimulus than on national defense. But anyway, we’re going to spend $600 billion on a civilian national security force just as powerful as the US military? Can anybody say posse comitatus?
Then we have this executive order from yesterday and I’m really scratching my head over what this means. Based on his campaign statement: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” You ponder that.
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by ZindoDoone
Zindo, thank you for weighing in!
Now about that turf war, in your opinion are there any signs that the shift has begun?
Good point about the Czars...why does Obama keep appointing them.
Are they all going to be out of a job in two years?
From the looks of the documents in the OP, this is going international.
How do you see that happening?
Sorry for so many questions, sir Zindo.
The Global Health Initiative: The Next Phase of American Leadership in Health Around The World
And many contributors to global health are here with us, including representatives from several partner and donor countries, NGOs, the private sector, multilateral institutions, and public-private enterprises. And I want to acknowledge your and their outstanding contributions to saving lives around the globe, often millions at a time.
And that is the mission I’d like to discuss with you today: how the Obama Administration is building upon our country’s long-standing commitment to global health by bringing life-saving prevention, treatment, and care to more people in more places.
This is a signature of American leadership in the world today. It’s also an issue very close to my own heart. I have been privileged to visit many parts of the world on behalf of our country over the last 20 years. And in my travels, I’ve come to know countless people who are living proof of what successful global health programs can do.
I’ve met HIV-positive farmers in Kenya who now have the strength to spend their day in the fields earning a living thanks to antiretroviral drugs; children in Angola who wake up every morning under bed nets and then head off to school eager to learn, unafflicted by malaria; new mothers in Indonesia who proudly show off healthy babies brought into the world with the help of trained midwives; men and women who have grown into adulthood resisting diseases because they had childhood immunizations against polio or measles.
Now, these are but a few of the faces of global health that I have seen; people who are not only alive, but also contributing as parents, workers, and citizens, thanks to the governments, organizations, foundations, and universities like Johns Hopkins who collaborate to bring medical care and education about healthy behavior to more parts of the world.
The Expanded Program on Immunization has brought life-saving vaccines to nearly 80 percent of the world’s children, up from less than 5 percent when the program began 36 years ago, and it has done so in large part thanks to U.S. dollars and support. The global distribution of micronutrients, which we helped pioneer, has protected the health of many millions of young children and pregnant women.
And we are the global leader in the fight against neglected tropical diseases, treating 59 million people in the past four years alone. We help prevent and treat malaria for more than 50 million people every year and we provide nearly 60 percent – 60 percent of the world’s donor funding for HIV and AIDS. All told, 40 percent of the total global funding for development assistance for health comes from the United States.
Now, beyond government, American organizations are making extraordinary contributions. From the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has given billions to revive immunization campaigns and discover new vaccines and other tools to prevent and treat disease, to the Carter Center, which has led the global campaign to eradicate the debilitating guinea worm parasite, to the Clinton Foundation, which has worked with pharmaceutical companies to make AIDS drugs more affordable for millions, and to hundreds of other organizations across America that are finding innovative ways to deliver life-saving and life-improving care to people worldwide.
Churches and faith communities have also led the fight to bring treatment to those in need, including by deploying health volunteers, who sometimes face dangerous circumstances to serve people in places where little or no care exists. Just two weeks ago, medical volunteers from several countries, including the United States, were murdered in Afghanistan as they traveled from village to village to treat eye conditions and run a dental clinic. That was a terrible loss for the families, a terrible loss for the world, and it was a terrible loss for those people who had been and would have benefited from their help.
So stories like these remind us that strengthening global health is not only a deeply held priority for our government, but for many American citizens and our nation as a whole. And it is an important part of our national story, one that isn’t told as often or as thoroughly as it should be.
Today, on behalf of the Obama Administration, I’d like to share with you the next chapter in America’s work in health worldwide. It’s called the Global Health Initiative, GHI for short, and it represents a new approach, informed by new thinking and aimed at a new goal: To save the greatest possible number of lives, both by increasing our existing health programs and by building upon them to help countries develop their own capacity to improve the health of their own people.
Now, before I discuss the specifics of the initiative, let me just take a step back. Some may ask why is a Secretary of State giving a speech about global health; there are a lot of other crises in the world, as I am well aware. Some might accuse me of taking a little break from those crises to – (laughter) – come to SAIS to talk about global health. What exactly does maternal health, or immunizations, or the fight against HIV and AIDS have to do with foreign policy? Well, my answer is everything.
We invest in global health to strengthen fragile or failing states. We have seen the devastating impact of AIDS on countries stripped of their farmers, teachers, soldiers, health workers, and other professionals, as well as the millions of orphaned and vulnerable children left behind, whose needs far exceed what any government agency can provide.
The destabilizing impact of AIDS led the Clinton Administration to categorize it not just as a health threat but a national security threat, a position later echoed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell. And the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank focused on national security, launched a Commission on Smart Global Health Policy co-chaired by Helene Gayle of CARE and retired Admiral William J. Fallon, to find new strategies for global health, because we believe that will help us build a safer, more secure world.
We invest in global health to promote social and economic progress, and to support the rise of capable partners who can help us solve regional and global problems. We have seen places where people who suffer from poor health struggle on many levels. Poverty is usually widespread. Infrastructure is usually incomplete. Food production and school enrollments are usually low. People who would otherwise take the lead in driving progress for their families and nations are instead dragged down by disease, deprivation, and lost opportunity.
We invest in global health to protect our nation’s security. To cite one example, the threat posed by the spread of disease in our interconnected world in which thousands of people every day step on a plane in one continent and step off in another. We need a comprehensive, effective global system for tracking health data, monitoring threats, and coordinating responses. The need for such a system was driven home in recent years with the spread of SARS and the H1N1 virus. It is cheaper and more effective to stop an outbreak when it emerges, before it becomes a global threat. But that is very hard to do in places where health and public health services are scant or nonexistent.
We invest in global health as a tool of public diplomacy. For millions of people worldwide, the prevention, treatment or care that the United States makes possible is their main experience of us as a country and a people. And it can be a very powerful one. Giving people a chance at a long and healthy life or helping protect their children from disease conveys as much about our values as any state visit or strategic dialogue ever could.
And we invest in global health as a clear and direct expression of our compassion. Millions die every year simply because they lack access to very simple interventions, like bed nets, or vitamin-fortified food, or oral rehydration therapy. As a nation and a people, we cannot, we must not, accept those senseless deaths. It’s just not in our DNA. That’s why Americans frequently report that they support their tax dollars going to global health programs – not because of what the money can do for us, but because of what it can and does do for others. Few investments are more consistent with all of our values and few are more sound. Global health is a prime example of how investing our resources strategically can have an immediate and lasting impact on people, communities, and countries.
The list of diseases and deficiencies that threaten lives and livelihoods across the world is nearly limitless, but our resources are not. So therefore, we must be strategic and make evidence-based decisions in targeting the most dangerous threats, to ensure that our investments that, after all, come from the American taxpayer, deliver results. And we must also must stay focused on the long-term picture – not only addressing the urgent needs that people have today but building the foundation for better health tomorrow and for the next generation.
This thinking informs every aspect of the Global Health Initiative, which President Obama addressed last year. The United States is investing $63 billion – first, to sustain and strengthen our existing health programs, and second, to build upon those programs and take their work to the next level by collaborating with governments, organizations, civil society groups, and individuals to help broaden the improvements in public health that we can expect.
We’re shifting our focus from solving problems, one at a time, to serving people, by considering more fully the circumstances of their lives and ensuring they can get the care they need most over the course of their lifetimes.
There is too little coordination among all the countries and organizations, including in our own government, that deliver health services, so critical gaps in care are left unaddressed.
There is too little integration. Diseases are often treated in isolation rather than bundled together
There is too little innovation focused on designing technologies and strategies that can work in resource-poor places and help the people who are hardest to reach.
The fundamental purpose of the Global Health Initiative is to address these problems by tying individual health programs together in an integrated, coordinated, sustainable system of care, with the countries themselves in the lead. We are taking the investments our country has made in PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative, maternal and child health, family planning, neglected tropical diseases, and other critical health areas – building on the work of agencies across the federal government, such as the Centers for Disease Control – and expanding their reach by improving the overall environment in which health services are delivered. By doing so, our investments can have a bigger impact and patients can gain access to more and better care, and as a result, lead healthier lives.
But the United States could not accept the injustice of allowing millions to die when we did have the drugs to save them. And through PEPFAR, we set up clinics, trained health professionals, and improved shipping and storage. So the experiment worked. Seven years ago, the number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa on antiretrovirals was fewer than 50,000. Today, more than 5 million people in the developing world are safely and effectively using these drugs, and PEPFAR is supporting about half of those people.
Under the Global Health Initiative, we will continue PEPFAR’s success by increasing its funding. In 2008, funding for PEPFAR was $5 billion. For 2011, President Obama has requested more than $5.7 billion, the largest amount any country has ever invested in the fight against global AIDS.
And we are raising our goal for treatment. Through the Global Health Initiative, we seek to directly support treatment for more than 4 million people worldwide—more than double the number of people who received treatment during the first five years of PEPFAR.
We are raising our goal for care, to more than 12 million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children.
And we are scaling up our work in family planning and maternal and child health—areas in which the United States can and must lead. Every year, hundreds of thousands of women die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth, nearly all of them in the developing world, and for every one woman who dies, 20 more suffer debilitating injuries or infections. And every year, millions of children in the developing world die from wholly preventable causes.
Saving the lives of women and children requires a range of care, from improving nutrition to training birth attendants who can help women give birth safely. It also requires increased access to family planning. Family planning represents one of the most cost-effective public health interventions available in the world today. It prevents both maternal and child deaths by helping women space their births and bear children during their healthiest years. And it reduces the deaths of women from unsafe abortions.
The United States was once at the forefront of developing and delivering successful family planning programs. But in recent years, we have fallen behind. With the Global Health Initiative, we are making up for lost time.
All told, we will save millions of additional lives through our increased support to existing U.S. health programs around the world through this initiative.
We need to lay the groundwork now for more progress down the road by tackling some of those systemic problems, and working with our partner countries to uproot the most deep-seated obstacles that impede their own people’s health. That is how we can make our investments yield the most significant returns and save the greatest numbers of lives, today and tomorrow.
So let me explain a few key ways in which we are pursuing this goal.
First, we are working with countries to create and implement strategies for health that they take the lead in designing based on their distinct needs and existing strengths, and we are helping them build their capacity to manage, oversee, coordinate, and operate health programs over the long term.
Now, in practice, this will mean different things in different places. In some countries, our development experts are training community health workers to deliver basic care and answer basic health questions. In others, we are setting up supply chains and establishing drug protocols to ensure that medicine will reach patients efficiently.
In still others, we are helping set up health information systems, so health workers can collect and analyze more data—from the number of births and deaths to more complex information, like the number of women who receive prenatal care at a clinic and return later to deliver their babies. Countries need a sustainable system for capturing and understanding data, to continuously monitor and improve their own performance.
Second, we are focusing on the needs and contributions of women and girls, who are still frequently overlooked and underserved by health professionals who don’t notice their suffering or hear their concerns. Our commitment to promoting the health of women and girls is, of course, for their sake, but also for the sake of their families and communities. Because when a woman’s health suffers, her family suffers and then there is a ripple effect throughout a village as well. But when women are healthy, the benefits are similarly broad.
Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats.
Gajdová M, Jakubovsky J, Války J.
Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Limbová, Bratislava.
Neonatal female rats were injected ip (0.1 ml/rat) with Tween 80 in 1, 5 or 10% aqueous solution on days 4-7 after birth. Treatment with Tween 80 accelerated maturation, prolonged the oestrus cycle, and induced persistent vaginal oestrus. The relative weight of the uterus and ovaries was decreased relative to the untreated controls. Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles.
“Gardasil contains Polysorbate 80, which is linked to infertility in mice,” noted Dee Nicholson, National Communications Director for Freedom in Canadian Health Care. [Nov 2007] Sleight of Handling: More Merck Magic Tricks With HPV Vaccine By Christopher C. Barr
The Endogenous Adjuvant Squalene Can Induce a Chronic T-Cell-Mediated Arthritis in Rats
Barbro C. Carlson,* Åsa M. Jansson,* Anders Larsson,† Anders Bucht,‡* and Johnny C. Lorentzen*
From the Department of Medicine,*
Unit of Rheumatology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; the Department of Medical Sciences,†
University Hospital, Uppsala; and the Department of Biomedicine,‡
Division of NBC Defense, Defense Research Establishment, Umeå, Sweden
Squalene is a cholesterol precursor, which stimulates the immune system nonspecifically. We demonstrate that one intradermal injection of this adjuvant lipid can induce joint-specific inflammation in arthritis-prone DA rats.
Third, we are improving how we measure and evaluate our own impact. This includes shifting our focus from “inputs” to “outcomes and impacts”—that is, determining our success not simply by how many bed nets we distribute, but by how many people actually avoid malaria by using them correctly—a fuller picture that demands that we invest in improving how we ourselves collect, analyze, and share data.
Fourth, we are investing in innovation, with a focus on developing tools that will help diagnose, prevent, and cure disease in the communities where we work, which are often remote and poor in resources. Many of the tools and techniques we use to keep people healthy here in the United States are unsuited to the realities of life in other places. So we need to be innovative about how to reach people effectively. One example is by using cell phones. In several countries, we’re working with public and private partners to help prevent maternal and newborn deaths by sending timely and critical health messages to pregnant women and new mothers via cell phone. The cell phone has penetrated where health clinics have not.
Fifth, we are improving coordination and integration. And that begins with aligning all U.S. Government programs within a country by finding opportunities to bundle services—much like PEPFAR did in Kenya, by linking HIV and AIDS programs with maternal and child health, TB, and family planning.
Coordination starts at the top, here in Washington. The Global Health Initiative brings together experts from across our government. And here today are the three extraordinary heads of agencies—who also happen to be three exceptional doctors—who are leading the day-to-day operations of the initiative: Dr. Raj Shah, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development; Dr. Eric Goosby, the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator at PEPFAR; and Dr. Tom Frieden, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
Their agencies, along with the National Institutes of Health and other agencies from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, the Peace Corps, among others, will work together under the guidance and direction of Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew who is also here with us today. Now, this is a unique leadership structure and it embeds our commitment to coordination at every level, from the White House down.
Sixth, we are working with existing partners and seeking out new ones. We want to align our efforts with that of other donor countries and multilateral organizations, many of which do outstanding work to improve global health. Let me just mention one in particular: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
This organization has had a transformative impact on the world, not only in the millions of lives it has saved, but by creating a new model for how global community can come together to contribute and to coordinate in the fight against epidemics. The United States was proud to be the Fund’s first donor and its largest donor. We remain the largest donor under President Obama’s request for 2011.
But our most critical collaborations will be with our partner countries, and we are going to be calling on them to bring their full commitment to this effort. Because after all, their contributions will determine whether we succeed with our goal of building integrated, coordinated, sustainable systems of care for more of the world’s people.
We need only look around the world today to see how critical country leadership is. In places where governments invest in their people’s health, where civil society groups are empowered and engaged, where health is recognized as a priority in every sector and at every level of society, health improves and people thrive.
To galvanize country leadership, we are bringing to bear the full weight of American diplomacy. Our diplomats are working closely with their counterparts worldwide to embed a deep commitment to health—not only in the office of the health minister, but the foreign minister, the defense minister, the finance minister, and especially at the top, in the offices of prime ministers and presidents.
Too often, we’ve seen health relegated to the sidelines and treated as a lesser priority in terms of how much money is allocated and how much attention is devoted. In fact, we’ve seen that the United States and other donors come in with money and countries actually take money away from health thinking that we’re going to make up the difference. The United States is willing to invest our money, our time, and our expertise to improve health in countries. But we are now asking their governments to demonstrate a similar commitment, in terms of human resources, serious pledges to build capacity, and where feasible, financial support.
We expect these countries to step up. And their people expect the same.
Now, this will not be easy. The changes we are working to achieve through the Global Health Initiative are broad and deep, and there are many obstacles standing in the way. But if we succeed, we will have transformed how health is delivered and received across the world.
Now, we have already come so far as a nation and as a global community in saving and improving lives. And we are grateful to all who brought us to this point, particularly the heroic health workers, and the visionary leaders, the determined scientists and researchers, and committed activists. Thanks to them, we are able—and I would argue, we are obligated—to go even further; to save more lives, to take on more difficult tasks, to commit ourselves to the patient, persistent work of building the foundation for a healthier future.
This is a challenge worthy of us, as a nation and as a people. And we are rising to meet it, as we have done many times in the past. Together, we can give millions of people the chance at healthy lives, and create a healthier, more stable, more peaceful world.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would start by making the point that I think the United States has both strategic and humanitarian interest across the world – not just in the headline places that we are so well aware of right now, but in so many other places. I like to think about every day considering what the headlines are, but then equally importantly, what are the trend lines – what are the problems that the United States and the world will deal with in a year, five years, ten, twenty years, if we don’t begin thinking about them and even more acting on them now.
And health is such a clear example of that. We have, as I pointed out in the speech, so many intersecting goals when it comes to being the leader in global health. Of course it has to do with foreign policy. Of course is has to do with national security. Of course it has to do with the health of our own people. It has to do with the values of America. It has to do with how we present ourselves in the world and what we’re seen as really committed to.
So when it comes to how we begin to better integrate and coordinate this, diplomacy is a key role. I mean, from the very beginning of my time as Secretary of State, I’ve talked about elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense – the three Ds of smart power, if you will. Because as I look at the real world in which we live, they are not separate, they are all connected. We see, perhaps, the military taking a lead in some places like Afghanistan, but our diplomats and our development experts are in there every single day doing what we can to improve governance, to improve health and education, to improve agriculture, and it is viewed now as a necessary cooperative integration of American power.
What we’re trying to do is take a look at every program and policy that we have across the government, and more effectively design and execute those to deliver on that promise of integrated networked power.
This fall, we’ll be releasing the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review; the Defense Department has done one for many years. And having watched the effectiveness, both for the Defense Department and for Congress and the public, of putting together a statement of mission and goals and strategies and tactics, we’re doing the same. And this Global Health Initiative really gives life to what we’re trying to put forward as our new approach to this integrated approach.
Now, there are many sort of real world examples. When you think about a country like Nigeria, we have PEPFAR, CDC, and USAID all operating in Nigeria. Yet, we had a polio outbreak in northern Nigeria a few years ago. So we had our aid program and our development experts on the ground doing extraordinary work,
but we didn’t anticipate and quickly respond to what became a series of rumors about how the polio vaccine was a design to sterilize Muslim children.
And no matter how hard our development experts or our doctors or our nurses or anybody from one of our agencies worked, that problem undid much of the efforts that we were engaged in.
So we also have launched a kind of diplomatic effort to go along with, to support, undergird, our development and health efforts. So when Deputy Secretary Jack Lew was with Dr. Eric Goosby in northern Nigeria recently – in Kano, right? Right? He went to see the sort of chief of the area, the emir, and was pleased that the emir vaccinated with the polio oral vaccine his own grandchild. That spoke louder than any lecture we could give, any argument we could make. So we can’t do one without the other. We have to have a coordinated effort.
So this is just a passion of mine because I want to see our development efforts be viewed as the best in the world across the board, led by USAID, which I want to see returned to become the premier development agency in the world and working with all of the other agencies, departments that do health. We cannot afford in a time of limited financial resources to have everybody doing their own thing. If we’re going to have a clinic then that clinic needs to do not only HIV/AIDS, but family planning and polio vaccine and other matters.
If we’re going to have a country team in a country working together, they don’t all need their own SUVs. (Laughter.) I mean, we have got to get smart about how we spend our money, because we don’t have limitless resources. And I feel a particular obligation, as I have said on numerous times in the past 18 or so months, at a time when American unemployment is recorded at slightly less than 10 percent, and we know structural unemployment is worse.
And we’re asking hardworking, maybe unemployed Americans to keep paying their taxes and some of that money will go to fund our development and diplomacy efforts worldwide. I have to be able to look them in the eye and tell them they’re getting their money’s worth. And we just can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing and be able to tell them that. We have to get smarter, more agile.
So any ideas you’ve got, send them our way, because we are committed to making these changes for the long term.
Now, we can go into countries and deal with emergencies and we can even set up parallel systems, which we have done in many places because there was no other way to do it. So we run our own health clinics, we run our own immunization programs, and we save lives and we improve the quality of life. But if there’s no buy-in from the leadership, these are not sustainable.
We have countries not just in Africa but in Asia as well that are becoming quite wealthy in one respect off of natural resources, and yet you see very little of the money going into health. And at some point which is really underlying what the Global Health Initiative is attempting to do, we have to tell countries we cannot help them any more than they are willing to help themselves.
Now, maybe their help is just getting the right people appointed to the right jobs because they don’t have any more resources than that, but sometimes it’s allocating their own resources so they’ve got skin in the game, so to speak, and they all of a sudden care about where that money is going. And some of it is working with us on training programs. There are just a myriad of ways that leaders and governments can show their commitment.
But I’ve been in enough countries everywhere in the world to know that leadership is the alpha and the omega as to whether you’re going to have sustainable, effective, health care in any country. So I’m hoping that through this partnership this Global Health Initiative is offering to countries that we will see greater buy-in by leaders. We’re going to try very hard to prevent the diversion of resources out of health, which has been a pattern. Well, if the Americans and the Global Fund are going to come in and do health, we’ll build roads, or – we need roads, so that’s a good substitute, we’ll just take the money out of health.
So our argument has to be no, this has to be a comprehensive approach. Of course, you need a road because you need a road that actually can bring people to the clinic. But you’ve got to – it can’t be one or the other.
We also want to do more work with other donor countries and other NGOs and multilateral institutions. I mean, what we’re trying to do inside the U.S. Government to better coordinate and integrate we would like to see globally. So we are talking with a lot of the donor countries that have programs in the countries that we’re doing the Global Health Initiative, and we’re trying to see how we can maximize the impact of our resources. Ideally, someday I would love to see like a map of the world all lit up and so if the United States is doing a health system in Country X, then the Scandinavian countries take all their resources and go to Country Y, which the United States can’t do and nobody else will do, and we want the Global Fund to be supplementing, not supplanting, the resources that go in. I mean, you can see how this could become the integrated system we hope for, but it’s very difficult.
The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy
The Agenda: The Restructuring of the Global Political Economy
Shortly after the meetings began, Bilderberg tracker Jim Tucker reported that his inside sources revealed that the group has on its agenda, “the plan for a global department of health, a global treasury and a shortened depression rather than a longer economic downturn.” Tucker reported that Swedish Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, “Made a speech advocating turning the World Health Organization into a world department of health, advocating turning the IMF into a world department of treasury, both of course under the auspices of the United Nations.”
After the meetings finished, Daniel Estulin reported that, “One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns according to Estulin is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”
In regards to the proposals put forward by Carl Bildt to create a world treasury department and world department of health under the United Nations, the IMF is said to become the World Treasury, while the World Health Organization is to become the world department of health. Bildt also reaffirmed using “climate change” as a key challenge to pursue Bilderberg goals, referring to the economic crisis as a “once-in-a-generation crisis while global warming is a once-in-a-millennium challenge.” Bildt also advocated expanding NAFTA through the Western hemisphere to create an American Union, using the EU as a “model of integration.”
We’ve also started discussions with China on development. At the last Strategic & Economic Dialogue that I and Secretary Geithner led in Beijing last May, we put development on the agenda. And we talked about the fact that the Chinese are omnipresent in Africa, in Latin America,
in Asia. Particularly if we just focus on Africa, there are, we think, millions of Chinese who are working and involved in the contracting and the businesses that are being developed there. And often, the Chinese will offer some kind of development aid in return for a mining contract and what we’re trying to do is to make sure that if they’re going to do it, that it somehow gets integrated.
We’ve had conversations about one country where the Chinese are building a road and we’re building a hospital, and we would really like it if the hospital would come to the – the road would come to the hospital. So, there’s all – those discussions are ongoing.
To go back to the first question about diplomacy and development, we are trying to look at this holistically and both buttressing and supporting leadership. Trying to get health higher up on national agendas has to be one of our biggest diplomatic efforts, because our development experts can’t really accomplish what they’re trying to if they don’t get the support and the buy-in from the countries.
It was fascinating to me that in our last strategic dialogues with Afghanistan, both when I was there last month and then in the recent visit by President Karzai and members of his government, their number one development request was to help on the issue of maternal mortality.
Now, when you think about it – and we’ll sort of round all the way back to the first question about foreign policy, diplomacy, and development – there are varying degrees of attitudes within Afghan culture about interventions in health. But there is general agreement about trying to keep women alive as they deliver babies.
So working – the Unites States working with other partners in a concerted effort on maternal mortality in Afghanistan gives you an opportunity to connect with segments of the population that may or may not be particularly supportive of anything else that we and others are doing.
So you have to look at how this fits into the overall strategic goals that we have in foreign policy. So that’s why I would end where I started. Now, sometimes with humanitarian emergencies like what we’re seeing in Pakistan, what we saw with the Haiti earthquake, you just act. You just do what’s right because it’s the moral imperative to do so. And the American people are very generous in responding to those disasters.
But once the disaster has receded and the wreckage, the human cost of death and destruction and injury and devastation of infrastructure and farmland is left, then I think we have both a humanitarian and a strategic imperative.
"In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries."
Every Catastrophe is an Opportunity
"In its most primitive form, this "doctrine" refers to the practice of seeking out wars and natural disasters and, then, while the locals are too shellshocked to protest, clearing a route for multinational companies. Today, however, the doctrine is more refined: its adherents engineer catastrophes."
This she terms "disaster capitalism"; she argues that it has led to the rise of a new kind of multinational that covers all the security, intelligence and war-fighting roles that were once the monopoly of the state. In short, we are seeing the rise of an international gangster class, intent on making cash from chaos.
Above all, Klein carries off The Shock Doctrine because it is a familiar story. She describes how capitalism conquers by creating conflicts, which is the heart of Marxist theory. She links (medical) shock treatment with (economic) shock therapy and (military) shock-and-awe.
The Shock Doctrine
War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From 'Disaster Capitalism'
Paul B. Farrell, Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007
Hot tip: Invest in "Disaster Capitalism." This new investment sector is the core of the emerging "new economy" that generates profits by feeding off other peoples' misery: Wars, terror attacks, natural catastrophes, poverty, trade sanctions, market crashes and all kinds of economic, financial and political disasters.
In this Orwellian future, everything must be seen with new eyes: "Disasters" are "IPOs," opportunities to buy into a new "company." Corporations like Lockheed-Martin are the real "emerging nations" of the world, not some dinky countries. They generate huge profits, grow earnings. And seen through the new rose-colored glasses of "Disaster Capitalism" they are hot investment opportunities.
To more fully grasp this new economy, you must read what may be the most important book on economics in the 21st century, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, whose roots trace back the ideas of three 20th century giants:
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned us against the self-perpetuating and ever-expanding economic power of our "military-industrial complex."
Nobel economist Milton Friedman, who said economic change never occurs without a crisis shocking the system; whether the crisis is natural, induced or merely perceived, as with enflaming public fears of war and terror threats.
"Disaster Capitalism" is financing a new world economic order says Klein, not just in "the divide between Baghdad's Green and Red zones" but in other disaster zones, from post-tsunami Sri Lanka to post-Katrina New Orleans.
in "Disaster Capitalism." In a brilliant Harper's excerpt from The Shock Doctrine, Klein makes clear how this new economy is the wave of the future for certain investors:
"Today, global instability does not just benefit a small group of arms dealers; it generates huge profits for the high-tech-homeland-security sector, for heavy construction, for private health-care companies, for the oil and gas sectors -- and, of course, for defense contractors."
This new market is enormous: "Reconstruction is now such a big business that investors greet each new disaster with the excitement of a hot new stock offering: $30 billion for Iraq reconstruction, $13 billion for tsunami reconstruction, $110 billion for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."
Google Video Link
Google Video Link
Civilian Power eh? I'd like to ask these "TOOLS" about Civilian Power when about 4 months ago they were trying to make it illegal to grow your own garden and sell the produce to a neighbor.Then again, I am not completely sure if that was removed from S510 or not.
"Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues," notes Peter Spiro. "Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots." (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.) www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
The Border Patrol confirmed this week that it is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1. www.cnsnews.com...
Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Chevalerous
This is eugenics by any other name.
Rockerfeller and the CFR are huge eugenicists.
Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
I think one of the reasons they have all been recalled is the new "leak at will" mentality that has been running through the MSM since the Iraq war and now this assange stooge. What the meeting is about is much more than is being given on the state web site that's one thing for sure. What do they not want leaked is the question.
Officials say the meeting will include discussion of foreign policy priorities for 2011, The Associated Press reported, as well as an assessment of the fallout from the release of secret diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. Clinton will meet individually with diplomats working in unstable countries.
The ambassadors will also hear from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen on civilian-military operations in the 21st century, and USAID chief Raj Shah will speak on results-based development.