Clinton Convenes Mass Meeting Of Ambassadors For Launch Of Civiilian Power QDDR

reply to post by Chevalerous


I hear you.

There are a great many assumptions that are false in all of this.

I keep hearing how we are going to run out of resources... this one baffles me.


Other than a few tons of spacecraft what have we lost off this planet that was not here before our most current technological age? All these same materials are here. One of these days landfills are going to be considered gold mines when our technology (or our intention) is set to recapture and reuse these materials.

Whoever thinks we are running out of water needs to go visit the ocean sometime. There is all the water we could ever need trillions and trillions of times over. Plus all the solar, geothermal, hydro, and wind power we need to process this water for free... and sell the only byproduct (sea salt) for profit. All the technology to do this is available today with no waiting needed. We pump oil in alaska 800+ miles and ship it around the world... Most of the world is within 800 miles of some ocean.

Someone who looks you in the face and says we don't have enough land to feed every person on this planet is a liar. Period. End of story. Look for what their real agenda is. These globalists pushing this overpopulation myth are psychopaths. They believe in eugenics and want to kill off most of the world so they can control those that are left much easier. Agenda 21. Look it up... here i'll save you the trouble and give you a video of them showing you what they want the future to look like and a video of Agenda 21 for dummies... see my thread here on it.
Their own video:


Agenda 21 for dummies:

reply to post by burntheships


Thanks bts!

I just have this eerie feeling like many others, that "some" big things are now happening behind the curtain all over the world.

I no longer deny that some sort of NWO really exists as a very real agenda, and I believe that before this economic crises is really over, I think we'll see the beginning of a completely different world being rolled out with some changes which could impact our lives in one way or another.

The new 'Society 2.0' for the 21st century perhaps?

Meh! who knows? hopefully some of us will survive this as well? lol!

Exiting times ahead indeed!

I just wish that I wasn't soo curious to know what a heck they are cooking up for us there, behind the curtain?

Hehe! I Really Want To Know! - this damn waiting game is killing me!

At this point in time, at least regarding this, Ignorance would be bliss! Haha!

reply to post by Chevalerous


Yeah, remember when???

Thing is once you go down the rabbit hole, there is no getting out.

How many things have we witnessed materialize that we just thought to be a
General Conspiracy eh? Lots!

Global Financial Meltdown, Swine Flu, Council of Governors,CFR, UN, Bilderbergs, it goes on and on.

The Power of Nightmares indeed.

Well Chev, we made it this far...we cant give up now.

Oh yeah, and did I forget, Blue Beam, and Disclosure?

I've not read the whole thread yet, and so don't know whether these notions are already covered, but I wanted to get my initial thoughts down before digging in to it.

USAID used to be a CIA organ, a cover more or less, and I presume it still is. Furthermore, CIA has operated for a LONG time out of overseas diplomatic missions, but maintained an aloof and separate identity from the "ambassadorial" elements. Separate chain of command, all of that.

What this says to me is that there is an entirely new effort afoot to integrate the two, which CAN'T be a good thing, for either party. It looks to me like the power ball is in State's court, and they intend to run with it and force an integration, to what they THINK is their benefit.

What it appears they're REALLY after is control of the CIA.

Particularly troubling to me is mention of "security" elements, but under State's control, operating in these foreign areas - not on Embassy grounds. Of course the State Department ought to have control of their OWN security, on Embassy grounds, but NOT at large in the host country! Most folks only know about the US Marine Embassy Security, but State has been contracting "private security" for a long time now, just haven't been very vocal about it. I've no problem with that at all - in relation to Embassy grounds, and PSDs for staff when they venture out and about, things like that. No, what's worrisome to me is this notion that they have some business meddling unbidden in the security arrangements of the HOST countries. WE ain't got no dog in that fight!

Can't ANY good come of that.

Internal security, justice, and conflict prevention/response have always been the purview of the local police/military, and that's the way it HAS to be. If they think they've got an AQ mess on their hands now, just wait until they try to implement THIS!

"Elevating US civilian power" through State? In foreign areas? Ain't gonna work the way they think! "Partnering with the military"? HELL no! No OURS, not THEIRS. Recipe for disaster! "Partnering" is newspeak for "State Department control". NO good can come of that.

State Department CONTROL of the CIA, the military, and "civilian security elements" (which I presume means contractors) IN FOREIGN LANDS? Dictating to THEM how they'll run their OWN country?

The whole key, to me, was this phrase:

Chiefs of Mission as CEOs of a multi-agency effort

CEO's? Since when are diplomats using CORPORATE language? More "newspeak". It's a newspeak phrase meaning just what I said above - State Department CONTROL of elements it has no business controlling!

WAY too much centralized control in the hands of State Department "diplomats".

Good GOD, Clinton has gone suicidal, and plans to take us all with her! Just HOW pissed off can she be at the US?

What the hell have I ever done to HER?

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

But no. I see none of such being discussed. The State dept have a way with words. They coined the Nazi dictatorship act as Homeland Security Act and renamed the Gestapo Act as Patriot Act.

Thus it comes with no surprise that their words hold no true meanings anymore. QDDR - leading through civilian power probably means QDDR - further subjugation of mankind by elites. It would be true and honest.

Exactly.

Newspeak.

Welcome to "the Brave New World" of "1984".

See you in the trenches.

Originally posted by burntheships
Where is Beck now?

Where is Alex Jones now?

I don't know much about Jones, but Beck is always 5 business days behind what you read at ATS. Maybe doing his homework on the issues at hand?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Echtelion

 

All that and more I suppose.

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.

This perhaps is a way to move the strength of the Military Seat of Power out of
the U.S. sovereign control, under some globalist governance!

I can tell you, without a shred of doubt in my mind, that at least some of those "private police forces" will without doubt and without hesitation PLANT any "brownshirts" they encounter.

I mean "plant" as in "bulbs in the garden"....

reply to post by nenothtu


Neno, why dont you tell us what you really think?

You have shed quite a bit of light into the deeper aspects of this QDDR.

Interesting thoughts about the CIA, Newspeak, and asserting States authority in other countries.

And what nice cover - Global Health initiatives.

Um...er and yes, "Power to the People" *makes note to self - where have I heard that before?*

I am counting on the trouble they would run into with "partnering with the Military".

Sounds like an effort to start civil war...with the destruction of the environment and future lack of oil for this perpetual growth paradigm, it will be increasingly hard to suspend reality...though the number of people tuning into the super bowl does say otherwise

Originally posted by pianopraze

This video challenged me to do the math so I did. Let's stand every person on earth shoulder to shoulder and see how much space they take.There are 6.9Billion in 2010 so lets round up to 7 Billion for ease. Let's say each person stands in a 2 foot by 2 foot box.That would be 14 Billion square feet... large number but how big is that?

Answer: 14000000000 ft² = 321395.775 acre or 502 Square miles

I can't get my brain around that so let's get a picture. That is HALF the size of Rhoad Island, the smallest US State:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cdaab7b50055.gif[/atsimg]

All the people would fit on a dot so small it would not even be noticeable on this map:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/744527bcb715.jpg[/atsimg]
Now tell me again how we are overpopulated?

I have a really bad habit. I'm not a teacher, but I checked your math anyhow.

A 2'x2' square contains FOUR square feet, not two. Times 7 billion, that comes out to 28 billion square feet - roughly 1004 square miles. Converting that to a round area (to make the dot!) we have a circle with a radius of 17.88 miles - let's call it 18 miles by rounding up. That means that every single human on Earth, if stood all in one place given those parameters, would fit in a circle 36 miles across. We're even allowing babies and infants their OWN standing space at that, and not considering that they might be being held by a parent, in THEIR space.

STILL wouldn't show up on your map!

You're correct, overpopulation is the LEAST of our worries at the moment.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Neno, why dont you tell us what you really think?

Yeah, I'm bashful like that...

I am counting on the trouble they would run into with "partnering with the Military".

Here's the skinny on that, as I see it: First, this "partnering" phrase generally really means CONTROL by the initiating "partner" (in this instance, State Department). Add to that the other phrase, giving "CEO" status (another bit of newspeak, and a disturbingly corporate one to be used by government types) State Department Chiefs of Mission over this multiagency scenario - what that says, not so between the lines, but right there in your face is that State gets to run the show, call the shots. It's a STATE DEPARTMENT CM who is being called the CHIEF Executive Officer here.

Deconstructed and repackaged, it's a power grab by State.

Most general officers are pretty damned jealous of their own power. They have trouble even within their OWN ranks in letting the proper people do the proper job, for fear that they might not get THEIR share of "glory" and chest-candy. Now, given that, how do you think a power grab of the military by the State Department is going to play out among them?

I think, personally, that if she tries this, Ms. Clinton had best shy away from any places (like Bosnia, eh?) where she might find herself having to "duck from sniper fire on the tarmac"... You can never tell who's REALLY running those snipers, but I bet it wouldn't be State...

according to Link

Mr Suleiman, who is widely tipped to take over from Hosni Mubarak as president, was named as Israel's preferred candidate for the job after discussions with American officials in 2008.

AND

On Saturday, Mr Suleiman won the backing of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to lead the "transition" to democracy after two weeks of demonstrations calling for President Mubarak to resign.

Maybe related to the Monday meeting?

As a foreigner (British) living in Europe I had to ask myself what would involve ALL the US Ambassadors around the World (and the Consular Staff too)?
Probably nothing strictly Political : that isn`t first and foremost an Ambassador`s area. Nothing to do with anything which purely affects the internal workings of Mainland America: Ambassadors look outwards not inwards in their daily duties.
What would severely impact on an Ambassador`s work?
Try this and see what you think:

Does the North American Union ring any bells? A Union of the USA, Canada and Mexico. All three countries have Ambassadors stationed around the World because they are independent countries. However, were they to combine together into something like the North American Union (or whatever it might be called), this would severely impact upon the Ambassadors of all three countries. Look at Europe: Europe has now effectively got its own Ambassador. This person will in the fullness of time make all other European State Member country`s Ambassadors redundant. And there is a mention in either Obama`s or Clinton`s speeches of doing things along European lines.
Likewise in the NAU (or whatever) the USA, Canada and Mexico would not have Ambassadors per se, they would be replaced by NAU Ambassadors and there would be no need for the same number of Ambassadors as at present. Now that is something which would affect ALL American Ambassadors as many of them would be out of a job effectively. And the jobs of those remaining would be different too.
I`d be interested to hear what people think of what is simply the fruit of my musings on this mystery.

reply to post by SkipperJohn


Very likely, it looks like were headed over there...so...
And with the plans to make Ambassadors CEO's certainly.

Wouldnt we love a fly on the wall that had a microphone?

And then consider this...

US envoy's business link to Egypt

Obama scrambles to limit damage after Frank Wisner makes robust call for Mubarak to remain in place as leader.

Frank Wisner, President Barack Obama's envoy to Cairo who infuriated the White House this weekend by urging Hosni Mubarak to remain President of Egypt, works for a New York and Washington law firm which works for the dictator's own Egyptian government.


Mr Wisner's astonishing remarks – "President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical: it's his opportunity to write his own legacy" – shocked the democratic opposition in Egypt and called into question Mr Obama's judgement, as well as that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The US State Department and Mr Wisner himself have now both claimed that his remarks were made in a "personal capacity". But there is nothing "personal" about Mr Wisner's connections with the litigation firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government's behalf in Europe and the US".

www.independent.co.uk...#

reply to post by nenothtu


And speaking of The Company...

Funny that

Frank Wisner, President Barack Obama's envoy to Cairo who infuriated the White House this weekend by urging Hosni Mubarak to remain President of Egypt, works for a New York and Washington law firm which works for the dictator's own Egyptian government.

Mr Wisner's astonishing remarks – "President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical: it's his opportunity to write his own legacy" – shocked the democratic opposition in Egypt and called into question Mr Obama's judgement, as well as that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

www.independent.co.uk...#

And take a wild guess....uh huh thats right...

Wisner has connections, once in the family always in the family

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by burntheships


I understand there's been a bit of friction between Obama's folks and some family guys over time, so I'm guessing that may not have been a miscue...

And yeah, add in Hillary's apparent plans to take those gents under States wings a bit more tightly, it begins to make even MORE sense... Could well have been a warning across the bow... a sort of unspoken statement of "wouldn't you rather have that egg on your plate than on your face? Either way, we can make it happen for ya!"

reply to post by nenothtu


in other words...Mr President...not now.

Mr Wisner is a retired State Department 36-year "career" diplomat ? in otherwords, he was not a political appointee

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2291206d089.jpg[/atsimg]
photo credit to EPA

and love this part...

Mr Wisner's connections with the litigation firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government's behalf in Europe and the US". Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials – nor the blatant conflict of interest it appears to represent.

www.independent.co.uk...#

reply to post by burntheships


Well! THAT little bit of "risk management privatization" didn't work out all that well for Hil, now did it? I'm wondering if she might be re-thinking this whole "privatization" and "subcontracting" angle at the moment?

reply to post by nenothtu


Wisner is in deep.

NCS now heads the "division" he was head of.
en.wikipedia.org...

Think Egypt is above Hils paygrade, Obama's too.

Very interested to see how this all plays out...

Oh, that IS rough for 'em, and potentially way above their pay grades! DO got gutted and raked over the coals, and lots of those folks weren't even a little bit happy about that! Some times, one should look a sandwich over before biting it very hard!