Thread: Global ObamaCare, Hillary Clinton Announces

Global ObamaCare and World Population Control

Written by William F. Jasper
Tuesday, 19 January 2010 09:48

As reported here on January 16 ("ObamaCare Goes Global, Hillary Clinton Announces") Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent celebration of the 15th Anniversary of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) portends a major ramping up of coercive population-control efforts worldwide, especially those aimed at the developing countries.

According to Secretary Clinton, President Obama's Global Health Initiative will be "the centerpiece" of his foreign policy, and even though America is drowning in debt and the U.S. economy is floundering, he has committed $63 billion to his global ObamaCare initiative.

Here are Hillary Clinton's words:

In addition to new funding, we've launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, [and] prevent millions of unintended pregnancies.

This was not the administration's first announcement of the Global Health Initiative (GHI); President Obama issued a statement and fact sheet on the program on May 5, 2009.

What the Clinton and Obama statements do not mention is that the Obama Global Health Initiative is not an Obama initiative at all, but merely his continuation and expansion of the UN's global population control program, which is a priority concern for some of the world's wealthiest elites who want to see the planet's human population drastically reduced. The real initiators of Obama's GHI are Bill Gates, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller, the World Economic Forum, the Clinton Global Initiative, the United Nations Foundation, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The Gates connection to the GHI is so extensive that it is probably not an exaggeration to say the Obama Global Health Initiative represents the successful transfer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's global health policies into official U.S. policy, with the costs also being transferred to the U.S. taxpayers. At the conclusion of her January 8 remarks on the ICPD and GHI, Secretary Clinton introduced Dr. Rajiv Shah, the new Administrator of USAID, the State Department agency that administers U.S. foreign aid programs and that will oversee the GHI. Dr. Shah had just been sworn in to his new post the previous week, on December 31. And who is Dr. Shah? According to his USAID biography, immediately prior to joining the Obama administration, Shah worked for seven years for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, serving as a director of the Foundation's Global Health Program and its Global Development Program. Prior to that he was the healthcare policy advisor on the Gore 2000 presidential campaign. And before that he served as a policy aide in the British Parliament and worked at the World Health Organization.

The other person introduced by Hillary Clinton at the ICPD anniversary celebration was Maria Otero, the new Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Prior to accepting that post, Otero was president and CEO of Accion International, and before that worked at the Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA). Both ACCION and CEDPA are favored funding projects of the Gates Foundation, as well as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, two of the leading promoters of aggressive population control for the Third World.

The Secret "Good Club"
On May 24 of last year, the Times of London reported in an online article that a secret meeting of the world's leading billionaires had struck on a plan for curtailing world population. Entitled "Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation," it told of a gathering in Manhattan that included Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Oprah Winfrey, and others. (The New American reported on it here.)

The British have a phrase that mockingly describes the kind of important and self-important people we are often directed to admire: "the Great and the Good." This clearly was a meeting of just such an elite. In fact, according to the Times, the gathering was "described as the Good Club by one insider." We will leave it to the reader to decide if the moniker fits.

The Times reported:

SOME of America's leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

The covert palaver took place, revealed the Times story, "at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel Prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University."

To what purpose? Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, attended the Rockefeller summit. She told the Times the billionaires met to "discuss how to increase giving." But, apparently, they were not simply interested in coordinating their own giving; they want to draft you and me into financially supporting their pet programs as well.

The Times reports that, according to an attendee, "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."

"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers," said the guest. "They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming." Bill Gates, it seems, exerted a major influence on their decision. "Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority," reported the Times.

"Global Cabal," "Alternative World Government"?
"Why all the secrecy?" the Times asked. Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, told the Times the furtiveness might be "because they don't want to be seen as a global cabal." To which the contemporary "Duh," seems the only appropriate response. An attendee reportedly gave the Times this explanation: "They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government." Ditto, double "Duhs."

But, are those descriptions — global cabal and alternative world government — unreasonable depictions of what the "Good Club" billionaires are up to? As private citizens, they should be free to shower their billions on whatever charities they deem worthy. But, clearly, in this particular area (and in others as well), they have hi-jacked our government to fund and implement their agenda. According to their anonymous apologist quoted by the Times, they meet secretly because "they need to be independent of government agencies." All well and good — if they truly were "independent of government agencies." But just the opposite is true; they are completely intertwined with government agencies, and with the UN agencies that are also intertwined with and funded by our government agencies.

The so-called Good Club elite that convened at Sir Paul Nurse's domicile — Rockefeller, Soros, Gates, Turner, Winfrey, Bloomberg—- are a top subset of a larger circle of key movers and shakers who do indeed call the shots on global political and economic affairs. And many of them are indeed pushing to transform their various global agendas into eventual formal world government. President Obama's Global Health Initiative is virtually indistinguishable from the identically named GHI launched by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2002. Of course, most of the Good Club members are regulars at the WEF annual gatherings of the rich and super-rich in Davos, Switzerland (or other WEF ultra-posh venues), where the Lear and Gulfstream jet sets meet to tell the middle classes and working-class poor how much they need to sacrifice to fund the Davos group's latest "compassion" projects. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a "Strategic Partner" for the WEF's GHI.

Fanatic Malthusian Elites
Tightly entwined with the WEF and GHI is the Clinton Global Initiative, a massive project of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Launched by former President Bill Clinton in 2005, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) has already amassed an astounding $57 billion in commitments from corporations, foundations, and individuals. Listed as "Notable Members" of the Clinton Global Initiative are, among others, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Judith Rodin, president of the Rockefeller Foundation. Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, and Michael Bloomberg have been participants in CGI events and donors to CGI causes. And one of the major causes that CGI has targeted is "global health," with a particular focus on the same issues of women, reproductive health, and over-population that his wife, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and her boss, President Obama, have chosen to target with their GHI. Just a few months ago, in September 2009, President Obama was introduced by Bill Clinton as a headline speaker at the Clinton Global Initiative gala in Manhattan. In his remarks at the CGI event, President Obama emphasized the "comprehensive global health strategy" of his foreign-aid program.

If we go over to the Global Health Council (GHC), a major advocacy group for GHI, we find that it is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation and has a large representation of Gates' folks directing it. The GHC's board of directors includes Julio Frenk and William Foege, both fellows at the Gates Foundation, and Valerie Nkamgang Bemo, a senior program officer of the Foundation. Director George F. Brown is a former director of the Rockefeller Foundation and former vice president of the Population Council, one of the principal founts of Rockefeller-financed population control propaganda for most of the past century. Soros and Turner are GHC funders. And, of course, GHC is tightly interwoven with Clinton's CGI and Obama's GHI.

The Malthusian fanatics of the Good Club and their fellow billionaire population-control elitists may claim to want "independence" from government, but what they really want is independence from public scrutiny, accountability, and oversight, while at the same time enjoying public financing and government implementation of their programs. The "new money" elitists — Gates, Buffet, Turner, Soros, et al. — have learned from the "old money" activists at the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie foundations, that the best strategy is to get some programs going, promote them as great humanitarian efforts, build up a constituency behind them, and get them adopted as official policy. This results in greatly expanded programs funded by the taxpayers.

And precisely because the Gates-Rockefeller-Soros-Clinton-Obama "global health" agenda is being implemented under the authority of the United States government and paid for by the American taxpayers, Congress must be held accountable. Members of Congress must be forced by public pressure — for fiscal, moral, and constitutional reasons — to investigate and expose this public-private "global cabal," which does indeed pose a very real danger of becoming an "alternative world government." Proper investigation and exposure would result in a cut-off taxpayer funding to GHI projects, especially the most egregious, such as UNFPA which not only continues to support and fund the forced abortion and infanticide of China's brutal One-Child Program, but also engages in forced sterilization, coercion, bribery, and eugenics throughout the developing world.
(See here, here, here, and here.)

And UNFPA is not alone. Assisting it in these illegal and immoral actions are other U.S. and international agencies funded by the U.S. taxpayers: USAID, UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, IMF, the World Bank, etc.

The administration's Global Health Initiative, the new global ObamaCare, is in reality a major effort to launch a new wave of planetary eugenics and population control under the guise of mitigating human suffering and poverty, promoting "global health," and saving the environment.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... on-control


many links on this page; please go to the link above o view them

ObamaCare Goes Global, Hillary Clinton Announces

Written by William F. Jasper
Saturday, 16 January 2010 00:00

Written by William F. Jasper
Saturday, 16 January 2010 00:00

Hillary ClintonPresident Obama and Congress may be wrangling still on major issues in the nationalized healthcare legislation — abortion coverage, rationing, end-of-life counseling ... and how to pay for it — but the administration, nevertheless, has announced its intention to push forward with a $63 billion global ObamaCare plan.

With little media fanfare or coverage, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced on January 8 that the Obama administration had recently succeeded in supplying "more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide." And she said another $63 billion is on the way, courtesy of Obama's Global Health Initiative.

Secretary Clinton's remarks came at a State Department celebration of the "15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development," the 1994 United Nations summit in Cairo, where abortion policies were the major flashpoint. Addressing supporters in the State Department's Benjamin Franklin Room, Secretary Clinton said:

This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. [Applause.] The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That's the largest allocation in more than a decade — since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. [Applause.]

In addition to new funding, we've launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health.

Mrs. Clinton, who has always been a staunch supporter of the right to abortion, played a key emissary role at the 1994 Cairo summit. The previous year, as First Lady, she had presided over her husband's failed effort at nationalizing healthcare, the so-called "HillaryCare" program, which shared many features of the current ObamaCare plan. Besides holding similar ideas on government-controlled-and-directed healthcare, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share near identical views on abortion policy, which include striking down virtually all restrictions on access to abortion, as well as ending all restrictions on U.S. foreign aid for funding abortion worldwide.

"The year 2015 is the target year," Secretary Clinton said in her January 8 remarks. "Part of the reason we wanted to have this commemoration is not only to look backwards, but to look forward. What is it we will do between now and 2015? Remember what was expected of us. All governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right."

During the wrangling over text at Cairo, Beijing, and other UN conferences, "reproductive health" and other similar code words were employed in attempts to camouflage policies that promoted abortion. At congressional hearings this past year, Secretary Clinton was specifically pinned down on this issue by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.Y.), who wanted to know if the phrases "reproductive health," "reproductive services," and "reproductive rights" include abortion. Secretary Clinton stated: "We [the current US administration] happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal and rare."

(A video of the Smith-Clinton exchange can be viewed here.)

The "safe, legal, and rare" statement is a verbatim response that Clinton has used many times over the years, whenever she is forced to acknowledge the reality of "reproductive" policies. As, for instance, when she addressed the Cairo Plus Five Forum at The Hague, Netherlands, in 1999. Speaking of President Bill Clinton's efforts at the time, she stated: "We are also working to ensure that abortion is safe, legal, and rare. That is one of our top priorities."

Abortion, of course, is never safe for the aborted baby, whose life is ended, and the policies Clinton has championed for many years — as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State — certainly have not made abortion rare. Nor can anyone credibly suggest the new Obama-Clinton policies will make abortion any more rare. As a State Senator, U.S. Senator, and now as President, Barack Obama has established one of the most pro-abortion records of any U.S. politician. One of his first acts as president was to rescind the U.S. "Mexico City Policy" that prohibited federal funding of international agencies or NGOs that provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

One of the principal targets of that policy was the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance (UNFPA), which became notorious for supporting Communist China's horrific one-child policy, which included forced abortion, infanticide, and hunting down women who got pregnant without the state's permission. UNFPA and its defenders — in the media, Congress, and the Obama administration — have been trying to rehabilitate the UN agency's image, claiming those abuses are now a thing of the past. In fact, they say, China has largely abandoned the one-child policy, and UNFPA's programs in China allegedly do not support the repressive one-child initiatives. Not so, say critics of UNFPA and China's population program.

"It's very clear that the U.N. Population Fund is a cheerleader for the Chinese family planning program, is funding the program, and turns a blind eye to forced abortion and forced sterilization," Dr. Stephen Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), said in a February 2009 interview.

The local UNFPA officials conducted their operations out of the China Office of Family Planning, where these abhorrent practices were taking place, said Mosher, who first exposed the brutal practices in 1983, while in China pursuing doctoral studies through Stanford University. "It is inconceivable that the U.N. population official who worked in the same office did not know what was going on," he said.

In March of 2009, following President Obama's refunding of UNFPA, Dr. Mosher's PRI sent a team into China to investigate the alleged population reforms. "Contrary to the claims of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), China's coercive one-child policy is alive and well in the counties in which their organization operates," reported PRI in a March 24, 2009 press statement.

The PRI statement continues:

PRI's investigative team found that the one-child policy was not relaxed in the counties it investigated, and, in some ways, the coercive measures undertaken by the government are worse now than ever. According to PRI's Colin Mason, who headed up the investigation, "when the actual conditions on the ground are observed, the UNFPA's claim that it 'played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China' is patently absurd. The policy is just as coercive in these areas as anywhere else."

Even the liberal-left Huffington Post recently acknowledged ("China's Horrid One Child Policy Continues," January 7, 2010) that claims of reform are fraudulent. China's population control "abuses continue today, and yet there have recently been increasing calls for the world to take a look at the One Child Policy as a model for how to reduce population growth," noted Nicole Kempton in the Post column. She continues:

Women of child-bearing age are routinely subjected to monitoring of their menstrual cycle by family planning officials, and their employment is often contingent upon compliance with the policy. Unmarried women are not allowed to have children, and even married couples must apply for a birth permit before they can legally bear children. Women who violate the policy are served with fines which may be several times their annual income, or worse, subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations as punishment. If they refuse to submit, their family members may be detained and their homes destroyed.

More on the continuing one-child policy in China and its ongoing partnering with UNFPA can be seen here and here.

Nevertheless, Secretary Clinton, in her January 8 paean to the UN's Cairo legacy, repeatedly cited UNFPA as a model program. Moreover, she pledged to continue expanding it by increasing U.S. foreign aid to the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

"We have pledged," she declared, "new funding, new programs, and a renewed commitment to achieve Millennium Development Goal Five, namely a [three-fourths] reduction in global maternal mortality, and universal access to reproductive healthcare."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... -announces