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.


Related articles:

ObamaCare Goes Global, Hillary Clinton Announces

The New Jacobin Elite

Photo: AP Images

 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

The legacy of malthus and ehrlich This whole idea of over population was first brought up in 1842 when a clergyman maned THOMAS MALTHUS brought it all up some 100 years later a man name PAUL EHRLICH would put pen to paper and write his fraudlent book THE POPULATION BOMB now we see the legacies of these two men comming into world law becuase to many of these eco-zelots over population is offensive to their earth mother gaia

report abuse vote down vote up

January 19, 2010
Votes: +2

Thomas Paine said:

The Georgia Guidestones Clearly this elite group, circling the CFR who circles the Bildebergs, is part of the Depopulation plan presenting on the Georgia Guidestones. This sinister plot continues with the UN as the clearing house. Our only hope is to save our country, as we clearly can't save the world. Goal for us: Restore the Constitution. Free us from foreign influence and entanglements. It's about Freedom and Liberty. Nothing else.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +14

Ming said:

	Good idea Controlling the population growth is an excellent idea. As long as war, genocide, forced sterilization, forced abortion and the Republican (let 'em starve) ideology methods aren't used.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 01, 2010
Votes: +2

Sean said:

	Population Bomb If the "elites" are so concerned with the effect population has on this earth then they should lead by example and go ahead and off themselves.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 01, 2010
Votes: +10

annonymous said:

	... What does Malthus, Francis Galton, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Darwin, and Planned Parenthood have in common? Find out in a stunning new film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America and see how Eugenics is the goal behindabortion: http://www.maafa21.com
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 01, 2010
Votes: -2

Overpopulation Is Real So Get Over It, Lowly rated comment [Show]

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Vic Sage said:

	... To reiterate what Sean said earlier: If the Mark & gregg are so concerned with the effect population has on this earth then they should lead by example and go ahead and off themselves. Or if you 2 humanoids would prefer, I could be persuaded to assist you.....
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 05, 2010
Votes: +0

Pimpleff said:

	... Actually, a program of eugenics had been initiated prior to the wars. And they were working on killing off the undesirables. Populations of countries rise and fall. There's abundance everywhere, however the elites would have us believe otherwise being the sociopaths that they are.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 05, 2010
Votes: +2

Airknight said:

Earthsteward The improvement of the human gene pool is desirable. The control of human population-which has now become the major threat to our civilization-, is desirable. If this catastrophic explosion of human population is not reversed by humans themselves, then nature will do it. Nature will find a way which will not be gentle or planned . We must begin immediately, or nature will do it for us!

report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: -4

CTLovesNathanHale said:

	The Good Club should eliminate themselves and their offspring from the planet Now that is population reduction I can support. The other eugenicists including the ones posting here should be the proud volunteers for euthenasia in their brave new world -- you first, "friends"...
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: +4

klancy said:

What? I moved to China a few years ago. The one child program is anything but brutal. What was brutal was the program to make China overpopulated to begin with so that human life had little value. When human life has little value, it gets treated as if it has little value. See the problem with over-population? Take off your slant-goggles for a sec and think... shouldn't we take at least a little itsy bitsy step back? - It's clear we're over-populated if you visit a second or third world country. It's also clear we're overpopulated when 200 people apply for one single job and educated people take low paying jobs. Wouldn't you like your life to have more value? How about the lives of your children? You need counter-point to your point.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +1

Jean Brooks said:

Overpopulation In the 1800's the world population was one billion. By the end of WWII it was 2 billion. Now it is over 6 billion. We are running out of fish, our soil is so degraded that we need to cover it with chemicals that our food has little nutritional value. Our wild animals are going extinct in record amounts. If we could return to a world population of 2 billion, our world could support us. By limiting families to 1.7 children, we could return to this number in 2 centuries. And then we could have a world where we all live in comfort rather than a world where most people starve. Reducing the world population by peaceful means rather than by starvation and wars makes a lot of sense.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: +1