How to Help Jill Stein Get Into the Nationally Televised Debates

We can get Jill Stein into the debates by promoting her on social media sites because of the computer generated algorithm used to measure online content. These algorithms are used by the private company that runs the debates in the same way that media outlets both traditional and social, governments, businesses etc use the analytics the results to promote certain stories and ideas, its also how government help develop polices and responses to crises. These can used to help promote political ideas and movements as can be seen by the Obama and Sanders campaigns.

The four best social media’s ATM are Twitter, Youtube, Reddit and Facebook and these can be used to help promote Jill and her agenda as well as help get her into the debates, here is how and why. On Twitter you can retweet posts by and about Jill Stein using hashtags to help make search easy. You can also post from other traditional and social media content double and then quadrupling the hit rate in algorithms. The more you post articles about Jill Stein from news sources the more these articles will appear on the front pages of the news websites and the more articles will be written about her. You can post the news article on Reddit then post the post on twitter increasing the algorithm hit-rate and helping promote connections on Reddit at the same time.

Youtube videos are also good a video needs 300 hits before it will get into Youtube autoplay which makes the videos automatically play after watching other videos on Youtube you can help by playing Jill Stein videos via playlists to multiple videos play and setting them playlist to repeat and by creating your own playlists and sharing then playlist on other social media. You can promote the watching of these videos on other social media and load them onto your own blogs written about. As well you can make your own videos endorisng Jill Stein and upload them onto Youtube. The best thing about Youtube is that it is owned by Google so Youtube videos are given extra ratings in Google algorithms.

Reddit is good to post news and social media articles, liking and share Reddit posts on other social media such as Twitter and Facebook helps accelerate algorithm hit-rates, Reddit also has a boost presence in Google algorithms. Facebook is goo as well and allows greater interaction on a more personal basis. So a good example would be to post Youtube video onto Reddit page liken this one and then share that Reddit page on Facebook and help draw more people into the Reddit group as well as accelerating algorithm hit-rates at the same time. So if we can help promote more social media interactions and and promotion of articles, blogs, social media and Youtube video postings about Jill Stein in algorithm analytics which are taken on a daily basis we can help propel Jill into the televised Presidential debates.

For more information on Jill Stein for President 2016 and the Green Party’s grassroots 2016 Presidential campaign see
Website http://www.jill2016.com/
Twitter https://twitter.com/DrJillStein
Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/jillstein/
Bookface https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/

Hillary Clinton Advisor Helps Finance the Islamic State and Neo-Nazi’s in the Ukraine

101.jpg

Evidence has been brought fourth that former Hillary Clinton advisor Daniel Freifeld has been helping fund through a private-public equity fund armed Neo-Nazi’s Battalions in the Ukraine who have been implicated in the torture and death of civilians.

Daniel Freifled who is according to his website, the founder of the Private Equity Fund Callaway Capital Management which specialises in managing public-private equity projects in ‘frontier and emerging markets’.

Freifeld has a long a long detailed history as a leading member of Washington’s beltway’s foreign policy and intelligence community. Included in these previous posts roles as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy between 2010-2012 as a well as a stint as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign and spots to the World Bank and at Harvard University. Freifeld also has a key position at the US Government funded policy development think tank the Council on Foreign Relations which helps develop US Foreign Policy for the government.

One hopes that as a investment advisor for public funds, a government adviser, a World Bank employee and a facility member at Harvard University that he would remain hands off when it comes to politcal decisions especailly considering his former role as a personal advisor to Hillary Clinton and as a Special Envoy for the State Department appointed by Hillary Clinton.

Daniel Freifeld

Freifeld Linked In.jpg

Sourced from Callaway Capital Management  and LinkedIn websites

Freifeld associates at Callaway Capital Management include several other insiders from the beltway foreign affairs and intelligence community including Michael Singh as close associate of the Republican Party.

Freifeld2.jpgWhilst the funds operated by Callaway Capital are unknown they are thought to include US Taxpayer funds from the State Department as well as funds from billionaire’s from around the world.

Institutional Investor Magazine gives an example of Freifeld’s influence, when a former intelligence insider set up CargoMetrics a private firm when uses a computer algorithm to monitor all water born traffic using US Defence and private satellites. In the article CargoMetrics Cracks the Code on Shipping Data it is noted that Freifeld introduced the former intelligence operative who was an associhttp://www.infowars.com/uk-us-turn-blind-eye-to-islamic-state-oil-sales/ate of his from the Council on Foreign Relations to a billionaire investor/s that was/were an associate/s of Freifeld, predumebly assocaites through Callaway Capital.

A later article published by the UK based Financial Times Billionaires Back New Shipping Quant Fund  reveales that these investors were fellow CFR members Google’s Eric Schmidt,  Israel Corporation’s Idan Ofer, Applied Predictive Technologies’ Jim Manzi as well as Mehmet Sepil from Turkish based Genel Energy who have been linked by Middle East Eye  to purchasing and transporting crude oil from Islamic State occupied areas of Iraq and Syria.

In the Ukraine Freifeld’s Callaway Capital Management has facilitated from the United States loans from unknown sources to Ukraine Warloard Ihor Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank which facilitates who controlled and facilitated payments to anti-Russian Neo-Nazi Battalion who started a war in the east of the former Soviet Republic of the Ukraine. A large number of these fighters are from foreign origin with some groupings even linked to the Chechen terrorist organisation Imarat Kavkaz who are an associate of the Islamic State.

In August 2015 a Reuters article Ukraine’s PrivatBank Restructuring Gets Investor Nod
revealed that Freifeld’s Callaway Capital controlled at least US$350-500m in PrivatBank debt and effectively exerting a controlling influence over the company. PrivatBank in controlled by Kolomoisky who was appointed as governor and military commander of the Dnipropetrovsk after the armed removal of a popularly elected government in February 2014.

Kolomoisky set about build an armed force after the defection of the majority of the armed forces of the region to the pro-Russian Donetsak and Luhansk People’s Republics based of recruiting members of Far Right and Neo-Nazi organizations from Western Ukraine.These ad hoc military organisations instead of fighting former Ukraine Army officers who had defeated to the Peoples Republics spent much of their looking civilian buildings and attacking local populations.

privatbank-volkswagen.jpg

With the Dnipropetrovsk Governemnt reliant of revenue from the sales of manufactured goods to Russia and the supply lines cut due to the civil war Kolomoisky was forced to dip into the funds of his PrivatBank to pay the wages of his ad hoc army. Callaway Capital was called in to help prop up the financial viability of Ukraine’s largest bank as bank depositors money was used to pay wages and to buy military equipment. Freifeld’s Callaway Capital chipped in with what is been reported to be US$350-500m to help prop up the private owned bank from financial collapse.

Questions should be raised about how Daniel Freifeld came to be an advisor to Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign in 2008 and then suddenly without seemingly being qualified was appointed Clinton’s sepcial envoy at the State Department for Eurasian Energy. Other questions should be raised about how he has been using his role at the government funded Council on Foreign Relations to pursue his own business interests. Questions should also arise around his links to financing Neo-Nazi militia;s in the Ukraine and the source of the funds that he used to do this. As well questions should be raised over his use of CFR contacts to help a former intelligence operative set up a private operation for global surveillance of ocean traffic using US government assets with billionaires who are foreign nationals linked closely with foreign governments and with one close associated from the CFR and business associate in charge of an energy company that has been named as helping finance the Islamic State in Iraq.

 

101.jpg

Hillary Clintion Speech to Clinton Foundation Donors in New York 2009

Remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative Closing Plenary

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Sheraton Hotel and Towers

New York, NY

September 25, 2009

 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so very much, and it is once again a great, great delight, a personal privilege, to be here at CGI and to see how this innovative approach toward changing the future, by investing in people, and using the talents of so many to make the cases for those whose voices will not be heard here, has made such a difference.

What I have found in the last five years with the extraordinary development of CGI is the hunger for people to be part of partnerships and networks that will make a difference. And it won’t surprise you to hear that I’m very proud of my husband, and I think what he has invented and brought to life here is extraordinary. (Tremendous Applause.)

As Secretary of State, I really, in terms of protocol, should be acknowledging all of the heads of state and heads of government who are here, but there are far too many. And so let me just express my deep appreciation for your involvement and for your presence here, and we look forward to working with you and your governments as we move forward on the new agenda of the Obama Administration.

 

And this issue that I will talk about briefly today is really a paradigm of what we’re trying to do differently. And I have to acknowledge that much of what we are attempting to do is derived from what I have seen happen here at CGI, the kind of new approach, the marrying of philanthropy and capitalism, the investment in people, and the results that have really been extraordinary.

 

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI. I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons. (Applause.) And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world. We see it in everything you do. It seems a good opportunity given the talent, the energy, and the passion in this room to talk about an exceptional global challenge – chronic hunger and what we all can do about it.

 

The short film you just saw narrated by Matt Damon is just a snapshot of what is happening right now. And it does serve as a visual punch to the words that I will share with you today. And I hope that it stays with you. As we roll out our food security initiatives in the Administration, we will be looking to work with the countries represented here and many of the organizations.

 

But let me begin by asking you with me to consider the daily life of the world’s typical small farmer.

 

She lives in a rural village in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, or Latin America. She farms a piece of land—land she does not own. She rises before dawn and walks miles to collect water—if there is water to be found. She works all day in a field, sometimes with a baby strapped on her back.

 

If she’s lucky, drought, blight, or pests don’t destroy her crops, and she raises enough to feed her family—and maybe even has some left over to sell. But there’s no road to the nearest market and no one to buy from her anyway. Everyone else is as poor as she is.

 

Now let’s consider the life of a young man in a crowded city 100 miles from that farmer. He has no job—or a job that pays pennies. He goes to the market—but the food is rotting, or priced beyond reach. He is hungry, and often angry.

 

She has extra food to sell, and he wants to buy it. But that simple transaction can’t take place because of complex forces beyond their control.

 

The scope and scale of this initiative that we will be rolling out over the next days, weeks, and months is really all about this woman farmer and this young man, and one billions others around the world. The daily effort to grow, buy, or sell food is the defining struggle of their lives. Empowering the world’s farmers to sow and harvest plentiful crops, and ensuring that the food they produce reaches people most in need, is a global challenge that lies at the heart of what experts refer to as “food security.”

 

The Obama Administration has developed an unprecedented initiative aimed at advancing food security worldwide. The scope and scale of this initiative represents an elevation of development as a key element of our foreign policy. And our approach represents a rethinking of development policies and priorities.

 

Now, those of you who have worked on development projects around the world are aware of the debates going on about whether development really works. And there are reasonable arguments on both sides—examples of success and of failure.

 

Some things are clear. After years of effort and billions of dollars, we have not achieved the lasting results we desire. But we have learned some very valuable lessons. We know that the most effective strategies emanate from those closest to the problems, not governments or institutions hundreds or thousands of miles away. We know that too often our efforts have been undermined by a lack of coordination, too little transparency, haphazard monitoring and evaluation, an over-reliance on contractors who work with too little oversight, and by relationships with recipient countries based more on patronage than partnership. And we know that development works best when it is based not in aid, but in investment. Indeed, many of these lessons are reflected in the work you do here at CGI.

 

We also know that development, if done right, is essential to solving the complex problems of an interconnected world. And we are committed to doing it right—starting now.

Some may ask how is food security related to our own future – those of us here in the United States. Well, the answer is that food security is not just about food. But it is all about security – economic security, environmental security, even national security.

 

Massive hunger poses a threat to the stability of governments, societies, and borders. People who are starving, who have no incomes, who can’t care for their families, are left with feelings of hopelessness and desperation. And so we know that desperation of that magnitude sows seeds of its own—of tension, conflict, and even the violence we saw in the film. Since 2007, there have been riots over food in more than 60 countries.

 

Agriculture—which encompasses not only crops, but livestock and fish—is critical to economic growth around the world; for more than three-quarters of the world’s poor, farming is their only source of income and avenue to prosperity. Food is linked to energy security: when the price of oil spikes, the cost of transporting food rises, while the increased demand for biofuels also affects prices. And it’s linked to climate security; droughts and floods caused by climate change destroy cropland and send food prices higher.

 

So food security is not merely a question of getting food to hungry people. And it is not simply a moral imperative. It represents the convergence of complex issues that have a direct bearing on economic growth, energy and environmental factors, and our strategic interests. And as such, it demands a comprehensive response.

 

If we can build partnerships with countries to help small farmers improve their agricultural output and make it easier to buy and sell their products at local or regional markets, we can set off a domino effect. We can increase the world’s food supply for both the short and the long term; diminish hunger; raise farmers’ incomes; improve health; expand opportunity; and strengthen regional economies.

 

Now, our initiative is, admittedly, ambitious, because we intend to address the root causes of hunger by investing in technologies and infrastructure that will make farming more productive and profitable in developing countries, while making it easier for food to reach the people who need it. It will enhance nutrition, so children are healthy enough to learn and adults are strong enough to work. And we’ll maintain our deep commitment to emergency food assistance, to answer the urgent cry for help when tragedies and disasters take their toll—as is happening now in the Horn of Africa, where drought, crop failures, and civil war have caused the worst humanitarian crisis in 18 years.

 

We know that reforming global agriculture is possible. We’ve seen it done before. The Green Revolution in the ‘60s saved hundreds of millions of lives in Latin American and South Asia through investments in agricultural productivity. But as Dr. Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, always reminded us, that revolution was never fully won. There are many places it passed by, especially Africa. And in some countries, hunger has resurged. That’s why Dr. Borlaug kept working in his lab and advocating for investments in agriculture right up until he died last week at 95. His life-saving work is still worth fighting for.

 

In July, President Obama and the leaders of the G-8 pledged $20 billion to a global effort to strengthen agriculture. The United States pledged a minimum of $3.5 billion over the next three years. We’ve called on Congress to fully fund our request for 2010, and we’ll ask for additional funding for agriculture the following year—funding that complements, not supplants, our continuing commitment to emergency humanitarian relief.

 

And our effort will be guided by five principles.

 

First, we will work with partner countries to create and implement their plans. Few know better the complex obstacles that hinder a country’s food supply than the people who live and work there. That may sound like a very simplistic statement, but it has not guided policy often enough in the past. We will work closely with countries to map out the particular investments they need to bolster their agricultural sector. Now, in one country, roads may be a top priority; in another, irrigation and water or greater access to credit and markets or drought-resistant feed. Once the plans are in place, we will help countries put them into action.

 

This partnership entails shared responsibility. We will work with countries prepared to make substantial commitments themselves—not only to agricultural development, but also to strong institutions, good governance, fighting corruption, and maintaining transparency.

 

The Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program provides a model. All of its member nations have pledged to devote 10 percent of their national budgets to agricultural development. Rwanda has become the first country to complete its agricultural development plan and it’s already showing results. In three years, Rwanda’s investment in agriculture has increased fivefold and agricultural GDP has doubled.

 

Second, we are addressing the underlying causes of hunger. We will invest in everything from research to develop better feed and seeds, to innovative insurance programs, so small farmers are protected against bearing the entire burden of risk inherent in agriculture. We will link farmers and agribusinesses to markets; invest in storage, refrigeration, and processing facilities; and help pave a path into the global market.

 

We will also put women at the heart of our efforts. We have seen again and again—in microfinance and other programs—that women are entrepreneurial, accountable, and practical. They invest their earnings directly in their families and communities. And they pay back loans at a higher rate than is the norm. So women are a wise investment. And since the majority of the world’s farmers are women, it’s critical that our investments in agriculture leverage their ambition and perseverance.

 

Thirdly, we will improve coordination at the country, regional, and global level. Now, when we take on global challenges like hunger and poverty, we often work in separate silos, duplicating some efforts while others fall through the gaps. This is especially true when it comes to working with private business, foundations, universities, and other critical partners, so many of which have deep expertise and valuable local knowledge and relationships. We’ll change that by bringing the players together, and we started that inside the government.

 

Cheryl Mills, as my Chief of Staff and Counselor, was the person I asked to put together our initiative. And she began holding the first meetings ever of the entire government working on food, people from not only the State Department and USAID, but the Agriculture Department and other government agencies as well. We had to bring all of our own people to the table first, and now we’re going to try to bring everyone to come and join us.

 

Our fourth principle is leveraging the benefits of multilateral institutions. Global institutions have the reach and resources to do more than any single country can. By leveraging their power, we can encourage more countries to become donors and coordinate financial flows. And we will make the most of their expertise that exists around the world in large infrastructure projects that make global agriculture possible.

 

In Mali, for example, the World Bank financed the modernization of a system of canals that improved irrigation, and as a result, rice yields and farmers’ incomes increased dramatically. In Ethiopia, the World Bank rebuilt and expanded road networks, which reduced travel time and freight costs by 25 percent.

 

Fifth, we pledge a long-term commitment and accountability to our efforts. It may take years, even decades, before we reach the finish line, but we’re going to give it all we have in the time that we are able to.

 

Our patience, however, should not be mistaken for complacence. We will make significant investments in monitoring and evaluation. We’re going to track commitments, just as we do here at CGI, to make sure pledges are fulfilled, and to gather data and publicly track our progress and results. That way, we are all accountable, and we’ll know if we’re falling short and need to change strategies.

 

Now, I began by talking about the importance of development as a key element of our foreign policy, and it is. Because obviously, what we’re hoping is that, done right, we will enhance social stability and economic progress. So this global hunger initiative is not only an undertaking for development experts. It will also require robust diplomacy.

 

Our ambassadors do the critical and painstaking work of convincing foreign governments to undertaking reforms, making investments necessary for initiatives like this to take root, reaching out to other countries and partners beyond government. We will work with multilateral institutions to guide global efforts like the G-8 food security commitments, the Millennium Development Goals, the multi-donor trust for farming that the G-20 called for yesterday. All of this requires knowledge, patience, talent, and persuasion and problem solving.

 

This is difficult work. And to do it right, we need a State Department and a United States Agency for International Development up to the challenge, ready and willing to work closely together, with the right structures, resources, and policies in place. That’s why, earlier this year, I launched the first ever review of both agencies called the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the QDDR. The Defense Department has for years done a QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and I thought it was time that diplomacy and development were there as well in the framework of what national security and foreign policy means. Now, we’re looking carefully at how we can best elevate and integrate development and diplomacy, and we are going to have a government-wide review of our strategies and policies. We will ask the hard questions and we will make the tough decisions.

 

But there’s one last piece of our strategy that can make all the difference to our success: and that is all of you. The people in this room represent an incredible collection of talent, expertise, experience, energy, and heart. We need your ideas and your feedback, and we need your active support, in any and every capacity.

 

I hope you will visit our website, state.gov, to learn more about our global hunger initiative. And in the coming days and weeks, we’ll be asking for your advice and for your help. We’re looking forward to a vibrant conversation because this will, I can guarantee you, spark enormous debates around the world, and a lot within in our country. Because as Bill said, we didn’t get here by accident. We moved away from investments in agricultural productivity toward emergency food aid and forgot a lot about what we knew made all of it work together. And so we have to begin to really delve into this in a way that hasn’t been done for a long time.

So we hope that you will be part of this vibrant conversation, because in the end, as we strategize in a setting like this or in a government conference room or a lecture hall somewhere in the world, let’s keep sight of what this is really all about: that woman farmer and that unemployed young man, and what their future means, not just for them but for all of us.

Revitalizing global agriculture will not be easy. In fact, this is one of the most ambitious and comprehensive diplomacy and development efforts our country has ever undertaken. But it can and will be done. And it is worth doing. And if we succeed, our future will be more prosperous, more stable, and more peaceful.

Thank you all very much. (Tremendous Applause.)

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton Remarks at the Clinton Foundation Fundraiser in New York 2012

 

Remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Sheraton Midtown Hotel
New York City
September 24, 2012
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. Of all the useless introductions I’ve ever given, this would top the list. (Laughter.)

We’ve already had a good morning laughing and talking about what happened yesterday, getting a report from Chelsea about a dinner she attended last night. I just wanted to say one thing to set this little talk the Secretary of State’s going to give up. More than 40 years ago when I met Hillary, she was already sort of a walking NGO. (Laughter.) She was doing all this stuff before most of the rest of us discovered it was a fruitful way to spend a life.

And as Secretary of State, she has done an enormous amount to extend the diplomatic efforts of the United States into not just stopping bad things from happening or diffusing crises or dealing with all the things that she’ll have to deal with today as soon as she leaves us, which means she may drag out her remarks a little bit to avoid having to face some of them. She tries to make good things happen, especially in this space we’re discussing today. I don’t think any American official has ever done more to try to raise the issues of girls and women around the world and what dealing with this means for the future of peace and security and prosperity of the world. And for that reason more than any other, I am very glad that she could join us here this morning.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. Good morning. Thank you all very, very much. Good morning. It is – (applause) – thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, it’s good to be amongst so many friends. (Laughter.) And I look out at this audience and I see so many of you whom I have worked with and known for such a long time. It is so good to be here at the Clinton Global Initiative. I would be absolutely crazy to try to recognize anyone in this audience, but I do want to say how pleased we are to see John and Annie Glenn here today. (Applause.) I am thrilled to see them, and talk about a lifetime of service, both on the Earth and in the galaxy. Thank you.

I look forward to CGI, much as you do, because I always learn something new, and I’m always inspired by what each of you is doing to help solve problems and seize opportunities around the world. And for me, I usually get it second, third, and fourth-hand from all of the people who are participating. But I know the impact that CGI has because it certainly has had an impact on how I’ve tried to think about the development work and the partnerships that the United States needs to have around the world.

I don’t need to tell you this is a time of such great change. New technologies are transforming how people everywhere work, learn, and communicate. Demographic shifts are remaking societies with huge numbers of young people in some places and disproportionate numbers of older people in others. The democracy movements that have sprung up worldwide create exciting possibilities for countries that have been ruled for years by dictators, but they also pose, as we have dramatically seen, great challenges as people grapple with how to turn their democratic ideals into functioning governments and prosperous economies.

Emerging powers like China, Brazil, and India have a bigger hand in shaping world events, which is helping to reshape the global order, changing how countries engage with each other, and how companies do business – many of those represented here – as well as how foundations and universities think about forging partnerships worldwide.

Now in the face of all this change, those who care about having an impact on the world have to do two important things at once. We must think and act innovatively and be willing to change ourselves to keep pace with the change around us, and at the same time, we must stay true to our values. Otherwise, we will lose our way. Now from my conversations with many of you, I know that you yourselves, your organizations, your businesses are working every day to do that. Well, so is the United States. And there is no area in which this is more evident than in our development efforts. And that’s what I want to talk with you briefly about today because it dovetails with what CGI really represents.

Now I know effective development is close to the hearts of many of you in this room, and it’s close to my heart as well. As Bill said, it’s something that I’ve worked on my entire adult life, and I’ve certainly spoken here before about how vital it is to our national interests and to our efforts to build a world that is more stable, more prosperous, and more free.

And so the Obama Administration has elevated development as an essential pillar of our national security alongside defense and diplomacy. First thing I said upon becoming Secretary of State is that we could no longer have defense over here with our military – the most extraordinary young men and women in the world – but we needed to integrate defense with diplomacy and development. And we also had to change the way we did both diplomacy and development. Respecting development first, because while we had achieved strong results in some places, we were certain we could do better.

Second, because true transformation comes only through sustainable strategies. And too often in the past, we had focused, understandably, on the urgent and immediate at the expense of the long term.

Third, because the landscape of development has changed. The strategies that we had used in the past were no longer sufficient. Consider this: In the 1960s, official development assistance from countries like the United States represented 70 percent of the capital flows going into developing countries. Since then, we’ve increased our development budgets, and yet even with those increases, development assistance now represents just 13 percent of capital flowing into developing countries because the amount of investment, trade, domestic resources, and remittances to those countries has skyrocketed.

Now, that’s a good thing. And it means we have to spend development dollars differently, which I’ll return to in a moment. Further, the number of recipients of development assistance with the capacity to design and implement their own development programs has grown considerably. So we have to ask ourselves: How do we take advantage of that capacity and reinforce it? New partners have become involved in development, including former recipients of aid who are now new donors themselves. And how can we help them contribute to effective, common solutions? Massive political change is unfolding in several places where we work. How can our development assistance help drive that change in the right direction?

Now these are some of the questions that we have asked ourselves from the start of this Administration, and today I want to talk to you about what we’ve learned and how we’re applying those lessons to our development work around the world, and I want to talk about the challenges that still remain and how all of you can help us solve them. I’ll focus on three overarching objectives of this Administration’s approach.

The first is we want to move from aid to investment. When development assistance represented a much greater portion of a country’s resources, we had to be smart about how to use it, no question. Yet the situation was often more stark and less complex. People needed food and medicine and schools and wells and power in order to develop. And assistance was one of the few and only ways they could get it.

But today, with so many other resources flowing into developing countries, development assistance can and should play a different role. We have to think differently about how it fits into a more dynamic economic picture, and how it can be a catalyst for economic growth and self-sustaining progress.

For example, there are risks that discourage companies from doing business in developing countries. And I heard yesterday at the opening plenary that Jim Kim really made a most generous and important offer: Companies should go to the World Bank and ask about risk assessment; that’s what the World Bank does for every country in the world. Well, you can also come to the State Department. We do the same. And through our development programs, we can help to mitigate and reduce investment risks. There are structural barriers that prevent citizens from contributing to their economies like outdated land tenure laws, the lack of access to education. And through development, we can help development organizations and private sector interests tackle those problems. USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for example, assist on strategies to strengthen property rights and expand schooling and can work in partnership with private sector partners.

There are many entrepreneurs in developing economies who are ready to launch new businesses, but first they need access to credit. We can help more domestic and international financial institutions provide it, such as through loan guarantees by the U.S. Development Credit Authority and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

In the 21st century, the work of development must include all this and more. We’re not only providing aid to people in crisis, we are making strategic investments, some of which may pay off right away, but others further down the road in stronger communities and long-term economic growth.

One example of this aid-to-investment approach is in Haiti, which you may hear more about today when my Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills speaks. Five months ago, a shipment of sewing machines was unpacked at the brand new Caracol Industrial Park in northern Haiti. The first tenant was the Korean apparel company, Sae-A, one of the largest garment manufacturers in the world. Today, that factory has 800 employees, most of them women who have never had a formal sector job before. Many are graduates of a new vocational training center nearby. By the end of the year, Sae-A will nearly double their employees, and they’re on track to reach their goal of creating 20,000 jobs by 2016. Additionally, a new power plant opened this year to serve the industrial park and surrounding communities. Nine buildings, including factories, warehouses, and offices, have been built and more are under construction. A second tenant, a Haitian company, has just moved in.

Now this is part of a much larger coordinated strategy between the Government of Haiti, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the United States Government, and the private sector to create access to jobs, housing, electrification, transportation, and agricultural development. And these types of investments, when married with the entrepreneurial spirit of the Haitian people, are helping to catalyze growth in Haiti’s north.

Now, I have to say this was controversial. When Cheryl and I first started working on this, there were a lot of development professionals and experts who really were quite concerned, and even skeptical. But you cannot have development in today’s world without partnering with the private sector, and that has been our mantra, and we are now creating examples. Are there pitfalls? Are there problems? Of course there are. There is with any kind of organized effort at development. But the fact is that including the private sector gives developing economies new opportunities.

In the last decade, for example, six of the world’s ten fastest-growing countries were in Africa. That number will soon rise to seven. In the wake of the global financial crisis, many developing countries grew faster and more steadily than the world’s biggest economies. And private sector investments there often yield greater returns than those in more developed markets. In a few areas in particular, infrastructure, energy, and agriculture, development intersects with business opportunities, and the State Department is working to get more American companies invested in those fields in developing countries.

Now, wise investors, of course, choose their investments carefully and they manage for risks. And when a particular investment is not producing the projected returns, they have to make the tough decision about whether to modify or eliminate it. All this must be true in government sponsored development aid too. We need to be as rigorous as possible about producing tangible results.

The second objective of this Administration’s approach to development is what we call country ownership. Now that’s a phrase people use a lot in development circles without always being clear about its meaning, so let me be clear about what it means to us. It doesn’t mean some things that people immediately leap to. It doesn’t mean, as some have feared, that donors are supposed to keep money flowing indefinitely while recipients decide how to spend it. It doesn’t mean government-run, freezing-out civil society groups and faith-based organizations. And country-owned certainly doesn’t mean that countries are on their own. To us, country ownership means that a nation’s efforts are increasingly led, implemented, and eventually paid for by its government, communities, civil society, and private sector.

Now, to get there, we all have to play our part. A country’s political leaders must set priorities and set national plans to accomplish them with input from their citizens. They must follow through on those commitments and hold themselves accountable. And donors, like the United States, must be willing to follow our partner country’s lead.

Now at times that will mean setting aside our own policy preferences or development orthodoxies. Developing countries have access to evidence-based analysis and best practices, so they’re engaged and equipped to decide what will work for their country, and we have to promote that so that they begin to take this responsibility and accountability.

Country ownership is also about funding. We aim for nations to be able to pay for more of their own development. But more than that, it’s about countries building the capacity to set priorities, manage resources, develop their own plans, and carry them out. And we can all agree that should be the goal.

Now progress is already occurring. For example, several countries have taken greater ownership over their health care systems. Sierra Leone has enlisted more than 1,700 women to serve as health monitors, checking up on local clinics and reporting problems back to the National Health Ministry. The Government of Botswana now manages, operates, and pays for their national HIV treatment programs. And with our support through PEPFAR, it’s working with American universities to build a medical school that will train their nation’s next generation of health care workers.

In India, when the National AIDS Control program was launched six years ago, half of its budget came from outside donors. Today, less than one-fifth does; the Indian Government covers the rest. And Rwanda and the United States are now working toward a new kind of partnership. The United States will continue to provide support for our health programs, including PEPFAR, as well as programs on maternal and child health, family planning, and TB. But the Rwandan Government will do the managing, monitoring, and evaluating of these programs, and most will be run through Rwanda’s own public system. We’ve already transferred patients receiving care through PEPFAR to clinics run by Rwandans. Meanwhile, Rwanda’s increased ownership and capacity frees our resources so that we can focus more on a priority that they’ve identified, namely, training local healthcare workers. Because in the face of the HIV/AIDS crisis over the last 10-15 years, we have brought a lot of resources, including human resources, to countries, but they must be able to start building their own resources.

Now because of partnerships like these, we are establishing a new Office of Global Health Diplomacy at the State Department, which will coordinate our diplomatic engagement and provide our ambassadors with the tools and information they need to have a greater impact where the real healthcare work is happening on the ground.

Let me mention one other key aspect of what country ownership means. It means ownership by the whole country – men and women. A growing body of evidence proves what is intuitive: When more women enter the workforce, it spurs innovation, increases productivity, and grows economies. Families then have more money to spend, businesses can expand their consumer base and increase their profits. In short, everyone benefits.

Now country ownership naturally leads to our third goal: putting ourselves out of business. It still surprises me that this is a controversial thing to say. It shouldn’t be. Around the world, I hear from leaders who know that ultimately it must be their responsibility to provide economic opportunity, healthcare, good schools for their people. And they do not want to turn to other nations forever to help meet those responsibilities. And frankly, I look forward to the day when our development assistance will no longer be needed, when it is replaced by strong public institutions and civil societies, when private sector investments and trade are robust in both directions, and people have the chance, through their own hard work, to build better lives for themselves and their families.

So putting ourselves out of business means putting a special emphasis on self-sufficiency. So we are working with partner countries to strengthen their political will for reform and provide technical assistance on issues like taxation so they can mobilize their own domestic resources for long-term development.

And one of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country. (Laughter.) You know I’m out of American politics, but – (applause) – it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally. And so it means for leaders telling powerful people things they don’t want to hear. It means being transparent about budgets and revenues and bringing corruption to light. And when that happens, we shouldn’t punish countries for uncovering corruption. We should reward them for doing so. And it means putting in place regulations designed to attract and protect investment.

I just met in the last few days with the new president of a country who is trying to tackle corruption, and I said, “Well, I have here a lot of the international lists of where your country stands on business climate, on corruption, on government transparency, and you are near or at the bottom. And it is time for you to recognize that in an interconnected global economy, you will benefit from doing what you should be doing internally for yourself.” And so we have to have that kind of hard talk, which we do on a regular basis.

So for nearly four years, this Administration has been updating our development assistance with these objectives in mind. We designed our Feed the Future food security initiative and our Global Health Initiative with an emphasis on country ownership and investment. We launched an ambitious reform initiative under Dr. Raj Shah’s leadership, USAID Forward, which among other things focuses on how to identify and bring to scale path-breaking innovations. And we’re creating groundbreaking renewable energy investment vehicles in Africa through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. And we’ve launched a range of public-private partnerships through our Global Partnership Initiative. In fact, I announced one example here two years ago, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, which is working to help 100 million households in developing countries switch to clean cookstoves by 2020 to save lives, improve health, and reduce climate change.

But there still is a lot of work for us to do, and that’s where you come in. There’s one further step in particular I want to mention. I’ll be speaking about this at greater length later in the year, and that is investing more deeply in a broader range of partners. Today, much of our development assistance is still invested through one group of partners – international NGOs. They have expertise and local knowledge, and they can respond quickly when needed. We want to continue our successful relationships with them, but we also need to broaden and increase our network of partnerships to advance our work in development. Given the landscape we face, that makes sense.

Now this is the next big leap, because we need you to help us make it. The entire spectrum of the international development community is represented in this audience. And there are steps we can start taking together. Let’s start viewing all our separate efforts as a portfolio of complementary investments. Rather than measuring only development assistance by governments, we should also measure the full set of investments by businesses, by civil society groups and the multilaterals, to get the whole picture of the scope and scale of our combined engagement. And let’s do a better job of measuring our own performances, including how well we leverage partnerships, and be transparent with the results. And we should measure the performance of our partners, not just our projects. The process may frankly be uncomfortable for all of us, but it is essential for getting better results.

So as we work toward the next round of global development goals – not only the Millennium Development Goals, some of which we’ve made progress on, others of which are still out of reach – but also the new effort that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon talked about yesterday on sustainable development goals. Let’s redouble our commitment to multi-partner approaches that bring all of us together. Increasingly, as everyone at CGI knows well, our goals and efforts overlap, and we should deepen our cooperation.

Now all of the work I’ve described briefly today reflects America’s enduring commitment to help more people in more places live up to their God-given potential, to chart their own destinies, and realize the full measure of their human dignity. Dignity is a word that has a lot of resonance in development. It may mean different things to different people and cultures, but it speaks to something universal in all of us. As one Egyptian observed in the wake of that country’s revolution, freedom and dignity are more important than food and water. When you eat in humiliation, you can’t taste the food.

So for the United States, as we pursue our development agenda around the world, working to improve and save lives, to spur growth, we are working to advance freedom and dignity. We are standing up for democracies that unlock people’s potential and standing against extremists who exploit people’s frustrations. We are trying to help societies leave behind old enmities and look ahead to new opportunities. We are backing reformers who build accountable institutions and combat corruption that stifles innovation, initiative, hope, and yes, dignity.

And we are championing the universal human rights of all people, including the right to worship freely, to assemble and protest peacefully, and yes, to freedom of expression. These rights are bound together, inseparable not just in our own constitution, but in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Threatening one threatens all. Each of these steps helps create the conditions where people can reach for and find a sense of dignity for themselves and their societies. But dignity does not come from avenging insults, especially with violence that can never be justified.

It comes from taking responsibility and advancing our common humanity.

If you look around the world today, countries that are focused more on fostering growth than fomenting grievance are racing ahead. Building schools instead of burning them; investing in their people’s creativity, not inciting their rage; opening their economies and societies to have more connections with the wider world, not shutting off the internet or attacking embassies. The people of the Arab world did not set out to trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. There is no dignity in that. The people of Benghazi sent this message loudly and clearly on Friday when they forcefully rejected the extremists in their midst and reclaimed the honor and dignity of a courageous city.

They mourned the loss of Ambassador Chris Stevens, a friend and champion of a free Libya, and his fallen comrades. They are not alone. People and leaders from across the region and the world and beyond have spoken in recent days against violence. Foreign Minister of Tunisia came to Washington last week and personally underscored his country’s stand. And unity on this throughout the international community is crucial, because extremists around the world are working hard to drive us apart. All of us need to stand together to resist these forces and to support democratic transitions underway in North Africa and the Middle East.

Throughout this week as I engaged my counterparts from many nations, we discussed and we will continue here at the United Nations how we can work together to build lasting partnerships focused on freedom, human dignity, and development, fostering democracy and universal values. And we need your help and leadership – citizens, businesses, NGOs, nonprofits, the faith community, everyone – we are called to this great cause of the 21st century. Here at CGI you are standing up for what we need more of in the world.

So thank you. Thank you for devoting your energy, your efforts and your resources to improving our world one day at a time. And thank you for backing your words with concrete commitments that I know are solving problems and changing lives. You reaffirm my faith in the future we are building together. So let’s get to work for more freedom, democracy, opportunity, and dignity. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

Hillary Clinton Used State Department Resources for Clinton Foundation Fundraisers

 

For the transcript of the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative speech written for then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton see https://popsciencetv.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/hrcremarks2009/

In August 2009 an email including Hillary Clinton’s then- Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan Cheryl then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff and helped write Hillary Clinton’s thank you speech to Clinton Foundation supporters, partners and donors for their financial commitments.

In the email chain Mills asked Desai for a “list of commitments during whole session so she can reference more than those just around her speech.”

Caitlin Klevorick the Senior Advisor to the Counselor for the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State who previously worked for the Clinton Foundation wrote:  “one question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of funds related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”

Several other government departments besides the State Department were noted as official partners and finance providers for the Clinton Foundation besides including the Centers for Disease Control and various United Nations entities whose funds originate from the U.S. taxpayer.

Clinton email 1Clinton email 2Clinton email 3

For Full email Trail see JW-v.-State-Clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6

The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech provided confirms that Secretary of State thanked personally  those who made financial commitments to her family run foundation.

Clinton stated: “And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative].  I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons.  (Tremendous Applause.)  And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.”

A big thank you to our ‘friends’ for helping point this out and for providing us with video, transcript and emails.

As well a second fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative in 2012 shortly before Hillary Clinton left the post as Secretary of State she also utilised State Department resources for this personal fundraising event

For transcript of this speech see https://popsciencetv.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/hrcremarks2012/

 

 

Green Party’s Jill Stein Rejects Arming Neo-Nazi’s in the Ukraine

Jill Stein: We should encourage Ukraine to be neutral–we helped foment a coup against a democratically-elected government,  where ultra-nationalists and ex-Nazis came to power. Imagine the inverse: if Russia did that in Canada–installed a government hostile to us–we saw something like that in Cuban Missile Crisis–that would not be acceptable to us. So let’s not be single-issue–instead of fomenting a hostile Ukraine we should be leading the way in establishing a neutral Ukraine that would allow Russia to not feel under attack. We’ve made great strides–Putin is not a hero–but as Noam Chomsky points out, the Doomsday clock has moved closer to midnight than it has been since 1983. The hostile faceoff with Russia causes that and is entirely misplaced–led by war hawks in Obama administration–especially Victoria Nuland, who cheered on an overthrow in Ukraine.

Soured from On The Issues http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jill_Stein_Foreign_Policy.htm

 

The Donald Trump Lobbyist Raising Funds for the Hillary Clinton Campaign

John Tanner Photo

Meet former D-Rep John Tanner Vice Chairman of Prime Policy Group the lobby firm run by Charles Black former Chief of Staff and Campaign Manager for R-Sen John McCain whose firm recently won a contract to run Donald Trumps Presidential Campaign.

What’s interesting about John Tanner is that he is not only Vice Chairman of a comapny with a multi-million dollar contract to help elect Donald Trump as President but that he is also a former Democrat member of the House of Representatives.

On the Prime Policy Group webiste his Democrat credentials as given as ,

serving in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years where he represented Tennessee’s 8th congressional district. While in Congress, John served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, where he chaired both the Social Security Subcommittee and the Trade Subcommittee. John also served on the House Armed Services and House Science Committees and served as Chief Deputy Whip for the Democratic Congress in the 109th, 110th and 111th Congresses.

John Tanner Bio

Also mentioned is his founding of the Blue Dog Coalition which is an association o Southern Democrat Conservatives that is reffered to by more Liberal Democrats as the either ‘the Klan’ or by the term ‘Confedocrats’. What is not mentioned is that in 1998 he helped set up the Blue Dog PAC which still chairs to this day.

The Blue Dog PAC   is PAC which helps fund the campaigns of Democrat’s for Congress who also happen to be Democrat Superdelegates charged with helping choose the Democrat nomnee for President. Without exception all of the recipients of ash from the Blue Dog PAC are confirmed Hillary Clinton supporters.

Blue Dog Recip.jpg

Click here for full listing since 1998

Interesting whilst historically the major donors have been Healthcare and energy mining companies in 2016 the largest donor was the Republican Party linked  Investment Company Institute PAC which is also associated with Prime Policy Group.

Blue Dog Recip

The Investment Company Institute  represent their largest donors who come private investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Blackrock etc etc

Investment co.jpg

If you look at the recipients you will that the Investment Company PAC has donated twice the amount to House Republican than Democrats and that the democrats they have donated to are exclusively confirmed Hillary Clinton super-delegates.