Forced Vaccination for Medical Workers Now a Reality as Soft Kill Programs Ensue

By Shepard Ambellas
thentelhub.com
October 7, 2012

RHODE ISLAND — It is now mandatory that healthcare workers including temporaries who work in hospitals, healthcare, nursing homes and home care facilities be injected with the seasonal flu shot, thus setting precedence to forcefully vaccinate a larger portion of the population in the future.

Last Friday Rhode Island became the first state in the union to initiate a mandated vaccination policy.

However, it is not just state law that mandates such vaccinations. Private corporations such as Banner Health can mandate employees as well, and they have been.

Phoenix Business Journal reported;

As the flu season fast approaches, Phoenix-based Banner Health, Arizona’s largest hospital system, is launching a mandatory flu shot policy for all employees.

This plan involves more than 36,000 employees at Banner’s hospitals and health facilities in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada and Wyoming. Of those, 28,000 are in Arizona.

The flu vaccine will be provided free to all Banner Health employees, medical staff and volunteers beginning this month.

Those who are unable to receive the vaccination because of medical or religious reasons can apply for an exemption. They will be required to wear a surgical mask around patients during the flu season, from Dec. 1 through March 31.

This comes as no surprise, due to the fact that key players in the globalist crime syndicate want to push such poisons and soft kill measures onto the general populace while reaping the benefits and profiteering worldwide.

Globalist such as Henry Kissinger, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, and Bill Gates have openly admitted in one way or another that we need less humans on the planet.

Servando Gonzalez reported for theintelhub.com;

On May 5th, 2009, some of the most notorious members of the “billionaires club” — David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Eli Broad, Peter G. Peterson, Patty Stonesifer, John Morgridge, Michael Bloomberg and a few other billionaires –, secretly met at the Manhattan residence of Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University.

The meeting was eerily similar to another meeting that took place on January 20, 1942, in Wansee, a Berlin suburb.

In the Wansee Conference, some high ranking Nazi officials, led by SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, dispassionately discussed the more efficient methods to carry out the “Final solution to the Jewish question.”

Though European Jews were the main targets for elimination, other groups, especially Slavs, Romany and mentally and/or physically disabled Germans, were also persecuted and murdered.

The total death toll is estimated at between 12 and 26 million.

As expected, the U.S. mainstream media was very careful not to inform the American people about the billionaires meeting in Manhattan, but some details eventually were known.

Quoting an anonymous person who attended the meeting, a major U.K. newspaper reported that “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.”

According to other sources, billionaires who attended the secret meeting convened on the initiative of Bill Gates. Giving credibility to this is the fact that Gates had made similar points at a conference he attended on February 18, 2010, in Long Beach, California.

“Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said.

Translated into plain English, this means that Mr. gates is planning to participate in the killing of more than a billion human beings.

Also present at the meeting in Manhattan was media czar Ted Turner, billionaire founder of CNN who stated in a 1996 interview for the Audubon nature magazine, where he said that a 95% reduction of world population to between 225-300 million would be “ideal.”

In a 2008 interview at Philadelphia’s Temple University, Turner fine-tuned the number to 2 billion, a cut of more than 70% from today’s population.

The Rockefeller family is known for their generosity in contributing, through their non-profit, “philanthropic” foundations, to all causes whose goal is population control.

Actually they were instrumental in the creation of the eugenics movement in the U.S., which later was exported to Germany where the Nazis brought it to its highest development.

Another article by theintelhub.com outlines the Kissinger Report;

“World population needs to be decreased by 50%” — Dr. Henry Kissinger

National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) A.K.A. “The Kissinger Report” (released internally late December of 1974) was crafted by globalist advisor, eugenicist, former Secretary of State, and director of the National Security Council (NSC) during the Ford and Nixon era, Henry Kissinger.

This memorandum is one of many indicators that diabolic withering potbelly globalists want a major portion of the world populace dead, and are in the midst of exterminating humans incrementally, and have been for some time.

The document (declassified in 1989) reads like a horror story.

“Part One” starts off with an analytical section mentioning, world demographic trends, population problems,food supply issues and more — then ends with details about the “World Population Conference” (a group of diabolic oligarchs that decide our fate).

Item #3 in the “Executive Summary” states;

Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion m the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970′s and 1980′s. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.

The report moves proclaim that “they” (potbelly globalist oligarchs) need to stabilize the population worldwide, showing world population figures at the time of 1970 at 3.6 billion and projecting 12 billion by 2075.

The report also mentions the potential for famines in the future. Here is an excerpt from #6;

The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines in certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions.

Section #10 goes on to detail how the elite will profit less from having a larger number of people worldwide, stating;

Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes.

In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDCs.

And then there is the ultimatum (#23) — it reads as follows;

The central question for world population policy in the year 1974, is whether mankind is to remain on a track toward an ultimate population of 12 to 15 billion — implying a five to seven-fold increase in almost all the underdeveloped world outside of China — or whether (despite the momentum of population growth) it can be switched over to the course of earliest feasible population stability — implying ultimate totals of 8 to 9 billions and not more than a three or four-fold increase in any major region.

WOW! — Did you get that?

Here are some of the policy recommendations mentioned in The Kissinger Report;

26. There is no single approach which will “solve” the population problem. The complex social and economic factors involved call for a comprehensive strategy with both bilateral and multilateral elements. At the same time actions and programs must be tailored to specific countries and groups. Above all, LDCs themselves must play the most important role to achieve success.

27. Coordination among the bilateral donors and multilateral organizations is vital to any effort to moderate population growth. Each kind of effort will be needed for worldwide results.

28. World policy and programs in the population field should incorporate two major objectives:

(a) actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billions by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and

(b) actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billions rather than permitting it to reach 10 billions, 13 billions, or more.

29. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two- child family on the average), by about the year

2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000 compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.

30. The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential. The strategy must include the following elements and actions:

Concentration on key countries.

(a) Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest. Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia.

Together, they account for 47 percent of the world’s current population increase. (It should be recognized that at present AID bilateral assistance to some of these countries may not be acceptable.) Bilateral assistance, to the extent that funds are available, will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth, need for external assistance, long-term U.S. interests and willingness to engage in self help.

Multilateral programs must necessarily have a wider coverage and the bilateral programs of other national donors will be shaped to their particular interests. At the same time, the U.S. will look to the multilateral agencies, especially the U.N. Fund for Population Activities which already has projects in over 80 countries to increase population assistance on a broader basis with increased U.S. contributions.

This is desirable in terms of U.S. interests and necessary in political terms in the United Nations. But progress nevertheless, must be made in the key 13 and our limited resources should give major emphasis to them.

(b) Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning. As called for the world Population Plan of Action, developing countries and those aiding them should specifically take population factors into account in national planning and include population programs in such plans.

(c) Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology. This is a vital aspect of any world population program. 1) Family planning information and materials based on present technology should be made fully available as rapidly as possible to the 85 % of the populations in key LDCs not now reached, essentially rural poor who have the highest fertility.

2) Fundamental and evelopmental research should be expanded, aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control. Support by all federal agencies for biomedical research in this field should be increased by $60 million annually.

(d) Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline. For its own merits and consistent with the recommendations of the World Population Plan of Action, priority should be given in the general aid program to selective development policies in sectors offering the greatest promise of increased motivation for smaller family size. In many cases pilot programs and experimental research will be needed as guidance for later efforts on a larger scale. The preferential sectors include:

– Providing minimal levels of education, especially for women;

– Reducing infant mortality, including through simple low cost health care networks;

– Expanding wage employment, especially for women; — Developing alternatives to children as a source of old age security;

– Increasing income of the poorest, especially in rural areas, including providing privately owned farms;

– Education of new generations on the desirability of smaller families.

While AID has information on the relative importance of the new major socio- economic factors that lead to lower birth rates, much more research and experimentation need to be done to determine what cost effective programs and policy will lead to lower birth rates.

(e) Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy. The provision of adequate food stocks for a growing population in times of shortage is crucial. Without such a program for the LDCs there is considerable chance that such shortage will lead to conflict and adversely affect population goals and developmental efforts. Specific recommendations are included in Section IV (c) of this study.

(f) Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action.

The U.S. should encourage LDC leaders to take the lead in advancing family planning and population stabilization both within multilateral organizations and through bilateral contacts with other LDCs. This will require that the President and the Secretary of State treat the subject of population growth control as a matter of paramount importance and address it specifically in their regular contacts with leaders of other governments, particularly LDCs.

31. The World Population Plan of Action and the resolutions adopted by consensus by 137 nations at the August 1974 U.N. World Population Conference, though not ideal, provide an excellent framework for developing a worldwide system of population/ family planning programs. We should use them to generate U.N. agency and national leadership for an all-out effort to lower growth rates. Constructive action by the U.S. will further our objectives. To this end we should:

(a) Strongly support the World Population Plan of Action and the adoption of its appropriate provisions in national and other programs.

(b) Urge the adoption by national programs of specific population goals including replacement levels of fertility for DCs and LDCs by 2000.

(c) After suitable preparation in the U.S., announce a U.S. goal to maintain our present national average fertility no higher than replacement level and attain near stability by 2000.

(d) Initiate an international cooperative strategy of national research programs on human reproduction and fertility control covering biomedical and socio-economic factors, as proposed by the U.S. Delegation at Bucharest.

(e) Act on our offer at Bucharest to collaborate with other interested donors and U.N. agencies to aid selected countries to develop low cost preventive health and family planning services.

(f) Work directly with donor countries and through the U.N.Fund for Population Activities and the OECD/DAC to increase bilateral and multilateral assistance for population programs.

32. As measures to increase understanding of population factors by LDC leaders and to strengthen population planning in national development plans, we should carry out the recommendations in Part II, Section VI, including:

(a) Consideration of population factors and population policies in all Country Assistance Strategy Papers (CASP) and Development Assistance Program (DAP) multi-year strategy papers.

(b) Prepare projections of population growth individualized for countries with analyses of development of each country and discuss them with national leaders.

(c) Provide for greatly increased training programs for senior officials of LDCs in the elements of demographic economics.

(d) Arrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level officials and comparably influential leaders from private life.

(e) Assure assistance to LDC leaders in integrating population factors in national plans, particularly as they relate to health services, education, agricultural resources and development, employment, equitable distribution of income and social stability.

(f) Also assure assistance to LDC leaders in relating population policies and family planning programs to major sectors of development health, nutrition, agriculture, education, social services, organized labour, women’s activities, and community development.

(g) Undertake initiatives to implement the Percy Amendment regarding improvement in the status of women.

(h) Give emphasis in assistance to programs on development of rural areas.

Beyond these activities which are essentially directed at national interests, we must assure that a broader educational concept is developed to convey an acute understanding to national leaders of the interrelation of national interests and world population growth.

33. We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.

34. To help assure others of our intentions we should indicate our emphasis on the right of individuals and couples to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have information, education and means to do so, and our continued interest in improving the overall general welfare. We should use the authority provided by the World Population Plan of Action to advance the principles that: 1) responsibility in parenthood includes responsibility to the children and the community and 2) that nations in exercising their sovereignty to set population policies should take into account the welfare of their neighbours

and the world. To strengthen the worldwide approach, family planning programs should be supported by multilateral organizations wherever they can provide the most efficient means.

35. To support such family planning and related development assistance efforts there is need to increase public and leadership information in this field. We recommend increased emphasis on mass media, newer communications technology and other population education and motivation programs by the UN and USIA. Higher priority should be given to these information programs in this field worldwide.

36. In order to provide the necessary resources and leadership, support by the U.S. public and Congress will be necessary. A significant amount of funds will be required for a number of years. High level personal contact by the Secretary of State and other officials on the subject at an early date with Congressional counterparts is needed. A program for this purpose should be developed by OES with H and AID.

37. There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed. These include, for example, our own consumption patterns, mandatory programs, tight control of our food resources. In view of the seriousness of these issues, explicit consideration of them should begin in the Executive Branch, the Congress and the U.N. soon. (See the end of Section I for this viewpoint.)

38. Implementing the actions discussed above (in paragraphs 1-36), will require a significant expansion in AID funds for population/family planning. A number of major actions in the area of creating conditions for fertility decline can be funded from resources available to the sectors in question (e.g., education, agriculture). Other actions, including family planning services, research and experimental activities on factors effecting fertility, come under population funds. We recommend increases in AID budget requests to the Congress on the order of $35-50 million annually through FY 1980 (above the $137.5 million requested for FY 1975). This funding would cover both bilateral programs and contributions to multilateral organizations. However, the level of funds needed in the future could change significantly, depending on such factors as major breakthroughs in fertility control technologies and LDC receptivities to population assistance. To help develop, monitor, and evaluate the expanded actions discussed above, AID is likely to need additional direct hire personnel in the population/family planning area. As a corollary to expanded AID funding levels for population, efforts must be made to encourage increased contributions by other donors and recipient countries to help reduce rapid population growth.

I will leave you with this inscription on the Georgia Guide Stones;

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature” — Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones