Posted on 01/23/2006 8:16:52 AM PST by Calpernia
Before Bill Clinton left office, he authorized 2001 an 84% increase in the government's investment in nanotechnology research and development, National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and made it a top priority.
What has not been publicly realized is the meaning of this initiative and the various components that are encompassed.
This governmental increase has been combined with non-governemental organizations and grant programs. These NGOs have been creating partnerships with existing governmental agencies and masking initiatives as Federal and State grant reward programs. They are not.
Here, at the CDC is an overview of what is called, Healthy People 2010. As you can see from this link, the initiative is driven with 28 different categories. All of these categories have grant award programs that are awarding monies through various agencies to promote 'a healthy intiative program'. Some of the programs alone, sound harmless. When they are tied together though, they are disturbing.
Former (EX!) President Clinton's budget for his NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE is fueled by funding from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy and the Department of Defense in combination with private and nonprofit funds from non-governmental organizations.
These funds now make available monies for grant projects for:
Focus Areas at a Glance (28)
1. Access to Quality Health Services
2. Arthritis, Osteoporosis and Chronic Back Conditions
3. Cancer
4. Chronic Kidney Disease
5. Diabetes
6. Disability and Secondary Conditions
7. Educational and Community-Based Programs
8. Environmental Health
9. Family Planning
10. Food Safety
11. Health Communication
12. Heart Disease and Stroke
13. HIV
14. Immunizations and Infectious Diseases
15. Injury and Violence Prevention
16. Maternal, Infant, and Child Health
17. Medical Product Safety
18. Mental Health and Mental Disorders
19. Nutrition and Overweight
20. Occupational Safety and Health
21. Oral Health
22. Physical Activity and Fitness
23. Public Health Infrastructure
24. Respiratory Diseases
25. Sexually Transmitted Diseases
26. Substance Abuse
27. Tobacco Use
28. Vision and Hearing
When an association, state, or company applies for the grants to fund these initiatives, in turn they authorize a Freedom of Information Release to all their data. This is a sample of the data collected from a grant application. All the data requirements are the same, the only difference is the partnered agency that is acting as a liaison for relaying the data. Example, this one below is using the USDA as the partnered liaison. If this was a hospital application, it would say the CDC.
--------------------------------------------------------
Other Federal Statutes and Regulations That Apply
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to grants awarded by USDA. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 1.1--USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR part 15a--USDA implementation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
7 CFR part 3016--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).
7 CFR part 3018--New Restrictions on Lobbying.
7 CFR part 3019--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3052--Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.
The terms of the above parts will be incorporated in a grant made by the NSIIC.
(snip) 7. Further Provisions. This section establishes further provisions that must be understood and agreed to by the Grantee.
(a) All of the terms and provisions of the application submitted by the Grantee for this SGIGI, including any attachments, amendments or conditions that are otherwise not in conflict with this Agreement are attached to and incorporated into this agreement. Any changes to these documents or this Agreement must be approved in writing by the Grantor,
(b) Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with, and will comply in the course of the Agreement with grant conditions and all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, or other applicable requirements,
(c) The provisions of the following are incorporated into this Agreement by reference: 7 CFR part 3015--``USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations''; 7 CFR part 3016--``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments''; 7 CFR part 3017--``Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)''; 7 CFR part 3018--``New Restrictions on Lobbying''; 7 CFR part 3019--``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations''; and 7 CFR part 3052--``Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,''
(d) The Grantee shall not encumber, transfer or dispose of any property, equipment or other asset, or any part thereof, acquired wholly or in part with Grantor funds without the written consent of the Grantor,
(e) Grantees shall adequately control and safeguard all assets associated with the grant to ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes,
(f) Grantor shall monitor performance in accordance with the applicable terms of the Agreement. Grantor reserves the right to monitor meetings and request documents applicable to the terms of the Agreement.
8. Assurances. Grantee has executed.
(a) Form AD-1047, ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters--Primary Covered Transactions,'' to certify that your organization is not debarred or suspended from Government assistance,
(b) AD-1048, ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions,'' from anyone you do business with as a result of this Government assistance,
(c) AD-1950, ``Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)'' to certify you will provide a drug-free awareness program for employees,
(d) RD 400-1, ``Equal Opportunity Agreement,''
(e) ``Certification Regarding Lobbying--Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreement.''
9. Accounting, Audits and Reporting Requirements.
(a) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: The Grantee agrees to account for all amounts associated with this grant using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Records must at least include:
(i) financial records that identify the source of all funds used for grant-supported activities, including Grant Funds, any matching funds, other funds, and;
(ii) source documentation to support activities.
(b) Audit: The project will be audited by a Certified Public Accountant annually or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Grantor. All audits will be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The audit for the years the Grantee receives this financial assistance will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 3052. Audits are due within 90 days after September 30 of the respective year and the Grantor is to receive a copy of this audit,
(c) Reports: The grantee will provide periodic reports as required by the Grantor. A financial status report and a project performance report will be submitted by the Grantee on a semi-annual basis (due each March 31 and September 30). The financial status report must show how Grant Funds and any matching funds have been used to date and project the funds needed and their purposes for the next six-month period. A final report may serve as the last semi-annual report.
Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met and projected goals by time periods are being accomplished. The project performance report and final report shall include at least:
(i) A comparison of timeline, tasks and objectives outlined in the proposal as compared to the actual accomplishments,
(ii) If report varies from the stated objectives or they were not met, the reasons why established objectives were not met,
(iii) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will materially affect attainment of planned project objectives,
(iv) Objectives established for the next reporting period, and
(v) Status of compliance with any special conditions on the use of awarded funds.
(d) Proposal Results: Grantee shall deliver the results of any study or activity to the Grantor upon completion of each task outlined in the proposal. These include, but are not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business operations plans, articles of incorporation and bylaws. All items delivered to the Grantor will be held as proprietary information to the extent provided by law.
(e)
Record Retention: Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant must be kept for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing, except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photocopies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Grantor and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee's which are pertinent to the specific grant program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
10. Funding.
(a) Payment: Requests for cash advances should be for the minimum amount needed and timed to the actual, immediate cash requirements for carrying out the grant purpose. The funds will be reimbursed or advanced based on submission of Standard Form 270, ``Request for Advance or Reimbursement.''
(b) Distribution of Funds: Once the Agreement is entered into, grant funds will be transferred electronically to an account specified by the Grantee.
(c) Pre-award costs: The grantee may incur or claim no cost prior to the Effective Date as provided for in this Agreement.
11. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest.
Conflict of interest for the purpose of this Agreement is defined in 7 U.S.C. 2008j and Grantee agrees to disclose any conflict of interest to Grantor.
12. Other Parties. This Agreement is not for the benefit of third parties. Grantor shall not be under any obligation to any such parties, whether directly or indirectly interested in this Agreement, to pay any charges or expenses incidental to compliance by Grantee with any of the duties or obligations imposed hereby.
13. Event of Default and Remedies.
(a) Events of Default of Grantee. By delineation and not limitation, any of the following occurrences shall be an ``event of default''. Written notice of default shall be provided within 90 days of such occurrence of an event of default:
(i) Any representation or warranty made by the Grantee in connection with this Agreement shall prove to have been false or misleading in any material respect on or as of the date made or deemed made,
(ii) Failure, inability or unwillingness of Grantee to carry out or comply with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, or any applicable laws,
(iii) The Grantee becomes insolvent, or ceases being able, or admits in writing to its inability to pay its debts as they mature, suspends its business operations, become a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding or makes a general assignment for the benefit of, or enters into any composition or arrangement with, creditors, proceeds with the appointment of a receiver, trustee or liquidator, or like action and is not dismissed within 90 days.
(iv) A judgement or other like order for payment is rendered against the Grantee or any material adverse change occurs in the Grantee's financial condition.
(v) Submission or making of any report, statement, warranty, or representation by Grantee or agent on its behalf to Grantor in connection with the grant hereunder which is false, incomplete or incorrect in any material respect.
(b) Remedies:
(i) Upon the occurrence and during the continuation of any event of default, Grantor shall have no obligation to continue funding the Grantee as contemplated in this Agreement. Accordingly, Grantor shall suspend operations contemplated by this Agreement until the declaration of default is cured and Grantor notifies in writing such acknowledgment of cure,
(ii) The Grantee shall have 60 days from the notice of default to propose remedies and cures to Grantor to remove the event of default,
(iii) Grantor reserves the right to waive any and all events of default. Exercise of this waiver shall not preclude Grantor from declaring a similar future event as an event of default.
14. Notice. All notices hereunder and for whatever purpose, including declaration of default, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be duly given upon delivery if personally delivered or sent by telecommunication (facsimile or e-mail) or 3 days after mailing if sent by express, certified or registered United States Postal Service mail, to the parties. The grantees address and contact person shall be the one provided on SF 424 and the Grantor shall be the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, USDA, PO Box 23483, Washington, DC 20026-3483, if using the U.S. Postal Service or Room 2117, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250 if using other carriers.
15. Amendments, Termination and Changes. The Agreement may be amended, changed or terminated by mutual consent of the parties in writing.
(a) Amendment: This Agreement may be amended with the mutual written consent of the Parties.
(b) Scope of Work: Any changes in project costs, source of funds, scope of services, or any other changes in the project or applicant must be reported to and approved by the Grantor by written amendment of this Agreement. Any changes not approved by the Grantor shall be cause for deobligating grant funding.
(c) Termination: The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' notice in writing to the other party.
16. Conflict. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current USDA directives. If the terms of this agreement are inconsistent with existing law or agency directives, then those portions of this agreement which are determined to be inconsistent shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and the agreement will remain in effect. All necessary changes will be accomplished either by an amendment to this agreement or by entering into a new agreement, whichever is deemed expedient to the interest of both parties.
17. In witness whereof, Grantee has this day authorized and caused this Agreement to be executed by:
-------------------------------------------------------
What the schools, states, associations, and hospitals are doing, when they take the grant money, they are turning over the data, your data.
Example, under initiative 10. Food Safety, The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is being mandated to livestock producers.
About the NAIS:
·
Foodborne diseases have declined significantly, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention April 29. In its annual report on the incidence of infections from foodborne pathogens, CDC noted significant declines from 1996 to 2003 in illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7 (42 percent), Salmonella (17 percent), Campylobacter (28 percent) and Yersinia (49 percent). Illnesses caused by Salmonella Typhimurium (typically associated with meat and poultry) decreased by 38 percent. Most significantly, between 2002 and 2003, illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7, typically associated with ground beef, dropped by 36 percent. The reduction in E. coli O157:H7 illnesses brings the United States very close to achieving the “Healthy People 2010”goal of 1.0 case per 100,000 people. The data, while inclusive of all foods, generally tracks the trends revealed through random regulatory testing of meat, poultry and egg products by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In addition to testing results, recalls for Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria in FSIS regulated products also dropped from 65 in 2002 to 28 in 2003.
· Framework for implementing animal ID was announced April 27 by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is designed to identify any agricultural premise exposed to a foreign animal disease so that it can be more quickly contained and eradicated. Implementation of a NAIS will be conducted in three main phases. Under Phase I, USDA would evaluate current federally funded animal identification systems and determine which system(s) should be used for a NAIS, further the dialogue with producers and other stakeholders on the operation of a NAIS, identify staffing needs, and develop any regulatory and legislative proposals needed for implementing the system. Phase II would involve the implementation of the selected animal identification system at regional levels for one or more selected species, continuation of the communication and education effort, addressing regulatory needs and working with Congress on any needed legislation. In Phase III, the selected animal identification system(s) would be scaled up to the national level.
—U.S. Department of Agriculture
It looks like it is being launched from the USDA; but it isn't. The receiving of the data is going through the USDA and the grant monies are being funneled out through the USDA. The the data isn't being stored with the USDA.
Division of Health Promotion, Education and Communication
12 indicators of the “GLOBAL HEALTH FOR ALL” strategy that were to be assessed by all countries in the world
At least 5% of the Gross National Product to be spent on health; A reasonable percentage of the national health expenditure devoted to local health care; Equal distribution of resources;
(snip)
--------------------------------------------------------
Same with the Model School Nutrition Program which falls under 7. Educational and Community-Based Programs and 10. Food Safety programs listed above. Our state just mandated it. So what does that mean? Our state took the grant money. Now, agents of this program get to enter our school systems to gather data and have auditing rights to the schools records.
They have now criminalized the peanut butter and jelly sandwich so these agents can come in and gather information on our children in public and private schools.
1. Target Setting and Assessing Progress for Measurable Objectives
One of the three overarching goals for the Healthy People 2000 prevention initiative was to reduce health disparities among Americans.1 The framework of Healthy People 2010 has taken this a step further by proposing to “eliminate health disparities” as one of the two primary goals for the next decade.
(snip) Database Description
DATA2010 is a SAS database that contains one record (or observation) for each objective and subpart found in the 28 focus areas. The database will also contain records for the measures used to track the goals and the Leading Health Indicators.
Each record in the database contains the following information:
|
|
n |
Objective number |
|
|
n |
Objective text (abbreviated) |
||
|
n |
|
Baseline year |
|
|
n |
|
Baseline data |
|
|
n |
Tracking data for subsequent years (future) |
||
|
n |
2010 Target |
|
|
|
n |
Comments (definitions, clarifications, and explanations) |
||
|
n |
Data source(s) |
In the future, DATA2010 will contain additional population groups, and include options for chart and map generation. State data are expected to be added to the database, and users will be able to select national and/or State data. There also will be links to the operational definitions in Tracking Healthy People 2010 and to the Healthy People 2010 Web site http://health.gov/healthypeople/. Where available, standard errors of the estimates will be included in the database
Please tell us that was satire.
Wish I could.
Mexican Officials Get Chipped
Mexico's attorney general said on Monday he had had a microchip inserted under the skin of one of his arms to give him access to a new crime database and also enable him to be traced if he is ever abducted.
Attorney General Rafael Macedo said a number of his staff had also been fitted with chips that will give them exclusive and secure access to a national, computerized database for crime investigators that went live on Monday.
"It's an area of high security, it's necessary that we have access to this, through a chip, which what's more is unremovable," Macedo told reporters.
"The system is here and I already have it. It's solely for access, for safety and so that I can be located at any moment wherever I am," he said, admitting the chip hurt "a little."
The chips would enable the wearer to be found anywhere inside Mexico, in the event of an assault or kidnapping, said Macedo.
And kidnapping is a huge problem here. From 1992 to 2002, Mexico saw some 15,000 kidnappings, second only to war-torn Colombia, according to the Inter-American Development Bank.
Crime fighting is a dangerous business in Mexico, where police are notoriously corrupt and where political figures and investigative journalists sometimes risk assassination.
Mexico has seen a surge in violent crime recently, with an onslaught of headlines about murders and kidnappings prompting President Vicente Fox to pledge in a national broadcast to crack down on crime.
In June a quarter of a million people protested the government's failure to combat crime.
And this is how the Twilight Zone will become reality... lol.
On behalf of all those who suffered under communism...
"Aw, geez, not this !@#$ again!"
The bottom line was that the gummint has to insure there will be a predictable labor pool in future years to continue using the population (as chattel) to secure future debt. The debt increases are based on how secure payback will be. No bank lends that kind of money with security.
If I remember correctly, the max the gummint can borrow, or increase the debt is based on the PROJECTED taxes from income of today's children when they enter the future job market. That figure is arrived at by averaging the income of the parents and adding for inflation, etc, how long the child will live and how healthy the child will be.
The CDC is a critical part of the process, tracking the reasons for trends in mortality/morbitity rates which the nanny folks will study and create subtle measures and programs to correct.
In my opinion, that is the number one reason why the gummint assumes authority over the children and how they are raised. Can't have those future slaves to the FED die off before they can pay their proper amount of the loan. Not the principle, which will never be amortized, but the interest, if we can even keep up with that.
Just something else to factor in.
correction --- 'with security' should be 'without security.'
These threads are all initiatives of this Healthy People 2010 implementation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669450/posts
State to check on residents' health (Door-to door!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177398/posts
IL Launches Compulsory Mental Health Screening For Children And Pregnant Women
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667884/posts
IL: Governor's Ally Calls for House to House Gun Searches
Covers Firearms!
Healthy People 2010 Objectives
Injury Prevention
The following objectives are a distillation of the injury prevention objectives from the Official HP2010 Site. This list includes the objectives contained in Chapter 15: Injury and Violence Prevention, the "official" list of Related Injury Objectives from Other Focus Areas, and additional objectives we believe are important to the field. Click on the objective number to view the full text of that objective.
Developmental objectives are those for which baseline or tracking data is judged to be insufficient. Developmental objectives may be deleted if a satisfactory data source isn't identified by 2004.
(View injury objectives from other focus areas)
The followning hyperlinks to the specific chapter are broken. You can manually scroll them from the MAIN LINK here
15-1. Reduce hospitalization for nonfatal head injuries to 54 hospitalizations per 100,000 population.
15-2. Reduce hospitalization for nonfatal spinal cord injuries to 2.6 hospitalizations per 100,000 population.
15-3. Reduce firearm-related deaths to 4.9 per 100,000 population.
15-4. Reduce the proportion of persons living in homes with firearms that are loaded and unlocked to 16 percent.
15-5. Reduce nonfatal firearm-related injuries to 10.9 injuries per 100,000 population.
15-6. (Developmental) Extend state-level child fatality review of deaths due to external causes for children aged 14 years and under.
15-7. Reduce nonfatal poisonings to 292 nonfatal poisonings per 100,000 population.
15-8. Reduce deaths caused by poisonings to 1.8 deaths per 100,000 population.
15-9. Reduce deaths caused by suffocation to 2.9 deaths per 100,000 population.
15-10. Increase the number of states and the District of Columbia with statewide emergency department surveillance systems that collect data on external causes of injury to all states and D.C.
15-11. Increase the number of states and the District of Columbia that collect data on external causes of injury through hospital discharge data systems.
15-12. Reduce hospital emergency department visits caused by injuries to 112 hospital emergency department visits per 1,000 population.
15-13. Reduce deaths caused by unintentional injuries to 20.8 deaths per 100,000 population.
15-14. (Developmental) Reduce nonfatal unintentional injuries.
15-15. Reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle crashes to 9.0 deaths per 100,000 population and 1 death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
15-16. Reduce pedestrian deaths on public roads to 1 pedestrian death per 100,000 population.
15-17. Reduce nonfatal injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes to 1,000 nonfatal injuries per 100,000 population.
15-18. Reduce nonfatal pedestrian injuries on public roads to 21 nonfatal injuries per 100,000 population.
15-19. Increase use of safety belts to 92 percent of the total population.
15-20. Increase use of child restraints to 100 percent of motor vehicle occupants aged 4 years and under.
15-21. Increase the proportion of motorcyclists using helmets to 79 percent of motorcycle operators and passengers.
15-22. Increase the number of states and the District of Columbia that have adopted a graduated driver licensing model law to all states and D.C.
15-23. (Developmental) Increase use of helmets by bicyclists.
15-24. Increase the number of states and the District of Columbia with laws requiring bicycle helmets for bicycle riders to all states and D.C.
15-25. Reduce residential fire deaths to 0.6 deaths per 100,000 population.
15-26. Increase functioning residential smoke alarms to 100 percent of residences with a functioning smoke alarm on every floor.
15-27. Reduce deaths from falls to 2.3 deaths per 100,000 population.
15-28. Reduce hip fractures among older adults to 491.0 fractures per 100,000 females aged 65 years and older and to 450.5 fractures per 100,000 males aged 65 years and older.
15-29. Reduce drownings to 0.9 drownings per 100,000 population.
15-30. Reduce hospital emergency department visits for nonfatal dog bite injuries to 114 hospital ER visits per 100,000 population.
15-31. (Developmental) Increase the proportion of public and private schools that require use of appropriate head, face, eye, and mouth protection for students participating in school-sponsored physical activities.
15-32. Reduce homicides to 3.2 homicides per 100,000 population.
15-33. Reduce maltreatment fatalities of children to 1.5 per 100,000 children under age 18 years.
15-34. Reduce the rate of physical assault by current or former intimate partners to 3.6 physical assaults per 1,000 persons aged 12 years and older.
15-35. Reduce the annual rate of rape or attempted rape to 0.7 rapes or attempted rapes per 1,000 persons.
15-36. Reduce sexual assault other than rape to 0.2 sexual assaults other than rape per 1,000 persons aged 12 years and older.
15-37. Reduce physical assaults to 25.5 physical assaults per 1,000 persons aged 12 years and older.
15-38. Reduce physical fighting among adolescents to 33 percent of adolescents in grades 9 through 12 who engaged in physical fighting in the previous 12 months.
15-39. Reduce weapon carrying by adolescents on school property to 6 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who carried weapons on school property during the past 30 days.
>>>>Senator Salazar was on of the people behind getting the Colorado Trust Healthy People 2010 grant into Colorado.<<<<
Refer to:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aff48334802.htm
The UN Plan for Your Mental Health
Senator calls for hearing on PTSD
U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
Member: Agriculture, Energy, Veterans' Affairs, Ethics and Aging Committees
2300 15th Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 | 702 Hart Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
For Immediate Release
August 3, 2006
Sen. Salazar Calls for Hearing on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Treatment for America's Veterans
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a National issue affecting thousands of our veterans and service members returning from combat, yet studies show that many of those at risk do not receive the treatment they need. Today, United States Senator Ken Salazar called Congress’ attention to this critical issue by requesting a joint hearing of the Senate Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees to examine how the military and the federal governments deal with mental health issues among America’s service members and veterans.
“PTSD is a national problem that affects each of the armed services and multiple government agencies,†said Senator Salazar. “With the duration of our ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan uncertain, we must act to address this matter before it is too late for many of our men and women in uniform.â€
According to a recent Army study, one in three veterans returning from combat experience readjustment problems. In addition, a recent Government Accountability Office investigation found that only 22 percent of service members identified as at risk for PTSD were referred for a mental health examination, and that “reasonable assurance is not available to support that [Iraq and Afghanistan] service members receive referrals when needed.â€
“The failure to treat mental illness in its early stages has lasting repercussions for the capacity of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to provide timely and appropriate services to veterans in need,†said Senator Salazar. “A military discharge that is based on faulty grounds can result in the denial – in whole or in part – of the veterans’ benefits that a service member has earned. Moreover, allowing a veteran’s mental illness to go untreated places an increasing and unnecessary strain on our already limited veterans’ health resources.â€
Currently, waiting times to see military mental healthcare providers are reported to be over a month long. At the same time, recent reports have suggested that discharges due to personality disorders have risen substantially at some bases around the country, and substance abuse or occupational instability often lead to military punishment, including discharge. All are recognized symptoms of PTSD, but can be misdiagnosed as the issue itself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1576827/posts
The UN's $7 Trillion Socialist Scam
POLICE STATE, USA
Bill would give governors absolute power
Health-emergency proposal has 'little concern' for personal liberties
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Could state governors order the collection of all data and records on citizens, ban firearms, take control of private property and quarantine entire cities? The answer is yes – if governors and state legislatures adopted a new "model" bill currently under consideration.
According to a summary of the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act" by the legislative research arm of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a home-schooling rights organization, the proposed legislation could give governors the kind of absolute power during a health emergency once reserved only for kings, queens and dictators.
The version of the bill under consideration was drafted in October 2001, just a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, by The Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, in collaboration with several other organizations. HSLDA, in a review of the bill, said it was "prepared pursuant to Healthy People 2010, a Department of Health and Human Services nationwide health-promotion agenda."
"A large initiative, Healthy People has 28 goals, ranging from improving access to comprehensive health care services to reducing injuries and deaths due to unintentional injuries and violence," the HSLDA analysis said. "These 28 goals give rise to over 400 objectives."
The model bill's preamble recalls the events of Sept. 11, focusing attention on a "need to protect the health and safety of citizens from epidemics and bioterrorism," said the analysis.
Essentially, the measure grants "emergency powers to the state governors and public health authorities during a declared 'state of public health emergency,'" the analysis said. Under the auspices of the bill, a "public health emergency" is defined as:
"an occurrence or imminent threat of an illness or health condition, caused by bioterrorism, epidemic or pandemic disease, or novel and highly fatal infectious agent or biological toxin, that poses a substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities or incidents of permanent or long-term disability. Such illness or health condition includes, but is not limited to, an illness or health condition resulting from a national disaster."
Authors of the measure say it was designed to facilitate the "early detection" of health emergencies, and it "requires that comprehensive plans be prepared in advance which would provide a coordinated response to the health emergency. ..."
"In the event of a declared public health emergency, MSEHP grants the governor extraordinary powers," HSLDA analysts said. "These powers include the collection of data and records, the control of property, the management of persons and access to communications." Powers also include "such things as forced vaccination and treatment (Section 504), the tracking of individuals (Section 202), access to patient records (Section 506) and the prohibition of firearms (Section 402(c)). ..."
Some provisions of the bill require judicial review, such as a governor's order for a mandatory quarantine of areas. For that to happen, "a written court order must authorize the action," analysts said, "unless delay would pose an immediate threat to the public."
Overall, however, the measure "grants enormous power to the governor in the event of a public health emergency," said HSLDA analysts.
"A 'model' act is not nearly as threatening as an act that has been introduced and passed or is moving through the process," Tom Washburne, director of HSLDA's legislative arm, the National Center for Home Education. "So I feel like there's time to correct [the bill] and make it a lot better."
As written, Washburne said, "the measures are pretty Draconian." The worst part of the bill, he believes, is the fact that in most instances, one person – the governor – makes the decision to declare a health emergency.
"At the very least, there ought to be a better mechanism for figuring out if there is a public health emergency, and get more people engaged" in making that determination, he said.
The drafters of the bill disagree. Lawrence O. Gostin, director and principal investigator for the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns-Hopkins, says there are no tools on the books for lawmakers and state chief executives to effectively deal with health emergencies, such as bioterrorism.
"Current public health laws are too highly antiquated and inadequate to ensure a strong and effective response to bioterrorism," Gostin said. "Existing laws thwart public health officials in rapidly identifying and ameliorating health threats, thus jeopardizing the public's safety."
He adds that "the nation faces a danger to its health, safety, and security from biological agents that is unprecedented." He said the act is needed to provide "governors and public health officials with the power to act decisively in the event of a bioterrorist attack or emerging infectious disease. ..."
"Professor Gostin is to be commended for not only coordinating the quick and thorough drafting of this legislation, but also for providing an important public service," said Judith Areen, dean of Georgetown University Law Center. "His expertise in the area of public-health law is well-known and respected."
Gostin served as the chairman of President and Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force group on Privacy and the Health Care Infrastructure in 1993, according to information published by Johns Hopkins.
While most Americans support the administration's efforts to track down terrorists, clearly there is some concern that laws meant for honorable purposes today may be abused some time down the road, under different political circumstances.
"We should think always that every new law may be enforced by our worst enemies," Jon B. Utley, the Robert A. Taft fellow in constitutional and international studies at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, told WND last October, after President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
The emergency health bill, Washburne added, "poses substantial threats to the liberty and privacy of families.
"As drafted, whether these threats are justified depends upon the opinion of only one person – the governor of a state," he said. Legislatures that may consider the bill at some point should "work to improve the model act to minimize the chance that a governor could make a mistake," he added.
For example, he said, state lawmakers should assess whether absolute power should be exercised by a governor for every health emergency. "At the very least, it should be noted that not all the powers granted apply to every threat," Washburne said.
He also noted there appeared to be "little concern" for constitutional liberties.
"For example, there are many people who have religious beliefs that preclude them from taking or allowing their children to receive vaccinations," he said.
Washburne said he didn't know how fast the legislation was moving, but officials with Georgetown and Johns Hopkins say the bill is "on a fast track."
"The draft has been delivered to" a host of organizations, said a Center for Law and the Public's Health statement Oct. 30, 2001, including the Centers for Disease Control and the National Governor's Association.
"The final product will then be ready for enactment by the state legislatures where procedures are in place for quick passage. The legislation is then ready for signature by governors and implementation by state public health authorities," the statement said.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, says the measure "is a model law that is well-intentioned but poorly executed and drafted."
"After a couple of centuries of successful democratic government, it would appear rather late to sell citizens on the superiority of one-man rule," Turley wrote in a Jan. 7 column. "However ... the best cure for terrorism may be a small dose of tyranny."
Turley said states are "quietly" considering adoption of the measure. But, he cautioned, "before we all bunker down under this new emergency plan, we may want to read the fine print and consider our options."
The George Washington law professor said state governors already possess most of the powers contained within the act. What's different, he said, "is buried in one of its implementing provisions. ...
"For the first 60 days of a crisis, the governor of a state would hold unchecked and unfettered power. What is most astonishing is the triggering of this absolute authority is left entirely to the discretion of each governor," Turley wrote.
Other analysts are also troubled by absolute power given to state governors.
"The state legislature relinquishes its power to stop overreaching by the governor until at least 60 days after his actions," said an assessment of the measure published by Eagle Forum, a think tank that supports smaller government. "The bill wouldn't allow the governor to be reversed just because his actions are unwarranted, oppressive or overreacting to the threat."
"The Model Act was created at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with taxpayer dollars," Turley said. "With little media attention, there is a considerable danger that this act will be adopted with little scrutiny as an 'impulse buy' item for state legislators eager to take action against terrorism."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1563271/posts?page=111#111
'prohibition of firearms (Section 402(c))'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1563271/posts?page=111#111
"The Model Act was created at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with taxpayer dollars*," Turley said. "With little media attention, there is a considerable danger that this act will be adopted with little scrutiny as an 'impulse buy' item for state legislators eager to take action against terrorism."
:: * my note, NGO grant funds also::
My mark for the morning........
You are probably thinking of the term "economic democracy", which was coined by Clinton's chief economic advisor, Derek Shearer.
When he came up with the phrase, he explained it by saying that the word "socialism" has gotten a bad rap in this country, and we needed a new term for it, hence, "economic democracy."
So there you have it straight out of the horse's mouth: "Economic democracy" IS "socialism."
The way it works is the company that does the R&D patents the drug, and then the FDA drags out the approval process, eating up massive amounts of time. Years and years and years, and billions of dollars of expense jumping through all the hoops.
By the time the medicine is finally approved for sale, there really isn't that much time left to sell it before the patent runs out! Thus, they high prices charged, to recoup the R&D while they can.
If sanity were to prevail, they wouldn't start the clock running on the patent-protection period until the drug received approval. But, we're talking about the government, with so many compromised "interests" and motivations, incestuous "revolving-door" relationships between "regulators" and industry... the system's gone mad, and it's the NOBODIES like you and me who end up taking it up the bung.
Are you familiar with the Home School Legal Defense Association?
This is their article about Healthy People from a few years ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts?page=111#111
Rest of the thread is my Healthy People bump list for background info.
That's because it's already a done deal BEFORE it "gets started."
The real decisions are made in the back rooms. The "process" that WE get to see is just lubrication, to make the "implementation" as trouble-free as possible.
The game is rigged from the getgo.
You know, we have a HS activist here in St. Louis and I have heard her speak on several occasions. Some of the things she talked about were downright scary. She talked about this and a lot of other things. Totally OT, but have you ever looked into the UN Biosphere Reserve? Do you realize how much of this country, and I mean our LAND, that the UN controls?
Not just land. A few days ago this was implemented on our waters too.
I will pull the link and post it for review.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.