"In the coming five years, our military will push forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction," said (defence minister) Liang Guanglie in an interview published by several state-backed newspapers in China. "We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns away," Mr Liang added.
...
Mr Liang's remarks come at a time of increasingly difficult relations between the Chinese and US armed forces which a three-day visit by his counterpart Robert Gates is intended to address.
...
Gates warned that China's new weapons, including its carrier-killing missile, "threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific", underscoring the difficulties that lie ahead as China and the US seek to contain growing strategic frictions.
...
"The modernisation of the Chinese military cannot depend on others, and cannot be bought," Mr Liang added, "In the next five years, our economy and society will develop faster, boosting comprehensive national power. We will take the opportunity and speed up modernisation of the military."
SUN-TZU: THE PRINCIPLES OF WARFARE "THE ART OF WAR" http://www.sonshi.com/sun1.html Chapter One: Calculation Warfare is a great matter to a nation; it is the ground of death and of life; it is the way of survival and of destruction, and must be examined. Therefore, go through it by means of five factors; compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses: (1)The Way (public opinion)(2)Heaven (the weather)(3)Ground (the terrain)(4)General (the leadership)(5)Law (discipline) All these five no general has not heard; one who knows them is victorious, one who does not know them is not victorious. A general who listens to my calculations, and uses them, will surely be victorious, keep him; a general who does not listen to my calculations, and does not use them, will surely be defeated, remove him. Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to assist outside missions. Before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will win, because many calculations were made; before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will not win, because few calculations were made; many calculations, victory, few calculations, no victory, then how much less so when no calculations? By means of these, I can observe them, beholding victory or defeat! Chapter Seven: Armed Struggle The general receives his commands from the ruler, assembles the troops, mobilizes the army, and sets up camp. There is nothing more difficult than armed struggle. Chapter Eight: Nine Changes So the principles of warfare are: Do not trust that the enemy isn't coming. Trust your readiness to meet him. Do not depend on the enemy not attacking, but depend on our position that cannot be attacked. I could go on and on about Sun Tzu and the behavior of the Chinese leadership - the point is:The Art Of War is their play book and thus they are always seeking ways to win in battle according to Sun Tzu's calculations.When their calculations assure them of victory - expect them to act as it is written "like a streaking rabbit".
Who Owns The Federal Reserve? The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks
by Ellen Brown Global Research, October 8, 2008
"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders." – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s
The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:
"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."2
This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."
Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):
"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."
"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam," webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:
"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."3
If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
Not Private and Not for Profit?
The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look.
The website states:
* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."
* "The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."5
So let’s review:
1. The Fed is privately owned.
Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.
2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."
Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine." He wrote:
"When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."
3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.
The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.
In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.
The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.
Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:
"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."
As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over.
Here's a video of our congressional oversight in action-
The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.
If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com
If your only media outlet is mainstream television then you have probably heard it reported - "This is the most productive congress in American history".
Could it be that 87% of the population obtains their news elsewhere?
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is also the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance.
The prior low approval rating for Congress was 14% in July 2008 when the United States was dealing with record-high gas prices and the economy was in recession.
Read the rest of the Gallup report HERE. Hat tip SharpElbows.
According to the report linked above - If you watch this movie...
and / or this movie:
You might be a terrorist.
If you display this flag:
You might be a terrorist.
If you are a Libertarian Christian who "argues that the government has gotten away from the intent of the Constitution"... You guessed it... You might be a terrorist.
But if you happen to be this guy - "the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list"...
American-born Al Qaeda-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki
According to Fox News - you have dined at the Pentagon.
The comment- "Your need to destroy Assange is getting embarrassing. Why not make lemonaid?" My response-
People have to learn the real story behind this media-created character Julian Assange. It is not embarrassing to go "on alert" when something is obviously wrong with someone or something. In fact, it is natural and correct to alert others to a dangerous situation. Make no mistake, the WikiLeaks situation (and Julian Assange) is dangerous - for reasons you will not see reported in the mainstream media. Links-
Keep up the great work Zenpundit - you are on the right track.
Note: In the first linked article above, pay special attention to the quote from Andy Greenberg which was published in a Forbes article.
"Admire him or revile him, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency, the leader of an organization devoted to divulging the world’s secrets using technology unimagined a generation ago."
People must maintain perspective -
"Prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency"? Assange is a guy with a web site. The real story here should be about the data - and who is helping Assange - not Assange himself.
Let me get this straight . . . .
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What could possibly go wrong?'
The Varyag, an aircraft carrier from the Soviet Union,
is being remodeled at China's Dalian Port.
China reveals aircraft carrier plans - FT.com China has confirmed for the first time that it is preparing to build an aircraft carrier, a move set to heighten international concerns over the rapid expansion of its naval power. Chinese Aircraft Carrier Buildup- The Significance The US Defense Department reported in early 2009 that China's PLA Navy "is considering building multiple carriers by 2020".
In 2006, Lt Col Christopher J. Pehrson highlighted the significance of the U.S. aircraft carrier fleet...
QUOTE
American warships have a combined displacement of 2.86 million tons whereas the PLAN’s combined fleet has a displacement of only 263 thousand tons. Of the world’s 34 aircraft carriers, 24 are U.S. Navy vessels, while China possesses none. This traditional “blue water” navy, centered on the aircraft carrier, is one of America’s greatest military strengths.
Documents Confirm China's Aircraft Carrier Plans China is believed to be building two 50,000-60,000-ton aircraft carriers at Changxingdao Shipyard, the world's biggest, in Shanghai and is expected to launch one in 2014.
It is also reportedly working on remodeling the 58,500-ton Varyag, an aircraft carrier the former Soviet Union had stopped building, at Dalian Port to launch it in 2012. The country is expected to get a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier by 2020.
The Japanese government's new defense white paper to be published on Friday will reflect worries about China's buildup of maritime power.
Alexandria is a small town in Madison County Indiana (Northeast of Indianapolis) where apparently now it is illegal to live free on your own land. Big brother at the county board says - plug in or pull out. U.S. citizen landowner Dick Thompson was asked "Where are you going to go?". He replied - "I have no idea".
Author: Mac Slavo
Think you can do whatever you want on your land, even if it doesn’t violate the rights of others?
Think again.
72 year old Dick Thompson likes the simple life. He has no city electricity, water or sewage, and now the county has evicted him from his own land, about 36 acres, because he refuses to acquire these necessary services. The county attorney says, “Thompson is breaking too many rules, laws and ordinances” :
I’m sure that on that 38 acres there are more deer and other wildlife that whizzes and craps a larger volume (by far) than one man. There’s no public safety issue here - this is one man, on his own property, with no evidence that he’s polluting anything around him, who simply wants to be left alone - and who clearly isn’t interested in “improving” his land and thus paying ten times as much in property taxes and “mandatory” services.
That’s really the rub here, isn’t it? The county wants to evict him not due to any sort of danger, but rather because he refuses to build a big fat McMansion on that land and then suck down the kilowatts and pay for every gallon of water twice - one to deliver it, again to cart it away even if he chooses to do things with the water that don’t require those gallons to be carted away.
Show me where this individual is actually harming the public’s safety and I’ll agree with the jackboot of government coming in to tell him how he has to live.
Good luck living simply, living free, and living without being bothered in the New America.
Author: Mac Slavo Date: December 16th, 2010 Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/
Dr. James David Manning of The Manning Report is claiming that he and his crew were detained and prevented from attending the Lt Col Terry Lakin court martial trial.
"I and my camera crew while attending the Lt. Col. Terry Lakin trial was detained by military police and threatened with trespassing charges here in Ft Meade Md. We were interrogated for nearly three hours, searched, ask to sign statements and read the Miranda right . They placed us in separate rooms for interrogation, and Capt Farr was placed in a cell block room. They released us after the trial was over."
According to Manning, Lt. Col. Lakin was found guilty of felony charge on “Missing Movement” and he plead guilty to the refusal to obey a direct chain of command order. Court is now in sentencing phase.
Lt. Col. Lakin is the Army doctor who, in his 18th year of active duty service, refused deployment to Afghanistan because he did not believe that President Obama was born in the United States. He made the choice to take a stand and not to follow what he believed were illegal orders. Now it appears that he will pay the price.
YouTube publisher LoneStar1776 wrote - "LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces."
In related news - WND recently reported that, concerning WikiLeaks, Gov. Mike Huckabee (2008 presidential candidate) said:
"If we want to keep our nation's secrets 'SECRET,' store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."
On the same day as Julian Assange's arrest (December 7, 2010) an article ran in The New York Observer - seemingly on cue. The article, titled The Original WikiLeaker, introduced a new and "more credible" front man for the leaking community. Exit Assange, stage left - enter cryptome.org founder John Young, “the original Wikileaker.” For those of us who suspect that the entire WikiLeaks situation is orchestrated - the timing is impeccable.
One reason John Young appears more credible than Assange is his background, another is his demeanor. Wikipedia says of John Young -
In 2007 John Young, operator of cryptome, left his position on the WikiLeaks Board of Directors accusing the group of being a "CIA conduit." Young subsequently retreated from his assertion but has continued to be critical of the site. In a 2010 interview with CNET.com Young accused the group of a lack of transparency regarding their fundraising and financial management. He went on to state his belief that WikiLeaks could not guarantee whistleblowers the anonymity or confidentiality they claimed and that he "would not trust them with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk."
Now, still in the same week of Assanges's exit, John Young has also appeared on The Alex Jones Show. Critical question - Is this, a legitimate interview or an attempt to build "street cred" within Jones's audience - an audience well known for its skepticism? Keep this in mind - if Young can successfully break into the alternative media cult with his message - it will resonate.
Young's message appears as the following in the Alex Jones appearance -
1) The leaking community cannot be stopped (without shutting down the internet).
2) The information leaked is credible. For example, in the Alex Jones interview, Young described attempts by the leaking community to "authenticate" the Bank of America hard drive before its release.
3) The leaking community at its core means well.
4) The leaking community, although created by the intelligence services, has, for the most part, turned on its master - gone rouge. "The people that are actually running it, that they hired to run it, are now reversing the panopticon."
5) WikiLeaks is a business (set up for profit - not for public benefit - "money is pouring in from both sides") but the leaking community itself is larger than WikiLeaks. (Young seems to be creating separation between the leaking community and WikiLeaks which will serve well in the continuance of leaks from other sources if/when WikiLeaks is shut down.)
6) The leaking community is extremely intelligent - more intelligent than the governments or organizations that fund them.
7) The leaking community is not truly independent. It is not a government agency, and it is not a combine - "it is none of those. The intent was to have nothing that could be attacked easily. So it is not an organization, it is not an entity. It's a concept, it's an asperation. It's a goal. It is not anything you are going to be able to take down by the usual means... WikiLeaks will not be taken down. It will pop up some other way".
Young's points, when viewed as a whole, appear intent on bolstering trust in the leaking community. Each of these points additionally should be viewed in John Young's own words -
We'll it is what I was told as a kid. Trust no one but yourself and warn people not to trust you. We say at cryptome, do not trust us. Through our ignorance we may deceive you or betray you. Do not trust anyone who speaks with a voice of authority and do not trust anyone who sells you protection. Do not trust anyone who sells you trust. Because their own ignorance and venality will betray you... We've got a lot of talk from people who are well known liars. And most hackers are liars because that is how they social engineer. Most people on the internet lie. I lie. Are you hearing me? I lie. I'm lying to you right now. Keep that in mind. Everyone's got their agenda...
The show must go on. Also, in the Alex Jones appearance, John Young introduced a new cast of characters (the leaking community) and offered a lineup of coming episodes - both of which were published in the accompanying INFOWARS.com article.
According to Young, the new characters are listed on Wikipedia as "Cypherpunks". And, the coming episodes (roster of new releases "leaks" forthcoming) are as follows.
- Information about the internal affairs of Bank of America
- Files on weapons of mass destruction
- War plans of all nations, for and against one another
- Reports and training literature on black site prisons and torture chambers
- Files about clandestine spy agencies and their operatives
- Files on human rights abuses
- Files about billionaire political meddlers
- Files about global tax collection agencies
- Files about the Vatican’s meddling in global political affairs
- Information about the Clinton Foundation, although this was the only one on which Young wasn’t certain.
One thing is for certain - the media theater shall continue.
Just months after a leaked UN blueprint that revealed climate change alarmists would start pushing “overpopulation” fears in favor of the discredited mantra of global warming as a means of dismantling the middle class, billionaire globalist Ted Turner followed suit during a Cancun luncheon yesterday when he urged the world to adopt China’s brutal one-child policy, and even suggested poor people should be sterilized in return for government handouts.
Following a speech by economist Brian O’Neill from the U.S.’s National Center for Atmospheric Research which “concluded that a rapidly rising global population is contributing to an acceleration of emission growth,” Uncle Ted stepped in to remind us that mere slaves should not aspire to follow his example of having five children, restricting themselves to one or being made to face the wrath of a Chinese-style one child policy, which sends women who defy its edicts to “re-education camps,” once they have been beaten, forcibly injected and had their baby boiled alive inside their womb of course.
“Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce,” reports the Globe and Mail.
The secret behind Turner’s call for western nations to enforce a tyrannical policy that in China is administered by undercover police and “family planning” authorities who kidnap, force drug and then forcibly abort babies of pregnant women, has nothing whatsoever to do with his concern for the environment.
Quite how an improvement in health care through vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.
This is what Gates and Turner discussed when they met in secret with the likes of George Soros and David Rockefeller at a private gathering of billionaires in Manhattan last year, a confab focused around how these globalists could use their wealth to “slow the growth of the world’s population.”
As is manifestly provable, the true agenda behind fanning the flames of fears about overpopulation is to reduce living standards globally, by preventing the third world from ever becoming economically prosperous, while also eviscerating the middle classes of western nations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the earth and is merely another convenient trojan horse that globalists invoke to advance their tyranny.
This fact was admitted in a leaked UN blueprint which emerged in September. The document called for alarmists to push “overpopulation” as a replacement for “climate change,” while conceding that the ultimate goal was to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words, to convince the masses that they will have to be content with a state of near poverty in order to save the planet from armageddon. Although Uncle Ted will get to keep his 2 million acres and his five kids will go on to procreate ad infinitum, naturally.
Overpopulation is a myth. The UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050. As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”
And don’t for a second be fooled into thinking that this so-called “global redistribution of wealth” will manifest some kind of socialist utopia. As was uncovered during the Copenhagen summit, the program of “global redistribution of wealth” largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries through carbon taxes and then using that money to bankroll the construction of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries.
Let me emphasize again, even if you believe the claptrap circulated about overpopulation, the men being empowered to “solve the problem” have stated that their primary goal is to kill 95 per cent of humanity while destroying prosperity and economic freedom in the west, as well as ensuring that the third world remains in mountains of debt to the World Bank and IMF.
This is akin to hiring Ted Bundy to spearhead a program aimed at alleviating an epidemic of physical abuse towards women. It would be like appointing Charlie Manson the leader of a teen summer camp.
Ted Turner is a billionaire industrialist with five kids, 2 million acres of land and a network of business interests that combined must spew more carbon dioxide in a year than all the people reading this article put together in a lifetime could manage. And he is telling you to make sacrifices, to not have children, to sell your reproductive rights and be sterilized, to reduce yourliving standards, just like Al Gores flaps his gums about rising sea levels caused by global warming while purchasing oceanside property worth millions of dollars.
How much more evidence will it take for people to accept the fact that overpopulation is a myth and that it has been hijacked by global warming alarmists who are now using it as a replacement for the discredited science of man-made climate change in order to build their new world order, which is based entirely around squeezing the middle class and making people more dependent on big government, thereby becoming the architects of their own enslavement and being forced to crawl cap-in-hand to the likes of Uncle Ted and beg for a dime.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
So much of the history of the struggle between good and evil can be explained by Edmund Burke's observation. Time and again those who profess to be good seem to clearly outnumber those who are evil, yet those who are evil seem to prevail far too often. Seldom is it the numbers that determine the outcome, but whether those who claim to be good men are willing to stand up and fight for what they know to be right. There are numerous examples of this sad and awful scenario being played out over and over again in the scriptures.
They Get Nothing Good Done
When good men do nothing, they get nothing good done. To be good, one must do good. The Lord commands his people to do good (Luke 6:35; Eph. 2:10). Christ "gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14).
In the parable of the talents, Jesus described a man who did nothing. When he received his Lord's money, he "went and digged in the earth, and hid his Lord's money" (Matt. 25:18). When his Lord returned, he returned to the Lord just what he had been given (Matt. 25:25). Notice, the servant did not do any outright evil, such as stealing the money, but then neither did he do anything good. He did nothing and he got nothing good accomplished. Jesus said he was a "wicked and slothful servant" (Matt. 25:26).
Jesus rebuked the church at Laodicea for doing nothing. "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:15-17).
Too many Christians and too many churches do nothing. They are standing idly by, they are mere spectators. They sit on the sidelines instead of actively participating and working for the good. If good wins, they join in the celebration though they did nothing to produce the victory. If evil wins, they will complain long and loud though their own apathy helped produce the undesirable result.
When Jesus found a fig tree with "nothing thereon, but leaves only" He cursed the tree and "presently the fig tree withered away" (Matt. 21:19). What will He do with those who claim to be good and yet who do nothing? John the baptist warned, "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matt. 3:10; John 15:2).
They Help Evil To Triumph
When good men do nothing, evil triumphs. Evil, sin and sinful men must be opposed. God commands those who are good, not just to avoid evil but actively oppose it.
Christians are to not only to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but (also) reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). Those who do nothing about sin and evil, help the sin and evil to prevail. One who is silent when there are those around him in sin becomes a partaker with them (Eph. 5:7).
In the days of Elijah, the silence of many had allowed the evil of Ahab and Jezebel to prevail throughout the land of Israel. "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word" (1 Kings 18:21). The silence of the people spoke volumes of their indecisiveness and inaction. Their failure to stand up, speak up and speak out permitted wicked and evil men to run rampant.
Jesus told of a traveler who was robbed, beaten and left him half dead. The men who did this were wicked and did a very wicked thing. But the Levite and priest allowed this evil to continue unanswered by doing nothing as they each "passed by on the other side" (Luke 10:31-32). Fortunately for the traveler there was one man, a Samaritan, who was willing to stand up for what was right (Luke 10:33-36).
Jesus warned "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matt. 12:30). In the fight against evil there is no middle ground, no gray area, no neutrality. Those who are not actively and vigorously fighting against evil are helping evil to triumph.
They Are No Longer Good
When good men do nothing, they are no longer good. Many have the mistaken notion that good is merely the absence of doing that which is wrong. Not so! One is good not merely because he does no evil, but because he is actively working for what is good. "Let him eschew evil, and do good" (1 Pet. 3:11). James explained, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17).
The eldest of Israel, Reuben, knew his brothers' murderous plot against their younger brother Joseph was wrong. He started an attempt to deliver Joseph, but as he hesitated and vacillated, the other brothers sold Joseph into slavery. When Reuben heard what they had done, he realized his failure to act had helped to bring about this evil result.
Instead of correcting his error, Reuben sought to cover his guilt by agreeing with his brothers to lie to their father about Joseph's disappearance (Gen. 37:18-35). Reuben had "good intentions" and he was not even present when Joseph was sold into slavery, but he knew his inaction and absence made him just as guilty as the rest of his wicked brothers. This guilt continued to haunt him through the years (Gen. 42:21-22).
The prophet Obadiah severely condemned the Edomites for doing nothing when evil was befalling their brethren, the Jews. When Jerusalem was invaded by her enemies, the Edomites "stood on the other side" doing nothing but watching the slaughter as spectators. God said by their failure to act and to help their brethren "even thou wast as one of them" (Obad. 11).
Today, there are preachers and Christians who fail and refuse to meet the real foe, refute error and fight the enemy. Instead, they have turned to viciously savaging their own brethren. They are filled with bitterness and hatred and they maliciously attack, slander and misrepresent other Christians and gospel preachers.
Paul warned about such men and behavior among those professing to be Christians, "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15). Those who engage in such behavior are spiritual cannibals.
While the conduct of these so-called Christians is shameful, what about those supposedly "good" men who do nothing? Those stand on the other side and do nothing but watch as their brothers are being slandered, slaughtered and devoured, they cease being innocent bystanders and idle spectators. Their failure to act not only allows evil to triumph, but makes them just as guilty as the spiritual cannibals they refuse to reprove and rebuke. In God's words, "even thou wast as one of them" (Obad. 11).
Conclusion
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7). Those who fail or refuse to do good in the face of evil are sowing some dangerous seeds. They are doing nothing good as Jesus commanded them to do; they are helping evil to win and have ceased being good and have become partakers of the evil they did nothing to stop.
Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not sit by and do nothing. Stand up and be counted, speak up against evil and speak out against evil men and their sinful deeds.
If you happen to find errors or omissions in my work, I can assure you, they are NOT intentional. My nature is that of a worker- not a pedant. Every day I strive for three things- to SERVE, to DO and to IMPROVE. Please contact me with any comments, corrections or suggestions. Thank you. - J.N. Kish
Posts
