A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Communist Chinese government, through state-controlled
corporations masquerading as private entities, is accelerating its plan
to acquire control over deep water ports and major shipping lanes across
the world.
The Sri Lankan government, heavily indebted to China, recently agreed
to lease approximately 80% of a strategic port in the southern part of
the country to a state-owned Chinese company for $1.1 billion.
The
port of Hambantota lies along an important trade route connecting Asia
and the Middle East, and is a key part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s
“one belt, one road” plan to expand Chinese control over key shipping
lanes.
The United States refers to these strategic ports as China’s “string of pearls.”
China
Merchant Port Holding Company, which purchased the lease to operate the
port of Hambantota, is owned by the Communist Chinese government;
specifically, it is owned via majority share by the China Merchants
Group, a state-run corporation based in Hong Kong.
The same state-owned corporation maintains
an 85% share over a large new terminal at the port of Sri Lanka’s
capital, Colombo, as well as varying levels of control over ports in the
African nations of Djibouti and Togo.
After acquiring 49% of
Terminal Link, a portfolio of terminals run by struggling French
container line CMA CGN, China Merchants Group gained
access to the following ports: Antwerp and Zeebrugge in Belgium;
Dunkirk, Le Havre, Montoir, and Fos in France; Casablanca and Tangiers
in Morocco; Marsaxlokk in Malta; Abidjan in the Ivory Coast; Houston and
Miami in the United States; Bussan in South Korea.
Another major
state-owned corporation, COSCO Pacific, has minority control over the
following ports: Antwerp, Suez in Egypt, and Singapore.
COSCO acquired a majority share (51%) of operations at the Greek port
of Piraeus in April, 2016 (another 16% will be acquired after an agreed
upon period of modernization lasting five years).
The Greek government was forced
to sell control over the port, as well as control over 14 regional
airports to a German-based company, in a desperate bid to satisfy EU
creditors eager for repayment.
COSCO was at the center of controversy
when the company sought to lease a former naval base at the Port of
Long Beach, California after one of their ships was suspected of
illegally trafficking firearms and was raided by customs officials in
1997.
President Bill Clinton was tied to the Chinese company that
produced the firearms, Polytechnology, after a supporter escorted the
company’s president, Wang Jun, into one of the President’s “White House
coffees”, where he reportedly met with Clinton.
Clinton later
said the meeting was ”inappropriate” and “an example of the failure of
the White House to screen visitors rigorously.”
The cash-strapped (and corruption-plagued) government of the Australian Northern Territories leased
control over port facilities in the capital city of Darwin to the
Landbridge Company, a company closely connected to the Chinese
government, for $361 million late last year.
The 99-year lease
raised concern among some in the United States as Marines use the base
to train approximately six months out of the year. In addition, fuel
storage tanks used by the Marines are situated directly on the land
leased to the Chinese company.
Critics argued that China’s port
control “could facilitate intelligence collection on U.S. and Australian
military forces stationed nearby,” according to the New York Times.
Ye
Cheng, chairman and founder of the Landbridge Company, was honored as
one of the top “10 individuals caring about the development of national
defense” by the Shandong provincial government in 2013.
The
Landbridge Company’s website notes their strong ties to “state-owned
companies like China National Petroleum Corporation, which supplies oil
to Landbridge and allows them to sell it at retail pumps under the
corporation’s name.
Panama Ports Company, a subsidiary of
Hutchison Ports, maintains exclusive rights to operate ports at both
ends of the Panama Canal (Balboa on the Pacific Ocean, Cristóbal on the
Atlantic Ocean).
Hutchison Ports is a subsidiary of CK Hutchison
Holdings, chaired by Hong Kong-based billionaire Li Ka-shing. He has
close ties to the Chinese government, as does the company’s co-managing
director and deputy chairman, Victor Li Tzar-kuoi, who served on the
Standing Committee of the 12th National Committee of the Chinese
People’s Political Consultative Conference.
As of 2006, over 60% of the container terminals at the ten largest ports in the United States were operated by a foreign corporation, with the number rising to 80% at the largest ports in Los Angeles and New York/Newark.
The Eurocrats say “Stricter controls on sale and registration of
firearms, and stronger rules to irrevocably deactivate weapons. The
objective: to tackle the threat of weapons falling into the hands of
terrorists. Package of measures to make it more difficult to acquire
firearms in the European Union here: europa.eu/!Nx87GD.” Who believes that objective will be met, or that it’s even the real objective? [All Photos: European Commission/Facebook]
NATIONAL INTERESTS COLLIDE WITH GLOBALIST CONTROLS AS CZECHS RESIST E.U. GUN BAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “The
Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s executive
Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks,
forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals, allowing for the private
ownership of semi-automatic weapons,” CNS News reported
Tuesday. “The Czech interior ministry now wants to loosen its own laws a
step further, proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would
allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the
perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice or Berlin, the
Czech news agency ctk reported.”
The upshot:
The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.
In
other words, they recognize an armed citizenry is “necessary to the
security of a free State,” something the Founding Fathers in this
country recognized as a self-evident truth, as do those intent on
undermining that security and freedom.
Despite that hopeful sign of moving in the right direction, the Czech Republic still has a long way to go. Per GunPolicy.org, globalist gun-grabbers in their own right who nonetheless provide an invaluable online compilation of world gun laws:
The
regulation of guns in the Czech Republic is categorised as restrictive …
In the Czech Republic, the right to private gun ownership is not
guaranteed by law.
This means all the usual
infringements: Mandatory background checks and training, licensing,
registration and storage requirements. Still, there are provisions for
both open and concealed carry, “subject to a valid permit (in
exceptional circumstances).”
That’s what they’re hoping to improve
on, and helps explain why they’re resistant to new outside gun grabs –
people who stand to lose something have something to fight for. Many in
the EU have lived under surrendered rights regimes for so long they
literally have no idea they’ve been robbed of their birthrights, and
they wouldn’t have it any other way.
The Czechs weren’t alone in
raising objections, albeit Sweden initially squawked because it would
impact “sport shooting.” Finland made a more persuasive argument (based
on a history personally remembered by some still living) that “such ban
would affect its national defense, which relies on reservists being able
to train with semi-automatic weapons,” but with the new agreement
side-stepping those (for now), their interior minister announced she is
“very pleased with the outcome.” Juncker junking European national sovereignty…“Of course we would have liked to go further,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Junker admitted in the late December press release announcing the agreement. Of course. And the globalists intend to keep at it until they get the total control they covet.
“We
have fought hard for an ambitious deal that reduces the risk of
shootings in schools, summer camps or terrorist attacks with legally
held firearms,” Juncker declared, cavalier in his admission of just who
was being disarmed. Globalists meet to dictate where “migrants” will be embedded next.As
“legally held firearms” aren’t the problem, the only logical conclusion
is Juncker and his kind want them all “illegal” (at least the ones they
don’t control) so the murderous enemies embedded in the replacement
cultures they are importing have an even greater advantage. And as we
see from “progressives” trying to do the same subversion here, those
resisting on both counts are increasingly demonized as haters and
extremists.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Data posted on the Treasury Department’s website
indicates that the federal government’s total public debt outstanding
increased by $1,054,647,941,626.91 during 2016. Treasury’s online charts
show that the federal debt was $18,922,179,009,420.89 on Dec. 31, 2015,
the last business day of 2015. On Dec. 30, 2016, the last business day
of 2016, it had increased to $19,976,826,951,047.80 — an increase of
more than one trillion dollars.
A summary of this data compiled by CNSNews.com noted that the
increase in the debt equaled $8,860.65 for each of the 119,026,000
households in the United States as of September, according to Census
Bureau estimates.
Furthermore, in case anyone wants to place all of the blame for the
debt increase on the Democrats, CNSNews noted that during 2016, while
Democrat Barack Obama controlled the presidency, Republicans controlled
both houses of Congress.
This is significant, since, according to the Constitution, all bills
for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives
(Article I, Section 7), and Congress shall have power to borrow money on
the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8).
Consequently, even the most profligate occupant of the Oval Office
cannot spend a dime or borrow a dime unless Congress gives its approval.
As anyone who has studied even basic economics has learned, the
public debt is the cumulative result of budget deficits; that is,
government spending exceeding revenues.
If we look at the history of the national debt during the past 39
years, we may be surprised to find that our nation’s fiscal health — in
terms of the size of the national debt — fared better under Democrats
Carter and Clinton than under the ostensibly conservative Ronald Reagan
and both presidents Bush, before escalating more rapidly under Democrat
Obama.
An article posted by The New American in 2014 cited
as authoritative a source as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
which had released a report showing that although that year’s deficit
would be much smaller than those of recent years, there was ominous
news. The CBO report continued on to point out that “later in the coming
decade … deficits [will] grow and federal debt [will] climb.” The
national debt, according to the CBO, will be $27 trillion in 2024. We
also noted:
The reason for the increasing deficits
over time is simple: Government spending is projected to outpace the
government’s revenues. Projected outlays for 2014 are estimated to be
$3.5 trillion but increase to more than $4.1 trillion in just three
years. By 2024, the CBO estimates that government spending will be close
to $6 trillion a year and continuing to grow by nearly four percent
annually thereafter. With the economy struggling to get back to
three-percent annual growth, one can see that this is a race that the
economy cannot win. With a national debt approaching $18 trillion, that
translates into more than $200,000 of federal debt for every
private-sector worker, according to Terence Jeffrey writing for CNS
News.
The dire predictions made in 2014 are materializing. Back then, the
national debt was approaching $18 trillion. As we saw, it reached almost
$19 trillion by the end of 2015 and almost $20 trillion by the end of
last year. We are now seven years away from 2024, and seven trillion
dollars away from the ominous predicted debt target. With the increase
in the national debt being more than one trillion dollars last year,
that forecast looks to be right on the money.
Of course, the continued economic death march into hopeless debt need
not continue, if our federal government can balance its budget through a
combination of less spending and greater tax revenues as a result of
policies that will stimulate business, generating higher profits and
more corporate tax revenue. The great unknown is exactly what economic
policies incoming President Donald Trump will put into place.
In an article posted last September, we discussed
the potential effects of one of the economic solutions proposed by
Trump — a massive cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent
to just 15 percent. We predicted that Trump’s cut would invite companies
holding cash abroad to seriously consider investing it in the United
States, which would, in the words of Terry Jones in Investors Business Daily, “lead to an enormous jump in job creation — yes, Reagan-like job creation.”
When considering whether a cut in corporate tax rates by a full
20-percentage points would have much of an impact on our economy, a look
at history is appropriate. As we noted in the aforementioned article:
During the John F. Kennedy
administration, income tax rate cuts resuscitated a moribund economy,
just as they did under Ronald Reagan. But history has failed to record
adequately what happened when Bill Clinton cut the capital gains tax
(remember Clinton-omics?) from 28 percent to 20 percent in the highest
bracket, and from 15 percent to 10 percent in the lowest: real
(inflation-adjusted) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person grew from
$38,000 in 1994 to $45,000 in 2001. At the same time, the country’s
national debt fell as a percent of output by a full 10 percentage
points, from 66 percent to 56 percent.
If Clinton’s cut in the capital gains tax resulted in a 10-percent drop in the national debt, could Trump follow suit?
The key question is not so much if Trump can repeat Clinton’s success
story, but if he will be willing and able to do so. This depends on two
factors: One, he must follow though on his campaign promises and
introduce the tax cuts, and two, members of Congress, including the
Republican majority in both houses, must be cooperative and pass
legislation putting these proposals into effect.
The annual trillion-dollar increase in the national debt must be
stopped and reversed, or economic ruin will surely fall upon us by 2024.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Facing its best chance of passage ever under the new GOP-controlled
Congress and the incoming Trump administration, wildly popular
legislation to open up the Federal Reserve’s books, known as “Audit the
Fed,” was just re-introduced in the 115th Congress. The bill, sponsored
by dozens of lawmakers in the House and the Senate the day it was
re-introduced, would force the obsessively secretive and increasingly
controversial central bank to submit to a full government audit. But the
Fed and its apologists do not plan to allow a real audit without a
tough fight.
The legislation, first introduced many years ago by constitutional
champion and former congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), aims to stop the
Federal Reserve from concealing vital information about its operations
from Congress, lawmakers said. If and when the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act”
becomes law, the four-page bill would require a full audit of the Fed’s
Board of Governors and the privately owned regional Fed banks by the
Comptroller General of the United States. In the Senate, the bill is
known as S. 16, while in the House it goes by H.R. 24.
“No institution holds more power over the future of the American
economy and the value of our savings than the Federal Reserve, yet Fed
Chair Yellen refuses to be fully accountable to the people’s
representatives,” declared
liberty-oriented Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.; shown on left), the lead
sponsor in the U.S. Senate and the son of Fed foe Ron Paul. “The U.S.
House has responded to the American people by passing Audit the Fed
multiple times, and President-elect Trump has stated his support for an
audit. Let’s send him the bill this Congress.”
The measure’s strong support in Congress, despite a fierce lobbying
and propaganda campaign launched by the central bank and the
establishment behind it, may have something to do with its incredible
popularity with the American people. Polls show that the legislation is supported by an overwhelming super-majority of Americans, with some three fourths supporting Fed transparency and just one in ten opposing it.
President-elect Donald Trump has also been a vocal supporter of auditing the Fed and even reining it in more broadly.
On the campaign trail, Trump blasted the central bank’s politically
motivated manipulation of the U.S. economy and its artificially low
interest rates. He also denounced the “very false economy” propped up by
Fed monetary gimmicks. And, in a swipe at one of his opponents in the
GOP primary, he touted transparency. “It is so important to audit The
Federal Reserve,” Trump said, echoing comments made by his advisers and
associates.
Failed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, a longtime establishment
operative, hit back at Trump immediately, saying he should not malign or
even comment on the increasingly unpopular institution that controls
America’s monetary system. But Trump was not deterred. In fact, the
president-elect and his vice president have both praised the gold standard —
an honest monetary system that would obliterate the banking cartel’s
stranglehold on the U.S. economy. And so, there is little doubt among
analysts that President Trump would happily sign the “Audit the Fed”
bill if and when it reaches his desk.
In the House, where support for the legislation is enormous,
lawmakers also celebrated the bill. “The American public deserves more
insight into the practices of the Federal Reserve,” said lead sponsor
Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.; shown above), a leading
constitutionalist in Congress. “Behind closed doors, the Fed crafts
monetary policy that will continue to devalue our currency, slow
economic growth, and make life harder for the poor and middle class. It
is time to force the Federal Reserve to operate by the same standards of
transparency and accountability to the taxpayers that we should demand
of all government agencies.”
Former Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, who wrote
the original Audit the Fed bill and made it mainstream, applauded his
son Rand and his friend Massie for their efforts. “For 105 years, the
Federal Reserve has exercised almost absolute and unquestioned authority
over America’s monetary policy,” said Paul, who has long advocated
abolishing the controversial central bank altogether. “The result has
been a boom-and-bust business cycle, growth in government, increasing
income inequality, and a loss of over 90 percent of the dollar’s
purchasing power. No wonder almost 80 percent of Americans support Audit
the Fed!”
Paul, who vowed to rally his supporters at Campaign for Liberty
behind the bill, also said he thought Trump was onboard. “While
campaigning for President, Donald Trump not only criticized the Fed’s
easy money policies, he also endorsed Audit the Fed,” the former
lawmaker said. “With a President who supports Audit the Fed finally
sitting in the White House, Congress has no excuse to not quickly pass
this bill and finally let the American people know the truth about the
Fed’s conduct on monetary policy, including its dealings with foreign
governments and central banks.”
Among other provisions, the legislation would require the
nonpartisan, independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
“conduct a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors
and reserve banks within one year of the bill’s passage.” The GAO would
then report back to the American people’s representatives within 90 days
of the audit being completed — for the first time in U.S. history.
Among the Fed schemes and operations that would be audited are
transactions with foreign central banks and governments — many of which
have received multi-billion dollar bailouts. Also subject to
transparency would be “deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary
policy matters.” Transactions made under the direction of the powerful
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would also be subject to sunshine,
as would discussions and communications between Fed employees, officers,
and board members related to the relevant activities.
Perhaps anticipating the oncoming onslaught in favor of transparency,
Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Patrick Harker, who runs
the privately owned regional Fed bank, defended the controversial
institution and its alleged decentralization. Speaking to an audience at
Philadelphia’s famous Athenaeum library shortly before the New Year,
the regional Fed boss even claimed, falsely, that the central bank is
already “altogether transparent.”
“Recent calls to audit the Fed are actually about assessing our
policy decisions,” fumed the central banker, as if the American people
and their elected representatives had no right to “assess” the immensely
influential “policy decisions” of their ostensible public servants. To
understand just how detached from reality and the American people the
Fed has become, imagine the head of any government agency or even
private sector institution speaking out against transparency because the
audit was “actually about assessing our policy decisions.”
Legislation to Audit the Fed would threaten also “the critical
independence that Congress mandated” when it established the
controversial institution in 1913, perhaps encouraging “hasty decisions
to please political ends,” complained Harker, echoing Fed boss Yellen.
Of course, in reality, the Federal Reserve Act was not even drafted by
Congress. Instead, it was written largely by mega-bankers meeting
secretly on Jekyll Island, as documented in the enormously influential
book The Creature From Jekyll Island. And the mega-bankers’ agenda was hardly altruistic: They designed a federally backed banking cartel to hijack the economy and secretly enrich themselves at public expense.
The Fed transparency bill already has eight co-sponsors in the U.S.
Senate, and more are expected in the coming days and weeks. In the
House, Audit the Fed had 41 co-sponsors as of January 3, the day it was
introduced, with more expected soon. And already, organizations and
activists from across the political spectrum are rallying supporters to
ensure that the 115th Congress makes history by passing into law the
first real audit of the shadowy central bank.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Hedge fund billionaire George Soros is used to having his way. But
the megalomaniacal currency speculator and political manipulator bet on
the wrong horse in the Trump vs. Clinton race, and even all the millions
of dollars he spent trying to rig the outcome failed, in the end. It
must be hard for the 86-year-old globalist to face up to the fact that
the world is not his oyster and his admitted “fantasies about being God” are just that — fantasies, albeit far from harmless ones. (The BlackLivesMatter riots and the anti-Trump riots he helped finance look more like the work of Lucifer than God, in this reporter’s humble opinion.) However, Soros refuses to accept that he lost and Trump won. So he is
committing a sizable portion of his enormous wealth, along with his
outsized political and media influence, to crippling and delegitimizing
the incoming Trump administration, with more riots, protests, and media
hit pieces. Within hours after Trump had been officially named the
victor, the Soros-funded rent-a-mobs were causing mayhem in streets all
across America. And while that havoc was still playing out, Soros
convened a closed confab of fellow globalist billionaires
at a Washington D.C. luxury hotel to plan their anti-Trump
counterattack. They call their plutocrat club the Democracy Alliance, an
especially hypocritical label since they lavishly fund individuals and
organizations that are working to undermine our constitutional republic
(which they erroneously call a democracy).
And just two weeks after Election Day, on November 22, Soros’s Open Society Foundations announced
a “$10 Million Initiative to Confront Hate.” This new money spigot will
expedite funding to organizations combating the “harsh rhetoric and
policy proposals” of Donald Trump “during the 2016 presidential campaign
that drew on racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic,
anti-LGBTI, and other forms of hate.” Which means, of course, that
there will be ample funding for the “anti-hate” protesters who will be
demonstrating (and likely rioting) on Inauguration Day, while spewing
obscene and hateful remarks, burning Trump in effigy and carrying
facsimiles of his head around on pikes (as they did in the November
melees). Invoking Hitler While Labeling Trump a “Would-be Dictator”
The latest hit piece by Soros personally is a column
he penned for Project Syndicate, which has been carried by hundreds of
newspapers, news services, and websites worldwide, and in which he calls
Donald Trump “a con artist and would-be dictator.” The December 28
column, entitled “Open Society Needs Defending,” begins with a lengthy
lead-in subtitle: “Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of
closed societies — from fascist dictatorships to mafia states — are on
the rise. Because elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate
expectations and aspirations, electorates have become disenchanted with
the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism.”
Soros then “brings his personal history to bear on the threat posed
by today’s ascendant populists,” notes the Project Syndicate promotional
puff. Soros writes:
I am an 86-year-old Hungarian Jew who
became a US citizen after the end of World War II. I learned at an early
age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. The
formative experience of my life was the occupation of Hungary by
Hitler’s Germany in 1944. I probably would have perished had my father
not understood the gravity of the situation. He arranged false
identities for his family and for many other Jews; with his help, most
survived.
However, Soros neglects to mention some very important facts in his
biographical reflection, such as that he helped Hitler and the Nazis
confiscate the wealth and belongings of his fellow Jews. What’s more, he
feels no guilt, regret, or remorse about being a Holocaust helper,
because, as he put it, if the hadn’t done it “somebody else would be
taking it away anyhow.” However, he undoubtedly regrets being so candid
about all of this during an interview with the CBS 60 Minutes
program back in 1998. He must have realized afterward how ghoulishly
cold-blooded and inhuman his words and demeanor appeared, and how
violently that clashed with the philanthropic humanitarian image he was
crafting for himself. For some reason, the CBS video of the program
disappeared, and that disappearance has been the subject of much
speculation concerning possible legal threats and/or financial
inducements by Soros to keep the damning footage buried. The recent
mysterious resurfacing of the 60 Minutes interview has likewise been the subject of much speculation. In addition to the recently released WikiLeaks files on Soros, which
are decidedly less flattering than the canned biography of the mogul on
Wikipedia, the CBS video allows Soros to demolish his own carefully
invented saintly image with his own words. For the past couple of
months, the long-lost 60 Minutes interview with Soros has been
popping up on YouTube and various websites, only to be taken down due to
CBS copyright challenges. But, like a Whack-a-Mole, it keeps popping up
on new sites as fast as Soros and CBS can whack it down. The
long-suppressed interview of an unrepentant Soros admitting he was a
Holocaust helper further demolishes his credibility to pose — in his
words — as the “conscience of the world.”
During the 60 Minutes program CBS interviewer Steve Kroft
asks Soros (born Gyorgy Schwartz) about his boyhood in Hungary during
the Nazi occupation. Kroft rolls vintage footage of long lines of
Hungarian Jews — men, women, children — being loaded onto trains. Here
is a partial transcript of the interview (emphasis added):
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.
KROFT: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) … by — by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead.
One should understand and — and anticipate events and when — when one is
threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a — a
very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that’s —
that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the
psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all.
Maybe as a child you don’t — you don’t see the connection. But it wasit
created no — no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For
example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I
could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well,
of course I c — I could be on the other side or I could be the one from
whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I
shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way,
it’s just like in markets — that if I weren’t there — of course, I
wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it
away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a
spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in
taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
No sense of guilt then and none now. Neither does
this Nazi collaborator suffer from any sense of guilt over smearing
opponents with false charges of fascism or neo-Naziism, or funding
groups that do the same. Nor does he suffer any qualms of conscience
over crashing whole national economies and national currencies
(Malaysia, Thailand, Britain), causing untold devastation and suffering
for millions of people. Besides, a few million dollars in grants to
activist NGOs and media groups usually suffices to repair any of the PR
damage done by his predatory practices.
Most likely, it is his Deity Complex that prevents him from ever
experiencing feelings of guilt. After all, if one is “God” what is there
to feel guilty about? But mortals who think they’re divine invariably
suffer in other ways. “Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have
very strong fantasies of being mad,” Soros once admitted to a British television audience. “In
fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in
my family. So far I have escaped it.” Has he really escaped it? Many
would disagree; his madness seems quite apparent. In addition to his
most recent rant against Trump, he has turned Project Syndicate — his
own media platform — into a non-stop free-fire zone aimed at the
president-elect by leftwing “public intellectuals” such as Carl Bildt,
Jorge Castaneda, Barry Eichengreem, Richard Haass, Joschka Fischer, Brad
DeLong, Peter Singer, Javier Solana, and dozens of others.
The 60 Minutes interview is well worth tracking down and
well worth watching (before it gets permanently deep-sixed down the
memory hole). Together with everything else that has come out on Soros
in the intervening years, it provides more than enough evidence to
banish the megalomaniacal mogul from all civil society and provide him
with a padded cell where he can contemplate and celebrate his divinity
without wreaking havoc on all mankind.
Obama and his policies have not been defeated by a Trump win. Any such thinking is shortsighted in a spiritual sense,
for the election changed absolutely nothing on
the spiritual front. America is a wicked nation; wickedness is the
source of her ills; and wickedness can be defeated only by spiritual
weapons, not by the carnal weapons of politics and “conservatism.” But
this thinking is shortsighted even from a political standpoint. “Leftist”
socialism and humanism are so deeply ingrained in American institutions
that no amount of tinkering by conservatives will bring fundamental
change. They can endure temporary setbacks, knowing that, apart
from a miracle, their policies will ultimately prevail. They control the
public schools, the universities, the highest courts. They have wormed
their way throughout the government and military. The nation has been
psychologized, feminized, welfarized, homosexualized, pacifized. The
fear of appearing racist, misogynist, homophobic, and Islamophobic has
crippled the thinking of a large portion of the population. Obama is not
defeated. Consider an excerpt from “Obama Plans to Rule America Outside
the White House” by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage magazine, Nov.
25, 2016: “Obama can no longer be commander-in-chief. Instead he’s
plotting to become organizer-in-chief. The infrastructure for the
organization was put into place long before anyone thought that Hillary
might lose. Organizing for Action gave him his own
organizing hub. … Now that Trump won, it’s an axis to build a personal
counterrevolution around. … Obama is not a conventional politician.
He’s an organizer and a
campaigner at the vanguard of a radical movement that seeks to control
traditional institutions, but doesn’t feel bound by them. … The
demoralization of the Democrats is, as Obama put it, an opportunity.
Social chaos is a time for the left to overthrow and undermine
traditional institutions. Fear, anger and despair are radicalizing. The
left has always operated by throwing bombs and then profiting from the
fallout. That’s Obama’s agenda. … While the leftist rioters in the
streets are
garnering the most attention, the real threat comes from the network of
staffers dubbed Obama Anonymous … Obama isn’t going to retire. He’s
not going to spend years puttering around with a presidential library.
… Obama believes that he can rule America from outside the White
House. And he might be right. … Obama is not done transforming
America. And America isn’t done with him yet.” “Righteousness exalteth a
nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
Juncker junking European national sovereignty…“Of course we would have liked to go further,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Junker admitted in the late December 
Globalists meet to dictate where “migrants” will be embedded next.As
