Posted on 12/03/2012 10:05:22 AM PST by PieterCasparzen
Edited on 12/08/2012 9:15:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
What is the proposed Judeo-Christian, Small Business (JCSB) Think Tank (Discussion threads here on FR) really up against ?
Why can’t small business scream loud enough for their Congressmen to hear them ? Because they do not have a think tank or non-governmental organization (NGO) that is rabidly pushing their agenda in government and the private sector.
This article will give basic historical background on elitism, to dispel any illusions we may have about our efforts. It’s aim is to convince the JCSB membership to stop any and all reliance on this or that politician, and actually make it clear that what the think tank needs to be working towards is, in fact, just the reverse, getting politicians - any and every one, regardless of party affiliation - to rely on the think tank.
If your net worth was over a billion dollars, how much influence could you have on society in your home State ? Quite a bit, right ? You could hire people in businesses you own and non-profits that you set up, you could have a PR staff that would get your message out all over the State. You could have just about anyone you’d like elected to just about any office - but you actually wouldn’t have to, since no matter who was elected, they would take your calls from your staff and work with them. Thinking about this puts the power of elites into perspective. Global elitism has billions of dollars and thousands of extremely influential people at its disposal. If we think small business is going to have much of an effect through the efforts of one single think tank owned by small business, we’ve “got another think coming”. There will have to be thousands of businesses and organizations set to the task of taking America back from the overeducated idiots that have been running it for the past hundred years. But every journey begins with a single step.
Permit me to go so far as to paraphrase the inimitable WFB, and reapply his construction to our current dilemma:
“The founding of an erudite institution of, by and for the interests of Judeo-Christian free enterprise and squarely opposed to secretive control of society by arrogant and corrupt elites, in history’s quintessential instance of said interests, would seem to suggest a supreme redundancy. Yet nothing could be further from the truth: it would simply stand athwart elitism, yelling Jackass, while contemporaneously none are able or willing to understand, acknowledge or see a need for it.”
So what of President George W. Bush and the “arab spring” ? I thought he was our guy, on our side. He was pro-Christian, and pro-small business - there’s no doubt about that according to all that I’ve read. This is confusing - just who would the JCSB Think Tank have working with them and who is working against them ?
The Sad Reality of Global AIDS Relief: Make a Crisis and Use Every Aspect of It
An important fact to remember, in trying to help small business, is that Non-Govermental Organizations (NGOs), influential think tanks, etc., control both Democrat and Republican administrations. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was signed into law by George W. Bush in 2003 and allocated $15 billion towards “the U.S. Government initiative to help save the lives of those suffering from HIV/AIDS around the world”. Most of the money was to be spent by awarding contracts to NGOs who would, in theory, be achieving the goals of the program. To Washington politicians, a billion dollars is a “miniscule” amount, because it’s a small percentage of total government spending. But a billion dollars per year can be used to employ something on the order of 10,000 or more people, which of course translates into an extremely powerful influence effort.
A report, Following the Funding for HIV/AIDS: A Comparative Analysis of the Funding Practices of PEPFAR, the Global Fund and World Bank MAP in Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia made by the Center for Global Development (CGD) (formed in 2001 by three little globalists) confirmed my suspicions: the $15 billion went into a virtual black hole of non-governmental organizations who lined up to feed at the taxpayer money trough. The 2007 report recommended to PEPFAR the following (and this is coming from the globalists themselves):
“PEPFAR should publicly release, on an ongoing basis, the extensive financial data that it already collects. In particular, PEPFAR should post the following information on its website: annual commitments (i.e., obligations) to each RO and SRO, including the breakdown of funding by program area; and total annual disbursements (i.e., outlays) for each RO. PEPFAR should consider posting annual RO expenditures on its website. At a minimum, it should ensure that country-level staff have access to such expenditure data so that they can assess funding against targets achieved."
RO means “recipient organization” and SRO means “sub-recipient organization” in their little jargon.
So where did President George W. Bush get the idea that AIDS in developing countries was $15 billion worth of crisis for America ? It was officially passed to him, hidden in plain sight, via various papers written at the end of the Clinton administration and at the beginning of his own. Unless we have even more drastic departure from the rule of law, there still must be some written basis for what a President orders, so history does not record that he simply spent $15 billion one day because he had a flash of genius. Generally this is in the form of expert advice, in writing, that forms the basis for Presidential orders and signature on legislation. The Council on Foreign Relations, in their note National Intelligence Estimate: Global Infectious Disease Threat and its Implications for the United States, seemingly picked up immediately on the unclassified Nation Intelligence Estimate NIE 99-17D, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States (let me know if you’d like the original PDF file, much easier to read), which was published in January 2000 just as Clinton left office. The document, being an NIE, justified Presidential action by elevating the impact of AIDS on countries all over the world to the level of a national security threat to the United States. The document’s orgins are provided in its Preface:
“In June 1996, President Clinton issued a Presidential Decision Directive calling for a more focused US policy on infectious diseases. The State Department’s Strategic Plan for International Affairs lists protecting human health and reducing the spread of infectious diseases as US strategic goals, and Secretary Albright in December 1999 announced the second of two major U.S. initiatives to combat HIV/AIDS. The unprecedented UN Security Council session devoted exclusively to the threat to Africa from HIV/AIDS in January 2000 is a measure of the international community’s concern about the infectious disease threat.”
That sounds strange, Bill Clinton leaving a task - a national security crisis - for George Bush to work on. Is it normal for a Presidential administration to come into office and have such ready-made advice from the prior one ? Well, one of the founders of the Center for Global Development (CGD), Nancy Birdsall, edited a neat book in 2007, entitled "The White House and the World: A Global Development Agenda for the Next U.S. President". Just in case Obama was not sure exactly how to pick up where George Bush left off. Now that’s audacity - an unelected think tank member writing a 386 page book provided as an agenda to a sitting U.S. President. It certainly tells us that the “road ahead” may not be mapped out by an administration, so much as it is for them. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) had a glowing comment on the book:
“The Center for Global Development has a track record of providing important insights into how the United States can improve global development policy and thereby tackle some of the world’s most intractable problems. This book continues that tradition and helps advance our understanding about how the next administration can improve a critical arm of our global engagement.” - Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Since we see a continual program that spans administrations from at least Clinton to Obama, we have clear, publicly-available evidence that elitists and NGOs are able to prompt Congress and the Executive branch to do their bidding regardless of who is in office. This provides a good idea of why the U.S. government only gives lipservice to American small business; not only are NGO voices more powerful, but they also enjoy complete “bipartisanship” - and they literally outlast the politicians. Of course, this type of influence is not limited to the Executive Branch, as Congressmen and staffers draw from the very same well.
So Where Did the Money Go ?
For all of the billions that have gone to NGOs from all U.S. government agencies, they remain shrowded in secrecy as to what exact payments were made to which NGOs. PEPFAR’s report web page shows none of this detail, and reveals an ever-dwindling effort at even creating the reports every year. This lack of effort even includes actually recycling photographs used in reports from prior years, and simply adding in a rehash of typical babbling of nonsensical text, charts and graphs. There are plenty of numbers and percentages, by function, by country, by year - every which way - except by NGO. All NGO data is summarized with the NGO dropped out of the dataset. The American public then, has no idea of what is going on inside each NGO or which NGOs are even receiving funds. Certainly, to one who has owned a small business, the idea of a program handling over a billion dollars and having no ability to drill down to the details of payments made is appalling, but for politicians run amok it merits only a smirk.
How many billions have been paid by the U.S. government to Soros-affiliated organizations or others that are working on the same or a similar globalist agenda as Soros is unclear. While the U.S. government presents this (only to people who bother to dig for the information) as “helping” U.S. government efforts by “leveraging” additional money and all the organization and effort that NGOs provide, from the NGO’s perspective - for those NGOs who have their own “global plans” - they are using money they receive from U.S. government programs to finance their own efforts, which they define, plan and execute on their own. Of course, the NGOs had to come up with program documentation in order to apply for grants, but there was no requirement for them to disclose the entirety of their plans and strategies, including those not in response to the government’s program requests. So we are left with the question of who is actually helping who, is the horse pulling the cart or is it the other way around ?
What Agenda Was the Money Used For ?
Ostensibly, the money was (and continues to be) used to cure and prevent AIDS. But let’s take a look at the Soros network of NGOs and those who are aligned with their causes, since we know they did receive a great deal of money (in fact, I have not found an NGO involved that does not have some connection to the Soros network, either in personnel or in philosophy). What do we know about the Soros agenda ? George Soros has documented some of his rambling views in an article entitled “The Capitalist Threat” , published in Atlantic Monthly, Volume 279, No. 2, February 1997. While it may provide insights into the decades of repressed guilt which undoubtedly drives him to madness, one should not expect to make much sense out of it, as it contains only moments of clarity amidst a pile of gibberish. By the end, one simple fact is obvious: it’s a manifesto that states, in effect, that he has figured things out correctly, and the world needs to do what he says. The similarities to Mein Kampf, in his arrogance and at the same time babbling incoherence masquerading as intelligence, are nothing short of stunning, not only in and of themselves, but in that they are systematically ignored by the nations of the world. What should be most concerning is the fact that at least Hitler rose to power in a single nation and was therefore possible to attack militarily, whereas Soros operates behind the scenes and transnationally. Since he is not the leader of any government, he seems to have prevented any military action against his organization. He’s posing as just a simple “do-gooder”, and therefore typically tax-exempt, organization. So while superficially the money is being used for AIDs work (which has been not-so-ironically labeled as an effort to combat or fight AIDS, or a war on AIDS, promoting a redefinition of war from the implied “bad” literal to the “good” figurative sense), we know that Soros’s Open Society has its other agendas that it is working on simultaneously, e.g., improving civil society, et.al., and it receives funding from USAID (the State Department) for such activities as it is partnering with the State Department on those initiatives as well. As a non-governmental, private network of organizations, Open Society is not required to publish its internal communications, or disclose all activities and initiatives that it is working on. All we can know about Open Society’s true intentions is based on incoherent manifestos and what we see happening publicly. In the present situation, there is no public reconciliation of the real, private, long-term Soros goals regarding their operations, even though they receive some large but unknown amount of taxpayer dollars every year ostensibly in pursuit of various government-sponsored initiatives.
As he implemented the plans laid out for him, poor President Bush did run into some difficulty getting his wires crossed between reaching out for that political grandeur of helping the AIDS programs in Africa and trying to reach out to the Christians who formed his voting base at the same time. A lawsuit was filed that actually was covered by the news media, but it has been sufficiently not mentioned long enough for it to be wiped from almost everyone’s memory except for the lawyers involved and George Soros.
Soros’s Open Society Institue actually sued USAID, in AOSI v. USAID, when the administration required that Recipient Organizations sign an anti-prostitution pledge. Open Society sued based on First Amendment rights, that the organization’s efforts at distributing condoms to prostitutes was - you guessed it - Constitutionally-protected free speech. There was no way they could “combat the spread of AIDS”, said Open Society, without providing condoms to prostitutes in Africa. It must be nice: come up with a program, get inside the government to get the government to pay you to implement your program, sue the government using their own Constitution against them when they place a restriction on you that gets in your way - and then continue getting more money from them anyway to pay for you to continue as you want to. This issue is what tips us off to what Soros and many elitists and New World Order types actually seek in providing this help on “preventing” AIDS, which leads us to our next question.
Did Bill Clinton have a sudden flash of genius in 1996 when he issued his Presidential Decision Directive on infectious diseases ?
Hardly. In yet another irony (YAI), we step back to September 3-4, 1994, and visit with our old friends from the United Nations where they are meeting in Cairo, Egypt, of all places. That year, Mubarak was battling the Muslim Brotherhood, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, O.J. Simpson was arrested for murder and Mosaic Communications Corporation was incorporated. The attendees at the International Conference on Population and Development (held every 10 years) were hard at work writing the Cairo Declaration on Population and Development, which reads, in part:
“Population and Sustainable Development
4. Parliamentarians the world over have long recognized the delicate balance between population and natural resources. We believe that the population issue should be seen not in isolation, but within the larger context of sustainable development of the planet for the betterment of humankind: economic activity that increases the quality of life for all people through curbing excessive consumption and generating productive growth; alleviating poverty; achieving sustainable agricultural and industrial production, energy and natural resources in harmony with the environment; and improving health care and the quality of, and access to, education. Actions we take now to overcome the population and development problems of today will decide the future course of humankind. Resolution of such problems is essential to assuring dignity of all human beings. In addition, formulation of new and wide-ranging economic policies supportive of sustainable development, and initiation of international agreements based on such policies and approaches are essential.
Reproductive Health and Family Planning.
5. We welcome the approach that places family planning in the broader framework of reproductive health care. We urge all national governments to make responsible efforts to resolve their population issues in a way that respects their own national and cultural identity, values and tradition. We therefore commit ourselves, as elected representatives of the people, to do our utmost to remove all remaining barriers in our countries that inhibit access to family planning services, information and education, as well as to help support the provision of reproductive health and family planning services as widely as possible. We further urge Governments to ensure that all population and development policies and programs in our countries safeguard internationally recognized human rights.”
Yes, those nagging eugenics folks, who conveniently leave out many of the key views of Thomas Robert Malthus from their twisted logic yet are known as Malthusians anyway, are still hiding out among the elites who graciously take it upon themselves to preemptively head off all the world’s problems. In fact, amongst elites, population control remains a major concern. And yes, Bill Clinton took political heat from Christians for promoting an internationally recognized right to abortion, Muslim and Christian developing nations decried the conference and Muslims in America spoke out against it as well. Long time pro-life campaigner and Campaign Life Coalition leader Winifride Prestwich wrote, in the second of her 1994 three part series The evolution of population control, about the prior conference in 1974 in Bucharest:
“The UN Conference: 1974
It was clear from the very beginning that the Draft off the World Plan of Action was not acceptable to a large group of nations. The UN Conference became polarized: on the one hand were the Malthusians led by the U.S., and supported by the Scandinavian countries, and Britain; on the other side were the nations of Latin America and most of Africa, plus allies.
Casper Weinberger, the US Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, said that the foundation of the Draft Plan of Action was the US recommendation that the UN have universal family services and information, world-wide, by 1985. Moreover, the US delegation would suggest that the Plan would have as a world goal the reduction of population growth to replacement level by the year 2000.
Argentina launched an opening salvo for the other side with 105 amendments to the Plan of Action. (Over 300 amendments were put forward during the debates. Many more were tabled because of insufficient time.) Algeria led the African dissent. It was one Algerian representative who said: “Let Bucharest mark the end of the International Planned Parenthood Federation generation.” Amongst the countries which rejected the anti-life philosophy of the Plan were Brazil, Chad, Australia, Israel, Mongolia, Panama, Peru and the Vatican.
France insisted that the sovereign rights of each nation must be respected by the United Nations. The French delegate flatly rejected the imposition of foreign models as the answer to developing nations’ problems, and he urged that there be greater respect for fundamental human rights.
The family also came under attack. Some delegates did not support the idea that the family is the basic unit in society; some claimed the individual is the basic unit; J.P. Plonk of the Netherlands thought the family should be redefined to accommodate “new life styles and unions”, Placide de Palpe, the Belgian Minister of Social Affairs, insisted that “the family was the fundamental element of social equilibrium.” His government would support measures to maintain and develop the basic family unit. The traditional family survived the debate.”
AIDS Relief Gives Way to Arab Spring
But what about all the elitists other than those directly interested in population control; why do they participate ? Various developed nations, large corporations, Bill Gates, Bono etc., are all in on this AIDS/Africa campaign - why ? Of course they have various interests, including, but not limited to: corporate interests want the revenue that comes with development, donations represent tax breaks, celebrities and businesses want PR from concerts, promotions, etc., politicians get PR, while cycling tax dollars back to big business in their own country as Sales of pharmaceuticals, construction, etc., that the “recipient nations can’t afford”, people are usually personally invested in companies that profit, etc. Mind you, the AIDS Relief PR is positive PR across the entire political spectrum from far left to the far right - the Holy Grail of PR. Those who wanted to get the ball rolling, seeing the spread of AIDS happening in the 1980’s, must have realized that it could be put to use, with some creative marketing to the public, as a politically acceptable opener to get the population control programs that they’ve always wanted to implement off the ground.
Soros and other related elitists, however, have clearly stated and demonstrated that population control is not their main goal. Instead, they state that their goal is one of a new world order described by them as “open society”, which, of course, is nothing more than statism writ large. They share other elitist’s aim of promoting birth control in the developing world for the same reasons they do in the developed world: encouraging recreational sex as opposed to procreational sex. Statists always view recreational sex as providing an addictive vice as a distraction and precipitating the breakdown of the family (which allows for greater control by the state), both of which serve to also keep the poor class poor, which helps the state to control them. You’ll notice open society also promotes recreational drug use and coveting one’s neighbor’s goods. Standard statist strategy is to control religion, which, as an organized group, represents a possible challenge, and religion also brings into play a “higher authority” than the state. Therefore statists will always seek to marginalize, subvert or co-opt religion for the state. And there is ultimately the practical side of birth control, abortion and palliative care: population control of “the masses”, which the statist feels is an option he may need if his planned economy has difficulty figuring out how to feed everyone. The statist’s idea is simple: encourage “the masses” to have sex as a powerful distraction, but keep strict control over who has children, who raises the children and how they are raised. Abortion in the statist’s eyes allows women to kill off their own children that the state does not want to be born; this is clearly the goal in American inner cities. In order to induce women to kill their own children, today’s statists entice them with the power that comes from being able to manipulate men with sex, which is made possible if they can kill off any children they do not want to bear.
The so-called “empowerment of women” is also a key part of globalist, and specifically Open Society, strategy; it breaks down the family structure of the target nation’s society. In the rise of women to dominance and the marginalization of men in society, the globalists find some very powerful tools they can use to subjugate a target nation. The act of aggressive or even assertive resistance to the “new ideas” promoted by the globalist can be delegitimized by simply taking the idea of “manhood” out of society. The very idea of inidividuals maintaining their traditional morality is denigrated in favor of the globalist’s version of cohesion, “getting along”, promoting peace and unity, etc. Women, the statists know, typically take very well to these ideas of harmony, whereas men typically are more conflict-oriented. The statist seeks to emasculate men that are not part of the government machinery of state, keeping them cowering in fear of it, until the state eventually neutralizes any significant coordinated opposition.
Today’s globalist organizers, i.e., legions of Soros-funded scholars and program directors, etc., babble incoherently about a need to change society, chattering talking points of the Open Society Institute. Soros, in his manifestos, cleverly bases his ideas on the concept that universal truths are unknowable; yet he maintains that they must be continually sought after, implicitly declaring Open Society Institute the leader in his self-defined field of evolving truth (nice work if you can get it). Of course, this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at establishing Open Society as the de facto thought leader of all humanity, putting Scientology to shame in the sheer audacity of the scheme. To a society that has been secularized and programmed to think emotionally rather than intellectually, the concepts appear to be the work of a genius. While they are confusing to the point of incoherence, too many people attribute this to an assumed great intelligence of Soros and then accept whatever they are told by Open Society from there on. Even a rudimentary understanding of Scripture - or at least basic economic knowledge - could shed light on many of these falsehoods, but unfortunately all too often people have neither.
Several elitist camps steadily march towards their utopian New World Order where the unseen elitists do all the real planning and the United Nations becomes a governmental body that allows it’s subsidiary nations to quarrel but not make war (really, this time it will work, they promise). There are the Soros folks, the generic elitists, and the remaining real eugenics folks, sort of hiding out with the generic elitists. None of their real agendas have anything to do with AIDS prevention, since all of these camps are not worried about people dying, but about too many people living; AIDS prevention is just a door-opener. With the arab spring having all the earmarks of a “color revolution” operation approved and implemented by New World Order elitists working with the U.S. and some mixture of European governments (with Open Society being central), we can see that they are participating in government initiatives in the Middle East and North Africa (MEPI, PEPFAR, UNAIDS, etc.) in an effort to plant their own people in control there.
If you’d like a fascinating read, the report of the 1994 Conference is available in PDF format (197 pages of graphical text, so you can’t copy and paste), and it contains the opening statement of Mubarak at the conference starting at page 164 of the file. It was about all you could ask for from a Middle East leader at this point in time. It reveals a leader who does not want population control forced on the citizens of his country and it clearly illustrates the idiocy of his abandonment by the U.S. in favor of a New World Order puppet regime. Once the Soros operatives had their U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing from the State Department for AIDs prevention, empowering women, improving civil society, etc., and they set up shop in the middle east, the so-called Arab Spring Operation was a fait accompli. Being almost completely outsourced to NGOs, it’s true roots were masked and plausible deniability was available for the U.S. and other Western governments. The news media could then portray the revolutions - to a public unaware of elitism’s controlling influence - as indigenous political uprisings.
Were Judeo-Christian Interests Well-Served By Bush Admininstration Efforts in Egypt ?
The Judeo-Christian small business owner knows that immorality is ultimately bad for business, as it hurts customers, employees, government and the rule of law, and a whole host of other aspects of society which together form the framework in which they must try to do business and eke out a profit. So at least during the Bush years we had an administration that was on our side as Judeo-Christian Americans, right ? Not so fast.
So far the State Department has not scrubbed the country report for Egypt, of the International Religious Freedom Report 2004, produced by the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In the section “Restrictions on Religious Freedom”, we see the State Department blindly promoting so-called secular democracy in Mubarak’s Egypt, decrying any and all actions against any and all religious groups as religious persecution, which is, of course, an oversimplified approach. Right there along with all the other religious groups, the report adds in the Muslim Brotherhood as a persecuted group:
“Political parties based on religion are illegal. Pursuant to this law, the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal organization. Muslim Brothers speak openly and publicly about their views, although they do not explicitly identify themselves as members of the organization, and they remain subject to arbitrary treatment and pressure from the Government. During the period covered by this report, dozens of members of the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested and charged with membership in an illegal organization, and several others were prevented from traveling abroad. Dozens of suspected Brotherhood members were also released during this period. Seventeen independent candidates backed by the Muslim Brotherhood were elected to the People’s Assembly in the 2000 parliamentary elections, despite government-sponsored efforts to stop them, which included mainly limiting access to polling stations but also, in some instances, violence, detentions, and arrests.”
Even though America today is growing nonsensically adamant about the so-called separation of Church and State, the first sentence, in context, could be taken to suggest that political parties should be able to be based on religion. The Muslim Brotherhood is portrayed as a persecuted religious group, and that even though it organized simultaneously as a political group with the declared objective of supplanting the secular democracy with an islamic dictatorship, the report implies that it should also be protected as a persecuted religious group. Obviously, no one in 2004 had the courage to include the well-known, publicly available history of the Muslim Brotherhood dating back to 1928. For such an august institution as the U.S. Department of State to refer to such a group simply as some persecuted sect is actually quite disturbing.
What is clear throughout the entire report is that Mubarak indeed was a secularist, ruling in a country with a muslim tradition of hundreds of years with a population somewhere around 90% muslim, and was, with an iron fist, minimizing the ill effects of a) attempts at revolution (which every government has an assumed inherent right and duty to oppose), and b) violence toward non-muslims. It can only be seen as a tragic irony, given the State Department’s stated intention of “improving civil society”, aimed at promoting secularist government that allows for religious freedom, that all the clear signs of how well-balanced Mubarak’s reign was in controlling the violent ambitions of the Brotherhood and any other revolutionary groups over the years would be intentionally cast aside. Under Mubarak, most Egyptians were allowed to live as muslims as they had for hundreds of years, and amazingly Christians, Jews and even other groups were allowed to operate as well as long as they did not proselytize. Egypt under Mubarak may not have looked much like America, and may have had a harsh legal system (I have in no way researched enough to know just how harsh), but most certainly a workable balance of at least some sort was maintained, and Mubarak was more responsive than the Muslim Brotherhood to American interests, at least behind the scenes.
The revolving door between the State Department and globalist institutions is well known. And now perhaps we are coming to see that all government policy originates in think tanks and elite institutions. While I don’t know the exact authorship of this 2004 State Department report, the evidence is clear that America was already supporting, to the tune of billions, an agenda written by globalist elites, and, to some extent lobbying on behalf of a group that has called for the destruction of America. We see it playing out in Egypt today, as Soros’s synthetic revolution goes for the goal line, wrestling with the Muslim Brotherhood to nudge them out of its way in that country, now that Open Society no longer has a use for them as street muscle.
What It Means For Small Business
Judeo-Christian small business is concerned with the preservation of morality, the rule of law, national sovereignty and economic efficiency, both in government and the private sector. Any government waste leads to higher taxes, which are higher costs that are passed on in the form of higher prices. However, that dynamic produces no corresponding increase in wages. Thus government waste, like anything else that arbitrarily increases costs with no direct benefit, lowers the standard of living and worsens overall economic conditions. Accordingly, small business, like the public at large, should oppose foreign aid functioning as a conduit for taxpayer dollars to any kind of money-grabbing scheme.
Preservation of morality is fundamental to good business and economic liberty; to understand this we need only extrapolate to the extreme and consider the difficulty of doing business under a statist dictatorship. On a much more near-term scale, we can look at the globalist’s fixation, population control. The Bible clearly lays out a perfect, and, incidentally, the only moral solution to problems that become salient with populations too large to be effectively supported by their own efficiency level: personal responsibility, in the form of Biblical courtship and marriage. It's the simplest and best form of birth control - don’t have sex if you’re not married and don’t get married if the husband can’t support a family. And that solution does not cost billions of dollars, it’s free.
What is most disturbing about American foreign policy, under the influence of globalists and partnering with NGOs, is its seeming disregard of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law, as it marches towards statism under globalist rule. Globalists have no concern for the right the citizens of a nation (of which the globalist is not even a citizen of), or even of a region or jurisdiction of any kind, to practice their religion and live under their previously duly enacted laws without having to conform to the whims of the globalists, which are expressed in the form of new laws enacted by their corrupt puppets. As Jews and Christians, attempting to simply run our businesses and live our lives, we should be aware that the same globalist who meddles in the Middle East is meddling right here in America. They are pressing for government coercion in the religious faith and practice of small business owners and their customers and employees, affecting how we operate our businesses, even every aspect of our daily lives. In America, such meddling goes well beyond the limits imposed on government by the U.S. Constitution and, for all that it costs, it puts the nation in a far worse situation than if the meddling was eliminated.
Many people need to be made aware of what government is actually doing and what is motivating the actions, and how it affects their future. They need to be taught, in some cases simply admit, that what politicians and talking heads on TV are selling them as rights and justice is ironically the means by which they are losing their true rights and true justice. We need to wake up and see that the encroachment into the territory of our inherent rights as seen today is the water boiling around us toads. Only with intense, ongoing public scrutiny of elitism, overwhelming public influence and political pressure, and aggressive prosecution of all wrongdoing, will government be disinfested and the grip of elites on the rest of us be loosened.
Just wondering if you had settled on a name. JCSB
A word of caution. In starting any new organization it is wise to think “down the line.” In other words be careful picking a name that will restrict what you may want to do in the future.
Just my humble 2 cents
I wish to be added to your pinglist.
Not yet, I’m well aware being in the software business. Syllables, etc. We would certainly put effort into that.
You’ve made an FYI for everyone here, good.
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.