Tag Archives: sovereignty

Soros visits early childhood education center

Quotable Quotes from George Soros

To those right of center, George Sorors is evil incarnate. Whatever goes wrong, it’s Sorors fault. Given such position, the specifics of what he does goes unaddressed.

George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist founder of Open Society Foundations, has made his philosophy, objectives, and modus operandi perfectly clear, especially in the numerous very quotable quotes in his books, speeches, and public conversations.

Soros is an intellectual who is considered one of the best hedge fund managers in the world. His fortune, estimated at $8.6 billion, attests to his acumen. His Open Society Foundations, endowed at around $18 billion, is a grant-making machine amply capable of transforming markets and societies.

His objectives, as clearly expressed in his own words, matter.

A man with a mission

Soros objectives could be boiled down to two of his quotes:

When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society.

An open society is a society which allows its members the greatest possible degree of freedom in pursuing their interests compatible with the interests of others.

Back in the late 1970s, when Soros started his philanthropic work, he funded educational initiatives for Black South Africans and gave financial support to dissidents of the Communist regime in the European Eastern Block. When South African apartheid dissolved and the Soviet Union collapsed, Soros turned his attention to other “enemies of open societies.”

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.

According to information on its website, Open Society Foundations spends approximately one in five dollars in the United States.

Why? Because most people, including George Soros, view the U.S. as the hot bed of capitalism.

The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.

Capitalist threat?

Such view of capitalism espoused by someone who made his fortune in the world’s capital markets is surprising.

However, today, Soros views his same theory of reflexivity that led to his success in the capital markets as a destabilizing force that needs government regulation.

Reflexivity is the “gap between perception and reality.” According to Soros markets often operate on perception, so prices reflect perception not reality. Reliance on past performance and ideas of how markets should behave can become useless when perceptions of the day interfere with prices.

Add to reflexivity what Soros sees as a tendency of markets toward excess, and we have, according to Soros, a recipe for instability, uncertainty, and economy mayhem.

His solution is to regulate institutions and the market

Throughout the 19th century, when there was a laissez-faire mentality and insufficient regulation, you had one crisis after another. Each crisis brought about some reform. That is how central banking developed.

A global regulatory system would be even better, as Soros explains in one of his books, The Crisis of Global Capitalism.

To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision-making.

In short, we need a global society to support our global economy.

Soros explained during his remarks on October 1, 2013, at the Global Economic Symposium,

Behind the invisible hand of markets lurks the visible hand of politics. Both the markets and the authorities are fallible; that is what makes their interaction reflexive.

The downside? According to Soros, reflexivity applies to society as a whole, not just to capital markets. He willingly admits that his views and actions are a result of his perceptions of reality. As his perceptions change given new information or new developments, he recalibrates.

Unfortunately political decision makers are seldom blessed with such wisdom. Their perceptions mushroom into eternal rules

More downsides

* Soros view of the ideal society “which allows its members the greatest possible degree of freedom in pursuing their interests compatible with the interests of others” clashes with his desire to achieve stability through heavy regulation. Nevertheless, he acts on his perception that wide-spread regulation is desirable.

* The perception is that capitalism, especially American capitalism, is the cause of imbalance, uncertainly, and economic disaster. The reality is that capitalism has been transformed into cronyism. Already excessive regulation exclude competitors from markets, low interest rates facilitate acquisitions and monopolies, largess showered on the populace disincentivizes workers.

* Power corrupts. Thus, it stands to reason that politicians with the power to heavily regulate and control markets, especially on a global scenario, face temptations to act in corrupts ways.

* Soros is quick to clarify that when he refers to global decision makers, he means a decision-making body that supports sovereign open societies. A nation that must take orders from a global decision maker cannot be called sovereign, whether it is an open society or not.

Watch who supports your political candidates

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations aim to transform economic and social systems in America. Some systems like the creation of elites through inflated stock or real estate prices, for example, could use improvement. But transformation from a sovereign nation with still some semblance of free markets and still some semblance of individual freedom into a subsidiary of a global decision-making body is not what we should want.

Open Society Foundations has created a vast network of grant-making entities that target candidates who will support George Soros’ vision of what America should look like.

Voters need to pay attention for whom they vote. Voters that reject the U.S.’s form of capitalism as does Soros are certainly free to vote for Soros-supported candidates. However, voters who still place faith in our markets and our sovereignty, might want to choose other candidates.

In this article the JVN blog discussed Soros’ economic objectives and how he is advancing those objectives in the U.S. In an earlier article, published in California Political News & Views, JVN discussed Soros’ focus on transforming America’s judicial system by funding selected candidates for district attorney.

_____________________________________

Pictured: This picture, from a timeline of initiatives on the Open Society Foundations website, shows Step by Step, an early childhood education institution funded by Open Society. These institutions are now in 120 countries, including the U.S.

Source of Soros’ Quotable Quotes: Most of the quotes in this JVN article come from Everyday Power: Daily Inspirational Quotes

Rapidly “Decarbonize” or Perish!

City officials from around the U.S. and around the world on December 5, 2017, signed the Chicago Climate Charter at the Inaugural North American Climate Summit. The mainstream media puts the number of city mayors that signed the Charter at “dozens” and “more than 50.” A count of signatures on the Charter posted by the host Mayor Rahm Emanuel shows 64 signatures. The media says 36 of the signatories were U.S. mayors.

Sixty four out of 4,416 cities in the world is 1.45% (assuming “city” means jurisdictions housing 100,000 or more residents). That’s not much. However, 56% of U.S. signatories might be sufficient for what could be the Charter’s objective.

The Charter’s objective is for cities and regions to continue working on commitments made under the Paris Climate Agreement, even though the U.S. withdrew from the Agreement. Just Vote No discussed why President Donald Trump did not renew U.S. participation.

Considering the fact that the U.S. is the only country at present not to be a participant in the Paris Climate Agreement, this Charter begs the question, why bother, if the other nations that do belong to the accord can carry on the work without the U.S. – or can they? Maybe it is not work that is needed but funding, otherwise called redistribution of resources from those according to their ability to those according to their need. Redistribution of wealth principally from the United States and the more affluent countries in the European Union to the poor countries was clearly spelled out in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Principals behind the Chicago Climate Charter are not U.S. city mayors simply wanting to ensure clean air and clean water for their jurisdictions, but global players, or in the case of California Governor Jerry Brown and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, global wannabes:

* Michael Bloomberg :  Former mayor of New York City and now United Nations Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change.

* The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy: An international alliance of cities and local governments with the objective of assisting jurisdictions to transition to low-emission societies.

* United States Conference of Mayors: Forum for city officials to discuss diverse challenges, but also founding member of the Global Parliament of Mayors.

* C40 Cities: Network of big cities committed to implementing measurable and sustainable action on climate change.

*Rahm Emanuel:  Mayor, City of Chicago, host of the 2017 North American Climate Summit, where the Chicago Climate Charter was signed.

* Jerry Brown: Governor of California and founder with Michael Bloomberg of America’s Pledge, an initiative to quantify actions of U.S. states, cities, and businesses to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

If these players are so determined to carry on the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and one prerequisite of the Paris Agreement is for more affluent countries to fund the climate change initiatives of the less affluent, they will surely find a way. For example, the Global Covenant of Mayors partnered with the European Investment Bank and the World Bank Group,

Paris, France, 12 December 2017 – Today, at the One Planet Summit in Paris, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy and World Bank Group, the world’s largest multilateral development bank, announced a new partnership to provide technical and financial assistance to 150 cities across the world undertaking aggressive climate action programs. The World Bank’s investment [loan] of $4.5 billion USD will ensure cities battling the increasing threats of climate change have the funding necessary to implement sustainable initiatives and climate resilience programs.

The lending will occur over the next three years under the umbrella of the World Bank’s City Resilience Program (CRP), and will draw on resources from IFC [International Finance Corporation] and MIGA [Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency] to provide financial and technical assistance to 150 cities, including current and future Global Covenant cities, to drive climate ambitions forward and upwards and build greater resilience to climate and disaster risks.

Let’s focus for a moment on the phrase “climate and disaster risks.” Governor Jerry Brown’s website mentions the Governor’s keynote speech on December 12, at the Two-Year Anniversary of the Paris Agreement:

Pointing to the state’s nearly year-round fire season – and the blazes still raging in Southern California – the Governor also sounded the alarm on the costly and destructive global impacts ahead unless we rapidly decarbonize.

CA wildfire nbcnews 2More effective action would be for Californians either not to build homes right next to wild areas that have regularly gone up in flames for as long as history exists, or for conservation rules to allow for cutting down vegetation where Californians want to build houses. This NBC News image shows how close this beautiful home is to the dense vegetation in the background.

 

Houston-flood-mapThe same can be said for building in floodplains. Floodplains will not move or disappear when we all “decarbonize.” They will stay where they are and keep flooding. And folks will keep building homes in them.  This map shows the blue areas of flood risk, all populated.

 

Weather.com makes an interesting observation regarding the flood zones, “Politicians appear to be supportive of this new development despite the inherent risks of building on a floodplain.” Intriguing. Cui bono – who benefits?

We should always keep in mind that government’s only source of funds is the taxpayer. Any redistribution of funds is redistribution from a taxpayer’s pocket to someone else’s pocket. Therefore, if you feel “climate crisis” is the cause of lives and property tragically lost in California’s fires or Houston’s floods, we are certain you will gladly pay any additional taxes that result from efforts to “rapidly decarbonize.” Otherwise, you can Just Vote No on “decarbonization” funding.

Whose Land is This Land, Anyway?

Background of the Bundy Ranch Standoff

The trial of the 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff might indeed be the “Trial of the Century.” That is, if the trial ever occurs, pertinent evidence and discoveries are properly and timely presented by the prosecution, and the judge sticks to procedure not politics. So, let’s see what happens on December 20, when the trial is supposed to resume.

Obviously, the judge needs to focus on the Bureau of Land Management and the FBI charges against Cliven Bundy – more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, cattle still grazing for free, and an armed standoff when the BLM and FBI came to remove the cattle from land under federal administration.

However, what is really at stake is not whether Cliven Bundy owes the money; or whether he, his sons and their allies are “domestic terrorists;” or whether ranchers need to remove their cattle from grazing land so no desert tortoise will be cramped for space. What is at stake are bigger issues: Who has rights to the land? By what right does the federal government still own 47% of the West and most of Nevada? Was it lawful for the federal government to repeal the Homestead Act? Or is it lawful for the federal government to ignore the traditional concept of “beneficial use?”

Side Issues of Interest

What is a racist, a Fascist, a supremacist, or a domestic terrorist these days? It’s whatever willing fools say it is. Perhaps we should view with a jaundice eye claims that Clive Bundy, his family and his allies are anti-government.

To liberty-minded people, government means what the Founding Fathers created, a system whereby states have all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

So, who is anti-government in the Bundy Ranch Standoff case? Who is upholding the 10th Amendment of the Constitution?

Ryan Bundy States His Case

Ryan Bundy, a defendant in the case acting on his own defense, stated his view in his opening statement on November 15, 2017. It is important that all liberty-leaning people read Ryan Bundy’s statement and understand the concept of sovereignty. Here is a highlight.  You can read the entire statements on several websites.  We recommend The Oathkeepers website.

“To have rights you must claim, use and defend… man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Rights you own. Privilege is afforded. Like renting or owning a house. Government asserts there are no rights, only privileges and unless we pay, we can’t be there. The State of Nevada says differently. These are my father’s rights. Everything we have comes from the land. That is wealth, not the dollar bill. The things we use all come from the land. Who controls the land, controls the wealth?

We create government to preserve and serve us. These are some of the beliefs of my family. That we have said we will do whatever it takes to defend is not a threat, it is a statement. Being right here before you today is part of doing whatever it takes. The Founding Fathers pledged whatever it would take… their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to defend rights.”

Bundy Ranch allies
Anti-government? Hardly!