World Bank is Holding The Entire Planet Hostage to Force Depopulation Policy

Author Topic: World Bank is Holding The Entire Planet Hostage to Force Depopulation Policy  (Read 20138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary”
if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation



The IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 2, 2010

It’s the eugenicist in the Discover Channel building multiplied by a million. Not simply a lone eco-terrorist saying “parasitic human infants” must die, but one of the largest international financial institutions demanding it. To make the contrast even more remarkable, James J. Lee scared the living daylights out of some Discovery Channel employees, the IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

The report, literally saturated with dehumanizing proposals, is devoted entirely to the World Bank’s long-term strategies in regards to population control:

“(…) economic policy and performance in the next decade will matter for population growth in the developing countries for several decades beyond; population policy and change in the rest of this century will set the terms for the whole of development strategy in the next.”

To illustrate how serious the World Bank is in achieving the overall strategy objectives on population control, the report does not shy away from outright threats:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

In the Foreword, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:

“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”

“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”

To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

Under the header “Incentives and disincentives” (page 121), the World Bank proposes several more examples of government interference in the affairs of free humanity:

“To complement family planning services and social programs that help to reduce fertility, governments may want to consider financial and other incentives and disincentives as additional ways of encouraging parents to have fewer children. Incentives may be defined as payments given to an individual, couple, or group to delay or limit child-bearing or to use contraceptives. (…). Disincentives are the withholding of social benefits from those whose family size exceeds a desired norm.”

The report uses the example of China to make clear such measures can be highly successful if governments would only be willing to implement them:

“With the possible exception of China, efforts to raise the age at marriage by persuasion and edict have not been particularly successful.”

“In China the birth rate at the end of 1982 was estimated to be nineteen per 1,000 people, down from forty in the 1960s. The current figure, based on birth registrations rather than on a census, may slightly understate the actual birth rate; but it would still be well below current rates in South Asia, Africa, and most of Latin America.”

On page 124, the World Bank report further marvels at the Chinese government’s accomplishments:

“China has the most comprehensive set of incentives and disincentives, designed (most recently) to promote the one-child family. Since the early 1970s women undergoing various types of fertility-related operations have been entitled to paid leave: in urban areas fourteen days for induced abortion; ten days for tubal ligation; two to three days for insertion or removal of an IUD; and in the case of postnatal sterilization, seven extra days over the normal fifty-six of paid maternity leave.”

Bizarrely, the report even goes so far as to suggest introducing “sterilization vans” and “camps”:

“Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

Making clear that the overall World Bank population reduction strategy must be implemented in a country-specific manner, the report states:

“The specific policy agenda for each country depends on its political culture, on the nature of the problem it faces, and on what it has already accomplished.”

What does have to be global, according to the World Bank, is continuing urbanization: people nicely locked up in massive townships. The report explains:

“Living in small towns does less to reduce fertility than does living in larger cities. That many of these changes take time to have an effect only underlines the need to begin them now. At the same time, other measures that complement and speed socioeconomic change can hasten a decline in fertility.”

This report is completely in step with the strategies outlined by the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF as they move to depopulate the earth in a consorted global effort. The pretexts for fertility reduction given throughout the report are “sustainable development” and “poverty reduction”. The truth is, so states the World Bank itself, to introduce and further develop “policy measures to increase people’s welfare as well as (and as a means) to reduce fertility.”
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
This paragraph really says it all:

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

They can't stand free humanity...

I wonder, too, if those insane needle-exchange / safe-sex vans that we have in our city are just a smokescreen to get more condoms out in the inner city?
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
The world bank of course controls all our money now, thanks to their SDR carbon trading ponzie scheme. SDR Rates for September 3
1 USD = SDR 0.659949 SDR Interest Rate = 0.29%
More SDR info click for more http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/param_rms_mth.aspx

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Eugenics Alert: World Bank Population-Reduction
Lending Schemes Already Underway



World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions
that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food.


Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 3, 2010

Following up on yesterday’s articleWorld Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation, recent reports by the World Bank suggest the “drastic steps” considered necessary are now being implemented.

According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, new guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund.

Already tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these new guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.

In the World Bank’s Reproductive Health Action Plan 2010-2015, published in April of this year, the Bank structurally speaks of Millennium Development Goals number 5 (or MDG5), which stands for “Reproductive Health” (or RH).

As we know, this is eugenics-new-speak for population control. As pro-death globalist professor John Cleland argued at a 2006 gathering in the company of like-minded individuals from the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”

The 2010 report put out by the World Bank however, chooses to use this deceptive phrase continually. And, from its dark point of view, it is right to do so- for the resistance against this 21st century eugenics grows steadily. The Bank, just like the UN, has no choice but to cloak itself in deceptive language so as not to raise too much suspicion as they move forward:

“(…) a renewed global consensus on the need to make progress on MDG5, together with greater attention to gender issues within and outside the Bank is refocusing attention on RH and offering an unprecedented opportunity to redress the neglect of the previous decade. Notable among these developments is that in 2007 the UN fully incorporated RH within the MDG framework.”

Apart from all the available evidence of a global push for population reduction, The term Global Consensus alone proves it:

“The Global Consensus”, says the report, “recognizes that MDGs 4 & 5 will not be reached without country leadership and the prioritization of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health at country level. The Global Consensus proposes a five point plan that includes: (i) political, operational, and community leadership and engagement; (ii) a package of evidence-based interventions through effective health systems along a continuum of good quality care, with a priority on quality care at birth; (iii) services for women and children free at the point of use if countries choose to provide them; (iv) skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time, with supporting infrastructure, drugs, and equipment; and (v) accountability for results with robust monitoring and evaluation.”

In order to translate this “Global Consensus” to the nation-states under its control, the World Bank boasts:

“The World Bank is uniquely positioned at the country level to take on advocacy for reproductive health, particularly in reaching Ministers of Finance. This will require utilizing the World Bank‟s economic analysis and technical resources to marshal arguments for investment in reproductive health. Bank’s country directors have key role to play in process of making RH a country priority through their policy dialogue with governments.”

There it is again. The World Bank- as lender- has the dependent nations in a stranglehold. If nations don’t comply with its directions, the Bank can cut the financial lifeline, no problem at all.

A World Bank discussion-paper from 2007 called Population Issues in the 21st century: The Role of the World Bank, explains how this process works in more detail:

“The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.

“Its involvement in many sectors in countries”, the authors continue, “can produce synergies that will allow faster progress than a more narrow focus on family planning services. The Bank will need its partners – United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), key bilaterals – to provide technical expertise and administrative knowledge in areas such as procurement of contraceptives, service delivery, and demand creation.”

The document makes clear that this global and coordinated push for total control is not some vague dream. It is already being test-cased in several developing nations. The document states two cases that are currently underway. In the first example, Niger, the World Bank already has in place so-called “benchmarks” that the nation in question has to live up to in order to enjoy the continued support of the World Bank. In the case of Niger, considered by the IMF as a “Highly Indebted Poor Country”- and therefore easy to subdue- the document states:

“Population growth is documented and a population ESW (Economic and Sector Work) planned. A national Population and Reproductive Health Strategy is not only a CAS (Country Assistance Strategy) benchmark, but also a lending trigger, while reproductive health is included in one of the CAS pillars.”

“High fertility and rapid population growth were not only acknowledged as major problems, but fertility was also used as one of the CAS performance benchmarks. Moreover, a population ESW was planned and subsequently delivered. That ESW has been most instrumental in enhancing the in-country policy dialogue on population issues, and has led to a free-standing International Development Association (IDA) population operation, currently in preparation, which is the first population-specific operation in many years in the World Bank Africa Region. The preparation of a National Population and Reproductive Health Strategy was also a CAS benchmark as well as a lending trigger, while reproductive health was included in one of the CAS pillars. Other Bank partners such as the EU have joined the effort. Finally, population issues have also been given a high priority in the new Rural and Social Policy Reform (Development Policy Lending) Credit.”

The devil is in the details. The extend to which the World Bank and UN is willing to blackmail “Highly Indebted Poor Country’s” in implementing globally coordinated population control policies also becomes obvious in the second test-case example: Yemen:

“In the lending portfolio, restructuring of the Health Sector Reform Project (which includes family planning) is proposed and is expected to lead to a Population II Project to specifically address high fertility and family planning issues. Pillars two and three address population and reproductive health. Contraception is addressed effectively, and CPR is included as a CAS indicator. Furthermore, earlier in 2006, the Bank produced a study on “Promoting the Demand for FP in Yemen.”

“High fertility and rapid population growth”, the document reads, “were not only acknowledged as major impediments to economic growth and poverty reduction, but was included as one of the specific goals that was subsequently translated into policies, programs, and an indicator (reduce population growth rate by 3 percent per annum). Moreover, budget was allocated specifically for each of the four population policies that were outlined.”

The dimensions of this “Global Consensus” are extensive. These diabolical dimensions are being described in the 2007 “Discussion Paper” with the help of the catch-phrase: “Multisectoral approach”:

“A more systematic approach to mainstream population within the core agenda (…) would greatly enhance the adoption of a truly multisectoral approach. (….) The Bank’s comparative advantages in strengthening health systems are mainly in the areas of health financing, system governance, accountability for health service delivery, and demand-side interventions, all of which are important to further the population agenda.”

The authors continue:

“By supporting large-scale implementation of an integrated health sector plan that includes family planning, the Bank can play an important role in keeping family planning as a priority in high fertility and high-population-momentum countries. Even though historically some successful family planning programs were based on a vertical approach, such an approach is now considered less attractive, both from a sustainability standpoint as well as from a comprehensive reproductive health approach.”

However deceptive and “rational” the language, the document is nevertheless strangely upfront about their full-spectrum dominance, to make use of a military phrase:

“Unless population issues are approached in a multipronged fashion, it is unlikely to accelerate a demographic transition in these countries.”

“The Bank is well positioned to systematically include population and reproductive health dimensions in key strategic documents (…). The Bank is particularly well placed to provide the fiscal and economic analysis to ensure that funding of population issues is placed within the overall development financing agenda of the country.”

“This strategy can be best achieved by a coordinated strategy implemented by a visible, strong, and high-level in-country unit with the mandate to design, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The Bank can help strengthen such institutional mechanisms, and foster collaboration with external national or international partners.”

There it is. World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food. Above all this, the Bank uses the tools confided to them by the scientific dictatorship:

“The role of political economy in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs and policies is critical. The Bank, by providing the necessary analytical basis for policy discussion, can play a constructive role in prompting policy makers to take action now for future changes in population structure and size.”

Speaking of the scientific dictatorship, the World Bank works in concert with all the other arms of the octopus:

“As was noted in the section on the global policy context, it is impossible for the Bank to work on reproductive health issues without the support and collaboration of the broader international community. The UNFPA is the lead technical agency in the population field, with a large network of field offices. The Bank already uses UNFPA’s contraceptive procurement know-how and has intensified its collaboration in other areas (e.g., training and country program management). The WHO, as the normative agency, is a critical partner at both the global and country levels. As population issues are linked to reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and child survival, the Bank works also with WHO, UNAIDS, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), respectively.”

Returning to the essence, the intention and the strategy leave little for the imagination: a global consensus is in place between all the major transnational institutions and banks: the earth’s population must be brought down, with all means necessary. The World Bank uses financial tools to bring nations on their knees, demanding they cull their numbers; the UN guarantees the political legitimizing for these depopulation policies (Agenda 21); the Foundations develop the anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food, the World Health Organization takes care of the “health-standards” and distribution. In this global construct, carefully coordinated from the top-down, the scientific dictatorship has circled the wagons around all of free humanity.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,134
    • The Great Deception
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
  • GOT GLOCK
    • Graphic Design/Printing
Bill Gates wants to get his Nobel Peace Prize at any cost...
Make it so!

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,375
Some links:

Elites Launch "Global Impact Investing Network" (HINT: It's Eugenics)

Tax exempt foundations, banks and philanthropic organizations have been hard at work in the United States for decades molding the country to their liking. The schooling system, media, medical institutions, and foreign policy of the United States have all been influenced by them. Today, these foundations are partnering with global banking powerhouses in order to create the "Global Impact Investing Network" (GIIN) which aims to spearhead a new form of investment.

The GIIN, headed by Antony Bugg-Levine, the current director of the Rockefeller Foundation, will "help solve social and environmental problems" by encouraging investment that will bring both profit and produce real world change. According to the GIIN website, "The Global Impact Investing Network was conceived in October 2007, when the Rockefeller Foundation gathered a small group of investors to discuss the needs of the emergent impact investing industry." The website states,


World's Elite Make Population Control #1 Priority

John Harlow writes today in The Times about a secret meeting of the global financial elite, convened by Microsoft mogul Bill Gates, at which attendees agreed that curbing the world's population should be their top priority.

In "Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation," Harlow recounts that a May 5 meeting took place in Manhattan that included "David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey." Harlow notes that the general agreement that population control was a major priority came at Gates' instigation.

...
Feder noted, "In 30 years, worldwide, birth rates have fallen by more than 50%. In 1979, the average woman on this planet had 6 children. Today, the average is 2.9 children, and falling." He explained the situation noting, "demographers tell us that with a birthrate of 1.3, everything else being equal, a nation will lose half of its population every 45 years."

The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy
...
The Secret Meeting of Billionaires

The meeting being referred to was a secret meeting where, “A dozen of the richest people in the world met for an unprecedented private gathering at the invitation of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to talk about giving away money,” held at Rockefeller University, and included notable philanthropists such as Gates, Buffett, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Eli Broad, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller Sr. and Ted Turner. One attendee stated that, “It wasn’t secret,” but that, “It was meant to be a gathering among friends and colleagues. It was something folks have been discussing for a long time. Bill and Warren hoped to do this occasionally. They sent out an invite and people came.” Chronicle of Philanthropy editor Stacy Palmer said, “Given how serious these economic times are, I don't think it's surprising these philanthropists came together,” and that, “They don't typically get together and ask each other for advice.” The three hosts of the meeting were Buffet, Gates and David Rockefeller.[5] [See: Appendix 2: Bilderberg Connections to the Billionaire’s Meeting].

Bilderberg founding member David Rockefeller, Honourary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honourary Chairman and Founder of the Trilateral Commission, Chairman of the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society, former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan.

At the meeting, “participants steadfastly refused to reveal the content of the discussion. Some cited an agreement to keep the meeting confidential. Spokesmen for Mr. Buffett, Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Gates, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Soros and Ms. Winfrey and others dutifully declined comment, though some confirmed attendance.”[6] Reports indicate that, “They discussed how to address the global slump and expand their charitable activities in the downturn.”[7]


Peter Schiff takes on Rockefeller, Rothschild, CFR frontman on CNBC (VIDEO)

APPENDIX 1: Bilderberg Connections to the Billionaire’s Meeting

Peter G. Peterson [a rockefeller man], one of the guests in attendance at the secret billionaires meeting, was the former United States Secretary of Commerce in the Nixon administration, Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc., from 1977 to 1984, he co-founded the prominent private equity and investment management firm, the Blackstone Group, of which he is currently Senior Chairman, and in 1985, he became Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, taking over when David Rockefeller stepped down from that position. He founded the Peterson Institute for International Economics and was Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 2000-2004. The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a major world economic think tank, which seeks to “inform and shape public debate,” from which, “Institute studies have helped provide the intellectual foundation for many of the major international financial initiatives of the past two decades: reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), adoption of international banking standards, exchange rate systems in the G-7 and emerging-market economies, policies toward the dollar, the euro, and other important currencies, and responses to debt and currency crises (including the current crisis of 2008–09).” It has also “made important contributions to key trade policy decisions” such as the development of the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, APEC, and East Asian regionalism.[37]


Dr. Einhorn serves as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and as a Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Peterson Institute for International Economics

Jessica P. Einhorn Ph.D.    
Independent Director and Member of Nominating & Governance Committee, Time Warner Inc

BOARD MEMBERS AFFILIATED WITH Jessica P. Einhorn Ph.D.*

David Rockefeller The Partnership for New York City, Inc. Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Richard G. Rockefeller Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Steven C. Rockefeller CEO America Inc.

Jacob Wallenberg Thisbe AB Board Affiliations JER Partners L.L.C. Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund

David J. Callard Wand Partners Inc. Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
John Morning Dime Bancorp, Inc. Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Robert B. Oxnam Asia Society Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Frank G. Wisner American International Group, Inc. Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tadataka Yamada Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Edmond D. Villani Scudder Private Investment Counsel Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Afsaneh Mashayekhi Beschloss The Rock Creek Group Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Neva R. Goodwin Rockefeller Brothers Fund Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Peggy Dulany Rockefeller Brothers Fund Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
James Edward Moltz International Strategy & Investment Inc Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Richard Melvin Chasin Rockefeller & Co., Inc. Board Affiliations Rockefeller Brothers Fund
...

The world's biggest time-bomb? Overpopulation, say the billionaires

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wwiii-population-wars-a-12-bomb-equation-2009-09-29

News flash: the "Billionaires Club" knows: Bill Gates called billionaire philanthropists to a super-secret meeting in Manhattan last May. Included: Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros, Bloomberg, Turner, Oprah and others meeting at the "home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan," reports John Harlow in the London TimesOnline. During an afternoon session each was "given 15 minutes to present their favorite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an 'umbrella cause' that could harness their interests."

The world's biggest time-bomb? Overpopulation, say the billionaires.

Bill Gates admits they are using vaccines for depopulation!

Morman Billionaire Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr sticks it to the Chinese-Kissinger "one child" policy:

He is the current United States Ambassador to China
Huntsman is a seventh-generation Utahn; his wife Mary Kaye is a first-generation Utahn. Together they have seven children ( two adopted)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700061441/Mormon-Church-announces-talks-to-regularize-operations-in-China.html
Mormon Church announces talks to 'regularize' operations in China - Aug. 30, 2010  

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Monday that it is participating in talks to "regularize" operations in China.

The First Presidency released a statement that said, "(We) have had discussions with a senior official of the People's Republic of China from Beijing and have established a relationship which we expect will lead to regularizing the activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in China."

When asked if Jon Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor who is currently the U.S. ambassador to China, had made a difference in these negotiations, Otterson said, "No, this had nothing to do with Jon Huntsman Jr. No U.S. government officials or diplomats were involved

Secret meeting of world's richest people held in New York
A top-secret meeting of the world’s richest people to discuss the global financial crisis was held in New York on May 5, 2009 IrishCentral.com has learned exclusively
...
How so many giant figures in American life managed to interrupt and coordinate their schedules on such short notice, and meet in total secrecy in the world’s media capital remains a mystery -- as does the ultimate outcome of the billionaires' conference.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
World Bank lol what a joke

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,069
Seeing how there are so many people in this world, why don't Bill Gates,John Cleland, Rothchilds, the Bush's and the other elites do the world a favor, and set the example for the rest of us.  That way the money they will not need can help all the,world economies, all the wars would stop, food would be made whole some again, air would become pure, and government could be run by honest people.  Just a thought, why they may even go down in history as world heros.  WELL IT WOULD SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS, and they would know they did there part.

     I BET THE REST OF US WOULD GET ALONG JUST FINE.
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,375
bump
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
World Bank “Lends” Hand to Population Control Effort
http://www.infowars.com/world-bank-lends-hand-to-population-control-effort/

Infowars.com
Wednesday, May 16, 2012

According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, its guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, sovereign nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund. If they refuse, lending will be withdrawn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OPGdhejjlqY
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
OH NO maybe nations can start issuing their currency again and tell these Int'l Banks to shove it.

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,375
bump
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Stevie440

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Great post, thanks!
"The flame of will power burns in all of us"

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,375
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-08/nbc-deletes-oprah-our-future-president-tweet-cnn-confirms-2020-ambitions


NBC tweeted the above to its 1.77 million followers after Golden Globes host Seth Meyers jokingly forbade Winfrey from running for president, noting he did the same with Donald Trump in 2011.

The tweet also prompted the now standard speculation about media bias and partiality.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5