Category Archives: The Powers That Be

Is California being targeted by our shadow government?

Engineered Drought Catastrophe, Target California




http://geoengineeringwatch.org
https://www.facebook.com/dane.wigingt…
The public is waking up fast to the climate engineering issue and people have an ever increasing amount of questions. This video was taken at a live Q and A session in California, many aspects of the critical geoengineering issue are covered.  – Dane Wigington


I put these up because somebody I respect brought them to my attention. I am not convinced, but my curiosity on the subject is in full gear. On the other hand, my fear monger alert is also turned on.

What are your thoughts? 

What’s with Time magazine giving élites sinister devil’s horns?

Time magazine has a penchant to give élites devil’s horns on its cover.

The latest to receive that treatment is Hillary Clinton, on the cover of Time‘s March 13, 2015 issue:

Time's Hillary cover

The cover caught the attention of many media outlets, including Drudge Report, Fox News, National Review, and Politico.

But Time was quick to deny that the horns were intentional, and responded with a tongue-in-cheek article on its website titled “34 TIME Magazine Covers That Appeared to Give People Horns.”

Here are some examples of Time‘s other élites sprouting horns, including even Jesus. The elites can be grouped into 3 groups:

  1. Political leaders — presidents, other heads of state, and Bill Gates.
  2. Entertainment élites, including actors Russell Crowe, Angelina Jolie, Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Jay Leno, and Darth Vader.
  3. Religious leaders — all Christians, including the three most recent popes of the Catholic Church (Francis, Benedict, John Paul II), Billy Graham (whose horns are especially striking), and even Jesus Christ.

time-cover-bill-clinton-devil-hornsTime7Time9Time8060925_DomCNNL1R1.apnTime5Time10Time3Time4time-cover-bill-gates-devil-hornsTime2Time1time-cover-graham-devil-hornstime-cover-jesus-devil-horns

The magazine coyly insists:

Given the shape of the letter “m” in the magazine’s name and its location on the cover, many other subjects in the past have also appeared to sprout extra features (in fact this happened to Hillary Clinton at least once before. Same goes for Bill Clinton. George W. Bush too). Check out everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Pope Francis to Jesus to Darth Vader who have received the rough end of TIME’s “horns.” Any resemblance to cats, bats or devil horns is entirely coincidental.

Do you buy Time‘s excuse?

I don’t! For surely the magazine’s graphic artists could have positioned the élites’ heads underneath the letters T I M E, or have the heads to the side of the letters so that the two horns of the letter M aren’t right on top of their heads.

Time is also being disingenuous when they say the horns may “resemble” cat ears, bat ears, or devil horns, for the magazine itself labels the pictures of the élites as “devil horns.”

Verify this for yourself by going here and saving the pictures to your hard-drive. You’ll discover that every one of the 34 covers, except the first one of Hillary Clinton, is labeled “devil horns,” e.g., “time-cover-pope-francis-devil-horns.” This gives the lie to Time‘s disclaimer that “Any resemblance to . . . devil horns is entirely coincidental.” On the contrary, any resemblance to devil horns is precisely intentional and deliberate.

The Hillary cover of March 13, 2015 alone is not labeled “devil horns.” Instead, the pic is labeled “hillary-final.”

So what exactly is Time trying to tell us? What do you think?

~Éowyn

Secret Republicans in California’s Silicon Valley and Hollywood

The two-party system is embedded in the institutional structural DNA of the United States. That’s why historically, third parties have built-in disadvantages and thus fare poorly in elections. Some of us still remember both the allure as well as the ultimate defeat of Ross Perot.

It is bad enough that at the élite leadership level, often there’s precious little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, despite the fact that a majority of Americans (62% in October 2010) identify themselves as “conservatives.” (Note: Conservative is not synonymous with Republican.) But in some states, California being a notable example, government has become the monopoly of the Democratic party, with all the attendant corruption and unaccountability endemic to single-party states. (See, for example, DCG’s “Shocker, not: Audit finds California departments break law, game personnel system for money“.)

Blacklist

Significant industries and sectors of America are also effective one-party states. Below is Rebecca Nelson’s article in the National Journal, April 8, 2015, on two such sectors that are dominant in forming and molding public opinion and popular culture — Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves. Working as programmers and software engineers, they don’t want the stigma that comes with revealing who they really are.

They’re the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area’s liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.

“It’s a liberal echo chamber,” Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of Lincoln Labs, which was started in 2013 to connect the right-of-center outsiders in Silicon Valley, told National Journal. “People have been convinced that Silicon Valley is reflexively liberal or progressive. And so their response is to conform.”

Silicon Valley has long been a bastion of liberalism. Since George H.W. Bush won Napa County in 1988, Republican presidential nominees have lost every county in the Bay Area. In 2012, President Obama won 84 percent of the vote in San Francisco to Mitt Romney’s 13 percent and raised more for his reelection campaign from Bay Area donors than from those in New York or Hollywood. Political donations specifically from tech workers follow that trend: Google employees collectively gave $720,000 to Obama in 2012, versus $25,000 for Romney. Crowdpac, a nonpartisan political analytics firm, found that between 1979 and 2012, tech companies have overwhelmingly favored liberal candidates.

Rather than ruffle feathers—or worse—Republicans who work there often just keep quiet. Rich Tafel, who coaches tech companies in politics and policy, understands the dynamic. The founder of the gay group Log Cabin Republicans, he’s had many Republicans in Silicon Valley confide to him their true political views.

“You just learn how to operate, if you will, in the closet as a Republican,” Tafel told National Journal. “You keep your viewpoints to yourself.”

One startup CEO who has worked in Silicon Valley for more than a decade says that while it’s popular to talk politics in the workplace, the underlying assumption is that everyone has similar views.

The CEO, who generally votes Republican and donates to GOP candidates—he spoke on background to conceal his right-leaning views—said that in 2012, “you wouldn’t want to say you’re voting for Romney in the election.” At the same time, openly expressing one’s support for Obama was “incredibly common.”

His opposition to raising the minimum wage is just one area where he diverges with most of his colleagues…. But he would never reveal his more conservative outlook on the matter…. “They can’t fathom that somebody disagrees with them,” he said. “And I disagree with them. So I’m not going to open up that box.”

Closeted Republicans aren’t just a phenomenon in the tech industry. In Hollywood, where acclaimed movie stars and directors throw lavish fundraisers for Democrats and unabashedly support liberal causes, Republicans are a rare breed. Friends of Abe, a GOP support group of sorts, caters to A-list conservatives in the entertainment industry. Only a handful of its members have made their affiliation known, and its roster is kept secret out of fears of a blacklisting reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

For some right-leaning techies, the GOP brand itself is a liability. The startup CEO stressed that there are “a number of ideas that conservatives have that I totally disagree with,” such as opposition to same-sex marriage, and he abhors the thought of being lumped in with Republicans who deny climate change or evolution.

“Republicans are regarded as assholes,” he said. “And I wouldn’t want to be associated with assholes.”

Another Republican who founded a small San Francisco-based startup told National Journal that he’s worried potential partners and investors would be turned off by his libertarian views. Recently, it seems like all of his peers in Silicon Valley have been outspoken about their opposition to the thwarted religious liberty law in Indiana, he said. He thinks business owners should be allowed to decide whom they serve, and if they discriminate against gays, people can choose not to patronize their business. He won’t discuss that view, though, or debate his left-leaning colleagues on Facebook or Twitter.

“If I were to speak out about something like that, maybe one of these companies wants to buy my company one day and the CEO is like, ‘Oh, I remember this guy saying all this stuff about this thing that I really disagree with.’ And that obviously could have negative effects,” he said. “Getting your point across isn’t worth it.”

The consequences for being outed for conservative views can be dire. In a highly public controversy last year, newly-hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepped down after critics attacked his 2008 donation to support Proposition 8, the anti-same-sex marriage law in California. Eich, who declined to comment for this story, faced an internal uprising from within the Mozilla community, as well as boycotts from other tech companies, and quit after just two weeks on the job.

Though Eich’s was an extreme case, some Republicans in Silicon Valley fear that if they go public, they’ll face subtler, less direct repercussions. The CEO who spoke on background keeps his conservative-leaning views to himself, he said, because he doesn’t want to risk people not liking him, which could hurt his job in imperceptible ways. As a leader, he needs to be able to inspire people to join and thrive in his company. If he’s “contrarian,” he said, he can’t build the necessary camaraderie to succeed.

Matthew Del Carlo, the former president of the San Francisco Young Republicans and the COO of the California Young Republican Federation, said that transparent Republicans can have a much harder time finding work in the Bay Area. “I’ve had people tell me, ‘If I found out that this person’s a Republican, their resume’s off the list.‘”

Prominent Republicans do openly work in Silicon Valley, and not all of them feel stigmatized for their political views. Billionaire Paypal founder Peter Thiel is a high-profile GOP supporter who has made considerable donations to presidential contender Ted Cruz’s 2012 Senate run and former congressman Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential super PAC. And Sarah Pompei, who handled Romney’s regional press in 2012 and now serves as Hewlett-Packard’s director of corporate communications, told National Journal she’s never felt denigrated for her conservative views.

Both Pompei and Thiel, who declined to comment for this story, prove success in the tech industry is possible for Republicans who are open about their political leanings. But they wield more power and cachet than the average start-up employee.

“There’s fearless people out there that don’t care, but those tend to be people that are in a better position financially. They’re secure in their job,” Del Carlo said. Those with more to lose, he said, often find it easier to keep quiet.

Still, Thiel’s attention-getting fundraising for GOP candidates and libertarian causes, along with other high-profile Republicans in the tech sector, show that the climate in Silicon Valley is—albeit incrementally—becoming more politically inclusive. Lincoln Labs, the group dedicated to connecting right-of-center techies in the Bay Area, has been a big part of that effort. Earlier this year, its annual conference, Reboot, brought libertarians and conservatives from Silicon Valley to Washington to hear Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul speak on deregulation, net neutrality, and other tech-industry priorities.

Throughout the year, the organization holds meetups and hackathons to build a “sense of community, so that people don’t feel like they are isolated,” Johnson said. He and Lincoln Labs’ other co-founders, Aaron Ginn and Chris Abrams, want to empower a true exchange of ideas within the tech community, without ostracizing any one view.

Silicon Valley purports to be a place where the best ideas win,” Johnson said. “If we are going to encourage diversity, let’s not just stop with gender and ethnicity. How about ideological perspective?

Conservatives and libertarians in Silicon Valley like Johnson are pioneering a new kind of Republican. With a distinctly libertarian flavor, they align with the party on the principles of liberty and limited government, but don’t necessarily lean right on—or care much about—social issues.

The entrepreneurs and techies of the Bay Area, said Tafel, are “very aligned to what could be a Republican party.” They just need to come out.

See also:

~Éowyn

Who will stand against the gaystapo?

Gaystapo

Who Will Stand?

By Robert P. George, First Things, April 5, 2015

The lynch mob came for the brilliant mild-mannered techie Brendan Eich. (See “Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Resigns After Backlash Over Support For Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Ban“)

The lynch mob came for the elderly florist Barronelle Stutzman.

The lynch mob came for Eastern Michigan University counseling student Julea Ward.

The lynch mob came for the African-American Fire Chief of once segregated Atlanta Kelvin Cochran. (See “Tyranny of the Gaystapo: Atlanta mayor fires Christian fire chief for biblical views on homosexuality“)

The lynch mob came for the owners of a local pizza shop the O’Connor family. (See “Bigot threatens to burn down Indiana pizzeria because of store owner’s Constitutional Right”)

The lynch mob is now giddy with success and drunk on the misery and pain of its victims. It is urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media. It is reinforced in its sense of righteousness and moral superiority by the “beautiful people” and the intellectual class. It has been joined by the big corporations who perceive their economic interests to be in joining up with the mandarins of cultural power. It owns one political party and has intimidated the leaders of the other into supine and humiliating obeisance.

And so, who if anyone will courageously stand up to the mob? Who will resist? Who will speak truth to its raw and frightening power? Who will refuse to be bullied into submission or intimidated into silence?

I’m not asking, which leaders? Though that, too, would be good to know. Are there political or religious leaders who will step forward? Are there intellectual or cultural leaders who will muster the courage to confront the mob?

No, I’m asking what ordinary people will do. Are there Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians who will refuse to be intimidated and silenced? Are there Latter-Day Saints, Orthodox and other observant (or even non-observant) Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs? Buddhists?

Oh yes, the mob came first for the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Latter-Day Saints; but do not be deceived: it will not stop with them. It’s true that many in the mob have a particular animus against Christians, but the point of destroying the reputations and livelihoods of the initial victims is pour encourager les autres [to encourage others]. If you believe you belong to a group that will be given a special exemption or dispensation from the enforcement of the new orthodoxy—by any means necessary—you will soon learn that you are tragically mistaken. No one who dissents will be given a pass.

We have seen how swiftly the demands have moved from tolerance to compulsory approbation of behavior historically rejected as contrary to morality and faith by virtually all the great religious traditions of the world. And now it is not only approbation that is demanded, but active participation. And do you honestly think that we have now reached the endpoint of what will be demanded?

Of course, some will say—indeed some are saying—that the battle is over, the cause is lost. All we can do is seek the best terms of surrender we can get, knowing that at this stage they will not be very good.

What should we say to that? Well, it is certainly true that the political, economic, and cultural power now arrayed against people of faith and their rights and liberties is formidable. No question about it: This is David against Goliath.

But then, we know how that contest ended, don’t we?

If we refuse to surrender, we will certainly be demonized; but everything will depend on whether we refuse to be demoralized. Courage displayed in the cause of truth—and of right—is powerful. And it will depend on whether ordinary people—Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, others—inspired by their faith to stand firm, will also be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, and arm-in-arm, with their brothers and sisters of other traditions of faith to defy the mob.

Below is a comment from First Things reader Frank McLaughlin on another case of persecution:

“And, as another instance of the lynch mob mentality, last summer in Massachusetts last summer the School Committee in the city of Lynn came out against Gordon College, and its President Michael Lindsay, because of Gordon College’s “Biblical stance on issues relating to human sexuality.” But, this week the Mayor of Lynn was informed by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the School Committee by its action was in violation of the “First Amendment rights of Gordon College, Gordon College students, and President Michael Lindsay.” And, the School Committee was called upon to reverse its clearly unconstitutional decision.”

See also:

~Éowyn

Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) met his wife, Heidi (née Nelson), while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Heidi Cruz is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker for J.P. Morgan. Wikipedia lists Heidi Cruz as an  “investment banker” and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which was launched in October 2004. The Task Force advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a North American region.

Comprised of a group of prominent business, political and academic leaders from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Task Force was organized and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was co-chaired by former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico, Pedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant U.S. Attorney General William F. Weld.

Its main publication is the 70-page Task Force Report #53 entitled, Building a North American Community (May 2005). Heidi Cruz is listed as a member of the Task Force (page 9 of the report in PDF) and described as “an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas” who “served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.”

Task Force on North America Union members

The Report’s recommendations include (see pp. 7-32 of the Report; pp. 29-54 of the PDF):

1. Establish a common security perimeter by 2010

“The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first.”

2. Develop a North American Border Pass

“The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region.”

3. Develop a unified North American border action plan

Specific recommendations under this plan include:

  • “Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of “visa waiver’’ countries;
  • Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists);
  • By 2010, “Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be . . . the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

4. Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation

“Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and joint training for law enforcement officials.”

Note: Now I “get” why U.S. police departments are hiring non-US citizens as officers.

5. Spread the Benefits of Economic Development

“NAFTA has transformed Mexico, but it has also deepened and made much more visible the divisions that exist in the country…. The gap in wages has led many Mexicans to travel north in search of higher incomes and better opportunities. For the past three decades, Mexico has been the largest source of legal immigrants to the United States, and Mexican-Americans make increasingly valued and growing contributions to the life of the United States and, through remittances, to their families at home. Mexico is also the leading source of unauthorized migration, with attendant economic and security problems in both countries and untold hardships for Mexican migrants. Over time, the best way to diminish these problems is by promoting better economic opportunities in Mexico.”

Note: In other words, more socialist “spread the wealth”!

6. Establish a Seamless North American Market for Trade

“With tariff barriers virtually eliminated, and the outlines of a North American economy visible, the time has come to take a more comprehensive approach to strengthening the economic prospects for citizens in all three countries. The first step is to encourage convergence in the most-favored-nation tariff rates each partner charges on imports from outside North America. Next, the governments should reduce the remaining nontariff barriers to the flow of goods and services, and address problems arising from charges of price discrimination and subsidization by competitors in North America. Finally, they should coordinate their approach to unfair trade practices by foreign suppliers to the North American market. The ultimate goal should be to create a seamless market for suppliers and consumers throughout North America.

7. Increase Labor Mobility within North America

“To make the most of the impressive pool of skill and talent within North America, the three countries should look beyond the NAFTA visa system. The large volume of undocumented migrants from Mexico within the United States is an urgent matter for those two countries to address. A long-term goal should be to create a ‘North American preference’—new rules that would make it much easier for employees to move and for employers to recruit across national boundaries within the continent…. Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that, in the long run, could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.”

Specifics on how to create a North American free flow of labor include:

  • By 2010, streamline immigration and labor mobility rules to “enable citizens of all three countries to work elsewhere in North America with far fewer restrictions than immigrants from other countries.”
  • “Special immigration status should be given to teachers, faculty, and students in the region.”
  • “Move to full labor mobility between Canada and the United States” by “eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country.”

8. North American Political Institutions

The Task Force recommends the following North American regional political institutions be established:

  1. An annual North American summit meeting.
  2. A North American Advisory Council.
  3. A North American Inter-Parliamentary Group to meet every other year.

In the last part of the Task Force’s report, “Additional and Dissenting Views,” Heidi S. Cruz wrote (pp. 33-34):

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

Now you know why, despite his blustering against Obama’s executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in this country, on March 27, 2015, Ted Cruz indicated he “remains open to a path to legal status for undocumented workers.” 

Born in Canada of an American citizen mother and a Cuban father, Ted Cruz held dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship. But it was only when the Dallas Morning News in August 2013 pointed out his dual citizenship that Cruz finally applied to renounce his Canadian citizenship — which meant that in 2012 when Cruz had run for and was elected a U.S. senator, he was a Canadian citizen. On May 14, 2014, Cruz finally ceased being a citizen of Canada. See “Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

~Éowyn

World Bank goes queer

World Bank logo

The World Bank is a United Nations international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries for capital programs.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the World Bank’s official goal is the reduction of poverty. According to its Articles of Agreement, all its decisions must be guided by a commitment to the promotion of foreign investment and international trade and to the facilitation of capital investment.

So why is the World Bank promoting the “rights” of homosexuals and the fictive condition called transgenderism? What does either have to do with the “reduction of poverty,” “promotion of foreign investment and international trade,” and “the facilitation of capital investment”?

From The Economist, April 12, 2014:

Jim Kim, the president of the World Bank, wants it to promote gay rights. He has declared the “fight to eliminate all institutionalised discrimination” to be an “urgent task”. He recently put on hold a $90m loan to Uganda’s health sector after its government introduced one of Africa’s most draconian anti-gay laws. He has ordered an overhaul of the bank’s lending policies to make sure that no loan assists discrimination. At this week’s Spring Meetings in Washington, DC, he is convening discussions with gay activists on how best to do so.

As an early proponent of gay marriage, this newspaper shares Mr Kim’s sentiments. Bigotry is abhorrent and laws that entrench it should be condemned. Uganda’s new law, which allows a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for anyone convicted of homosexuality and requires citizens to report anyone suspected of being gay, is particularly awful. Nonetheless, Mr Kim’s initiative is misguided. The World Bank is a technocratic development organisation, not a place for political advocacy. Setting up gay rights as a test of its lending decisions is likely to make the bank less effective at what Mr Kim himself has emphasised is its core job: tackling extreme poverty.

The bank’s technocratic approach is a big part of its DNA. Its founding documents prohibit “political activity”, however unpleasant a regime might be. Only “economic considerations” should be relevant to lending decisions. That does not, by itself, preclude it from opposing nasty laws. You can draw a link from fighting bigotry to alleviating poverty. Unfair treatment of groups of people, whether on the basis of gender, race or sexuality, leads to their social exclusion, which in turn is likely to harm economic growth and make it harder to alleviate poverty. By this logic the bank has, rightly, long been pushing for the education of girls. The fight against other forms of discrimination can be justified on the same economic grounds.

But even if it can be justified in principle, Mr Kim’s focus on gay rights is likely to be counterproductive in practice, for three reasons. First, it seems capricious. Uganda is hardly the only country with anti-gay laws on the books; nor is it the only one to have recently toughened its anti-gay stance. Almost 80 of the bank’s member countries, including most in Africa, have legislation that discriminates against gays. In many places the laws are ignored, but several places, notably Ethiopia and Nigeria, have recently introduced stiffer anti-gay statutes. Uganda’s behaviour is odious. But it is not alone.

Second, the stress on gay rights itself seems arbitrary. Of the many forms of bigotry the bank could battle, it is not clear that anti-gay laws are the most harmful to the poor. The bank lends to plenty of places that discriminate against women under Islamic law. It also lends to countries with laws that discriminate against minorities. The economic impact of these forms of bigotry is far bigger. But if Mr Kim tries to tackle all institutionalised discrimination by withholding lending, he will soon have no customers left.

Third, his approach is likely to backfire. In the short term, it weakens the campaign to lessen poverty. Uganda’s loan, designed to support maternal-care clinics, was the equivalent of 20% of its health budget. And it still has a high child-mortality rate. Politically, the pressure from Mr Kim, though winning plaudits in Washington, is having perverse results, where it matters most. Uganda’s government declares itself to be standing up against the arrogant imposition of “Western values”. The more the World Bank adds such conditions to its lending, the more African countries will be inclined to seek money elsewhere, not least from the no-questions-asked Chinese.

The uncomfortable truth is that an economic institution like the bank has to pick its battles. There is a limit to how many conditions outsiders can attach to their aid. Its aim is to encourage economic development. Most of the evidence is that the bank is most effective when client countries see it as an economic partner, rather than a boss imposing a Western agenda.

Did you catch the phrase “the pressure from Mr Kim, though winning plaudits in Washington”?

That suggests the Obama administration is behind the World Bank’s push for “gay rights” and its concomitant punishment against countries that outlaw homosexual acts.

Indeed, it was Obama who in March 2012 nominated the Korean-American physician and anthropologist Dr. Jim Yong Kim to be the 12th President of the World Bank Group.

But the World Bank isn’t just aggressively pushing a homosexual agenda. It may be promoting transgenderism as well.

Millenium Challenge Corporation

The World Bank partners with an outfit called Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which develops policy guidelines for the bank which include policies on entirely non-economic issues. In its Guidelines for Environmental and Social Assessment, the MCC declares:

Gender is defined as the social roles, behaviors, and responsibilities assigned to women and men in any society. Unlike biology, gender is mutable, and women’s and men’s roles, behaviors, and responsibilities change over time and are different in different societies. MCC’s Gender Policy provides overall guidance to country partners with their responsibilities for the integration of gender in all stages of Compact development and implementation. Additional gender-specific guidance is also incorporated into other existing MCC country guidance materials such as the Guidance on Consultative Process and Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation Plans, for example. Countries should review the Gender Policy as they plan their consultative process and review the Environmental Guidelines as they start to identify potential priorities and should integrate relevant organizations and government ministries or agencies in the Compact development process.

Note that I supplied the red color in the paragraph above, but the bold emphasis is supplied by MCC. (See page 3 of the 19-page Guidelines for Environmental and Social Assessment.)

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a U.S. foreign aid agency established by President George W. Bush in 2004 with bipartisan Congressional support. It is an independent agency separate from the State Department and USAID.

MCC’s current CEO is Dana Hyde. The MCC Board is made up of representatives, including the MCC’s CEO, the U.S. Secretary of State who is the chair, the Secretary of Treasury who is the vice chair, the administrator of USAID, the U.S. Trade Representative and other private-sector or development-related officials.

Here’s an exercise in logical deduction for you:

  1. The World Bank is aggressively pushing homosexual “rights” across the world, which violates its own founding principle prohibiting “political activity” or a political agenda.
  2. Among the members of the World Bank, the United States ranks first in voting power.
  3. The Millennium Challenge Corporation makes policies for the World Bank, including the declaration that gender is “mutable”: If you “think” you’re a woman, then you are one, irrespective of the fact that your sex chromosomes are XY. And if you “think” you’re a man, then you are one, irrespective of the fact that your sex chromosomes are XX. The time will soon come when if you “think” you are a cockroach, then you are a cockroach, even though your DNA says you’re a human.
  4. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a U.S. federal government agency.
  5. The Obama administration constitutes the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Draw your own conclusions.

H/t Donald Hank of Renew America.

See also:

~Éowyn

Wayne Allyn Root on Obama’s Gestapo

Wayne Allyn Root

Obama’s America

Obama is going rogue. By every metric the Obama economy is melting down. We are seeing the beginning stages of another recession at best, or a total economic meltdown at worst.

At the moment there are no decent paying jobs in America. Obama has opened the border and given amnesty to at least 5 million illegal aliens already in the country, thereby putting them in competition with working class and middle class Americans.
Think I’m wrong? Did you know the government is giving businesses a $3000 incentive to hire illegal’s over native-born Americans?

Did you know cities are hiring non-citizens (and even illegal aliens given amnesty by Obama) as policemen? All you need is a work permit. Someone here illegally can wear a badge and enforce the law against you.

Did you think the border crisis was over? Obama’s amnesty has encouraged a new wave of poverty-stricken illegals at the border.

And, in a bankrupt nation with over $18 trillion in debt, Obama has used amnesty to give illegals access to food stamps, free healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, earned income tax credits…and by issuing drivers licenses and Social Security cards they will be able to vote immediately (because States don’t have the technology to tell the difference between a legal citizen or a noncitizen, legal or not).

The Obamacare fiasco gets worse by the day. The middle class is being bankrupted by skyrocketing increases in their health insurance premiums; hospitals are being bankrupted by the flood of illegal aliens accessing services; and the economy will drown in the new debt caused by Obamacare.

Obama’s claim that ISIS is on the run is a proven fraud, ripped bare by America’s embarrassing military withdrawl from Yemen.

Obama is going nuclear in his hatred for Bibi Netanyahu and Israel, force-feeding the world a weak nuclear agreement with Iran that is so bad, even France is fighting for stronger sanctions. Meanwhile Obama threatens to become the first president in history to abandon Israel at the United Nations.

But, I haven’t gotten to the bad part yet. Is it possible the terrible news about the economy, the border, ISIS and Israel is all just a distraction? Because the really important news is that Obama has created a modern-day version of “the Gestapo.”

The Obama government is using an initiative called “Operation Chokepoint” to force legal businesses it doesn’t like out of business, by threatening and intimidating banks and credit card processors.

At the same time, the Obama government is urging banks to call the police to report citizens who withdraw $5000 or more from their own bank accounts. Yes, I said banks are urged to call the police, when you withdraw your own money.

This comes at the same time that FEMA announced it will no longer provide FEMA disaster relief funds to states whose Governors deny “climate change.”

And let’s not forget Obama used an FCC party-line vote to take over the Internet and institute sweeping new changes to a system that is working perfectly as the form of communication for most Americans.

Obama’s first goal is clearly massive new taxes on Internet usage, just another way to destroy the middle class and redistribute income. But is his real goal controlling communications on the Internet- specifically the anti-Obama criticism and anti-government message so prevalent on the Internet.

But let’s circle back to the most Gestapo-like Obama initiative ever. It’s called “Operation Chokepoint.” This is your government’s attempt to put morality controls (just like those in Iran) on the American public by shutting down gun stores, precious metals companies, casinos, tobacco distributors, telemarketers, and short-term money lenders.

How can they close legal businesses you ask? By threatening and intimidating banks and credit card processors to close accounts for businesses the government doesn’t like. Just like an Iranian Ayatollah, if Obama doesn’t like your business, he will “choke off” your ability to stay in business. Hence the name, “Operation Chokepoint.”

Never forget Obama has been on a 6-year long relentless crusade to raise our taxes and take away our tax deduction for charitable donations, choking off contributions to churches. Yes, Obama is trying to “choke off” the funding that keeps churches in business too.

Why is this happening? First, because Obama despises capitalism. He needs to put prosperous businesses out of business. By murdering the middle class’s ability to prosper, he creates his utopia of equality (ie “shared misery”), making everyone dependent on government in a classless, socialist society. Think Cuba and Venezuela.

Second, there is an obvious reason Obama hates these particular industries. The subtitle of my 2009 book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian” says it all. The subtitle was “Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” Is it a coincidence that virtually every item I mentioned is under attack?

The businesses on the list of “Operation Chokepoint” are all dominated by people that Obama would describe as capitalists, patriots, conservatives, Tea Partiers, Christians and supporters of the Constitution. Not coincidently, those are the same groups targeted by Obama in the IRS scandal.

And then of course, if Obama can’t close your business, or “choke off” your ability to prosper, he can force banks to call the police if you dare to withdraw money from your own account.

Folks this is eerily reminiscent of The Gestapo, or the Soviet KGB, or the East German Stasi.

Is this the America you want? The NSA spying on your every move…the federal government in charge of your healthcare and now your free speech on the Internet…the IRS auditing enemies and critics of the government…the federal government forcing legal businesses they deem “unacceptable” out of business…and banks spying on their own customers and being forced to call the police when customers withdraw too much of their own money.

Yes, under Barack Hussein Obama the Gestapo is alive and well in the former “Land of the Free.”

Wayne Allyn Root, a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, is one of the most popular political and media stars in America. His columns and commentaries are read at the biggest political & news web sites in America- including FoxNews.com. He makes regular appearances at Fox News Channel, and hundreds of radio stations across the country. Wayne is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur and small businessman, home-school dad, best-selling author, and Tea Party Libertarian conservative. His web site: http://www.ROOTforAmerica.com