Blog Archives

Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America


Rick Joyner 2

John R. Houk

© December 11, 2013

 

Rick Joyner is a Minister of the Gospel who leans toward the Charismatic and Prophetic strains of Protestant Christianity. Joyner is either heralded for his insights or disdained as a heretic for his point of the Holy Bible. Here is a simple biography from the website that is part of MorningStar Ministries:

 

Rick Joyner is Founder and Executive Director of MorningStar Ministries and Heritage International Ministries and is the Senior Pastor at MorningStar Fellowship Church. Rick is President of The Oak Initiative, an interdenominational movement that mobilizes Christians to engage in the great issues of our time. He has authored more than forty books, including The Final Quest Trilogy, There Were Two Trees in the Garden, and A New America. Rick and his wife, Julie, have five children: Anna Jane, Aaryn, Amber, Ben, and Sam. ([Top of] Rick Joyner [Archive Page]; MorningStar)

 

Joseph R. Chambers is a Christian detractor of Rick Jordan’s prophetic (often in the sense of metaphorical insight) teachings. He calls those teachings “False Teachings”. Chambers is a Doctor of Divinity meaning he has credentials as an academic theologian. Credentials are a big thing for Mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Just for clarity I am not criticizing Mainstream academic theology in absolute terms. Rather I believe academic theologians place more stock in the aggregated opinions of past theologians of which even today’s theologians may concur or not concur in part or in toto. Here is an excerpt from a Chambers essay criticizing Joyner:

 

The first time I picked up material written by Rick Joyner I immediately sensed the spirit of darkness and deception.  Reading his material is similar to reading New Age materials.  His approach is to take anything in Scripture and make it mean anything that suits his theological aims.  There is no faithfulness to established facts of interpretation.  It’s a smorgasbord of ideas loosely connected with the generous use of out-of-text Scripture to prove his point.  Look at his basic premise for the book, There Were Two Trees In The Garden.  His identification of the forbidden tree lays a false foundation for the entire book.
    

“The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a powerful Biblical model of the Law.  As the Apostle Paul declared “The power of sin is the law” (I Corinthians 15:56).  This is because it is through the Law that we must derive our knowledge of good and evil.  We may wonder how this knowledge brings death until we see the fruit.  The knowledge of good and evil kills us by distracting us from the One who is the source of life; the Tree of Life – Jesus. The Tree of Knowledge causes us to focus our attention upon ourselves.  Sin is empowered by the law; not just because the evil is revealed but the good as well. It drives us either to corruption or self-righteousness, both of which lead to death.” (There Were Two Trees In The Garden, Rick Joyner, pp. 9-10.)
    

To suggest that this forbidden tree was the Laws of God as given to Moses or any other Bible writer is blasphemous.  The “Ten Commandments” are the foundational truths and principles of all of God’s revelation.  This attack on “God’s Laws” shows the direction of major deception in religious circles.  Satan cannot present himself as God or present his Antichrist as the “Christ” without first separating Divine revelation or the Holy Truth from experiences in the religious realm. (The False Teachings of Rick Joyner; By Joseph R. Chambers; Apologetics Coordination Team; 1999)

 

Chambers seems that a paragraph from Joyner’s book validates the assumption that Joyner takes Scripture and twists it to anything chosen to mean for the moment. Then indicates (as is typical of academics) claims that Joyner takes Scripture out of context when in reality Joyner is simply using a metaphorical parallel of what would be occurring when Moses received the Law from God Almighty. Chambers suggests that Joyner is saying specifically that the Tree of knowledge of good and evil is equivalent of the Law and that the Tree of Life is Jesus. If you read the paragraph used to vilify Joyner, Joyner says no such thing. Rather Joyner uses metaphorical symbolism to indicate that the Tree of knowledge of good and Evil as well as the Tree of Life were models of future Biblical realities that would embodied in Moses and later through the human birth of the Savior and Deliverer Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

Ok, you got me. I am a proponent of Rick Joyner. I do not necessarily side with Joyner hook, line and sinker. I believe every Believer must read and meditate on the Bible to understand what the Holy Spirit has for your journey and that people like Joyner and/or even Mainstream theologians should be used as a framework rather than an absolute acquiescence to their interpretations of Scripture. If you miss the understanding of the Holy Spirit be humble enough to be corrected but not sheepish enough to fail to verify the validity of someone else’s correction.

 

Christianbook.com provides a profile of Rick Joyner that is more even handed than Joseph R. Chambers. The profile lays out how Joyner has helped many and lays out the reasons why he has critics leaving it up to the reader to decide for their self if Joyner is a false teach, a prophet or a person that is sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect. The profile is entitled as Meet Rick Joyner and can be read HERE.

 

Now I had to go over these thoughts on Rick Joyner because I am going to cross post his Word for the Week which brought to us as The Great Commission, Part 50: Time to Rebuild Firewalls. I received the email notification on December 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM. I mention the date because the spiritual essay when you click ‘Read More’ does not seem to have a date on it. I am kind of peculiar about that sort of thing. Indeed the title is a bit different when you follow the link.

 

My attention was lifted to the essay it because it tackles an issue more in Christian leadership would tackle but fail to because of a misunderstanding of the Establish Clause in the First Amendment. Too often Christian leaders and Ministries limit themselves pertaining to politics because they have been brainwashed that somewhere in the First Amendment it says that Government and the Church must be absolutely separated from each other not having an influence. The reality is there is no wording whatsoever anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it is stipulated there is a Separation of Church and State. What the First Amendment does say pertaining to religion is this:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; … (First Amendment; U.S. Constitution; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University)

 

The clause simply states that Congress cannot establish a State Religion (meaning Church in those days) and that Congress prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Founding Fathers intended for Christianity to be an influence on the rule of law and culture, BUT that Congress cannot make any Christian Denomination a tax supported instrument of the U.S. Government. But I guess that is another post.

 

Joyner tackles an interesting interpretation on Marxism, Capitalism, the Founding Fathers’ original intent for Constitutional Government and how that original intent has been whittled away and unless reversed will lead to the demise of the United States as we know it.

 

Interesting alternative reading:

 

Rick Joyner Predicts Destruction of Republic, Third Great Awakening

 

JRH 12/11/13

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50

 

By Rick Joyner

December 10, 2013

Rick Joyner’s Word of the Week

 

The American Founding Fathers believed that tyranny could come from either the government or from the people. Because of this, they built a brilliant system of government that had firewalls to protect against the tyranny from either direction. They warned that if these firewalls were torn down, the Republic could not last. In the last century, we tore both firewalls down, and the system has been crumbling since. The American Republic will not last much longer if we do not implement some very radical action to turn from the direction in which we’re headed and rebuild the firewalls.  

        

In some basic ways both Russia and China now have more liberty than we have in America. They are trending toward more individual liberty, even if they are hitting bumps on the road to this and occasionally may even run into a ditch. Even so, they get going again and are trending in the direction toward personal liberty. As impatient as many have been with their slowness in this, we should remember how long we struggled. Even after nearly a century of American democracy, we still had slavery, and America invented the concentration camps that we used for displacing and even killing Native Americans. The march of civilization has not been smooth or consistent anywhere or with anyone. So let us too give grace to those who are struggling.

        

However, after accomplishing so much, Western nations are now trending toward tyranny and the loss of individual freedom. There have been occasional slowdowns in this march to bondage, but then the pace gets even faster. The East and West are going in opposite directions again.

       

Thankfully, there is a third column. It is the kingdom of God. Every good gift that has come down to man, including better governments, has come from above. Even so, no government on earth is the kingdom of God even if they have some of the elements of the kingdom. The kingdom is yet to come to the earth, but it surely will. Many governments on the earth that have been built on at least some kingdom principles will “become the kingdom of our Lord.”

         

One of the things the Lord said that He would do after His return is to separate the nations as “sheep” or “goats.” He explained the qualifications for being a sheep or goat nation. For those who are here to help prepare the way for the Lord, one way that we do this is by helping our nation become a sheep nation. One of the ways that we are called to help prepare the way for the Lord is to help our nations adopt kingdom principles that would help them become “sheep” nations rather than “goat” nations. To help a nation get to where it is supposed to go, we must first know where it is.

         

There are other major forces in the world than Marxism and capitalism, but these have been the two most powerful counterweights in recent times. Under each of these there are nuances. For example, free enterprise is different than capitalism, but can only exist under capitalism. With pure capitalism you must have capital to have opportunity, but with free enterprise you only need initiative to have opportunity. However, if you have free enterprise and you become successful, you will have capital that you will want to invest, so you become a capitalist. The more capitalists and the more capital there is to invest, the more people have been successful in the system.

         

You must have capitalism to have free enterprise. But if capitalism grows unchecked, it can choke out free enterprise and destroy itself by cutting itself off from its lifeblood. Left to itself without any steering and the needed corrections from government, greed can take over capitalism in such a way that it starts to abuse and hurt people. This leads to revolution and is not in anyone’s interest to allow this to happen—except the Marxists. The lifeblood of Marxism is promoting the envy of the successful, which they call “social justice.”

        

Not all who call for social justice are Marxists, and there is a devotion to social justice that we must have to remain a Republic. Even so, Marx, and subsequent Marxists, have been brilliant in the way they have seized popular and even noble terms to mobilize and exploit those whom Marx called the “useful idiots.” The “useful idiots” were the idealists that Marx saw as being so easily manipulated, but which he also despised. They were always the first to feel the wrath when Marxists gained control.

       

That being said, The Bible is still the biggest proponent of true social justice, and requires justice for all with a special devotion to providing justice for those who are weak. It requires freedom for the oppressed, and then it requires generosity from the prosperous to the poor. However, the key distinction between Christianity and the Marxist social justice, or the liberal social justice promoted by many today, is that nowhere does The Bible demand charity from the government, but from individuals.

      

When charity becomes institutional it loses its basic power to uplift. It becomes demeaning, dehumanizing, and always leads to bondage. We will develop this further next week.

______________________________

Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America

John R. Houk

© December 11, 2013

____________________________

Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50

 

© 2011 MorningStar Ministries

 

Donate to MorningStar Ministries

Let Everyone Prosper


Justin O. Smith

Here is an economy message from Justin O. Smith.

 

JRH 12/1/12

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Let Everyone Prosper

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/27/2012 4:27 PM

 

It is obvious to a vast number of Americans that the divergent gap between the amount paid hourly workers for their labor is far disproportionate to that paid in profit margins and salaries and bonuses to CEOs, however, the answer is not found in higher tax rates, because no matter how high a tax is placed on companies it is always offset by higher consumer prices. If America is to remain a free-market capitalist system, at some point in the near future companies will necessarily have to create a better business model that partners labor in their efforts and presents a more balanced and equitable distribution of the net profits gained across each quarter; and, while I tend to view unions as organizations that price themselves out of competition in free markets, initially this was their mission as they attempted to close that gap.

 

Government can never force the closer of such a gap without completely destroying private businesses, because most businesses will simply shut down if they are not allowed to distribute their profits as they see fit, because it is their capital that started the business…their capital at risk…and since it is their private property, they do have the right to do with it exactly as they see fit; the worker actually risked nothing to start that business.

 

Obama would like to control all private business, and we have seen him too readily attempt to control certain aspects of our business world by picking winners and losers in the energy field as he subsidizes “green energy” technology through already failed companies, such as Solyndra, and works to utterly destroy the coal and oil industries. The only way that government could ever close the gap is by reducing America to a command economy, which sometimes seems to be Obama’s intent, and should this ever occur no one would have any real wealth, as we would all be reduced to the lowest common denominator in poverty, with only the elite ruling class garnering the bulk of the nation’s wealth.

 

Yes, I believe in a compassionate society that helps those who truly cannot do better, but we do not owe lazy people or people of low ambition a better living simply because they do not wish to expend the necessary energy to study harder in school, or try harder once they enter the work force, or because they simply have adopted an entitlement attitude and expect a great paying job to fall out of the sky and into their lap. Far too many in today’s America are now expecting something for nothing!

 

While the gap is vast, the beauty of a truly free market and capitalist society is that each and everyone of us can attain great wealth if we keep pushing through each failure until we achieve that success; usually the people who try, try again have become wealthy, but one also needs a modicum of intelligence and an idea for a business of one’s own combined with a decent level of ambition and the social grace and acumen to make the necessary business contacts. No one has ever said it was easy, but interjecting government to “level the playing field”…to make it easy for everyone…in the end only damages everyone in innumerable ways. Redistribution of the wealth is not a function of government no matter in what manner it is accomplished, and it should never be a final destination for any government that wishes to see a vibrant expanding economy, because history has shown time and time again that it has always failed wherever it was attempted with devastating effects on the society.

 

Hopefully, all America will get their heads together and start utilizing more pragmatic methods towards our nation’s real economic woes, but when Obama effortlessly spends nearly $9 trillion in four years with few results and a failed Stimulus that only distributed 6% back into the economy and Ben Bernanke is printing money at the Fed like there is no tomorrow, we have far more difficulties in this nation than the salary gap, especially when one considers the $100 trillion unfunded debt that has accrued throughout our history.

 

A larger centralized government, which is where Obama and the Progressives are taking us, will only serve to take more of the poor and middle class and even the wealthy’s earned income…their private property…and serve only to eventually further limit individual Freedom through over-regulation, just as we are witnessing through Obamacare; just look at the roaring 20s, when the government was small and regulations had been curbed back to only the barest of necessity and EVERYONE PROSPERED!

 

Even Pravda recently quoted Putin as saying that Obama was going down the path towards socialism.

 

By Justin O. Smith

 

Do Obama and the Environmentalists Really want Society to have Abundance?


OWS vs. Tea Party Movement

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) promoters are becoming confident with their movement to transform America away from a Capitalistic Market Economy to a spread the wealth Marxist Economy they are beginning to admit so publically.

 

Tony Newbill touches on OWS and follows his thoughts with a link to a GlenBeck.com article exposing the intentions of OWS.

 

JRH 3/15/12

*****************************

Do Obama and the Environmentalists Really want Society to have Abundance?

 

By Tony Newbill

Sent: 3/9/2012 9:39 AM

 

Do Obama and the Environmentalists Really want Society to have Abundance in Fuel or anything else that provides for an economic capital system to Prosper and the people to prosper as well?

 

In any given day the amount of Oil in excess in world reserves is 4 Million barrels , and the world is consuming 86 million barrels a day , considering this is a Global market and the Price of fuel is reflective of the Global demand, then with 1/3rd the oil coming out of the middle east and all the volatility in that region we can see how interruption in that area’s distribution would cause a spike in the price that we in the USA could not manage to keep the free market stable enough that collapse in the market would result .

 

We need an All hands on deck approach, and I think the Algae approach with the extra resource that it produces in the Pulp for food additive in just Livestock feeds and fertilizers let alone the Fiber content this material would bring to the Fiber Industry that could be used for some many things is why the idea of this secondary material being created for No Additional Monetary Investment is a Golden Opportunity for expansion of the Overall supply-side markets.

 

The Suppression of this resource development is coming from two very opposite groups, one being the Oil Industry, and the second is from the Environmentalist side. And the resistance from the environmentalist’s side is a funny one because you world think they would be all for a Green Energy right?? The problem with this is it Empowers a Society to be more self-reliant, and more able to create abundance. These 2 factors are NOT what Environmentalists who have become Marxist Ideologues want to see as an economic Policy for society as a whole, because this in their Point of view is Destroying Earth and they would rather not have any self-reliant individual Prosperity and this is why we have a NO Growth economic recovery underway. And why the Capitalist System is slowly collapsing as the Government funds itself with Federal Reserve Bond buying programs trying to wait this out slowly sucking the cash reserves away from the private sector so that when the economy finally collapses due to No capital expansion from true supply-side expansion growth and tax revenues increasing from that. Then when the S_H_T_F they can say Capitalism failed and we are going to move to a New system. This all in the name of sustainability, but really it is all about Controlling how much people consume.

 

This is the ultimate goal of the Population control experts that make up the Global Elites Think Tanks. This is why we have No true capital growth recovery in our economy system of Capitalism.

 

Here is a story on how the OWS movement is being used to try and bring down Capitalism. OWS is a cover for the Environmentalists who control Obama and all his CZARs, The Czars are ideologues with Obama too, they are creating an environment with this envy of rich wealth Capitalists as the oppressors of society and the destroyers of earth. Along with Regulations, the Obama Administration is setting the stage for Fear to Invade the Minds of Investors who without these powers of Influence effecting their willingness to take risk investments, see these elements and actions as more and More private investors leave the markets. And this makes the Federal Reserve have to buy more and more Bonds to keep the Government funded. This sets the stage for a systematic Economic breakdown, slow and steady, like guiding the Economic ship right towards Land and beaching the Ship. Hopefully the beaching is easy enough that people don’t become unsettled to the point of civil unrest.

This is the Globalists plan to fundamentally transform the USA:

 

_____________________________

Occupy leaders admit they want to abolish capitalism

 

GlenBeck.com

Monday, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM EDT

 

GBTV VIDEO

 

There was some incredible audio released over the weekend of a meeting of several union and Occupy Wall Street leaders, including Stephen Lerner, where they pretty much admit that they are looking to bring an end to capitalism because it just can’t co-exist with democracy! Sure, it’s worked ever since America was founded and led to the rise of The United States as a superpower and beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world – but that’s not what Occupy Wall Street wants. They and their leaders want us to be just the same as everyone else, and this video reveals that it means an end to capitalism in order to bring about their version of true democracy…aka socialism!

 

Watch the video below, courtesy of Breitbart.com:

 

Breitbart TV VIDEO

 

In the video, Lerner says:

 

How do we give workers the confidence? … How do we create a mood in the nation where we’re occupying our workplaces, where we’re shutting down our workplaces? … Where workers are sitting in, where workers are shutting down their places of work, and when the police come, when the injunctions come, we’re all there with them, so we can really deal with part of the reason that the economy’s so screwed up … which is a few people have got all the power. Think stew, think hope, death to the Stockholm Syndrome!

 

“This is what they are now saying out loud,” Glenn said.

 

“I want you to listen to its logical conclusion.  This is exactly what we’ve been saying but being hammered for.  Anybody ‑‑ you could play games and say, ‘Oh, well, that’s not really going to…; but if you use logic and play this out to its logical conclusion, it is the end of capitalism and that’s exactly what he’s saying,” Glenn warned.

 

“Please, America, take these people at their word,” Glenn said.

 

Glenn said that they are starting to develop their own value system, one that replaces capitalism with socialism, and they are trying to impose it on the rest of the country.

 

Breitbart.com adds, “This is where the unions and the Occupy movement and the academy all come together under one big anti-capitalist umbrella. Lerner, representing labor, says that the job of labor is to shut down business; Occupy says that its job is to smash the machines of capitalism; academia provides them the forum to recruit.”

 

In March of last year, Glenn and The Blaze reported on Lerner’s call for people to take action against big banks like JP Morgan Chase. At the time, Glenn said:

 

“You can call it a conspiracy theory, but the language that he uses is already being used by labor leaders and those who are whipping people up into a frenzy in Wisconsin and wait until you see how they are going to use the state and county and local labor unions to do exactly what they did to the housing market.  It’s the same tactic, gang.  The same tactic.  And it ends with the destruction of the economic system of the United States of America.  They are bringing it on through chaos and bringing down of Wall Street and the stock market.”

 

Since then, unions have been at the forefront of the Occupy Wall Street movement and have leveraged disaffected youth in order to achieve their goals of economic chaos, collapsing capitalism, and spreading socialism. Should we be more than a little concerned about Lerner’s latest comments? After all, this time last year he basically laying out the ideas that fueled the then non-existent Occupy movement. What could be coming next?

________________________________

Do Obama and the Environmentalists Really want Society to have Abundance?

© Tony Newbill

Tony Newbill is an elusive person to know about. I believe this is his Facebook page.

_________________________

Occupy leaders admit they want to abolish capitalism

Copyright © 2012, Mercury Radio Arts, All Rights Reserved.

 

Can We Trust Romney’s Words on Obamacare?


Obamacare Trojan Horse

John R. Houk

© February 11, 2012

 

Mitt Romney has been trying to convince Conservatives that he is a Conservative. Somebody caught Romney in a Freudian slip when on a role on a campaign stop, he told the crowd all the Conservative things he would do as President except he slipped up by saying he will fund Obamacare.

 

YouTube Video: Mitt Romney Wants to Fund Obama Care!!!

 

 

Uploaded by bookittysdad on Jan 30, 2012

 

In a Speech in Panama City, Florida, Mitt Romney goes on about cutting waist in the Military, and then using the funds to pay for Obama care. This is raw footage, there have been no editing tricks or other things added to this video. Please pass this around everywhere you can. Original Video Link. http://youtu.be/PipWtwfUkQY

 

Tony Newbill found an article at Ricochet.com reporting the feelings of a Romney advisor about how a Republican President would handle Obamacare if elected. Norm Coleman believes Obamacare will not be repealed but that the Senate will force a fix instead.

 

You couple this with Romney’s words in the YouTube video Romney does not really have any intention of using Executive Orders to render Obamacare useless. Romney’s Website says this about Obamacare:

 

Repeal and replace President Obama’s health care law
Mitt Romney believes that Obamacare must be repealed. On his first day in office, he will issue an executive order paving the way for waivers from Obamacare for all 50 states. Subsequently, he will call on Congress to fully repeal Obamacare, and advocate reforms that return power to the states, improve access by slowing health care cost increases, and make health insurance portable and flexible for today’s economy.

 

USA Today has an article authored by Mitt Romney on May 5, 2011 that provides five points about how a Romney Administration would deal with Obamacare:

 

Step 1: Give states the responsibility, flexibility and resources to care for citizens who are poor, uninsured or chronically ill. This reform speaks to the central advantage of our federalist system — that different states will experiment with and settle on the solutions that suit their residents best. Some states might pass a plan like the one we did in Massachusetts, while others will choose an altogether different route. We can empower states to expand health care access to low-income Americans by block-granting funds for Medicaid and the uninsured. My reforms also offer the states resources to help the chronically ill — both to improve their access to care and to improve the functioning of insurance markets for others.

 

Step 2: Reform the tax code to promote the individual ownership of health insurance. The tax code offers open-ended subsidies for the purchase of insurance through employers. This subsidy is unfair — as it doesn’t apply to insurance purchased on one’s own. I propose to give individuals a choice between the current system and a tax deduction to buy insurance on their own. This simple change creates the best of both worlds. Absolutely nothing will change for those who like their current coverage. And individuals who don’t get coverage through their employers will have portable, lower-cost options.

 

Step 3: Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work. This means both correcting common failures in insurance markets as well as eliminating counterproductive federal rules. For example, individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions. And individuals should be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines, free from costly state benefit requirements. Finally, individuals and small businesses should be allowed to form purchasing pools to lower insurance costs and improve choice.

 

Step 4: Reform medical liability. We should cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation. The federal government would also provide innovation grants to states for reforms, such as alternative dispute resolution or health care courts.

 

Step 5: Make health care more like a consumer market and less like a government program. This can be done by strengthening health savings accounts that help consumers save for health expenses and choose cost-effective insurance. For example, we should eliminate the minimum deductible requirement for HSAs. The market reforms I am proposing will drive down costs, better inform consumers and improve the quality of health care in our nation.

 

These five steps are positive change. They will reduce health care costs, improve access and enhance value for the money. My reforms put quality, choice and innovation — not Washington — in charge.

 

The five-step plan does not sound like repeal to me. However, with a little full disclosure the Romney steps to have a market system replace the socialist system of Obamacare quite appealing. BUT I find a bit of disingenuity in claiming his Administration would repeal Obamacare but that his plan is to fix Obamacare. Without some details on a market fix for Obamacare I an uncertain that the top (Federal) down (State) socialism can be fixed. I suspect repealing Obamacare and starting over with a medical-insurance reform based on a market economy would better serve the taxpayers of America. I can’t see reforming a socialistic program without starting from scratch is possible.

 

If Romney actually wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him over President Barack Hussein Obama. I will not support Romney through to the Republican National Convention. For me it is a decision between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Perhaps we will see a better picture of how the Republican Convention will proceed after Super Tuesday.

 

JRH 2/11/12 (Hat Tip: Tony Newbill)

Overpopulation Stuff – Tony Newbill


 

Tony Newbill writes (in several emails) about Leftist utopianism in which a ruling elite desire to create circumstances in which the planet Earth’s population is reduced substantially (we are talking billions) that the Secular Humanist vision of a Green Earth maintains a sustainable population for food consumption and human waste.

 

If that intro is too cryptic to understand, Obama has people in places of power that is on an extra-Constitutional basis that desires to exterminate billions of people to keep earth an inhabitable planet as defined by Malthusian elitist rule.

 

JRH 12/27/11

Beware the Chinese Strategy


China Overlapping USA toon

 

John R. Houk

© August 14, 2011

 

Robert Hsu is an investor connected with Investor Place Asia. He is the person in charge of a pro-China investment newsletter entitled, “China Strategy”. Hsu wants you to pay $300 for his investment advice unless you find a deal which might make the price as low as $100.

 

Tony Newbill sent me an ad email advertising China Strategy. Newbill’s interest is not to encourage you to invest in Chinese corporations but rather to see how China is undermining the American economy and that America’s rich are falling in line with this undermining by investing in China to get a greater return on their profits.

 

Now I am actually going to post this long email, but not to encourage you to buy into China markets to make the big bucks that Hsu alleges America’s wealthy does not want Joe American investor to know about. If Hsu is right and China is the new frontier in free market investment enabling you to be rich then you should think how investing in China is not good for America.

 

Keep in mind China is not a Capitalist free market society. China is a State controlled Marxist nation in which Communist economic models are still idolized yet with a twist. The twist the allowance of foreign corporations operating in China under Communist government rules enabling the creation of Chinese jobs which increases Chinese citizen spending which then logically leads to greater tax revenues for the Communist Chinese government. Trust me, the top-to-bottom ruling Communist Party has no intention of allowing their citizens to enjoy Liberty and Freedom on a personal level just because a touch of Capitalism is making the Chinese government and military stronger. China has definite regional issues to deal with in the same way that Imperial Japan had to deal with in the 1930s leading to war with America in 1941.

 

That issue is natural resources and regional hegemony that buffers the power of the Chinese government from possible foreign intervention. China’s strategic place in their region is influenced by Russia to the north, India roughly to the southeast, a declining Japan off the coast of China and yes the global reach of the American Navy.

 

It appears China has learned from the mistakes of militarism of Japan during WWII and the old Soviet Union’s collapse under the weight of the American economy and the Reagan military build-up. This means a Chinese military confrontation with America is unlikely any time soon unless America demonstrates a vulnerable weakness which I have no doubt China would exploit if the occasion presents itself.

 

The Chinese agenda has to do with the global economy and drawing American wealth toward China. While China waxes stronger economically China also invests in its military could be a competitive problem for the American strategic position in the future.

 

So what does America need to do?

 

I am no economist; however it is apparent that America’s economic paradigm must change to reverse the flow of American wealth to contribute to Chinese economic strength. My biggest guess this would mean the diminishing the power of Unions so that a competitive yet sustainable wage occurs that entices American corporations to reinvest in America. That means stopping the paradigm of outsourcing production of services.

 

This is where some of you who do have knowledge of economics need to step up to the plate with a plan that eschews political correctness which means less government socialism and more of a government agenda to protect and encourage free market Capitalism minus greedy Capitalism. This means less Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) and more let the seller beware (Caveat Venditor).

 

JRH 8/14/11

State-Owned Banks: Economic Save-All or Socialism


John R. Houk

© June 2011

 

I get many emails from Tony Newbill that usually relates to the development of a New World Order (NWO). Newbill basically is my Conspiracy Theory guru. Although I placed great strength into a lot of Conspiracy Theory in my early days of Internet usage and somewhat prior to my embracement of the Internet (i.e. the good ole days of books and magazines), these days I am not so much inclined. And yet, I still hold onto the thought that some Conspiracy Theories have an inkling of truth that should pick-up the ears of caution for all Americans.

 

There are two pet peeves of mine that many would classify as Conspiracy Theories, yet I believe their threat is very real to the American way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those two threats are the theopolitical nature of Islam and Marxist/Socialism.

 

Tony Newbill (and a few others) has convinced me there is a third threat. That threat is the ubiquitous undercurrent of the United Nations associated Agenda 21 (SA HERE). Agenda 21 appears to be a blend of Marxist/Socialism and wealthy Leftist global elites (including Americans) that have an agenda to manage the global population via the ecology, food production, and societal transformation to prevent population blow-back from an unhappy populace, population control by any means necessary and you get the idea.

 

In essence Agenda 21 has the concept of many power tentacles that makes the typical power to the people deception of Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Gramscism, and Maoism and so on to be backward concepts of political science in comparison.

 

There is one commonality in the midst of Political Islam, Marxist Socialism and Agenda 21. That commonality is the destruction of the American influenced Capitalism/Free Enterprise and the destruction of Judeo-Christian values that has been a huge influence in the development of Western Society as well as American life.

 

That commonality of hate from the triumvirate of global transformationists is probably a series of essays in itself. Tony Newbill sent me an email a couple of months ago wondering about State-Owned banks:

 

Feasibility of a CA State-owned Bank: The California Assembly Bill 750 Introduced to Study the Feasibility of a CA State-owned Bank; the USA needs this for ALL States Fast, because this is what’s heading our way.

 

Bill AB 750 is sponsored Assemblyman Ben Hueso. The Bill is entitled Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act.

 

The link was sent April 14, 2011 so if it is still functional (and it was as of today), then California State Assembly Committee work may have amended the Bill since the date I received it. The point I wish to examine though is the operation of a State-owned bank. At first glance a State-owned bank has the appearance of Socialism. It is Socialism in the sense that the State government owns and manages the bank separate from private enterprise.

 

Leftists like to point out a State-owned bank is owned by the people. However, the reality is the people have zero to do with the bank policy or bank management. A State-owned bank would be managed at the least by the State bureaucracy and at most by some direct accountability to a State Governor. That is not “people” ownership that is government ownership.

 

Then there is the centrist politician (both Democrat and Republican) that might provide the illusion of saying a State-owned bank is owned and accountable to the taxpayers. You know, like the Police Force on State and local arenas are taxpayer supported thus accountable to elected representatives. The thing is a majority of law enforcement are not directly accountable to the voting taxpayer. Most States have some sort of County elected Sheriff; most Police Chiefs or heads of State Police are appointed. Police organizations are accountable to budgets developed by City Councils or State Congresses but that is a long way from direct accountability to taxpaying voters. Policies are set in blue print by a bureaucracy and executed by the interpretation of the Chief Police executive.

 

The same undoubtedly apply to a State-owned bank, right?

 

Here is the paradigm that has inspired many States and not just California to explore the potential to create a State-owned bank. That paradigm comes from the only State-owned bank currently in operation in America. That State is North Dakota. North Dakota has had a State-owned bank for about 91 years.

 

Now think of that. North Dakota has had a State-owned bank that has not only weathered the near decade long Great Depression that began in 1929, but has survived various economic assaults on banks from inflation, bad loans and especially the biggest American recession (someday it may be called a depression) that assaulted our economy because of the domino effect of the bad paper loans of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Indeed the Bank of North Dakota (BND) actually registered a profit of $62 Million in 2010 when privately owned banks were struggling to survive. Now millions might sound like small scale for a State profit; however North Dakota’s population is 672,591 (2010 census).

 

The thing that is exciting other States that are contemplating the feasibility of a State-owned bank is the potential of per capita percentages adjusted to bigger populated States. That $62 Million profit in North Dakota might comparatively be in the hundreds of millions or in the billions with larger States that have larger economies.

 

When a State-owned bank makes a profit in competition with private banks based only fiscal decisions rather State mandated regulation favoring the State-owned bank, is that not Capitalism in action? Or is it still Socialism merely because the State owns and manages their bank?

 

Let us face one reality that applies to me and probably to a majority of other Americans. We the People for the most part are not economists. We rely on our ideological favorites that we want to trust to keep us informed, right? So here I go making some no-name blogger non-economist presumptive thoughts on State-owned banks.

 

My thought on State-owned banks at first glance is indeed they are an act of Socialism. Yet the BND paradigm is a successful competitive one that has brought prosperity rather than the typical Socialist atrophy that follows bureaucratic management. So let’s read a few pro-State-owned bank thoughts.

 

Mother Jones: How was the bank formed?

Eric Hardmeyer: It was created 90 years ago, in 1919, as a populist movement swept the northern plains. Basically it was a very angry movement by a large group of the agrarian sector that was upset by decisions that were being made in the eastern markets, the money markets maybe in Minneapolis, New York, deciding who got credit and how to market their goods. So it swept the northern plains. In North Dakota the movement was called the Nonpartisan League, and they actually took control of the legislature and created what was called an industrial program, which created both the Bank of North Dakota as a financing arm and a state-owned mill and elevator to market and buy the grain from the farmer. And we’re both in existence today doing exactly what we were created for 90 years ago. Only we’ve morphed a little bit and found other niches and ways to promote the state of North Dakota.

MJ: What makes your bank unique today?

EH: Our funding model, our deposit model is really what is unique as the engine that drives that bank. And that is we are the depository for all state tax collections and fees. And so we have a captive deposit base, we pay a competitive rate to the state treasurer. And I would bet that that would be one of the most difficult things to wrestle away from the private sector—those opportunities to bid on public funds. But that’s only one portion of it. We take those funds and then, really what separates us is that we plow those deposits back into the state of North Dakota in the form of loans. We invest back into the state in economic development type of activities. We grow our state through that mechanism.  

 

 

MJ: So you are able to invest in certain areas because they provide a public good.

EH: Yeah, or a direction, whether it’s energy or primary sector type of businesses. We have specific loan programs that are designed at very low interest rates to encourage activity along certain lines. Here’s another thing: We’re gearing up for a significant flood in one of the communities here in North Dakota called Fargo. We’ve experienced one of those in another community about 12 years ago which prior to Katrina was the largest single evacuation of any community in the United States. And so the Bank of North Dakota, once the flood had receded and there were business needs, we developed a disaster loan program to assist businesses. So we can move quite quickly to aid with different types of scenarios. Whether it’s encouraging different economies to grow or dealing with a disaster.

MJ: What do private banks think of you?

EH: The interesting thing about the bank is we understand that we walk a fine line between competing and partnering with the private sector. We were designed and set up to partner with them and not compete with them. So most of the lending that we do is participatory in nature. It’s originated by a local bank and we come in and participate in the loan and use some of our programs to share risk, buy down the interest rate. We even provide guarantees similar to SBA to encourage certain activity for entrepreneurial startups. Aside from that, we also act as a bankers’ bank or a wholesale bank. So we provide services to banks, whether it’s check clearing, liquidity, or bond accounting safekeeping. There’s probably 20 other bankers’ banks across the country. So we act in that capacity as kind of a little mini-fed actually. And so we service 104 banks and provide liquidity to them and clear their checks and also we buy loans from them when they have a need to overline, whether it’s beyond their legal lending limit or they just want to share risk, we’ll do that. We’re a secondary market for residential loans, so we have a portfolio of $500 to $600 million of residential loans that we buy.


MJ: So what’s the advantage of a publicly owned “bankers’ bank” instead of a privately owned one?


EH: Our model is we use our deposit base to help [other banks] with funding their loans, even providing fed funds lines with our excess liquidity—we buy and sell fed funds and act as a clearinghouse for check clearing activity. That would be the benefit or different model. We’re a depository bank and can bring that to bear
. (How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street; By Josh Harkinson; Mother Jones; Mar. 27, 2009 6:33 PM PDT)

 

What is the economic environment that makes the Bank of North Dakota successful that perhaps may not apply in another economic venue?

 

Because all state funds in North Dakota pass through BND, including regulatory and licensing fees, the institution is extremely well-capitalized. Because BND sticks to investing conservatively on behalf of the people and businesses of North Dakota, and ignores hinky transactions such as credit-default swaps, it has weathered the depressions and recessions of the 20th and 21st centuries with little turbulence.


In the midst of the current economy, with every other state in the country wrestling with crippling debt, North Dakota has none. It has billions in surplus. In addition to paying state government a competitive interest rate, BND issues dividends to the state. According to a March 7 article by Ellen Brown for GlobalResearch.ca, in 2008, the bank provided the state a 26 percent return in dividends alone
. (Can State-Owned Development Banks Save America?; By Zane Fischer; Santa Fe Reporter; 03.16.2011)

 

The above quote is from a New Mexico newspaper. I quoted the part about BND; however the article was about a prospect of New Mexico entering the State-owned banking business. The author Zane Fischer refers to Ellen Brown of who I found an article that promotes California AB 750. Brown salivates about the potential a State-owned bank might do to save California from its debt woes. But note Brown relates to applying a California paradigm which is actually untested like the BND which has been tested successfully under the paradigm of an agricultural and business incentive economy that has avoided Housing as a principle business.

 

California is the eighth largest economy in the world, and it has a debt burden to match. It has outstanding general obligation bonds and revenue bonds of $158 billion, largely incurred for infrastructure. Of this tab, $70 billion is just for interest. Over $7 billion of California’s annual budget goes to pay interest on the state’s debt.

 

As large as California’s liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. That’s the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds. Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit – or allowing a Wall Street bank to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital – California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.

 

California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility. Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here.

 

 

The Center for State Innovation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, was commissioned to do detailed analyses for the Washington and Oregon bills. Their conclusion was that a state-owned bank on the model of the Bank of North Dakota would have a substantial positive impact in those states, increasing employment, new lending, and government revenue.

 

What California Could Do with Its Own Bank

 

Banks create “bank credit” from capital and deposits, as explained here. Under existing capital requirements, $8 in capital can be leveraged into $100 in loans, drawing on the liquidity provided by the deposits to clear the outgoing checks. Assuming a 10% reserve requirement (the amount in deposits normally held in reserve), $8 in capital and $100 in deposits are sufficient to create $90 in loans ($100 less $10 held back for reserves).

 

In North Dakota (population 647,000), the Bank of North Dakota has $2.7 billion in deposits, or $4000 per capita. The majority of these deposits are drawn from the state’s own revenues. The bank has nearly the same sum ($2.6 billion) in outstanding loans.

 

California has 37 million people. If the California Investment Trust (CIT) performed like the BND, it might amass $148 billion in deposits. With $12 billion in capital, this $148 billion could generate $133 billion in credit for the state (subtracting 10%, or 14.8 billion, to satisfy reserve requirements).

 

There are various ways the state could come up with the capital, but one possibility that would not require new taxes or debt would be to simply draw on the treasurer’s existing pooled money investment account, which currently contains $65 billion in accumulated revenues dispersed to a variety of funds. This money is already invested; a portion could just be shifted to the CIT. Since it would be an investment in equity rather than an expenditure, it would not cost the state money. Rather, it would make money for the state. In recent years, the Bank of North Dakota has had a return on equity of 25-26%. Compare the 25-30% lost in the two years following the 2008 banking crisis by CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which invested its money on Wall Street.

 

There are many inviting possibilities for applying the CIT’s $133 billion in credit power, but here is one easy alternative that illustrates the cost-effectiveness of the approach. Assume the bank invested $133 billion in municipal bonds at 5% interest. This would give the state close to $7 billion annually in interest income – nearly enough to pay the interest tab on the state’s debt.

 

Choosing Prosperity

 

What California can do with its own bank, other states can do as well, on a scale proportionate to their populations and economies. North Dakota has a population that is less than 1/10th the size of Los Angeles; the BND produced $62 million in revenue last year and $2.2 billion in loans. Larger states could generate much more.

 

We have been trapped in an austere neo-liberal economic model in which the only alternatives are to slash services, raise taxes, and sell off public assets, all in a futile attempt to “balance the budget” in a shrinking economy. We need to start thinking outside the box. We can choose prosperity, and public banks are a key tool for achieving that end. (WHAT A PUBLIC BANK COULD MEAN FOR CALIFORNIA; By Ellen Brown; ThePeoplesVoice.org; May 20th, 2011)

 

If you have read down this far, I have a question. Did anyone notice Brown attached California’s needs to North Dakota’s paradigm? There was a lot of talk of a deposit based banking paradigm as in North Dakota. Also Brown connects everything from tax revenue to State government bureaucracy being tied to the bank.

 

Here is the thing I noticed though. Brown’s delight of tying all California revenue through a State-owned bank seems to lead to the possibility of moving budgetary money around to meet State needs covered by the State-owned deposits. Now I know in a perfect world with the revenue flying in on all cylinders that this would not be a big deal to move bank deposits or borrowing against bank deposits to shore up a State need to be a big deal. BUT what would happen if the borrowing on deposits to shore-up say social programs began to exceed the deposits? Keep in mind the North Dakota paradigm did not eliminate private enterprise banks but indeed worked with partner situations with the private banks. Also keep in mind the BND is not a Federally insured bank. The bank deposits are insured by the State of North Dakota.

 

With this in mind private banks play a huge role in California as opposed to North Dakota. California has been in the red so long that there might be a little distrust to place money in a Federally UNINSURED bank. I am thinking deposits in a State-owned bank in California could be just as bad news for the Californian economy if the State-owned banking revolves around California’s huge economy that goes way beyond agriculture and small businesses. I am betting some Governor, State Congress or bureaucrat might be willing to gamble in a less than conservative manner which could backfire.

 

If there is crisis in State-owned banking I am guessing a State like California would have to implement greater tentacles of Socialism that will indeed make the Bank of North Dakota look like a true Capitalist venture. Then Constitutional issues could arise because I am just unsure how Socialized a State can be outside the U.S. Constitution.

 

It seems to me that large State economies cannot work out a semi-Socialist/Capitalist success as has happened in North Dakota.

 

JRH 6/3/11

 

Newbill on Banks, Government, China, Economy, Union and the People


Stimulus CK-  Chinaman giving & Demanding

Below are a series of emails sent to me by Tony Newbill. Newbill has a habit of writing his thoughts in a random manner which sometimes makes for difficult reading. Newbill’s thoughts are fascinating though. I believe the best description I can provide for the thoughts are a huge dose of Capitalism merged with some collectivist ideas on a community level rather than the typical the typical Socialistic international utopianism. I need to be clear: I also believe Tony Newbill is very anti-Leftist. This loose description is the very thing that makes Newbill’s thoughts enticingly fascinating.

 

Of great note is that there are two emails that were sent with the same message. Newbill felt the second clarified a prior email. I include them both because there are slight variations probably due to my editing than to Newbill’s clarification. Also note that the links are in plain text except when I link a phrase or word. Copy and paste the plain text links in order to discover Newbill’s reference. Below is the post.

 

JRH 10/4/10

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: