HONG KONG Protests: Soros & UK Collaboration

The US is behind the protests in Hong Kong!  

That’s what various media outlets are touting. But three of the main NGO’s backing the protestors are based in the UK;   Hong Kong Watch, Justice Center Hong Kong, and PEN Hong Kong.   All three NGO’s would seem to have connections to the UN. All of the groups operate under the NGO, Civil Human Rights Front which formed under the auspices of the Pro Democracy Group dating to Tiananmen Square uprising in the 1970’s.

While their core ideology lies in universal suffrage and One Country, Two Legislations, factions have risen with differing views on how to attain and retain this framework.   Some reference extreme German liberalism, others voice radical democracy, and still others voice progressivism.   They came to power via the end of British colonialism.

The last British governor of Hong Kong was Chris Patten who also served as co-chair for International Crisis Group, headquartered in Belgium, and is a member of the Global Leadership Foundation headquartered in Switzerland.

The current CEO for the US faction of Global Leadership is Liz Schrayer, a vehement anti-Trumper. Executive Director – Jason Gross worked for various Democrat campaigns, and is chaired by Daniel Glickman, a prominent Democrat under Clinton. While their status is 501©(3), they make no contributions, and operate as a lobbying NGO – which would be fraudulent under the IRS code for a charity.

The head of the Executive Committee for the International Crisis Group is Lord Malloch Brown who began his political career as a correspondent for The Economist, a Rothschild media magazine.   Outside of his career at the UN, Brown had extensive experience in ‘advising politicians’ throughout Chile, Columbia and Peru.   Among his many convenient friends is John Podesta.   Malloch Brown has been a close associate with George Soros working for the Soros Fund Management as well as the Soros Open Society Institute.

When looking for the source of massive protests gone awry, the names of George Soros and Clinton often arise, sometimes unexpectedly.

So why does Soros want to create his breed of chaos in China and Hong Kong?

The media basis of the Hong Kong protests is the introduction of an extradition rule set forth by the China aligned Carrie Lam that would allow Hong Kong defendants to be extradited to China mainland to face charges and actions. Given China’s communist version of law is quite different than Hong Kong’s British law, the consequences could be most devastating!  Hence the legitimate protests.

Soros may not have instigated the protests in Hong Kong, but like the Yellow Vests in France and elsewhere, and the Occupy Wall Street and Ferguson riots in the US, Soros tends to infiltrate with paid anarchists and antagonists to fuel fire to what would otherwise be peaceful.

Why? Soros needs a world war. He doesn’t much care who, so much as what such a war would entail today, how many would die, and who would divvy up the spoils.

Stoking civil crisis’ in the US, attempting to stoke communist supporting anti-Putin rallies in Russia, inflaming the Yellow Vest Movement with anarchists, the Hong Kong agenda was ‘a gift’.

Add to the tumult, tensions between India and Pakistan have reached tensile strength amid arguments over Kashmir.

In 2017, Pakistan booted Soros Foundations from the country amid allegations of espionage.   At the time, Soros was heavily entrenched in the region. Other expelled NGO’s included Save The Children and Medicins San Frontieres.   Both of these organizations have been embroiled in massive scams involving sexual abuse, prostitution and trafficking allegations.

Today, violence in Kashmir has escalated requiring curfews and military presence in the streets.   While officially recognized as a statehood of India, that dictum has been argued by both Pakistan and China.   Who determined that dictum? Why the UN. Of course!

Like Hong Kong, India’s Prime Minister Modi was born during the fall of British colonialism of India.   Do we see a commonality?   British colonies. Which would include, the US. Alas, South Africa, Canada and Australia come to mind.  Ready for civil war.

While the focus of rule has consistently been redirected at the US, in essence, the true force is and has been the UK, aka Britain.

Theresa May was certainly a pawn in that force. The Steele Dossier fabricated by MI6.   And the Russian agenda was regurgitated under the auspices of MI6.   This has been the core of the propaganda for decades, if not centuries.

Where did the global shadow government originate?

It has been referenced by a multitude of US Presidents dating to the beginning of the US as it fought British power and control.   And yet, that yield of power simply went underground.  It never died.  Hundreds of years later…

Soros next target will likely be in South America, perhaps Brazil and Columbia.

The unfortunate truth is the fact that within the US Democrat candidates, while they may all have been educated in the Soros Cabal, they are ignorant to the fact of their superfluous use and future.   In some sense that is sad. But then, everyone has a choice. They can choose the House of Satan.   Or they can choose The House of God.

Ultimately, these Democrat candidates will be the victims of their Cabal.

FYI: The house of God has absolutely no alignment with The Church. Its alignment is to God, and God alone.

Peace, Truth and The Peacemakers Calling

We are called to be ‘peacemakers’. But what is Peace? How is it defined? Is it the absence of conflict or is it the aggressive actionable stance of creating relationship?

We are all ‘a chip off the block’, fragments of God, with jagged edges and jigsaw puzzle pieces. But when we come together as a family, with mother, father and children, we smooth these edges and become more like God. The pieces fit together to make a larger more whole piece closer, more like, the image of God. When we fragment the family, our edges are sharper, more pronounced, and our piece withers in a kaleidescope of warped imagery.

Peacemakers do not avoid conflict they confront it with love and compassion, they resolve it and use the strength of God to absolve the issue each and every time. To hold it like a knight, not a coward, to seek the truth within the conflict and make it known. This world we live in is an example of what it means to not face the truth, because it is the truth that will create peace. Taking responsibility. Owning what is your sin. Looking at the log that gauges your eye.

The UN was created in 1945 to end conflict and bring peace to the world. But it has failed miserably. In fact, between 1946 and 2013, there were 331 incidences of armed conflict. Why? Because the method, the rationale for prevention is not rooted in the core cause – individual emptiness, a Godlessness that permeates the very heart and soul of humanity. How can we possibly stave off conflict if we don’t address the truth of the cause?

When I Googled, ‘how to achieve peace’, most of the entries were Buddhist in nature and reflected a desire for inner peace. There were a few political adjuncts that claimed peace was achieved through freedom and a barrage of solid rules imposed by government. Other sites stressed ‘the avoidance of war’ as a means of peace. Still another site claimed that satisfying one’s own desires first will ultimately lead to peace with others. YIKES!

But men are flawed, and when they rely on their own person to achieve that which has never been known to mankind, they will fail. Again and again. And yet, we continue to believe that man is the solution. That avoidance is the solution. That independence is the solution. That if we avoid conflict, it will disappear.

Ten thousand years later, it still has not worked. So why do we keep butting our heads against this wall of thorns when it has never worked?

The false premise is that since man is the creator of chaos, man must be the source of peace. From the outside. But it cannot happen when the outside is ruled by pride and arrogance and vengeance and immorality. It simply will not work.

Then of course, there is the step-by-step instructions on how to achieve peace with ‘no compromising’ being fundamental to the doctrine. But ‘no compromising’ begs pride, arrogance, rightness, the moral depravity that creates the conflict in the first place. It is a very naïve approach to a very complicated issue. Recently, my husband invoked the ‘Christians don’t compromise’ doctrine in the midst of a fight. Really? I had to look that one up.

The first problem came up in the definition of compromise. Some believed it to mean ‘caving in’, while others observed that it was a give and take, a leaning in and out. I suppose they are both right in a sense, but circumstances are so diverse and broad, an absolute is definitely NOT the rationale.

Biblically, the phrase, “Christians Don’t compromise”, is addressed in the Bible, but it is in the context of there is no compromise with regard to God. No compromise with regard to the commandments of God. And no compromise with regard to sin. It’s a bit like the statement, “I’m sort of pregnant”. You can’t be in a gray area within these black and whites. But that does not mean that there aren’t vast gray areas of issue to mediate within Christianity that are a product of individual circumstances. So to make the statement in the context of a marriage dispute is somewhat …well, out of context.

My husband attempted to invoke ‘truth’ as his and his alone within the frame of not compromising. Truth belonged to him and no one else.  Uh oh…   And in so doing completely missed the point. There are hard truths, absolute facts, and then there are perspective truths, subject to interpretation. By invoking his truth, he was avoiding conflict (his fallback) by refusing to hear me. In so doing, we had no peace, what we had was a dictatorship rule.

While this earth may never find worldly peace, we are still called to understand that we must try. We are called to try as peacemakers.  Not peace as a form of government rule and protocol and doctrine and punishment and judgment, but peace that is based on the values and morals and integrity and spirituality of God and His Word.

And ultimately, Peace will only be had when we have Truth – not your truth or my truth – but THE Truth.

The War of The Atheists

The Supreme Court refuses to define what is ‘religion’. If there is no legal definition, then how can Atheists assert they are not a religious organization. And how can an atheist organization obtain charitable foundation status? According to the IRS, “private foundations generally support other public charities or other foundations with grants.” However, there is status within the context of ‘educational’. This would only be available if it is to ‘make the public aware’, the moment the actions become politically motivated then the status has been breeched.

Murky is as murky does: “Rev. Rul. 68–263, 1968–1 C.B. 256, holds that the publication of material which discredits particular institutions and individuals on the basis of unsupported opinions and incomplete information about their affiliations is not educational.”

A foundation’s attempts to discredit Christians, Christian beliefs and churches would seem to be a – breech.

A quick overview of some of the form 990’s filed by these organizations shows some discrepancies or oddities. For example, one organization had one employee whose annual compensation was roughly 40% of donations, their cost for accounting services was exceedingly high, and their ‘consultants’ cost was also worrisome. The statement of time spent per week working for the organization was 105 hours – that would equate to 15 hours per day 7 days per week.

Another foundation whose contributions totalled $3.88million in 2013 holds a “Cash Balance” in their asset section of well over $11million. I’d say they were not spending their charitable contributions very well if they have accumulated such a ‘profit’. Their revenue for 2013 was $3,878,938 and their spending was $2,163,375 leaving an annual profit margin of 44%! That’s a lot of profit for a non-profit!

Could these foundations be construed to be ‘educating’ for the purpose of lobbying for a particular political outcome? “Exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) is precluded for those organizations which are substantially engaged in attempting to influence legislation…”

Is ‘educating’ people to convert to atheism – proselytizing?

Proselytize: to recruit or convert to a new faith, belief or cause… When these foundations use the media to denounce religion and the church and provide the option to convert to atheism, they are now the proselytizer.

At what point does proselytizing become harassment? When is freedom of speech breeched? The legal definition of freedom of speech is: “to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.” So if a person wants to announce their belief, it is an expression. But when does this concern the separation of church and state? It doesn’t because it is superceded by the Constitution which declares,Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

Therefore, making a law that abridges this freedom of speech, such as invoking separation of church and state, is unlawful, and the First Amendment shall take priority.

And ad in a newspaper harshly condemns Catholicism. So does ‘expressing or sharing’ your faith qualify as proselytizing? Legally, no. Because then it would make every atheist potentially criminal for even stating they are atheist – which is their ’cause’ or ‘faith’.

This has become such an explosive issue of late that it bears discussion. The legal definition states: atheism is the belief that gods do not or can not exist. The problem is the use of the word ‘belief’. The definition of ‘belief’ is; confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Given that an atheist can not ‘prove’ the belief that there is no God, their faith is a belief.

For a time atheists were actively seeking status as a religion, however, when the ramifications of this became apparent, they backed off. As a religion, no material in school could refer to the non-existence of God, no theory of evolution could be taught, discrimination cases would be launched, and science would have to be revealed as a ‘theory’ of faith. The concept was dropped immediately.

Why do people become atheists? The resounding answer is because they feel that God is not keeping the world safe and pure, and therefore He must not exist. Of course, this statement defers to ‘free will’. God created Adam and Eve with free will. Within this freedom, they sinned. We still have free will, we are free to sin or not to. Our sins create an unsafe and impure world. God wants us to be pure, but He can’t force us, he cries when we sin, it brings great grief. Grief is born of Love.

When did atheism become so far flung in your face antagonistic, arrogant and smug? Because it didn’t used to be so. I had a friend who said she objected to reciting in school, “…one nation under God…”. Okay, then don’t say it. At issue is the notion that we cater to the one instead of to the eight. At issue is the fact that 12% of the US population identify themselves as ‘atheists’.

Personally, I take no issue in people who desire to identify as Atheist, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever they prefer. I take issue with the constant harassment and unethical attacks perpetrated against Christians so as to make us follow the doctrine of your nothingness. I take issue with the ridiculous idea that suing is the answer to all your problems. I take issue with the notion that you are so self consumed that it is all about you. It is hypocritical and bullying. Every blank, empty wall space that is not covered with religious identity is virtually the identity of Atheism.

At issue is the notion of tolerance and the absolute intolerance of atheists in their pursuit of emptiness for all.