Five Sins to Avoid

Obama Grants Pay Increase For Members Of Congress, Federal Workers In Executive Order

When it comes to US austerity, a very sensitive topic as framed best by the "spending cuts" portion in the Fiscal Cliff debate, the ideas range from the surreal to the outright idiotic: as an example in the most recent Obama proposal spending would be "reduced" in the form of $290 billion in interest savings - not an actual spending reduction, but a hope and a prayer that because rates are lower, the government will "save" money with rates continuing to be lower (something which immediately causes a #Ref!explosion for anyone not using government math), $130 billion in savings that would come from once again rejiggering the definition of 'inflation', as well as "savings" from not funding extra defense spending because the US is not engaged in a pro forma war. Like we said: surreal and idiotic, or in other words, no actual real cuts to spending. Yet even as the nation is gripped by the melodrama of fake spending cuts offset by the threat to tax millionaires more (all of whom will merely find more creative and effective ways to hide their wealth and income offshore), spending increases are all too real, such as last night's order by Obama's just issued an executive order to end the pay freeze for federal employees, which is the equivalent of a wage increase. A truly deserved rise in wages for a job well done by the most dysfunctional Congress America has ever seen.

Among the workers to receive a pay increase is Vice President Job Biden. As the Weekly Standard reports, citing disclosure forms, Biden made $225,521 last year and after the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year. More: "Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase." Somehow we have the feeling that Congress will be quite united behind this "order", just as the Senate was very united yesterday in its decision to continue spying on America's citizens.

From the Weekly Standard:

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:



"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."

Jeryl Bier points to an example of the pay increase for average government executives:



"Not much of an increase, but an increase all the same," Bier notes.

And the timing isn't great either: Just as President Obama and Congress try to avert going over the "fiscal cliff," he doles out pay increases to federal workers.

UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."

Obama Executive Order

Zero Hedge

Ron Paul On The Fiscal Cliff: "We Have Passed The Point Of No Return"

In a little under three minutes, Ron Paul explains to a somewhat nonplussed CNBC anchor just how ridiculous the charade that is occurring in D.C. actually is. 

This succinct spin-free clip should be required viewing for each and every asset-manager, talking-head, propagandist, and mom-and-pop who are viewing the last-minute idiocy of the 'fiscal cliff' debacle with some hope that things will be different this time. "We have passed the point of no return where we can actually get our house back in order," Paul begins, adding that "they pretend they are fighting up there, but they really aren't. 

They are arguing over power, spin, who looks good, who looks bad; all trying to preserve the system where they can spend what they want, take care of their friends and print money when they need it." With social safety nets available to rich and poor, there is no impetus for change and "the country loses," but Paul concludes, the markets are starting to say "there is a limit to this."

Zero Hedge

India Receives Second Russia-Built Stealth Missile Frigate

NEW DELHI, December 30 (RIA Novosti) - The second of three stealth frigates that Russia builds for India at the Yantar Shipyard in Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad arrived at the port of Mumbai, an Indian Defense Ministry source said on Sunday.

The source did not specify whether an official ceremony of the frigate’s reception would be held.

Russia and India signed a $1.6 billion contract on construction of three modified Krivak III class (also known as Talwar class) guided missile frigates for India in 2006. The first frigate, INS Teg, joined the Indian Navy on April 27.

The second frigate, The Tarkash, was commissioned on November 9 and sailed from Baltiysk to India on November 17.

The last in the series of three frigates, The Trikand, currently undergoes dock trials and after it completes sea trials in the Baltic Sea will join the Indian Navy in the summer of 2013.

The new frigates are each armed with eight BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.

They are also equipped with a 100-mm gun, a Shtil surface-to-air missile system, two Kashtan air-defense gun/missile systems, two twin 533-mm torpedo launchers, and an antisubmarine warfare (ASW) helicopter.

Russia previously built three Talwar class frigates for India - INS Talwar (Sword), INS Trishul (Trident), and INS Tabar (Axe).

RIA Novosti

The year 2012 ended with the announcement of the arrival of a new period of confrontation between Washington and Moscow

Political strategies and show biz have become so intertwined nowadays that it’s hard to tell the former from the latter, and vice versa. For Washington and Moscow – two old-time friends and rivals – the year 2012 ended with the announcement of the arrival of a new period of confrontation, which can be observed between parliaments at the moment but could grow into something much more serious.

Having shaken off the ‘archival dust’ of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, the United States quickly replaced the obsolete document with the Magnitsky Act. Russia responded with the blacklist of Americans who will be denied Russian visas and imposed a ban on the adoption of Russian children by US citizens.

Like in chess, the game between Moscow and Washington is developing on the basis of a logical scenario. The methods the two countries resort to are not important after all, as the relations between the two countries were destined to deteriorate anyway. This opinion belongs to International Grandmaster Alexei Kuzmin.

"The political duel between the United States and Russia will assume yet more threatening proportions in 2013. Given that the two sides have exhausted all their arguments concerning a European missile defense system, Iran, Syria and the ever-green issue of a Middle East settlement, there are practically no chances for striking an easy deal. A chess player is often confronted with difficult choices where he has to decide whether the oncoming worsening of his position is beneficial. Every grandmaster knows how to provoke the opponent into making a move that could seem dangerous but yields good fruit in the long run. A provocation that fails to hit its target makes your position weaker."

Whatever moves Russia and the US choose to make, they are unlikely to grow into a full-fledged conflict, International Grandmaster Vladislav Tkachev says.

"No high-profile moves, like the Magnitsky and Dima Yakovlev Lists, the creation of new missile defense systems, or support of one of the parties to the Syrian conflict, can spoil relations between Russia and the US. As always, the United States is feigning interest in what Russia has to say but does as it pleases. It reserves the right to set its own rules of conduct. Like in a game of chess, Washington controls the key fields of the chessboard while feeling free to decide whether to exchange pieces or launch a direct attack against the king."

According to Alexei Kuzmin, the recently signed Dima Yakovlev Bill and the law that bans corrupt US officials from opening accounts in Russian banks or entering Russia are strategic moves designed to provoke the opponent into taking symmetrical measures, which in turn could strengthen President Putin’s positions on the ‘domestic policy section’ of the chessboard.

All these moves are but red herring while Moscow is consistently pursuing its agenda moving, slowly but surely, towards the ‘main target’. This is what is bothering Washington, Vladislav Tkachev says.

In general, Russia is against ‘blacklist wars’ or games for raising stakes. The Russian Foreign Ministry said a few days ago that the only reasonable way of handling international relations is a dialogue. But a dialogue presupposes two parties.




Voice of Russia

EU,US plan economic union

The European Union and the United States are holding secret talks on the creation of a joint trade and economic union. According to news media reports, Washington and Brussels are in talks to strike an unprecedented deal on creating a trans-Atlantic market.

The purpose of such an initiative is to offset the potential of the Old and New Worlds against the rapidly developing markets of the BRICS group of countries, particularly India, China and Russia.

The idea of economic integration between the EU and the US was first suggested by Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel put forward this initiative in 2007. Back then, the plan received no approval from Washington and was shelved altogether, following the 2008 crisis. According to unofficial reports, the participants in the clandestine talks are discussing mutual investments and common standards in taxation, medicine and other areas. Meanwhile, experts warn about the difficulties that lurk behind such integration. They make it clear that a trade union of the two regional economies should not hurt European and American high-tech companies. Analyst Mikhail Neyzhmakov comments.

"A large number of corporations on both sides could benefit from such a union. However, since the EU and the US both produce high-tech products and are competing in this area, they might end up damaging their own corporations by creating a free economic zone and offering free access to each other’s markets."

A trans-Atlantic economic zone would spur economic growth in the US and the EU. According to experts, abolition of taxes will guarantee a 0.5% GDP growth in the EU and a 1.5% in the US. Exports would increase by nearly one fourth in both the EU and the US. The European Union and the United States could thus form an effective counterbalance to the BRICS economies. Europe and the United States have been losing their positions on foreign markets over the past few decades. Maxim Bratersky of the Higher School of Economics, comments.

"Over the past 10-15 years, Europe has become less competitive compared to China and India. However, it has been losing only in a particular set of sectors, where European workers can be replaced by Chinese, or Vietnamese. As for a whole range of other sectors of the economy, Europe retains fairly strong positions on the markets."

Most analysts are skeptical about a US-EU economic union. Nevertheless, given the current trend for economic integration in various corners of the world, such a union remains an option. The 21st century could well become an era of economic alliances in the course of which the US and Europe will join forces against the rest of the world, including Asia.

Voice of Russia

EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia

While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.

In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated:

By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20.

As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.” Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”

“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed:

Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.

Then Annan addressed the rational apprehension that many people would harbor concerning these new proposals for restructuring the world. “What do we mean by ‘governance’ when applied to the international realm?” he asked. “In the minds of some,” he said, “the term still conjures up images of world government, of centralized bureaucratic behemoths trampling on the rights of people and states.” These fearful conjurations, he assured us, have no basis in reality. “Nothing is less desirable” than world government, said Annan, insisting that “the very notion of centralizing hierarchies is itself an anachronism in our fluid, highly dynamic and extensively networked world — an outmoded remnant of nineteenth century mindsets.”

However, only months prior to the Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan’s report, on February 26, 1999, Sir Shridath Ramphal, a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, addressed the Commission’s meeting in Barcelona, Spain, and gave a very different take on the matter. Ramphal stated:

The point I am making is that when we talk of “governance” and “democracy,” we have to look beyond governance within countries and democracy within states. We have to look to Global Governance and Democracy within the Global State.

A Global “State” with a capital “S” signifies a world “State,” a world government. And Ramphal emphasized that in the conclusion of his talk by celebrating the end of the “Nation State.” He declared:

As the Century of the Nation State ends, however, to a far greater degree than their governments, people recognize … they understand that the roads to justice and survival are conjoined; that the task is to bring the mutual interests and the moral impulses of mankind together.

Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”

Van Rompuy — Tapped by Bilderbergers
Attali is a veteran attendee of the annual meetings of the super-secret, super-elite Bilderberg Group. Which brings us back to Herman Van Rompuy, frequently referred to as “Bilderberg Van Rompuy,” a reference to his having received his current job title through the actions and influence of the Bilderbergers. In a November 17, 2009 article for the U.K.’s Guardian, entitled “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of ‘shambolic’ process to fill key jobs,” Ian Traynor wrote:

Van Rompuy met Kissinger at a closed session of international policymakers and industrialists chaired by Viscount Etienne Davignon, a discreetly powerful figure in Brussels who was vice-president of the European commission in the 1980s. The viscount currently chairs the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy global freemasonry of politicians and bankers who meet to discuss world affairs in the strictest privacy, spawning innumerable conspiracy theories. Van Rompuy, it seems, attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles.

Jon Ronson, another reporter at the Guardian, interviewed Lord Denis Healey, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, for a 2001 article entitled, “Who Pulls the Strings?” Although Lord Healey insisted the group was not conspiratorial at all, he confirmed that they are working in the direction of world government. Ronson wrote:

This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

He said, “Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren’t politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy.”

David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reports in September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American. What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky “conspiracy theory,” is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.

INFOWARS

Killers of Osama Dying or Being Killed?

More Than 20 Navy SEALS From The Unit That Killed Osama Bin Laden’ Die In Helicopter Crash and now suicide for the others....

US military officials are investigating the apparent suicide of a Navy Seal commander in Afghanistan.

Navy Seal Commander Job W Price, 42, of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, died on Saturday from a non-combat-related injury while supporting stability operations in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan.

A US military official said the death "appears to be the result of suicide". The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the death is still being investigated.

"The Naval Special Warfare family is deeply saddened by the loss of our teammate," said Captain Robert Smith, commander of Naval Special Warfare Group Two, which manages all Virginia-based Navy Seal teams.

"We extend our condolences, thoughts and prayers to the family, friends, and NSW community during this time of grieving."

Smith added: "As we mourn the loss and honour the memory of our fallen teammate, those he served with will continue to carry out the mission.".

A US military official confirmed Price was from Virginia Beach, Virginia-based Seal Team 4, which is part of the mission to train Afghan local police to fend off the Taliban in remote parts of Afghanistan.

Price is survived by a wife and a daughter.

The Guardian

Fateh missiles and Russian-Iranian military cooperation to bolster Assad

French and Israeli intelligence sources affirmed Saturday, Dec. 29, that, contrary to reports appearing in the United States Friday, Iran has accelerated rather than slowed down its 20-percent grade enrichment of uranium and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capacity. Furthermore, for the moment, there is not the slightest indication that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has any intention of accepting the Obama administration’s latest plan for a nuclear deal.

As DEBKAfile has revealed, this plan would require Iran to discontinue production of 20-percent enriched uranium (which can be quickly converted to weapons grade material), and confine itself to producing low 5 percent uranium in agreed amounts. Tehran would also have to accept the removal from the country of its entire stock of 20-percent refined uranium.
The same sources point to the first appearance this week of Iran-made Fateh A-110 high-precision, short-range missiles in the use of the Syrian army against rebel fighters, under the guidance of Iranian officers and instructors, as underscoring the inter-dependence Tehran draws between the Syrian and nuclear issues.

Khamenei now links an acceptable solution for the Syrian dilemma to his possible nuclear flexibility.

DEBKAfile: When Iranians talks about an inter-power solution for ending the Syrian war, they mean a deal between Washington, Moscow and Tehran on both issues.

The Fateh missiles are being fired quite openly by Iranian military personnel in command of Syrian missile units as Tehran’s answer for the deployment of US, German and Dutch NATO Patriots on the Turkish side of the Syrian border. They also carry a message in response to Israel’s threat of offensive action against Syria if it becomes necessary to thwart its use of chemical weapons. According to our French and military sources, Tehran is using the Fateh missiles and the Iranian military presence in Syria to warn that there is no bar to their use against Turkey, Jordan and Israel as well, in the event of a US or Israel attack on Syria’s chemical stores.

On no account, will Iran permit the overthrow of Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus. At most, Tehran conceives of his departure in stages and handover to an emergency government led by the military or an armed forces faction to which certain opposition elements may be co-opted. Elections, in the Iranian view, must be deferred until hostilities end and the security situation is stable.

American and French sources agree that Tehran and Moscow have attained full coordination in their strategies for Syria and also on Iran’s nuclear program. They note that it was not by chance that the Russian Navy Wednesday, Dec. 26, launched its largest sea maneuver ever in the Mediterranean and the approaches to the Persian Gulf, just two days before Iranian warships, submarines and aircraft embarked on their week-long Velayat 91 sea exercise in the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and northern parts of the Indian Ocean.

The command centers of the Russian and Iranian war games are under orders from Moscow and Tehran to jointly exhibit naval muscle in order to bolster the Assad regime against collapse.

Parallel to the influx of Fateh missiles from Iran to Syria, Moscow is rapidly expanding the deployment of its highly-sophisticated S-400 air and missile interceptors in Russia’s southern military region near the Turkish border.




DebkaFile

New Poll Shows Hamas Will Win Presidential Elections

Hamas won the last round of legislative elections and its Prime Minister represents the legal government of the Palestinian Authority, not Fayyad, who was appointed by Abbas’ Western backers. Abbas’ rule has been based on an illegal emergency decree that has gone on for six years now.

But at some point the Palestinian Authority will need to hold elections. It has held very few of them so far because Fatah is afraid of Hamas. But if Palestinian statehood is approved and legal elections are held, then the Islamists will beat the Arab Socialists just like they did in Egypt. And what then?

Negotiating with Abbas and the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority is a sham, not only because they’re dishonest liars, but because they are not the actual government of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is. And in an election, Hamas will win.

A Two State Solution can only be built with an undemocratic Palestinian Authority. It cannot work with a Palestinian Authority that holds open elections.

So the question for Two State Solutionists is do they support Hamas or do they support an undemocratic Palestinian Authority? Because those are the only two possible outcomes.

Frontpagemag.com

Bill Gates: The World Needs Fewer People

I bet your family is not among those who are of more Bill.....

Definition of Eugenics: Study of human improvement by genetic means. The first thorough exposition of eugenics was made by Francis Galton, who in Hereditary Genius (1869) proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, supported Galton’s theories. U.S. eugenicists also supported restriction on immigration from nations with “inferior” stock, such as Italy, Greece, and countries of eastern Europe, and argued for the sterilization of insane, retarded, and epileptic citizens. Sterilization laws were passed in more than half the states, and isolated instances of involuntary sterilization continued into the 1970′s. source – Merriam Webster



Margaret Sanger is the hero of the left, the mother of abortion. She easily could have been a Nazi because her views were very similar with Hitler’s Nazis.

Eugenics and Planned Parenthood: We recoil in horror when shown newsreel footage of the atrocities done by the Nazis during WWII, and rightly so. The Nazis under Hitler were one of the most inhumane and barbaric people ever to walk the face of this earth. They killed, tortured and mutilated their fellow human beings just for the sheer pleasure of it. Nazis believed that they could create an Aryan “master race” by breeding ‘pure Germans’ with each other while at the same time expunging from the population rolls all those they deemed as unfit to live. But these freakish notions did not die with Hitler. They are alive and well in every Planned Parenthood office across America.


“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

The Negro Project: Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger, has it’s roots deeply steeped in Nazi ideals. Sanger was, first and foremost, a eugenicist – one who believed in the inferiority of non-white races. In 1939, she proposed the infamous “Negro Project,” a plan developed at the behest of public-health officials in southern states, where she writes, “the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Sanger also attempted to set up birth-control clinics in poor New York City neighborhoods to target “Blacks, Hispanics, Slavs, Amerinds, Fundamentalists, Jews and Catholics.”

Sanger was closely tied to Ernst Rudin, who served as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization. An April 1933 article by Rudin – entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need” – for Sanger’s monthly magazine, The Birth Control Review, detailed the establishment of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene and advocated its replication in the United States.

Eugenics and Bill Gates: Software billionaire Bill Gates, who previously has advocated the reduction of the human population through the use of vaccines, and his wife Melinda marked the 100th year since the First International Eugenics Congress in London with a “family planning” summit with abortionists and the United Nations.


Bill Gates today carries on the work espoused by Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger – Population control leading to the establishment of a master race.

The July 11 event, co-hosted by the United Kingdom Department for International Development, included organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International and the U.N. Populations Fund, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Critics pointed out the summit was held 100 years after the July 1912 eugenics conference led by Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, and dedicated to Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton. Galton invented the term eugenics to promote the idea that strategic breeding would improve mankind.

According to Christian Voice, a ministry that analyzes current events and acts on Scriptural instructions for “a better way, God’s way,” the 1912 event promoted the “notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population,” based on the theories of Thomas Malthus.

The 17th century luminary suggested that the poor were “draining the world’s resources,” and a solution would be “to introduce policies specifically designed to bring death to large numbers of peasants.”

Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference in Long Beach, Calif. His February address was titled “Innovating to Zero!”

He presented a speech on global warming, stating that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050. Gates said every person on the planet puts out an average of about five tons of CO2 per year.

“Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero,” he said. “It’s been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all. So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero.”

Gates presented the following equation: CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy)

“Let’s look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero,” he said. “Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero. That’s a fact from high school algebra.”

Discussing the “P,” or population portion of the equation, he stated, “Let’s take a look. First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent” [emphasis added].

Further, he said it would not be hard to keep track of children, the vaccines they’ve had and when they’re due for another.

He said cell phone technology could be used to register every birth around the globe and track children to make sure they have been vaccinated as government advisers urge.

The massive effort was discussed by Gates at a mHealth Summit, which delved into the issues of technology and health. According to Natural News, Gates told the conference that the goal is a lower population, and using vaccines to improve early childhood health is a step in that direction. “That sounds paradoxical,” he said. “The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have [fewer] children.”

“If you could register every birth on the cell phone, get fingerprints, get a location, then you could take the systems where you go around and make sure the immunizations happen,” he said. “Run them in a more effective way.”

WND also reported in May 2009 when Gates joined some of the richest men and women in the world meeting secretly in New York to talk about using their vast wealth to bring the world’s population growth under control. source – WND
Now the end begins