Monday, August 21, 2006
high achievers
A pioneering thinker in the field of workplace motivation, David
McClelland developed his theories chiefly while at Harvard in the
1950-60's with experiments such as this: Volunteers were asked to throw
rings over pegs rather like the fairground game; no distance was
stipulated, and most people seemed to throw from arbitrary, random
distances, sometimes close, sometimes farther away.
However a small group of volunteers, whom McClelland suggested were
strongly achievement-motivated, took some care to measure and test
distances that would produce an ideal challenge; not too easy, and not
impossible.
Interestingly a parallel exists in biology, known as the 'overload
principle', which is commonly applied to fitness and exercising, ie., in
order to develop fitness and/or strength the exercise must be
sufficiently demanding to increase existing levels, but not so demanding
as to cause damage or strain.
McClelland identified the same need for a 'balanced challenge' in the
approach of achievement-motivated people. People with a strong
achievement-motivation need set themselves challenging and realistic
goals, they need the challenge, but they also need to be sure they'll
accomplish the aim.
We need to set realistic and achievable goals in life and to break these
goals down further into doable tasks. I am not suggesting that goals can
not be lofty, just that you have to be realistic with your abilities. We
each have unique God given talents that we should try not to waste but if
you have a great brain for math and can't sing on key, skip trying to be
a Broadway singer and head to a University.
God Bless,
Randolph
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Israel / Lebanon Crisis, 1982
History is telltale, to a certain point. Upon examining the crisis in
the middle east, we see that there has always been tension building
between between Israel and Lebanon. This tension is not necessarily
between the citizens of these countries. Most of the tensions are due to
posturing between the governments and military forces. Please examine
the following frequently asked questions and their respective answers
which lit the fuse leading to the middle eastern fire bomb we are now
experiencing:
___
Washington Report, May 3, 1982
Policy
Lebanon: The Invasion Riddle
A "non-expert" walked into our office the other day and began asking some
questions, which we did our best to answer:
Q I'm rather confused about this Lebanon thing
A Join the club.
Q I mean, are the Israelis really going to invade South Lebanon, as
everyone has been saying?
A Yes. An Israeli invasion seems inevitable, sooner or later.
Q Why do you say that?
A For two reasons: the PLO has military forces in South Lebanon, which it
will never withdraw voluntarily; and the Israelis, on the other hand,
have stated unequivocally that they regard these forces as a threat to
Israel.
Q But isn't a cease-fire between these two sides now in force?
A Yes, a "cessation of hostilities," arranged by the U.S., has been in
effect since last July. But neither the PLO nor Israel looked upon it as
any more than a temporary arrangement with tactical value. For the
Israelis, it was useful to have a cooling-off period for some of the
tempers that flared up�in the West and in Israel itself�after he Israelis
first bombed a nuclear reactor in Baghdad and then followed this with a
raid on Beirut which killed more than 300 civilians. For le PLO, the
cease-fire was an opportunity to itch its breath after a long series of
Israeli raids, rid build up some international prestige by showing it was
capable of restraint.
Q What makes the situation any different now?
A One thing that's different is that nine months have gone by. The PLO
has nothing to gain by an indefinite cease-fire. You can't lose sight of
the fact that the PLO's whole reason for existence is to try to get
Palestinian land back. Even if it hopes to do it by diplomatic means,
this will never work if Israel is not kept under some kind of military
pressure that will make it more ready to deal. If the PLO does nothing,
forever, the Israelis can stay on Palestinian land, forever.
Q Couldn't the PLO keep the cease-fire going for a lot longer though?
A It might�although there's a lot of resistance within the organization
to the idea of armed men remaining passive while Palestinian teenagers
are getting killed on the West Bank for throwing stones. In any case, the
Israelis are likely to take the decision out of the PLO's hands.
Q Why is that?
A For sometime, a very strong feeling has been building up within the
Israeli government that it should "finish off" the PLO once and for all.
In the West Bank, it's now official Israeli policy to root out all
support for the PLO, which it regards as the cause of all the trouble
there. It's an easy step, from there, for them to argue that their West
Bank policy cannot be successful unless the PLO is uprooted from Lebanon
as well. In fact, on a couple of occasions during recent weeks the
Israelis had actually planned an invasion, which was called off only
because of U.S. urgings.
Q But could they justify an attack if the PLO didn't break the
cease-fire?
A The Israelis have never shown themselves to be overly concerned by what
they are accused of doing, if they can argue that it's for their
"national survival." But in any event, by their own lights, they already
have all the excuse they need. By their broad, unilateral interpretation
of what constitutes a cease-fire violation, they have been able to charge
the PLO with having broken the ceasefire numerous times. For example, the
assassination of an Israeli diplomat far away in Paris was regarded as a
violation of the Lebanon ceasefire-even though the PLO denied it had
anything to do with it, and the Israelis did not put forward any evidence
that it had.
Q Is that the reason the Israelis bombed all those Palestinian camps in
Lebanon near the end of April?
A Israeli officials said the retaliation was for a whole string of PLO
"cease-fire violations," including a grenade attack on a soldier in Gaza.
But the immediate reason for the decision to retaliate, they said, was
that an Israeli soldier was killed by a mine while he was travelling
along a road in South Lebanon.
Q What was an Israeli soldier doing in South?
A A good question. Very few people ask it. The answer is that the Israeli
army has been occupying a 140 square mile enclave in South Lebanon for
more than four years.
Q Why haven't I heard about that?
A Also a good question. You probably have heard about the "independent"
enclave in South Lebanon that was set up by Major Saad Haddad, a drop-out
from the Lebanese army. Well, it is Major Haddad's enclave that has been
used by the Israeli army for the past four years as though it were part
of Israeli territory. The troops move in and out with their weapons and
armed vehicles, carry out maneuvers in the area, man observation posts,
and subsidize Major Haddad and his militia with money and supplies.
Q How did that happen?
A The seeds of it go back to March 11, 1978, when a number of Israelis
were killed as the result of a raid on an Israeli civilian bus by
Palestinians who had infiltrated from Lebanon. Three days later, Israel
answered with a massive invasion of Lebanon, sending troops right up to
the Litani River�an operation in which hundreds of of Lebanese, mostly
civilians, were killed. A U.S.-sponsored United Nations resolution called
on Israel to withdraw, and established a force of U.N. peacekeeping
troops to replace the Israelis within a zone fronting Lebanon's border
with Israel.
Q What happened then?
A The Israelis stalled for about two months, until finally setting June
13 as the date on which they would withdraw their troops and allow the
U.N. troops to take over the border zone. Two days prior to their
withdrawal, however, the Israelis handed over all their positions in the
border zone�a strip running four to eight miles in depth to the militias
operating under the command of Major Haddad, who had been an Israeli
protege for some time. When June 13 arrived Major Haddad's militia
blocked the U.N. forces from deploying in the area. With more than a
little help from their Israeli friends, they have managed to keep the
U.N. peacekeeping troops from entering the zone ever since.
Q So the Israelis, in effect, conned the United Nations into thinking
that they had really agreed to withdraw�and then didn't do it?
A That's what it has always looked like.
Q Did the Carter Administration do anything about it?
A Not so as to make any difference on the ground.
Q Is there any chance that the Reagan Administration will be any tougher
if the Israelis try to hold on to more of Lebanon the next time they go
in?
A What makes you think the Israelis would want to do that?
Q I remember reading in a history course that when the borders of the
proposed mandate for Palestine were being discussed by the allies after
World War I, the Zionist delegations were proposing that Palestine's
northern border be along the Litani River.
A If you're that smart, go ahead and make your own guesses.
___
As you see, there have always been tensions between Lebanon and Israel.
Hezbollah grew as the monstrous military faction in response to Israel's
rather monstrous invasion in 1982; these actions grew out of accusations
of murder and retaliations for more murder, etcetera, etcetera. There is
obviously a lot more history to this tension before 1982. And what is to
stop Israel from fooling the United Nations again into thinking that they
will allow UN Soldiers into the "Buffer Zone?" What is different this
time?
What if the tensions between these two countries were not all caused
between themselves? I mean: who has benefitted the most from this
Israeli-Hezbollah conflict? Not only financially, but empire-wise.
Which empire is gaining more?
From King David to his Court:
"But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because
thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood." [1 Chronicles 28:3]
Even when taken out of context, this passage from Ecclesiastes indicates
that there is a need for balance for all things included in the world:
"..A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace..." [Qoh.3:8]
What are the true intentions of those who cause war in this world? Think
of the type of person from Psalm 73 when you ponder this:
"There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit;
neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in
that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it."
[Qoh. 8:8]
Peace be with You, Yehovah Shalom,
Randolph
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Frequently Asked Questions (extracted from Secrets of the Federal Reserve)
On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has YET TO BE ACTED ON."
The book was seized and the entire edition of 10,000 copies burned by government agents led by Dr. Otto John.
"My original book had traced and named the shadowy figures in the United States who planned the Federal Reserve Act. I now discovered that the men whom I exposed in 1952 as the shadowy figures behind the operation of the Federal Reserve System were themselves shadows, the American fronts for the unknown figures who became known as the "London Connection." I found that notwithstanding our successes in the Wars of Independence of 1812 against England, we remained an economic and financial colony of Great Britain. For the first time, we located the original stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks and traced their parent companies to the London Connection."
The London Acceptance Council is limited to seventeen international banking houses authorized by the Bank of England to handle foreign exchange."
"This research is substantiated by citations and documentation from hundreds of newspapers, periodicals and books and charts showing blood, marriage, and business relationships. More than a thousand issues of The New York Times on microfilm have been checked not only for original information, but verification of statements from other sources."
"The fifth decade of continuous writing on a single subject, the inside story of the Federal Reserve System."
*The compete book in all versions (web, zip & doc) along with Edward Griffin's must listen hour and half Lecture on the Federal Reserve talks by Eustace Mullins himself and Ron Paul are available here. An alternate site for the book: "Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins" is here.
Q: What is the Federal Reserve System?
A: The Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system, but rather, a criminal syndicate. It is the product of criminal syndicalist activity of an international consortium of dynastic families comprising what the author terms "The World Order" (see "THE WORLD ORDER" and "THE CURSE OF CANAAN", both by Eustace Mullins). The Federal Reserve system is a central bank operating in the United States. Although the student will find no such definition of a central bank in the textbooks of any university, the author has defined a central bank as follows: It is the dominant financial power of the country which harbors it. It is entirely private-owned, although it seeks to give the appearance of a governmental institution. It has the right to print and issue money, the traditional prerogative of monarchs. It is set up to provide financing for wars. It functions as a money monopoly having total power over all the money and credit of the people.
Q: When Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913, did the Congressmen know that they were creating a central bank?
A: The members of the 63rd Congress had no knowledge of a central bank or of its monopolistic operations. Many of those who voted for the bill were duped; others were bribed; others were intimidated. The preface to the Federal Reserve Act reads "An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial papers, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." The unspecified "other purposes" were to give international conspirators a monopoly of all the money and credit of the people of the United States; to finance World War I through this new central bank, to place American workers at the mercy of the Federal Reserve system's collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and to allow the monopolists to seize the assets of their competitors and put them out of business.
Q: Is the Federal Reserve system a government agency?
A: Even the present chairman of the House Banking Committee claims that the Federal Reserve is a government agency, and that it is not privately owned. The fact is that the government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. This charade stems from the fact that the President of the United States appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, banker Paul Warburg, a representative of the Rothschild bank, coined the name "Federal" from thin air for the Act, which he wrote to achieve two of his pet aspirations, an "elastic currency," read (rubber check), and to facilitate trading in acceptances, international trade credits. Warburg was founder and president of the International Acceptance Corporation, and made billions in profits by trading in this commercial paper. Sec. 7 of the Federal Reserve Act provides "Federal reserve banks, including the capital and surplus therein, and income derived therefrom, shall be exempt from Federal, state and local taxation, except taxes on real estate." Government buildings do not pay real estate tax.
Q: Are our dollar bills, which carry the label "Federal Reserve notes" government money?
A: Federal Reserve notes are actually promissory notes, promises to pay, rather than what we traditionally consider money. They are interest bearing notes issued against interest bearing government bonds, paper issued with nothing but paper backing, which is known as fiat money, because it has only the fiat of the issuer to guarantee these notes. The Federal Reserve Act authorizes the issuance of these notes "for the purposes of making advances to Federal reserve banks... The said notes shall be obligations of the United States. They shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the District of Columbia." Tourists visiting the Bureau of Printing and Engraving on the Mall in Washington, D.C. view the printing of Federal Reserve notes at this governmental agency on contract from the Federal Reserve System for the nominal sum of .00260 each in units of 1,000, at the same price regardless of the denomination. These notes, printed for a private bank, then become liabilities and obligations of the United States government and are added to our present $4 trillion debt. The government had no debt when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913.
Q: Who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks?
A: The dynastic families of the ruling World Order, internationalists who are loyal to no race, religion, or nation. They are families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich".
Q: Can I buy this stock?
A: No. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be bought or sold on any stock exchange. It is passed on by inheritance as the fortune of the "big rich." Almost half of the owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock are not Americans.
Q: Is the Internal Revenue Service a governmental agency?
A: Although listed as part of the Treasury Department, the IRS is actually a private collection agency for the Federal Reserve System. It originated as the Black Hand in mediaeval Italy, collectors of debt by force and extortion for the ruling Italian mob families. All personal income taxes collected by the IRS are required by law to be deposited in the nearest Federal Reserve Bank, under Sec. 15 of the Federal Reserve Act, "The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury may be ....deposited in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act as fiscal agents of the United States."
Q: Does the Federal Reserve Board control the daily price and quantity of money?
A: The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, meeting in private as the Federal Open Market Committee with presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks, controls all economic activity throughout the United States by issuing orders to buy government bonds on the open market, creating money out of nothing and causing inflationary pressure, or, conversely, by selling government bonds on the open market and extinguishing debt, creating deflationary pressure and causing the stock market to drop.
Q: Can Congress abolish the Federal Reserve System?
A: The last provision of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Sec. 30, states, "The right to amend, alter or repeal this Act is expressly reserved." This language means that Congress can at any time move to abolish the Federal Reserve System, or buy back the stock and make it part of the Treasury Department, or to altar the System as it sees fit. It has never done so.
Q: Are there many critics of the Federal Reserve beside yourself?
A: When I began my researches in 1948, the Fed was only thirty-four years old. It was never mentioned in the press. Today the Fed is discussed openly in the news section and the financial pages. There are bills in congress to have the Fed audited by the Government Accounting Office. Because of my expose, it is no longer a sacred cow, although the Big Three candidates for President in 1992, Bush, Clinton and Perot, joined in a unanimous chorus during the debates that they were pledged not to touch the Fed.
Q: Have you suffered any personal consequences because of your expose of the Fed?
A: I was fired from the staff of the Library of Congress after I published this expose in 1952, the only person ever discharged from the staff for political reasons. When I sued, the court refused to hear the case. The entire German edition of this book was burned in 1955, the only book burned in Europe since the Second World War. I have endured continuous harassment by government agencies, as detailed in my books "A WRIT FOR MARTYRS" and "MY LIFE IN CHRIST". My family also suffered harassment. When I spoke recently in Wembley Arena in London, the press denounced me as "a sinister lunatic".
Q: Does the press always support the Fed?
A: There have been some encouraging defections in recent months. A front page story in the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1993, stated, "The current Fed structure is difficult to justify in a democracy. It's an oddly undemocratic institution. Its organization is so dated that there is only one Reserve bank west of the Rockies, and two in Missouri...Having a central bank with a monopoly over the issuance of the currency in a democratic society is a very difficult balancing act."
PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD:"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute Master of all industry and commerce-".
HORACE GREELEY: "While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to Conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery" .
THOMAS A. EDISON: "People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the
work, This is the terrible thing about interest . . . But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The clement that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution, pays nobody, but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan".
PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON:"A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world-no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." (Just before he died, Wilson is reported to have stated to friends that he had been "deceived" and that "I have betrayed my Country". He referred to the Federal Reserve Act passed during his Presidency.)
SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain): "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to in, But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits".
MAJOR L. L. B. ANGAS:"The modern Banking manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of slight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and unmint the modern ledger-entry currency".
RALPH M. HAWTREY (Former Secretary of the British
Treasury): "Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing".
ROBERT H. HEMPHILL (Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.): "This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely- without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon".
CONGRESSMAN LOUIS T. McFADDEN: "The Federal Reserve (Banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by International Bankers."
"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury."[Exodus 22:25]]
"Take no usury of him, or increase... thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury." [Leviticus 25:36-37]]
"Unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: That the Lord thy God may bless thee." [Deuteronomy 23:20]
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Manifest the Sensational Mystery
Now all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off (Exodus 20:18).
Here is God up on the mountain. There's smoke, thunder, sounds of trumpets, and lightning. This is when God introduces Himself to the nation of Israel . He didn't hand them a sheet of facts about who He was. He didn't hand them a set of propositional truths, and then give them an
experience with Himself later on in their walk. Israel had the exact opposite. God said, "Experience Me, and then we'll talk."
This is the opposite of the way we do it. We think that we have to talk and prep people for a possible experience that they may or may not have with God. I'm not saying that this is always wrong, but this isn't the way that God revealed Himself to His people here.
It's going to take some level of aggressiveness for us to enter into the unexplainable dimensions of God. It's not just going to drop into our laps; we're going to have to press in.
The tragedy will be if there are unexplainable dimensions that we don't come into because: (1) We feel that if we can't explain it then it must not be legitimate or valid, or (2) we don't recognize that we have to press in to enter into those areas.
What was the purpose of God introducing Himself like that to the Israelites? God was revealing Himself as "One which is altogether other." Jesus is our Friend and our Brother and we need to approach the throne of grace with boldness. But there is going to come a time when we need to
recognize that He is altogether more than us.
The other thing that God was doing was curing them from ever trivializing God and His abilities. Once you're introduced to a God with a sensational event upon a mountain, and later on He tells you He's going to get you into the Promised Land, you can easily believe for Him to move. You don't doubt once you've seen and embraced the mystery of God.
If God were presented to you as someone understandable, when you got into a situation where you could not understand it, you would be stuck. If we're not being fed on the mystery of God, it will be a mystery as to how we're going to get through tough situations. We must have a revelation of the mystery before we can have a manifestation of the Sensational mystery.
Our church services are more of a reflection of our nature than that of God's nature.
I believe that this place of revelation is where our churches need to come. It's as if we're saying, like the Israelites did, "Moses, you speak to us and give us what man can give us; we're comfortable with that. But if God shows up in His mystery and awe, we're going to back away."
Now God told them the reason why He presented Himself like He did. He said, "I did it to test you. To see if you would have the fear of God in your heart." In other words, "I want you to have the awe of who I am in your heart." I believe that sometimes God manifests the mystery to test
our hearts. You've heard the phrase, "God will often offend the mind to reveal the heart." That's exactly what this is.
Mystery is here to find out if we have another agenda. Is your agenda to figure it all out? Do you have to be in control? Maybe you have to be able to manipulate it to be palatable; to be socially acceptable. Does everybody have to feel good about it? Or are you all right with embracing
that which you don't fully understand?
John 8:32 says, "You will know the truth and the truth shall make you free." The word "know" is experiential knowledge. It is truth that has been experienced, not intellectual knowledge. If we don't experience the truth, we'll be limited in our comprehension of it.
God sends the mystery into a service and all of a sudden you don't know why you're crying; you don't know why you're laughing; you don't know why you're shaking; and you don't know why you're feeling lighter. You don't know why you have faith now to believe for what you had formerly been struggling to believe for. The mystery of God comes into a service and you don't know why cancer leaves your body. It is the mystery of God when the Holy Spirit is allowed to move.
Israel never became fruitful; they never fulfilled their destiny. Why? They never overcame the obstacle of rationalism. Rationalism says, "I've got to figure it out." You know some people always use a rationalistic bias whenever they see the move of the Spirit. They don't realize that
they're rationalizing away what God wants to release in their lives. What Israel rationalizes now is war and death to enemies who were once friends. Woe to thee, O Israel. Your Government is Not Yours.
Randolph @ SpiritWorld.info
