Desmarais, Power Corp, Canada’s Globalist Politicians, Bombardier & Loblaws

(Video by Q Point Assembly on Desmarais & Maurice Strong)

(Rebel Media covers the Demarais connections, including former Ontario Premier Bob Rae’s brother, John, who is employed by PowerCorp).

(Rebel media on Demarais Family connections to Canadian politicians)

(PowerCorp and John Rae, brother of Bob Rae)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNS1udvPhg

(Paul Desmarais Sr. and Brian Mulroney)

(Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, sits on Power Corp BOD)

(Anthony Graham, is Vice-Chairman of Whittingham Investments Ltd, which happens to own the Weston-Loblaw Group. Graham also sits on Power Corp Board of Directors)

(Hélène Desmarais, Chair-Woman of Montreal Economic Institute)

1. Desmarais And Trilateral Commission

Linda Koch Lorimer and Andre Desmarais both sit on the Trilateral Commission, which promotes global trade in:
(a) The Americas
(b) Europe
(c) Asia-Pacific Rim

Among the other members on the Trilateral Commission:

  • Rona Ambrose – MP, former Conservative Party leader
  • Jean Charest – former Quebec Premier
  • Raymond Chretien – nephew of Ex-PM Jean Chretien
  • Gary Doer – former Manitoba Premier
  • Bill Graham – former Foreign Affairs Minister
  • Peter Harder – member of Senate
  • Colin Kenney – member of Senate
  • Stephanie Kusie – Member of Parliament
  • Hélène Laverdière – Member of Parliament
  • Andrew Leslie – Member of Parliament
  • John Manley – former Deputy PM
  • Carole Taylor – former BC Minister of Finance
  • Yuen Pau Woo – Member of Parliament

Note: Scott Brison is a former member.

2. Power Corp’s Board Of Directors

See this link to verify.

  • Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman
  • Marcel R. Coutu, Syncrude President
  • André Desmarais, son-in-law of ex-PM Chretien
  • Paul Desmarais, Jr., André’s brother
  • Gary A. Doer, ex-Manitoba Premier
  • Anthony R. Graham, director of Wittington Investments, Ltd. principal holding company of the Weston-Loblaw Group.
  • J. David A. Jackson, Great-West Life
  • Isabelle Marcoux, Board of Transcontinental Inc.
  • Christian Noyer, General Council of European Bank, Governor Banque du France
  • R. Jeffrey Orr, BMO, Life Insurance Companies
  • T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., JP Morgan & Chase
  • Emőke J.E. Szathmáry, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Science and Technology,

3. Power Corp & Bombardier Bailouts

Remember: Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, sits on Power Corp Board of Directors.

Fun Facts

  • $1B in 2016.
  • $372M in February 2017. (See source.)
  • Regarding the 2017 Bailout, read this:

    Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of Bombardier’s annual meeting on May 11.
    .
    CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary. His annual bonus almost doubled to US$2.36 million.
    .
    Beaudoin’s total compensation increased to US$5.25 million from US$3.85 million a year earlier.

    That’s right, Bombardier gets bailed out by taxpayers. And Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier’s Chairman, is also on the Board of Directors for Power Corp, with all its ties to politicians. No corruption here.

    From the Fraser Institute:

    Bombardier Inc., which recently announced it would lay off 1,700 people, has been one chronic seeker and a regular recipient of such taxpayer assistance. The Montreal-based aerospace company is thus a useful example of corporate welfare in action, the tax dollars at stake, and the regular, inflated claims about the beneficial effects of such subsidies.
    Bombardier’s corporate welfare began, at least federally, in 1966 when it received its first disbursement of $35 million from the federal department, Industry Canada. In the decades since, various Bombardier iterations received over $1.1 billion (all figures adjusted for inflation) in 48 separate disbursements from just Industry Canada. That includes two 2009 cheques worth $233 million.

    Let’s connect the dots:

    1. The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
    2. Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
    3. Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
    4. “Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
    5. Pierre Beaudoin is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
    6. Pierre Beaudoin doubles as Bombardier Chairman.
    7. Pierre Beaudoin in in position to have Canadian Government bail out Bombardier whenever needed. He also increases his own bonuses.
    8. Bombardier is repeatedly bailed out.
    9. Beaudoin is able to cash in from these bailouts.

    4. Power Corp & Loblaws Bailout

    Remember: Anthony Graham is Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws. He also is on Power Corp’s Board of Directors.

    This one is straightforward to connect.

    1. The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
    2. Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
    3. Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
    4. “Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
    5. Anthony Graham is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
    6. Anthony Graham doubles as Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws.
    7. Anthony Graham is in position to have Canadian Government bail out Loblaws.
    8. Unclear how much Graham’s bonus will be.

    5. Desmarais And Brian Mulroney

    Mulroney said he felt confident that Desmarais died knowing he had led a productive life and made a remarkable contribution to his country.
    “He was a close and intimate friend of mine for 48 years,” Mulroney said. “I feel very sad, but I feel very happy for a life really well lived. Paul’s life was unconventional because it really was a love story: for his wife, his kids and his country. So, he’s happy. He knows he had a good life and a productive life.”

    From the (CBC article), Paul Desmarais Sr. and Brian Mulroney have been close friends for decades.

    6. Desmarais And Jean Chretien

    André Desmarais is currently Deputy Chairman, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the company his father took control of in 1968, Power Corporation, based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is also Executive Co-Chairman of Power Financial. Power Corporation is a diversified international management and holding company, which has holdings in leading financial services, renewable energy, communications and other business sectors.
    .
    He married France Chrétien Desmarais, the daughter of former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien, on May 23, 1981. They have four children.
    .
    In August 2016, The Wall Street Journal mentions that André Desmarais and his brother Paul Jr. “are readying their 34-year-old sons (Olivier Desmarais and Paul Desmarais III) to take over Power Corp

    Jean Chretien is connected to Desmarais by way of marriage. His daughter, France, married Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais Sr. They have 4 children together.

    7. Desmarais And Paul Martin

    Martin began his career as a special assistant to Paul Desmarais, a friend of his father’s and a man often referred to as Canada’s wealthiest citizen. Desmarais was the force behind the creation of the Power Corporation, an immense conglomerate with stakes in the pulp and paper industry, the media, public transport, and insurance services. By 1969 Martin had risen to a vice presidency at the Montreal–based giant, and four years later Desmarais put him in charge of one of its subsidiaries, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. (CSL). Martin worked to improve the flagging finances of the shipping company, and in 1981 he and a business partner bought CSL for $116 million. They had to borrow the funds for the purchase, and interest rates were above 20 percent at the time. On the day that Martin signed the loan papers, a well–known Wall Street analyst predicted that rates might rise as high as 30 percent. “I gambled everything that interest rates had reached their peak,” Martin recalled in an interview with Anthony Wilson–Smith in Maclean’s. “If they had continued to rise, I was cooked.”

    Paul Martin was an employee of the Desmarais family for many years in Canada Steamship Lines (CSL). Martin eventually bought out the company.

    8. Desmarais’ Influence At His Death

    MONTREAL — Tributes poured in for the late Paul Desmarais on Tuesday in a commemorative ceremony that featured a veritable who’s who of politicians and businessmen past and present.
    Four Canadian prime ministers, a former French president and five Quebec premiers were among those who attended the tribute to the late business tycoon at the Notre-Dame Basilica.
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper remembered Desmarais as a humble and generous man who was passionate about Canada.

    From the Financial Post article:
    Tuesday’s crowd also included Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and predecessors Daniel Johnson, Lucien Bouchard, Bernard Landry and Jean Charest.
    .
    Also present were ex-media mogul Conrad Black, former Bombardier president Laurent Beaudoin, ex-Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, former federal Liberal leader Bob Rae and his successor, Justin Trudeau.
    The Ontario-born businessman remained a staunch Canadian federalist after he moved to Quebec, where he became one of the country’s wealthiest and most powerful figures.

    Desmarais had incredible influence in both Federal and Provincial politics. Several Premiers and Prime Ministers all had direct connections to him. He even had ties to politicians in France.

    9. Desmarais and Montreal Economic Institute

    An interesting bit of information worth mentioning. There is yet another connection to Desmarais.

    Paul Desmarais Sr. had 2 sons: Andre and Paul Jr. Andre married France Chretien, daughter of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Paul Jr. is married too. His wife, Hélène Desmarais, is the Chair-Woman at the Montreal Economic Institute, a think-tank promoting liberalized economic policies.

    MEI had a new Executive Vice-President in 2005. His name: Maxime Bernier.

    In 2006, Bernier left to get into politics. He is now a 4 term MP, and 3 time Cabinet Minister. He now heads his own “populist” party, promoting MEI style economic liberalism.

    Mr. Bernier has a long-standing interest in business and during his career worked for several financial and banking institutions before becoming Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute in 2005.

    19. Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier & Loblaws

    Although this article could have been much, MUCH longer, it will stop here. Hopefully, there will be a followup. This doesn’t come close to covering everything.

    But to summarize, many of Canada’s most powerful politicians are directly connected to the Desmarais family, and to Power Corporation. It is hard to overstate the influence the family has had in Canadian politics. These politicians, while from different parties, all cooperate in the same corporate, globalist agenda.

    And while difficult to prove, it looks almost certain that corruption played a role in Canadian taxpayers having to bailout 2 companies: Bombardier and Loblaws.

    (1) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/like-father-like-sons/article18163858/
    (2) https://www.elections.ca/wpapps/WPF/EN/CCS/Index?returntype=1

    (1) http://trilateral.org
    (2) https://abeldanger.blogspot.com/2011/05/canadas-power-corporation-canadas_08.html
    (3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/paul-desmarais-remembered-as-visionary-entrepreneur-with-great-influence-1.1931144
    (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Desmarais
    (5) https://www.cslships.com/
    CLICK HERE, for a biography on Paul Martin.
    (6) https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/power-corporation-and-the-oil-for-food-scandal-c3efadf47645
    (7) https://archive.macleans.ca/article/2006/10/23/paul-desmarais-latest-power-play
    (8) https://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/paul-desmarais-remembered-by-politicians-past-and-present-at-montreal-tribute-ceremony
    (9) https://www.powercorporation.com/en/governance/board-directors/#gary-a-doer
    (10) https://www.powercorporation.com/en/governance/board-directors/#pierre-beaudoin
    (11) https://globalnews.ca/news/3346938/trudeau-bombardier-aid-executives/
    (12) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-bombardier-executives-nabbed-3-7b-in-subsidies-yet-the-mob-demands-we-punish-them
    (13) https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/bombardier-and-canadas-corporate-welfare-trap
    (14) https://globalnews.ca/news/5145773/catherine-mckenna-loblaw-new-fridges/
    (15) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-s-blog/don-martin-loblaws-refrigerators-the-wrong-place-to-shop-for-votes-1.4375979
    (16) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Desmarais_Jr
    (17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hélène_Desmarais
    (18) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/our_leader
    (19) http://www.iedm.org/1241-board-of-directors

    North American Free Trade Agreement: Lawsuits, Sovereignty, Job Losses, Conflict Of Interest

    Bev Collins, giving a talk on NAFTA

    (Some of the litigation going on over NAFTA)

    (Multilateral Agreement on Investment — MAI)

    (Trilateral Commission)

    (Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

    (A man who gets it, Lou Dobbs)

    1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

    The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

    2. Important Links

    (1) https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case9_e.htm
    (2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/w-11.8/index.html
    (3) http://trilateral.org/download/doc/Vancouver_1996.pdf
    (4) Vancouver_1996 Trilateral Commission
    (5) https://ipolitics.ca/2019/04/30/investor-state-dispute-system-puts-strain-on-poorer-countries-report/
    (6) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/nafta.aspx?lang=eng
    (7) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng
    (8) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/ethyl.aspx?lang=eng
    (9) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/SDM.aspx?lang=eng
    (10) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/pope.aspx?lang=eng
    (11) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/parcel.aspx?lang=eng
    (12) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821
    (13) https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/multilateralagreementoninvestment.htm
    (14) http://www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf
    (15) MAI Draft Agreement 1998
    (16) https://blogs.imf.org
    (17) http://trilateral.org/download/files/membership/TC_list_3_2019.pdf
    (18) Trilateral Commission List 2019
    (19) http://trilateral.org
    (20) https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=2158742&privcapId=3103423&previousCapId=6908053&previousTitle=Ontario%20Heritage%20Trust
    (21) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/
    (22) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/

    3. Interesting Points From Bev Collins Video

    -Semiconductor, aerospace, telecommunications industries were dismantled and sold off
    -Mulroney gave QC special negotiating powers in event of succession
    -Business Council on National Issues had $56M to market NAFTA
    -600,000 jobs lost to free trade
    -Small businesses gutted, corporations thrived
    -92% of foreign investment came in to take over Canadian companies
    -13,000 Canadian companies lost in meantime
    -10,000 of those taken over by US transnationals
    -1993 election, NAFTA huge issue, Mulroney/Campbell Gov’t wiped out
    -Concern over water being sold off as commodity
    -Liberals signed NAFTA “as is” in January 1994
    -Roy MacLaren “both” Minister for International Trade and sat on the Trilateral Commission, a lobbying group.
    -Canada push for a World Trade Body (Bill C-57)
    -UN has 3 pillars:

  • Financial pillars (IMF)
  • World Bank
  • World Trade Organization
  • -Costs Canada $275M/annually to sit on committee
    -IMF supposed to arrange short term loans to 3rd World
    -World Bank set up for long term development funds
    -Canada funded 3 Rivers Gorges Dam in China
    -Export Development Corporation spends $40B, unaudited, unaccountable
    -“Investor State Suit” Clause allows Trans-Nats
    -Ethyl Corp sued Canada b/c of MMT gasoline additive ban
    -SD Myers sued Canada over PCB ban
    -Pope & Talbot sued over softwood lumber quota
    -Much of Ontario manufacturing base lost
    -Multilateral Agreement on Investment launched not long after NAFTA
    -lawsuit against MAI, Judge Dube friends with PM Jean Chretien
    -29 MAI delegates shut out of talks
    -MAI eventually destroyed, but content moved over to Free Trade Area of the Americas
    -Prelude to mass migration. If goods and money are borderless, then isn’t this the next logical step?
    -Canada can find its wages driven down
    -Unions themselves now seen as barrier to trade
    -WTO ruled against airline subsidizes
    -43,000 agricultural producers lost to bankruptcy
    -Many SK farms bought up at huge discount

    4. Canada’s Bill C-57

    From the WTO page:

    In 1994 the Canadian Parliament adopted legislation to implement the Uruguay Round with virtually no opposition. The measure was easily passed by the House of Commons with a vote of 185-7. There was general acceptance that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a necessity for Canada both to participate and to compete in the new international order. Not only did legislators believe that the WTO Agreement would enhance and facilitate Canadian exports, but there also was an expectation among parliamentarians that the new rules-based dispute settlement mechanism would act as a counter-force to US unilateralism in the international arena. Roy McLaren, the Minister for International Trade, explained that the arrangements would particularly benefit ‘small and medium-size trade players like Canada, which are inherently vulnerable to the threat of unilateralism by the economic giants’

    McLaren was wrong. This arrangement does not benefit small and medium trade players like Canada. In fact, it will weaken Canada immensely, and lead to job losses and erosion of our sovereignty. Jere a few quotes from the WTO Agreement Implementation Act.

    Prohibition of private cause of action under Agreement

    6 No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind shall be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.

    This is a red flag. Nothing happens in Court unless the Attorney General of Canada signs off on it.

    Non-application of Agreement to water
    7 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except the Canadian Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 set out in Annex 1A to the Agreement, applies to water.

    This is promising though. Water was specifically excluded from NAFTA. Concerns were that once exports started, there would be no way to stop it.

    Suspension of concessions to non-WTO Members
    (2) The Governor in Council may, with respect to a country that is not a WTO Member, by order, do any one or more of the following:
    (a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country under any federal law;
    (b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country;
    (c) extend the application of any federal law to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country; and
    (d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

    In short, this allows Canada to screw over non-WTO countries. Great way to force 3rd World nations in jumping on board. This is economic extortion.

    5. Chapter 11, National Treatment Clause

    This clause has been the basis of many lawsuits, since the text states that foreign companies must be treated the same as domestic companies.

    Article 1102: National Treatment
    1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
    2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
    3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
    4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
    (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
    (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

    And “who” has been suing Canada under Chapter 11 of NAFTA?

    Cases filed against the Government of Canada

    Ongoing arbitrations to which Canada is a party

    • Clayton/Bilcon
    • Lone Pine Resources Inc.
    • Mobil Investments Canada Inc.
    • Resolute Forest Products Inc.
    • Tennant Energy, LLC.
    • Westmoreland Coal Company

    Concluded arbitrations to which Canada was a party

  • AbitibiBowater Inc.
  • Centurion Health Corporation
  • Chemtura Corp.
  • Detroit International Bridge Company
  • Dow AgroSciences LLC
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Ethyl Corporation
  • Mercer International Inc.
  • Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P.
  • Mesa Power Group LLC
  • Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation
  • Pope & Talbot Inc.
  • S.D. Myers Inc.
  • St. Marys VCNA, LLC
  • United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS)
  • V. G. Gallo
  • Windstream Energy LLC
  • Withdrawn or inactive claims

    • Contractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood and Carl Paolino
    • GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams
    • J.M. Longyear
    • William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc.

    open access to information, about the various court proceedings. But do take a look. They almost all involve an alleged breach of the “National Treatment” Clause.

    Now, this “only covers lawsuits against Canada. There have also been plenty of them against the US and Mexico for violating NAFTA.

    6. Multilateral Agreement on Investment

    2. Investment means:
    Every kind of asset owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an investor, including: 1, 2
    (i) an enterprise (being a legal person or any other entity constituted or organised under the applicable law of the Contracting Party, whether or not for profit, and whether private or government owned or controlled, and includes a corporation, trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, branch, joint venture, association or organisation);
    (ii) shares, stocks or other forms of equity participation in an enterprise, and rights derived therefrom;
    (iii) bonds, debentures, loans and other forms of debt, and rights derived therefrom;
    (iv) rights under contracts, including turnkey, construction, management, production or revenue-sharing contracts;
    (v) claims to money and claims to performance;
    (vi) intellectual property rights;
    (vii) rights conferred pursuant to law or contract such as concessions, licenses, authorisations, and permits;
    (viii) any other tangible and intangible, movable and immovable property, and any related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges.

    And remember that “National Treatment Clause”?

    III. TREATMENT OF INVESTORS AND INVESTMENTS
    NATIONAL TREATMENT AND MOST FAVOURED NATION TREATMENT
    1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of another Contracting Party and to their investments, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords [in like circumstances] to its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or other disposition of investments.

    This would be the investment equivalent of NAFTA. All forms of investments would have to be given equal considerations. Although it was eventually stopped, the contents are still being considered for other opportunities.

    7. Trilateral Commission

    So, who founds the Trilateral Commission?
    Where are they from?

    Founding Members
    David Rockefeller was the principal founder of the Trilateral Commission in mid-1973. He served on the executive committee and was North American chairman from mid-1977 through November 1991. He is now honorary chairman and a lifetime trustee of the Commission.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in the formation of the Commission and served as its first director from 1973 to 1976. After serving in the Carter administration, Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and served on the executive committee until 2009.

    Other early North Americans leaders were Gerard C. Smith, first North American chairman; Jean-Luc Pepin, who headed the Canadian Group; and George S. Franklin, regional secretary. Richard Cooper, Henry Owen, and Philip Tresize were members of the first political, monetary, and trade task forces to report to the Commission.

    Max Kohnstamm of the Netherlands was the first European chairman and Wolfgang Hager the first regional secretary. Georges Berthoin of France, one of the first members from the European Community and a former European chairman, is now an honorary European chairman. Otto Graf Lambsdorff, another original European member and former European chairman, served as honorary European chairman until his death in 2009. François Duchène, Claudio Sergré, and Don Guido Colonna di Paliano were the European authors of the first task force reports.

    If nothing else, it is refreshing to be honest about who is founding it. Now to get to the trickier question of why it was formed.

    I. What is the Trilateral Commission? When and why was it formed?
    The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, policy-oriented discussion group of about 390 distinguished citizens from Europe, North America, and Pacific Asia formed to encourage understanding and closer cooperation among these three regions on shared global problems.

    The idea of the Commission was developed in the early 1970s. This was a time of considerable discord among the United States and its democratic industrialized allies in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada. There was also a sense that the international system was changing in some basic ways with rather uncertain implications. Change was most obvious in the international economy, as Western Europe and Japan gained strength and the position of the U.S. economy became less dominant. The increase in global interdependence was affecting the United States in ways to which it was not accustomed.

    When they talk about closer cooperation and understanding, these are really code words for “globalism”. Eliminate borders to trade, to financial services, and eventually, to people moving.

    This all sounds lovely, but it is incrementally erasing nations. Not an accident, and quite intentional.

    8. Commission/Parliament Conflict of Interest

    Bev Collins is absolutely right about conflict of interest going on in the Canadian Parliament. Here are two egregious examples:

    Roy Maclaren, is a former Minister of International Trade (1996-2000). He was also sitting on the Trilateral Commission the entire time it seems.

    Bill Graham is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and also a member of the Trilateral Commission.

    Canada’s Minister of International Trade, and also Minister of Foreign Affairs were also sitting on a Commission that promotes ever growing free trade agreements?! How does that look? But that’s hardly the whole picture.

    NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
    .
    Bertrand-Marc Allen, President, Boeing International, Arlington Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and former Assistant Secretary of Defense
    Rona Ambrose, former MP, former Interim Leader, Conservative Party; former Minister on the Status of Women, Environment, Health and Public Works, Ottawa
    Dominic Barton, Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, London
    *Catherine Bertini, Professor, Public Administration and International Affairs, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University; Distinguished Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
    Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Chairman, IQOM, Mexico City; former Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development; former Chief NAFTA Negotiator
    Michael Bloomberg, Founder and CEO, Bloomberg LP, NewYork; fomer Mayor of New York City
    Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA, Association for International Educators, Washington R.
    Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics and Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
    Jean Charest, Former Premier of Québec; former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Montréal
    *Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group; former Secretary of Homeland Security; Former Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington
    Raymond Chrétien, Partner and Strategic Advisor, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montreal, QC; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Montréal Council on Foreign Relations (MCFR); former Associate Under Secretary of State of External Affairs; former Ambassador to the Congo, Belgium, Mexico, the United States, and France
    Timothy Collins, CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, Inc., New York
    Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs
    Heidi Crebo-Rediker, CEO, International Capital Strategies, Washington; former Chief Economist, State Department
    Lee Cullum, Contributing Columnist, Dallas Morning News; Radio and Television Commentator, Dallas Luis de la Calle, Managing Director and Founding Partner, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C. (CMM), Mexico City; former Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations
    Arthur A. DeFehr, CEO, Palliser Furniture Holdings Ltd., Winnipeg
    André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation
    John M. Deutch, Institute Professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; former Director of Central Intelligence; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Energy
    Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Vice Chair, National Executive Committee, U.S. Water Partnership; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
    Wendy Dobson, Professor and Co-Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
    Gary Doer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Winnipeg Thomas Donilon, Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University; former U.S. National Security Advisor
    *Kenneth M. Duberstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Duberstein Group, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Ronald Reagan
    Michael Duffy, former Executive Editor, TIME Magazine, Washington Douglas Elmendorf, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge Richard Falkenrath, Chief Security Officer, Bridgewater Associates, Westport Dawn Farrell, President and CEO, TransAlta Corporation, Calgary
    Diana Farrell, Chief Executive Officer and President, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington; former Deputy Director, National Economic Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
    Martin S. Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research; former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors
    Linda Frum, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa Juan Gallardo, Chairman of the Board, Grupo Embotelladoras Unidas, SA de CV, Mexico City
    *David R. Gergen, Professor of Public Service and Director of the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; CNN Senior Political Analyst
    Gordon Giffin, Partner, Dentons US LLP, Atlanta; former U.S. Ambassador to Canada
    Donald Gogel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Clayton Dubilier and Rice, Inc., New York
    Jamie S. Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale, Washington; former Deputy Attorney General; former General Counsel, Department of Defense
    Bill Graham Chancellor, Trinity College, University of Toronto; former Member, House of Commons; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Minister of Defense, Ottawa Donald Graham, Chairman and CEO of Graham Holdings Company, former owner of The Washington Post Company, Washington Peter Harder, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa
    *Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington; former Member, U.S. House of Representatives
    Linda Hasenfratz, President and CEO, Linamar Corporation, Ontario
    Carlos Heredia, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico City; Coordinator, Program for the Study of the United States, CIDE
    John B. Hess, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Hess Corporation, New York
    *Carla A. Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company, Washington; former U.S. Trade Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    *Karen Elliott House, writer, Princeton, NJ; Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; former Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and Publisher, The Wall Street Journal
    Joseph K. Hurd, III, former Director, Emerging Business, Facebook, Menlo Park
    David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post, Washington Merit E. Janow, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Practice, International Economic Law and International Affairs, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), New York; former Member, Appellate Body from North America, World Trade Organization
    P. Thomas Jenkins, Chair, Open Text, Waterloo; Chair, National Research Council of Canada
    Lewis Kaden, Chairman, Markle Foundation Board of Directors; Former Vice Chairman, Citigroup, New York
    Andy Karsner, Managing Partner of the Emerson Collective; Senior Strategist at X; former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Former Columnist, Boston Globe
    Timothy Keating, Senior Vice President, Government Operations, The Boeing Company, Arlington
    Colin Kenny, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa; former Special Assistant, Director of Operations, and Assistant Principal Secretary, to the Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau; Member, Special Senate Committee on Terrorism and Security, Special Joint Committee on Canadian Defence Policy; former Chair of Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence
    Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale, Washington; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Germany
    Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former U.S. Secretary of State; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Nicholas Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times, Scarsdale Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Fred Langhammer, Chairman, Global Affairs, The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., New York
    Hélène Laverdière, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa *Monique Leroux, Chair of the Board of Investissement, Québec
    Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa
    Marne Levine, former Chief Operating Officer, Instagram, Menlo Park Santiago Levy, Vice President for Sectors and Knowledge, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Washington
    Linda Koch Lorimer, CEO, Abundantior; former Vice President for Global & Strategic Initiatives, Yale University
    *John Manley, Chair CIBC, CIBC Bank USA, and Chair CAE Inc.
    Judith A. McHale, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cane Investments, LLC, Hastings on Hudson; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Communications
    Thomas F. McLarty, III, President, McLarty Asssociates, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Clinton
    Lourdes Melgar, Energy Scholar, MIT Center for International Studies, Mexico City
    Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News, Washington
    Adm. Michael Mullen (Ret.), CEO, MGM Consulting, Annapolis; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Heather Munroe-Blum, Chair of the Board, Canada Pension Investment Fund; Principal Emerita and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Toronto
    Lori Esposito Murray, Distinguished Chair for National Security, U.S. Naval Academy; former President & Chief Executive Officer, World Affairs Councils of America; former Special Advisor to the President on the Chemical Weapons Convention; former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency
    John D. Negroponte, Vice Chairman, McLarty Associates, Washington; former Deputy Secretary of State; former Director of National Intelligence; former Ambassador to the United Nations, Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines and Iraq
    *Joseph S. Nye, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    *Meghan L. O’Sullivan, Evron and Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Special Assistant to President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chair, Hills & Company, Washington; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, and the United Nations; former Senior Vice President, International Relations, Boeing Company
    John A. Quelch, Vice Provost for Education and Dean, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Miami
    John Risley, Chairman and President, Clearwater, Bedford
    Andrés Rozental, former Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution, Mexico City
    David M. Rubenstein, Co-founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Washington
    *Luis Rubio, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Center for Research Development (CIDAC), Mexico City Indira Samarasekera, Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, Vancouver
    David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge Eric Schmidt, Technical Advisor and Board Member, Alphabet Inc., Mountain View
    Susan Schwab, Professor, Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park; former U.S. Trade Representative Gerald Seib, Executive Washington Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Jaime Serra, Chairman, SAI Law and Economics; Founder, Aklara, the Arbitration Center of Mexico, and the NAFTA Fund of Mexico, Mexico City; Deputy Chairman, North American Trilateral Commission
    Rajiv Shah, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Edward A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington; former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
    Wendy Sherman, Senior Advisor, Albright Stonebridge Group; Resident Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jeffrey Simpson, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa; former National Affairs Columnist, The Globe and Mail, Senior Fellow, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
    Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center, Portland
    Cecilia Soto Gonzalez, Federal Congresswoman, Mexico City Nancy Southern, President and Chief Executive Officer, ATCO Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Limited, Calgary
    *James B. Steinberg, former Dean, Maxwell School, and University Professor of Social Science, International Affairs and Law, Syracuse University, Syracuse; former Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy National Security Advisor *Carole Taylor, Chancellor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver; former Minister of Finance, British Columbia; former Chair, CBC/Radio-Canada; former Chair, Canada Ports; public affairs broadcaster
    Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Special Advisor, KKR, President, NTT Everis; former Chairman of the Board, Mexican Stock Exchange, Mexico City; former Secretary of Communications and Transportation of Mexico
    G. Richard Thoman, Managing Partner, Corporate Perspectives, New York; Adjunct Professor of International Business, Columbia University; Professor of Practice in International Business, the Fletcher School, Tufts University; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation; former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, IBM Corporation
    *Frances Townsend, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Government, Legal and Business Affairs, MacAndrews & Forbes Inc., New York; former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security
    Melanne Verveer, Executive Director, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, Georgetown University, Washington Guillermo F. Vogel, Director and Vice President of the Board, Tenaris, Mexico City
    *Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York;
    Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    Yuen Pau Woo, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa
    Robert Zoellick, Chairman, Alliance Bernstein, New York; former President, The World Bank Daniel Yergin, Vice Chairman, IHS, Cambridge

    Any more names look familiar?

    9. NAFTA Resulted In Job Losses

    This Economic Policy Institute study estimates job losses from NAFTA. Almost 900,000
    This EPI study estimates job losses from trade with China. Note, it is not even “free” trade, just “liberalized” trade. An estimated 3.4 million jobs.
    And another study on job losses, due to NAFTA.

    And no, job losses are not just an American problem. According to Statistics Canada, there were some very alarming trends across the developed world.

    Shrinking employment in manufacturing is a common trend in almost all OECD countries. From 1998 to 2008, the United States lost close to one-quarter (4.1 million) of its manufacturing jobs. Elsewhere in the OECD, from 1990 to 2003, manufacturing employment fell by 29% in the United Kingdom, 24% in Japan, 20% in Belgium and Sweden and 14% in France.

    Canada’s manufacturing industry lost 278,000 jobs (1 in 6) from 2000 to 2007, which reduced the sector’s share of total employment from 16% to 12%. That share then declined to 10% in 2009 after the 2008–2009 recession when manufacturers faced weaker demand and cuts to industrial capacity, resulting in the loss of 188,000 jobs. Regions where employment is highly concentrated in the manufacturing sector—mainly in Quebec and Ontario—experienced the greatest manufacturing job losses. From 2000 to 2007, Canadian manufacturing workers aged 20 to 29 in these regions were the most affected by the employment decline in this sector, as they were up to twice as likely to experience a loss of income as those holding a comparable job in a region with a low concentration of manufacturing.

    In addition, job security deteriorated in regions of high manufacturing concentration in 2007, leaving workers at greater risk of unemployment and more likely to be receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Manufacturing workers in these regions were 39% more likely to receive EI benefits than their counterparts in regions with a low concentration of manufacturing.

    Why have all these nations taken huge job losses, especially in manufacturing? Could be because “free trade” allows companies to shop around for cheaper labour costs.

    When 2 nations are very similar in their employment laws and standards, this can theoretically work. But the problem is that these deals create a “race to the bottom”, where cost cutting and the bottom line are the only considerations.

    10. Free Trade Has Real Costs

    A quick primer is this Lou Dobbs video.

    These deals give foreign companies rights to marketplaces and workforces that domestic companies do. This may sound great, but the reality is the undercutting domestic producers can put lots of people out of work.

    As demonstrated by Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there is a lot potential for new litigation for companies not getting the results or the market share they want. Who pays for it? Taxpayers.

    Politicians like Roy Maclaren or Bill Graham can also sit on corporate boards, while still claiming to advocate for the Canadian public. And these conflict-of-interests are hardly limited to Canada. It raises valid questions about who they really work for. Furthermore, for the Liberals to campaign on amending NAFTA (then scrap the promise), makes people wonder if they ever intended to keep the promise.

    The well being of communities doesn’t get emphasized enough. Large employers essentially provide for many families, and help keep things stable. If it suddenly becomes advantageous to pack up and leave, then a lot of people get screwed over.

    Is this a rejection of business or capitalism? No. However, there are other things to consider than simply profits and GDP.

    China’s Organ Harvesting Of Live People

    China Tribunal’s Findings

    From the December 2018 interim report:

    “The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

    That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:

    The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
    These were as follows;
    • That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
    • That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
    • That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
    o the number of transplant operations performed, and
    o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
    • That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.

    And this led to the conclusion that:

    forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.

    However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.

    The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
    • Killing members of the group;
    • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
    Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.

    That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.

    China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.

    Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
    • murder;
    • extermination;
    • imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    • torture;
    • rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    • persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
    • enforced disappearance
    in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.

    This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.

    The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.

    Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.

    The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.

    From Firstthings.com Article


    Firstthings.com quotes former VP Joe Biden, on his take on China’s one-child policy.

    But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

    In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:

    • forced abortion
    • sex-selective abortions against girls
    • sterilizations
    • eugenics

    Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.

    NBC Coverage Of Issue

    American news outlet NBC reported here, and also reported that:

    In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.

    The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.

    In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.

    China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

    Lifesite’s Take On The Situation

    Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.

    If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.

    (Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.

    7. My Take On This Story


    If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.

    At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.

    While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.

    Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.

    But good luck getting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to openly condemn the practice.

    (1) https://chinatribunal.com/
    (2) https://chinatribunal.com/about-etac/
    (3) https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Short-Form-Conclusion-China-Tribunal.pdf
    (4) Short-Form-Conclusion-China-Tribunal (1)
    (5) https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/vp-biden-okay-with-china-tyrannical-one-child-policy
    (6) https://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/china-stil-killing-and-harvesting-falun-gong-wesley-j-smith/
    (7) https://www.lifenews.com/2019/06/20/china-is-harvesting-organs-of-political-prisoners-sometimes-while-theyre-still-alive/
    (8) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46849651/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/china-phase-out-prisoner-organ-donation/#.XQjdq_lKi9I
    (9) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646

    9th Circuit Pulls Federal Funds Planned Parenthood Uses For Baby Chop-Shop

    (David Daleiden Fined $195,000 Exposed PP Selling Aborted Baby Parts)


    (Interview With David Daleiden)

    Quotes From Ruling

    BACKGROUND:
    In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (“Title X”) to create a limited grant program for certain types of pre-pregnancy family planning services. See Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970). Section 1008 of Title X, which has remained unchanged since its enactment, is titled “Prohibition of Abortion,” and provides: None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

    Pretty straightforward. Title X was never meant to be a means which to funnel money to fund abortions.

    In ruling on a stay motion, we are guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003), “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

    This is the 4 part test to decide on a motion to stay a ruling. Is the applicant likely to succeed? Is there public interest? What harm will come to the parties?

    As a threshold matter, we note that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of § 1008. Congress enacted § 1008 to ensure that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. If a program promotes, encourages, or advocates abortion as a method of family planning, or if the program refers patients to abortion providers for family planning purposes, then that program is logically one “where abortion is a method of family planning.” Accordingly, the Final Rule’s prohibitions on advocating, encouraging, or promoting abortion, as well as on referring patients for abortions, are reasonable and in accord with § 1008. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that § 1008 “plainly allows” such a construction of the statute. Rust, 500 U.S. at 184 (upholding as a reasonable interpretation of § 1008 regulations that (1) prohibited abortion referrals and counseling, (2) required referrals for prenatal care, (3) placed restrictions on referral lists, (4) prohibited promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion, and (5) mandated financial and physical separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities). The text of § 1008 has not changed.

    This makes a great deal of sense. If abortion was never intended to be covered as “family planning” under Title X, then organizations that openly promote, encourage, or otherwise facilitate it shouldn’t be allowed to receive federal monies. It would do an end run around rules.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
    (1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
    (2) impedes timely access to health care services;
    (3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
    (4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
    (5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
    (6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.

    Pub. L. No. 111-148, title I, § 1554 (42 U.S.C. § 18114) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions

    So these limitations would not be violate, specifically because § 1008 would need to be repealed or amended. Or the “Final Rule’s” provisions would have to be violated.

    Plaintiffs admit that there is no irreconcilable conflict between § 1008 and either the appropriations rider or § 1554 of the ACA. E.g., California State Opposition to Motion for Stay at p. 14; Essential Access Opposition to Motion for Stay at p.14. And we discern no “clear and manifest” intent by Congress to amend or repeal § 1008 via either of these laws—indeed, neither law even refers to § 1008. The appropriations rider mentions abortion only to prohibit appropriated funds from being expended for abortions; and § 1554 of the ACA does not even mention abortion.

    The US Congress has no intent to rewrite or amend § 1008. And § 1554 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) does not even mention abortion. It looks pretty weak to attempt an end run around what the law explicitly forbids.

    Although the Final Rule does require the provision of referrals to non-abortion providers, id. at 7788–90, such referrals do not constitute “pregnancy counseling.” First, providing a referral is not “counseling.” HHS has defined “nondirective counseling” as “the meaningful presentation of options where the [medical professional] is not suggesting or advising one option over another,” 84 Fed. Reg. at 7716, whereas a “referral” involves linking a patient to another provider who can give further counseling or treatment, id. at 7748. The Final Rule treats referral and counseling as distinct terms, as has Congress and HHS under previous administrations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300z-10; 53 Fed. Reg. at 2923; 2928–38 (1988); 65 Fed. Reg. 41272–75 (2000). We therefore conclude that the Final Rule’s referral requirement is not contrary to the appropriations rider’s nondirective pregnancy counseling mandate.2

    It is not “counselling” to refer a woman for abortion procedures. Counselling, as repeatedly held, is explaining options to a person.

    Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper. The motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

    4. Planned Parenthood Sued Idaho Over Reporting Rules

    Chapter 95: Abortions Complications Reporting Act

    (f) Abortion and complication reporting do not impose undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose whether she terminates pregnancy. Specifically, the “collection of information” with respect to actual patients is a vital element of medical research, so it cannot be said that the requirements serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult.

    This raises a valid point. If abortions, or any particular technique were leading to health complications later down the road, then it would be useful to know that information.

    Here is Planned Parenthood’s response when filing suit.

    This law require providers in the state to report on more than 37 new “complications,” ranging from medical conditions that have no link to abortion, like breast cancer, to the inability to come in for a follow-up appointment, which is not a medical condition. The reporting requirement doesn’t exist for any other medical procedure. The bill was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in March.

    Yet none of this actually prevents abortions from going on. It is a bit confusing. Does PP “not” want the patients (specifically), or the public (generally) to know what kinds of health and follow-up issues are going on?

    Planned Parenthood Sued Ohio Over Heartbeat Bill

    (1) At least twenty-four hours prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion, a physician meets with the pregnant woman in person in an individual, private setting and gives her an adequate opportunity to ask questions about the abortion that will be performed or induced. At this meeting, the physician shall inform the pregnant woman, verbally or, if she is hearing impaired, by other means of communication, of all of the following: (a) The nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used and the medical risks associated with that procedure; (b) The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus; (c) The medical risks associated with the pregnant woman carrying the pregnancy to term. The meeting need not occur at the facility where the abortion is to be performed or induced, and the physician involved in the meeting need not be affiliated with that facility or with the physician who is scheduled to perform or induce the abortion.

    (3) If it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion shall comply with the informed consent requirements in section 2919.192 2919.194 of the Revised Code in addition to complying with the informed consent requirements in divisions (B)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of this section

    While “controversial”, this bill (and similar ones) make a very valid point. How is it not “alive” if there is an actual heart beating?

    All of this talk about the right to an abortion, but no concern over the life of the unborn child. Why?

    Perhaps Senate Bill 27 will explain it. Planned Parenthood not only sues to make abortion “more accessible”, but it opposes efforts to “force the disposal” of the bodies either by burial or by cremation. Those aborted babies are worth a lot of money, if you harvest the organs.

    Real Reason Planned Parenthood Is So Pro-Abortion

    Let’s connect the dots here

    1. PP supports abortion with federal funds.
    2. PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
    3. PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
    4. PP supports abortion up to (and beyond) birth.
    5. PP opposes abortion complication reporting requirements.
    6. PP opposes laws mandating burial or cremation of fetus.

    While all of these are troubling, it is the last point that explains it: Planned Parenthood doesn’t want States mandating the disposal of fetal tissue, because there is a lot of money to be made in that.

    From the Washington Examiner:

    When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was “doing a little better than” breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).

    From the Christian Post article:

    The undercover journalist who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts selling operation is fighting a nearly $200,000 fine amid an ongoing court battle.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress last week, an appeal of a $195,000 imposed on him for using video footage which supposedly violated a gag order imposed by a lower court judge.

    “The federal judge presiding over related civil lawsuits, District Judge William Orrick, had held that criminal defense counsel’s use of the videos violated a gag order he imposed in one of the federal civil actions. Daleiden and his defense counsel appealed, arguing that Orrick had improperly imposed a criminal contempt penalty without granting the accused due process and that the federal civil injunction should not apply to Daleiden’s state criminal proceeding,” according to a statement from the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden.

    While the court proceedings are likely not over, David Daleiden performed a much needed service by exposing what really goes on. Aborted (a.k.a. murdered) children are worth a lot of money dead, as their organs can be harvested and sold.

    It also explains why Planned Parenthood has such an unwavering pro-abortion stance. These are not babies, but raw supplies. It further makes clear why PP doesn’t want aborted babies buried or cremated. Not much of a business model if you final products are required to be thrown out.

    Aborted babies are essentially in a chop-shop for spare parts. Nothing humane or compassionate about it.

    (1) http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2019/06/20/19-15974%20Order%20granting%20stay.pdf

    (2) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/9th-us-circuit-court-sides-with-trump-says-president-can-defund-planned-parenthood-almost-60-million-a-year/

    (3) https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-great-northwest-hawaiian-islands/newsroom/planned-parenthood-files-lawsuit-against-idaho-over-invasive-abortion-reporting-regulations
    (4) https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0638.pdf

    (5) https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/abortion-cases-up-for-supreme-court-review/
    (6) https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocates-ohio/issues/legislation
    (7) https://www.courthousenews.com/ohio-down-syndrome-abortion-law-hits-sixth-circuit/
    (8) https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kentucky-governor-signs-law-prohibiting-abortions-based-on-unborns-sex-race-or-disabilities
    (9) https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-indiana-fetal-burial-law-2019-5
    (10) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/court-affirms-media-was-wrong-those-videos-of-planned-parenthood-dealing-in-baby-parts-werent-deceptively-edited
    (11) https://www.christianpost.com/news/david-daleiden-fined-195000-court-battle-censored-planned-parenthood-footage.html
    (12) https://apnews.com/c50e993d047142cf8ca0e8050daf6114

    How The Left Wages War On The American Republic

    (2016 election, Electoral College)

    (2016 election, by district)

    (Snopes: LA County as big as 35 individual states)

    Note: Each of the topics below could have been an article all by itself. However, in this instance, it is better to demonstrate the “pattern” and where it is all leading.An individual even could be seen as an anomaly. However, it is better to connect the dots and view it all in context.

    An important distinction here: Canada and the United States rely on different models to choose their leaders. Here is the difference in a nutshell.

    CANADA has a Parliamentary system. Canadians vote on their MPs (currently there are 338 Federal districts). The Party with the majority (170) of the seats, or at least a plurality (in minority parliaments), governs. The Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party. The Senate consists of 105 unelected members, chosen by various Prime Ministers. If a majority of members vote against a Government, it is considered defeated.

    THE UNITED STATES has a Congressional system. There is an “Electoral College”, gives each states so many of the 538 “votes”. The magic number to win is 270. Every decade, the maps are redrawn in accordance with the national census, giving growing states more votes, and other states less. Each state has its own rules for which Presidential Candidate gets the seats, but typically, the winner of the state gets them all. House of Representative Members, there are 435, are elected for 2 year terms. Each State has 2 Senators, which are elected for 6 year terms.

    The Electoral College may seem strange, but it has a purpose, to ensure that smaller states are not overwhelmed by larger states. To provide some balance. The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is this “Electoral College” that leftists seek to undermine.

    Why undermine it? Because it becomes an issue of popular vote v.s. electoral votes. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won the Electoral College, and hence became President, despite have less overall votes. It is widely (and accurately) believed that the Electoral College tends to favour Republican Candidates, while the popular vote — due to those urban areas — tends to favour Democrats.

    1. States’ Resolutions to Bypass Electoral College

    As stated earlier, the Electoral College was meant to keep smaller States from becoming powerless compared to larger States. Extremely dense urban areas should not be able to wield such influence. However, a movement is underway for States to award their “votes” to the Candidate who wins the popular vote. This tactic will likely favour democrats.

    From the fivethirtyeight.com article:

    When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, it was the fourth time in American history — and the second time this century — that a candidate won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Now a group of voting-rights activists is working to prevent any future presidents from taking office the same way.

    The National Popular Vote initiative seeks to set up an interstate compact that would effectively do an end run around the Electoral College without actually abolishing it, which would require the lengthy, laborious process of building broad, bipartisan support to pass a constitutional amendment. The logic behind the compact is that the Constitution already gives states the power to award their electoral votes how they see fit, so each state that signs on to the compact agrees to award its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote — not necessarily the candidate who wins that state. There’s just one catch: The agreement only goes into effect when the states who’ve joined are worth a total of 270 electoral votes — enough to deliver an automatic victory to the popular vote winner.

    Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

    There will certainly be a follow up article as this initiative progresses. But here is the takeaway:

    Instead of States awarding their “votes” to the Presidential Candidate who actually wins their state, these states would instead give their votes to whoever won the overall popular vote. The intent is that states that a Republican would win, award the votes to the Democratic popular vote winner.

    In short, this would do an end run around the Electoral College, and a significant check that has been in place for centuries.

    2. Trying To Defraud Federal Census

    There is actually a pending case before the Supreme Court on this issue. It is over whether or not “citizenship” should be on the census forms that are done every decade.

    The Constitution requires an accurate population count every decade to guide government decisions from political mapmaking to federal spending. Recently revealed documents show the Commerce Department added the citizenship query after a political strategist found evidence doing so would undercount the true population and result in political districts that benefit Republican interests. As The Seattle Times’ Gene Balk reported, a study estimates a national undercount of more than 4 million residents — more than 75,000 in Washington— if the question is asked.

    The above is an exerp from the Seattle Times, though there are many on the topic. The article is “partially” true in that the citizenship question will likely benefit Republican interests.

    But the real issue is WHY that is.

    As mentioned earlier, the States are each allotted so much of the 538 Electoral College votes, and those numbers shift with each census. But only citizens are allowed to vote in Federal elections, (although some municipal elections allow non-citizens).

    But omitting the citizenship question blurs the line between citizen and non-citizen. Therefore, residents who are not citizens — or even illegal immigrants — would be able to count themselves and artificially boost the State’s population. With the increased population, the State would get more Electoral College votes, and hence wield more power in Federal elections.

    3. Driver’s Licenses For Illegals, Auto Registration

    New York State gives illegal immigrants driver’s licences. So do California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.

    That’s right. People who don’t have the legal right to be in the United States are allowed to legally obtain driver’s licenses.

    Why? Supporters claim that it raises public safety if illegals are properly licensed and have access to some form of identification. The issue that these people are in the country ILLEGALLY is irrelevant.

    Worth pointing out is that many States automatically upgrade their voting registry based on Department of Transportation records on driver’s licenses. What is the obvious conclusion?

    People who are in the country illegally, are LEGALLY issued licenses, and then become registered to vote. Despite (again) not being allowed in the country in the first place. A good way to pad the voter rolls with new Democrat voters.

    4. Sanctuary Cities

    The twin bills — SB 168 and HB 527 — both passed through their final committees this week. They would create rules relating to federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting “sanctuary” policies and requiring state and local law enforcement to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bills also would give whistle-blower status to officers who report citizenship violations by undocumented immigrants detained in local jails on unrelated charges.

    Under these bills, local law enforcement would be required to honor federal law enforcement’s request for an “immigration detainer,” meaning a request that another law enforcement agency detain a person based on probable cause to believe that the person is a “removable alien” under federal immigration law. The bill would essentially make the “request” a requirement.

    Thankfully, Florida is showing some sense, although other States not so much. There are sanctuary cities across the US, and California is a “sanctuary state”.

    But it is nice to see some pushback at least.

    5. Efforts To Get Felons Voting

    While this has a humanitarian spin on it, there is a more practical reason for letting ex-felons vote (and even letting people vote in prison). It is the idea that the votes will mostly benefit Democrats.

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says that they should and that voting is “inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people.” Many of his rivals for the 2020 nomination aren’t as sure, and at least one opposes the idea outright. Sanders himself acknowledged that he was essentially writing an attack ad for Republicans to use against him through his support for the issue.

    The question illustrates how Sanders continues to stand to the left of the other candidates as he endorses giving all prisoners, including those convicted of heinous crimes, the right to vote. Prodded by criminal justice activists, Democrats have largely embraced the politically safer cause of winning back access to the ballot box for felons who have served their time.

    6. Opposing Efforts To Build Border Wall

    A draft of the House Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2020 Homeland Security spending bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints or border barriers — A decision that is sure to invite opposition from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

    The draft bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints, or border barriers, a move that is expected to get pushback from Republicans and President Donald Trump, who has reallocated funding from other departments to build a border wall

    Yes, the US Congress has been preventing much of this from getting done. This includes Republicans who supposedly back President Trump.

    Given the continued invasion that has gone on for decades, it “should” be a straightforward, bipartisan matter to fix the laws. It is hard to imagine any other answer than most Members of Congress don’t want a real solution to the border crisis.

    It’s almost as if Congress is being paid off not to close the border. See the video on this. And see the following tables.

    This was covered in an earlier piece, but worth reprinting. The US Congress is subjected to a lot of foreign influence and money. While it is illegal for Presidential Candidates to receive such funding, there is little stopping Members of Congress from doing so.

    GROUP AMOUNT GIVEN
    American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
    Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
    J-Street $400,000
    Zionist Organization of America $200,000
    Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
    Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
    Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
    Jewish American Committee $74,000
    Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

    This is the source (for 2018)

    And no, that is not the end of it either.
    Consider there are Saudi (Islamic) organizations that lobby as well.

    Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
    Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
    Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
    Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
    Cambridge Associates $8,505
    Cassidy & Associates $720,000
    DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
    Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
    Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
    Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
    Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
    Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
    Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
    MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
    Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

    Source is here.

    Could the reason Congress refuses to act be because of the Jewish and Islamic groups contributing to their campaigns? That is certainly part of it.

    7. Corruption In US Judiciary

    A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

    U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.

    Gilliam is one of three federal judges who have donated to Democratic candidates in the past and recently ruled against the Trump administration.

    U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos and U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, both Obama appointees, ruled to release Trump’s financial documents demanded by Democratic subpoenas as investigations into President Trump continue in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

    Unbelievable. Judges who donated to President Trump’s political opponents are issuing rulings against him.

    Even if these Judges “could” be unbiased here, the proper thing would have been to recuse themselves from their respective cases. It is a clear conflict of interest.

    If this border wall isn’t getting built, or if the Government is needlessly tied up, guess what happens? More illegals come in. Unscreened. Unvetted. Public funds used to accommodate. And once they are “settled” in the US, many will get driver’s licenses and be allowed to vote. The votes of genuine Americans will be offset by illegals.

    It would be nice to know who is bankrolling the Judges in such matters. It seems doubtful that this influence is purely ideological.

    And speaking of corruption in the courts, there is that little stunt in October 2018 where Liberals tried to sabotage the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. This happened with a far-fetched and wildly inconsistent claim of sexual assault from the 1980s.

    What easier way to influence the highest court than by preventing judge’s with “incorrect” views from taking the bench?

    8. Lawsuit To Allow Illegal Immigration

    This was reported in thehill.com, and previously covered on this site. Interesting how impoverished migrants fleeing persecution happen to have a team of lawyers ready to launch court challenges on their behalf.

    Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

    On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

    This would be funny, but is actually very serious. Lawyers are not just arguing that their clients have the right to seek asylum, but seek asylum specifically in the US. No other country, including multiple countries they passed through, will suffice.

    The action also refers to “thousands” of asylum seekers. It seems reasonable to conclude they don’t want any sort of limitation.

    And when thousands of unidentified people come marching to your border, what responsible President wouldn’t deploy the military to stop them?

    9. UN Backs Mass Illegal Entry Into US

    This was covered in another piece, but is worth repeating. The UN supports and condones, mass illegal entry into the US and other countries.

    The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

    All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

    Under the guise of “human rights”, the UN aids and abets this invasion across the US/Mexico border.

    10. War On The Well Being of US

    So how bad are the problems in the US

    • End run around Electoral College
    • Fraud in the US Census
    • Driver’s Licenses for illegals, voting rights
    • 20+ million illegals in US
    • Sanctuary cities
    • Opposition to much needed border wall
    • Pushing to let felons vote
    • Corruption within the courts
    • Lawsuit to legalize illegal immigration
    • Congress paid off by Islamic lobby
    • Congress paid off by Jewish lobby
    • United Nations pushing for open borders

    It is a war against the United States.
    May she remain free.

    YouTuber Mr. Reagan, created this video, and this video, on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats. Well worth a watch.

    VOTING RIGHTS:
    (1) https://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/
    (2) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/county-map-keep-electoral-college/
    (3) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-the-electoral-college-just-passed-a-major-milestone/
    (4) https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/skip-citizenship-question-on-census/

    LICENCES FOR ILLEGALS:
    (1) https://realconservativesunite.com/2019/06/18/nys-passes-bill-granting-driver-s-licenses-to-illegals/
    (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licenses_for_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States
    (3) https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/tns-sanctuary-cities-florida-bill.html
    (4) https://www.apnews.com/66cc1a8de27e460096b8147aec0a2dcb

    BORDER WALLS:
    (1) https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/no-border-wall-money-house-homeland-security-funding-bill
    (2) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/federal-judge-who-blocked-trumps-border-wall-donated-20k-to-obama
    (3) https://thehill.com/homenews/news/414578-migrant-caravan-members-sue-trump-over-proposed-border-policies

    SUBVERSION:
    (1) https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/11/1024882
    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo_–rL0Lzw
    (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States

    Hypocrisy In Canada Summer Jobs Grants Between Religious Groups

    Employer Attestation

    12.0 Employer attestation
    12.1 The Employer attests that:
    I have read, understood and will comply with the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement;
    I have all the necessary authorities, permissions and approvals to submit this application on behalf of myself and my organization;
    The job would not be created without the financial assistance provided under a potential contribution agreement;
    Any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.

    Screening For Grants

    Ineligible projects and job activities:
    Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
    Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
    Partisan political activities;
    Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
    Projects or job activities that:
    restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
    advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
    actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

    Please note the following definitions:
    As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
    To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
    To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

    The way this is worded, it could be interpreted to mean that even expressing views which are pro-life or critical of SOGI agenda could be seen as threatening.

    Of course, the overwhelming majority of charities, non-profits, and businesses have absolutely nothing to do with abortion of the gender agenda.

    Nonetheless, since the Government of Canada has insisted on this, at least it will be uniformly enforced throughout all of the groups applying for summer grants, right?

    Not really.

    Double Standard For Christian & Islamic Groups

    From the National Post article:

    Youth for Christ’s chapters across Canada have used the grants for years to fund more than 100 student jobs annually. Toronto City Mission, which runs day camps in impoverished neighbourhoods, received $70,000 last year for 16 positions. Winnipeg’s Centerpoint Church has used the grants for 24 years to hire two summer students; Mill Bay Baptist Church on Vancouver Island used a grant last year to hire a First Nations student. All have seen their applications sent back this year over the attestation.

    Your project may have nothing to do with gender or abortion, but if you won’t sign those forms, prepare to have your grant request denied. However, “values” seem to be pretty flexible, depending on the group.

    From the Daily Caller article:

    The Trudeau government won’t allow pro-life groups to access the Canada Summer Jobs program without violating their principles, but it is funding an Islamic group with a cleric who was a keynote speaker at the anti-Israel al-Quds day rally in Toronto.

    As the Toronto Sun reports, the federal government gave the thumbs-up to the Islamic Humanitarian Service (IHS) based in Kitchener, Ont., to hire summer students with taxpayer money. (RELATED: Trudeau Government Cuts Off Pro-Life And Faith Groups From Jobs Funding)

    Yes, you are reading that correctly. The Trudeau Government refused pro-life groups access to the Summer Jobs Program because of their beliefs, even if they were unrelated to the job. Yet it was okay to fund Al Quds, an Islamic, anti-Semitic group, which openly calls for violence against Israel.

    It would take some serious mental gymnastics to not see moral inconsistency here. However, it appears to be about politics, not principles.

    Canadian Charter & Human Rights Code

    Fundamental freedoms
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

    These demands quite clearly violate both 2(a) and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. The specific religion is irrelevant, but these groups were clearly targeted because of their views. The double standard with Islamic groups makes it more absurd, but is not necessary.

    From the Canadian Human Rights Code:

    Prohibited grounds of discrimination
    3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

    Discriminatory policy or practice
    10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
    (a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
    (b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
    that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

    Section 3 very clearly lists religion as a protected group.

    And consider this: if the Government is awarding contracts, is the Government not the employer in this case?

    Some Interesting Cases

    R. v. Lewis, 1996 CanLII 3559 (BC SC) ruled that protesting abortion within a certain “protected area” was an offence, not shielded by freedom of religion. Not really related to the above, but still an interesting read.

    BCM International, asking the Federal Court for a review of the decision to turn down a grant. The Attestation is cited as the reason. (Case: T-917-19)

    BCM International, asking for another review, on essentially the same grounds (Case: T-918-19)

    An article on a pending challenge.

    Other Double Standards In Free Speech

    In Toronto a Christian Preacher is arrested for disturbing the peace in the Gay Village. However, Muslims condemning gays and Israel is apparently okay.

    In the UK as well, a Christian Preacher can be arrested even for behaving peacefully. Yet, Muslims are allowed to preach intolerance openly.

    The Canada Summer Jobs Program discriminates against those who object to being forced to sign onto a political agenda, when it has no relevance to their cause. It has overwhelmingly effected religious groups. While this may seem trivial, it is understandable to object to “bending the knee”.

    If abortion and gender are not related to the work that a group is doing, then there is no reason to bring it up. This is just virtue signalling.

    There is a double standard with how Christians are treated with how Muslims are treated. The former must cow-tow, while the latter’s views are “more understood”.

    (1) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/screening-eligibility.html
    (2) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/agreement.html
    (3) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/groups-scramble-for-replacement-funding-after-dissenting-on-canada-summer-jobs-abortion-attestation
    (4) https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/18/canada-summer-jobs-program-radical-cleric/
    (5) https://globalnews.ca/news/4277082/canada-summer-job-grant-islamic-group-peter-braid/
    (6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
    (7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/