UN Global Taxation Efforts & Schemes

(Ways to raise money)

(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)

(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)

(Details of proposed global tax scheme)

(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)

(UN Environment Programme)

(Green finance for developing countries)

(International Chamber of Commerce)

(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)

(Global tax avoidance measures)

(Why stop at just billions?)

These are not the only examples, but should serve as an illustration for the “taxation” efforts the UN is undertaking in order to finance its various agendas. Of course its ultimate goal is world domination.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing: Carbon Tax $250B/year
CLICK HERE, for UN “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B.
CLICK HERE, for Paris Accord “Financial Flows”.
CLICK HERE, for Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Chamber of Commerce, Tax, SDA Goals.
CLICK HERE, for ICC Position on Tax, SDA Goals.
CLICK HERE, for Green Financing, Sustainable Development.
CLICK HERE, for Development Financing, “Cooperation” To Combat Tax Avoidance.
CLICK HERE, for Leveraging African Pension Plans.
CLICK HERE, for Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed.
CLICK HERE, for UN Tax Treaties Changes.
CLICK HERE, for: From Billions To Trillions
CLICK HERE, for Sustainable Financing Report.
CLICK HERE, for UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for Capital Development Finance.
CLICK HERE, for UN Join Staff Pension Fund.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Credit Union

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for previous article debunking Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for review New Development Financing.
CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.

CLICK HERE, for a recent article by Uppity Peasants on the UN Environment Programme. Also, go check out the site.
CLICK HERE, for a guest post by: BOLD Like a Leopard. This covered the “Green New Deal”, the US proposal.

2. Paris Accord Is All About Taxation

This is not an exaggeration, or hyperbole. The entire point of the agreement is to generate an enormous slush fund. The UN IPCC and select partners can then put that money into the commodities market and make trillions from it.

If you have any doubts about that, read Article 9 from the Paris Agreement. It spells out the “financial flow” in no uncertain terms.

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.

Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.

3. New Development Finance, Bait-and-Switch

Okay, what are these “revenue sources”?

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

If these numbers are accurate, then the US is viewed as a cash cow somewhere to the tune of $627 billion to $807 billion. Yes, this only refers to revenue potential from the United States. I believe this is annually.

What does the report say about SDAs?

These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

No kidding. There is a lot of political opposition to taxes which are deemed to undermine national sovereignty. Could that be because these taxes AREN’T being used to support the well being of the citizenry? Instead the money is being funnelled out of the country in the name of some global good project.

This is how bait-and-switch works:
(1) Raise money using cause A.
(2) Actually spend the money on cause B.

An array of other options with large fundraising potential have been proposed (see figure O.1 and table O.1), but have not been agreed upon internationally thus far. These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

(Page 86) Debt-conversion mechanisms
Debt conversion entails the cancellation by one or more creditors of part of a country’s debt in order to enable the release of funds which would otherwise have been used for debt-servicing, for use instead in social or environmental projects. Where debt is converted at a discount with respect to its face value, only part of the proceeds fund the projects, the remainder reducing the external debt burden, typically as part of a broader debt restructuring.

Debt to developing nations can be “forgiven”, at least partly, if certain conditions are met. However, the obvious question must be asked:

Can nations be loaned money they could never realistically pay back, in order to ensure their compliance in UN or other global agenda, by agreeing to “forgive” part of it?

(Page 86) Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1.

If debt can be forgiven in return for environmental measures, then why not simply fund these environmental measures from the beginning? Is it to pressure or coerce otherwise unwilling nations into agreeing with such measures?

(Page 88)
There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.
In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

We will “forgive” your debt if:
(1) A portion of your land is off limits; or
(2) Debt converted to currency to fund “projects”

The entire document is 178 pages. While a tedious read, it’s worthwhile.

4. UN Wants $400B In Global Taxation

New York, 5 July 2012 –The United Nations is proposing an international tax, combined with other innovative financing  mechanisms, to raise more than $400 billion annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate  change.    In its annual report on global development, World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development  Finance, (WESS 2012) launched today, the UN says, in the midst of difficult financial times, many donor countries have cut  back on development assistance. In 2011, for the first time in many years, aid flows declined in real terms

The survey finds that the financial needs of developing countries have long outstripped the willingness and ability of donors to provide aid. And finding the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough, especially for least developed countries. 

The need for additional and more predictable financing has led to a search for new sources not as a substitute for aid, but as a complement to it. A number of innovative initiatives have been launched during the past decade, mainly to fund global health programmes aimed at providing immunizations, AIDS and tuberculosis treatments to millions of people in the  developing  world.  The  UN  survey  finds  that  while  these  initiatives  have  successfully  used  new  methods  to  channel  development  financing to combat diseases, they have hardly yielded any additional funding on top of traditional development assistance. 

This source explains it straight from the horse’s mouth. The UN is not taking in enough money for its various schemes. In fact, real contributions are shrinking. Therefore it is necessary to come up with new and innovative ways to tax developed nations.

Of course one of the most common ways is with the “climate change” scam. But it is hardly the only one. The UN views many forms of wealth simply as money to tap into.

5. UN Eyeing Up African Pensions

(Page 10) III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets. While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.

(Page 30) C. Policy framework for investment in infrastructure Pension funds—just like other investors, domestic and foreign—need a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure and other assets. This is important as infrastructure assets have a number of characteristics that increase investors’ perception of risk. First, infrastructure projects typically involve economies of scale and often lead to natural monopolies with high social benefits and, at times, lower private returns. As a result, infrastructure projects may require heavy government involvement. Second, infrastructure projects are often large and long-lived with a significant initial investment but with cash flows that accrue over a long horizon.

In this regard, improving the policy framework for investment can be useful to countries seeking to develop the investor base for infrastructure. For instance, the OECD’s Policy Framework for Investment (PFI) uses self-assessments and/or an external assessment by the OECD to help a country elaborate policies for capacity building and private sector development strategies, and inform the regional dialogue (OECD, 2015b). The PFI’s investment policy refers not only to domestic laws, regulations, and policies relating to investment but also goals and expectations concerning the contribution of investment to sustainable development, such as infrastructure

(Page 31) D. Infrastructure financing instruments available to pension funds Even in well-performing pension systems where the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds are conducive to investment in infrastructure and there is a sound policy framework for investment, there is still a need for adequate instruments to channel pension fund assets into the infrastructure sector. Pension funds can use a number of channels to invest in infrastructure. Direct exposure is gained mainly through the unlisted equity instruments (direct investment in projects and infrastructure funds) and project bonds, while indirect exposure is normally associated with listed equity and corporate debt. More specifically, pension funds can rely on a number of options such as

The paper itself is quite long, but here is the gist of it. The UN wants to take African pension funds and use them to “invest” it UN type of schemes.

While this seems harmless enough, remember the Paris Accord. The UN thinks nothing of taxing the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars under false pretenses in order to invest in the commodities market. Nor does the UN object to giving “infrastructure loans” to nations that will likely never be able to pay it back.

It should alarm people that an organization with no inherent loyalty to the region would want to use African pension funds to finance its own agenda.

6. UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is a partnership between United Nations Environment and the global financial sector created in the wake of the 1992 Earth Summit with a mission to promote sustainable finance. More than 250 financial institutions, including banks, insurers, and investors, work with UN Environment to understand today’s environmental, social and governance challenges, why they matter to finance, and how to actively participate in addressing them.

UNEP FI’s work also includes a strong focus on policy – by facilitating country-level dialogues between finance practitioners, supervisors, regulators and policy-makers, and, at the international level, by promoting financial sector involvement in processes such as the global climate negotiations.

Here are the members of the Global Steering Committee. In short, this is a partnership between the UN and banking sector.

Keep in mind the “New Development Financing” agenda discussed earlier. Money is taken and used to “invest” in 3rd World Development Programs. Countries that are unable to pay back are forced either to give up sovereignty, or comply with other arrangements.

Banks are in the business of making money. Alternatively, they are in the business of acquiring assets which can be converted into money, or otherwise make them money. What if this banking alliance has no altruistic roots, and is meant to be predatory?

Uppity Peasants has an interesting take on the UNEP.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what happens to these people, by the way. One cross-country comparison between microloan recipients in Bangladesh and payday loan recipients in Canada found that both ‘products’ tend to attract the same kinds of people to them from very similar backgrounds, for largely the same reasons — i.e., neither group tends to use these loans for re-investment, such as starting a business; rather, they use them to cover day-to-day expenses at exorbitant interest rates, thus entrapping themselves in a cycle of never ending debt (Islam & Simpson, 2018). If you know how bad the consequences of payday lending can be for people in the first world, imagine how bad it is for someone who’s already living in third world-levels of poverty.

Now, part of the reason why the UNEP, of all possible agencies, is so heavily invested (emotionally and literally) into fintech and other start-up technologies is because many of the “incumbent banks” — the top-players of our current system — don’t think that completely up-ending the global financial system to move the focus away from profits and toward complying with heavy-handed, UN-decided environmental regulations is a particularly attractive road to go down. In the next excerpt, the UNEP openly admit that start-ups in this area are better to invest in for the pursuit of ‘change’, specifically because their owners tend to be new to the world of business and, as such, don’t know enough about what they’re doing to avoid being manipulated — and that’s where the UNEP comes in.

Uppity Peasants argues that the UNEP is driven much more on a business model than on any kind altruistic path. Further, the circumstances which the aid recipients require the resources to cover essential expenses means they are unable to invest anything. This is similar to a payday loan type of system.

7. Green Finance For 3rd World $5-7 Trillion

(Page 13)In 2015, governments adopted three major agreements that set out their vision for the coming decades: a new set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change and the ‘financing for development’ package. Finance is central to realizing all three agreements – and these now need to be translated into practical steps suited to each country’s circumstances.

Sustainable Energy for All estimates that annual global investments in energy will need to scale up from roughly US$400 billion at present to US $1-1.25 trillion. Of that, US$40-100 billion annually is needed to achieve universal access to electricity. Overall, US $5-7 trillion a year is needed to implement the SDGs globally. Developing countries are estimated to face an annual investment gap of US$2.5 trillion in areas such as infrastructure, clean energy, water and sanitation, and agriculture.

(Page 14) The challenge for financial systems is twofold: to mobilize finance for specific sustainable development priorities and to mainstream sustainable development factors across financial decision-making.

Capital needs to be mobilized for inclusion of underserved groups (e.g. small and medium enterprises), raising capital for sustainable infrastructure (e.g. energy, housing, transport, urban design) and financing critical areas of innovation (e.g. agriculture, mobility, power).

Sustainability needs to become mainstream for financial institutions. This starts with ensuring market integrity (e.g. tax, corruption, human rights) and extends to integrating environmental and social (E&S) factors into risk management (e.g. climate disruption, water stress). Sustainability also needs to be incorporated into the responsibilities and reporting of market actors to guide their decision-making. Momentum is building to align financial systems with the financing needs of an inclusive, sustainable economy. This is complementary to ‘real economy’ actions such as environmental regulations, reform of perverse subsidies and changes to resource pricing. However, while these are critical, it is increasingly recognized that changes are also needed in the financial system to ensure that it is both more stable and more connected to the real economy.

Some interesting points here:

  • $5 to $7 trillion (yes trillion) needed annually fulfill these goals. The billions stated before was lowballed.
  • The “sustainability” agenda needs mass marketing.
  • Finance needed for:
    1. 17 goals of Agenda 2030
    2. Paris Climate Accord
    3. Finance for development
  • 3 above items to be integral part of national agendas.
  • Most of this has nothing to do with the environment

In fact, it reads like a global version of the US Green New Deal, proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, admitted it was about changing the economy, not the environment.

8. International Chamber Of Commerce

THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ICC is the world’s largest business organization with a network of over 6 million members in more than 130 countries. We work to promote international trade, responsible business conduct and a global approach to regulation through a unique mix of advocacy and standard setting activities—together with market-leading dispute resolution services. Our members include many of the world’s largest companies, SMEs, business associations and local chambers of commerce.
.
We are the world business organization.

That quote came from their policy guide. Pretty straightforward. They want to run business on a global level. Now, let’s get to the meat and potatoes, the tax proposals:

Interplay between tax policy making and economic growth The world’s population is predicted to increase by 2 billion people by 2050, and the population of the world’s least developed countries is projected to double by 2053, in some countries even tripling. By 2025 half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. Under such circumstances, the need for large-scale investment in economic growth and development becomes evident.

Whilst there is no panacea, it is evident that greater alignment of investment and tax policies would be essential in promoting investment, job creation and economic growth. International commerce remains a powerful mechanism to help lift people out of poverty. Tax is intrinsically linked to development as taxation provides the revenue that states need to mobilize resources and reinforce a country’s infrastructure. Taxation “provides a predictable and stable flow of revenue to finance public spending, and shapes the environment in which investment, employment and trade takes place.”

Further, it is important to have a fair, efficient, and effective revenue collection infrastructure to promote economic and social development. Domestic resource mobilization (DRM) has been proposed as a way to meet the SDGs with the development finance already available. However, DRM can be impeded by unclear and confusing tax systems. It is imperative that companies are able to move products and services into areas where they are most needed without unnecessary administrative impediments.

Having a reliable and consistent taxation policy seems reasonable enough. However, the ICC is not being clear on the reason behind the push. They want better taxation methods in order to INCREASE the amount of revenue available.

Governments often side with these groups, even when it is not in the best interests of the citizens themselves. “Investment” dollars are then shovelled into infrastructure projects.

Tax the people, so that the money can be “properly” spent, as the UN and their partners see fit.

9. Addis Ababa Action Agenda

(Page 10) DOMESTIC PUBLIC RESOURCE
For all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the sustainable development goals. Building on the considerable achievements in many countries since Monterrey, we remain committed to further strengthening the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources

(Page 10) 22. We recognize that significant additional domestic public resources, supplemented by international assistance as appropriate, will be critical to realizing sustainable development and achieving the sustainable development goals. We commit to enhancing revenue administration through modernized, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection. We will work to improve the fairness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of our tax systems, including by broadening the tax base and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with country circumstances.

23. We will redouble efforts to substantially reduce illicit financial flows by 2030, with a view to eventually eliminating them, including by combating tax evasion and corruption through strengthened national regulation and increased international cooperation. We will also reduce opportunities for tax avoidance, and consider inserting anti-abuse clauses in all tax treaties. We will enhance disclosure practices and transparency in both source and destination countries, including by seeking to ensure transparency in all financial transactions between Governments and companies to relevant tax authorities. We will make sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, in accordance with national and international laws and policies

(Page 13) 27. We commit to scaling up international tax cooperation. We encourage countries, in accordance with their national capacities and circumstances, to work together to strengthen transparency and adopt appropriate policies, including multinational enterprises reporting country-by-country to tax authorities where they operate; access to beneficial ownership information for competent authorities; and progressively advancing towards automatic exchange of tax information among tax authorities as appropriate, with assistance to developing countries, especially the least developed, as needed. Tax incentives can be an appropriate policy tool. However, to end harmful tax practices, countries can engage in voluntary discussions on tax incentives in regional and international forums.

(Page 45) 98. We affirm the importance of debt restructurings being timely, orderly, effective, fair and negotiated in good faith. We believe that a workout from a sovereign debt crisis should aim to restore public debt sustainability, while preserving access to financing resources under favourable conditions. We further acknowledge that successful debt restructurings enhance the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. We continue to be concerned with non-cooperative creditors who have demonstrated their ability to disrupt timely completion of the debt restructurings.

In no way does this cover the entire document. However, there are 3 themes which get repeated over and over again.

  1. Efficient tax collection
  2. Global tax regulations and data sharing
  3. “Sustainable” debt and borrowing

There is very little in this document, about actually improving lives, improving infrastructure, or improving the environment. Instead, it is all about implementing a global taxation system, while eliminating “off the books”, or illicit cash.

10. Global Tax Avoidance Measures

Exchange of information for tax purposes
Exchange of information has long been included as a feature of tax treaty models. By agreeing to exchange information with respect to taxpayers, countries can become more aware of the global activities taxpayers are engaging in and impose tax that should be due.

The upcoming 2017 revision of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing countries is expected to bring a new revised version of the exchange of information provision, following the approval of the new United Nations Code of Conduct. The Committee agreed in 2016 to a proposal for a United Nations Code of Conduct on Cooperation in Combating International Tax Evasion. This Code supports the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes as the way forward for countries generally, but recognizes that it is vital for developing countries to exchange information, even if they are not ready for automatic exchange. The Code of Conduct has been approved by the Committee of Experts in 2016, and set automatic exchange of information as the new universal standard after ECOSOC adopted the Code of Conduct in a Resolution in 2017, during the ECOSOC Special Meeting on International Cooperation on Tax Matters. .Furthermore, the OECD model convention and commentaries is expected to broaden the scope of the exchange of information article to allow triangular, or multi-party exchange of information requests.

While this certainly sounds like some well meaning way to prevent money laundering and tax fraud, there is another angle to look at.

Having a global (or at least more centralized) database of people and their taxable income will allow for more efficient and effective tax collection. This is especially true whenever a new “development project” needs funding.

Furthermore, if there is such a global system, it will be easier to determine who isn’t paying “their fair share” when it comes to contributions. Those national governments can then act accordingly. Also, who doesn’t view this as becoming a global version of Revenue Canada, or the American IRS?

11. From Billions To Trillions (SF 2.0)

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require an enormous increase in external financing flows to developing countries. Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) have gradually started to shift their business model towards de-risking services to crowd in long-term, low-risk private capital. However, the targeted scaling up of private investment from billions to trillions to realise the SDGs contains massive risks for stability. And good macro-policies are needed, in turn, to address such underlying risks. Countries that need the greatest amount of development finance are often those that have domestic financial resource constraints and underdeveloped markets. Financing their growth and investment opportunities makes the management of exchange rate risks, which are inherent in development finance, a critical challenge.

Merely supplying development finance is not enough. It needs to be done in socially and economically sustainable ways, where risks are allocated to those who can best manage and sustain them. Efficient use of limited public resources, through improved policies and regulatory processes, is required to achieve the SDGs and related efforts. Governments around the world must work together to offer feasible business opportunities to the private sector that are in line with domestic and international development objectives. Only with such coordinated action will we succeed in moving from billions to trillions to realise sustainable progress for all.

This article should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that this global development system is going to be steady. Wrong. Once considered “fully operational”, the next step is to upscale it, and make it far bigger.

It is not governments who will be paying for these globalist schemes. It is the working class tax-payers who will see more and more of their wealth transferred to these projects.

Of course, once your money leaves Canadian soil, there is little to no accountability or control over what happens to it. But that it routinely downplayed.

12. What To Make From All This?

To state the obvious: these agendas and agreements are bringing nations towards a global taxation model. Countries (presumably under UN control) will be expected to share data on tax paying citizens and other people earning money. While this is touted as an anti-tax avoidance measure, the real goal is making sure the global order accounts for all money and where it goes.

Going towards a “cashless society” also helps in that regard. Hence the push for more and more electronic options, while making cash payments more difficult.

Beyond enforcement, knowing which nations have money and how much will make it easier to determine who shall pay how much as their “fair share” of future projects. We won’t have nations in the traditional sense, just shareholders.

International agreements like the Paris Accord have nothing to do with the environment. That is just the sales pitch. Instead, it an excuse to funnel huge sums of money to the UN to finance their business model. It is taking advantage of an altruistic goal.

This is about having a globalist, centralized economy and taxation. The environmental and humanitarian claims are just talking points.

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai On How The Carbon Tax Works (Climate Change Scam #11)

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax work.)

(Alternative explanation: Cosmic rays and the sun contribute far greater to climate change than does Carbon Dioxide)

(“Conservative” Garnett Genuis defends Paris Accord)

(UN Green Climate Fund)

(Getting rich off Carbon credits)

The first video explains plainly in the first video how the UN IPCC system works. It is all about generating revenue in order to use in creating climate bonds. The money is acquired through underhanded and deceptive means.

The second video offers a much more plausible explanation for variations in temperature: Cosmic rays and the sun. This half hour video gets into it.

Although Dr. Ayyadurai explains this from an American perspective, the issues are much the same in Canada. As such, it is very related to our situation.

It’s a shame that he ended up losing to Elizabeth Warren in the Senate race. Dr. Ayyadurai would have made a fine Senator. But Pocahontis (or Faux-cahontis) has name recognition and is able to run on that alone.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.

CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord, full text.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Green Climate Fund.
CLICK HERE, for WEF explaining carbon credits and trading.
CLICK HERE, for a Forbes article explaining the carbon credit scheme.
CLICK HERE, for an earlier piece on the $100T bond market.

2. Dr. Ayyadurai Video In Point Form

 

  1. (Pre-Carbon tax) Products are made
  2. (Post-Carbon tax) Products are still made. Now taxes charged.
  3. Carbon taxes are paid to UN IPCC, others
  4. UN IPCC issues “Carbon credits”. In essence, this is permission to “pollute”. Never mind that Carbon Dioxide isn’t pollution, but a natural byproduct of combustion, or even breathing. But anyway….
  5. So called “Carbon credits” actually go into the bond market, and allow the UN (and approved others) to use it as an investment vehicle. This is a trillion dollar industry.
  6. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore once monopolized the market.
  7. UN IPCC used their PR branch (or propaganda arm) to pressure the US into playing ball with the Paris Accord, despite the obvious fraud.
  8. US pressured to create $100B “Green Fund”
  9. “Green Fund” used to bribe 190 other nations into joining Paris Accord, and thus legitimizing the UN scam. Odd wording here
  10. Advisors and NGOs who used US Green Fund money to influence joining of Paris Accord ended up enriching themselves in the process
  11. Scientists “alter” findings to make situation seem worse.
  12. Developing countries allowed to make situation worse. As an example, China puts out 11B tons/year now, and will be able to emit 22B tons in 2030.
  13. After 2030, China will be able to buy “Carbon credits”.
  14. UN paid “influencers” convince their nations to join Paris Accord
  15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.
  16. This is really about virtue signalling.
  17. Environmental data manipulated to generate support.
  18. No conclusive evidence of temperature rise.
  19. 1st world nations will pay more for everything.
  20. 3rd world will (for years) be exempt.
  21. UN IPCC and allies are only ones who will benefit.
  22. Trump made right decision to pull out of Paris Accord.

Just 12 minutes in this video and Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai completely and thoroughly explained it. These Carbon taxes would end up in the UN, and go into the commodities market, generating trillions of dollars in revenue. The “Green Fund” is just a fund to bribe corrupt officials into playing along. And none of this would do anything to cut pollution.

One small criticism: it would have been nice to point out that Carbon Dioxide is not pollution. It is a naturally occurring compound. If it was reduced to zero, life would stop altogether.

However, in the other video provided, a sound and plausible explanation is offered. It is cosmic rays and solar activity that leads to significant variations in temperatures.

3. The Paris Accord: Articles 2, 4, 9

(Article 2)

1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

(Article 4)

3. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.

4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.

5. Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.

6. The least developed countries and small island developing States may prepare and communicate strategies, plans and actions for low greenhouse gas emissions development reflecting their special circumstances.

(Article 9)

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.

Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.

4. The Green Climate Fund

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a new global fund created to support the efforts of developing countries to respond to the challenge of climate change. GCF helps developing countries limit or reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change. It seeks to promote a paradigm shift to low-emission and climate-resilient development, taking into account the needs of nations that are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

It was set up by the 194 countries who are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010, as part of the Convention’s financial mechanism. It aims to deliver equal amounts of funding to mitigation and adaptation, while being guided by the Convention’s principles and provisions.

When the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015, the Green Climate Fund was given an important role in serving the agreement and supporting the goal of keeping climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius.

Responding to the climate challenge requires collective action from all countries, including by both public and private sectors. Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources. Coming from a variety of sources, these resources address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.

GCF launched its initial resource mobilization in 2014, and rapidly gathered pledges worth USD 10.3 billion. These funds come mainly from developed countries, but also from some developing countries, regions, and one city (Paris).

GCF’s activities are aligned with the priorities of developing countries through the principle of country ownership, and the Fund has established a direct access modality so that national and sub-national organisations can receive funding directly, rather than only via international intermediaries.

Source is right here.

To reiterate from before: the Paris Agreement isn’t really about reducing greenhouse gases. It is a way of extracting large sums of money from “polluters” in order to finance the UN’s various agendas.

While the website sounds well meaning enough, an important detail is left out: namely the huge profit that will be derived from using these funds. As such, the conflict of interest isn’t being disclosed.

5. A $100 Trillion Industry

This was addressed in a previous article. While the public is roped into supporting the agenda on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the truth is quite different.

Climate bonds is an industry. It’s an industry that has potential for explosive growth, as long as governments keep pouring money into it.

The climate change agenda has nothing to do with protecting the environment. It is all about the “illusion” of protecting the environment. And money.

6. Carbon Credit Profiteering

Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Still, the U.S. Government Accounting Office can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from those many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change. A May 2011 GAO report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.

As noted in the Forbes article, Al Gore has been able to become extremely wealthy with this scheme. Huge sums of money are taken as “Carbon taxes” and then plowed into the climate bonds industry.

While this hunger for Carbon taxes is spun as necessary for the planet, too little attention is paid to the profiteering that goes on behind it. It is difficult to take these pleas seriously when there is such a compelling profit motive.

And as the Government has noted, it’s very unclear what — if anything — taxpayers are actually getting in return for their money. It also isn’t obvious what goals or direction these programs are actually working towards.

The answer is very simple: the people running the scam want it to stay operational as long as possible. The goal is money, not ideology.

This is just one article. A quick internet search will reveal more details and examples of cashing in on this “environmental” agenda.

Either we tax countries for continuing to “pollute”, or we force them to shut down significant parts of their economy. Since the latter can’t happen without dropping the standard of living, it becomes necessary to pay up.

It’s like the mafia, except disguised as environmentalism.

7. Various UN Taxation Schemes

(A) New Development Financing: Carbon Tax Alone Could Generate $250/year, 2012
(B) UN: “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B, 2012
(C) Paris Accord “Financial Flows”, 2015
(D) Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t, 2015
(E) Green Financing, Sust Develop, 2016
(F) Leverage African Pension Plans, 2017
(G) Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed, 2018
(H) From Billions To Trillions, 2018
(I) Sustainable Financing Report, 2019
(J) UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative
(K) Capital Development Finance

A few of these have been addressed in other articles. Please visit the “Climate Change Scam” section on the righthand toolbar.

This should alarm people. The UN is regularly coming up with new and innovative taxation methods. This is only a handful of them.

The Paris Accord is hardly an isolated cause.

8. Closing Thoughts On Subject

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is right regarding his explanation of the Paris Accord. It is an elaborate scam. While billions are pumped into climate funds, that is not the whole story. Those billions are then used to entice other nations to join the Paris Accord, thus giving it more legitimacy. The final goal is the trillions that can be gained later.

Furthermore, his explanation that cosmic radiation and solar activity play a greater role in fluctuating temperatures seems to make sense.

The Paris Accord has nothing to do with improving the environment either. All of its “mitigation” strategies are just talk. The Agreement is about generating large transfers of wealth on a continuous basis. Read the Agreement, in particular Article #9. The text leaves no doubt that money is the driving force behind it.

Climate bonds, and related “investments” are a huge industry, worth perhaps $100 trillion. This is the reason behind it all. So much opportunity. But the Carbon taxes (and other related fees), are entirely based on false pretenses.

The real losers are consumers and taxpayers, particularly from the developed world. These Carbon taxes (or “price on pollution” as claimed in Canada) will be used to funding for the UN IPCC and select allies to enrich themselves.

Social Security Unable To Pay Obligations By 2034

(Social Security Administration)

(2019 Annual Report to Congress)

(Signatories to the 2019 report)

1. Important Links

For some context on the Canadian Situation:
CLICK HERE, for CPP #1: Investing $2B In Mumbai, India.
CLICK HERE, for CPP #2: Taking Money Out Of Canada, & Liabilities.
CLICK HERE, for CPP #3: Where Is The Money Going? Structural Shortfalls.

On the American situation:
CLICK HERE, for the 2019 Annual Report to Congress.

CLICK HERE, for an interesting powerpoint on liability calculation.
CLICK HERE, for a 2018 paper: UNFUNDED OBLIGATION AND TRANSITION COSTS FOR THE OASDI PROGRAM
CLICK HERE, for the Brookings Institute & privatization.

2. Side Note On Signatories

Although unrelated to the long term problems with the Social Security program, it is worth pointing out — as a side note — some scandals with 2 people involved. Steve Mnuchin, is long suspected or corruption, and Alex Acosta was the Prosecutor who previously let Jeffrey Epstein off on child sex charges.

3. Open-Group v.s. Closed Group Valuation


From this presentation. The author makes the assumption that “open-group valuation” should be used for public pensions such as Social Security, while private pensions should rely on “closed-group valuation” methods of accounting.

The difference is this:
Open-group valuation principles mean that a pension is solvent and in good shape as long as it’s current assets and payouts are able to keep up with the demands of retirees at the moment. It doesn’t require that the pension plan be fully funded. The reasoning is there is a “social contract”, and that the Government can raise more money (tax more) to cover the shortfalls.

Closed-group valuation principles require that “all” liabilities be taken into account. The is a far more accurate method, as payments from all workers are considered, if those who won’t retire for decades. The rationale is that private companies could go bankrupt at any time, and need to take the actual amounts into account.

For obvious reasons, the closed-group valuation method is a far more accurate approach in calculating the health of pension plans. It forces “all” assets and liabilities to be disclosed.

To be fair, it is a valid point that private pension funds cannot exactly just “take more money” to cover their shortfalls. Still, the open-group approach is very misleading.

4. The Approach Explained in 2018 Paper

1. Introduction In calculating the unfunded obligation of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, we include the entire cost of paying scheduled benefits in full and on time, even after trust fund reserves are depleted. However, when the trust fund reserves are depleted, current law limits expenditures to the amount of continuing income received by the fund. Thus, the measures of unfunded obligation represent the shortfall of financial resources scheduled under current law to cover the cost associated with timely payment of scheduled benefits for the period.

The unfunded obligation for any program must be defined on the basis of the intended funding method for the program. Because the OASDI program is financed on essentially a current-cost or pay-as-you-go basis, the open group unfunded obligation measure is appropriate. Programs that are intended to be essentially fully advance-funded require the use of other measures, reflecting a closed group perspective, to assess their unfunded obligation (or liability). However, these closed group measures are more accurately described as theoretical measures of “transition cost” for the OASDI program. Estimates of the unfunded obligation vary depending on the valuation period and the assumptions used. Transition cost measures also vary depending on which plan participants are included.

(See this source.) This paper explains that the open-group valuation method is appropriate because people will always be paying into it. While this is a valid point, it doesn’t take away from the growing amount of unfunded liabilities.

In fact, it helps to conceal just how much the program owes and still is obligated to pay out. The only way this works is with an infinitely growing population, and ever growing contributions.

Basically, a giant Ponzi scheme, where participation is mandatory, under threat of arrest and detention.

5. Quotes From 2019 Report

In 2018 At the end of 2018, the OASDI program was providing benefit payments1 to about 63 million people: 47 million retired workers and dependents of retired workers, 6 million survivors of deceased workers, and 10 million disabled workers and dependents of disabled workers. During the year, an estimated 176 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes on those earnings. The total cost of the program in 2018 was $1,000 billion. Total income was $1,003 billion, which consisted of $920 billion in non-interest income and $83 billion in interest earnings. Asset reserves held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew from $2,892 billion at the beginning of the year to $2,895 billion at the end of the year.

Short-Range Results Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, Social Security’s total cost is projected to be less than its total income in 2019 and higher than its total income in 2020 and all later years. Social Security’s cost has exceeded its non-interest income since 2010. For 2019, program cost is projected to be less than total income by about $1 billion and exceed non-interest income by about $81 billion.

This information is from the overview (Page 2). it states that on paper, the revenue generated (both from employee deductions and from interest/dividends generated was slightly higher than the payments it distributed.

On paper, this seems fine. However, getting to the “long-range results” it tells a different story. However, it still relies on the “open-group valuation” method.

The projected OASDI annual cost rate increases from 13.91 percent of taxable payroll for 2019 to 16.62 percent for 2040 and to 17.47 percent for 2093, a level that is 4.11 percent of taxable payroll more than the projected income rate (the ratio of non-interest income to taxable payroll) for 2093. For last year’s report, the Trustees estimated the OASDI cost for 2093 at 17.72 percent, or 4.36 percent of payroll more than the annual income rate for that year. Expressed in relation to the projected gross domestic product (GDP), OASDI cost generally rises from 4.9 percent of GDP for 2019 to about 5.9 percent by 2039, then declines to 5.8percent by 2052, and then generally increases to 6.0 percent by 2093.

For the 75-year projection period, the actuarial deficit is 2.78 percent of taxable payroll, decreased from 2.84percent of taxable payroll in last year’s report. The closely-related open-group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is 2.61 percent of taxable payroll, decreased from 2.68 percent of payroll in last year’s report. The open-group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $13.9 trillion in present value and is $0.7 trillion more than the measured level of $13.2 trillion a year ago. If the assumptions, methods, starting values, and the law had all remained unchanged, the actuarial deficit would have increased to 2.90 percent of taxable payroll, and the unfunded obligation would have risen to about 2.74 percent of taxable payroll and $13.7 trillion in present value due to the change in the valuation date.

(Those quotes from page 4) Using the “open-group” method, the unfunded liabilities over 75 years is $13.9 trillion, or adding the equivalent of $185 billion/year. The authors also state a few blunt facts in the conclusion

Conclusion Under the intermediate assumptions, the projected hypothetical combined OASI and DI Trust Fund asset reserves become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2035. At the time of depletion of these combined reserves, continuing income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits. The OASI Trust Fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2034, at which time OASI income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of OASI scheduled benefits. DI Trust Fund asset reserves are projected to become depleted in 2052, at which time continuing income to the DI Trust Fund would be sufficient to pay 91 percent of DI scheduled benefits.

Lawmakers have a broad continuum of policy options that would close or reduce Social Security’s long-term financing shortfall. Cost estimates for many such policy options are available at www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/

A few points to take away here
(A) Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI) will become depleted in 2034, and only able to pay 77% of its obligations.
(B) Disability Insurance (DI) will be depleted in 2052, and only able to pay 91% of obligations by then.
(C) Raising deductions taken from employees is necessary.

But this is using open-group valuation methods of accounting. So how much

6. Getting An Answer On Unfunded Liabilities

It has been difficult getting an accurate answer on the true size of the Social Security deficit. Estimates range from $10 trillion to over $100 trillion.

The government cited $13.7 trillion in liabilities using the less accurate “open-group” valuation. Still, that is an awful lot of money, even if it is the full amount.

7. Why Not Reform Or Privatize?

The Brookings Institute explains in this article why efforts to privatize or reform Social Security have so far gone no where. Media scare is not the only reason for this.

Any transition to a private system must overcome a major financial hurdle, however. Social Security has accumulated trillions of dollars in liabilities to workers who are already retired or who will retire soon. To make room for a new private system, policymakers must find funds to pay for these liabilities while still leaving young workers enough money to deposit in new private accounts. This requires scaling back past liabilities – by cutting benefits – or increasing contributions from current workers. Most large-scale privatization plans also involve major new federal borrowing. Consequently, if a balanced budget amendment becomes part of the constitution, it would torpedo any attempt to replace most of Social Security with a private retirement system.

Privatizing Social Security can boost workers’ rate of return by allowing retirement contributions to be invested in private assets, such as stocks, which yield a better return than the present pay-as-you-go retirement system. Returns can be boosted still further if the government borrows on a massive scale to pay for past Social Security liabilities, allowing workers to invest a larger percentage of their pay in high-yielding assets. Exactly the same rate of return can be obtained, however, if the current public system is changed to allow Social Security reserves to be invested in private assets.

The article is blunt about the situation.

The system DEPENDS ON a constant inflow of new money from younger workers in order to stay solvent. If current workers were to start pulling their money from Social Security (and saving or investing elsewhere), the program would be immediately strapped for cash. This means benefits cuts to those receiving it, and higher premiums for those paying into it.

Of course, as workers who remain have to pay higher premiums, they, quite reasonably, will look for other options. This could easily create a snowball effect where more and more people pull their contributions. This will cause the collapse of Social Security.

So it’s not really the “privatization” boogeyman here. It is that the system needs an ever growing pool of new money to pay off retirees.

Yes, it’s a government run Ponzi scheme.

8. Government Pensions Are Ponzi Schemes

As was demonstrated in previous articles, the Canadian Pension Plan has almost a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. While claiming to have almost $400 billion in assets, the truth is that the full size of liabilities put it well in the hole.

The U.S. Social Security system faces the same issues, although the scope is worse. Even the open-group accounting method lists $13 trillion in liabilities.

There are efforts to “reform” which include: (a) raising premiums; (b) cutting benefits; and (c) raising the age of retirement. However, this may just be like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Futile. As long as a fund depends on paying off retirees with the contributions of workers, it is set up for failure.

Letting workers invest in private funds will hasten the demise, as it would deplete the funds needed to pay off existing retirees.

One has to shake their head. Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme and was sent to prison. As would any private citizen. But when the government does it, it’s called a social safety net.

Same conclusion as before: Americans are pretty screwed.

Creative (Climate) Communications — Effectively Marketing Psuedo-Science (Climate Change Scam #9)

No joke. There actually is a book out on how to “effectively communicate” on climate change. Loads of logical fallacies and emotional manipulation.

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, review of the Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(2), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.

CLICK HERE, for the article in the ironically named “Scientific American” journal, authored by Max Boykoff, to promote his book.

CLICK HERE, for link to book sale.

2. Site Promoting Book

Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people, and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no ‘silver bullet’ to communications about climate change; instead, a ‘silver buckshot’ approach is needed, where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts. This tactic can then significantly improve efforts that seek meaningful, substantive, and sustained responses to contemporary climate challenges. It can also help to effectively recapture a common or middle ground on climate change in the public arena. Readers will come away with ideas on how to harness creativity to better understand what kinds of communications work where, when, why, and under what conditions in the twenty-first century.

Includes strategies that help people have productive conversations about climate change that involve listening and adapting rather than just trying to win an argument
-Bridges sectors and audiences, bringing together important material for undergraduate and graduate courses
-Shows the importance of being creative in communications about climate change in the twenty-first century – many businesses, institutions, and collectives can benefit from this, not just students and academics

Reading through this, you will notice that the topic of additional reading and research never comes up. There is no push to understand other perspectives or review scientific findings.

Instead, the focus is on using sociological and psychological techniques to convert normies to your position, without actually providing evidence. This is all about language and emotional manipulation.

Ironically, there is science involved here. But instead of science relating to researching “climate change”, the research focuses on how to change people’s minds. Seems that the priorities are all backwards.

Item #1: Strategies that help people have productive conversations. Presumably this is ways to insert climate change topics into otherwise normal talks.

Item #2: Cram more of the propaganda into university classes.

Item #3: Be innovative about #1 and #2.

3. The Scientific American Article

From synthesizing this work, I distill these lessons into some important “rules of the road.”
-Be authentic.
-Be aware.
-Be accurate.
-Be imaginative.
-Be bold.
From there, additional features on the road map help to navigate toward resonant and effective communications.
-Find common ground on climate change.
Emphasize how climate change affects us here and now, in our everyday lives.
-strong>Focus on benefits of climate change engagement.
Creatively empower people to take meaningful and purposeful action.
“Smarten up” communications about climate change to match the demands of a 21st-century communications environment.

The first items on this list would only make sense if truth was actually a goal. Be aware and be accurate are good principles.

However, climate change advocates tend to be extremely dismissive of different ideas, opinions, facts and research. A commitment to being accurate would undermine the sense of superiority that many possess.

Find common ground and emphasizing the effects are attempts to emotionally manipulate people by inserting the topic in places where it really doesn’t belong. Indeed, the goal seems to be to make “everything” about climate change. Make it an omnipresent issue.

Lately, climate change has imposed itself on the public sphere. Through extreme events linked to changes in the climate, new scientific reports and studies, and rejuvenated youth movements (along with many other political, economic, scientific, ecological, meteorological and cultural events and issues) climate change has been increasingly difficult to ignore.
.
But you wouldn’t really have picked up on that in the first round of the U.S. Democratic party primary debates that took place in Miami, Florida. As 20 candidates made their case to the American people, it was striking how minimally and shallowly they discussed climate change.

To be fair, in a debate (10 people each over 2 days), there isn’t much chance to give long answers.

However, the author, Max Boykoff, makes the point — and will repeatedly make this point — that everything is connected to climate change. He takes the Anita Sarkessian approach, though not with gender.

Sadly, this illustrates a contradiction we have been living with for some time. That is this: amid extensive research into the causes and consequences of climate change, climate communications—and thus, conversations about climate change in our lives—have remained stuck.

There are many reasons. Among them:
-Climate change is still regularly treated as a single issue. This was clearly on display in the debates, and even during the paltry time devoted to surface-level discussions of climate change.
-There has continued to be inadequate funding provided to support sustained and coordinated social science and humanities research into what constitutes more effective climate communications.
-We have all been short on creativity, and we generally have stuck to ineffective climate communications approaches (e.g. merely scientific ways of knowing) as we muddle along.

Interesting take on the problem. Max Boykoff goes on about how the science is sound, but that we just aren’t making any headway in communicating the solutions.

Yes, climate change is still treated as a single issue (that part is true). The author’s goal is to make it an issue of everything. Again, the Anita Sarkeesian technique.

All the money that we pay in various carbon tax schemes apparently aren’t needed for climate change research. Rather, they are needed to SHARE THE RESULTS of the climate change research.

Boykoff seems to believe that it is the “strictly scientific” approach to sharing research that keeps people from seeing what is before their eyes. Seems condescending.

<

p style=”padding:2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid”>Yet climate change is a collective action problem that intersects with just about every other area of life. It traverses critical issues such as public health, jobs, education, inequality, poverty, violence, trade, infrastructure, energy, foreign policy and geopolitics. While everyday people clearly have the capacity to care, they reasonably often focus on immediate concerns, such as issues of job security, local school quality, crime and the economy. In recent years, however, it has become more and more clear that these issues are interlinked with climate change.

So, in making these connections, we can more effectively get to the heart of how we live, work, play, find happiness and relax in modern life, shaping our everyday lives, lifestyles, relationships and livelihoods.

Apparently we are too naïve to see the forest for the trees. Ordinary people have lives to live. We don’t spend every waking moment trying to connect aspects of our lives with climate change.

Again the author assumes, with no evidence, that every major aspect of your life is connected to climate change. It must all be pointed out.

Of course, Boykoff will never get into the conflict-if-interest that plagues climate change research. Most of it is funded with a certain outcome expected. Remember, if you aren’t concluding that climate change is a threat to humanity, then you likely won’t be funded anymore. Why keep financing climate research if it isn’t an emergency?

There has been an urgent need to improve communications about climate change at the intersections of science, policy and society. With that in mind, I wrote Creative (Climate) Communications. It is essentially a handbook that bridges sectors and audiences to meet people where they are on this critical 21st-century challenge. In the book I integrate research from the social sciences and humanities that has provided insights into better understanding what communications work, where, when, why and under what conditions.

I also examine how to harness creativity for more effective engagement. I integrate these lessons by assembling what I call features on a “road map” along with “rules of the road.” The guide is then meant to help as researchers and practitioners proceed with both ambition and caution into struggles to effectively address the many issues associated with climate change.

Although Boykoff doesn’t come right out an say it, book is about marketing techniques. What tactics are most persuasive and under what circumstances? People can’t straight up accept “facts and truth”, it needs to be pointed out again and again.

In short, most people are too stupid to see the big picture. Boykoff implies it, but doesn’t not actually state it.

Through this guidance, I seek to help maximize effectiveness and opportunities and minimize mistakes and dead ends in a resource-, energy- and time-constrained environment. In putting this together, I also emphasize that successful and creative climate communications strategies must be tailored to perceived and intended audiences and can be most effective when pursued through relations of trust. And I underscore that context is critical; cultural, political, social, environmental, economic, ideological and psychological conditions matter.

Move away from hard data and facts. Use “soft techniques” to sell it. To once more point out the obvious, everything is connected to climate change.

I also argue that an expanded approach involves processes of listening and adapting rather than winning and argument or talking people into something. Authentically considering other points of view fosters meaningful exchanges and enhances possibilities for finding common ground. Facts established through scientific ways of knowing about climate change are important, but they are not enough. We therefore need to enlarge considerations of how knowledge influences actions, through experiential, emotional, visceral, tactile, tangible, affective and aesthetic ways of learning and knowing about climate change.

Facts aren’t enough. Tell people again and again, that climate change impacts everything. Look for more subtle ways to get your message across.

4. Reflection On This Article


To address the elephant in the room: it is darkly amusing to post in “Scientific American” about scientific methods to convince people to accept pseudo-science about climate change.

Boykoff mentions several times about considering other peoples’ perspectives. But this is hypocritical considering the amount of times “skeptics” or “deniers” are ridiculed or scorned for trying to find out the truth.

Boykoff also neglects any mention or idea that any of the “climate change” findings might be exaggerated or flat out wrong.

It seems the climate-change industry has given up on science, and instead focuses its efforts on trying to market their agenda.

Might be worth buying the book just to do a thorough debunking of it. Understand your enemy after all.

Guest Post: Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal

1. Guest Posting Here

This article is not mine, but the creation of a YouTuber and writer who goes by the handle “BOLD Like a Leopard”. Feel free to check out the channel, there is some interesting content on it.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for message from Mark Ruffalo and Bill McKibbons.
CLICK HERE, for Bill Nye suggests jailing climate deniers.
CLICK HERE, for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders wanting to declare “climate emergency”.
CLICK HERE, for the climate emergency declaration.
CLICK HERE, for manifesto “Lead Public Into Emergency Mode”.

CLICK HERE, for AOC’s June 2018 primary.
CLICK HERE, for tweet claiming we can’t afford an economy that is based on use of fossil fuels.
CLICK HERE, for Sunrise Philadelphia calling for a demonstration.
CLICK HERE, for a live tweet.
CLICK HERE, for Malcolm Nance.
CLICK HERE, for Louise Mensch.
CLICK HERE, for Momentum Core Team.
CLICK HERE, for the Momentum trainers.
CLICK HERE, for efforts to establish a “climate debate”.
CLICK HERE, for Saikar Chakrabarti admitting the Green New Deal was about changing the economy, and the environment was just a pretext.

3. Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal

Once the domain of scientific debates and science fiction disaster movies, the subject of climate change and its influence on natural disasters has now become a major topic of contention among the Hollywood jet set, children’s cartoons, and naturally as a result public officials and policy makers. Much of the discussion over climate change has been shrouded in controversy largely due to acrimonious debate over who has the proper professional standing on how severe the crisis is, whether human activity is the main catalyst of current trends, and if or how government policy must be applied to address it. However, the organizing tactics, funding, and structure of the organizations pushing climate change legislation like the Paris Climate Accord and the Green New Deal suggests a larger goal in mind, one that involves a power grab far beyond environmental and industrial emissions policy. The Sunrise Movement is being cited as a fresh youth-infused answer to the fossil fuels industries, and it is being touted by climate change activism patriarch William McKibben as having “cracked the code of the American political system”. This statement is correct, and Sunrise is hacking into the mainframe of American politics, but if McKibben were truthful he would not be omitting his own role in their germination, as well as the intersection of the group with the Boston-based Ayni Institute and its Momentum Community program. The growing stake that these groups have in the political landscape are not a natural outgrowth of a changing public consciousness, but rather one more chess piece in a grand power grab.

We’ll see what happens. . .

In 2016 TV entertainer Bill Nye, host of the children’s show “Bill Nye the Science Guy” speculated that jailing “climate deniers” may be appropriate. “We’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?” Nye responded when asked.

Unfortunately, this high handed attitude toward the discussion shows that much of the climate change action side of the argument has despaired of properly making their case against their opponents, the “climate skeptics”. The activists scoff at accusations that they are “alarmists”, but their public statements show that they are ratcheting up statements consistently in order to create a sense of panic that climate trends are sloping toward an apocalyptic event:

  • On July 9 Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a joint resolution that they wanted Congress to declare a national emergency over climate change.
  • As documented by the Climate Emergency Declaration, there are 740 jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency including Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, as well as London and the Australian cities of Sydney and the Australian Capital Territory among others.
  • There is now a group across Europe dedicated to whipping up the public into a climate emergency frenzy known as “Extinction Rebellion”. The movement is led by clinical psychologist Dr. Margaret Klein Salamon (the “Climate Psychologist”) and she published a manifesto called Leading The Public Into Emergency Mode originally in 2016.

Salamon’s manifesto was endorsed by Bill McKibben on the Climate Mobilization website where he is described as the “Movement Leader”.

According to one of its grant donors, the Guerilla Foundation, Extinction Rebellion (XR) was given between $20 and $40 thousand in order to promote “a fundamental change of the UK’s political and economic system to one which maximises well-being and minimises harm”. In the grant description point number 9 figures prominently in their Theory of Change: “Create a distributed organising model based in ‘momentum’ organising and holocracy (training from the Ayni institute / Carlos Saavedra). This is basically a hybrid of mass protest and structure based organising. Much of this is explained in the book This is an Uprising”. The book in question was written by the brothers Mark and Paul Engler, both of them former Occupy Wall Street activists themselves deeply affiliated with the Ayni Institute.

The Shame Game

While at times climate activists engage in rhetorical threats like Nye or grandstanding like Sanders and the other emergency sponsors, the value that they appeal the most to is shame. This is why the United Nations, European Parliament, Swedish Parliament and numerous other bodies have hosted the 16 year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak about climate justice. Speaking about when she will be 75 years old, she asked whether her children would “ask why you didn’t do anything while there was time to act. You say you love your children above all else, and yet you’re stealing their future in front of their very eyes.” Thunberg went on to tearfully decry the 6th mass extinction of species and the acidification of the oceans.

Another statement that Thunberg makes echoes Salamon verbatim:
“Imagine there is a fire in
your house.
What do you do?
What do you think about?”

The idea of using children to shame adults for their poor policy is an understandably ingenious strategy, but it typically yields nothing in terms of policy. In 1982 a ten year old named Samantha Smith wrote to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov to ask him if he was going to vote for a war. Smith’s letter was personally answered by Andropov, and compared her to Tom Sawyer’s friend Becky and invited her to the USSR, where she spent two months as Andropov’s guest on a tour, and she was a “goodwill ambassador” for peace before dying in a plane crash at age 13 in 1985. By then both Andropov and his successor Konstantin Chernenko had both died of old age. Tragic as her story was, Samantha Smith’s story is a footnote in history as there was no major movement behind her personal initiative.

The shame tactic has been mass-produced by the Sunrise Movement in its push to promote the issue of climate change as being an issue of primary concern in the minds of the next generation of youth voters. Sunrise was formed ostensibly by two activists, Varshini Prakash and Sara Blazevic. Both of them are former activists of the Fossil Fuel Student Divestment Network, a campaign by college students to get their colleges to withdraw investments in energy companies. Both of them were involved in student sit-ins at their colleges, Blazevic at Swarthmore in 2015, and Prakash at UMass-Amherst in 2016 where activists were arrested for civil disobedience.

Now they are trying to take the climate change movement to a broader, and younger, forum. But in comments to Energy & Environment News (E&E News) they make it very apparent that their movement is a response to failures of previous groups that they have been active in. In it, their fellow co-founder Evan Weber openly muses about how Sunrise is attempting to compensate for the same flaws that he encountered while he was an activist with Occupy Wall Street. It should be noted that while Prakash and Blazevic are the face of the movement, Weber is listed on its 2016 IRS Form 990 (when it was named US Climate Plan) as the President and Executive Director, and he was listed by the climate action website Grist.orgGrist.org as a former Occupy activist and founder of the US Climate Plan. Weber had also been an activist along with fellow Wesleyan University activist Michael Lichtash for US Climate Plan who traveled to the COP20 Climate Talks in Lima, Peru in 2014. At the time they were already claiming that delaying the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the US was “a step toward climate justice”. At the time all were in one way or another linked through McKibben’s 350.org organization.

The Guru of Green Activism

During the Obama Administration’s tenure, McKibben and 350.org fought doggedly to force the President and his cabinet not to let the pipeline proceed. In 2015 the Nebraska Supreme Court removed legal hurdles to building of the Keystone XL, meaning that it would need approval from several cabinet-level officials including Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a public advocate for climate change action by governments. Until then much of the process had been tied up as conservation and activism groups battled with TransCanada (the builder) in the courts. McKibben was asked if Kerry could salvage his reputation on climate change if he approved the pipeline. According to POLITICO he answered: “No. Keystone’s obviously a keystone,” he said in an email. “Approve that and the rest is happy talk — you can’t cut carbon without cutting carbon.” For months Kerry waffled over the decision while continuing to condemn fossil fuel producers, but in November 2015 he came through for McKibben and denied the pipeline’s permit application. However when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president he approved the Keystone XL pipeline within his first three days by executive order and continues to fight against challenges to it in court.

The issue at hand is not the activism itself, but the veneer of popular will. McKibben has made a long career out of claiming to be the underdog fighting against the corporate fossil fuel industry, and to be sure they are not exactly a sympathetic opponent. There’s also legitimate concern over carbon consumption and its effects on oceans and wetlands leading to extinction of species. He formed 350.org in 2007 based on the notion that 350ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be the acceptable level in order to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. However, the standing that McKibben has within the movement is not a result of any professional knowledge or accomplishment, he is in fact a former New Yorker writer who majored in journalism at Harvard. He then wrote The End of Nature in 1989, the book that is considered to have started the climate change movement. However, as Reason observed when reviewing his 2010 follow-up Earth, humans have adapted to the rising sea levels warned about by climate alarmists like McKibben, using the example of Boston which has reclaimed land consistently since 1775 despite rising sea levels. At one point McKibben and others climate alarmists like Jim Hansen used the global warming trends to raise public consciousness about environmental issues. But according to him, that was during a period when they were “naïve”. However, the new tactic of his supporters is to mask the existing climate movement that he began with The End of Nature in 1989 and institutionalized in the 2000s with 350.org through a youth activist group like Sunrise whose events he frequently headlines. As many climate skeptics point out the ability of climate alarmists to excite public attention diminishes when their predictions are not fulfilled, such as when Gore predicted in 2006 that the glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro would melt within a decade. Another member of 350.org’s board of directors, Naoimi Klein, has evaded responsibility for advocating for the Green New Deal while also being a long-time apologist for the Chavez regime that made Venezuela’s entire economy dependent on oil exports.

McKibben was also a major activist during the lead-up to COP21, the 2015 climate change conference where the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was drafted. On November 30 he wrote an opinion in Foreign Policy called “The Paris Climate Talks Will Be a Historic Success. And a Historic Disaster. ” Paris He participated in the climate marches occurring during the event, and even headlined with Klein the Pathway to Paris live concert on December 4 along with Radiohead lead vocalist Thom Yorke, Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist Flea and other rock superstars. But by December 13, as the conference had just wrapped up, he claimed that it had fallen short.

“The irony is, an agreement like this adopted at the first climate conference in 1995 might have worked. Even then it wouldn’t have completely stopped global warming, but it would have given us a chance of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target that the world notionally agreed on.”

Some on the political left were too jaded to take McKibben seriously, and began to characterize his activism as “greenwashing”. They noted that the agreement did much to boost the profile of the international NGO Avaaz that backed the climate march and other events, but little to accomplish anything. They also made it public that Dow Chemicals, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and even BP had been sponsors the Climate Group that had organized the conferences. What McKibben needed to do was inject some steroids into the movement so as to gain ground on those detractors.

Why “grassroots”?

In the same article claiming Paris had fallen short, McKibben made a statement that demonstrated his intentions going forward: “But what this means is that we need to build the movement even bigger in the coming years, so that the Paris agreement turns into a floor and not a ceiling for action.”

McKibben’s influence is felt deeply largely due to the usefulness of his cause to various statesmen and former politicians. In 2010 he wrote an opinion article for GristGrist claiming that Al Gore was “kicking butt” over climate change. In 2016 he became a backer of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, and wound up on his five member delegation to the Democratic National Party’s platform writing committee for that year’s election. However this was a summit that led to nowhere as the party continued to accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received $967,336 from them during that cycle, leading by far any other Democrat in any elected position. The crusade against fossil fuels had to enter a new phase, and the US Climate Plan (founded in 2014) went through a rebranding becoming Sunrise. Since then they have made several inroads in electoral politics including getting eleven state legislators elected throughout the US, including five in Pennsylvania.

Besides Sanders, the Green New Deal advocates can numerous other candidates for 2020 that have endorsed it or proposed their own versions of it:

  • New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in December 2018 a city-wide divestment from fossil fuel companies and a lawsuit against them, a measure cheered by McKibben’s 350.org. In March the Mayor named McKibben to the OneNYC Advisory Board. De Blasio’s new city-wide rules targeting energy usage by sky-scrapers were announced in May at Trump Tower.
  • Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has made climate change the centerpiece of his tenure in office and his presidential campaign vowing to commit to a 100% renewable energy system by 2035. This was praised by McKibben on May 3, and on May 30 another McKibben acolyte Elizabeth Kolbert of The New Yorker issued a raving review in Yale 360.
  • One candidate McKibben may be less bullish about is Tom Steyer, an erstwhile donor. In 2016 in the run-up to the election the two sat down for a joint interview on the need to make climate change a signature issue. Steyer’s TomKat Charitable Trust has given generously to 350.org, and at one point the former hedge fund manager and the environmentalist were joined at the hipjoined at the hip in their efforts to support fossil fuel divestment. Steyer’s public image has diminished since 2016 due to his sensationalist efforts to support the impeachment of Donald Trump including funding The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP).

Not long after the 2018 midterm election Sunrise activists occupied the office of Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, the incoming Speaker of the House. They also ambushed Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in February. Within a day McKibben had written a response in the New Yorker saying he imagines that Feinstein “would like a do-over of her colloquy”. In the same opinion article, McKibben mentioned Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg, and claimed that the Green New Deal was hatched by the Sunrise Movement.

But this is untrue, and McKibben knows that. The original Green New Deal was written in 2008 by the New Economics Foundation when many of the Sunrise activists were not even in high school. The authors included Guardian editor Larry Elliott, Andrew Simms of the NEF, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and others. Another version, the “Global Green New Deal” was adopted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2008. The American version of the Green New Deal is HR 109 which was introduced by Ocasio-Cortez. No one from Sunrise was involved in drafting it, and if everyone was being above board it would be admitted that there was no coherent “Green New Deal” when it was supported during the 2018 election cycle; so the activists and politicians were endorsing a policy proposal prior to its existence.

Messaging the GND

Does anyone really believe that it was Sunrise activists that wrote the legislation? Even in her own office, Ocasio-Cortez has four staff members, none of whom are members of it. Corbin Trent and Saikat Chakrabarti, her press secretary and chief of staff respectively, are former members of Justice Democrats, but not of Sunrise. The nexus that drives them all together is one of the policy’s most effective and most successful activists, Justice Democrats’ communications director Waleed Shahid who is also a senior leader of the Working Families Party. Based in Philadelphia, Shahid was instrumental in campaigning for the legislative election success in Pennsylvania as well as propelling Ocasio-Cortez to power by focusing on her June 2018 primary.

While McKibben is an overall mastermind of the movement, Shahid is often a point man that issues day to day messages that are often picked up by Ocasio-Cortez and other elected officials regarding climate change, while also directing the defense to the inevitable backlash. A case in point was a June 21 tweet where Ocasio-Cortez claimed that an oil refinery explosion and fire was evidence of an “existential crisis” due to climate change. Up until then very few had made that observation about the accident. However, Shahid had issued a tweet earlier that day claiming that “we can’t afford an economy based on fossil fuels”. Sunrise Philadelphia called for a demonstration within five minutes of Shahid’s tweet. During the confrontation with Sen. Feinstein during the middle of the afternoon on a Friday Shahid was live tweet echoing Sunrise Bay Area’s account in order to hype the event. He issued a total of 23 tweets that day (Feb. 22) regarding the incident, including fighting with delusional mainstream anti-Trump activists Malcolm NanceMalcolm Nance and Louise Mensch who accused Justice Democrats of uploading the video and using Russian disinformation tactics.

Like the Engler brothers, Shahid was one of the earliest core team members of the Ayni Institute and Momentum Community. Blazevic is also an alumnus of the Ayni Institute, and is a Momentum Trainer along with fellow Sunrise co-founders Will Lawrence and Diyanna Jaye. The derivative of the Momentum training is to create nominally decentralized cells (called “hubs” by Sunrise) that organize on the local level to push a progressive agenda.

But the decentralized organizing is irrelevant when the ideology of Sunrise is not dependent on the membership. The leaders of the movement all come from 350.org, the agenda is set by the ideologues like McKibben and Klein, and the day-to-day messaging is directed by the powers behind the throne like Shahid. Ultimately a green economy is a secondary goal of the movement. So far during the Democratic 2020 primary season, the movement has somewhat successfully lobbied for a “climate debate” between candidates. However, in a moment of surprising candour, Chakrabarti let slip the real truth:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

So that leads to a concluding question: If McKibben, Salamon, and Klein were portraying the climate crisis as a global emergency on the level of World War II, then why are they pushing a piece of legislation that according to its main legislative advocate was not originally about climate change?

4. Information About The Author

YouTube: BOLD like a Leopard:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqafJgJiTZik1KreMJgy4Eg
Gab.com: https://gab.com/StarScream85
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/ChefLeopard
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/bFrSR277N5TG/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChefLeopard
For donations: https://www.subscribestar.com/chefleopard

Refugee Selection: UN v.s. Civil Societies, Does It Matter?

(Lauren Southern reports on asylum fraud)

(UN publication on human trafficking)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #2, Europe Needs Open Borders.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #8, Border Walls Are Useless.

CLICK HERE, for UN supports migrant caravan invasion into USA.
CLICK HERE, for more on US invasion through Mexico.
CLICK HERE, for UN page on NGOs.
CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Agency, and NGO/Civil Societies.
CLICK HERE, for UN New York Declaration (2016).
CLICK HERE, for previous coverage of New York Declaration
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
CLICK HERE, for UN book on people smuggling.

CLICK HERE, for Interpol and human smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.

2. Advocates Abroad And Ariel Ricker

(Advocates Abroad Homepage)

(Lauren Southern exposing Ariel Ricker on coaching “refugees” to lie).

At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.

(From this RT article)

Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.

One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”

Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.

3. Other NGO Activities

CLICK HERE, for Advocates Abroad.
CLICK HERE, for smuggling 40 migrants into Italy.
CLICK HERE, for people smuggling into Europe.
CLICK HERE, for NGOs smuggling Muslims into Italy.
CLICK HERE, for “humanitarian” smuggling into Greece.
CLICK HERE, for Soros funded NGOs smuggling ISIS into Europe.

Of course the above links are just a tiny sample.

Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.

The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.

Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.

4. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling

For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.

With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.

People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.

Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:

A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.

Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.

It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.

5. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration

(From a CBC article)

“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”

“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
.
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.

The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.

(From one CBC interview)

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.

The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.

6. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud

(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)

It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:

  1. Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
  2. Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries

San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.

In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”

“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.

That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.

The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.

What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.

7. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)

The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.

5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.

49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.

56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.

77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.

The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.

OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.

OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.

Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?

8. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN

(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)

(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)

Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.

Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.

The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.

CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Partners.

So, how exactly would switching Canada’s reliance on refugee selection be helped here? If NGOs (Civil Societies) directly work with the UN, then is there any real difference?

The UN cites over 900 fully funded partners. Other than possibly decentralizing the process, what is the point here? Is it a policy distinction without a difference?

9. UN Hypocrisy On Human Smuggling

From the UN’s own package on smuggling people:

(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.

Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.

However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.

To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.

10. Canada’s Aud-G Uncovers Citizenship Fraud

(Rebel Media: Auditor General Michael Ferguson reports)

Citizenship being granted to people:

  • With prior, serious criminal records
  • Who commit crimes after arriving
  • Who are using fake addresses

About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.

The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?

From this article.

The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.

The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.

The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.

The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.

11. What About Canada’s “Conservative” Parties?

CLICK HERE, for Conservative Party of Canada policies.
CLICK HERE, for People’s Party on refugees.

Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.

The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:

  • First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
  • Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
  • This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
  • Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
  • Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
  • Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?

However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.

12. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection

Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.

Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.

And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.

Free Trade #3: NAFTA, And The Costs Its Supporters Ignore

(Tucker Carlson on protecting your citizens)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part 1, some thoughts on free trade Canada/China.
CLICK HERE, for Part 2, NAFTA and some problems.
CLICK HERE, for NAFTA text.

CLICK HERE, for a listing of Chapter 11 cases against Canada.
CLICK HERE, for NAFTA cases in the US.
CLICK HERE, for a search engine to track jobs lost due to NAFTA.

CLICK HERE, for a study form the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington, DC, Estimated 879,000 jobs lost in US due to NAFTA.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study: jobs and trade lost to Mexico.
CLICK HERE, for a 2013 EPI study on impacts of NAFTA.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study on US trade deficits.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study, 3.4M US jobs lost to China (2001-2017).

CLICK HERE, for an article from the Council on Foreign Relations, on the 2018 NAFTA update.
CLICK HERE, for 1992 Presidential debate on trade.
CLICK HERE, for a politicalresearch.org article on NAFTA and illegal immigration.

2. Lawsuits Against Canada, Chapter 11

Resolved Cases

Company Suit Amount Amount Settled
AbitibiBowater $500M $130M
Centurion Health $160M $0, fees unpaid
Chemtrade $78.6M $0, dismissed
Detroit Int’l Bridge $3.5B $0, dismissed
Dow Agro Sciences $2M $0, withdrew
Ely Lily and Co. $500M $0, dismissed
Ethyl Corp. $201M settled
Mercer International $232M $0, dismissed
Merrill & Ring $50M $0, dismissed
Mesa Power Group $658M $0, dismissed
Mobil Inv. & Murphy Oil $66M $17.3M
Pope & Talbot $500M $527M, USD
S.D. Myers $53M $6.9M,
St. Mary’s VNCA $275M $0, no standing
United Parcel Services $160M $0, dismissed
V.G. Gallo $105M $0, dismissed
Windstream Energy $475M $28M

For these “finished” claims, Canada has had to pay out $709 million, plus a substantial amount in paying its own lawyers. Also, consider the following:
-DowAgro sale, under the terms of the settlement, is still allowed to use its pesticide in Canada.
-Ethyl Corp still allowed to use MMT additive.

Resolved Cases

Company Suit Amount Information
Clayton/Bilcon $101M Lost, awaiting damages
Lone Pine Resources $119M Awaiting verdict
Mobile Investments $20M Awaiting verdict
Resolute Forest Products $70M Awaiting verdict
Tennant Energy Ltd $116M Awaiting verdict
Westmorehead Coal $470M Awaiting verdict

Potentially another $896 million

To summarize, Canada has already paid out $709 million in various actions under Chapter 11 of NAFTA (plus the settlement from Ethyl Corp), and may be on the hook for $896 million more. And this doesn’t take legal fees and other court costs into account.

3. Job Losses Resulting From NAFTA

Research has been done on the effects of NAFTA. This released 2003 study, estimates that 879,000 jobs have been lost in the US as a direct result of NAFTA over a decade.

The conclusions were also troubling:

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment in Mexico and Canada. It has facilitated the movement of factories from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Most of these jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries.

Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. These claims are based only on the positive effects of exports (known as “export effects”), ignoring the negative effects of imports (known as “import effects”). Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals in order to boost the reported benefits.

The problem with these claims is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs by displacing goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals.

This is blunt and truthful. It is high paying jobs mainly in manufacturing that have been exported in the name of “free trade”, and has harmed the US workforce.

Now, here, is another study, released in 2011, dealing specifically with Mexico and NAFTA.

As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Of those jobs, 116,400 are likely economy-wide job losses because they were displaced between 2007 and 2010, when the U.S. labor market was severely depressed.

There is a cost to these free trade agreements. Jobs are lost domestically when it becomes cheaper to ship them to another country. Often it is manufacturing, one of the better paid jobs, where higher education isn’t needed.

Abstract promises about increased jobs and exports misrepresent the real overall effects of trade on the U.S. economy. Trade both creates and destroys jobs. While exports tend to support domestic employment, imports lead to job displacement: As imports are substituted for domestically produced goods, production that supports domestic jobs falls, displacing existing jobs and preventing new job creation.

Simply out, there are winners and losers in trade deals. Countries win if they export more than they import, and vice versa. While some trade surplus or deficit is inevitable, it is sustained deficits that drain wealth from the country and put people out of work.

While Canada or Mexico may sit smugly and know that they benefit from the trade deal with the US, this must be considered. With ever proposed expansion of free trade and liberalized trade, there is nothing to stop jobs from Canada and/or Mexico from being exported elsewhere.

For example, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China since 2001. Canada could end up in that situation one day.

4. Free Trade Drives Down Wages

Ross Perot ran for President in 1992. He faced the incumbent, George H.W. Bush (Republican), and Bill Clinton (Democrat). While he came in third, Perot drove home this hard truth about free trade: it drives down wages. It forces Americans to compete for third world wages.

To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time and you’ve got a mature work force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making a car — have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.

“Why won’t everybody go South?” They say, “It’d be disruptive.” I said, “For how long?” I finally got them up from 12 to 15 years. And I said, “well, how does it stop being disruptive?” And that is when their jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it’s leveled again. But in the meantime, you’ve wrecked the country with these kinds of deals. We’ve got to cut it out.

Perot is completely right here. It will raise the wages in Mexico, while driving down American wages. And to reiterate, Canadians should not think they are immune from this sort of practice.

The Council on Foreign Relations added:

Debate persists regarding NAFTA’s legacy on employment and wages, with some workers and industries facing painful disruptions as they lose market share due to increased competition, and others gaining from the new market opportunities that were created.

But it is the common worker with a family to provide for who will really feel the pinch. It is cold comfort to be out work and be told “well, it raises trade and GDP”.

5. NAFTA Causes Carnage To Middle Class

Yet another EPI article. This one sums up the problems of NAFTA in very blunt terms.

  1. Job losses
  2. Pushes wages down
  3. Destruction of farms and small businesses
  4. Sets standards for globalization

The article is directly on point.

NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.

Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.

Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.

Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing class—in alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners—applied NAFTA’s principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of China’s huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.

Who actually benefits from NAFTA, or similar types of deals? Not the workers, who are now forced to compete for third world wages. Not communities, who see major employers pack up and leave for better opportunities.

6. NAFTA Makes Illegal Immigration Problem Worse

NAFTA, however, did not lead to rising incomes and employment in Mexico, and did not decrease the flow of migrants. Instead, it became a source of pressure on Mexicans to migrate. The treaty forced corn grown by Mexican farmers without subsidies to compete in Mexico’s own market with corn from huge U.S. producers, who had been subsidized by the U.S. Agricultural exports to Mexico more than doubled during the NAFTA years, from $4.6 to $9.8 billion annually. Corn imports rose from 2,014,000 to 10,330,000 tons from 1992 to 2008. Mexico imported 30,000 tons of pork in 1995, the year NAFTA took effect. By 2010, pork imports, almost all from the U.S., had grown over 25 times, to 811,000 tons. As a result, pork prices received by Mexican producers dropped 56%

When nations are reduced to “economic zones”, it forces workers to compete against those in other nations for the same piece of the pie. If jobs are eliminated on a massive scale, then the pressure is on to find work. For many Mexicans, it has meant going to the US, often illegally.

Note: this not to condone illegal immigration. However, it becomes more understandable when factors like these are considered.

The “surplus labour” sure helps large employers, and further helps to drive down wages, which of course is the entire point.

7. NAFTA Makes US Trade Deficit Worse

Here is a 2003 study on the trade deficit the US has experienced due to NAFTA.

As mentioned earlier, it is true Canada currently benefits from the US trade deficit. But as free trade expands, Canada (and other nations) could easily find themselves in the same dilemma as the US.

Sustained trade deficits bleed money from a nation.

8. NAFTA Can Override Environmental Protections

Think this is crazy? Consider some of the court action Canada has faced

CLICK HERE, for Ethyl Corp wanting $201M over MMT additive ban.
CLICK HERE, for SD Myers wants $53M for PCB ban.
CLICK HERE, for Pope & Talbot’s $500M softwood lumber suit.
CLICK HERE, for Sun Belt wanting $1.5B-$10B for lost water rights.

9. Is NAFTA Worth The Price?

Yes, it has led to economic growth and more trade. That much is indisputable. But it isn’t fair to omit some of the real costs to engaging in these free trade deals, such as TPP, or FTAA.

  • Litigation over new “rights”
  • Massive job losses
  • Wages driven down
  • Destruction to middle class
  • Increased illegal immigration
  • Unsustainable trade deficits
  • Environmental protections are secondary

But hey, as long as the GDP keeps growing.

Free Trade #2: NAFTA: Lawsuits, Sovereignty, Massive 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)

(A man who gets it, Lou Dobbs)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part 1, proposed Canada/China Free Trade Agreement.

CLICK HERE, for WTO reference on Canada’s Multilevel Governance, Public Policy.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-57, World Trade Org. Implementation Act.
CLICK HERE, for 1996 Trilateral agenda.

CLICK HERE, for an article on Investor State Dispute impacting poor countries.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t Link to Chapter 11 Cases.
CLICK HERE, for NAFTA arbitrations against Canada
CLICK HERE, for Ethyl Corp wanting $201M over MMT additive ban.
CLICK HERE, for SD Myers wants $53M for PCB ban.
CLICK HERE, for Pope & Talbot’s $500M softwood lumber suit.
CLICK HERE, for USPS, $165M for unfair subsidies to Canada Post.
CLICK HERE, for Sun Belt wanting $1.5B-$10B for lost water rights.

CLICK HERE, for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment document
CLICK HERE, for a draft version of the MAI.
CLICK HERE, for IMF blogs, which covers a variety of topics.
CLICK HERE, for members of the Triateral Commission.
CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission.
CLICK HERE, for biography of Roy MacLaren.

CLICK HERE, for job loss report from Economic Policy Institute, a US-based think tank. 900,000 due to NAFTA
CLICK HERE, for EPI estimates for US job losses to China. 3.4 million (from 2001-2017)

2. 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    Infanticide #6: 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)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the 9th Circuit ruling.

    CLICK HERE, for an article on Planned Parenthood. PP would stand to lose $50-$60 million a year from defunding.

    CLICK HERE, for PP suing Idaho over new reporting requirements.
    CLICK HERE, for Idaho’s House Bill 638.

    CLICK HERE, for a Politico article which covers ongoing cases
    CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood & Ohio.
    CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging a ban on aborting fetuses with Down’s Syndrome.
    CLICK HERE, for Kentucky banning abortions based on race, sex or disability, which Planned Parenthood and ACLU plan to challenge.
    CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 23 “Heartbeat Bill”. (Hearts beat 45 days into pregnancy).
    CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 27, Medical Tissue Disposal Bill.
    CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging Indiana law requiring the remains of aborted babies to be either cremated or buried.
    CLICK HERE, for an article on selling aborted baby parts.
    CLICK HERE, for David Daleiden fined $195,000.
    CLICK HERE, for Daleiden charged for illegal recordings.

    In This Series
    CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves.

    2. 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.

    3. PP 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?

    4. PP 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.

    5. Real Reason PP 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.

    Central Banking, Part 3: End The Fed (US)

    (30 minute documentary on US Federal Reserve and deficit spending)

    (60 minute video “Fiat Empire”)

    Central banking, and private government loans were addressed a previous case for Canada. Also, the COMER Case 2011-2018, (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) was outlined.

    This article covers a similar topic, but the American experience, with their Federal Reserve. We will detail an organization called “End The Fed”, which is dedicated to ending this practice.

    This is what happens when you:

    • Stop backing your currency by gold
    • Allow a private bank to generate currency
    • Surrender your debt to outside interests

    But hey, it regulates interest and inflation. It is good for consumers, so we are told.

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for Part I, To Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.

    CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org.
    CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org recommended websites.
    CLICK HERE, for Federal Reserve Act.
    CLICK HERE, for fractional banking.
    CLICK HERE, for fractional reserves.
    CLICK HERE, for a disclosure lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. Spoiler: It’s a private entity.
    CLICK HERE, for verdict forcing Federal Reserve to disclose who it has been financially bailing out.
    CLICK HERE, for US Federal debt by year.
    CLICK HERE, for an article on Fed background.
    CLICK HERE, for who owns the Federal Reserve.

    2. What Is “End The Fed”?


    This is a website posted to make people aware of the Federal Reserve. It contains links to books, videos, documentaries, websites, and other information.

    The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.

    Why Should I Care?
    Because you’re being systematically robbed and enslaved. The Fed’s counterfeiting causes the price of goods and services to rise which requires you to work harder in order to purchase them. Even with all the technological advances over the last century, you have to work just as hard or even harder to survive. The Fed is siphoning off the productivity that should have come from those technological advances. The reality is that you are working overtime solely for the benefit of some bankers who the government gave the power to conjure money out of nothing. In addition, the Fed’s counterfeiting finances the tools of the government’s oppression over you: the militarization of the police, the surveillance apparatus, and the endless wars.

    If you cherish truth, freedom, justice, and want to leave behind a better world for your loved ones then you must…END THE FED! A free market, where each individual has the freedom to choose what form of money to use rather than one being forced on them, must be allowed to function in its place.

    End The Fed is basically a reference site, which connects you to many great tools and resources. It is well worth spending time here. Even those who are Canadian can benefit from it, as many of the same issues the US faces also impact Canada.

    3. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act


    (From page 15 of 112)

    DIVISION OF EARNINGS. SEC. 7. (a) DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS FUNDS OF RESERVE BANKS.— (1) STOCKHOLDER DIVIDENDS.—
    (A) DIVIDEND AMOUNT.—After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of—
    (i) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of—
    (I) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10 year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
    (II) 6 percent; and
    (ii) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
    (B) DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE.—The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
    (C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually adjust the dollar amounts of total consolidated assets specified under subparagraph (A) to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis

    So, if you are a stockholder in the Federal Reserve, you are guaranteed at least 6% interest on your “investment”. Talk about predatory lending.

    Now, if you think that participating in this system is voluntary for banks, think again. This is from Section 2, Part 5 of the Act:

    5. Failure of national bank to accept terms of Act¿ Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    6. Penalty for violation of Act by national banks¿ Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provisions of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this Act shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this Act, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation

    Banks don’t have the choice to “opt-out”. They are in if they want to be in this industry.

    4. Blog Article From End The Fed


    This is a blog entry, on reserve banking, worth a read.

    Logic dictates that the ideal form of money should be durable, divisible, portable, fungible, scarce, and in demand for purposes other than a medium of exchange. Market supply and demand dynamics demonstrate that precious metals, specifically gold and silver, meet these criteria better than any other good. Many people voluntarily chose to use gold or silver as money throughout history for this reason.

    So who has the power to create fiat currency? The answer is central banks. Central banks are banking cartels that have a “government” granted monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. In the United States, it’s the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). In the United Kingdom, it’s the Bank of England (the BoE). In Europe, it’s the European Central Bank (the ECB). In Japan, it’s the Bank of Japan (the BoJ). The model is the same across the world. Central banks loan fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes, Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc) into existence. These fiat currencies often bear the name of money, such as the Federal Reserve Note bearing the word “dollar” (which is by definition a weight of silver), but they are not money. To put it simply, central banks run “legalized” counterfeiting operations with the protection and enforcement of “government.” Counterfeiting is theft because it steals purchasing power from the current holders of the currency or money and transfers it to the counterfeiter. The Fed has stolen approximately 95% of the purchasing power from the users of the Federal Reserve Note since its creation in 1913 and other central banks have similar track records. Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Central banks use their counterfeiting rackets to rig interest rates, bailout their cronies, fund the welfare state, fund the police state, fund the warfare state, create asset booms and busts, and stifle economic growth. You pay for all of this through lost purchasing power, whether you want to or not.

    This artificial system of creating money sets up a system where the only way to pay off existing debt is to use a substantial portion of your currency.

    Now, since you have used up a significant amount of your currency making debt payments, a nation now finds itself short on currency to pay for the needs of its people. How do you solve that problem? Answer, by borrowing more. This system creates a dependency where the only solution is to borrow more to pay off existing debts.

    5. Fractional Reserve Banking


    US banks are not required to holdanywhere near the amount of money they are lending out. They are allowed to only hold a fraction of it, hence the name “fractional banking”.

    In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:

    In the United States, the reserves are held in the bank’s vault or the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. The Board of Governors of the Fed set the reserve requirements and use it as one of the tools of guiding monetary policy. As at January 2016, commercial banks with deposits of less than $15.2 million were not required to maintain reserves. Banks with deposits valued at $15.2 million to $110.2 million were required to maintain the reserve requirement at 3% while those with more than $100.2 million in deposits were required to keep a reserve requirement of 10%. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 exempted the first $2 million of reserve liabilities from the reserve requirements.

    Bank Deposit Total Percentage required
    Under $15.2M 0%
    $15.2M to $100.2M 3%
    Over $100.2M 10%

    Let’s take a look at it. If you own a US bank, you can claim $15.2 million in deposits without actually having any. Your bank can be worth billions, and you will only be required to hold 10% of the total amount.

    Lending out potentially 10 times the money that you actually have sounds absurd, yet it is entirely legal. Of course this is completely unsustainable.

    6. US Federal Debt


    This is very unpleasant to read, but is needed.

    End of Year Debt (billions) Percent of GDP
    1930 16 18%
    1935 29 39%
    1940 43 50%
    1945 260 114%
    1950 257 89%
    1955 274 65%
    1960 286 53%
    1965 317 43%
    1970 375 35%
    1975 533 32%
    1980 908 32%
    1985 1,823 42%
    1990 3,233 54%
    1995 4,974 65%
    2000 5,674 55%
    2005 7,933 60%
    2010 13,562 90%
    2015 18,151 99%
    2020 (est) 24,057 106%

    -Trump added $3T to national debt (~15%)
    -Barack Obama added almost $10T to the national debt (~50%)
    -Bush Jr. added $4T (~20%)
    -Clinton added $1.6T (~8%)
    -Bush Sr. added $1.3T (~6.5%)
    -Reagan added $1.7T (~9%)
    -National debt broke $1T in 1981. More than 95% of national debt has come “after” that benchmark.

    7. Who Owns Federal Reserve


    (From USA Gold article)

    Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

    ‘… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).

    Admittedly, this is difficult to confirm, since the Federal Reserve tries to keep its ownership secret.

    8. Conspiracy Theory: JFK’s Assassination Tied To Federal Reserve


    There has long been a theory that former US President John F. Kennedy was murdered because of his opposition to the Federal Reserve. Look up “Executive Order 11110”.

    Was Kennedy killed for wanting to stop this scam? I don’t know, but it is possible. It certainly was lucrative to the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

    9. System Will Collapse


    As should be apparent, this system is not sustainable in the slightest.

    This Federal Reserve is a bank creating its own money, and then lending it out, with interest. Note: “shareholders” are to receive a minimum of 6% return on their investments annually.

    Banks operate on a “fractional reserve” system, meaning they only need to keep a portion of the actual money they claim to have on hand. Even for the biggest banks, this is capped at 10%. The same money can in fact be loaned out multiple times, since there is no requirement no have much of it on hand.

    In order to finance this system, the US Government adds to its debt, year after year. This is debt that will never be paid back. The only way the US can “service the debt” is by continued economic growth. Of course, this is not possible. The dollar “used” to be backed by gold, but that is no longer the case.

    The “debt ceiling” will continue to be raised, since no President or member of Congress wants to see it collapse on their watch.

    But at some point it will.