Category: World

Posted on

Bit Of History — Doug & Rob Ford Voted In 2013 For Sanctuary Toronto, Amnesty For Illegals

In 2013, brothers Doug Ford and Rob Ford voted to officially make Toronto a sanctuary city. This allows people in the city, (but without a legal right to be in Canada), to continue to access social services. It also makes deportations harder to implement, and furthers balkanization of Toronto. However, there is another consequence of doing this: making human trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation easier.

1. Fords Vote To Create Sanctuary Toronto

City Council Decision
City Council on February 20 and 21, 2013, adopted the following:
.
1. City Council re-affirm its commitment to ensuring access to services without fear to immigrants without full status or without full status documents.

2. City Council request the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to conduct an internal review, with community consultation, of City Divisions, Agencies and Corporations, and to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee in the 3rd quarter of 2013 on the following:
.
a. a review of opportunities to improve access without fear;
.
b. opportunities for City-funded agencies to improve access without fear;
.
c. providing training for front line staff and managers to ensure that undocumented residents can access services without fear; and
.
d. a complaints protocol and a public education strategy to inform Torontonians of the City’s policy.

3. City Council request the City Manager and the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee on current Federal and Provincial arrangements to deliver immigration and settlement programs in Ontario, and options for strengthening intergovernmental collaboration and partnerships with the City of Toronto.

4. City Council request the Federal government to establish a regularization program for undocumented residents, and that a letter be sent to the Government and Opposition parties to this end.

5. City Council request the Federal government to increase Provincial Nominee Program levels so that the Province can bring in workers with specific skills who have left Canada as undocumented workers with Canadian children, and that they be given priority processing by Canadian Citizenship and Immigration.

6. City Council request the Provincial government to review its policies for Provincially-funded services for undocumented residents with a view to ensuring access to health care, emergency services, community housing and supports for such residents within a social determinants of the health framework.

Here is what the final resolution actually says. Despite all attempts to make it sound compassionate and humanitarian in nature, this really is an “amnesty for illegals” piece oflegislation.

#1 is a commitment to fund services for illegal aliens.
#2(c) is to train workers that illegals have access to services.
#2(d) is to convince the public that this is somehow okay.
#4 is asking amnesty for illegal aliens.
#5 is asking the Federal Government to give priority to illegal aliens with anchor baby children in the citizenship line.
#6 is asking the Province of Ontario to review its current decision to NOT directly fund services for illegal aliens.

2. Fords Support Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

One has to marvel at the mental gymnastics the Ford Brothers engage in. They vote FOR creating a sanctuary city, which allows illegal aliens to receive free city benefits. They vote FOR illegals with anchor baby children going to the front of the line in a pathway to citizenship. However, they also vote to REMOVE illegals from Toronto, and push for legal immigration.

How does this work? Give illegals access to public services, then deport them, then bring them back to get expedited for a pathway to citizenship?

Possibly the vote on the amendment to deport illegals was just an attempt to pander to constituents who hadn’t read the entire legislation.

3. Ford’s Hypocrisy On Horwath Proposal

ndp.horwath.2018.sanctuary.ontario

We will work with professional associations and the federal government to streamline the process for foreign credential recognition so that highly-educated immigrants can find meaningful employment in their areas of expertise.

And we’ll take steps to make sure that rights and dignity are respected by calling on the federal government to stop using provincial jails to detain immigrants.

We will declare Ontario a Sanctuary Province.

In the 2018 Ontario election campaign, NDP leader Andrea Horwath took a lot of criticism for a proposal (see page 11) to make Ontario a sanctuary province. Much of that came from the “Conservative” party of Doug Ford. In reality though, Horwath was just proposing to expand what Ford was on record as having voting for.

Amnesty or sanctuary cities/provinces are horrible ideas, certainly. But Doug Ford really has no moral high ground to stand on here.

4. Businesses Support Cheap Labour Pool

This pilot program was covered previously on this site. While it specifies 500 workers and their families (some 2,000 to 3,000 people total), don’t be naive and think that this will be a one time deal. Why do many businesses support the inflow of labour? Because it helps to drive wages down.

Now, certainly the cheap labour and strain on social services are large problems in a sanctuary city. However, there is something much darker, and more evil to worry about.

5. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

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.

This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.

6. Toronto’s Human Trafficking Problem

The City of Toronto condemns the horrific crime of human trafficking and is committed to working collaboratively to support survivors of human trafficking and eradicate human trafficking in Toronto.

Over the last decade, concern regarding human trafficking in Canada has grown. In Toronto, human trafficking for the purposes of forced sexual labour has received significant attention.

Human trafficking is a complex issue for which there is limited data that can be relied upon to fully describe and understand the problem. From the limited data that is available, it is clear that human trafficking occurs throughout Toronto.

The City’s work related to human trafficking falls into the four main categories of the anti-human trafficking lens, where the person being trafficked, or at risk of being trafficked, is put at the centre, and their safety, well-being and human rights are prioritized:
.
(1) identifying people being or at-risk of being trafficked
(2) supporting survivors of human trafficking
(3) preventing human trafficking
(4) avoiding increasing the vulnerability of people engaged in consensual sex work.
On June 18, 2019, Council adopted the report (EC5.4) that outlines a number of actions that the City proposes to take, in collaboration with other agencies, corporations and divisions to support survivors of human trafficking.

Certainly, human trafficking is awful. There is no excuse whatsoever for forcing or coercing someone, or for exploitation of people. This is even more true when minors are involved.

But what does any of this have to do with open borders, or with Toronto becoming a sanctuary city? Take a look at some of Toronto’s “measures to combat” trafficking, and it becomes more clear.

Service Access
The City has many services that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. While some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status, the City’s Access to City Services for Undocumented Torontonians (Access T.O.) ensures access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or full status documents.

Yes, letting people into the country illegally, or establishing sanctuary cities are harmless, critics say. However, the City of Toronto is fully aware that trafficking happens to people who aren’t in the country legally. Whether entry comes from illegally entering, or overstaying a legal entry, the result is much the same. People are here — unknown to the Government — who are being exploited.

Did Doug and Rob Ford vote to support human trafficking? No they didn’t. However, by supporting Toronto becoming a “sanctuary city”, they helped ensure that illegals will continue to flood into Toronto, and that identifying people will become that much harder.

7. Toronto Knows Illegals Are Trafficked

toronto.human.trafficking.prevention

(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.

(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.

Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.

The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.

The Fords may not have explicitly voted for this, but it is the consequence. People involved in human trafficking — both as victims and perpetrators — are now able to live in a major city, and are completely unknown to authorities.

8. Toronto Pays Ethnic Anti-Trafficking NGOs

Not too many convictions since Toronto Police Services began keeping track in 2014. And considering recent calls to defund the police, how will this get any better?

toronto.human.trafficking.prevention

(Appendix F) In September 2017, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario, announced a total of approximately $18.6 million to 44 partners and agencies across the province for projects that aim to prevent human trafficking and support survivors. Grants for Toronto-based partners were allocated the total amount of $3.1 million and the funded period started in 2017.

  • FCJ Refugee Centre: Identification, intervention and prevention of labour trafficking and exploitation among migrant workers ($369,289)
  • South Asian Legal Clinic Ontario: Legal education for victims and survivors of human trafficking and front-line service providers in the areas of criminal law, immigration law and employment law, including e-learning tools that can be accessed throughout Ontario ($156,768)
  • Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network): Butterfly: Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network is managing the Migrant Sex Workers Outreach and Education Project which provides outreach specifically to migrant sex workers across Toronto. Peer workers provide monthly harm reduction workshops at informal gatherings to reduce isolation and increase harm reduction knowledge amongst migrant sex workers. ($199,311)
  • Native Family Child and Youth Services Toronto: Comprehensive culture-based outreach, prevention, healing, and treatment services for Indigenous survivor ($406,325)
  • Native Women’s Resource Centre Toronto Facilitation of regional working groups to provide education, evidence-based interventions, holistic individualized supports and wraparound resources that empower survivors. This will include 12 community engagements ($678,641)

Human trafficking seems to be such a widespread problem that groups are choosing to help victims along ethnic lines. Again, how does making Toronto a sanctuary city cause it to be any safer?

9. Sanctuary Cities Shield Predators

Although there is more data available in the United States on illegals being released, the same issue exists in Canada. Predators in Canada are already released after short sentences. If sanctuary cities exist, it becomes easier to disappear. Either the person can hide in such a city, or, if deported, can come back and hide fairly easily.

Think of it from this perspective: if city staff doesn’t care whether its residents are there legally, how seriously will it take the plight of people being exploited?

10. Porn/Prostitution & Trafficking Are Linked

toronto.human.trafficking.prevention

Distinctions between consensual sex work and human trafficking

A broad range of stakeholders are concerned about the conflation of consensual sex work and human trafficking. While consensual sex work may include some elements of exploitation, as many forms of work do, it is distinct from human trafficking in that the “worker” is not coerced. There is general agreement that anti-human trafficking measures should focus on people who are being coerced and controlled.

When consensual sex work is conflated with human trafficking, there is often increased surveillance of sex work and efforts to “rescue” sex workers. Avoiding conflating consensual sex work and human trafficking is important so that sex workers are not further surveilled, stigmatized, criminalized1, and forced underground, resulting in greater marginalization and isolation. The more socially and physically isolated sex workers are, the more vulnerable they are to violence and exploitation. Relatedly, providing access to services and resources that promote harm reduction to people engaged in consensual sex work both supports sex workers’ well-being and provides opportunities for sex workers to build relationships that may be useful if they choose to leave the sex industry and/or if they experience violence or exploitation.

The Toronto Anti-Trafficking Action Report tries to have it both ways. It repeatedly insists that consensual sex workers are not being exploited. Yet it also says that sex workers can be (and are) exploited to a degree. It seems almost schizophrenic in its reasoning.

13. John Tory Supports Sanctuary Toronto

Toronto Mayor, and former Ontario Conservative Party leader, John Tory, also supports Toronto being a sanctuary city. To think this man almost became Ontario Premier in 2007. Then again, his successors are no better.

How Widespread Is Trafficking In Canada?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=VtVAGiuXYsk&feature=emb_logo

Unfortunately, getting a real answer to this question is difficult, as there is little data available. However, the BC Government has some worthwhile information of a general nature. The RCMP does provide some numbers, and international trafficking is addressed.

It’s expected that liberal globalists will support sanctuary cities. The real disappointment, however, is so-called “conservatives” who go along with it anyway.

(1) http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.CD18.5
(2) http://archive.is/ZDsHU
(3) http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.EC5.4
(4) http://archive.is/I5mkr
(5) https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/long-term-vision-plans-and-strategies/end-trafficking-to/
(6) http://archive.is/6LQv2
(7) https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/01/17/sanctuary-jurisdictions-likely-turn-blind-eye-human-smuggling-slavery/
(8) https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/levy-refugees-flood-into-our-sanctuary-city
(9) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/human-trafficking/human-trafficking-training/module-2/prevalence
(10) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/human-trafficking/human-trafficking-training/module-2/rcmp-findings
(11) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/human-trafficking/human-trafficking-training/module-2/international-sex-trafficking

Posted on

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech

https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1198973132385738752
http://archive.is/yBp2k
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1198993450668048385
http://archive.is/A7WVH

1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning


https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1288854760829980674

In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1154304423344136192
http://archive.is/NT9zz
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1176238961947291649

In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
.
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

Posted on

Heritage #3: Annexation Makes UNESCO Sites World’s 2nd Largest “Country”

1. Understanding Our History

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-bc-and-feds/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/the-indian-act-of-canada/

2. Important Links

(1) https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/23
(2) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/cultureresponse/monitoring-world-heritage-site-closures
(3) https://unesco.org.uk/national-value
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
(5) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UN.new_.development.financing.2012.178pages.pdf
(7) http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/debt-swap
(8) Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)
(9) https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/news/2004/08/covington-advises-on-debt-for-nature-swap-to-protect-unesco-world-heritage-site
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-14-uns-new-development-financing-the-bait-and-switch/

3. Who Actually Owns UNESCO Sites?

Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
.
The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

An interesting explanation. So the host nation owns it, but is not allowed to do anything with it unless approved by the international community. Perhaps it’s like renting an apartment: it’s your space, but the interest of the landlord.

4. How Many UNESCO Sites Are There?

This includes the closure of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in the 167 countries they are located in. Please consider the following when reviewing the map:
The World Heritage Convention has been ratified by 193 States Parties but only 167 countries have properties on UNESCO’s World Heritage List;
The List includes a total of 1,121 natural, cultural and mixed World Heritage sites;
In some countries with federal systems there may be a different approach for certain areas within the country;
For some types of sites such as city centres, urban ensembles or agricultural landscapes access may be still possible to certain public areas of the sites, while other parts of the site may be closed, including site museums, visitor centres, religious or emblematic buildings;
For some countries, sites are being re-opened, such as in China;
While sites are closed, monitoring activities by site management may continue, especially for natural sites, including by anti-poaching units, monitoring by satellite images or drones and emergency interventions, for example in case of fires.

According to UNESCO, there are 1,121 UNESCO sites across the world. Now, it must be asked how big they are collectively.

5. How Large Are UNESCO Sites In Total?

The research demonstrates that UNESCO designations deliver the UK’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, peaceful and equitable future at a local, national and international level. It provides governments, stakeholders, communities, designations and the public an opportunity to understand the contribution a global network covering 12% of the UK, or 10 million km2 globally (equivalent to the size of Canada) makes.

According to UNESCO UK, 12% of Britain is considered a UNESCO heritage site. In total, approximately the area of Canada is formed by these different sites.

Rank Country, Region Area (square km)
1 Russia 17,098,246
n/a Antarctica 14,000,000
2 Canada 9,984,670
3 China 9,596,961
4 United States 9,833,517
5 Brazil 8,515,767
6 Australia 7,692,024
7 India 3,287,263

According to Wikipedia, the national land areas are distributed as such. If UNESCO heritage sites were combined, those 10 million square kilometers would actually make it the second largest mass, after Russia. Keep in mind, that while the countries still “own” the heritage sites, they are considered to be the interest of the international community.

6. Canada’s Various UNESCO Heritage Sites

Year Site
1978 Nahanni National Park
1978 L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
1979 Dinosaur Provincial Park
1979/92/94 Tatshenshini-Alsek
1981 SGang Gwaay
1981 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
1983 Wood Buffalo National Park
1984/1990 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
1985 Historic District of Old Québec
1987 Gros Morne National Park
1995 Old Town Lunenburg
1995 Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
1999 Miguasha National Park
2007 Rideau Canal
2008 Joggins Fossil Cliffs
2012 Landscape of Grand Pré
2013 Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
2016 Mistaken Point
2019 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi

Over the last 50 years Canada has piece-by-piece been giving away parts of itself to UNESCO as “heritage sites”. And again, while it’s stated that we still own the property, it’s considered to be in the interest of the so-called global community. In reality, we don’t have control over them.

7. UN Debt-Land Conversion Mechanism: Usury

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

(Page 88, 56 in document)
Debt-for-nature swaps 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

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).

This is nothing short of predatory lending and usury. Lending out large sums of money (often debt financed by donor countries), to other countries who can’t pay it back. The debts can be forgiven in return for consideration, such as rendering sections of land unavailable for use.

In short, these lands are taken away in return for debt forgiveness.
See the more sinister variation at the end.

It should be pointed out that UNESCO is not the only organization that is involved in debt swaps. There are private groups that do it too.

8. The Paris Club – Debt Swapper

The Paris Club is just one group that is involved in the debt swaps when countries can’t afford to make payments on their debts. While presented as harmless, it takes away national sovereignty. Keep in mind, that the average citizen isn’t responsible for racking up this debt.

9. UN Development Program

Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)

The UN Development Program also runs a version of the same scheme. Here is a short guide they provide on the details.

10. Argentina Debt-For-Nature Swap

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2004 – The United States Government and the Government of Panama signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement today that will reduce the sovereign debt of the Government of Panama and help conserve 579,000 hectares (over 2,200 square miles) of tropical rainforest, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The deal will fund conservation efforts in a portion of the Darién National Park, an area of dense rainforest, sandy beaches, freshwater marshes and rocky coasts that is environmentally, anthropologically and historically rich.

The park has been officially recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a World Heritage site and as a Biosphere Reserve. It is located in an ecologically vital area that forms a land-bridge between the North and South American continents. The region is home three major indigenous groups, the Emberá, Waunaan and Kunas, who continue to live by traditional practices. The Darién coast was explored by Christopher Columbus in 1502 and visited by Spanish conquistadors. The Darién Gap region is inhabited by numerous rare animal species, including the jaguar, white-lipped peccary, giant anteater, bush dog, mantled howler monkey and harpy eagle (Panama’s national bird).

And with that, a piece of land larger than the State of Delaware has been signed over to UNESCO, in return for having some of its debt reduced. Remember, while the land officially stays in the hands of the country, it is now considered the interest of the global community.

In addition to the debt-for-nature swaps, there are also debt-for-health swaps. These can be even more nefarious.

11. UN Debt-Vaccine Conversion Mechanism

Look familiar? In Part 14 we mentioned IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. How this works is that nations make legally binding pledges to IFFIm. IFFIm then takes those pledges and issues bonds to the World Bank, who sells them on the open market. Money then goes to World Bank, who gives it to IFFIm, who in turn provides it to GAVI. GAVI (also funded by Gates), uses it for vaccine research and development.

A reasonable person may ask why not give the money directly to GAVI. That’s because other people can’t line their pocket it that happened.

Funnelling money through “vaccine bonds” does nothing except allow others to skim from it. Now, what happens to the money that actually does arrive? It’s used in another predatory way.

(Page 89, 57 in document)
Debt2Health Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c)

This is an alternative to the debt-for-nature swap. Want your debt forgiven? Take your sterilizing and possibly paralysing vaccines.

12. Taking Advantage Of Desperate People

A lot of the loans and conditional foreign aid are not free. They come with strings attached.

Loans are handed out with terms that cannot possibly be met. What happens afterwards is an “arrangement” to cancel or reduce the debt. This can require ceding control over part of the land to outsiders, or having to play along with a certain agenda.

A variation of that is the debt-for-health swap, where debt is forgiven in return for adopting certain health measures. This includes vaccines, which can cripple or kill.

One has to wonder how UNESCO got its 1,121 heritage sites.

Posted on

DNA Testing For Spotting Fake Refugee Families

Regardless of what a person feels about letting high levels of refugees into their country, most people will agree on one fact: they want the “family units” who enter to actually be made up of related family members.

However, as is being seen more and more, particularly in the United States, this is not the case. Adults are coming with children they claim are “their” children, but DNA testing is proving that false. In a U.S. pilot program, nearly 1/3 of professed families were not blood relatives.

Obvious questions have to be asked. Who are these children? Who are the supposed parents? Are the children being used to simply help adults along, or are they being trafficked? How are these arrangements being set up, and where? Those are just a few that need to be answered.

Bizarrely though, migrant rights groups and civil liberties groups don’t seem so concerned about those questions. Instead, they focus on what will happen to the DNA sample afterwards.

1. UN High Commission On Testing

IV. DNA testing to establish family relationships in the refugee context
.
12. …. Thus, interviewing family members should normally be undertaken as the primary means of establishing family relationships. Where documents are available, they should be used as corroborative evidence. Care should however be taken to prevent that, because of pressure to produce such documents, refugees are driven to take risky actions. These may include, for instance, desperate measures to sneak back home and/or approach the authorities of the country of origin, which could place them at risk of arrest, detention or other inordinate consequences.

13. In line with the above, UNHCR considers that DNA testing to verify family relationships may be resorted to only where serious doubts remain after all other types of proof have been examined, or, where there are strong indications of fraudulent intent and DNA testing is considered as the only reliable recourse to prove or disprove fraud.

14. Even if the existence of a blood link is not established, this may not necessarily imply an intention to commit fraud. Cultural and social dimensions of ascribing family relationships should be considered. In the refugee context, the nature of ascribing family relationships should be understood based on the refugee’s social and cultural background. UNHCR also believes that individuals will be less inclined to misrepresent non-existing blood ties if they are confident that persons whom they have always treated and considered as part of the family and with whom they have developed strong personal bonds, or where there is mutual dependency, will be considered as part of the family for purposes of family reunification.

refugee.dna.testing.unchr.1
While it does pay lip service to the idea that nations need to be secure in who they allow to enter their borders, it becomes clear that the UN High Commission on Refugees sees DNA testing as a last resort. Even in cases where there is no biological link, the UNHCR recommends “looking at the culture” of the people anyway.

2. Canadian Policy On Testing

When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.

For citizenship purposes, it is only necessary to establish one parent-child relationship with a Canadian citizen parent. However, it is preferable to take samples of genetic material from both parents as it facilitates the testing process.

A relative or family member’s DNA can be useful to DNA test results for immigration purposes, even if that person is not specifically involved with the sponsorship application. In such cases, the processing office needs to be satisfied that the person is a blood relative of the sponsor and that the person’s DNA sample is collected in accordance with these guidelines.

The IRCC does require DNA testing to prove a genetic relationship, but does so only as a last resort, when family ties cannot be proven otherwise. While this may not be a huge problem for people coming in many streams, it should be required for those coming via refugee channels, especially those coming illegally.

3. CBSA Checking Ancestry Sites

Immigration officials are using DNA testing and ancestry websites to try to establish the nationality of migrants, the Canada Border Services Agency said on Friday.

CBSA spokesperson Jayden Robertson said the agency uses DNA testing to determine identity of “longer-term detainees” when other techniques have been exhausted.

“DNA testing assists the CBSA in determining identity by providing indicators of nationality thereby enabling us to focus further lines of investigation on particular countries,” Robertson said in an email.

But the process raises concerns about privacy of data held by ancestry websites, and highlights political pressure over the handling of migrants by Canada’s Liberal government. More than 30,000 would-be refugees have crossed the U.S.-Canada border since January 2017, many saying they were fleeing U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Again, the DNA testing appears to be a last resort to verify identity, rather than a main one. Moreover, it’s sickening how people living in the U.S. illegally are able to enter Canada and try to claim asylum. The rules aren’t meant to allow for asylum shopping.

4. Fraud Longstanding Problem In U.S.

Q: Why did the US decide to conduct DNA testing of some nationality groups applying for resettlement in the US?
.
A: PRM and DHS/USCIS jointly decided to test a sample of refugee cases due to reported fraud in the P-3 program, particularly in Kenya. This pilot program later expanded to test applicants in other parts of Africa. (See questions and answers below.)
.
Q: What rate of fraud did you discover?
.
A: The rate of fraud varied among nationalities and from country to country, and is difficult to establish definitively as many individuals refused to agree to DNA testing.
.
We were, however, only able to confirm all claimed biological relationships in fewer than 20% of cases (family units). In the remaining cases, at least one negative result (fraudulent relationship) was identified, or the individuals refused to be tested.
.
Q: Which refugees are being tested? From which countries?
.
A: We initially tested a sample of some 500 refugees (primarily Somali and Ethiopian) in Nairobi, Kenya under consideration for U.S. resettlement through the P-3 program. After that sample suggested high rates of fraud, we expanded testing to Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Guinea, Gambia and Cote d’Ivoire. Most of the approximately 3,000 refugees tested are from Somalia, Ethiopia, and Liberia, as these nationalities make up the vast majority of P-3 cases.
.
It is important to note that the initial DNA testing was limited to members of families applying for the P-3 program, and not between the applicants and the anchor relative in the United States.

Even in late 2008, the U.S. State Department was reporting that on DNA testing for refugee families had interesting results. Less than 20% of cases were confirmed to be actual families. Others failed testing, or simply refused to undergo it.

Also in that same page, the State Department stated that they stopped accepting affidavits of relationship for people coming from all countries. It stopped accepting the documents and has looked for other ways to verify identity and relationships.

5. How Prevalent Is It?

Relevant part starts at about 8:00 mark in video. Conversation gets to child separation, and that entire families end up getting released. In pilot program, 30% of “families” were made up of unrelated people. Children are in fact being recycled and used to help multiple families.

The National Sentinel reported that U.S. border guards are finding a very high number of so-called families entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico, who aren’t related at all. From the Washington Examiner:

In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system’s temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.

“There’s been some concern about, ‘Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?'” the official said. “Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members.”

In some incidents where Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the adults they would have to take a cheek swab to verify a relationship with a minor, several admitted the child was not related and did not take the DNA test, which was designed by a U.S. company.

Nearly a third of the families coming into the U.S. as refugees aren’t in fact related. Okay, who are they really? What exactly are the children being used for? Smuggling aids for adults? Are they being recycled? Are they being trafficked? Has any money changed hands to make these arrangements happen?

6. Civil Liberties Groups Oppose Testing

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year to stop family separation and to require the immediate reunion of all separated children and parents. On June 29, a federal judge issued a national injunction in our class-action lawsuit, requiring the reunification of thousands. Now, we must ensure the administration heeds the court’s ruling and the policy of family separation ends once and for all. The government deported hundreds of parents without their children — without a plan for how they would be ever be found. The ACLU is working to locate every separated parent and advise them of their rights to be reunited.

We are in the courts, streets, and in Congress to hold the Trump administration accountable for the irreparable damage it has done to these young lives. We need you in this fight.

One has to wonder why, if the U.S. was such a horrible place, would people come by the tens of thousands to go there? Why would people travel for thousands of miles just to end up on concentration camps?

The tortured logic is also on display here. The ACLU wants DNA testing to be done only as a last resort, and took the Government to court on that issue. However, they also oppose separating children from parents (or at least people who “claim” to be families).

In short, the ACLU wants children and adults to remain together, and be promptly released into the United States. Yet, they oppose the one measure which would determine if they are in fact related by blood.

The ACLU is far from the only organization that opposes DNA testing, while trying to get “families” released into the mainland. It would seem logical to at least ensure that the children are with family members, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern. The priority with opposing DNA testing seems to be to keep it out of criminal databases.

Who knows how many of these children are being trafficked by their so-called parents? What about the human rights and civil liberties of the children involved? However, groups like the ACLU don’t address that.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/refugee.dna_.testing.unchr_.1.pdf
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-border-agency-migrants-dna-1.4765487
(3) http://archive.is/3qYE8
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/dna-testing.html
(5) http://archive.is/mD5JB
(6) https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/fs/2008/112760.htm
(7) http://archive.is/tzAoK
(8) https://www.thenationalsentinel.com/2019/07/15/cruz-graham-dna-testing-at-border-finds-that-nearly-one-third-of-migrant-families-are-fraudulent/
(9) http://archive.is/dEASk
(10) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/dna-tests-reveal-30-of-suspected-fraudulent-migrant-families-were-unrelated
(11) http://archive.is/fZdHY
(12) https://www.theepochtimes.com/30-percent-of-suspected-illegal-alien-families-were-unrelated-dna-tests-show_2928316.html
(13) http://archive.is/de9tr
(14) https://www.aclu.org/families-belong-together
(15) http://archive.is/7Wx0G
(16) https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/reunify-families-dna-testing-should-be-last
(17) http://archive.is/tnSRQ

Posted on

Gates Foundation Funding Abortion Worldwide

Context For This Article:

While Bill Gates and his foundation are working on various vaccines to help sterilize and depopulate the planet, there is still another angle to look at: abortion. It’s not surprise that The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in financing that as well.

Gates’ father is the former head of planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood, among other things, pushes for more access to abortion globally. Now his son funds research into vaccines that can cripple or sterilize people. This suggests a morbid fascination with eugenics. Anything to get the global population reduced it seems.

Aside from depopulation, there are a few other “benefits” to abortion: (a) a supply of body parts for transplanting; and (b) a supply of fetal tissue for vaccines.

Several of the articles in the CV series have focused on the lobbying that goes on behind the scenes. This is necessary to understand who is pushing the agenda, and why. It’s not random, but rather the result of public officials who can be influenced for the right price.

Politicians like Justin Trudeau seem to be completely on board. This applies both to the abortion push across the world, and the claims that mass vaccination is needed.

Gates Sr. Was Head Of Planned Parenthood

This is pretty well known at this point, but let’s just get the man himself to say it. Bill Gates’ father (Bill Gates Sr.), used to be the head of the pro-abortion group, Planned Parenthood.

Gates Jr. Helps Fund Planned Parenthood

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a big supporter of abortion worldwide. In fact, the group regularly donates to various branches of Planned Parenthood. Also see here.

Date Recipient Amount Donated
2020 Int’l PP Worldwide $500,000
2019 Int’l PP Europe $599,221
2019 Int’l PP Worldwide $500,000
2018 Shanghai Inst PP $1,628,290
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $250,000
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $99,000
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $490,000
2016 Int’l PP Europe $8,025,807
2014 Int’l PP Worldwide $431,947
2013 Int’l PP Europe $6,973,371
2011 Int’l PP Worlwide $250,000
2010 Int’l PP Europe $7,298,377
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $23,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $14,990,698
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $7,023,160
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Wash $200,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $10,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Washi $1,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $3,024,011
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $1,700,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $800,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $8,865,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $3,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Central Wash $75,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Canada $569,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $2,845,268
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $5,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $1,492,400
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $1,732,400
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $2,600,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Wash $500,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $115,000

These 32 records were found just on a quick search of “Planned Parenthood” while looking on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. There may be more donations that are not listed.

Planned Parenthood Spending


planned.parenthood.2017.tax.filings

Consultant Fees Paid
McKinsey and Company $10,700,000
O’Brien Garrett $9,295,200
Grassroots Campaigns Inc. $5,087,535
MR Strategic Services Inc. $4,466,037
ATOS IT Outsourcing $3,327,475

(Section B: independent contractors)

Fun fact: if you look up non-cash contributions in the 2017 filings, it seems there were 1086 contributions of publicly traded securities. This totaled $28,321,324. Yes, Planned Parenthood USA received over $28 million worth of securities.

From the last page of the returns, it shows millions of dollars being shuffled around to related organizations.

Clearly, the Gates Foundation is not the only contributor to Planned Parenthood. However, it is something that it ideologically aligns with, and large sums of money are regularly donated. Much of the money goes to electing, and re-electing, politicians who support the abortion agenda.

Planned Parenthood Hawaii/Northwest Goes Global

Our Story
Since 2001, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands (PPGNHI) has collaborated with eight global health nonprofits in seven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to improve the sexual and reproductive health of local communities. We believe that sexual and reproductive health is a human right, and that all people–regardless of where they live–should be able to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights. We also recognize that family planning and sexual and reproductive health care plays a critical, lifesaving role in global health.

Suzanne Cluett Fund
In 2005, we received a generous gift from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in honor of Suzanne Cluett, a long-time Planned Parenthood supporter and advocate for reproductive health and rights. With this grant, we established a permanent endowment, “Suzanne’s Fund”, which has enabled long-term stability and committed engagement of our Global Programs.

Suzanne’s commitment to international sexual and reproductive health started in Nepal in the 1960s and led to her serving in leadership positions at PATH and at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A Washington state local, Suzanne was an enthusiastic believer in Planned Parenthood, serving as both board member and Chair of the PPGNHI Board, as well as a member of the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America Board.

One such portion of Planned Parenthood is this one, which is PP of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands. Much of its current status is due to the 2005 gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Focusing on the United States for this section, let’s focus on the political arm of Planned Parenthood. This is the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which focuses on getting pro-abortion candidates into office.

EIN 13-1644147 Planned Parenthood Fed. of America
EIN 47-5312115 Planned Parenthood Global Inc.

The courts have protected safe, legal abortion throughout the United States since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed access to abortion as a constitutional right in its Roe v. Wade decision.

Yet for years, abortion opponents have fought to turn back the clock: stacking federal courts with anti-abortion judges; passing unconstitutional legislation; spreading deceptions; imposing arbitrary restrictions; and waging one legal battle after another. Their ultimate goal? Reverse Roe v. Wade and make safe, legal abortion impossible to obtain.

Attacks on Roe began to ramp up in 2011, when anti-abortion politicians made massive gains in federal and state elections. Since then challenges to safe, legal abortion have mounted at a rapid clip. In some places, abortion restrictions have in fact made abortion harder to access. These restrictions fall especially hard on people with low incomes, for whom the cost of transportation, childcare, and taking time off work often combine to put abortion access out of reach.

A large part of what Planned Parenthood does involves political work to install pro-abortion politicians into office, and to try to defeat pro-lifers. Yes, it’s big, and crosses States, and even has global connections.

We Decide — and the Stakes Have Never Been Higher
More than three-fourths of voters say abortion should remain safe and legal. There is no state in which banning abortion is popular.

But anti-abortion politicians continue to try to undermine our rights and our access to reproductive health care, putting the ability of many people to obtain birth control, safe and legal abortion, and accurate sexual education in question — yet again.

We decide who our leaders are. We decide our future. At the ballot box this year, we — not out-of-touch politicians — decide what we do with our own bodies.

Interesting. All this talk about “my” body, but there seems to be little to no concern for the body that gets eliminated during an abortion. Aren’t leftists supposed to be concerned about the weak and vulnerable? Unborn children are as helpless as they come.

Money from Planned Parenthood is extremely effective at getting pro-abortion politicians into office. In the U.S., this typically means getting Democrats into office.

Fetuses Used For Body Parts

It took an undercover sting by David Daleiden to expose, but the truth about Planned Parenthood’s side business is finally out. It isn’t the “health care services” which make them rich, it’s the body part industry from murdered babies.

There’s nothing compassionate about this industry. The “clumps of cells” are being reused and recycled either for transplanting into other bodies, or further processed for medical research. See next section.

Fetal Tissue Used In Vaccines

Rather than go into a long spiel about this, let’s just consider the above video. This is from a 2018 Court deposition from Stanley Plotkin.

Now, could this be (part of) the reason that the Gates Family is so pro-abortion? Is a part of it to create an abundant supply of fetal tissue to use for his vaccine developments?

Protect Abortion During Pandemic

COVID-19 affects women and men differently. The pandemic makes existing inequalities for women and girls, as well as discrimination of other marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities and those in extreme poverty worse and risk impeding the realization of human rights for women and girls. Participation, protection and potential of all women and girls must be at the center of response efforts. These efforts must be gender-responsive and consider different impacts surrounding detection, diagnosis and access to treatment for all women and men.

The restrictive measures designed to limit the spread of the virus around the world, increase the risk of domestic violence, including intimate partner violence. As health and social protection as well as legal systems that protect all women and girls under normal circumstances are weakened or under pressure by the COVID-19, specific measures should be implemented to prevent violence against women and girls. The emergency responses should ensure that all women and girls who are refugees, migrants or internally displaced are protected. Sexual and reproductive health needs, including psychosocial support services, and protection from gender-based violence, must be prioritized to ensure continuity. We must also assume responsibility for social protection and ensure adolescent health, rights and wellbeing during schools close-down. Any restrictions to the enjoyment of human rights should be prescribed by law, and in accordance with international law and rigorously assessed.

We support the active participation and leadership of women and girls at all levels of decision-making, including at community level, through their networks and organizations, to ensure efforts and response are gender-responsive and will not further discriminate and exclude those most at risk.

It is crucial that leaders recognize the central role of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in health emergencies and the need for robust health systems to save lives. In this context, sexual health services are essential. We recommit to the immediate implementation of the UHC political declaration by all. Funding sexual and reproductive health and rights should remain a priority to avoid a rise in maternal and newborn mortality, increased unmet need for contraception, and an increased number of unsafe abortions and sexually transmitted infections.

Around the world, midwives, nurses and community health workers are essential to contain COVID-19 and they require personal protective equipment. Safe pregnancy and childbirth depend on all these health workers, adequate health facilities, and strict adherence to infection prevention. Respiratory illnesses in pregnant women, particularly COVID-19 infections, must be priority due to increased risk of adverse outcomes. As our national and international supply chains are impacted by this pandemic, we recommit to providing all women and girls of reproductive age with reproductive health commodities. And we call on governments around the world to ensure full and unimpeded access to all sexual and reproductive health services for all women and girls.

Just when you think you have seen it all, there is a global coalition to keep access to abortion going during the “planned-emic”. Really, of all the things to focus on, abortion just has to be up there. It’s almost as if there was some other reason for doing so. This was caught previously by LifeSite, and is a stunning show of priorities.

A point of clarification, these parties “do” consider access to abortion to be a human right. They also regard it as a form of health care — although its intended purpose is to kill a person.

Eugenics And Greed Join Forces

Bill Gates Sr. was formerly the head of Planned Parenthood, which widely promoted abortion. This was done as a population control measure.

Bill Gates Jr., is heavily financing the vaccine industry. He also heavily funds groups like Planned Parenthood, resulting in a high supply of fetal tissue for his research. He also is on record saying he would prefer to have a less populated world, and cites problems like climate change in doing so.

Of course, a nationalist will point out that the abortion push leads to a declining birth rate at home. This will be used by globalist politicians to import a replacement population. Less local births and more incoming foreigners leads to the extinction of one’s people.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
(1) https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-great-northwest-hawaiian-islands/global-programs/our-story
(2) http://archive.is/YTZcT
(3) https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion
(4) http://archive.is/ENpKT
(5) https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections
(6) http://archive.is/eNPkZ
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2020/05/statement-on-protecting-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights-and-promoting-gender-responsiveness-in-the-covid-19-crisis.html
(8) http://archive.is/dBZqX

CLICK HERE, for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for IRS tax-exempt group search

EIN 13-1644147 Planned Parenthood Fed. of America
planned.parenthood.america.2017.tax.filings
planned.parenthood.america.2016.tax.filings

EIN 47-5312115 Planned Parenthood Global Inc.
planned.parenthood.global.2016.tax.filings
planned.parenthood.global.2017.tax.filings

Posted on

Who’s Pulling Elizabeth May’s Strings?

Elizabeth May joined the Trudeau Foundation in 2005. Could that be part of why the Liberal party has always been so friendly towards her?

May is also a supporter of the (still hypothetical concept) of a world government run by the United Nations. She’s one of many globalist Canadian politicians.

1. Important Links

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May
(2) http://archive.is/y1zO4
(3) https://www.trudeaufoundation.ca/member/elizabeth-may
(4) http://archive.is/YzXmZ
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(7) https://www.sierraclub.ca.
(8) http://archive.is/neThT

2. Why Dig Into Elizabeth May?

In terms of globalist politicians in Canada, Elizabeth May largely gets a pass. A significant part of it is that the Green party of Canada has only 3 seats, and is not a prominent party. It’s growing, yes, but it still relatively small.

Another reason may be that May might be ignored, and no actual digging into her past, is who she is connected to. Shining some more sunlight onto her may serve the public interest well.

  • Sierra Club
  • International Institute for Sustainable Development
  • Various groups lobbying her as an MP
  • Trudeau Foundation
  • Eco demonstrating

While May seems like just a typical environmental supporter, her various associations and affiliations should give people cause for concern. She is not who she appears to be.

3. May Ex-Executive Director, Sierra Club

Between April 1997, and February 2006, there are 17 communications reports between Elizabeth May and the Federal Government. She is a prior eco-lobbyist, and spent nearly a decade trying to influence policies in Canada.

Also noteworthy: now a Member of Parliament, May is frequently lobbied by various groups. Guess it has come full circle. In total, Elizabeth May’s name is attached to 525 communications reports, on a wide variety of topics.

sierra.club.1.director.change
sierra.club.2.bylaw.copy
sierra.club.3.certificate.of.continuance

May’s lobbying as head of the Sierra Club seems to be all environment related, but it does raise an interesting question: When she sits as a Member of Parliament, is she acting as the representative of the riding, or as a member of the ideology?

Sierra Today
.
Today, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation (SCCF) is a national registered charity that includes four chapters: Atlantic, Québec, Ontario, and Prairie, plus the Sierra Youth Coalition, a group whose mandate is to empower young people to become community leaders.
.
On the national level, we have earned an excellent reputation for our thoroughly researched positions and our ability to serve as a spokesperson for environmental issues Canada wide. On a regional level, the commitment of our volunteers makes us an effective advocate on the environmental issues affecting Canadians in their communities.
Following in the footsteps of John Muir, we sponsor programs that help to bring nature into the lives of children and adults.

From it’s HISTORY page, Sierra claims to be an advocacy organization devoted to environmental causes, and bringing awareness to the general public. Elizabeth May used to be the head of this organization.

Interesting side note: The Sierra Club (not just in Canada), used to be against having high levels of immigration. The main reason being that increased numbers of people put more strain on the environment. However, for a $100 million donation from David Gelbaum, the Sierra Club was completely willing to flip its stance. It seems anything is negotiable. More information on Gelbaum is available.

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2014
Receipted donations $284,311.00 (36.48%)
Non-receipted donations $37,392.00 (4.80%)
Gifts from other registered charities $314,732.00 (40.39%)
Government funding $34,287.00 (4.40%)
All other revenue $108,567.00 (13.93%)
Total revenue: $779,289.00

Charitable programs $625,543.00 (69.95%)
Management and administration $177,577.00 (19.86%)
Fundraising $24,599.00 (2.75%)
Political activities $6,563.00 (0.73%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $60,041.00 (6.71%)
Total expenses: $894,323.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$474,307.00

Full-time employees (7)
Part-time employees (13)

Professional and consulting fees
$22,677.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999
$40,000 to $79,999 (4)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $294,471.00 (46.34%)
Non-receipted donations $8,124.00 (1.28%)
Gifts from other registered charities $242,348.00 (38.14%)
Government funding $13,862.00 (2.18%)
All other revenue $76,647.00 (12.06%)
Total revenue: $635,452.00

Charitable programs $295,412.00 (52.37%)
Management and administration $189,330.00 (33.57%)
Fundraising $59,347.00 (10.52%)
Political activities $19,962.00 (3.54%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $564,051.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$271,281.00

Full-time employees (5)
Part-time employees (13)

Professional and consulting fees
$87,031.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (4)
$40,000 to $79,999 (2)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $269,907.00 (60.64%)
Non-receipted donations $7,471.00 (1.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $26,251.00 (5.90%)
All other revenue $141,474.00 (31.78%)
Total revenue: $445,103.00

The Sierra Club claimed $434,604.00 in expenses in its T3010 filings

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$200,693.00

Full-time employees (6)
Part-time employees (9)

Professional and consulting fees
$128,893.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (5)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2017
Receipted donations $319,801.00 (58.98%)
Non-receipted donations $28,410.00 (5.24%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $88,471.00 (16.32%)
All other revenue $105,526.00 (19.46%)
Total revenue: $542,208.00

The Sierra Club also claimed $551,737.00 in expenses that year — line 4950 in it’s T3010 for that year.

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$315,747.00

Full-time employees (5)
Part-time employees (17)

Professional and consulting fees
$128,912.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (3)
$40,000 to $79,999 (2)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2018
Receipted donations $250,400.00 (43.92%)
Non-receipted donations $7,977.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $78,217.00 (13.72%)
All other revenue $233,593.00 (40.97%)
Total revenue: $570,187.00

Charitable programs $387,583.00 (61.61%)
Management and administration $114,807.00 (18.25%)
Fundraising $61,351.00 (9.75%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $65,327.00 (10.38%)
Total expenses: $629,068.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$337,381.00

Full-time employees (6)
Part-time employees (15)

Professional and consulting fees
$62,104.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (3)
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

The Sierra Club doesn’t take in anywhere near as much money as the Trudeau Foundation. Still, interesting to see how much it does get. The next one however, is swimming in money

4. Int’l Inst. for Sustainable Development

iisd.1.change.of.directors
iisd.2.organization.bylaws
iisd.3.certificate.of.continuation

Our big-picture view allows us to address the root causes of some of the greatest challenges facing our planet today—ecological destruction, social exclusion, unfair laws and economic rules, a changing climate. Through research, analysis and knowledge sharing, we identify and champion sustainable solutions that make a difference. We report on international negotiations, conduct rigorous research, and engage citizens, businesses and policy-makers on the shared goal of developing sustainably.
.
With offices in Winnipeg, Geneva, Ottawa and Toronto, our work impacts lives in nearly 100 countries. IISD is a registered charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States.
.
IISD receives core and project funding support from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. For more detail, view our annual report.
.
IISD’s work is organized around six programs and a core set of strategic goals. Our brochure provides a snapshot of our strategy and programs.

That is from the ABOUT section in the International Institute for Sustainable Development website. Much more information is available.

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2015
Receipted donations $30,150.00 (0.17%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $2,695,846.00 (15.39%)
All other revenue $14,791,567.00 (84.44%)
Total revenue: $17,517,563.00

Charitable programs $15,178,878.00 (80.70%)
Management and administration $932,920.00 (4.96%)
Fundraising $1,398,027.00 (7.43%)
Political activities $969,206.00 (5.15%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $330,272.00 (1.76%)
Total expenses: $18,809,303.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$7,550,002.00

Full-time employees (55)
Part-time employees (10)

Professional and consulting fees
$6,609,852.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (1)
$120,000 to $159,999 (4)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$350,000 and over (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2016
Receipted donations $58,330.00 (0.27%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $4,096,046.00 (19.09%)
All other revenue $17,303,126.00 (80.64%)
Total revenue: $21,457,502.00

Charitable programs $18,176,377.00 (88.66%)
Management and administration $868,967.00 (4.24%)
Fundraising $757,087.00 (3.69%)
Political activities $295,296.00 (1.44%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $403,270.00 (1.97%)
Total expenses: $20,500,997.00

Total compensation for all positions
$7,894,255.00

Full-time employees (55)
Part-time employees (9)

Professional and consulting fees
$7,051,688.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (3)
$120,000 to $159,999 (4)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2017
Receipted donations $58,313.00 (0.27%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $5,392,587.00 (25.14%)
All other revenue $15,996,324.00 (74.58%)
Total revenue: $21,447,224.00

Charitable programs $17,713,128.00 (84.06%)
Management and administration $1,318,103.00 (6.26%)
Fundraising $1,043,767.00 (4.95%)
Political activities $611,182.00 (2.90%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $385,607.00 (1.83%)
Total expenses: $21,071,787.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$8,488,461.00

Full-time employees (62)
Part-time employees (6)

Professional and consulting fees
$6,699,377.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (4)
$120,000 to $159,999 (3)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2018
Receipted donations $108,522.00 (0.45%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $369,353.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $8,278,278.00 (34.59%)
All other revenue $15,173,667.00 (63.41%)
Total revenue: $23,929,820.00

Charitable programs $20,661,401.00 (90.39%)
Management and administration $2,135,148.00 (9.34%)
Fundraising $58,686.00 (0.26%)
Political activities $2,450.00 (0.01%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $22,857,685.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$9,025,983.00

Full-time employees (75)
Part-time employees (6)

Professional and consulting fees
$7,462,609.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$120,000 to $159,999 (5)
$160,000 to $199,999 (3)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2019
Operations Outside Canada
10 countries
Other countries in Africa
Other countries in Europe
UGANDA
INDONESIA
CHINA
Other counties in North America
KENYA
JAMAICA
VIET NAM
Other countries in Central and South America

Receipted donations $168,502.00 (0.65%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,000.00 (0.25%)
Government funding $5,458,098.00 (21.17%)
All other revenue $20,088,179.00 (77.92%)
Total revenue: $25,779,779.00

Charitable programs $22,511,518.00 (90.91%)
Management and administration $2,133,829.00 (8.62%)
Fundraising $115,844.00 (0.47%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$9,945,650.00

Full-time employees (79)
Part-time employees (8)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,501,328.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$120,000 to $159,999 (5)
$160,000 to $199,999 (3)
$200,000 to $249,999 (2)

Here is their most recently available financial statement:
iisd.2018.2019.financial.statement

Should we be concerned that Elizabeth May’s former institution accepts money from the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

Side note: The Azrieli Foundation is named after David Azrieli, the late Israeli media baron and billionaire. His grandson, Matthew Azrieli, owns the Post Millennial.

5. Lobbying Elizabeth May As An MP

The above examples are just a sample of the information that is available when searching “ELIZABETH MAY” in the lobbying registry. It seems that many eco-groups see an “in” for their cause with May in office. Of course May is being lobbied by other types of groups, but this bunch seems particularly prominent.

6. May Is Member Of Trudeau Foundation

Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work. In 1986, she became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan.

Ms. May is the author of seven books, BudwormBattles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998), Frederick Street; Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000, co-authored with Maude Barlow,) How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter, 2006), Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy (McClelland and Stewart, 2009), and, with Zoe Caron, Global Warming for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons, 2008). Recipient of many awards and honours, she became in 1998 the first chair-holder of the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” at Dalhousie University. She holds honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University and the University of New Brunswick. In 2005, she became an officer of the Order of Canada.

Formerly the Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, Ms. May is a past member of the board of directors of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and a member of the advisory board to the Environmental Commissioner, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. She is leader of the Green Party of Canada.

Talk about controlled opposition. The (now former) leader of the Green Party is also a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which is named after Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Guess there isn’t really much ideological differences between the parties.

Justin Trudeau pushed for Elizabeth May to be included in the 2011 debates, despite the Greens not holding a seat at the time. The Liberal Party and Green Party also previously agreed to not run candidates in the ridings of the other’s leader. May has always seemed friendly with Trudeau and the Liberals, and her membership here offers another explanation as to why that is.

This isn’t all of them, of course, but a few that are available publicly.

Trudeau.01.Bylaws.2020
Trudeau.02.certificate.of.continuance
Trudeau.03.director.change.david.emerson.out.2016
Trudeau.03.director.change.macbain.out
Trudeau.04.notice.of.filing.return.2019

Other current and former members include:

  • Ex-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Louis LeBel
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Marie DesChamps
  • Ex-BC Supreme Court Judge Lynn Smith
  • Ex-Senator Michael Fortier
  • Ex-NDP Leader Ed Broadbent
  • Ex-Opposition Leader Megan Leslie
  • Ex-Cabinet Minister Chuck Strahl
  • Ex-Attorney General Anne McLellan
  • Ex-Deputy Attorney General John Sims
  • Ex-Deputy Minister Michael Horgan
  • Ex-Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard
  • Ex-PEI Premier Wade MacLauchlan
  • SNC Lavalin Director Jacques Bougie
  • Roy. L Heenan (Heenan Blaikie Partner)
  • John H McCall MacBain (Euro Climate Founder)

The Trudeau Foundation comprises Justices, and many high ranking officials from across parties. Elizabeth May is just one of the people in this organization. So why isn’t this heavily reported by the media? Also, how much money does the Foundation take in annually?

From a search on Revenue Canada’s website, we are able to see that the Trudeau Foundation takes in millions annually. It is a registered charity, so the information is publicly available. Here is data from recent years.

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2015
Here are the Directors at the time.

Receipted donations $617,210.00 (7.17%)
Non-receipted donations $16,251.00 (0.19%)
Gifts from other registered charities $1,000.00 (0.01%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $7,977,622.00 (92.63%)
Total revenue: $8,612,083.00

Charitable programs $5,891,783.00 (89.40%)
Management and administration $683,008.00 (10.36%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,521.00 (0.24%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,590,312.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$971,144.00

Full-time employees (9)
Part-time employees (2)

Professional and consulting fees
$376,636.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (3)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2016
Here are the Directors at that time.

Receipted donations $122,066.00 (2.72%)
Non-receipted donations $122,798.00 (2.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $52,500.00 (1.17%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $4,191,679.00 (93.38%)
Total revenue: $4,489,043.00

Charitable programs $6,551,877.00 (88.80%)
Management and administration $686,611.00 (9.31%)
Fundraising $124,183.00 (1.68%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,250.00 (0.21%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $7,377,921.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,186,681.00

Full-time employees (9)
Part-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$349,738.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2017
Charitable programs $5,189,590.00 (85.03%)
Management and administration $733,680.00 (12.02%)
Fundraising $164,533.00 (2.70%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,200.00 (0.25%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,103,003.00

Strangely, very strangely, there is no REVENUE being reported here. Did they not take any in, or is it just missing from the filings that are available?

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,204,006.00

Full-time employees (11)
Part-time employees (2)

Professional and consulting fees
$409,860.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (7)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2018
Here are the Directors listed at that time.
Receipted donations $25,374.00 (0.42%)
Non-receipted donations $39,503.00 (0.65%)
Gifts from other registered charities $50,000.00 (0.82%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $5,996,497.00 (98.12%)
Total revenue: $6,111,374.00

Charitable programs $3,996,014.00 (72.03%)
Management and administration $1,124,793.00 (20.27%)
Fundraising $412,005.00 (7.43%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,000.00 (0.27%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,547,812.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,418,973.00

Full-time employees (10)
Part-time employees (8)

Professional and consulting fees
$801,966.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (6)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting period ending August 31, 2019
Here are the Directors listed on the T3010

Receipted donations $7,917.00 (0.13%)
Non-receipted donations $135,618.00 (2.23%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $5,936,983.00 (97.64%)
Total revenue: $6,080,518.00

Charitable programs $5,560,040.00 (86.25%)
Management and administration $739,268.00 (11.47%)
Fundraising $135,708.00 (2.11%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $11,350.00 (0.18%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,446,366.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,361,701.00

Full-time employees (11)
Part-time employees (5)

Professional and consulting fees
$607,970.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (1)
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (4)
$250,000 to $299,999

As the data shows (and it’s all freely available on the CRA website), the Foundation takes in millions annually. Why isn’t the group and its donors more carefully probed by the media?

It could be that several members of the mainstream media in Canada are also part of the Trudeau Foundation. Can’t exactly hold these people to account when they are part of the swamp as well

Yes, this could very well be why the Canadian media seems to have little interest in digging into Elizabeth May, or into the Trudeau Foundation more broadly. Huge conflict of interest here.

There is a ton of information on the Trudeau Foundation that needs to be public. That will be the focus of a separate article. But since many members of the Canadian media are also affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, they won’t do meaningful reporting into the organization.

Nor will they report of the huge conflict of interest that Elizabeth May has, in leading the Green Party of Canada, but being part of a group named after a Liberal ex-Prime Minister.

7. Trans Mountain Pipeline Protests

[1] THE COURT: Ms. May’s circumstances and her conduct do not fit the pattern of others who have pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in these proceedings and who have been subject to $500 fines or community work service orders. Ms. May is not only a member of parliament, she is also the leader of a political party whose purpose is to have increasing influence on public opinion on matters of importance in Canada. In this instance Ms. May has sought to influence others to disobey the injunction.

[2] The rule of law is not a guaranteed feature of Canadian life. It needs constant vigilance to be sustained. It is not only judges who have that obligation; so does everyone else, most particularly those members of parliament who lead political parties. We can easily look to other places in the world to see where the rule of law has never existed or has been lost. The dire consequences are on the daily news that we all see. The law applies to everyone. Nobody is entitled to pick and choose the laws or the court orders they will obey because they believe they have a higher obligation. If they choose to do so and offer public defiance of a court order, the judges of this Court have a duty to respond to that defiance.

[3] As well as being a member of parliament, Ms. May is a lawyer. Lawyers enjoy privileges in our society such as that of professional advocates in the courts. With privilege comes responsibility. In this case Ms. May had a responsibility to obey the injunction and to persuade others to do so.

[4] I note that no law or order has prevented Ms. May or any other persons from protesting the building of the Trans Mountain Pipeline even near to the worksites. The injunction expressly preserves the right to peaceful, lawful and safe protest.

2018.BCSC.Elizabeth.May.fined.protest

On March 23, 2018, May violated a court order and staged a protest against the Trans Mountain Pipeline. She was arrested, and ultimately fined $1,500.

May has no problem with the illegal demonstration, even as she is a sitting Member of Parliament. How exactly does this help out her constituents?

8. Greens Support Wet’suwet’en Protests

The Official policy of the Green party is to support the protests against the Coastal GasLink Pipeline. However, even as the protests appear to be foreign funded, the Greens still support it. Included is a very interesting video by Rebel Media, exposing money coming in from the Tides Foundation, and other eco groups.

About Our Organization
The Office of the Wet’suwet’en was created as a central office for the Wet’suwet’en Nation. The Office offers many services throughout the traditional territories focusing on the main areas of Lands and Resources, Fisheries & Wildlife, Human and Social Services and Governance.
.
The Office of the Wet’suwet’en is located in Smithers, BC. Our office has been in its operation since 1994 however was affiliated with the Gitxsan Nation for many years. Our office is not an Indian band or tribal council. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en does not receive core funding (continuous funding from one year to the next) from any form of Government.
.
Based on the priorities set by the Board of Directors, staff must negotiate program funding through various sources from; federal and provincial governments and foundations. This situation creates added responsibility for management to ensure that programs meet goals to illustrate successes and generate support for continued funding. Accessing new monies requires proactive and persistent leadership while ensuring program goals are being met and growth is effective.
.
Our office is governed by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs residing throughout the traditional territories. The Chiefs meet at least monthly and often weekly to address specific issues that management needs direction for. Meetings are held throughout the territories in various locations.
.
As a non-profit society, the Office of the Wet’suwet’en does not provide donations due to shortage of funds.

The Office is not an Indian band or tribal council? So it is just a group of people masquerading as Band members. It is an open admission that the group is a total fake.

It relies on funding from Federal and Provincial Governments, and Foundations? Would be interesting to see which foundations are vested in seeing this group through, especially since it isn’t actually the people with land rights.

9. May Is Member Of CAAPD

Elizabeth May is part of CAPPD, the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. Among other things, it is a heavily pro-abortion group.

10. May & International Banking Cartel

Both Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, and ex-NDP leader Jack Layton knew full well about the international banking cartel, but never used it as a serious issue. See original video here. Both were, in fact, a form of controlled opposition.

11. May Isn’t Who She Claims To Be

Elizabeth May is a “Mentor” at the Trudeau Foundation, named after Liberal PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. It partially explains why the Liberal Party is so friendly towards her, as she is part of that same organization. If the media weren’t in bed with the Trudeau Foundation, they would have reported on just how deep this runs.

May is a former Executive Director with the Sierra Club of Canada, a charity which takes in about half a million a year from various sources. She’s silent about the donations received in order for Sierra to become neutral on the topic of immigration. While acting as the Director, she lobbied the Federal Government on at least 17 occasions for various environmental issues. Now, a sitting Member of Parliament, she is lobbied herself by a host of various special interest groups.

May also was with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which receives many millions a year. The IISD gets money from places like the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

She has been arrested for criminal contempt for violating a court order, and her party supports the obviously fraudulent protests in BC.

These items are not an exhaustive list, but should provide some insight into the interests who are really controlling May and the environmental movement as a whole.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress