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

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

(60 minute video “Fiat Empire”)

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

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

This is what happens when you:

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

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

1. Important Links

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

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

2. What Is “End The Fed”?

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

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

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

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

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

3. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act

(From page 15 of 112)

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Blog Article From End The Fed

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

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

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

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

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

5. Fractional Reserve Banking

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

In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:

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

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

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

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

6. US Federal Debt

This is very unpleasant to read, but is needed.

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

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

7. Who Owns Federal Reserve

(From USA Gold article)

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. System Will Collapse

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

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

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

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

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

But at some point it will.

World Domination: Connecting The Dots

How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.

1. Important Links

This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.

2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”

No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.

He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.

Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.

We will get back to this later.

3. Financing The Global Domination Mission

No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.

(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.

(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.

(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.

Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.

(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.

(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.

(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.

4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success

In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.

This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:

(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.

(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.

(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.

(Option IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.

(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.

Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.

Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.

Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.

5. Taking Control Of Education

If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.

Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.

Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.

6. Making It All Come Together

Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:

  • We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
  • We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
  • We raised money via bogus environmental scams
  • We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
  • We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
  • We have invested national pensions and other assets
  • We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
  • We have bought off an obedient media
  • We have propped up puppet politicians
  • We reduced the overt gaslighting
  • We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
  • We normalized repatriating terrorists
  • We weaponized Islamic immigration
  • We coordinated global leadership meetings
  • We have made children dependent on schools
  • We controlled the academic output
  • We replaced traditional cultural norms
  • We centralized globalization via UN
  • This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.

    The UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    Public Policy #5: Restoring The 1934 Bank Of Canada Act

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.

    CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
    CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
    CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
    CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

    CLICK HERE, for an interesting article from Canadian Dimension.
    CLICK HERE, for an article from www.globalresearch.ca.
    CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada
    CLICK HERE, for amended Statement of Claim.
    CLICK HERE, for the Bank of Canada Act, 1985 version.

    2. Some Background

    The Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1934. It allowed the Canadian Government to borrow from its own central bank, in a sense, to “borrow from itself”. However, things drastically changed in 1974. Pierre Trudeau changed it so that Canada would now be borrowing from “private banks”, and racking up debt and interest charges in the meantime.

    From the Global Research article:

    Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See his chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.

    This is the main takeaway here: Borrowing from your own central bank effectively makes the loans interest free, since you are borrowing from yourself as opposing to borrowing from someone else.

    From the Canadian Dimension article:

    The critical point is that between 1939 and 1974 the federal government borrowed extensively from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of any interest. As such Canada emerged from World War II and from all the extensive infrastructure and other expenditures with very little debt. But following 1974 came a dramatic change.

    Reiterating the point, that Canada was borrowing from itself until 1974.

    3. How Much Debt?

    Dollars (millions)
    Net federal government financial debt
    1930 $2,178
    1931 $2,262
    1932 $2,376
    1933 $2,596
    1934 $2,730
    1935 $2,846
    1936 $3,006
    1937 $3,084
    1938 $3,102
    1939 $3,153
    1940 $3,271
    1941 $3,649
    1942 $4,045
    1943 $6,183
    1944 $8,740
    1945 $11,298
    1946 $13,421
    1947 $13,048
    1948 $12,372
    1949 $11,776
    1950 $11,626
    1951 $11,427
    1952 $11,163
    1953 $11,151
    1954 $11,092
    1955 $11,229
    1956 $11,241
    1957 $10,967
    1958 $11,015
    1959 $11,627
    1960 $12,047
    1961 $12,394
    1962 $13,378
    1963 $14,079
    1964 $15,262
    1965 $15,748
    1966 $15,381
    1967 $15,866
    1968 $16,713
    1969 $17,396
    1970 $18,095
    1971 $18,581
    1972 $19,328
    1973 $20,123
    1974 $21,580
    1975 $24,769
    1976 $28,573
    1977 $32,629
    1978 $45,846
    1979 $59,040
    1980 $72,555
    1981 $86,280
    1982 $99,600
    1983 $128,302
    1984 $164,532
    1985 $209,891
    1986 $245,151
    1987 $276,735
    1988 $305,438
    1989 $333,519
    1990 $362,920
    1991 $395,075
    1992 $428,682
    1993 $471,061
    1994 $513,219
    1995 $550,685
    1996 $578,718
    1997 $588,402
    1998 $581,581
    1999 $574,468
    2000 $561,733
    2001 $545,300
    2002 $534,690
    2003 $526,492
    2004 $523,648
    2005 $523,344
    2006 $514,099
    2007 $508,122
    2008 $490,412

    See the source.

    In 1930, Canada’s national debt was about $2 billion. In $1974, it was about $20 billion. A decade after changes to the Act, the debt was about $160, or 8 times higher.

    Worth noting, that Brian Mulroney, who was PM from 1984 until 1993 added over $300 billion to the national debt.

    4. Fighting Back: Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform

    Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Bank of Canada Case, Claiming It Is a Political Matter

    We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)

    It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the original news release (pdf) issued on December 19, 2011.)

    See the source

    A 5 1/2 year legal fight to restore the original central banking. Even more frustrating is that the Courts have never really addressed the issues which led to the challenge in the first place.

    The Supreme Court says it is a “political matter”, but no politicians in Canada have the willpower to address it, never mind fix it. Even “socialist” and “populist” politicians seem unwilling to take it on.

    5. Who Are These People?

    About BIS – overview

    Our mission is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.

    Established in 1930, the BIS is owned by 60 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP. Its head office is in Basel, Switzerland and it has two representative offices: in Hong Kong SAR and in Mexico City.

    We pursue our mission by:

    • fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks
    • supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability
    • carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability
    • acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions
    • serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations

    As part of our work in the area of monetary and financial stability, we regularly publish related analyses and international banking and financial statistics that underpin policymaking, academic research and public debate.

    With regard to our banking activities, our customers are central banks and international organisations. We do not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities.

    Supposedly, the Bank for International Settlements is “owned” by 60 central banks. It then facilitates discussions between those 60 banks. In short, it is a global collusion to fix monetary policies.

    Interesting that the “central banks” are supposed to be owned by their respective nations, yet, BIS recommends borrowing from “private” bankers. Almost as if it wasn’t acting in the nations’ self interests.

    6. Not in Canada’s Interests

    This should be obvious, but borrowing from private banks is not in Canada’s best interests, nor any nations. This is bankrupting our nation, to enrich global bankers.

    Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, and let us take back control over our own finances.

    Curious, even when national and provincial debts are in the news so much, no one asks the obvious question. Why are we jacking up our debt by borrowing from private banks?

    UN’s New Development Financing (The Bait-and-Switch)

    (Ways to raise money)

    (Sources of money for health initiatives)

    An internationally concerted carbon tax could raise $250 billion per year…

    (Page 13)
    In this vein, a tax of $25 per ton of CO2 emitted by developed countries is expected to raise $250 billion per year in global tax revenues. Such a tax would be in addition to taxes already imposed at the national level, as many Governments (of developing as well as developed countries) already tax carbon emissions, in some cases explicitly, and in other cases, indirectly through taxes on specific fuels

    …and a small currency transaction tax could add an estimated $40 billion…

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the 178 page document.
    CLICK HERE, for the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Sustainable Development Goals.
    CLICK HERE, for Devex article explaining debt-for-development.
    CLICK HERE, for World Bank explanation for debt-for-development trade.
    CLICK HERE, for debt swaps for sustainable development.
    CLICK HERE, for loss of sovereignty article.
    CLICK HERE, for an IMF article on debt swaps.

    CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
    CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
    CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Finance.

    2. This Is The Bait:

    (From Page 10)
    Two main sources are considered: taxes levied on international transactions and/or taxes that are internationally concerted, such as the air-ticket solidarity levy, financial or currency transaction taxes and carbon taxes; and revenues from global resources, such as SDR allocations and proceeds derived from the extraction of resources from the global commons, through, for example, seabed mining in international waters. Proposals on potential sources of finance for international development cooperation in both categories have been discussed for decades, although most of these, with the exception of the proposal on an airline levy, have not yet been adopted.

    So what kind of “revenues” are raised?

    • taxes on international transactions
    • internationally concerted taxes
    • air-ticket solidarity levy
    • financial or currency transaction taxes
    • carbon taxes

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

    3. And Here Is The Switch:

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

    There are also challenges in the use and allocation of funds mobilized internationally. Most existing innovative financing mechanisms earmark resources upfront for specific purposes, as is the case for the global health funds. There are perceived benefits in doing so. Advocates argue that the earmarking helps build political support and attract funds by establishing a clear link between fundraising and popular causes. This may come at a cost, however, since earmarking funds can limit domestic policy space for channelling resources to nationally defined priorities.

    This explains why there is the bait-and-switch. Countries are not willing to support international taxation. Therefore it is necessary to raise money under the pretense of “environmentalism”. It also shows that the UN feels little resistance to misleading the public on where money is being used for.

    (From Page 10)
    Some innovations focus on intermediation mechanisms designed to better match funding and needs by facilitating front-loading of resources (which include several mechanisms channelling resources to global health funds and some debt-for-development swap mechanisms), by mobilizing public means to guarantee or insure natural disaster risks or technology development for public causes, or by securing specific-purpose voluntary contributions from the private sector for official development cooperation. Various mechanisms of these types do exist, but they are not large in size.

    Several global funds that act as allocation mechanisms are generally also considered to come under the rubric of innovative development financing. Disbursement mechanisms in the health sector include the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNITAID and the GAVI Alliance. These mechanisms collect financing directly from sources or through intermediary financing mechanisms. UNITAID is the only disbursement mechanism that obtains the bulk of its financing from an innovative source, the air-ticket solidarity levy. Other funds rely mainly on traditional sources of financing.

    Though the bulk of money raised is collected under the pretense of “environmentalism”, the UN makes it clear that the cash will be spent on a few “other” purposes.

    1. Global Health Funds
    2. Debt-for-Development Swap Mechanisms

    4. UN Violates Own Convention

    From the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime

    Article 4(1)

    Article 4. Protection of sovereignty
    1. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States.
    2. Nothing in this Convention entitles a State Party to undertake in the territory of another State the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions that are reserved exclusively for the authorities of that other State by its domestic law.

    Article 5

    Article 5. Criminalization of participation in an organized criminal group
    1. Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally:
    (a) Either or both of the following as criminal offences distinct from those involving the attempt or completion of the criminal activity:
    (i) Agreeing with one or more other persons to commit a serious crime for a purpose relating directly or indirectly to the obtaining of a financial or other material benefit and, where required by domestic law, involving an act undertaken by one of the participants in furtherance of the agreement or involving an organized criminal group;

    Consider that the New Development Financing involves obtaining huge sums of money under false pretenses. While the publics are told that much of this revenue will be for environmental causes, it becomes clear from later in the document that it will be spent on other purposes (such as debt-for-development and health care causes).

    Taking money for purposes other than what is advertised is fraud.

    5. Debt Conversion Mechanisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Debt For Health

    (Page 89)
    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).

    Debt For Education

    (Page 90)
    In addition to the uses described above, debt swaps have also been successfully implemented for education and development.2 Clear delineation among the various types of swaps is often problematic, however, as debt-for-development swaps typically provide funding for environmental, health and/or education projects.
    . Although nominally debt-conversion operations, these Contracts stipulate that debtor countries are to continue to service these debts in full, while receiving, however, an equivalent amount of new ODA grants tied to specific programmes when they do so (Agence Française de Développement, n.d.). Thus, resources are not redirected from debt servicing to other uses; rather, potential fiscal savings from debt-service reduction are forgone, the resources instead being directed to specific uses (Buckley, 2011a). These transactions thus cannot be considered to constitute IDF

    So in these cases the debt isn’t really forgiven. The indebted nation will still have to make payments, while other money will be coming in for other purposes.

    The funding generated by debt swaps is closely tied to their designated end use (although the effectiveness of this depends on monitoring mechanisms). While this effective earmarking of budgetary funds indicates a trade-off with policy space, the debt relief provided by converting debt at a discount (where the debt would otherwise have been serviced) releases resources for use in accordance with national priorities. However, the exclusion of relevant ministries and limited civil society participation in the design and implementation processes may undermine coherence with medium-term national development strategies.

    To make absolutely clear, this debt forgiveness isn’t free. There is always some trade off. Here, it seems to be having your nation’s sovereignty eroded in return for being cut a break.

    While all of this is couched in very pretty rhetoric, one really has to ask what is really the costs?

    6. “Voluntary” Pesticide Use In Crops

    Here is one such “pull measure” (page 98)

    The World Bank is currently developing agricultural projects based on pull mechanisms through the Agricultural Pull Mechanism (AGPM) initiative, with the objectives of increasing production, reducing losses and enhancing food security for small farmers. There are six pilot programmes currently being developed, which are expected to be launched in June 2012. Their objectives are:
    -To develop distribution networks for bio-fortified crop varieties (high pro-vitamin A cassava, maize and sweet potato, and high in iron beans) in Africa
    -To promote the development and use of new hybrid rice varieties in South Asia
    -To develop improved fertilizers and fertilizer production processes
    -To promote adoption of improved post-harvest storage technologies
    -To incentivize the use of biocontrol mechanisms against aflatoxin contamination of crops
    -To promote development and use of a vaccine against peste des petits ruminants in livestock in Africa

    Interesting. How much of this is done in the first world?

    7. Now Comes Climate Change

    (Page 120)
    The unprecedented global improvements in average living standards over the last two centuries have come at the cost of serious degradation of the natural environment. The most serious environmental threat is climate change, brought about by global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In addition to considerable expenditure for adaptation, climate change necessitates a fundamental shift in development strategies towards a much less carbon-intensive model, and a major reduction in reliance on fossil fuels.

    While climate change arises overwhelmingly from historical emissions in developed countries, it impacts disproportionately the well-being and livelihoods of people in developing countries. This makes a compelling case for the assumption by richer countries of the costs of mitigation and adaptation

    Read the next several pages. While the paper talks at length about how to “raise” money for climate change causes, it is surprisingly vague about how this money will actually be spent. There are some bland references to technology, but no specifics.

    The paper cites “Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases” but CO2 is the only one to actually be named.

    Furthermore, the UN tries to promote mass migration to the West. However, this would be illogical, since on average, Western nations leave a much bigger “footprint” than others do.

    While “financing” climate change efforts features prominently in later sections of the paper, it gives no real information on how the money would be put to use.

    8. Is This Predatory?

    From the Journal of Politics and Law Article (see here).

    Budget constraints are severely undermining the capacity of governments of developing countries to provide their people even the most basic of social services. This lack of finance is in turn caused by several factors including, among others, huge military spending, pervasive corruption and large repayments of debts owed to the developed world. These factors, either singly or in combination, eat up government funds that can otherwise be spent on education, health, housing and other social services. Economists have a better way of describing it – these factors ‘crowd out’ essential public spending designed to benefit the people. (Note 1) As a result, these governments are unable to steer their countries towards the path of economic development and entire peoples are unable to enjoy the most fundamental of economic, social and cultural rights

    This is what we are financing.

    Our leaders take from us, claiming it is for efforts to “protect the environment”. Money is then spent abroad in the developing world, often awarded in the form of loans. When such nations cannot pay back the money they owe, they become indebted to their creditors. This is usually bodies like the UN or IMF.

    Bait: Tax to save environment
    Switch: Predatory loans to developing world.

    This is the bait-and-switch. It is highly unethical to take advantage of people like this.

    Response To: Motion To Strike Challenge To UN Parliament

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

    Below is a “cut-and-paste” of what was sent to the Federal Court of Canada (Case: T-476-19). Pardon any formatting issues that may arise in converting this.


    Cover Page
    Table of Contents
    Written Representations
    Part I:
    Part II: Facts
    Part III: Law and Cases
    Part IV: Order Sought
    Part V: Authorities Cited
    Draft Order

    Part I: Issues

    (1) Four issues for the Federal Court to consider:
    (a) Does the Applicant have a legitimate ground to bring application?
    (b) Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter?
    (c) Would the proposed UN Parliament, if it ever became a reality, violate constitutional rights? With its “legally binding decisions”?
    (d) Does the Respondent have a legitimate right to sign on to such an agreement without the consent of the public?

    (2) Applicant submits the answers as follows: (1) YES; (2) YES; (3) YES; (4) NO.

    Part II: Facts

    (3)The Applicant is a Canadian citizen. She is seeking an injunction against Canada participating in such a UN Parliament/World Government (UNPA) if ever being enacted.

    (4) Although such a World Government/UN Parliament is not yet a reality, dozens of current Members of Parliament and Senators have endorsed the idea in writing. This includes the Prime Minister. This has been formally discussed since 2007, and informally
    for long before that. The UNPA explicitly states it want to make “legally binding decisions”.

    (5) The Respondent makes a “straw-man argument” claiming that endorsements are not violations of a person’s rights. While this is true, they should be seen as intent and interest to do so. No one ever claimed endorsements alone were violations.

    (6) In the motion, the Government raised a “justification” defense, (prerogative power). As such, it is reasonable to also ask for a writ of quo warranto, to demand a full and complete defense be raised as to the legality and constitutionality of such an action

    (7) It is submitted that she has public-interest standing, aka “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
    Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    (8) Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    (9) The Federal Court has jurisdiction under 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act to issue an injunction or writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the Federal Court (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such. Since no person can be named (under 302 of Federal Court Rules), the Attorney General of Canada shall be named.

    (10) The Federal Court also has jurisdiction (under Rule 18.4(2)), to treat the application as an action.

    (11) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    (12) The Applicant raises several sections of the Constitution and Charter (2, 3, 32, 35, 38, 52, 91 and 92) as grounds for an injunction, or alternatively, a writ of quo warranto. Quite simply, these provisions are protection for myself and all Canadians.

    (13) Our fundamental freedoms (section 2), and right to participate in our democracy (section 3), are rights Canadians take for granted. They must be protected. However, if Canada were to become part of a UN Parliament/World Government, how would we
    ensure the protection of those rights? Could they not be watered down under a “global consensus”?

    (14) Section 35 refers to protection of Aboriginal rights. Yes, “Canada” has ensured to protect them. But how would we do so if Canada ceases to be a nation, and became a province of the UN?

    (15) Sections 91 and 92 lay out Federal v.s. Provincial jurisdictions. This is important as it holds our governments accountable. If governments do things which are in violation (Ultra vires), or against Canadians’ wishes, we can vote them out. We can hold our politicians accountable as a nation. How would we as part of the UN Parliament/World Government?

    (16) Section 52 (paramountcy) gives Canadians protection as it ensures that the Canadian Constitution is supreme law. We will not be subjected to just any laws. And Section 38 (amending), ensures stability by requiring substantial consent in order to amend. This is
    another safeguard for Canadians. Would these safeguards still exist under a UN Parliament/World Government?

    (17) The Government claims that no argument was ever raised to support or justify the claims. This is disingenuous, since only the Notice of Application had been sent.

    (18) The Government raises “prerogative power” as a justification to implement such a policy, calling it a “treaty”. It dismisses the need for the safeguards and protections listed above. Furthermore, the Government says that since such a UN Parliament/World
    Government is not here yet, there is no need for the Court to entertain the matter.

    (19) The Applicant submits that prerogative power does not apply here, and that there is a public interest concern in hearing the matter well in advance of any signing. This is especially true, with the “legally-binding decisions” format of it.

    (20) As an analogous case, the Applicant suggests that the European Union (EU) and the British Exit from it (Brexit) should be considered.

    Part III: Law and Cases

    (21) The Applicant has standing to make just an application under the “Public-Interest Standing” doctrine.

    Public interest standing
    The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
    Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in
    Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    First, yes, there are serious issues raised as the invalidity (see below)
    Second, yes, as a Canadian citizen, my rights would directly be influenced by the UNPA,
    and certainly I have a genuine interest.
    Third, no, there doesn’t seem to be another effective or reasonable way to bring the issue
    before the court.

    Substantial Consent required (section 38)
    (22) This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

    (a) The General Amending Procedure Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

    [34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

    (23) What this means is that to make a huge decision and alter the constitution, there must be substantial consent. This means at least 7 of 10 provinces, whose combined populations make up at least 50% of the population.

    (24) While this is relevant to Senate reform (ie. Term limits and direct elections), it would certainly be more so in creating an extra layer of government, which would be able – in theory at least – to override Federal rulings.

    The Constitution is Canada’s Supreme Law (Section 52)
    (25) From (Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA))

    They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

    [7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides: 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. (2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

    [8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

    [9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides: Application of Charter 32(1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

    (26) Section 52 of the Constitution enshrines the Constitution as the Supreme law of Canada. Section 38 does have an “amending” process, though it is a high burden to meet. These protection are important, as they ensure that we, as Canadians will actually be
    protected by the Constitution.

    (27) If we became part of a UN Parliament, then how (or will) the Constitution be able to protect the rights of Canadians?

    Restricting Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2)
    (28) From Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC)

    C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression? Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

    In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

    Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

    (29) How can we ensure that Canadians’ fundamental freedoms are protected? Canada ensures its citizens some of the most expansive civil rights of any nation. But if Canada becomes just 1 of 193 member states, how can we guarantee those rights will be protected?
    What safeguards will be put in place?

    (30) Rather than shrugging it off as “covered by prerogative power”, the Government should be answering these vitally important questions.

    Ensuring the Right to Participate in Democracy (Section 3)
    (31) (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912), this principle was affirmed conclusively.

    27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136: The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

    (32) The Court held that being able to participate in democratic process was worth protecting. How can we maintain this protection if Canada signed on to the proposed UN Parliament/World Government? If ensuring democratic involvement and meaningful participation is tricky now, how would this help things?

    UN Parliament Would Trample on Indigenous Rights (Section 35)
    (33) From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR
    511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

    26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

    27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

    (34) This case referred to land use and resource development. However, the Court should not conclude that adding a level of government would be LESS important.

    (35) The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

    25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

    (36) Managing these rights is tricky enough just within Canada. However, no Indigenous group ever signed onto the proposed UN Parliament/World-Government. So how could the Federal Government claim with any sincerity that there would no violations of the “duty to consult”?

    (37) To repeat, although the UN Parliament is still just a proposal at this point, there are many serious and legitmate questions that need answering. Simply saying “prerogative power let’s us do it” shirks the Feds’ responsibilities.

    (38) Also, the claim is made that the Executive Branch is allowed to sign treaties. However this would conflict with another treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP).

    Consider the 2000 Clarity Act and Reference Question
    (39) The Applicant submits that the reference questions regarding Quebec separation would also apply to Canada being taken over by the United Nations Parliament/World Government

    ( Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC))
    The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province “under the Constitution” could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework. Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

    (40) Yes these discussions do need to be had. However, to repeat, the Government of Canada says it is its right to unilaterally sign Canada over to the UN Parliament if it ever became operational. Surely there has to be something more than just that.

    Consider Brexit as a Warning
    (41) The European Union started in 1973 as a free trade zone between 6 countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands).

    (42) Today it is 28 members are controls nations: trade, immigration, budgeting, commerce, farm subsidies, borders and many other categories. It can also (in the cases of Hungary and Poland), strip member’s voting rights for not towing the line. All of this was accomplished with no democratic referendum. Today, the hierarchy of the EU are unelected bureaucrats accountable to no nations’ voters.

    (43) In fact the only democratic referendum was in 2016, where the UK voted to leave, (Brexit). However, the EU acting in bad faith, and the UK Government’s complicity has led to delay after delay.

    (44) It is not unreasonable for Canada to find itself in such a situation, where even if the majority voted to leave the UN Parliament, we would be prevented from doing so.

    (45) The Applicant has public interest standing to raise such an application.

    (46) In the event there are irregularities, the Court has wide discretion to order amendments to rectify them. Fixable errors should not be grounds for denying justice to self-represented litigants (Pintea v. Johns, SCC 2017).

    (47) There is a legitmate public interest in preventing Canada from joining such a world government (injunction), or at least deciding on a minimum standard, or forcing the Government to explain itself (writ of quo warranto).

    (48) Furthermore, there is a public interest in bringing the issue to the Court well ahead of any such signing.

    (49) If Canada ever joined such a World Government, there are very legitimate questions and concerns about how the Constitutional protections listed above would be enforced.

    (50) The Government of Canada cannot simply run roughshod over Canadians by calling this a “treaty” and signing away their Constitutional rights. There has to be some checks and balances. Additionally, it would conflict with other treaties signed with the NATION of Canada as a party.

    (51) Endorsements are not violations of rights (nice strawman), but evidence of intent.

    (52) Even if joining the UN Parliament/World Government were a treaty, would we not be violating “other” treaties, which were formed as the NATION of Canada?

    (Mental Gymnastics At Play….. )

    (53) If the Supreme Court (Harper Re: Senate Reform) stated that unanimous consent of all Provinces was needed to abolish the Senate, then how could the Government justifying effectively eliminating the Legislature altogether, via UN Parliament with 1 signature?

    (54) If the Supreme Court (Re: Seccessation of Quebec) stated that a clear majority of the population needed to vote for it, via referendum, why wouldn’t the people of Canada be called on to make an even bigger decision, to dismantle Canada?

    Part IV: Remedies/Order

    (a) Dismiss the motion

    (b) Allow the matter to proceed as a Claim, or as the Court deems appropriate

    (c) Grant an injunction, or writ of quo warranto against the Government

    (d) Establish a standard necessary for Canada to join such a World Government with
    the following requirements:
    (I) Approval from the Federal House of Commons
    (II) Approval from the Canadian Senate
    (III) Signature of the Prime Minister
    (IV) Endorsement from the Governor General
    (V) Consent from 7 of 10 Provinces with 50%+ of population
    (VI) A national referendum, with 75%+ approval

    And in all cases, the Applicant encourages guidance on the matter from the court

    (E-Signature of Party)
    (Applicant/Respondent in Motion)
    May 2, 2019

    Part V: Authorities

    (1) Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)

    (2) Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC)

    (3) Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)

    (4) Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)

    (5) Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)

    (6) Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)

    (7) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)

    (8) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
    [1992] 1 SCR 236, 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC)

    Bilderberg Meetings: Deep State Gettogethers

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the main page.
    CLICK HERE, for the FAQ section.
    CLICK HERE, for the “Participants” section.
    CLICK HERE, for then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney attending in 2014.

    2. 2018 Bilderberg Meetings

    Turin, Italy 7-10 June 2018

    Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne


    Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group
    Alesina, Alberto (ITA), Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics, Harvard University
    Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
    Amorim, Paula (PRT), Chairman, Américo Amorim Group
    Anglade, Dominique (CAN), Deputy Premier of Quebec; Minister of Economy, Science and Innovation
    Applebaum, Anne (POL), Columnist, Washington Post; Professor of Practice, London School of Economics
    Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO
    Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense
    Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
    Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
    Beerli, Christine (CHE), Former Vice-President, International Committee of the Red Cross
    Berx, Cathy (BEL), Governor, Province of Antwerp
    Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
    Blanquer, Jean-Michel (FRA), Minister of National Education, Youth and Community Life
    Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
    Bouverot, Anne (FRA), Board Member; Former CEO, Morpho
    Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
    Brende, Børge (INT), President, World Economic Forum
    Brennan, Eamonn (IRL), Director General, Eurocontrol
    Brnabic, Ana (SRB), Prime Minister
    Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Burwell, Sylvia M. (USA), President, American University
    Caracciolo, Lucio (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Limes
    Carney, Mark J. (GBR), Governor, Bank of England
    Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne; Chairman, Steering Committee Bilderberg Meetings
    Cattaneo, Elena (ITA), Director, Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology, University of Milan
    Cazeneuve, Bernard (FRA), Partner, August Debouzy; Former Prime Minister
    Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, El País
    Champagne, François-Philippe (CAN), Minister of International Trade
    Cohen, Jared (USA), Founder and CEO, Jigsaw at Alphabet Inc.
    Colao, Vittorio (ITA), CEO, Vodafone Group
    Cook, Charles (USA), Political Analyst, The Cook Political Report
    Dagdeviren, Canan (TUR), Assistant Professor, MIT Media Lab
    Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform
    Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
    Ecker, Andrea (AUT), Secretary General, Office Federal President of Austria
    Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
    Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces
    Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus SE
    Fallows, James (USA), Writer and Journalist
    Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
    Ferguson, Niall (USA), Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
    Fischer, Stanley (USA), Former Vice-Chairman, Federal Reserve; Former Governor, Bank of Israel
    Gilvary, Brian (GBR), Group CFO, BP plc
    Goldstein, Rebecca (USA), Visiting Professor, New York University
    Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
    Hajdarowicz, Greg (POL), Founder and President, Gremi International Sarl
    Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, DeepMind
    Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
    Helgesen, Vidar (NOR), Ambassador for the Ocean
    Herlin, Antti (FIN), Chairman, KONE Corporation
    Hickenlooper, John (USA), Governor of Colorado
    Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
    Hodgson, Christine (GBR), Chairman, Capgemini UK plc
    Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners
    Horowitz, Michael C. (USA), Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
    Hwang, Tim (USA), Director, Harvard-MIT Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative
    Ischinger, Wolfgang (INT), Chairman, Munich Security Conference
    Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
    Kaag, Sigrid (NLD), Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
    Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
    Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.
    Knot, Klaas H.W. (NLD), President, De Nederlandsche Bank
    Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
    Köcher, Renate (DEU), Managing Director, Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research
    Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
    Kragic, Danica (SWE), Professor, School of Computer Science and Communication, KTH
    Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR
    Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg
    Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
    Lepomäki, Elina (FIN), MP, National Coalition Party
    Leyen, Ursula von der (DEU), Federal Minster of Defence
    Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
    Makan, Divesh (USA), CEO, ICONIQ Capital
    Massolo, Giampiero (ITA), Chairman, Fincantieri Spa.; President, ISPI
    Mazzucato, Mariana (ITA), Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value, University College London
    Mead, Walter Russell (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
    Michel, Charles (BEL), Prime Minister
    Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
    Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
    Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), President, New Democracy Party
    Mota, Isabel (PRT), President, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
    Moyo, Dambisa F. (USA), Global Economist and Author
    Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
    Neven, Hartmut (USA), Director of Engineering, Google Inc.
    Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
    Oettinger, Günther H. (INT), Commissioner for Budget & Human Resources, European Commission
    O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
    O’Neill, Onora (GBR), Emeritus Honorary Professor in Philosophy, University of Cambridge
    Osborne, George (GBR), Editor, London Evening Standard
    Özkan, Behlül (TUR), Associate Professor in International Relations, Marmara University
    Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
    Parolin, H.E. Pietro (VAT), Cardinal and Secretary of State
    Patino, Bruno (FRA), Chief Content Officer, Arte France TV
    Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
    Pichette, Patrick (CAN), General Partner, iNovia Capital
    Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, Total S.A.
    Pring, Benjamin (USA), Co-Founder and Managing Director, Center for the Future of Work
    Rankka, Maria (SWE), CEO, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
    Ratas, Jüri (EST), Prime Minister
    Rendi-Wagner, Pamela (AUT), MP (SPÖ); Former Minister of Health
    Rivera Díaz, Albert (ESP), President, Ciudadanos Party
    Rossi, Salvatore (ITA), Senior Deputy Governor, Bank of Italy
    Rubesa, Baiba A. (LVA), CEO, RB Rail AS
    Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chairman Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Treasury Secretary
    Rudd, Amber (GBR), MP; Former Secretary of State, Home Department
    Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister
    Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
    Sadjadpour, Karim (USA), Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Sáenz de Santamaría, Soraya (ESP), Deputy Prime Minister
    Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
    Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy
    Schneider-Ammann, Johann N. (CHE), Federal Councillor
    Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
    Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
    Simsek, Mehmet (TUR), Deputy Prime Minister
    Skartveit, Hanne (NOR), Political Editor, Verdens Gang
    Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO
    Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
    Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
    Topsøe, Jakob Haldor (DNK), Chairman, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S
    Turpin, Matthew (USA), Director for China, National Security Council
    Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation
    Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
    Woods, Ngaire (GBR), Dean, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University
    Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Editor-in-chief, Hürriyet Daily News
    Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Turner International

    As should be obvious from the list, a lot of banks and investment holding companies are represented. Why would that be? Are there some big profits to be made in all this?

    3. Brief History

    The Bilderberg meeting is an annual three-day forum for informal discussions designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. The pioneering meeting grew out of the concern, expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on issues of common interest.

    The first meeting took place in Hotel De Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, from 29 to 31 May 1954. Representatives from economic, social, political and cultural fields were invited to hold informal discussions to help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period.

    Throughout the years, the annual meetings have become a forum for discussion on a wide range of topics – from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment and from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. In the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally.

    4. Steering Committee

    Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne

    Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
    Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
    Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
    Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
    Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
    Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
    Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
    Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
    Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
    Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
    Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
    Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
    Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.
    Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
    Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
    Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
    Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
    Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
    O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
    Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
    Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
    Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
    Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
    Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Technical Advisor, Alphabet Inc.
    Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
    Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
    Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
    Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

    5. Bilderberg Goals

    What are the Bilderberg Meetings and what are its goals?
    The Bilderberg Meeting is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Bilderberg was established in 1954 as a forum for informal discussions, bringing together individuals who share an active interest in affairs relevant to the relationship between Europe and Northern America. The meeting has one main goal: to foster discussion and dialogue. There is no desired outcome, there is no closing statement, there are no resolutions proposed or votes taken.

    Sounds so harmless and innocuous.
    But then, it always does.

    The Dark Side Of Forced Diversity

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for Harvard’s racial quotas lawsuit.
    CLICK HERE, for SAT admission by race, class
    CLICK HERE, for Bob Rae’s affirmative action policies.
    CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Forces fitness standards (2011).
    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Forces run times.

    CLICK HERE, for Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum
    In diverse neighbourhoods (US), everyone “hunkers down”.
    Links to many different surveys.

    CLICK HERE, for Leveraging Diversity To Improve Business.
    No improvement in talent or production found.

    CLICK HERE, for MIT article on workplace diversity.
    “Idea” of diversity preferred to “actual” diversity
    Diversity raises profits, but lowers social cohesion


    Most recently, and perhaps most significantly, Ontario has become the first province in Canada to propose a mandatory employment equity program that would have the effect of requiring privately owned companies to hire and promote women, nonwhites, aboriginals and disabled people.

    Ugly: So far, the government’s opponents have taken aim most directly at the proposed labor laws. Business groups and many of the country’s largest employers have argued that the legislation will give trade unions too much power and frighten off investors from Canada’s industrial heartland. Critics also charge that the New Democrats’ approach to empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged members of society—including workers, visible minorities, women, natives, children, the elderly and the disabled—is fundamentally misguided. They claim that some of the programs will hand power to narrowly focused interest groups rather than to needy individuals. Acknowledged one veteran NDP organizer: “We are getting into some very dicey areas. If we are not careful we can create all kinds of tension

    Indeed, some analysts say that the NDP’S employment equity proposal is a potentially divisive instrument. Declared University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss: “People are being defined by race and gender, and it is profoundly wrong. In a liberal society you think about people in terms of their character, not the color of their skin.” Bliss said that he is worried that the program could produce an ugly backlash. “The government says that it is trying to stop racism and sexism,” he added, “but I think they are raising the awareness of race and sex almost to a fever pitch.”


    Equality Rights

    Marginal note:
    Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
    15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    Marginal note:
    Affirmative action programs
    (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    In short, everyone is equal, unless you call it affirmative action. Then equality can be thrown to the wind.


    This example is from the Canadian Forces 1.5km run times.

    Under 30 Years 10:13 – 11:56 12:36 – 14:26
    30 – 34 10:35 – 12:26 12:57 – 14:55
    35 – 39 10:58 – 12:56 13:27 – 15:25
    40 – 44 11:12 – 13:25 13:57 – 15:55
    45 – 49 11:27 – 13:56 14:26 – 16:25
    50 – 54 11:57 – 14:25 14:56 – 16:54
    55 and over 12:27 – 14:56 15:27 – 17:24

    Serious question, how does watering down the standards based on age and sex help strengthen the Canadian Forces?


    The next 2 charts have to do with how SAT scores and ACT scores are slanted depending on race or class in order to gain entry to American universities.

    GROUP ACT (Scale of 36) SAT (Scale of 1600)
    Black +3.8 +310

    Hispanic +0.3 +130

    White +0.0 +0.0

    Asian -3.4 -140

    GROUP ACT (Scale of 36) SAT (Scale of 1600)
    Lower -0.1 +310

    Working +0.0 +70

    Middle +0.0 +0.0

    Upper-Middle +0.3 -20

    Upper +0.4 -30

    So, just looking at race, Asian would have a -140, while blacks would have +310, concerning SAT scores. So there would be a 450 point gap, or more than a 25% discrepancy based on race.

    Even scoring a perfect 1600, the Asian student would only get 1460, while the black student would only need to achieve an 1150 to beat that Asian. In this case 1150 = 1600. Absurd. Isn’t admission into colleges supposed to be reserved for the most academically accomplished?

    Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum

    Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

    The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:
    • Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).
    • Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).
    • Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).
    • Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).
    • Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).
    • Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).
    • Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a).

    Michele E. A. Jayne and Robert L. Dipboye

    Research findings from industrial and organizational psychology and other disciplines cast doubt on the simple assertion that a diverse workforce inevitably improves business performance. Instead, research and theory suggest several conditions necessary to manage diversity initiatives successfully and reap organizational benefits. This article reviews empirical research and theory on the relationship between workforce diversity and organizational performance and outlines practical steps HR practitioners can take to manage diversity initiatives successfully and enhance the positive outcomes. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

    1. Increased diversity does not necessarily improve the talent pool. An increase in the diversity of a group at the demographic level (age, gender, race, disability) does not guarantee an increase in diversity of task-related knowledge, skills, abilities, experiences, and other characteristics

    2. Increased diversity does not necessarily build commitment, improve motivation, and reduce conflict. Another expectation is that a happier, more harmonious workplace will result from diversity. Unfortunately, the diversification of the workforce often has the opposite effect.

    3. Increased group-level diversity does not necessarily lead to higher group performance. One cannot, on the basis of the current research in psychology, conclude with confidence that a diverse group is a better-performing group

    Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office

    “The more homogeneous offices have higher levels of social capital,” Ellison observes. “But the interesting twist is that … higher levels of social capital are not important enough to cause those offices to perform better. The employees might be happier, they might be more comfortable, and these might be cooperative places, but they seem to perform less well.”

    Another wrinkle Ellison and Mullin found is that just the perception that firms are diverse was sufficient to produce satisfaction among employees — but this perception did not necessarily occur in the places where more extensive gender diversity accompanied better bottom-line results.

    “In offices where people thought the firm was accepting of diversity, they were happier and more cooperative,” Ellison says. “But that didn’t translate into any effect on office performance. People may like the idea of a diverse workplace more than they like actual diversity in the workplace.”

    Final Thoughts:
    The idea of being tolerant and inclusive is a great theory. However, if forced, it doesn’t stand up to any testing or scrutiny. Despite this being rammed down our throats, people are not receptive to diversity being pushed.

    Unity is strength.
    Diversity is weakness.

    Canada’s Bill C-97 (Omnibus) & Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

    (Garnett Genuis defends the Paris Accord)

    (A nice critique of Paris Accord)

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for Bill C-97.
    CLICK HERE, for the “Price on Pollution” Act
    CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for the climate change scam.
    CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, watering down penalties for terrorism.




    Climate Action Support

    Payment in Relation to Infrastructure

    Maximum payment of $2,200,000,000

    130 Despite section 161 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act, as amended by section 233 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities or the Minister of State (Indigenous Services), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, in addition to the sum referred to in that section 161, a sum not exceeding $2,200,000,000 to provinces, territories, municipalities, municipal associations, provincial, territorial and municipal entities and First Nations for the purpose of municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure.

    Federation of Canadian Municipalities

    Maximum payment of $950,000,000

    131 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $950,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.

    Maximum payment of $60,000,000

    (3) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (4), a sum not exceeding $60,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Asset Management Fund.

    Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service

    Maximum payment of $65,000,000

    132 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $65,000,000 to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service for the acquisition of new emergency ambulance helicopters.

    Okay, let’s tally this up

    Area Of Spending Amount
    Infrastructure $2,200,000,000
    Municipalities $950,000,000
    Green Municipal Fund $60,000,000
    Air Rescue Service $65,000,000
    Total Spending $3,275,000,000

    This “price on pollution” will result in $3.275B being spent, and this is just for now. There is nothing to indicate that spending won’t go up.

    Bill C-97 references the “Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act” (a.k.a. Carbon tax act). Here it is, and it is well worth a read. The more interesting sections are in Division 6, which have to do with enforcement.

    Chilling, considering this is bogus pseudo-science.

    Probably the most irritating part of Bill C-97 is that it is an omnibus bill. This means that it is a mismatch of many unrelated areas of law, being rammed through Parliament.

    When in opposition, Liberals claimed to be against omnibus bills. Different story when they are in power.



    R.‍S.‍, c. E-4
    Electricity and Gas Inspection Act
    162 The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act is amended by adding the following after section 28:
    Ministerial Regulations

    28.‍1 (1) Despite anything in the Weights and Measures Act, the Minister may make regulations prescribing units of measurement for electricity and gas sales in addition to the units specified in section 3.

    (2) A regulation made under subsection (1) ceases to have effect on the earliest of
    (a) the day on which a regulation made under paragraph 28(1)‍(b) that has the same effect as the regulation comes into force,
    (b) the third anniversary of the day on which the regulation made under subsection (1) comes into force, or
    (c) the day on which it is repealed.

    Is this to mean the government will be controlling how energy will be sold and in what amounts?



    Administration and Enforcement
    Marginal note:
    Person resident in Canada
    84 For the purposes of this Division, a person is deemed to be resident in Canada at any time
    (a) in the case of a corporation, if the corporation is incorporated or continued in Canada and not continued elsewhere;
    (b) in the case of a partnership, a joint venture, an unincorporated society, a club, an association or an organization, or a branch thereof, if the member or participant, or a majority of the members or participants, having management and control thereof is or are resident in Canada at that time;
    (c) in the case of a labour union, if it is carrying on activities as such in Canada and has a local union or branch in Canada at that time; or
    (d) in the case of an individual, if the individual is deemed under any of paragraphs 250(1)(b) to (f) of the Income Tax Act to be resident in Canada at that time.

    Is there anyone who “doesn’t” make the list? Individuals, partnerships, labour unions and corporations are all included in this law.

    Large payments
    86 Every person that is required under this Part to pay an amount to the Receiver General must, if the amount is $50,000 or more, make the payment to the account of the Receiver General at
    (a) a bank;
    (b) a credit union;
    (c) a corporation authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to carry on the business of offering its services as a trustee to the public; or
    (d) a corporation that is authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to accept deposits from the public and that carries on the business of lending money on the security of real property or immovables or investing in indebtedness on the security of mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables.

    Wow. So the government seems to “expect” that people will be writing very large cheques to cover these carbon costs. In fact, if your bill is over $50,000 … as if this is to be normal. Guess the fears of companies being put out of business is legitimate.

    Also, here are portions of the “penalties” provisions.

    (2) Every person that commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable to
    (a) a fine of not less than 50%, and not more than 200%, of the amount payable that was sought to be evaded, or of the rebate or other payment sought, or, if the amount that was sought to be evaded cannot be ascertained, a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $40,000;
    (b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

    Marginal note:
    Prosecution on indictment
    (3) Every person that is charged with an offence described in subsection (1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be prosecuted on indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, liable to
    (a) a fine of not less than 100%, and not more than 200%, of the amount payable that was sought to be evaded, or of the rebate or other payment sought, or, if the amount that was sought to be evaded cannot be ascertained, a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $100,000;
    (b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
    (c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
    Marginal note:
    Penalty on conviction
    (4) A person that is convicted of an offence under this section is not liable to pay a penalty imposed under this Part for the same evasion or attempt unless a notice of assessment for that penalty was issued before the information or complaint giving rise to the conviction was laid or made.

    Marginal note:
    Stay of appeal
    (5) If, in any appeal under this Part, substantially the same facts are at issue as those that are at issue in a prosecution under this section, the Minister may file a stay of proceedings with the Tax Court of Canada and, upon that filing, the proceedings before the Tax Court of Canada are stayed pending a final determination of the outcome of the prosecution.

    Marginal note:
    Offence — confidential information
    134 (1) A person is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, if that person
    (a) contravenes subsection 107(2); or
    (b) knowingly contravenes an order made under subsection 107(12).

    Marginal note:
    Offence — confidential information
    (2) Every person to whom confidential information has been provided for a particular purpose under subsection 107(6) and that for any other purpose knowingly uses, provides to any person, allows the provision to any person of, or allows any person access to, that information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both.

    Yes, you can get up to 5 years in prison for not playing ball with the Carbon tax collectors. Considering that Bill C-75 (among other things) made terrorism offences hybrid offences (prosecutors can charge summarily), Carbon taxes are an odd thing to focus on.

    Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
    CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
    CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
    CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
    CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
    CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
    CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
    CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
    CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
    CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
    CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
    CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
    CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
    CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
    CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
    CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

    A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

    Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

    Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

    It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.


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

    This is the source (for 2018)


    Name Party State Amount for 2018
    Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
    Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
    Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
    Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
    Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

    These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

    Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

    Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
    The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

    26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.


    SEC. 111. Findings.
    Congress makes the following findings:
    (1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

    (2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

    (3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

    (4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

    (5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

    (6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

    (7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

    (8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

    Here is the source.


    1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
    2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
    3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
    4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
    5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
    6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

    Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

    While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

    Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.


    CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
    CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
    CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
    CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
    CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
    CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
    CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
    CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
    CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.


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

    Source is here.

    This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

    But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

    There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

    1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
    2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
    3. Halal meat only
    4. Prayer rooms built in schools
    5. Build foot wash stations
    6. Paid time off to pray
    7. Sharia compliant swim times
    8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
    9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
    10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

    And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

    It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

    If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

    The UN Business Action Hub

    (A brief, promotional video)

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for the main page.
    CLICK HERE, for “Global Hand”, a Hong Kong firm which connected UN to various businesses.
    CLICK HERE, for a list of partners.
    CLICK HERE, for the “Partnership Handbook”.


    The UN-Business Action Hub was developed as a joint effort of the United Nations Global Compact, Global Hand, a Hong-Kong based non-profit specializing in facilitating private sector and NGO connections, and 20 UN entities and aims to foster greater collaboration between the business and UN to advance solutions to global challenges and to support various humanitarian and disaster preparedness and response efforts.

    On this platform business can learn more about UN entities, their mandates, specific needs, and offer programmatic support, in-kind and financial donations, while UN entities can learn more about the specific interests of companies, available resources and engagement opportunities desired by business.

    Additionally, both UN and Business can post projects and use the platform to search for and interact with potential partners to scale the impact of their projects.
    Join the hub and start interacting!

    In a nutshell, this is the relationship:
    (1) UN gets backers to support its globalist agenda, and
    (2) Companies become more known and get free advertising



    Executive Summary
    1. Purpose of the handbook
    2. Things to consider before creating a new partnership

    • Creating an enabling environment
    • Defining desired outcomes

    3. Building the appropriate partnership

    • Building Block 1: Choose the partnership’s composition
    • Block 2: Define the roles of each partner
    • Building Block 3: Draft a roadmap for the partnership
    • Building Block 4: Define the partnership’s scope
    • Building Block 5: Design a governance structure for the partnership
    • Building Block 6: Decide how to finance the partnership
    • Building Block 7: Decide how to monitor and evaluate the partnership

    4. Identifying established UN-business partnership models

    • Partnership model 1: Global implementation partnerships
    • Partnership model 2: Local implementation partnerships
    • Partnership model 3: Corporate responsibility initiatives
    • Partnership model 4: Advocacy campaigns
    • Partnership model 5: Resource mobilization partnerships
    • Partnership model 6: Innovation partnerships

    Glossary of terms

    This 64 page handbook reads like a typical partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding would, at least in some sense it does.

    Of course, if you are going to partner with someone, you want information about the other party. You also want to discuss things like financing, goals, and division of labour. This is common sense, and anyone with any business sense would know this already.

    The weird parts (at least for me), are several:

    1. Among “partners”, UN lists 42 of its own departments
    2. Everything is couched in social justice terms
    3. EXTREMELY wordy, but a lot of common sense
    4. Seems like a way to simply cash in on UN agendas
    5. A lot of “implied” consent of host populations


    UN entities often partially absorb costs of partnerships, for example, if salaries for practitioners, travel expenses or administrative costs are covered by their own funds, in the following described as UN institutional funds. Further required funds come from business partners or involved governmental institutions. Besides that, partnerships can conduct external fundraising activities, for example, by establishing social media platforms for donating cash, such as WFP’s WeFeedback Website, or in rarer cases, international finance facilities, which issue bonds against the security of government guarantees, such as achieved by the GAVI Alliance. Finally, foundations have increasingly become an external source for funds, above all the UN foundation.

    If partnerships address local problems or strive for policy impact, related governments can be approached for additional funds. Governments might also provide funds if partnerships’ approaches correspond with their priorities, for example, fighting climate change. Drawing on funds from governmental institutions does, however, also include them as partners, which is in principle desirable, but can run the risk of politicizing partnerships or slowing them down due to government bureaucracies. External fundraising activities can provide access to potentially huge financial resources not successfully leveraged by the UN so far such as donations from private households. They also have a positive side effect by raising awareness for development problems. However, as the amount of funds raised externally cannot always be predicted, such campaigns are better suited for scaling-up existing programs rather than launching new ones.

    UN entities and business partners provide the bulk of funds for UN-business partnerships and the ratio of provided UN to business funds has a strong effect on partnership governance. If partnerships draw most financial resources from UN institutional funds, UN entities can maximize negotiating power vis-àvis business partners and most likely control decision-making. However, without a stake in decision-making and invested resources, companies may have less incentive to contribute to partnership activities. Such partnerships also tend to be limited in scope as UN entities have restricted financial resources, often far below those of companies.


    An interesting takeaway from this is the plain acknowledgement that whoever contributes more, has more leverage in the bargaining.

    Also implied is the idea that local governments can be persuaded to shell out public tax money if they can be persuaded that it aligns with their priorities.

    This business action hub seems to be a global “Chamber of Commerce”, where businesses can connect with UN agencies. Social justice meets capitalism. What could go wrong?