Every patriot should be concerned about the state of affairs in their country, regardless of political leaning. Moreover, serious matters should be brought to the public’s attention.
This GAB account is one I’ve come across with some interesting research. Who’s behind it is not important. What is important is what information that is to be shared.
3. Connecting The Dots
CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)
Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.
He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.
Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.
He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.
But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.
BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)
That is just a sample of what the GAB account is posting. Well worth a read. Any help that we can get in understanding globalism here is Canada is always appreciated.
Are you being given straight answers about National and Provincial debts? Or are you being fed globalist approved talking points?
This article will help you identify
Sections 3-8 cover the typical talking points that globalist politicians, bankers, and media allies will spout off to an unsuspecting public.
2. Ignore Bank For International Settlements
In 1934, the Bank of Canada Act was passed, which created the Bank of Canada. After this, the Federal Government was required to make no-interest loans to help fund infrastructure and social services throughout the country.
Even though money was borrowed from the Bank of Canada, the debt did not rise, since we were printing our own money. This help true for nearly 40 years.
Then in 1974, Pierre Trudeau had Canada join the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. The reasons for this were never made clear. The reason the public was told was “inflation control”, but that was never explained. Now Canada, instead of creating its own money, was forced to borrow money and pay interest to outside banks, and often foreign banks. That’s right, outside parties were effectively “printing” Canadian currency and then lending it back to us. Unsurprisingly, the debt skyrocketed from $18 billion in 1974 to almost $700 billion in 2019. And this doesn’t include debt for Provinces, or Crown Corporations.
Now, when asked about central banking, it is best to change the subject. Focus on how other parties are wasteful, and that you will do a better job. If the above facts are mentioned, it will lead to awkward follow-up questions.
3. Make Hysterical Claims About Inflation
Inevitably people will ask about fiat banking. They will want to know why we allow foreigners to print our money, which we then purchase while paying interest.
At this point, it’s best to use scare tactics about uncontrolled inflation, and fiat/central banking being needed to counter act this. If the person asks for specifics or data, pivot again. Tell them that inflation would be much worse if we don’t have this system in place.
4. Focus On “Deficit”, Not Debt
A common diversionary tactic is to focus on the “deficit” and not on the debt. When pressed on this, slick politicians will dodge the issue skillfully.
Remember, the debt is the total amount of money owed, while the deficit is just the shortfall of a certain period (typically a year). Politicians routinely say they will “erase the deficit” within a certain period of time. But all that means is that the nation (or province, or state) will no longer be adding to its debt.
The debt previously accumulated will still be there, and will still be generating interest payments every year. That is what they often don’t want to publicly admit.
5. Focus On “Servicing” The Debt
Another sleight-of-hand is to avoid the words “paying down the debt”. Instead, tell people about “servicing the debt”.
Why? Because paying down the debt implies that it will be finished at some point. Obviously, that goes against the globalist agenda of having payments come out forever. Servicing, however, simply means being able to pay the interest. Servicing can also be in the form of raising the debt obligations.
Remember, you want people to think you want the debt to go away, without actually making it happen.
6. People Don’t Care About This
Rocco Galati taking the Government to court (on behalf of COMER) was an extreme example, but a serious one. People do care about the financial health and sovereignty of Canada. They don’t want outsiders, including foreign banks and foreign powers holding us hostage.
Instead, be dismissive. Repeat the talking point that fiat/central banking has nothing to do with the debt, and that no one cares about it. It’s not just environmental propaganda which these tactics can work on.
Nobody cares about central banking.
Nobody cares about it.
Nobody cares.
7. Divert Attention To Other Things
If all of the above fail, divert the conversation to something else altogether. Focus on the debt and fiscal irresponsibility of previous governments and administrations. Point out the debts left behind (while ensuring not to mention WHY those debts exist in the first place.
Perhaps someone dressed up in blackface, or was allegedly sleeping with a teenager. Maybe someone has made comments about abortion you can take out of context. Could be that a prominent person or a relative has a drinking or drug related scandal. There are plenty of ways to distract from real issues.
Also, find a minor and totally unrelated issue to get people worked up about, such as legalizing marijuana, or complaining about supply management. The sheep need to be distracted from what is really going on.
8. Summary Of Diversionary Tactics
Tactic #1: Ignore the Bank of International Settlements, Basel Committee, and fiat banking altogether unless pressed on it.
Tactic #2: If you are pressed on the above subjects, immediately repeat the claim that abandoning this system will lead to hyper inflation. Use Venezuela or Post-WW1 Germany as examples.
Tactic #3: Make sure you are talking about eliminating the deficit, and dodge the question of the overall debt.
Tactic #4: If pressed on the overall debt, make reference to “servicing” the debt, rather than paying it off completely.
Tactic #5: Be dismissive of the issue altogether. If further confronted about the predatory nature of central banking, deflect. Say that people don’t really care about the issue.
Tactic #6: Finally, divert the conversation to completely other topics entirely. This will hopefully confuse and distract people enough for them to stop caring about it.
(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)
It’s rather difficult to have any real sense of a border between Canada and the U.S. when neither country has full control over their affairs. An obvious example is the Safe Third Country Agreement.
1. The Loopholes Written Into S3CA
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
ARTICLE 1
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.
ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.
Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.: -at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.
This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry. If this really was just poor drafting, then it would be really easy to fix. The fact that there’s no effort to is very revealing.
2. More Loopholes In S3CA
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.
Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.
Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.
Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.
Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?
3. UNHCR Is A Party To S3CA
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
There has never been a full and proper debate on this Treaty either in the U.S., or in Canada. While the document sounds great, it has so many loopholes that it’s close to worthless.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for piece on Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on sanctuary cities. CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on Islamic blasphemy laws upheld by ECHR. CLICK HERE, for previous piece on New York Declaration of 2016. CLICK HERE, for previous piece on Global Migration Compact.
CLICK HERE, for the UN admitting it has an agenda to promote the “caravans” into the US. CLICK HERE, for a Fox article on Bill for new DNA testing on so called “family units” seeking asylum at U.S./Mexico border. CLICK HERE, for HILL article on lawsuit to allow illegal immigration. CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for CBC article on Roxham Road crossings. CLICK HERE, for Epoch Times article on ICE Director Homan’s comments about sanctuary cities. CLICK HERE, for an article on Sweden conducting “age tests”. CLICK HERE, for France’s “bone tests” ruled constitutional. CLICK HERE, for France’s bone test ruling itself. CLICK HERE, for Atlantic article, ECHR upholds blasphemy conviction. CLICK HERE, for child marriage case in Germany. CLICK HERE, for NXIVM cult, Allison Mack case. CLICK HERE, for a Trudeau friend sentenced for child porn.
3. Context For This Article
Pardon the rather scattershot nature of this piece. It will cover a range of different topics all within the context of human trafficking and child exploitation. Links provided, and so will be relevant screenshots.
There will be follow up articles to come
4. Child Trafficking Across US/Mexico Border
(The UN is partially responsible for efforts to overrun the US/Mexico border)
(The UN demands the “rights” of all migrants be respected, regardless of their status. This means, regardless of whether they are in the country illegally)
(Officially, the UN condemns “smuggling of migrants”)
(Children used as props for “family units”)
Senate Republicans this week introduced a bill to implement DNA testing of migrants claiming to be part of family units — a move aimed at cracking down on child trafficking along the southern border.
Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa., introduced the End Child Trafficking Now Act that would require DNA testing to verify relationships between adult migrants and the children they claim are part of their family. The senators say it will help prevent children from being exploited by drug traffickers and gang members.
“It is horrifying that children are becoming victims of trafficking at our southern border,” Blackburn said in a statement. “By confirming a familial connection between an alien and an accompanying minor, we can determine whether the child was brought across the border by an adult with nefarious intentions. The current crisis at our border is multifaceted and requires a holistic approach. By tackling these problems piece by piece, we will get this situation under control.”
Blackburn’s office said more than 5,500 fraudulent asylum claims have been uncovered since March by the Department of Homeland Security.
The FOX article delves straight into a disturbing topic: children are being used as shields. Adults cross with children they allege are theirs, but it is a ruse to be declared a “family unit” which will lead to an easier time staying in the U.S.
The UN and George Soros are helping to facilitate packs, or “caravans” of Central American migrants into the United States. This is despite the explicit orders of Donald Trump to stay away, and the overwhelming opposition of the American public.
Of course, there is often no way to tell what the true circumstances are. is the child being “recycled”, and used to help multiple “families”? Is there smuggling going on? Are the children being physically or sexually exploited?
5. Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;
NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
There is a loophole, in that the agreement covers official ports of entry. It has been taken to mean, however, that simply bypassing those ports and crossing elsewhere means an expedited entry into Canada.
This has been covered in other articles. The point being that both Canada and the United States are safe countries, and offer generous protections to people seeking asylum. It circumvents the intent of the agreement to go “asylum shopping” and hop around. Legitimate refugees should attempt to seek asylum in the first safe country they get to.
The U.S., as noted, is a safe country. People attempting to cross into Canada illegally should immediately be turned back. Simply passing through is not an excuse. Fearing being deported (if in the U.S. illegally) is also not a valid fear of persecution.
Instead, not only has the Federal Government not done anything, they have fought outside efforts to close the loophole. More on that in another article.
6. Sanctuary Cities Mask Child Trafficking
(Thomas Homan, Acting Director of I.C.E.)
“So we can’t arrest them in the jail, we can’t arrest them at their homes because they won’t open their doors and cooperate with us because they’ve been trained not to—what option does that leave us?” Homan said. “And when you’re in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago, chances are, when you pull that car over, you’re within a block or two of a school, or a church, or a hospital.”
Homan said sanctuary cities entice more illegal aliens to enter the United States and hide out in those cities. “Sanctuary cities are alien smugglers’ best friend. You don’t think the alien smuggling organizations are using that as an enticement?”
Homan said the United States spends billions of dollars a year on border security, detention, immigration courts, attorneys, and appeals courts.
So called “sanctuary cities” are Municipalities that have decided not to cooperate with Federal officials in removing illegal aliens. People without legal status are allowed access to public services such as health care, education, library privileges, and other social services. Of course, these are services that taxpaying citizens have been contributing to.
Worth noting: many jurisdictions that have such policies are done so without any democratic mandate from the people. Objectors may be gaslighted as being racist or far-right.
In the above article, I.C.E. Director Homan raises another interesting point. Sanctuary cities are perfect targets for human smuggling. And why wouldn’t they be? police officials have been instructed not to enforce the law.
In these instances, sanctuary laws are not helping children. Instead, they are being used to provide cover to predators engaging in smuggling. Curiously, Liberals will never get into this side of it.
7. Flooding Europe With Fake Refugees
(Mass sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, by “refugees”.)
In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to open Germany’s, and by extension Europe’s borders to the world. Over 1 million people came in just the first year.
Note: she was never elected to do this, nor did she ever attempt to seek a democratic mandate. Many “refugees” repaid the kindness with acts of violence and sexual assaults towards the German people, particularly the women.
Loads of this information is readily available online, so this will be skipped over for this article.
8. Pretending To Be “Child” “Refugees”
Jamal, who arrived in Sweden in August with his 16-year-old brother, isn’t the only one who noticed some rather seasoned-looking men among the 1,000-2,000 unaccompanied minors who were arriving in Sweden each week over the summer and fall. Now, in the midst of a fierce debate over asylum policy that saw Sweden backtrack on its generous open-door position late last year, Swedes are also weighing how to treat migrants who claim to be children but lack identification.
The government and the country’s Migration Agency have long been reluctant to medically test unaccompanied minors’ ages as a standard procedure. “The government has been hoping that silence about age cheating will solve the issue,” said Johansson. But now as part of the recent reversal of its open-door asylum policy, the government is considering making age-determination tests standard practice for unaccompanied minors. The test, which involves dental and wrist-bone X-rays, can usually determine a young person’s age within a one-year margin. A Justice Ministry spokesman told Foreign Policy that a proposal is expected within the next six months.
There are also videos available on the subject. The Swedes are right though. There needs to be a crackdown.
Why pretend to be a child? A few reasons. First, children are virtually impossible to deport. This means that a minor who arrives in a Western nation (whether the child claim is genuine or not) is essentially guaranteed to remain there. Another reason is that there are more financial benefits available to children, which adults would not have access to.
9. France’s Bone Scans Ruled Legal”
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED THAT:
l. Article 388 of the Civil Code, in its formulation resulting from the aforementioned Act of 14 March 2016, stipulates:
“A minor is an individual of either sex who has not yet reached the full age of eighteen years.
“Radiological bone scans used to determine age in the absence of valid identification documents and when the alleged age does not seem to correspond, can only be carried out by decision of the judicial authority and with the consent of the party concerned.
“The conclusions of these scans, that must specify their margin of error, cannot by themselves be used to determine if the party concerned is a minor. Any doubt benefits the party concerned.
“In case of doubt as to whether the party concerned is a minor, age may be evaluated through a pubertal development exam of primary and secondary sexual characteristics.”
To be fair the language is a bit sticky when it comes to consent. However, it can reasonably be seen that a refugee claimant can have an application refused if they won’t give their consent.
10. Push For Child Marriage in Europe
“Religious or cultural justifications obscure the simple fact that older, perverse men are abusing young girls,” said Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.
Monika Michell of Terre des Femmes, a women’s rights group that campaigns against child marriage, added: “A husband cannot be the legal guardian of a child bride because he is involved in a sexual relationship with her — a very obvious conflict of interest.”
The Justice Minister of Hesse, Eva Kühne-Hörmann, asked: “If underage persons — quite rightly — are not allowed to buy a beer, why should the lawmakers allow children to make such profound decisions related to marriage?”
Others said the ruling would open the floodgates of cultural conflict in Germany, as Muslims would view it as a precedent to push for the legalization of other Islamic practices, including polygamy, in the country.
This is just one instance of efforts by Muslims to have their “marriages” overseas recognized in other countries. Typically, it is of an adult man married to an adolescent or teenage girl. Muslims predictably make cries of discrimination.
However, there is a very legitimate concern for the welfare of the child. If the girl is below the age of consent, and unable to make mature decisions, why should she be getting married? Is child sexual exploitation mitigated simply by cloaking it in religion?
On the flip side, the European Court of Human Rights is making it more difficult to criticize such acts. An Austrian woman had her “religious defamation” conviction upheld, on the grounds it would upset religious peace.
Yes, don’t bother protecting children from pedophiles and exploitation. Instead, let’s prosecute people who upset the pedophiles’ feelings. Much better approach.
11. UN Global Migration Compact Enables Smuggling
This non-binding agreement was signed by Canada back in December 2018. While touted as just a “framework”, the Compact has many chilling provisions.
OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
So the UN GMC has provisions to “educate” media on the terminology and issues. And it also has the power to pull the funding for media it deems offensive. This is blatant censorship and propaganda, and flies in the face of a free media.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
20. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.
This really needs to be clarified. Will the UN be working with other nations to ensure that identification papers will be available? Or will the UN just go ahead and provide their own papers to people based on who they claim to be? And why would 1st world countries want to take in large numbers of people who haven’t had proper ID before?
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.
Translation: we are going to expand the number of pathways available to immigrate to another country. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of nations and people in those nations want less immigration. The U.N. believes that migration is by definition, good.
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
“Regardless of their migration status” is a euphemism for people who are in the country illegally. And this managing of borders sounds like control will be taken away from the host country. Who will be managing this integrated project? The UN?
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
Find other alternatives to custody. Presumably this also includes people in the country illegally, though that is not made clear. Does the public know that this removes any teeth the laws have to protect the citizens from crimes committed by migrants?
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
This is exactly what it sounds like. Migrants will be entitled to basic public services in another country, regardless of whether or not they are there illegally. Seems like something the host population should be deciding on (and voting on), don’t you think? Shouldn’t the public get a say in the matter at all.
12. UN GMC Immunizes Migrants For Smuggling
OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
25. We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law.
Interesting. The UN Global Migration Compact claims in Objectives 9 and 10 to want to combat human trafficking, yet states that migrants participating will not be subject to criminal penalties. Does this mean that even those who are complicit will also be immune?
13. Smugglers Posing As UN Staff?
The UN claims that smugglers are targeting vulnerable people by posing as UN staff.
The Agency says that reliable sources and refugees have reported criminals using vests and other items with logos similar to that of UNHCR, at disembarkation points and smuggling hubs.
Genuine UNHCR staff are present at official disembarkation points in Libya, providing medical and humanitarian assistance, such as food, water and clothes, to refugees and migrants.
UNHCR is opposed to the detention of refugees and migrants, but has staff monitoring the situation at Libyan detention centres, aiding and identifying the most vulnerable.
However, the Agency insists that they do not engage in the transfer of refugees from disembarkation points to detention centres. The reports of criminals impersonating UNHCR staff come as the situation for refugees and migrants detained or living in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has dramatically deteriorated.
Even is this story is true, the hypocrisy is ripe. The UN aids and abets “caravans” trying to overwhelm the Southern U.S. border. It gives information on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement to enter Canada. The UN helps flood Europe with African and Muslim migrants. Sure, the UN has nothing to do with smuggling people.
14. NXIVM Sex Cult, Mack, Raniere
According to the filed complaint, Raniere (who was known in the group as “The Vanguard”) oversaw the functioning of NXIVM, which operated under an archaic system: women were told the best way to advance was to become a “slave” watched over by “masters.”
They were expected to have sex with their “master” and do any and all menial chores they were ordered to do. They weren’t to tell anybody about the arrangement and risked public humiliation if they ever revealed details to any party.
According to a Global News article, Allison Mack has pleaded guilty to 2 charges and is expected to be sentenced later. The entire sex cult is now in the public eye, and more charges are expected.
15. Ray Chandler, Epstein, Pedophile Island
(Allegedly) Bill Clinton with Rachel Chandler at 14 years old
(Allegedly) Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts at 17 years old
The question to ask in crimes or suspicious deaths is always who would benefit from this individual’s death. It was mere coincidence, of course, that a day after a federal appeals court released formerly sealed records in a defamation suit linked to accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “madam” revealing names and a Bill Clinton party on Epstein’s sexual fantasy island, Jeffrey Epstein, on suicide watch after a previous attempt, is found dead of an apparent “suicide” in a secure facility that once safely housed Mexico drug lord “El Chapo” Guzmán.
Epstein had an island which he would take underage girls and older men to. The media fittingly dubbed it “Pedophile Island”. Since the story broke, new details keep coming to light.
Luckily for many people, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide (or was “suicided) when the Court decided to unseal documents which would have implicated other people in the conspiracy. The death is widely expected to be just another Clinton suicide. Nothing to see here, people.
16. Pedo Connected To Prime Minister
Ingvaldson was reported to have told the court “I have lost many things since being arrested in June, 2010; a marriage, a career that I loved, numerous friendships, respect in the community at large,” according to the ruling.
He was caught in 2010 during an international police sting using Facebook. At the time, RCMP said 11 members of the ring had been arrested in Canada, Australia and the U.K.
Ingvaldson had previously taught at another Vancouver private school, West Point Grey Academy, with federal Liberal leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau.
The Crown had asked for a six-month prison term and two years’ probation. For the next five years after his prison sentence he is not allowed to go to public parks, swimming pools or other areas where children under 16 are expected to be present, unless he is with another adult over 21. During that same period, he is not allowed to work or volunteer with children under 16 in a position of trust or authority.
Hardly the only pedo in Canadian political circles. He won’t be the last either.
17. Final Thoughts On Article
Yes, this could have gone on for much longer, and each topic could have been more in depth. However, this is more of an introduction to what is coming ahead. So, if the coverage seems light, that’s why.
The topic is disturbing. It’s sickening to see what people are capable of doing to each other.
But as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hopefully much more will be coming.
(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)
(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)
(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)
(Details of proposed global tax scheme)
(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)
(UN Environment Programme)
(Green finance for developing countries)
(International Chamber of Commerce)
(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)
(Global tax avoidance measures)
(Why stop at just billions?)
New Development Financing Proposals
SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
Carbon taxes, $240B
Leveraging SDR, $90B
Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
Billionaire tax, $90B
Currency trading tax, $30B
EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
Air passenger levy, $10B
Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
Current ODA Flow, $120B
It is no secret that we at the United Nations (the U.N.), has a rather expensive set of global goals. These goals vary from setting up a world government, to mass migration to overrun individual nations, to new development schemes, to controlling education, the media, and society as a whole.
These goals are ambitious, but as stated, expensive. Hundreds of billions of dollars (if not trillions) will be needed to accomplish this. However, people in the Western World are tired of footing the bill. Moreover, this will not be a one time thing. These influxes of cash will be required on an ongoing basis.
Most reasonable people will tell us to f*** off if they were presented with the truth about these “fundraising” schemes. Therefore, some sleight of hand will be needed. Let’s get into some of the more outrageous ideas.
In 2012, the UN released a 178 page manual titled New Development Financing. This outlined a series of “revenue generating tools” (a.k.a. taxes) which could be leveraged in order to obtain a good chunk of this money. Not a parody, or satire, but serious proposals which aim to be implemented. Of course there is this minor problem: there is no global government — yet.
One has to admire the sheer gall of this proposal. Why stop at just one method for fleecing the public, then you can incorporate a dozen or more at a time?
Socialists never tire of proposing to tax the rich, especially if those people happen to be billionaires. And why not? No one really needs billions of dollars to provide for their families. Sure, many have worked hard for that money. And certainly there will be taxes paid at some point, but that is never enough. Of course, this would involve interfering with the sovereignty of individual nations. if only there was some sort of UN Parliament to set this in motion.
Banks typically charge a monthly fee, or a transaction fee. You pay for the convenience of someone else holding onto your money. While this makes sense for the banks or credit unions, why should we stop there? Certainly a 25 cent to $2 charge per transaction could be levied onto your account by say, the Government or the U.N. The structure for banks to do it is already in place, so let’s take advantage of it. Not only should you pay a fee for local transactions, but for international ones as well. See the next section.
There are amounts withheld when currency is traded, either for cross border shopping or travel. Agencies which convert your money keep a small part for themselves. This is another great idea. Considering the climate emergency we are facing, people should have to pay a small tax for the privilege of travelling. Think of all the greenhouse gases that planes, cars, buses and trucks emit. If you must pollute the air, then at least pay the taxes when you convert your Dollars into Pounds, Euros or Yen. You’re only getting 74 cents on the dollar anyway. It won’t hurt anyone if you were suddenly only getting 72 cents.
One of our more well known initiatives is the carbon tax, which was expanded at the Paris Agreement in France. No, it’s not misleading the public to refer to it as: (a) a price on pollution; (b) being socially responsible; or (c) cleaning the air. By putting a tax on everything, this will generate at least $250B a year. Article 9 of the Accord, in particular, outlines the various ways to “scale up” the Carbon tax. This money can then be used in the commodities market to generate huge profits for certain allied groups. The climate bond industry is expected to top $100T within a decade. Think of the wealth and the possibilities that can come of that.
If your nation cannot reduce your greenhouse gases, there are Carbon credits you can purchase. This is commonly referred to as cap-and-trade. The idea is that there is no way you can meet these absurd standards without crashing your economy. We figure that you won’t actually cause the total destruction of your nation, as politicians do need someone to pay their pensions. Instead, countries can buy these credits, which are effectively a licence to pollute. Sure, this won’t help the environment, but at least you can pollute with a clear conscience. These credits will be sold to you by people whom we deem to be worthy of dispensing them. The criteria? Nothing to see here, people. Just remember to be socially responsible. If you must pollute, at least pay the fee.
Critics will whine that this has nothing to do with a cleaner atmosphere. And sure, it is incredibly wasteful when we fly tens of thousands of people annually to climate change conferences. But consider the big picture. Our conferences and expert advice will ultimately lead to lower admissions — at some point. Furthermore, we can’t do video-conferencing because …. reasons.
People with knowledge of 8th grade science have questioned whether Carbon Dioxide is really pollution. They claim it is critical for plants in the stage of photosynthesis. These science deniers blame climate change on “solar activity” and even spout out a chemical equation for photosynthesis
6CO2 + 6H2O + light ==> C6H12O6 + 6O2
Still not convinced? Just remember that according to Catherine McKenna – “If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it”.
You shouldn’t be flying (again, we are in a climate emergency). However, it’s worth noting that there are airline fees & levies on every single flight. Security fees, luggage fees, administration fees, etc… While this is a great start, there should be a fee going towards the U.N. After all, we are trying to clean up the atmosphere that your selfishness is helping to pollute. These fees will help to rid the atmosphere of pollution.
We could ban flying altogether, but then, how would we get to our annual conferences on climate change? Moreover, who would be contributing to our climate funds if we weren’t able to levy these fees? Better to charge you selfish people for polluting the air.
If we don’t flying or driving completely (and it would kill us financially to do so), why not have a certified emissions reduction tax? Let’s decide how many emissions that a vehicle should be allowed to emit, and then impose taxes for manufacturers not being able to meet those targets? We could charge fees for the manufacturer directly, then impose extra fees on the drivers and owners. After all, why should the burden only come on some parties? Are they not all involved in polluting the air.
On a larger scale, let’s establish some Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs. Basically, this would be a global fund which all nations would contribute to. Then the enlightened ones would decide how this reserve is spent, on whom, and what the criteria will be. Of course, who says the money has to spent right away? We can always leverage the SDR in a fashion similar to the climate bonds industry. Imagine the wealth that be generated by “transferring” this fund to more profitable uses. Sure, some people won’t get clean water, but life isn’t perfect.
This is a start, but the U.N. will upscale from billions to trillions in due course. After all, if countries are willing to pay for certain things, then with some guilting they will be willing to pay some more. All that is needed is the right message.
Now, as for that minor question about where the money will be spent:
Ok, sure, there is this “minor” problem of the UN having a history of corruption. And sure, you will have absolutely no control over where your money is spent once it leaves the Government. But those worries shouldn’t stop the nations from acting responsibly.
A good chunk of this money will go towards killing children in the 3rd world (a.k.a. abortion, or reproductive care). After all, what 10 year old girl who was raped by her uncle wouldn’t want an abortion? It’s more common than you might suppose — but don’t you dare blame the culture. Just think, with less children in the world, the wealth we redistribute will be shared by less people, hence enlarging each person’s individual share.
In a similar vein, we will spent money getting more women into the workforce. After all, what woman “wouldn’t” want to remain childless while working in a mindless job? Workplaces will become more gender diverse. We may even start putting women in militaries.
Education will become more inclusive. SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) schooling will now be available in children as young as 4. Think about it, chopping off your privates will mean you never have children. Females getting involved with females (as opposed to men) is a 100% effective form of birth control. Homosexuality means never worrying about an unwanted pregnancy again. But don’t worry, “reproductive care” will always be available should circumstances arise.
We will also be promoting diversity and multiculturalism in society. After all, who wouldn’t want to see their culture, traditions, customs & heritage replaced by groups that are totally foreign. Our belief is that diversity is our strength. In other words: diversity is a product of our strength, and that strength is freedom. Forced multiculturalism — without a democratic mandate — is the best way to ensure a peaceful society.
Our new Ambassador of Global Relations: Richard Codenhove-Kalergi III, will oversee the transition to a raceless society. For too long, we have been divided by immutable characteristics. Time for a one-world vision. Don’t worry, his late Grandfather had a plan.
The UN is also committed to ensuring that migration becomes a human right. No matter where you want to go, or why, we will get you there, and the host nation will pay for it. Why be denied access to a country simply because you were born somewhere else?
Sure, there’s overhead, employee salaries, marketing, and paying for global conferences. And there are the legal fees for some staff members charged with sex crimes. But at least some of the money does go towards helping people in the 3rd world.
JUST REMEMBER
“If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it”.
Hello ****,
.
1) Budget documents going back to 1995, they are available here: https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
2) The Debt Management Reports and Fiscal Reference Tables may be useful. I am still looking to see if I can find more. You may want to try reaching out to the Bank of Canada for more information.
.
Regards,
2. Second Email Back
Hello again ****,
.
After asking around, here is what I was told regarding your second question:
.
Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.
.
Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.
.
For more information, you may also wish to review the Debt Management Report 2017-2018 (e.g., Chart 9) at https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp.
.
Hope this helps.
.
Regards,
3. Information On Debt Summary
This chart, and the information from it is provided by the sources which the Ministry of Finance has provided here.
Chart 1
Snapshot of the Federal Balance Sheet, as at March 31, 2018
Unmatured debt
.
Market debt
$704.3 billion
.
(marketable bonds, treasury bills, retail debt, and foreign currency debt)
Market debt value adjustments and capital lease obligations
$16.9 billion
. Other liabilities
.
Pensions and other liabilities
$281.4 billion
.
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$154.8 billion
. Total Liabilities $1,157.4 billion
.
Less financial assets
$398.6 billion (cash, reserves, loans)
.
Net debt
$758.8 billion
.
Less non-financial assets
$87.5 billion (capital assets)
.
Federal debt
$671.3 billion (accumulated deficit)
The staff was helpful enough to direct me to this table, and hence, the data within it. Now, let’s see how much interest or “Public Debt Charges” we have been paying off since 1966.
Year
Interest ($Mil)
Cum. Since 1966
1966-67
1,162
1,162
1967-68
1,286
2,448
1968-69
1,464
3,912
1969-70
1,694
5,606
1970-71
1,887
7,493
1971-72
2,110
9,603
1972-73
2,110
11,703
1973-74
2,565
14,278
1974-75
3,238
17,516
1975-76
3,970
21,486
1976-77
4,708
26,194
1977-78
5,531
31,725
1978-79
7,024
38,749
1979-80
8,494
47,243
1980-81
10,658
57,901
1981-82
15,114
73,015
1982-83
16,903
89,918
1983-84
20,430
110,348
1984-85
20,430
110,348
1985-86
27,657
138,005
1986-87
28,718
166,723
1987-88
31,233
197,956
1988-89
35,532
233,488
1989-90
41,246
274,734
1990-91
45,034
319,768
1991-92
43,861
363,629
1992-93
41,332
404,961
1993-94
40,099
445,060
1994-95
44,185
489,245
1995-96
49,407
538,652
1996-97
47,281
585,933
1997-98
43,120
629,053
1998-99
43,303
672,356
1999-00
43,384
715,740
2000-01
43,384
715,740
2001-02
39,651
755,391
2002-03
37,270
792,661
2003-04
35,769
828,430
2004-05
43,384
871,814
2005-06
33,772
905,586
2006-07
33,945
939,531
2007-08
33,325
972,856
2008-09
28,269
1,001,125
2009-10
26,652
1,027,687
2010-11
28,610
1,056,297
2011-12
29,038
1,085,335
2012-13
25,533
1,110,868
2013-14
24,729
1,135,597
2014-15
24,207
1,159,804
2015-16
21,837
1,181,641
2016-17
21,232
1,202,873
2017-18
21,889
1,224,762
Note: This only applies to interest payments on the NATIONAL debt. The Provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, have been piling on their own debt.
To be fair, we can largely exclude the payments before 1974, which is when Trudeau Sr. forced fiat banking on Canada. That would remove $14,278M. leaving Canada with $1,210,484 in interest paid as of 2018. $1.21 trillion, just in interest (or public debt charges).
Although I didn’t get names of specific bond holders, it was not a total loss. Our debt is bought an sold, just like a collections agent would do, and about 30% is sold to foreign buyers.
5. No Political Will To End Debt
Although political parties pay lip service to the idea of balancing a budget, they tap-dance around the idea of paying it off.
Why though? If merely “balancing the budget” means paying interest payments forever, why is that all that is talked about? Why is this open-ended drain on the public purse not discussed?
Anyone who has ever held a credit card knows that it is senseless to let the charges keep accumulating. Eventually, the interest and fees will exceed the cost of the initial charge.
So why DON’T politicians want to get rid of our debt? Are these “interest” payments really a form of money laundering? Are they being told (or paid off) not to get rid of the debt?
6. Reason Behind The Debt: PRIVATE Borrowing
The idea of dumping central (fiat banking) is never brought up. Even so called “deficit hawks” never address the reason of why this exists is the first place. They never talk about the Bank for International Settlements, nor do they discuss the Basel Committee.
In 1974, Pierre Trudeau changed Canada’s monetary system, and did so without a democratic mandate. Since the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, the Federal Government had effectively been borrowing money from itself. This meant that interest payments amounted to the Canadian public being paid. See PART 1 of the series for more information.
However, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing from private lenders. Quite simply, we now have to pay other parties, instead of ourselves.
The reason for doing this has never been made clear. Vague claims have been made about stability of currency and inflation control. But a cause-and-effect has never actually been demonstrated. Nor has any benefit been shown that would counter the endless repayments, and ever growing debt.
And while this article is aimed at the Federal Government, the Provinces do not get a pass. More on them in another article.
7. Who’s Pushing For Continuation Of Scheme?
Remember this quote from the Ministry of Finance. Though specific people, institutions and parties were not named, it is reasonable to assume that this is a profitable business. After all, it is buying and selling — and reselling — national debt on the open market.
Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.
Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.
The Ministry has been contacted again asking for specific names. If they won’t release any, then perhaps a freedom of information request will be needed. However, it’s unwise to drop names without any proof.
It’s reasonable to believe that the people profiting the most from this scheme are the ones pushing to keep fiat going. If any specifics are provided, they will be added as an update.
