There is tons of information on these 3 articles. Rather than rehashing or recreating what they have, here are the links to look for yourself.
3. Coronavirus Patent Application in 2015 (Pirbright)
This may come across as a conspiracy theory (and it sounds like one), but let’s take a look into the patent that Pirbright Institute recently obtained.
Patent number: 10130701
Filed: Jul 23, 2015
Date of Patent: Nov 20, 2018
Patent Publication Number: 20170216427 Assignee: THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE (Woking, Pirbright)
Inventors: Erica Bickerton (Woking), Sarah Keep (Woking), Paul Britton (Woking)
Primary Examiner: Bao Q Li
Application Number: 15/328,179
Jul 23, 2015 – THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease.
Coronaviruses are divided into four groups, as shown below:
Canine coronavirus (CCoV)
Feline coronavirus (FeCoV)
Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)
Porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV)
Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV)
Human Coronavirus NL63 (NL or New Haven)
Bovine coronavirus (BCoV)
Canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV)—Common in SE Asia and Micronesia
Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV)
Porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV)
Rat coronavirus (Roy). Rat Coronavirus is quite prevalent in Eastern Australia where, as of March/April 2008, it has been found among native and feral rodent colonies.
(No common name as of yet) (HCoV-HKU1)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)
Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)
Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV)
Turkey coronavirus (Bluecomb disease virus)
Guinea fowl coronavirus
Bulbul coronavirus (BuCoV)
Thrush coronavirus (ThCoV)
Munia coronavirus (MuCoV)
Porcine coronavirus (PorCov) HKU15
More information is available here, but the point is this: the coronaviruses were (allegedly) modified to help cure other diseases, such as bronchitis.
The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an alphacoronavirus such as TGEV; a betacoronavirus such as MHV; or a gammacoronavirus such as IBV.
As used herein the term “derived from” means that the replicase gene comprises substantially the same nucleotide sequence as the wild-type replicase gene of the relevant coronavirus. For example, the variant replicase gene of the present invention may have up to 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identity with the wild type replicase sequence. The variant coronavirus replicase gene encodes a protein comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16 when compared to the wild-type sequence of the non-structural protein.
This new version is apparently a derivative of an alpha, beta, or gamma coronavirus already in existence. I’ve been told this Wuhan coronavirus has nothing to do with Pirbright’s patent or work. Although the patent information states that the patented version may contain 80-99% of the wildtype replicase sequence.
The variant is essentially a mutation in 1 (or more) non-structural proteins.
Still, one heck of a coincidence to be doing so much research into a specific area and then something else emerges. It will become apparent why soon.
4. Pirbright Institute’s Other Patents
Attenuated African swine fever virus vaccine
Patent number: 10507237
Abstract: The present invention provides an attenuated African Swine Fever (ASF) virus which lacks a functional version of the following genes: multigene-family 360 genes 9L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L and 14L; and multigene-family 505 genes 1R, 2R, 3R and 4R. The invention further provides an attenuated African Swine Fever (ASF) virus which lacks a functional version of the DP148R gene. The present invention also provides a vaccine comprising such an attenuated virus and its use to prevent ASF. Further, the invention relates to intranasal administration of an attenuated ASF virus.
Filed: June 19, 2015
Date of Patent: December 17, 2019
Assignee: The Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Charles Abrams, Ana-Luisa Reis, Chris Netherton, Linda Dixon, Dave Chapman, Pedro Sanchez-Cordon
Stabilised FMDV capsids
Patent number: 10294277
Abstract: The present invention relates to the stabilization of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsids, by specific substitution of amino acids in a specific region of FMDV VP2. The invention provides stabilized FMDV capsids and vaccines against FMD.
Filed: March 25, 2014
Date of Patent: May 21, 2019
Assignee: The Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Abhay Kotecha, David Stuart, Elizabeth Fry, Robert Esnouf
Stabilised FMDV Capsids
Publication number: 20190135874
Abstract: The present invention relates to the stabilisation of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsids, by specific substitution of amino acids in a specific region of FMDV VP2. The invention provides stabilised FMDV capsids and vaccines against FMD.
Filed: January 17, 2019
Publication date: May 9, 2019
Applicant: Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Abhay Kotecha, David Stuart, Elizabeth Fry, Robert Esnouf
Chicken cells for improved virus production
Patent number: 10202578
Abstract: The present Invention provides as avian cell in which the expression or activity of one or more of the following genes, or a homologue thereof: Chicken IFITM 1 (SEQ ID No. 1); Chicken IFITM2 (SEQ ID No. 2) and Chicken IFITM3 (SEQ ID No. 3) is reduced. The invention also provides methods for passaging viruses in avian cells, embryos and/or avian cell lines which have reduced expression of one or more IFITM genes and methods which involve investigating the sequence of one or more of the following genes, or a homologue thereof: Chicken IFITM1 (SEQ ID No. 1); Chicken IFITM2 (SEQ ID No. 2) and Chicken IFITM3 (SEQ ID No. 3).
Filed: June 3, 2014
Date of Patent: February 12, 2019
Assignee: THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
Inventors: Mark Fife, Mark Gibson
That is just a few patents that The Pirbright Institute has. Now it seems harmless enough. But what happens if or when one of their creations becomes weaponized and turned against the public?
5. Gates Foundation Finances Pirbright Inst.
Researchers from The Pirbright Institute have been awarded US $5.5 million by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to establish a Livestock Antibody Hub aimed at improving animal and human health globally. The ambitious programme of work will see extensive collaboration between multiple UK research organisations in order to utilise research outcomes in livestock disease and immunology to support human health as part of the ‘One Health’ agenda.
Six leading scientists from Pirbright will be involved in the project, including Professor John Hammond, Professor Venugopal Nair, Dr Simon Graham, Dr Elma Tchilian, Professor Munir Iqbal and Dr Erica Bickerton. Their combined expert knowledge will drive the study of cattle, pig and poultry antibody responses at high resolution to expand our understanding of protective immunity in species that can also be used as models for a range of human infectious diseases.
The aim is to use Pirbright’s expertise in livestock viral diseases, cutting-edge technology and unique high-containment facilities to bring antibody discovery, manipulation and testing up to the benchmark already seen in the immunological field for rodents and humans. “New tools have given us the opportunity to utilise these detailed antibody responses to make the next generation of vaccines and therapies” said research lead Professor Hammond.
This highly collaborative work will address the needs of the livestock research community whilst bridging the requirements of the vaccine industry. A number of work programmes will focus on studying B cells and antibodies at multiple scales including gene expression, single cell function and the entire antibody response.
Findings from this research will be used to drive vaccine selection and design and test antibody therapies, “which will improve animal health and ultimately human health, as well as ensuring the security of our food supply”, finished Professor Hammond. Pirbright will ultimately act as a ‘Hub’ able to provide specific methods, access to animal models and the associated expertise to drive antibody research within the ‘One Health’ agenda.
“This is the single biggest investment in the immunology of livestock in the UK from an international funder, and the British Society for Immunology will do all we can to support this collaborative initiative and help maximise its impact for the benefit of human and animal health”, commented Dr Doug Brown, Chief Executive of the British Society for Immunology
A major contributor to Pirbright Institute is the Gates Foundation, headed by Bill and Melinda Gates. Yes, those Gates. But why is that an issue? What’s wrong with a wealthy couple contributing to help prevent infectious diseases?
Let’s put it this way: Bill Gates has some views that are (mildly) controversial. He has gone on record with comments that suggest be supports human depopulation — reducing the number of people on Earth. Could this be a way to accomplish that goal?
6. Cull The Population To Save Planet?
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, clip from video)
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, entire video)
(Bill Gates, improved health care, overpopulation)
(Bill Gates: health and population correlation)
(Bill Gates: vaccines and Ebola virus)
Yes, Gates flouts the sales pitch that improving health results in less population. His stated reasoning is that people will simply have less children if they know the kids are more likely to survive into adulthood.
Problem is, that hasn’t fared out. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Improvements in health have lead to an exploding population. Granted, their goal (those who are Muslim) is to outbreed and eventually overrun every nation on Earth. But the population drop Gates claims simply isn’t a reality.
Now, is this simply an attitude that Bill Gates has, or has he taken any steps to estimate how the population could be reduced? Instead of lowering birth rates, perhaps there is a simpler and more direct method.
7. Bill Gates Running “Death Scenario”
A viral pandemic could kill 65 million people
Toner’s simulation imagined a fictional virus called CAPS. The analysis, part of a collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, looked at what would happen if a pandemic originated in Brazil’s pig farms. (The Wuhan virus originated in a seafood market that sold live animals.)
The virus in Toner’s simulation would be resistant to any modern vaccine. It would be deadlier than SARS, but about as easy to catch as the flu.
The pretend outbreak started small: Farmers began coming down with symptoms that resembled the flu or pneumonia. From there, the virus spread to crowded and impoverished urban neighborhoods in South America.
Flights were canceled, and travel bookings dipped by 45%. People disseminated false information on social media.
After six months, the virus had spread around the globe. A year later, it had killed 65 million people.
Sure, this is all just a simulation. It’s just an academic exercise.
Of course, for people like Bill Gates, who claim that Carbon Dioxide has to be cut to save the planet, one has to wonder what his actual goals are. As outlined extensively in the CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM series, Carbon Dioxide isn’t pollution. This whole “industry” is very much a cash grab.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding. CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff. CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97. CLICK HERE, for Part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s explanation of CCS. CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”. CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney’s new UN role. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV(II), Carney, CCX, Goldman, Central Banking. CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.
So why is Gates pushing an obviously false narrative? Why claim that improving the health of people in Africa and the Middle East will result in a reduced birthrate and lower population? Why claim that Carbon Dioxide is a pollution that will harm the planet?
Is it just a coincidence this “simulation” happened just months before the real thing? Or was this a calculated test run?
8. CBC: Nothing To See Here, People
Public Health Agency of Canada describes it as a possible ‘policy breach,’ no risk to Canadian public
Sure, just a policy breach. Just some minor bureaucratic error that went on. Surely nothing that the peons have to concern themselves with.
“All of this is unproven, but even microbiology, sometimes especially microbiology, can have issues that involve national security.”
It’s something the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has already warned about, said Leah West, who teaches national security law at Carleton’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
“Canada is facing threats from foreign governments seeking to steal intellectual property and that could include state-funded research,” she said.
“The two big things I want to see is whether or not these individuals are charged with crimes by the RCMP …that will give us a lot of information about what is really at stake here.”
West is also interested in seeing how this plays out politically between Canada and the Chinese government.
Sure there’s nothing to worry about. China is a hostile country who kidnapped 2 of our citizens after we locked up one of their spies (Meng). But why should this, or anything else, prohibit the Chinese from getting such clearance into Canadian facilities?
Let’s be clear: diversity is a lie. The vast majority of people’s strongest ties are with those who they share an ethnic (racial) bond with. Letting Chinese nationals into confidential Canadian labs under the guise of “cooperation and diversity”, is coming national suicide.
One has to wonder if the Canadian Government is really trying to kill us with what they allow to happen
9. Depopulation The Real Goal?
This could all be an extremely wild and unlikely coincidence, but it’s difficult to take on the surface. Too much money at stake, and other nations have an agenda.
For people who (claim to) believe that there are too many people on the planet, and that climate change is inevitable, we must ask a question: what would they be willing to do to stop it?
Is potentially killing millions (or billions) of people a way to save the planet by cutting emissions? Even though the climate change scam is based on lies? There is more here than what the public is being told.
And while you’re at it, go check out Civilian Intelligence Network.
On a semi-serious ending, doesn’t the outbreak of Wuhan Coronavirus come across like this (fictional) movie series of Resident Evil?
(Goldman Sachs Exec-VP John Rogers served in Reagan Administration)
(Fox covered the collapse of Chicago Carbon Exchange)
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance.
The CCX was set up in 2000 in anticipation of the United States joining Europe and other countries around the world to create a market that would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Under the system, factories, utilities and other businesses would be given an emissions target. Those that emitted less fewer regulated gases than their target could sell the “excess” to someone who was above target. Each year, the target figures would be reset lower.
The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time.
After the Democrats won the White House, the House and the Senate in 2008, businesses and investors flocked to the exchange, believing Congress would quickly approve the program. And it almost happened.
This is a huge conflict of interest to be involved in. Barry Soetoro, (a.k.a. Barrack Obama) was a Director for an organization that helped establish the Chicago Climate Exchange. His policies (had it passed), been able to drive a great deal of consumer and tax money to the scheme.
CCX will administer this pilot program for emission sources, farm and forest carbon sinks, offset projects and liquidity providers in North America. To foster international emissions trading, offset providers in Brazil can also participate. The development of CCX resulted from feasibility and design studies that were funded by grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation and administered by Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Environmental Financial Products, LLC conducted the research and development effort.
John Rogers serves as Executive Vice President, the firm’s Chief of Staff and Secretary to the Board of Directors. He oversees Executive Administration and is responsible for the firm’s corporate affairs functions, including public, investor and government relations, as well as corporate engagement. Mr. Rogers is a member of the Management Committee, Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee and Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee. He is also Chairman of the Goldman Sachs Foundation. Mr. Rogers joined Goldman Sachs in 1994. He was named Managing Director in 1997 and Partner in 2000.
Previously, Mr. Rogers served as Under Secretary of State for Management at the US Department of State from 1991 to 1993. From 1988 to 1991, he was Executive Vice President of the Oliver Carr Company. Earlier, Mr. Rogers served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1987 and as an Assistant to the President of the United States at the White House from 1981 to 1985.
John Rogers is Executive Vice President for Goldman Sachs, and spent time in the Reagan and George Bush Sr. administrations. He is very politically connected.
Ms. Smith previously served on the US Treasury Department’s Commission on the Auditing Industry. She is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Another Vice President of Goldman Sachs, Sarah Smith, also is a former member of the U.S. Government. She previously served in the Treasury Department.
Previously, Ms. Hammack was Global Head of Short Term Macro trading and global Repo trading. This included franchise market making in short dated G10 interest rate swaps, FX forwards, cross currency basis and repo. Before that, she was Co-Head of US Interest Rate Products cash trading, which included government bonds, agencies and mortgage pass-throughs. Ms. Hammack joined Goldman Sachs in 1993 as an Analyst in Capital Markets and then moved to the Interest Rate Products trading desk, where she traded a variety of instruments focused primarily on options and later agencies. She was named Managing Director in 2003 and Partner in 2010.
Ms. Hammack is Chair of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee and a member of the Treasury Market Practices Group. She also serves on the board of Math for America.
Secretary Paulson arrived at Treasury in July 2006 well prepared for the challenges he would face. He came from a 32-year career in finance with a leading global investment bank, Goldman Sachs, where he served eight years as Chairman and CEO. Paulson assembled a team of experienced professionals and reinstituted regular meetings of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The coordinated efforts of the PWG’s financial regulators would later prove critical to the U.S. government’s ability to prevent the collapse of the financial system.
Secretary Paulson’s non-partisan leadership enabled him to convince Congress to grant the unprecedented emergency powers necessary to stem the crisis. Looking to the future, Secretary Paulson and his Treasury team crafted a regulatory blueprint to fix an outdated financial regulatory structure, including reforms that ultimately became part of the Dodd/Frank financial reform legislation that would eventually be signed into law by President Obama.
Together with President Bush, Secretary Paulson established the G20 as the premier leaders’ forum for global financial reform and economic recovery, guiding the work of the first Summit that established the roadmap for future leaders meetings.
Yet another Goldman Sachs executive who ended up working for the Treasury Department. In fact, he was Treasury Secretary.
Formerly Gensler was chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, leading the Obama Administration’s reform of the $400 trillion swaps market. He also was senior advisor to US Senator Paul Sarbanes in writing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) and was Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration. In recognition for his service, he was awarded Treasury’s highest honor, the Alexander Hamilton Award. He is a recipient of the 2014 Frankel Fiduciary Prize.
Gensler is currently a member of the New York Fed Fintech Advisory Group and was chairman of the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission (2017-2019). He has worked on various political campaigns, most recently as CFO for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, as a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and subsequently as an economic advisor for the Obama 2008 campaign.
Prior to his public service, Gensler worked at Goldman Sachs (1979-1997), having become a partner in the Mergers & Acquisition department, headed the firm’s Media Group, led fixed income & currency trading in Asia, and lastly co-headed Finance, being responsible for the firm’s worldwide Controllers and Treasury efforts.
John Rogers worked for the Reagan Administration.
John Rogers worked for the George Bush Sr. Administration.
Gensler worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 presidential run.
Henry Paulson worked for George Bush Jr.
Henry Paulson’s work was used in Obama Administration.
Gensler worked for the Obama Admin, Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Steve Bannon works for the Trump Administration.
Sarah Smith served in the Treasury Department.
Beth Hammack served in the Treasury Department.
7. Australian PM, Goldman Sachs Partner
Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull was a partner in Goldman Sachs. No surprise, he pushed an energy policy which advances a carbon tax in all but the name. No surprise since Goldman Sachs is a huge beneficiary to the climate change scam.
8. Euro Central Bank, Goldman Sachs Exec.
Goldman Sachs Executive Mario Draghi has now been at the European Central Bank for 8 years now. It should surprise no one that the ECB supports the climate change agenda, and promotes various measures
9. Mark Carney, BoC, BoE, Goldman Sachs
As addressed in this previous post, Mark Carney is leaving the Bank of England for a UN position.
On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.
We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020
Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.
Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.
It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?
Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.
A charitable take might be that Carney will lobby for more Carbon taxes to fund this scheme. A less charitable view might be that Carney will use his considerable power and influence to force nations to pay up.
And in keeping with the theme so far, Mark Carney was a Director at Goldman Sachs prior to working at the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, and now the UN.
10. Goldman Sachs, Chicago, CCX, White House Conspiracy
An interesting blogpost by Bob Beauprez ties a lot of it together, and connects the major players in this climate change scam. Please read the actual posting.
By Bob Beauprez
When it was announced that the leaders of Goldman Sachs would be sitting in front of Congress, getting grilled over the financial crisis, most people knew it was nothing more than an opportunity for politicians to grandstand while beating down a straw man.
But this? A corruption scandal that is bigger than any other in the history of the United States. It could explain the “why” behind the “Climategate” scandal that broke last year but was ignored by the American mainstream media. Not only are several former Goldman Sachs executives working inside the Obama administration, but the banking giant has a 10% stake in cap and trade technology via the Chicago Climate Exchange, an entity that Barack Obama helped form as a Board member of the Joyce Foundation.
Political commentator and former Colorado Congressman, Bob Beauprez (R), has gotten an insider’s look at political theater, but when the congressional hearings that took place with Goldman Sachs executives is viewed through the lens of this kind of conspiracy, it sheds a whole new light on what is really going on behind the curtain.
Glenn Beck broke the story on his April 26th television show and regardless of how you view Beck, the odds of all these connections between all of these entities, tying each back to a $15 Trillion scam are far too long to be strictly a coincidence.
Here are the players and their roles:
Joyce Foundation – A group founded in 1948 that took a sharp turn to the left after it’s founder, Beatrice Joyce Kean died in 1972. Barack Obama – President of the United States and one time Board member of the Joyce Foundation. Largely responsible for creating the Chicago Climate Exchange by funneling money to it from the Joyce Foundation. Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) – An exchange dealing exclusively with Cap and Trade passes, techonology, etc. It was formed largely due to Obama’s role as Board member on Joyce Foundation. Obama oversaw the funneling of money from that foundation to the CCX as well as to an entity headed by Bill Ayers’ brother. Valerie Jarrett – Senior advisor to Barack Obama and current Board member on the Joyce Foundation. Al Gore – Founder of London-based Generation Investment Management (GIM). London also happens to be in the same country where climategate broke. GIM owns 10% of the CCX. Goldman Sachs – Banking giant that, like Gore, owns 10% of the CCX. Also worthy of note is that at least six former Goldman Sachs executives work inside the Obama administration while Congress puts on a dog and pony show, publicly chastising other Goldman execs about their supposed complicity in the financial crisis. Franklin Raines – Former head of Fannie Mae. While there, Raines used taxpayer dollars from Fannie Mae to purchase cap and trade technology.
11. More On: Goldman, Chicago, CCX, White House
Another blogpost, called what really happened, further details the collusion and corruption between the Obama Administration, the City of Chicago, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Goldman Sachs, and the Clintons. Please check that out as well.
The connections between these parties are too great to ignore. The entire climate change industry is a scam, where environmentalism is used as a sales pitch.
So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.
Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.
The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team.
(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).
When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.
Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding.Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).
Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.
Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.
Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).
This blog, as with the last one, I do not claim to own. You should go check out the sites on your own for further information.
12. It’s All A Scam
Despite the media and political hype, this is a scam, and has been since day one. There is a collusion between corrupt parties who are ripping off the public based entirely on lies. Who are they? Well, the above 2 sections outline it pretty well.
Taxing the public and funnelling that money was never meant to prevent global warming, or climate change, or help the environment in any way. It was always a scam to fleece the public under the pretense of doing good.
(CBC article openly suggesting population control & reduction)
(Tracking world population over time)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the CBC article on population control.
Previous CBC Propaganda Articles CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #1, Canada must have 100 million people by the year 2100. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #2, Europe should have open borders. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #3, Islam not responsible for Islamic violence. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #4, The Wage Gap. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #5: Borders Are Pointless. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #6: State Supplied Drugs For Addicts. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #7: UN’s Call to Welcome Back ISIS fighters. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #8: Walls Are Useless. Don’t Bother. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #9: “Conspiring” With Free Speech Activist. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #10: World Hijab Day, celebrating a symbol of oppression as “diversity”. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #11: A Hit Piece That Conflates Sarcasm With Sincerity. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #12: Judy Sgro Shrugs Off Ethics Concerns. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #13, Charities Free To Engage In Political Spending. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #14, encouraging total demographic replacement of Canadians. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #15, free drugs for prison inmates. CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #16, $2B of Pension Fund Spent in Mumbai, India.
2. Spoiler: Climate Change Industry A Scam
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I. CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding. CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff. CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97. CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord.
As has been thoroughly explained and documented here previously, the climate change industry is a business. The entire “industry” requires deceiving the public in order to be successful. At the heart of it is a business opportunity: to make a lot of money at the expense of preying on people’s good intentions.
While profit is certainly a plausible motive for running this scam, the article suggests another. Is population reduction and control the real motivation behind creating this “crisis”?
3. U.N. Population Replacement Agenda
CLICK HERE, for tracing the steps of U.N. population replacement agenda over the last 50 years. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974. CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide. CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”. CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity. CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration. CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.
UN webpages worth a read CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website. CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies. CLICK HERE, for participant contact info. CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline. CLICK HERE, for various conferences. CLICK HERE, for the “About” page. CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division. CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.
4. Quotes From The Article
Climate change has taken global centre stage in recent months following three reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that paint a dire picture of the future should governments fail to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It has been predicting the end of the world for decades. Not to brag, but we’re still here. This is more fearmongering.
But when the discussion turns to modifying our behaviours in order to reduce CO2 emissions in order to keep the planet from warming 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold that would result in widespread damage, one word creeps up more often than not: overpopulation.
You need Carbon Dioxide (CO2), to sustain plant life.
The argument is that if there were fewer people on Earth, greenhouse gases would be reduced and climate change could be averted. But experts say population control isn’t the panacea some think it might be.
“It is a very complicated, multifaceted relationship. Population issues certainly are an important dimension of how society will unfold, how society will be able to cope with this crisis over the course of this century,” said Kathleen Mogelgaard, a consultant on population dynamics and climate change and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.
A consultant on both:
(a) climate change; and
(b) population dynamics?
What could possibly go wrong?
“But it’s not a silver bullet, and it’s certainly not the main cause of climate change. And fully addressing population growth is not, on its own, going to be able to solve the climate crisis. But it is an important piece of the puzzle.“
“Is population an issue in climate change? Absolutely. Is it underreported, underrated, under-talked-about as an issue in climate change? Absolutely,” Engelman said. “If it were just Adam and Eve on the planet, they could fly a 747 around the world 24/7 and heat Mar-a-Lago and 25 other homes with coal, and it wouldn’t make a difference.”
But he notes population control alone “won’t solve” climate change.
Alone. Key word. It will take more than just population control. That implies that it will be part of the solution.
“It’s one of a number of things that needs to be considered as we try to address or respond to this incredibly difficult problem that the world is facing. There’s no one thing that’s going to do it.”
No. People like yourself should stay away from writing, and of public policy in general. Your ideas are harmful to society as a whole.
Concern about overpopulation has been rather long-standing. One of the most familiar arguments, by Thomas Robert Malthus, dates back to 1798. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus wrote that population growth would eventually surpass our ability to provide sustenance for the masses — a belief now known as Malthusianism.
The fear of overpopulation has even seeped into our pop culture: In the recent Marvel movies Avengers: Infinity War, the villain, Thanos, wants to eliminate half of the universe’s population in order to end suffering, such as starvation.
But Bricker believes it’s gone too far.
He’s particularly irked by recent stories about youth pledging not to have children; while many talk of fears over what the world will look like in the generations to come, still others point to population concerns.
The other thing to take into consideration about our growing population is that the issue isn’t so much about births, but rather about dying. Or more accurately not dying. Today, people are living longer.
So, should we withhold health care in certain cases in order to sped up the dying? Sort of sounds like the medical death squads Obamacare critics feared would come.
In China, for example, the average person lived to age 40 in 1950, Bricker said. According to the World Bank, the country’s average life expectancy is now 76.5, and by the mid-2030s, the average person should live to 80.
Access and education
One of the universal calls to prevent the global population from ballooning is to better educate women, particularly in developing countries.
“The key to achieving slower population growth is best done through a rights-based approach that includes educating girls and providing universal access to family planning and reproductive health services,” said Mogelgaard. “That is the best and most sustainable way to achieve reductions in fertility that leads to slower population growth.”
To anyone who doesn’t know “reproductive health services” is often a euphemism used to mean “abortion”. Slow the population growth by promoting abortion.
“Per capita is important,” he said. “One-third of the population already have lower per capita CO2 emissions than we do, and they’re dropping faster.”
Serious question: what happens when you reduce CO2 to the point where plant life is not sustainable anymore? Are you that dense, or is it just an excuse to promote your taxes and globalist agenda?
Instead of looking at population control as the biggest factor in the battle against climate change, experts say it’s about looking at better education for women, adopting cleaner energy and changing our overall consumption patterns, especially in developed countries.
Not ruling out the idea of population control and reduction, just saying there are some other approaches to consider as well.
There is no single solution.
“Just because we slow population growth, if we continue to use coal-fired power plants to generate electricity, or if we continue to cut down forests at the rate that we’re cutting down forests, those are going to be challenges regardless what the population is,” said Mogelgaard.
So population control and reduction is not the only solution, but apparently it is part of the puzzle. Yay, I suppose.
5. Photosynthesis Explained
This video explains the process of photosynthesis very well, and very quickly. This so-called “pollution”, Carbon Dioxide, is a critical part of that chemical process.
6. Population Control Read Agenda
Photosynthesis is a process that plants engage in to convert CO2 and H2O into sugars. It is necessary to sustain life. Remove the Carbon Dioxide and this does not work. Why engage in such obviously junk science unless there was some other goal?
As has been outlined previously, one of the main goals to use the money generated in Carbon taxes and other U.N. schemes to generate a slush fund which can create more wealth. In short, the public is being forced to subsidize these investment schemes.
Of course, the United Nations has been studying population dynamics since the 1950s. And guess what the solution they always propose? More immigration from the 3rd World to the 1st.
If Western nations were to indulge in population control, as suggested by the author, will we then be subjected to a bait-and-switch? Will lower birth rates be used as an excuse to import more of the 3rd World?
(U.N. decided that replacing the populations of certain nations is more important than promoting higher birth rates.)
(Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples)
(Replacement migration schemes violate Convention On Genocide)
(The outlines of a variety of globalist wealth schemes)
(Agenda 2030, global socialism)
(Plans for the global regulation of the internet)
(Global Citizenship Education. Post nation-state?)
(The ultimate goal is a world government)
While there are an almost endless number of reasons to leave the United Nations, this essay focuses on some of the more obvious ones.
Any true patriot, or nationalist, should be alarmed at the increasing loss of our sovereignty to the U.N. It is done incrementally, which makes it even more dangerous. Previous articles, along with the corresponding links and citations are available on the website. In no particular order, here are the arguments in favour of exiting the UN permanently, and completely.
In December 2018, Canada signed the UN Global Migration Compact in Morocco. This “non-binding” agreement was to set new guidelines in managing mass migration, including some 258 million people now. The prelude to this was the New York Declaration, signed in 2016. These agreements were to confer new rights upon migrants, even those coming illegally. They were also to establish the UN as the global manager of migration.
Note: Canada signs many “non-binding” agreements. Many have been domestically implemented by Governments in Canada, meaning they are not so “non-binding” after all.
However, the Global Migration Compact is a soft target, and obscures the ongoing problem. the push by the UN for almost unending immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st predates that by far. As early back as the 1970s (and likely much longer), the UN has hosted conferences on “replacement migration” in the West. Their solution is never to boost the birth rates of the West. Rather, the solution is always more immigration, regardless of cultural compatibility.
This flies in the face of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. That 2008 agreement “Recogniz[ed] the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.” Few, if any, Indigenous groups have supported the mass importation of peoples and cultures which are very different from their own.
While the text of the agreement seems fine on the surface, there is a conflict with other UN goals. How exactly are these Indigenous Peoples going to have those rights preserved in the face of mass migration? Consider that many nations govern by majority. By importing large numbers of immigrants with different goals and interests than the Indigenous ones, how will that help? How will diluting their numbers, political and voting power (via mass migration), aid Indigenous Peoples?
UNDRIP raises 2 other questions: (I) Is it only those Indigenous Peoples who have the right to a unique culture and identity, or do others get one as well? (II) Will any industrial or developmental projects be subject to veto power under the agreement? Unfortunately, it answers neither.
While claiming to respect border security and national sovereignty, the actions of the UN speak differently. This includes efforts to facilitate efforts of illegal aliens to enter countries, such as financing and organizing. This is done KNOWING that the host countries do not want illegal entry. In short, the UN aids in invasions of sovereign nations. Furthermore, little to no efforts are made to prevent smuggling or trafficking of people.
3 examples of this include: (a) crossing into Canada via a loophole in the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement; (b) caravans trying to enter the US via the border with Mexico; and (c) entering Southern Europe, typically through Greece, Italy, France or Spain.
Interestingly, the UN violates its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It specifically lists:
(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.
The UN encourages people in Western nations to have less children, and gives reasons such as preventing climate change. This leads to a lower birth rate. The UN also facilitates mass migration from the 3rd World to the 1st, effectively bringing about rapid demographic change. The UN directly and indirectly attempts to circumvent borders and valid immigration restrictions. Naturally, the UN promotes multiculturalism and tolerance, instead of respecting the host nations.
It can also be plausibly argued that UN efforts to censor criticism of Islam (and the dangers it poses) amount to aiding and abetting with the destruction of religious groups.
And no, this is not sarcasm. Mass migration and replacement migration efforts by the UN bring about the same demographic changes that its Convention on Genocide specifically prohibits. It isn’t necessary to go out and execute a group of people to partake in genocide.
Speaking of criticizing Islam, one alarming initiative is the push to ban so-called religious defamation. Officially, it is to prevent discrimination and harm based on religious affiliation. Despite its harmless sounding name, this is an initiative to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale. Non-binding motions have passed, but have never been implemented, primarily due to free speech concerns. The truth behind the facade is that Islam is an extremely political religion, if it even is a religion. Banning legitimate concerns from being addressed helps those political goals. Much easier to advance an agenda if critics are forcibly silenced.
Canada signed Paris Agreement (a.k.a Paris Accord), again touted as “non-binding”. This agreement would restrict the levels of so-called greenhouse gases a nation is allowed to emit. The developed and developing world would be held to different standards, making the agreement inherently unfair. Note: Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not pollution. Conservative Premiers in Canada have challenged the jurisdiction of the Carbon taxes, while going along with the scam in principle.
While touted as a way to prevent a global catastrophe, the Paris Agreement is really just a revenue generating tool for the UN. Article 9 goes into depth about the “financial mechanisms” and the “financial flow”. The money generated would then be funnelled to the UN, and used to generate trillions more in the commodities market, via Green Bonds. In short, these taxes are used to create a slush fund for the UN IPCC and their allies to generate more wealth.
Aside from the Paris Accord, the UN has many schemes in mind for raising revenue. From the 2012 guide on New Development Financing, here is an estimate of their plans. This chapter would go through these plans, as well as where the money is intended to be spent.
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
These are just some of the schemes which are being dreamed up, but the list is hardly exhaustive.
Of course, why should your pension be any different? The UN Principles for Responsible Investing were wholeheartedly adopted by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board. This means that the ESG factors, (Environmental, Social, Governance) must be considered in every transaction, in every investment the Board makes. One would think that the Canadian Government would want to invest the funds into Canadian industries. Or at least most of them. After all, why not promote and encourage local development? Instead, 85% of the money CPPIB invests is done in foreign companies and projects. While this may lead to higher returns in some cases, it does little to boost Canadian development.
The Canadian Pension Plan is hardly the only one that is being used to finance UN agendas abroad. And it is done without the consent (and knowledge, in most cases) of the pension holders themselves. While this comes across as virtuous, the Government is risking the pensions of its people in those foreign ventures.
Canada signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. It was basically an expanded version of Agenda 21, which had been ratified in June 1992. Agenda 2030 aimed to put the “Sustainable Development Agenda” into every aspect of modern life. Furthermore, it would not be restricted to being a UN project. Nations, and even cities are encouraged to draw up their UN-compliant plans. The 17 SDA goals are to be implemented in all aspects of life.
It would not be restricted to the environment either. Irrelevant issues like gender, youth, people with disabilities, racial justice and abortion were to considered in every project. There is much more of a social justice focus being pushed.
The UN has an odd position on the right to abortion. They have a philosophy about the right to life. There are many noble goals such as: humane treatment of prisoners, due process in court proceedings, trying to prevent suicide, and banning torture. Those are all fine. What is strange is that abortion is considered a human right. Article 6 of the “Right To Life” outlines many beliefs, but promotes the idea that abortion is a human right, not the child that is killed in the process.
Paragraph 9 of Article 6 goes through what steps should be taken to ensure that getting abortions are not too difficult, or too dangerous. Furthermore, States should take steps to ensure that abortion is readily available to prevent women from undertaking abortions in a dangerous manner. These guidelines also apply to adolescent girls.
Interestingly, there is no mention of trying to discourage abortions, or promoting adoption services. Nor does the UN call a spade a spade: abortion is killing a baby. However, it is cloaked as “reproductive care”. The mother has the right to abortions, but the unborn babies have no rights themselves.
Perhaps this attitude is a population control measure.
They say that whoever controls the education system controls the youth, and hence, the future. That is what UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization seeks to do. It proclaims education to be a human right, as goal #4 of the Sustainable Development Agenda. The group wants to provide universal education to everyone. This encompasses pre-school, to higher education and beyond.
This sounds great, except that UNESCO wants to push “its” version of education on everyone else. It is a global citizenship focus, where people are part of a world community. The UN has its agenda for world domination (as outlined elsewhere in the essay). Much of the education focus will be promoting this narrative.
This is not to say there aren’t societal benefits to increasing the literacy rate, and providing basic education in math and science. There certainly are. It would be naïve, though, to think that this is entirely altruistic. A UN focused curriculum would certainly reinforce the dangers of climate change, the divisiveness of borders, and promote the benefits of mass migration, multiculturalism, sustainable development, speech and internet regulation.
The global citizen education agenda has already leaked into schools in Canada. Not only are the ideas creeping in, but some places, such as Manitoba, openly teach from UNESCO principles. The one-world vision is being promoted to our students.
Beyond formal education, the youth movement is becoming and increasingly important part of the UN agenda. Why? Because children are more impressionable. It is far easier to convince a young person of the dangers of climate change and the need for drastic action. Furthermore, few people would bluntly call them out openly on it. Most older people have been exposed to many hoaxes in their lives, and hence are wise to the scams.
It also explains (at least partly) the drive to drastically lower the voting age form 18 to 16, or 14, or even 8. Young children are viewed not as wise people, but as a voting block to be manipulated. If youth are convinced that the UN is the only hope humanity has, they can vote as a group to prevent this. Certainly, this can alter elections, or at least change the outcome in close ridings or districts.
Finally, there is a push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a movement to establish an actual world government, able to making binding legislation. In essence, it would be a scaled up version of the European Union, where member states would send representatives to the global body. This is still in the theoretical stages, as it is unclear how this would properly represent national rights. One need only look at the problems of the EU to be turned off to a UNPA.
Although informal talks have been ongoing for a long time, the UN Parliament campaign officially launched in June 2007. That year, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea in principle. Canada’s current Federal Government claims it has the power to sign “this treaty”, if it ever came to pass.
These issues are hardly exhaustive, but should provide a good outline of what is wrong with being part of the UN. National sovereignty is compromised with every agreement that gets signed. It is not just Canadian autonomy that is eroded, but all nations.
The UN promotes mass migration, and gives little thought to borders or sovereignty. Forced migration leads to cultural tension, and breaks down social cohesion. The UN has many schemes to enrich itself, with the Paris Accord being just one of them. Our pensions are not safe either. Free speech is in danger if a global body were to regulate internet usage, and the ability to criticize ideas such as Islam. Sustainable Development Agendas, such as Agenda 2030 are designed to regulate nearly every type of activity in society. The right to life is enshrined, unless it means life of unborn children — in which case killing him/her is a human right. Children are being brainwashed by global citizen education, and ever worse, they become “useful idiots” for their causes. And the ultimate goal is a world government.
You think your interests aren’t being represented now? Will that improve if your nation became just one of 195 voices? Probably not.
Of course, there is one final insult to add: some of the great human rights abusers sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Some of the nations in which women have no rights are on the UN Women’s Council. This would be a parody if it wasn’t serious.
There is only one sensible solution: leave the UN completely.
(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)
(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)
(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)
(Details of proposed global tax scheme)
(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)
(UN Environment Programme)
(Green finance for developing countries)
(International Chamber of Commerce)
(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)
(Global tax avoidance measures)
(Why stop at just billions?)
These are not the only examples, but should serve as an illustration for the “taxation” efforts the UN is undertaking in order to finance its various agendas. Of course its ultimate goal is world domination.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance. CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX. CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation. CLICK HERE, for #12: AOC and the “Green New Deal”. CLICK HERE, for #13: UN seeks new development financing. CLICK HERE, for #14: New Development Fund, bait-and-switch.
CLICK HERE, for BOLD Like A Leopard Guest Posting.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing: Carbon Tax $250B/year CLICK HERE, for UN “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B. CLICK HERE, for Paris Accord “Financial Flows”. CLICK HERE, for Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t. CLICK HERE, for Int’l Chamber of Commerce, Tax, SDA Goals. CLICK HERE, for ICC Position on Tax, SDA Goals. CLICK HERE, for Green Financing, Sustainable Development. CLICK HERE, for Development Financing, “Cooperation” To Combat Tax Avoidance. CLICK HERE, for Leveraging African Pension Plans. CLICK HERE, for Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed. CLICK HERE, for UN Tax Treaties Changes. CLICK HERE, for: From Billions To Trillions CLICK HERE, for Sustainable Financing Report. CLICK HERE, for UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative. CLICK HERE, for Capital Development Finance. CLICK HERE, for UN Join Staff Pension Fund. CLICK HERE, for the UN Credit Union
CLICK HERE, for a recent article by Uppity Peasants on the UN Environment Programme. Also, go check out the site. CLICK HERE, for a guest post by: BOLD Like a Leopard. This covered the “Green New Deal”, the US proposal.
3. Paris Accord Is All About Taxation
This is not an exaggeration, or hyperbole. The entire point of the agreement is to generate an enormous slush fund. The UN IPCC and select partners can then put that money into the commodities market and make trillions from it.
If you have any doubts about that, read Article 9 from the Paris Agreement. It spells out the “financial flow” in no uncertain terms.
1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.
2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.
3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.
4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.
5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.
6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.
7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.
8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.
9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.
These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.
Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.
4. New Development Finance, Bait-and-Switch
Okay, what are these “revenue sources”?
SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
Carbon taxes, $240B
Leveraging SDR, $90B
Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
Billionaire tax, $90B
Currency trading tax, $30B
EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
Air passenger levy, $10B
Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
Current ODA Flow, $120B
If these numbers are accurate, then the US is viewed as a cash cow somewhere to the tune of $627 billion to $807 billion. Yes, this only refers to revenue potential from the United States. I believe this is annually.
What does the report say about SDAs?
These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.
No kidding. There is a lot of political opposition to taxes which are deemed to undermine national sovereignty. Could that be because these taxes AREN’T being used to support the well being of the citizenry? Instead the money is being funnelled out of the country in the name of some global good project.
This is how bait-and-switch works:
(1) Raise money using cause A.
(2) Actually spend the money on cause B.
An array of other options with large fundraising potential have been proposed (see figure O.1 and table O.1), but have not been agreed upon internationally thus far. These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.
(Page 86) Debt-conversion mechanisms Debt conversion entails the cancellation by one or more creditors of part of a country’s debt in order to enable the release of funds which would otherwise have been used for debt-servicing, for use instead in social or environmental projects. Where debt is converted at a discount with respect to its face value, only part of the proceeds fund the projects, the remainder reducing the external debt burden, typically as part of a broader debt restructuring.
Debt to developing nations can be “forgiven”, at least partly, if certain conditions are met. However, the obvious question must be asked:
Can nations be loaned money they could never realistically pay back, in order to ensure their compliance in UN or other global agenda, by agreeing to “forgive” part of it?
(Page 86) Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1.
If debt can be forgiven in return for environmental measures, then why not simply fund these environmental measures from the beginning? Is it to pressure or coerce otherwise unwilling nations into agreeing with such measures?
There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country. In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).
We will “forgive” your debt if:
(1) A portion of your land is off limits; or
(2) Debt converted to currency to fund “projects”
The entire document is 178 pages. While a tedious read, it’s worthwhile.
5. UN Wants $400B In Global Taxation
New York, 5 July 2012 –The United Nations is proposing an international tax, combined with other innovative financing mechanisms, to raise more than $400 billion annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate change. In its annual report on global development, World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development Finance, (WESS 2012) launched today, the UN says, in the midst of difficult financial times, many donor countries have cut back on development assistance. In 2011, for the first time in many years, aid flows declined in real terms
The survey finds that the financial needs of developing countries have long outstripped the willingness and ability of donors to provide aid. And finding the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough, especially for least developed countries.
The need for additional and more predictable financing has led to a search for new sources not as a substitute for aid, but as a complement to it. A number of innovative initiatives have been launched during the past decade, mainly to fund global health programmes aimed at providing immunizations, AIDS and tuberculosis treatments to millions of people in the developing world. The UN survey finds that while these initiatives have successfully used new methods to channel development financing to combat diseases, they have hardly yielded any additional funding on top of traditional development assistance.
This source explains it straight from the horse’s mouth. The UN is not taking in enough money for its various schemes. In fact, real contributions are shrinking. Therefore it is necessary to come up with new and innovative ways to tax developed nations.
Of course one of the most common ways is with the “climate change” scam. But it is hardly the only one. The UN views many forms of wealth simply as money to tap into.
6. UN Eyeing Up African Pensions
(Page 10) III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets. While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.
(Page 30) C. Policy framework for investment in infrastructure Pension funds—just like other investors, domestic and foreign—need a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure and other assets. This is important as infrastructure assets have a number of characteristics that increase investors’ perception of risk. First, infrastructure projects typically involve economies of scale and often lead to natural monopolies with high social benefits and, at times, lower private returns. As a result, infrastructure projects may require heavy government involvement. Second, infrastructure projects are often large and long-lived with a significant initial investment but with cash flows that accrue over a long horizon.
In this regard, improving the policy framework for investment can be useful to countries seeking to develop the investor base for infrastructure. For instance, the OECD’s Policy Framework for Investment (PFI) uses self-assessments and/or an external assessment by the OECD to help a country elaborate policies for capacity building and private sector development strategies, and inform the regional dialogue (OECD, 2015b). The PFI’s investment policy refers not only to domestic laws, regulations, and policies relating to investment but also goals and expectations concerning the contribution of investment to sustainable development, such as infrastructure
(Page 31) D. Infrastructure financing instruments available to pension funds Even in well-performing pension systems where the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds are conducive to investment in infrastructure and there is a sound policy framework for investment, there is still a need for adequate instruments to channel pension fund assets into the infrastructure sector. Pension funds can use a number of channels to invest in infrastructure. Direct exposure is gained mainly through the unlisted equity instruments (direct investment in projects and infrastructure funds) and project bonds, while indirect exposure is normally associated with listed equity and corporate debt. More specifically, pension funds can rely on a number of options such as
The paper itself is quite long, but here is the gist of it. The UN wants to take African pension funds and use them to “invest” it UN type of schemes.
While this seems harmless enough, remember the Paris Accord. The UN thinks nothing of taxing the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars under false pretenses in order to invest in the commodities market. Nor does the UN object to giving “infrastructure loans” to nations that will likely never be able to pay it back.
It should alarm people that an organization with no inherent loyalty to the region would want to use African pension funds to finance its own agenda.
7. UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is a partnership between United Nations Environment and the global financial sector created in the wake of the 1992 Earth Summit with a mission to promote sustainable finance. More than 250 financial institutions, including banks, insurers, and investors, work with UN Environment to understand today’s environmental, social and governance challenges, why they matter to finance, and how to actively participate in addressing them.
UNEP FI’s work also includes a strong focus on policy – by facilitating country-level dialogues between finance practitioners, supervisors, regulators and policy-makers, and, at the international level, by promoting financial sector involvement in processes such as the global climate negotiations.
Keep in mind the “New Development Financing” agenda discussed earlier. Money is taken and used to “invest” in 3rd World Development Programs. Countries that are unable to pay back are forced either to give up sovereignty, or comply with other arrangements.
Banks are in the business of making money. Alternatively, they are in the business of acquiring assets which can be converted into money, or otherwise make them money. What if this banking alliance has no altruistic roots, and is meant to be predatory?
Make no mistake, this is exactly what happens to these people, by the way. One cross-country comparison between microloan recipients in Bangladesh and payday loan recipients in Canada found that both ‘products’ tend to attract the same kinds of people to them from very similar backgrounds, for largely the same reasons — i.e., neither group tends to use these loans for re-investment, such as starting a business; rather, they use them to cover day-to-day expenses at exorbitant interest rates, thus entrapping themselves in a cycle of never ending debt (Islam & Simpson, 2018). If you know how bad the consequences of payday lending can be for people in the first world, imagine how bad it is for someone who’s already living in third world-levels of poverty.
Now, part of the reason why the UNEP, of all possible agencies, is so heavily invested (emotionally and literally) into fintech and other start-up technologies is because many of the “incumbent banks” — the top-players of our current system — don’t think that completely up-ending the global financial system to move the focus away from profits and toward complying with heavy-handed, UN-decided environmental regulations is a particularly attractive road to go down. In the next excerpt, the UNEP openly admit that start-ups in this area are better to invest in for the pursuit of ‘change’, specifically because their owners tend to be new to the world of business and, as such, don’t know enough about what they’re doing to avoid being manipulated — and that’s where the UNEP comes in.
Uppity Peasants argues that the UNEP is driven much more on a business model than on any kind altruistic path. Further, the circumstances which the aid recipients require the resources to cover essential expenses means they are unable to invest anything. This is similar to a payday loan type of system.
8. Green Finance For 3rd World $5-7 Trillion
(Page 13)In 2015, governments adopted three major agreements that set out their vision for the coming decades: a new set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change and the ‘financing for development’ package. Finance is central to realizing all three agreements – and these now need to be translated into practical steps suited to each country’s circumstances.
Sustainable Energy for All estimates that annual global investments in energy will need to scale up from roughly US$400 billion at present to US $1-1.25 trillion. Of that, US$40-100 billion annually is needed to achieve universal access to electricity. Overall, US $5-7 trillion a year is needed to implement the SDGs globally. Developing countries are estimated to face an annual investment gap of US$2.5 trillion in areas such as infrastructure, clean energy, water and sanitation, and agriculture.
(Page 14) The challenge for financial systems is twofold: to mobilize finance for specific sustainable development priorities and to mainstream sustainable development factors across financial decision-making.
Capital needs to be mobilized for inclusion of underserved groups (e.g. small and medium enterprises), raising capital for sustainable infrastructure (e.g. energy, housing, transport, urban design) and financing critical areas of innovation (e.g. agriculture, mobility, power).
Sustainability needs to become mainstream for financial institutions. This starts with ensuring market integrity (e.g. tax, corruption, human rights) and extends to integrating environmental and social (E&S) factors into risk management (e.g. climate disruption, water stress). Sustainability also needs to be incorporated into the responsibilities and reporting of market actors to guide their decision-making. Momentum is building to align financial systems with the financing needs of an inclusive, sustainable economy. This is complementary to ‘real economy’ actions such as environmental regulations, reform of perverse subsidies and changes to resource pricing. However, while these are critical, it is increasingly recognized that changes are also needed in the financial system to ensure that it is both more stable and more connected to the real economy.
Some interesting points here:
$5 to $7 trillion (yes trillion) needed annually fulfill these goals. The billions stated before was lowballed.
The “sustainability” agenda needs mass marketing.
Finance needed for:
17 goals of Agenda 2030
Paris Climate Accord
Finance for development
3 above items to be integral part of national agendas.
Most of this has nothing to do with the environment
In fact, it reads like a global version of the US Green New Deal, proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, admitted it was about changing the economy, not the environment.
9. International Chamber Of Commerce
THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ICC is the world’s largest business organization with a network of over 6 million members in more than 130 countries. We work to promote international trade, responsible business conduct and a global approach to regulation through a unique mix of advocacy and standard setting activities—together with market-leading dispute resolution services. Our members include many of the world’s largest companies, SMEs, business associations and local chambers of commerce.
We are the world business organization.
That quote came from their policy guide. Pretty straightforward. They want to run business on a global level. Now, let’s get to the meat and potatoes, the tax proposals:
Interplay between tax policy making and economic growth The world’s population is predicted to increase by 2 billion people by 2050, and the population of the world’s least developed countries is projected to double by 2053, in some countries even tripling. By 2025 half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. Under such circumstances, the need for large-scale investment in economic growth and development becomes evident.
Whilst there is no panacea, it is evident that greater alignment of investment and tax policies would be essential in promoting investment, job creation and economic growth. International commerce remains a powerful mechanism to help lift people out of poverty. Tax is intrinsically linked to development as taxation provides the revenue that states need to mobilize resources and reinforce a country’s infrastructure. Taxation “provides a predictable and stable flow of revenue to finance public spending, and shapes the environment in which investment, employment and trade takes place.”
Further, it is important to have a fair, efficient, and effective revenue collection infrastructure to promote economic and social development. Domestic resource mobilization (DRM) has been proposed as a way to meet the SDGs with the development finance already available. However, DRM can be impeded by unclear and confusing tax systems. It is imperative that companies are able to move products and services into areas where they are most needed without unnecessary administrative impediments.
Having a reliable and consistent taxation policy seems reasonable enough. However, the ICC is not being clear on the reason behind the push. They want better taxation methods in order to INCREASE the amount of revenue available.
Governments often side with these groups, even when it is not in the best interests of the citizens themselves. “Investment” dollars are then shovelled into infrastructure projects.
Tax the people, so that the money can be “properly” spent, as the UN and their partners see fit.
10. Addis Ababa Action Agenda
(Page 10) DOMESTIC PUBLIC RESOURCE
For all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the sustainable development goals. Building on the considerable achievements in many countries since Monterrey, we remain committed to further strengthening the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources
(Page 10) 22. We recognize that significant additional domestic public resources, supplemented by international assistance as appropriate, will be critical to realizing sustainable development and achieving the sustainable development goals. We commit to enhancing revenue administration through modernized, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection. We will work to improve the fairness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of our tax systems, including by broadening the tax base and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with country circumstances.
23. We will redouble efforts to substantially reduce illicit financial flows by 2030, with a view to eventually eliminating them, including by combating tax evasion and corruption through strengthened national regulation and increased international cooperation. We will also reduce opportunities for tax avoidance, and consider inserting anti-abuse clauses in all tax treaties. We will enhance disclosure practices and transparency in both source and destination countries, including by seeking to ensure transparency in all financial transactions between Governments and companies to relevant tax authorities. We will make sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, in accordance with national and international laws and policies
(Page 13) 27. We commit to scaling up international tax cooperation. We encourage countries, in accordance with their national capacities and circumstances, to work together to strengthen transparency and adopt appropriate policies, including multinational enterprises reporting country-by-country to tax authorities where they operate; access to beneficial ownership information for competent authorities; and progressively advancing towards automatic exchange of tax information among tax authorities as appropriate, with assistance to developing countries, especially the least developed, as needed. Tax incentives can be an appropriate policy tool. However, to end harmful tax practices, countries can engage in voluntary discussions on tax incentives in regional and international forums.
(Page 45) 98. We affirm the importance of debt restructurings being timely, orderly, effective, fair and negotiated in good faith. We believe that a workout from a sovereign debt crisis should aim to restore public debt sustainability, while preserving access to financing resources under favourable conditions. We further acknowledge that successful debt restructurings enhance the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. We continue to be concerned with non-cooperative creditors who have demonstrated their ability to disrupt timely completion of the debt restructurings.
In no way does this cover the entire document. However, there are 3 themes which get repeated over and over again.
Efficient tax collection
Global tax regulations and data sharing
“Sustainable” debt and borrowing
There is very little in this document, about actually improving lives, improving infrastructure, or improving the environment. Instead, it is all about implementing a global taxation system, while eliminating “off the books”, or illicit cash.
11. Global Tax Avoidance Measures
Exchange of information for tax purposes Exchange of information has long been included as a feature of tax treaty models. By agreeing to exchange information with respect to taxpayers, countries can become more aware of the global activities taxpayers are engaging in and impose tax that should be due.
The upcoming 2017 revision of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing countries is expected to bring a new revised version of the exchange of information provision, following the approval of the new United Nations Code of Conduct. The Committee agreed in 2016 to a proposal for a United Nations Code of Conduct on Cooperation in Combating International Tax Evasion. This Code supports the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes as the way forward for countries generally, but recognizes that it is vital for developing countries to exchange information, even if they are not ready for automatic exchange. The Code of Conduct has been approved by the Committee of Experts in 2016, and set automatic exchange of information as the new universal standard after ECOSOC adopted the Code of Conduct in a Resolution in 2017, during the ECOSOC Special Meeting on International Cooperation on Tax Matters. .Furthermore, the OECD model convention and commentaries is expected to broaden the scope of the exchange of information article to allow triangular, or multi-party exchange of information requests.
While this certainly sounds like some well meaning way to prevent money laundering and tax fraud, there is another angle to look at.
Having a global (or at least more centralized) database of people and their taxable income will allow for more efficient and effective tax collection. This is especially true whenever a new “development project” needs funding.
Furthermore, if there is such a global system, it will be easier to determine who isn’t paying “their fair share” when it comes to contributions. Those national governments can then act accordingly. Also, who doesn’t view this as becoming a global version of Revenue Canada, or the American IRS?
12. From Billions To Trillions (SF 2.0)
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require an enormous increase in external financing flows to developing countries. Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) have gradually started to shift their business model towards de-risking services to crowd in long-term, low-risk private capital. However, the targeted scaling up of private investment from billions to trillions to realise the SDGs contains massive risks for stability. And good macro-policies are needed, in turn, to address such underlying risks. Countries that need the greatest amount of development finance are often those that have domestic financial resource constraints and underdeveloped markets. Financing their growth and investment opportunities makes the management of exchange rate risks, which are inherent in development finance, a critical challenge.
Merely supplying development finance is not enough. It needs to be done in socially and economically sustainable ways, where risks are allocated to those who can best manage and sustain them. Efficient use of limited public resources, through improved policies and regulatory processes, is required to achieve the SDGs and related efforts. Governments around the world must work together to offer feasible business opportunities to the private sector that are in line with domestic and international development objectives. Only with such coordinated action will we succeed in moving from billions to trillions to realise sustainable progress for all.
This article should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that this global development system is going to be steady. Wrong. Once considered “fully operational”, the next step is to upscale it, and make it far bigger.
It is not governments who will be paying for these globalist schemes. It is the working class tax-payers who will see more and more of their wealth transferred to these projects.
Of course, once your money leaves Canadian soil, there is little to no accountability or control over what happens to it. But that it routinely downplayed.
13. What To Make From All This?
To state the obvious: these agendas and agreements are bringing nations towards a global taxation model. Countries (presumably under UN control) will be expected to share data on tax paying citizens and other people earning money. While this is touted as an anti-tax avoidance measure, the real goal is making sure the global order accounts for all money and where it goes.
Going towards a “cashless society” also helps in that regard. Hence the push for more and more electronic options, while making cash payments more difficult.
Beyond enforcement, knowing which nations have money and how much will make it easier to determine who shall pay how much as their “fair share” of future projects. We won’t have nations in the traditional sense, just shareholders.
International agreements like the Paris Accord have nothing to do with the environment. That is just the sales pitch. Instead, it an excuse to funnel huge sums of money to the UN to finance their business model. It is taking advantage of an altruistic goal.
This is about having a globalist, centralized economy and taxation. The environmental and humanitarian claims are just talking points.
CLICK HERE, for SNC-Lavalin homepage. CLICK HERE, for the SNC Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Jacques Bougie, who is part of the Trudeau Foundation, and also sits on SNC-Lavalin Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Infrastructure Banks, and Liberal connections. CLICK HERE, for Kevin Lynch call to Michael Wernick.
CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on Canadian Infrastructure Bank. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Infrastructure Bank Act CLICK HERE, for previous piece on “Deferred Prosecution Agreement”. CLICK HERE, for the Fall 2018 Economic Update (Pgs 37-42) CLICK HERE, for previous Unifor article, and $595 media buyoff. CLICK HERE, for Steering Committee (Social Finance) biographies.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, list of debarred firms. CLICK HERE, for Act Respecting the Director of Public Prosecutions. CLICK HERE, for Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying in Canada. CLICK HERE, for Bruce Hartley, Liberal donor. CLICK HERE, for Bruce Hartley, Liberal donor. CLICK HERE, for William Pristanski, SNC-Lavalin lobbyist. CLICK HERE, for SNC Lavalin and Libya corruption.
2. Who Are The Board Members Of SNC-Lavalin?
Ian L. Edwards is the interim President and CEO. Prior to joining Lavalin, he worked at Leighton Asia, which had its own corruption scandal.
Kevin Lynch is the Chairman of SNC-Lavalin, but he has also held other interesting roles:
(1) former Clerk of Privy Council;
(2) former Secretary to the Cabinet;
(3) former Deputy Minister of Finance;
(4) former Deputy Minister of Industry;
(5) former Executive Director for Canada at the IMF;
(6) current Vice-Chairman of BMO Financial Group
Jacques Bougie, O.C., is member of Governance & Ethics Committee, with some connections of his own:
(1) Director of CSL Group Inc.;
(2) Director at McCain Foods Limited;
(3) former Board member at RBC;
(4) former Board Member at Bell Canada;
(5) former member of Trilateral Commission;
(6) Member of Trudeau Foundation
Isabelle Courville, Chair of the Human Resources Committee
(1) Chair of the board of directors of the Laurentian Bank of Canada;
(2) President of Bell Canada’s Enterprise segment from 2003 to 2006;
(3) Director of Canadian Pacific Railway Limited;
(4) director of the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations;
(5) former member of APEC Business Advisory Council
Catherine J. Hughes, Member of the Audit Committee
Steven L. Newman, Chair of the Governance and Ethics Committee
(1) non-executive director of Tidewater, Inc.;
(2) Dril-Quip, Inc.;
(3) Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings GP Ltd;
(4) limited partner of Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings
Jean Raby, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) former adviser to the CFO of Nokia;
(2) member of the board of Fiera Capital Corporation;
(3) Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs (France, then Russia);
(4) Chief Financial and Legal Officer of Alcatel-Lucent S.A
Alain Rhéaume, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) Ministry of Finance of the Québec Government, 1974 to 1996;
(2) former public director of the Canadian Public Accountability Board;
(3) former Executive Vice-President of Rogers Wireless
Eric D. Siegel, ICD.D, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) former President and CEO of Export Development Canada (EDC);
(2) Director of Citibank Canada
Zin Smati,, Chair of the Safety, Workplace and Project Risk Committee
Benita M. Warmbold, Chair of the Audit Committee, has been in finance for decades. Here are some of her connections.
(1) Senior VP and COO of CPPIB from 2008 to 2013;
(2) Senior Managing Director and CFO of CPPIB from 2013-2017;
(3) Director at Bank of Nova Scotia;
(4) former CFO for Northwater Capital Management Inc
Kevin Lynch is Vice-Chairman of BMO Financial Group.
Jacques Bougie is a former Board Member at RBC.
Benita M. Warmbold is a former Director at Scotia Bank.
Eric D. Siegel is Director at Citibank Canada.
Isabelle Courville is Chair of BOD at Laurentian Bank.
Jean Raby is former Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Alain Rhéaume is former Executive VP of Rogers.
Jean Raby is former advisor to CFP of Nokia.
Jacques Bougie is a former Director at Bell.
3. Access To Privy Council Via Kevin Lynch
(Kevin Lynch, Chairman of SNC Lavalin, among other roles, was Clerk of the Privy Council. He clearly still has access to the Council. Taken from his BMO profile.)
SNC Lavalin Chairman Kevin G. Lynch, who also serves as Bank of Montreal‘s Vice Chairman, placed a call on October 15th to Michael Wernick, during which he repeatedly threatened the Clerk of the Privy Council of a potential loss of 9,000 Canadian jobs — ominously suggesting that the decision was to be made at a looming board meeting. Lynch feared that his firm could be implicated in the widespread bribery of First Nations officials in British Columbia.
Wernick, who holds a bachelors degree in economics from the University of Toronto, did not apply scrutiny to that assertion, despite his training, before repeating the threat to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and others in the PMO.
Although Lynch had left the Privy Council a decade ago, he clearly still has some clout. A single phone call was enough to get Michael Wernick to attempt to get SNC Lavalin off the hook via the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement). Wernick doesn’t seem to see problem with SNC-L having such easy access to the Privy Council. However, the majority of Canadians do.
4. Jacques Bougie Sits On Trudeau Foundation
(Jacques Bougie, Member of the Governance and Ethics Committee for SNC Lavalin, also is part of the Trudeau Foundation)
Yet another obvious conflict of interest case. A board member of Lavalin also sitting on the board of the Trudeau foundation. Not that these two roles would ever get Goudie to lean on Trudeau for favourable treatment towards Lavalin.
5. Jacques Bougie Also Sits On McCain’s B.O.D.
(Finance Minister Bill Morneau is married to Nancy McCain, heiress to McCain’s Food’s Ltd. Jacques Bougie from SNC-Lavalin “also” sits as a Director for McCain’s.)
6. Bruce Hartley: SNC Lobbyist & Liberal Donor
(Bruce Hartley is a regular Liberal donor, according to Elections Canada.)
(Hartley is also a registered lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin)
Bruce Hartley, now a lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin, has donated 124 times since 2005 to the Liberal Party and its members. But now that he acts as a lobbyist, he certainly won’t get the Liberals (whom he supports financially) to do anything nefarious, would he?
Actually, he did. Hartley, in his capacity as an SNC-Lavalin employee, lobbied the Federal Government to introduce the “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (or DPA). This DPA would allow companies like Lavalin to avoid a 10 year ban on receiving government contracts if found guilty of criminal activity
That’s right. A long time Liberal supporter gets a job as a lobbyist. He then turns around and uses that position to get the law changed to allow his new employer to get off the hook for what would have been a 10 year ban on Canadian contracts.
And here is another lobbyist, William Pristanski, who also lobbied to get the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for Lavalin.
Reading through his profile with the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada, it seems Pristanski’s role was basically the same as Hartley’s.
7. SNC Lobbied Current Attorney General David Lametti
(then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for ISED, David Lametti, met with SNC Lavalin President Neil Bruce)
(McGill University Law Professor, David Lametti, Who is on leave while he sits as the Attorney General of Canada)
(February 13, 2019, McGill University is “gifted” $200M)
(The people who “donated” $200M to McGill University were also caught “donating” almost $1M to Trudeau)
David Lametti is now the Attorney General of Canada, after Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned. Interesting to note that Wilson-Raybould thought that SNC-Lavalin “didn’t” deserve the deferred prosecution. Her successor, Lametti did. Could it be because of Lavalin lobbying him?
Within days of Lametti deciding that SNC-Lavalin was not worth prosecuting, McGill University (where Lametti teaches law), received a $200M “gift” from European Climate Founder McCall MacBain.
Note: Trudeau had also received 2 donations from them.
$500,000 in 2015 as a candidate
$428,000 IN 2016 as sitting Prime Minister
8. Lavalin & Libya Connections
The case against SNC and two of its subsidiaries stems from the company’s dealings in Libya between 2001 and 2011, when a senior executive established close ties with Saadi Gaddafi, son of dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
Court documents allege the company offered bribes worth $47.7 million “to one or several public officials of the ‘Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,’” as Gaddafi called the nation he ruled until he was overthrown and killed in 2011.
SNC and its subsidiaries SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. are also alleged to have defrauded various Libyan public agencies of approximately $129.8 million.
“Corruption of foreign officials undermines good governance and sustainable economic development,” RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud said Thursday. “The charges laid today demonstrate how the RCMP continues to support Canada’s international commitments and safeguard its integrity and reputation.”
Lavalin denies all the allegations, but interesting to see just how deep this runs. There are also allegations that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $30,000 for prostitution services for Saadi Gaddafi. He is the son of former dictator Mummar Gaddafi.
9. Fall 2018 Economic Update Social Finance Fund, A Potential Slush Fund?
While the $595 million media bailout received much attention in the media, far less was paid to the slush fund that was also announced to the Social Finance Program that was also launched.
In June 2017, the Government created a Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group, primarily comprised of experts from the charitable and non-profit sector, to provide recommendations on the development of a social innovation and social finance strategy. The Steering Group delivered its final report, Inclusive innovation: New Ideas and New Partnerships for Stronger Communities, in August 2018. One of the report’s key recommendations was to create a Social Finance Fund to help close the capital financing gap faced by organizations that deliver positive social outcomes, and to help accelerate the growth of the existing social finance market in Canada.
To help charitable, non-profit and other social purpose organizations access new financing, and to help connect them with private investors looking to invest in projects that will drive positive social change, the Government proposes to make available up to $755 million on a cash basis over the next 10 years to establish a Social Finance Fund. Additionally, the Government proposes to invest $50 million over two years in an Investment and Readiness stream, for social purpose organizations to improve their ability to successfully participate in the social finance market. It is expected that a Social Finance Fund like the one the Government is proposing could generate up to $2 billion in economic activity, and help create and maintain as many as 100,000 jobs over the next decade.