Category: Identity/Religion

Posted on

TSCE #9(H): AZ Rep. Hannley Opposes Mandatory Life For Repeat Child Predators, Since Most Inmates Are Non-White

This was previously covered in several American outlets. An Arizona State Representative, Pamela Powers Hannley, opposes mandatory life sentences for child sex offences. She claims it would disproportionately lock up people of colour. She focuses on INCARCERATION RATE as a metric, while ignoring the CRIME RATE, the only metric that matters.

She also leaves out that the life sentences would apply to REPEAT offenders. A huge omission.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley, Her Own Words

Let’s lock up the chronic abusers. I’m tired of reading stories about priests, church elders, coaches, Boy Scout leaders, and other adults who have spent their lives preying on children. Boyer’s 2019 bill would have given victims a voice. HB2889 doesn’t do that.

Mandatory sentencing feeds the prison industrial complex because it dictates a (often overly harsh) minimum sentence that judges must stick to. Why is mandatory sentencing a big deal? Because we know that justice in the United States is not colorblind. If our justice system were fair, the prison population would reflect the country’s population in terms of race and ethnicity. We all know that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned in this country. Once they have been prisoners, they lose their right to vote, and it is harder for them to get jobs and housing.

I voted against this bill because I stand against mandatory sentencing, for prison reform, and with the American Civil Liberties Union, Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee.

Let’s lengthen the time for adults who were abused as children to come forward and identify their abusers. That would go farther to stop child abuse than Biasiuuci’s bill.

This is actually an elected Representative in the Arizona State Legislature. Pamela Powers Hannley opposes a Bill to give child sexual offenders a mandatory life sentences. Although she does raise a few interesting issues about flaws in criminal justice, she loses the argument with another point. She opposes it since “people of colour” are the vast majority in prison. She believes that the prison population is supposed to reflect the nation’s general makeup, and not the makeup of people who commit crimes.

Strange that these types never seem to mind the fact that men comprise the bulk of the prison population. It seems equity has its limitations.

3. FBI Crime Statistics For Year 2019

51.2% – Murder and non-negligent manslaughter
26.7% – Rape
52.7% – Robbery
33.2% – Aggravated Assault
41.8% – Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.
42.2% – Prostitution and commercialized vice
20.6% – Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution)
28.3% – Offenses against the family and children

That is from Table 43A of the FBI Crime Statistics for the year 2019. The numbers apply to blacks, who make up roughly 13% of the overall U.S. population. Are they disproportionately represented in American prisons? Yes, and for good reason. They commit a disproportionate amount of violent and sexual crimes.

However, a flaw in the reporting lumps whites and hispanics together, which makes the white crime rate seem much higher than it really is.

The idea that a prison population must reflect the population as a whole is ridiculous. It should reflect the makeup of people who actually commit serious crimes.

Perhaps Representative Hannley would support Gladue Rights, where we have different sets of laws based on race, in order to address these “disparities”. Or maybe she would support something like Bill C-75, which waters down the penalties for child sex offences. What does she think of California Senator Scott Wiener?

4. Text Of Arizona House Bill 2889

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-705, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-705. Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions
.
A. A person who is at least eighteen years of age and who is convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving commercial sexual exploitation of a minor or child sex trafficking or involving molestation of a child and the person has previously been convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving molestation of a child shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for natural life. A person who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis for the remainder of the person’s natural life.

Q. S. For the purposes of this section:
.
1. “Dangerous crime against children” means any of the following that is committed against a minor who is under fifteen years of age:
.
(a) Second degree murder.
(b) Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
(c) Sexual assault.
(d) Molestation of a child.
(e) Sexual conduct with a minor.
(f) Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor.
(g) Sexual exploitation of a minor.
(h) Child abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.
(i) Kidnapping.
(j) Sexual abuse.
(k) Taking a child for the purpose of prostitution as prescribed in section 13-3206.
(l) Child sex trafficking as prescribed in section 13-3212.
(m) Involving or using minors in drug offenses.
(n) Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
(o) Attempted first degree murder.
(p) Sex trafficking.
(q) Manufacturing methamphetamine under circumstances that cause physical injury to a minor.
(r) Bestiality as prescribed in section 13-1411, subsection A, paragraph 2.
(s) Luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(t) Aggravated luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(u) Unlawful age misrepresentation.
(v) Unlawful mutilation.
(w) Sexual extortion as prescribed in section 13-1428.

If she is going to oppose this Bill, HB2889, let’s be honest about what’s in it. It applies to people PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF certain serious offences, who commit them again. This concerns repeat offenders.

Moreover, the list of “dangerous crimes against children” includes extremely serious charges. These are not something that can be brushed off as youthful immaturity.

But sure, let’s not impose life sentences on repeat, child sexual predators, because white people aren’t committing enough crimes.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

Criminality
.
36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
.
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
.
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
.
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
.
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

[SERIOUS CRIMINALITY]
36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
.
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
.
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
.
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
.
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
.
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
.
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
.
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
.
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Application

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Sursis
105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed:

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

4. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
.
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

5. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.

Posted on

CV #42(D): WEF/Davos “Great Reset”, “Green New Deal”, And “Stakeholder Capitalism” Are Euphemisms For Global Communism

The “Great Reset” was initially dismissed as a conspiracy theory, and vehemently denied. Now, that it’s out in the open, it’s necessary to restructure society. Pretty opportunistic isn’t it? Wasn’t this all about a virus before? Or is it about implementing an agenda that couldn’t be sold politically before?

Truth about politicians, CEOs, academics and activists colluding is still considered a conspiracy theory. Give it time, and the narrative will shift again. Now there will have been collusion, but it was necessary.

1. WEF Gaslighting Public On Issue Of Trust

The participants at the World Economic Forum keep talking about having to build trust between people. However, this is completely disingenuous, considering the deception and lies at the heart of the matter. Here are important topics, in no particular order.

CENTRAL BANKING
Central Banks Pushing For Digital Currency Implementation
Global Taxation Efforts And Programs Underway
1934 Bank Of Canada Act, Bank For International Settlements
Bank For International Settlements Pushing Green Bonds
Central Banks Network For Greening The Financial System
Usury Involved In Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM
Mark Carney, With U.N. Climate Action & Finance
Green New Deal Group Modelling After 2008 Bank Failure
Green Climate Fund, A GLOBAL Green New Deal
New Development Funds: Global Bait-And-Switch
NGOs Meddling In Carbon Tax Court Cases
Paris Accord, A Global Wealth Transfer Scheme

PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBYING
GAVI/Crestview Strategy Lobbying Ottawa
Motion M-132, Pharma Research For Canada And The World
Alberta Pharmaceutical Lobbying
Quebec Pharma Lobbying
Ontario Pharma Lobbying, Bill 160

LACK OF SCIENCE BEHIND PANDEMIC MEASURES
Pandemic Model Donors Have Conflict Of Interest
Virus Has Never Even Been Isolated
WHO Admits PCR Tests Are A Complete Fraud
WHO Admits Little Evidence Masks Work
Business Shut Downs Dependent On Corruption, Lobbying
Ottawa Lies About 2m “Social Distancing”
No Scientific Basis For Limiting Group Sizes
People Recover En Masse Without Vaccines

CENSORSHIP MEASURES
Social Media Collusion On “Pandemic” Narrative
Collusion To Promote Pro-Vaxx Narrative
Proposal To Introduce Laws Against “Misinformation”
Canadian Media Subsidized By Taxpayers, Biased
Fact-Checking Organizations Run By Political Operatives

Speakers at Davos complain that there is far too little trust between people and their leaders. Perhaps addressing some of these issues openly and honestly would help alleviate that. Or how about addressing the next one?

2. Aleksandr Lukashenko Alleges IMF Bribe

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko publicly accused the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund), of offering a bribe of almost $1 billion U.S. Dollars if he would crash the economy, and impose masks and lockdowns nationwide. Is any of this true?

Before any real trust can be established, honesty is necessary. Is Lukashenko lying, or did the IMF and World Bank manufacture this collapse?

3. Rise Of The Trust Brokers (3rd Parties)

Supposedly, it’s now too difficult and complex for people to manage their own personal data. Hiring 3rd parties to do thinking and decision making may be a better option. Alternatively, an automated system, or artificial intelligence can be put in control instead.

Who’s going to ensure that these 3rd parties are who they claim, and will honour personal information? How will that work with some sort of AI system? Too many questions need answering.

4. Stake Holder Capitalism New Way Of Life

The video is too large to upload here. “Stakeholder Capitalism” is what they want to replace “Shareholder Capitalism”, which is property rights. In short, this agenda is to water down (if not abolish altogether), private property. It’s Communism by any other name.

Don’t worry. You’ll own nothing, have no privacy, and your life will never be better. That predictive programming video came out a few years ago.

That being said, some valid points are made, such as corruption, debt and currency. However, it’s never pointed out that central banking (aided by corrupt politicians), enables such debt slavery. A country’s currency should never be held hostage to foreign private interests.

5. Advancing A New Social Contract

A “Social Contract” is often referred to as agreements within societies. This can refer to the expectation that Governments will provide certain protections and benefits, and citizens will behave in certain ways. Considering the underlying dishonesty of Officials in this “pandemic”, how can they be trusted now?

Historical reference. A social contract is also a reference to then-Ontario Premier Bob Rae imposing certain cuts in the public sector, in order to avoid job losses.

6. Tackling The Inequality Virus

The Covid-19 “pandemic” has also provided to allow a wealth redistribution to take place. Under the guise of fighting racial and gender inequality, these people want to forcibly make things more equal. They quite openly talk about reshaping society.

Also, apparently the virus is racist, since it isn’t killing off whites nearly to the same degree as blacks. Go figure. Perhaps it’s not nearly as deadly when there is equality in society.

7. UN’s Guterres: Pandemic A “Dress Rehearsal”

This “pandemic” is a dress rehearsal for other challenges coming. Antonio Guterres seems almost giddy that this has provided political cover to implement an agenda which could never have been achieved otherwise. If this wasn’t planned out, then it is crass opportunism.

He also says that he plans to vaccinate everyone, saying it’s the key to reopening society.

Interestingly, he also talks about virus mutations, which would render any existing vaccines completely worthless. Considering that WHO recommends AGAINST virus isolation, how would one know they were vaccinating against the correct strain?

Guterres also talks about debt relief, but deliberately omits that most countries participate in private central banking (aided by corrupt politicians). This, above all else, leads to the endless debt slavery that all pay for. Interesting that he talks about environmentally “borrowing” from children and grandchildren, but he leaves out how central banks do much the same thing.

8. Central Banking Is Predatory Lending

Governments and central banks have injected $11 trillion into the global economy, slashed interest rates and purchased large-scale assets to prevent financial collapse due to COVID-19. What monetary and fiscal stabilization policies that have emerged during the crisis should be sustained and scaled up, and how should competition policy be designed in an era of increasing concentration?
.
Speakers: Raghuram G. Rajan, Geoff Cutmore, Alex Cobham, Rain Newton-Smith
.
The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

The description on the video is misleading. Most countries operate private central banks, which means they are forced to borrow — at interest — in order to fund their needs. $11 trillion was generated out of nothing, but now it’s considered debt. As a consequence, “assets” can now be bought off with artificially created wealth.

They float a solution — allowing borrowing at low rates — but it doesn’t address the corrupt system itself. This is not surprising at this point. Politicians and media talking heads frequently address a symptom (the debt), but never the disease (the monetary system). This is intentional.

9. Bonnie Henry: Not Based On Science

A rare moment of honesty from BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry. Despite a Province-wide ban on gatherings, she admits that none of this is based on science. There’s just vague references to models, a tacit admission that models are not proof or science. Also see TCN TV Network, for more information.

10. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

Posted on

IMM #10(B): Review Of 2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The 2020 Annual Immigration Report to the Canadian Parliament is now available to the public. Underneath all the self-congratulations, there are some serious issues to address.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

3. Total Number Of People Coming To Canada

341,180 permanent residence cards issued (page 34) in 2019. Broken down by category, we get the following totals.

  • 196,658 Economic
  • 91,311 Family
  • 48,530 Protected Person & Refugee
  • 4,681 Humanitarian

That is the total number of people awarded a PR designation. However, a significant portion of them were already in Canada, typically work or student visas. So that must be taken into account.

341,180 permanent residence cards issued
-74,586 (temporaries who transitioned to PR)
= 266,594 new PR brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
402,427 new student visas
+98,310 temporary foreign workers
+306,797 international mobility visa holders
= 807,534 temporaries with path to transition

6,080 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
527 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

4,125,909 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
1,696,871 TRV (temporary resident visas)

And who knows how many people have slipped into Canada where there is no documentation?

Disclaimer: it’s impossible to know how many people have actually left (v.s. stayed in Canada), since the Government doesn’t provide such information. Certainly many people have left once their visa or authorization expires, but there’s no way of determining the exact amount. Fair to assume it’s close to a million, or perhaps over that.

One has to wonder if all of this is left vague on purpose, in order to make the true scale of replacement migration unknown.

4. Continued Population Replacement

This graph is from page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report. Note: this is by no means everyone who is coming into Canada. However, it gives an idea of WHERE people are coming from. Each report lists the top 10 source countries, and it doesn’t vary much by year.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

This year, the top 5 source countries are:

  • India 25%
  • China 9%
  • Philippines 8%
  • Nigeria 4%
  • Pakistan 3%

Once again, these PR numbers (assuming they are even accurate), so not reflect the total number of people coming into Canada with some option to stay. So these totals are quite misleading.

Early in Canada’s history, the major source of immigration was British, as well other other Western European countries. Now, it’s primarily Asian, Middle Eastern and African. France and the UK are no longer even in the top 10. The result is very visible balkanization in places like the GTA, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and elsewhere.

5. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233
2019 1,696,871 4,077,471 5,774,342

There were 4,125,909 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations), and 1,696,871 TRV (temporary resident visas) issued in 2019. See page 15. In fairness, the overwhelming majority of those people probably left without any sort of issue. But even when there are serious problems, getting into Canada LEGALLY isn’t all that difficult.

6. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Table 1, Page 32 of the report.

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

YEAR TRP Issued Cumulative
2010 17 17
2011 53 70
2012 53 123
2013 280 403
2014 385 788
2015 1,063 1,851
2016 596 2,447
2017 555 3002
2018 669 3,671
2019 527 4,198

From 2010 to 2019, a total of 4,198 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787
2018 7,132 205,919
2019 6,080 211,999

From 2002 to 2019 (inclusive), a total of 211,999 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131
2019 6,080 2 0 3,202 546 2,139 175

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

7. Canada Scraps “Designated Country Of Origin”

Canada removes all countries from the designated country of origin list
May 17, 2019—Ottawa, ON—The Government of Canada is committed to a well-managed asylum system that’s fair, fast and final. Effective today, Canada is removing all countries from the designated country of origin (DCO) list, which effectively suspends the DCO policy, introduced in 2012, until it can be repealed through future legislative changes.
.
Claimants from the 42 countries on the DCO list were previously subject to a 6-month bar on work permits, a bar on appeals at the Refugee Appeals Division, limited access to the Interim Federal Health Program and a 36-month bar on the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.
.
The DCO policy did not fulfil its objective of discouraging misuse of the asylum system and of processing refugee claims from these countries faster. Additionally, several Federal Court decisions struck down certain provisions of the DCO policy, ruling that they did not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
.
Removing all countries from the DCO list is a Canadian policy change, not a reflection of a change in country conditions in any of the countries previously on the list.
.
De-designating countries of origin has no impact on the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement.

On May 17, 2019, the Canadian Government announced it would no longer have the 42 so-called designated countries of origin. This was a list of nations — mainly in Europe — who were considered safe countries. This was done without debate in Parliament.

It’s a pretty convoluted justification, that this policy did little to prevent fraud and abuse. This comes while fake refugees from the U.S. are allowed to illegally stroll into Canada.

The change left the Safe 3rd Country Agreement intact — for the time being — but even that wouldn’t be safe.

8. “Refugees” From U.S. Warzone

Let’s be clear about one thing: illegal crossings from the U.S. could be stopped instantly, it politicians actually had any interest in doing so. Instead, they feign helplessness in order for the public to stop expecting results.

Asylum Claims
The in-Canada asylum system provides protection to foreign nationals when it is determined that they have a
well-founded fear of persecution.
.
Canada received over 64,000 in-Canada asylum claims in 2019, the highest annual number received on record.
Of these, approximately 26% were made by asylum claimants who crossed the Canada-U.S. border between
designated ports of entry. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada finalized 43,004 claims in 2019. Further, Budget 2020 earmarked $795 million over five years to support continued processing of 50,000 asylum
claims per year until 2023–2024. This investment builds on those made in Budgets 2019 and 2018 to effectively
manage Canada’s border and asylum system.

(From page 21), Canada still allowed bogus refugees from the warzone that is the United States. By exploiting a loophole written into the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, economic migrants are able to get to the U.S., then come further north and engage in asylum shopping.

Worth noting, in 2020 a Federal Court Judge struck down the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, claiming it violates the Charter Rights of people illegally in the country trying to claim asylum.

9. Students & Temporary Workers

In 2019, Canada issued 402,427 new study permits, (see page 15). Overall, there were 827,586 international students with visas. Note: this doesn’t include minor children exempt from the visa requirement.

The Report claims that there was $21.6 billion in tuition fees paid from international students. This is the devil’s bargain here: schools get the money, and students get a pathway to stay in Canada.

Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW), and the International Mobility Program (IMP) are listed on page 16. Both programs have seen considerable increases this year. In 2019, there were 98,310 TFW, and 306,797 IMP.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

Let’s not pretend that all (or even the bulk) of people on these various visas will leave Canada afterwards.

Looking ahead
COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on Canada’s prosperity, including our economy. Despite these current challenges, immigration will continue to be a source of long-term economic growth in Canada. IRCC will continue to work with provinces and territories, and other partners and stakeholders, to ensure that our approach to immigration supports Canada’s ongoing prosperity.

Despite the record high unemployment rate, and supposedly being in the middle of a “pandemic”, the Government is committed to continued high levels of population replacement.

10. Tracking People Leaving Canada

Strangely, it is Trudeau who brought in a full entry/exit system to track people leaving Canada, regardless of destination. Sure it took until the Summer of 2020 to be implemented, but still, an improvement. When Harper was in office, he only implemented a limited entry/exit system with the U.S. It didn’t apply to other countries.

However, it’s quite harmful that the CBSA apparently cancels outstanding warrants for people wanted for deportation. Clearly, there is bipartisan indifference towards real border security.

There’s also no effort, at any level of Government, to abolish the practice of “Sanctuary Cities“. These are municipalities that openly defy and circumvent Federal law in order to allow illegal aliens to remain and to access public services.

11. Other Noteworthy Developments

Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers
In June 2019, IRCC introduced a new measure to enable migrant workers who have an employer-specific work permit and are in an abusive job situation to apply for an open work permit. This measure helps to ensure that migrant workers who need to leave their employer can maintain their status, and find
another job.

Measures to support newcomers against family violence
In 2019, IRCC launched measures to ensure that newcomers experiencing family violence are able to apply for a fee-exempt temporary resident permit for newcomers in Canada. This gives them: (a) Legal status; (b) Work permit; (c) Health-care coverage

Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot
The Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots opened for applications on June 18, 2019 and will run for five years. They replaced the expiring Caring for Children and Caring for People with High Medical Needs pilots.
.
Through these pilots, caregivers benefit from a clear transition from temporary to permanent status to ensure that once caregivers have met the work experience requirement, they can become permanent residents quickly. They also benefit from occupation-specific work permits, rather than employer-specific ones, to allow for a fast change of employers when needed. The immediate family of the caregiver may also receive open work permits and study permits to help families come to Canada together.
.
Features of the new pilots reflect lessons learned from previous caregiver programs and test innovative
approaches to addressing unique vulnerabilities and isolation associated with work in private households.

Rainbow Refugees Assistance Partnership
In June 2019, the Government of Canada announced the launch of the Rainbow Refugee Assistance Partnership. Starting in 2020, the five-year partnership will assist private sponsors with the sponsorship of 50 LGBTI refugees per year. The partnership will also strengthen collaboration between LGBTI organizations and the refugee settlement community in Canada.

From page 28 of the report. Some of the changes made in the last year. Most people have no idea the full extent of what’s really going on.

12. Conservatives Support Status Quo

Think that putting Conservatives back into power means that there will be a halt (or even a reduction) in the open borders policies currently going on? Items such as CANZUK, and the temp-to-PR pipeline, are cpc.policy.declaration party policy. O’Toole is on record saying he supports expanding CANZUK further.

13. Political Solution Not Possible

The courts have found that entering Canada (even illegally), is a human right. Politicians (of all parties), have no interest in doing anything about open borders.

All parties support genocidal levels of population replacement. They cloak it in terms like “diversity”, “compassion”, “serving labour needs”, family reunification”, “funding pensions and health care”, and other such lies. Simply ensuring that it happens LEGALLY does nothing to prevent the ultimate outcome.

Posted on

Green New Deal Group, Taking Lessons From The 2008 Banking Bailout

Think recent public efforts to convince the public to act on climate change just happened? No, they are the result of years of planning, and from an organization called Green New Deal Group.

There is some real strategy at play here. Divert people’s attention with protests, riots, and public movements, and the agenda can be quietly passed. After all, how much coverage do the various treaties we sign (and bills we pass), actually get?

1. About Green New Deal Group

As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a new solution to an epochal challenge. The Green New Deal Group drew inspiration from the ambition of President Roosevelt’s comprehensive response to the Great Depression to propose a modernised version, a ‘Green New Deal’ in 2008. It was designed to kick start a rapid transition to a new economy shaped to prevent a climate breakdown and transform a failed financial system. The Green New Deal will power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs across the economy and rein in the distorting and socially-destructive power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.

Meeting since early 2007, the membership of the Green New Deal Group is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating politics and economics, and the climate, nature and inequality crises. The views and recommendations of the Green New Deal series of reports, are those of the group writing in their individual capacities.

The Green New Deal Group is, in alphabetical order:
.
Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian, Colin Hines, Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit, Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Clive Lewis, Labour MP, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP, Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice, City University, Director Tax Research LLP, Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth, Andrew Simms, Co-Director, New Weather Institute, Coordinator, The Rapid Transition Alliance, Assistant Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility. Geoff Tily Senior Economist, TUC

Those are the people who make up the Green New Deal Group. In essence, this is the brainchild behind the eco movement in recent years.

2. GNDG Used To Reboot After 2008 Crash

In the coverage of the causes and likely future effects of the credit crunch, such grim parallels are becoming commonplace. But it’s now time to move from problems to solutions, and here too the Depression can form a useful reference point. Franklin Roosevelt’s action programme for dealing with the aftermath of the late 1920s credit crunch was threefold: first, strictly regulate the cause of the problem – the greedy and feckless finance sector; second, get people back to work, and generate business opportunities by a New Deal. This invested billions of dollars in training, better working conditions and a huge range of infrastructural projects such as highways, dams and bridges. Finally, fund this in part by an increase in taxes on big business and the rich – a measure which also had the positive effect of dramatically decreasing inequality.

Today the re-regulation of finance is even being discussed among consenting free market adults in the columns of the Financial Times. My colleague, environmentalist Colin Hines, has fleshed out the details of a Green New Deal which could help re-boot the economy after the credit crash, while putting serious money into addressing climate change.

As a result of the 2008 crash, this group decided that it would make a great opportunity to completely remake their economy, and deal with climate change in the first place. They reasoned that if banks were worth pouring trillions into, then the environment must be as well. The argument does have some merit to it.

Notice that it’s compared to the “New Deal” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched in the 1930s. This is not the last time that comparison will come up.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the U.S. public to the Green New Deal in 2019, just after taking office. It wasn’t some brainstorm she had, but had been drawn up many years ago. The YouTuber, Mr. Reagan, did address that AOC was a puppet, but he missed how far back the plan went.

3. GND Group To Solve “Triple Crunch”

Can I trust the bank to look after my money? Clickety clack. How much has my house fallen in value? Clickety clack. Will high fuel prices mean I can’t keep my car on the road? Can I afford to buy enough food for the family? Clickety clack. Will I lose my job, and why is everyone making me paranoid about climate change when there’s nothing I can do about it? Clickety, clickety clack … and then back to the beginning. The “triple crunch” of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and soaring energy prices – how did we get into this mess? In the face of so many simultaneous crises, we all have legitimate questions for the governments that allowed us to sleepwalk into this situation.

The Green New Deal was dreamed up as a way to solve multiple problems, such as: (a) financial crisis; (b) climate change; and (c) energy prices all at once.

While it’s nice to see the financial crisis addressed, this group seems to miss the elephant in the room: central banking. It’s that the Government legislates in such a way that the U.S. is forced to borrow — at interest — from the Federal Reserve, a private organization. Do they not know about any of this?

4. History Of The Green New Deal

Where the Green New Deal came from
.
The idea of a Green New Deal first arose at the time of 2007-2008 financial crisis roughly simultaneously in the us and the UK. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an article in January 2007 that suggested the approach. The same year the UK-based Green New Deal group formed, independently developing and publishing the first full proposal for a Green New Deal in July 2008. The group’s report laid out the architecture of the Green New Deal for the first time: combining reining in the power of big finance and transforming the way that government manages the economy with a plan to transform the economy and society to meet the challenges of climate change. The group also published several subsequent reports developing the idea over the following years. The Green New Deal was then taken up by the Green Party in the UK, by Green parties across Europe and by the United Nations Environment Programme. In 2018, the idea was revived by us senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement in the US following a meeting between a member of her team and UK Green New Deal group member Ann Pettifor. When AOC published a bill for the Green New Deal with Senator Edward Markey in February 2019 the idea caught on around the world.

Far from being some sort of a revolutionary, AOC was simply the latest person assigned to run with the agenda. While it is easy to mock the GND outright, it seems that elements of it are embedded within Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

5. UK PM Gordon Brown Promotes GND

Moving the UK to a low-carbon economy will create 400,000 new jobs over the next eight years, Gordon Brown has told a summit in London.
.
The prime minister called for an international “green new deal” to boost the environmental sector and help lift the global economy out of recession.
.
This will increase “confidence and certainty”, he added.
.
But unions and environmental groups called for more funding for green projects, along with better regulation.
The government has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

When he was Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown openly called for a “Green New Deal” to rebuild the country after the banking collapse.

6. Green Quantitative Easing

As the Bank of England moves closer towards announcing an unprecedented third round of ‘Quantitative Easing’, experts are calling for this newly created money to be used more productively and effectively to achieve key social and environmental objectives. During the last round of Quantitative Easing (’QE’) the Bank of England purchased £275bn worth of government bonds with money it newly created. As the Bank of England prepares the ground to inject a likely £50bn to £75bn into the economy, the UK’s Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and Southampton University banking expert Professor Richard Werner, are calling for this money injection to be used for green projects that directly improve the environment and long-term quality of life, while creating many new jobs. Said Professor Richard A. Werner, Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton: “Many people would like money creation to be used to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as create new jobs.”

Green Quantitative Easing Paper

In 2012, Richard Werner submitted a proposal for “green quantitative easing”. In short, it would still involve printing off large sums of money. However, it would be spent on environmental causes, instead of being poured into banks.

7. GND Group UK Budget Submission

A Green New Deal Group briefing, The Green New Deal: Securing the Future, was sent to the Chancellor ahead of the March 2020 budget, with a letter signed by MPs from all the main opposition parties.

As the briefing, written by Green New Deal Group member Richard Murphy sets out, the Green New Deal Group have long argued that it is prudent for government to borrow (by issuing bonds) to invest in the transformation of our infrastructure and businesses while interest rates are low. The briefing shows how such government borrowing could be financed in a way that also creates a safe place for the nation’s pensions and savings, by making simple changes to existing tax incentives. Much of the £70bn saved annually in ISAs could then be invested in government-backed green bonds at an interest rate of 1.85% (the UK government’s current average cost of borrowing) and a quarter of the £100bn currently invested in pensions could be directed into Green New Deal investment.

A budget proposal was submitted to the UK Government in March 2020. It was written by the Green New Deal Group, and was able to get the signatures of many politicians.

8. Protests/Riots Partly Entirely For Show

In recent years, there have been loud environmental movements going on across the Western World. There have been efforts to shut down industries, pipelines, and society altogether. These people seem oblivious to the fact that shutting down oil (for example), would lead to a drastic reduction in their living standards.

However, this is a sleight of hand. Even though politicians appear to be turned off by the antics of violent protesters, they work behind the scenes to ensure that the goals are enacted anyway. Treaties such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset are designed to achieve many of the same goals.

BOLD Like A Leopard wrote a great piece on some of the forces acting behind the scenes. It’s well worth the time to read.

Now we look at the bigger picture. While the public is distracted by very visible protests over environmental issues, just quietly implement them behind the scenes. People likely won’t notice. They are too focused on radicals who seem hell bent on destabilization, though those are distractions.

9. Bankers Run Climate Change Movement

This will seem a cruel twist, but central banks are heavily behind the green movement. One such group is the Network for Greening the Financial System, which currently boasts 75 members.

Hard to be part of the resistance when the financial sector supports, (or at least appears to support), green initiatives. It’s unclear, however, if the banks simply co-opted the movement, or whether they were always running things from behind the scenes.

Green New Deal Group Main Page
https://archive.is/ncRvA
WayBack Machine Archives

About Us: Green New Deal Group
https://archive.is/rxRpv
WayBack Machine Archive

https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/04/
Guardian 2008: We Wanted A Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/07/
Guardian 2008 Article On The Triple Crunch
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/03/
Gordon Brown Calls For Global Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/07/
The Ecologist: Bailed Out Banks Should Fund GND
Green New Deal Group Budget Proposal
Network For Greening The Financial System

AOC: This Is Our World War II
Mr. Reagan: The Brains Behind AOC
NBC On Sunrise Movement

Posted on

CCS #12(B): Green Climate Fund, And The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The Green Climate Fund is heavily pushing for countries to use this “pandemic” as a chance to implement widespread social changes. Others claim that climate change makes the world vulnerable to it happening again. If this wasn’t planned out, then at a minimum, it comes across as very opportunistic.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (yes, it’s an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by powerful people colluding against national interests. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, as the issue goes much deeper than what’s reported. Also, conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. Important Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye7bC-OSJq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrD1ICEFC4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtDndpaYljc

UN Framework Convention On Climate Change
Text Of 2010 UNFCCC Document
https://www.greenclimate.fund/about
South Korea: Global Green New Deal
Green Climate Fund Strategic Plan, 2020 to 2023
Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures In New Zealand
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures In UK
https://twitter.com/theGCF/status/1308602992300560384
https://twitter.com/AniaGrobicki1/status/1324520561171521536/photo/1
https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1299341836948058112

HR 109: Green-New-Deal-FINAL
The Lies Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Erin O’Toole: Build Back Stronger
Speech By Mark Carney (From 2015)

3. Green Climate Fund Conference Speakers

Letting the members speak for themselves might be the best option. They quite openly talk about how the Covid-19 “pandemic” creates an opportunity to implement broader social changes. It was never really about a virus, as that’s just an excuse. See here, here and here. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, all of this comes across as very opportunistic.

4. UN Framework Convention On Climate Change

Background
At COP 16 held in Cancun, by decision 1/CP.16, Parties established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention under Article 11. The Fund is governed by the GCF Board and it is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows.

The Green Climate Fund was a creation based on Article 11 of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in December 2010.

[Article] 11. Agrees that adaptation is a challenge faced by all Parties, and that enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to enable and support the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable;

The Green Climate Fund was approved, (at least in principle), because of this article of the treaty.

5. What Is The Green Climate Fund?

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change. It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010. GCF has a crucial role in serving the Paris Agreement, supporting the goal of keeping average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees C. It does this by channelling climate finance to developing countries, which have joined other nations in committing to climate action.

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

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

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

The Fund pays particular attention to the needs of societies that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

GCF aims to catalyse a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission and climate-resilient development, driving a paradigm shift in the global response to climate change.

Our innovation is to use public investment to stimulate private finance, unlocking the power of climate-friendly investment for low emission, climate resilient development. To achieve maximum impact, GCF seeks to catalyse funds, multiplying the effect of its initial financing by opening markets to new investments.

Balanced portfolio
GCF’s investments are aimed at achieving maximum impact in the developing world, supporting paradigm shifts in both mitigation and adaptation. The Fund aims for a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation investments over time. It also aims for a floor of 50 percent of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries, including Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

Unlocking private finance
The Fund is unique in its ability to engage directly with both the public and private sectors in transformational climate-sensitive investments. GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility (PSF). As part of its innovative framework, it has the capacity to bear significant climate-related risk, allowing it to leverage and crowd in additional financing. It offers a wide range of financial products including grants, concessional loans, subordinated debt, equity, and guarantees. This enables it to match project needs and adapt to specific investment contexts, including using its funding to overcome market barriers for private finance.

On the surface, all of this sounds fine. The Green Climate Fund claims that it’s raising money to deal with environmental affairs. However, it’s not so straightforward. This isn’t about preventing climate change, but about using warnings and fears about it to make money.

6. AOC: House Resolution 109, Green New Deal

Green-New-Deal-FINAL

While AOC is frequently mocked for low intelligence, the reality is that a lot of her actions are motivated by deceitfulness, not being naive. Take for example, House Resolution 109, the infamous Green New Deal. This was introduced in 2019, not long after she was elected to Congress.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

That admission pretty much killed Resolution 109. It became clear at that point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her staff didn’t actually believe in what they were pushing. Instead, this was a pretext to enact a much larger social agenda.

Ocasio-Cortez was just a puppet in a much larger scheme.

7. The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The head of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on Thursday called for a global Green New Deal in which redirected financial flows usher in an age of sustainable, post-pandemic growth that takes the heat out of dangerous planetary warming.

“Climate action and COVID-19 recovery measures must be mutually supportive to be effective,” said GCF Executive Director Yannick Glemarec during an international conference in South Korea exploring how COVID-19 recovery efforts can be directed away from investments that are harming the planet towards those creating a global green economy. 

The conference focused on South Korea’s national plans to counter the effects of the pandemic through economic recovery pathways leading to future carbon neutrality, while also reflecting on how similar “Green New Deals” are being adopted across the world.

Reflecting the urgency COVID-19 has brought to the need to take climate action, conference participants considered how the paths that countries take now in recovering from COVID-19 will determine whether the world achieves the Paris Agreement goals and a net zero emissions future.

The Government of South Korea, for example, seems to have fully embraced the Green New Deal. This is at least in part as a response to the coronavirus “pandemic”.

It certainly is convenient that this “pandemic” struck when and how it did. Otherwise, people might be a lot more hesitant to embrace the radical restructuring of their economy. Let’s be clear, this is just an excuse to implement their communist agenda.

While the focus here is on South Korea, the Green Climate Fund, (and their allies), support all countries adopting some version of the Green New Deal.

8. Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures are already a reality in New Zealand, and is coming to Britain as well. And we are not too far off from adopting it in Canada. This is an initiative that the Green Climate Fund fully supports, just on a global scale. If fully implemented, many businesses (globally), would have to submit disclosure forms to the UN for their approval.

9. Canada’s Industries To Be Phased Out

The United Nations has officially asked for certain industries to be allowed to die off. In Canada, this certainly means the end of oil & gas, among others. It’s not like the Conservatives, and their modified “Build Back Better” expression will do much.