Select Page

Author: Cameron Keegan

Why Does World Economic Forum Chair Klaus Schwab Say China Is a “Model” for Many Countries?

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
Between China’s “social credit score system,” we explore the role of “environmental, social and governance” with respect to Schwab’s model for “stakeholder capitalism” in the West.
Here is a stunning, surprising revelation.
World Economic Forum (WEF) Chair Klaus Schwab were interviewed in late November by a Chinese state-owned media outlet; he said of China: “I think it’s a role model for many countries.”
Schwab expressed these comments during an interview with China Global Television Network while discussing a recent meeting of business and government leaders at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO Summit in Bangkok, Thailand.
“I think we should be very careful in imposing systems,” Schwab continued. “But the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries.”
Who exactly is “we,” and what aspects of the “Chinese model” might Schwab believe benefits other countries, and more specifically, which countries?
A one-party system governs China: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has little tolerance for criticism of its political leaders. One of the aspects of the CCP is its ability to mobilize quickly without having to convince a political opposition to pass a law.

“*” indicates required fields

Indeed, Schwab said that he respected the “tremendous” achievements of China with respect to the country’s economic transformation over the last 40 years. But, on a different note, another aspect of a one-party system like the CCP is its ability to abuse centralized power and quick mobilization capabilities.
First announced in 2014 by the CCP, the “social credit system” monitors and ranks individual people, companies and government organizations based on “social credit.” China’s social credit system judges all aspects of its citizens’ behaviour. So, for example, if someone is “caught” by advanced cameras jaywalking or playing music too loud, this could limit their rights to travel, such as booking a flight or train ticket. Moreover, even the private sector has non-governmental scoring systems, as reported in 2019 by Wire.

What is the justified purpose of the social credit score?
A Chinese state-issued notice titled “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020)” states that the adopted social credit system is an important part “of the Socialist market economy system and the social governance system.” Indeed, the notice argues that:
[T]he construction of local credit and the development of credit services markets as support, take raising the entire society’s sense of sincerity and credit levels and improving the economic and social operating environment as targets, put people first, broadly shape a thick atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful, and ensure that sincerity and trustworthiness become conscious norms of action among all the people.
According to the South China Morning Post, the social credit scores are set by China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the People’s Bank of China, and the Chinese court system.

Introducing a social credit framework for sustainability
China’s social credit system may be compared to a social credit framework known as “environmental, social and governance” or ESG. In a 2019 Project Syndicate article, Schwab wrote that to “uphold the principles of stakeholder capitalism,” companies need to integrate ESG goals to complement standard financial metrics.
Schwab expressed that “stakeholder capitalism” is a business model he proposed 50 years ago that “positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.” As is the case with the WEF Chair, he openly shared his vision:
We should seize this moment to ensure that stakeholder capitalism remains the new dominant model…releasing a new “Davos Manifesto,” which states that companies should pay their fair share of taxes, show zero tolerance for corruption, uphold human rights throughout their global supply chains, and advocate for a competitive level playing field.
In other words, ESG attempts to define corporate standards for socially responsible investing and sustainable investing, which can be described by three major aspects:

First, the “environmental” component reflects a company’s strategy for safeguarding the environment, such as reducing its carbon emissions.
Second, the “social” component represents corporate connections with stakeholders such as vendors, employees and customers, and the residents in the area where the company is located.
Third, the “governance” component reports on expected ethical behavior and compensation for the company’s workforce.

Although ESG originated in the 1960s as socially responsible investing, ESG investing has grown substantially more in recent decades and has become an important aspect of investors’ research processes. For example, Insider Monkey in mid-November discussed five of the biggest ESG companies in the world: Tesla, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet (where Google is a subsidiary). Thus, ESG scores can influence a business owner’s decision-making and “filter out” companies with low ESG scores while favorably ranking those companies that contribute “positively” to its three major components.
Financial institutions nowadays scan our financial credit scores—assuming we take out credit cards—to decide whether we are “suitable” for another credit card, bank loan or even a service broken down into monthly payments. The justification is that a good credit score demonstrates a responsible buyer with an income who will make timely payments.
But then, what about those who may opt out of applying for credit in the first place? And could an ESG-type score be the next step for the individual based on their gas and electricity usage, the kind of products they purchase, or the services they use? For example, might buying red meat or travelling by plane be seen as “adding to climate-warming emissions” and thus weaken their ESG-type score? And could that score be used as part of a “filtering” process for future work opportunities and access to leisure services?
One way to pass increasingly authoritarian laws
As expressed in an earlier article titled “Insight From an Open Cabal: They Always Tell the World What They Plan To Do,” one might conclude that any idea supported by Schwab “tends to favor extended centralization of power; a higher emphasis on personal borrowing instead of personal ownership; and greater surveillance and micromanagement through public-private sector partnerships.”
Now unlike China’s explicit one-party state system, the United States of America presents itself as a two-party system—albeit having other parties that occasionally win representation in Congress. To this end, a 2021 Pew Research Center typology shows that Americans are divided by party and within their party. Divisions emerge in relation to views on the role of government, economic policy and inequality, immigration and religion.
Given the above, Harvard University published a report in 2019 analyzing election survey data from 20 countries between 1996 and 2015, to understand the factors impacting affective polarization—that is, the “gap between individuals’ positive feelings toward their own political party and negative feelings toward the opposing party.”
The authors argue that affective polarization, also referenced in a 2021 report by the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern, becomes more “intense” with increasing unemployment and income inequality levels.
Interestingly, the report found “inconsistent evidence” that ideological differences between elected Democrats and Republicans in government are a source of affective polarization. Thus, the authors reached the following conclusion:
American unemployment levels are currently at a nearly 50-year low—yet affective polarization in the U.S. appears to be at a postwar high… If American unemployment levels revert towards their historic norms, let along levels associated with another recession, this development may further amplify inter-party hostility between Democrats and Republicans. While the future of American civic life will turn on many unforeseeable developments, this consideration highlights the challenges we confront as we struggle to build a more civil society.
In other words, if unemployment levels increase, the polarization will increase, and higher polarization reflects more elevated levels of infighting between fellow citizens. Suppose We, the People, struggle to uphold a shared vision for America moving forward by remaining fixated on infighting. In that case, it will be easier for organized lobbying bodies to persuade a government adaption of increasingly authoritarian ideas because ordinary voting citizens remain distracted by each other, and sometimes, find themselves lost in a web of celebrities and media commentators who know how to generate and monetize a theater of “outrage.”
Where there’s a will, there’s a way
There is hope for freedom-loving Americans. That is, if there are enough people, irrespective of ideological differences between parties and within their party, who can agree on protecting certain fundamental rights as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
But, then, rational voters need to explicitly state and understand those fundamental rights. For instance, are We, the People, going to accept a “social credit system” that might directly influence (sorry, manipulate) our diet, travel behavior, and work and business opportunities?
I believe in grassroots organizations that aim to hold the government accountable for protecting and securing the rights of everyday Americans. And there is a serious need to unite on core values, albeit disagreeing on a diverse range of subject matters.
Imagine an organization of patriots educated in both the Constitution and international lobbying bodies, whether party affiliated or partyless, united in protecting the right to personal privacy (e.g., bodily autonomy and preferred transportation) without being subjected to scrutinizing data collection for marketing and, by extension, surveillance and micromanagement of individual lives.
So who is going to lead America—Klaus Schwab or We, the People?

Read More

House Passes Bill to End Military COVID-19 Mandate—Now Reinstate Wrongfully Fired Service Members

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
As Congress passes a bill with a House majority to end the COVID-19 “vaccine” or shots military mandate, the next step must reinstate those forced out and deprived of their livelihoods.
Thursday. December 8, 2022: an $858 billion Defense bill, set to repeal the COVID-19 “vaccine” or shots mandate for members of the U.S. military, passed the House of Representatives in Congress.
According to the Republican House. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) entitles a pay rise for U.S. troops. McCarthy, the minority leader campaigning for speaker in January, tweeted, “Last week I told Biden directly: it’s time to end your COVID vaccine mandate on our military & rehire our service members. The end of the mandate is a victory for our military & for common sense.”
To secure bipartisan support, Democrats agreed to demands from their Republican counterparts to scrap the requirement that service members be inoculated with a COVID shot. The House passed the bill by a vote of 350 to 80; it now moves to the Senate and, if passed successfully, will be signed into law by President Joe Biden.
The NDAA demands Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repeal the August 2021 issued memorandum that inflicted a COVID shots mandate, albeit Austin voiced support for keeping that same mandate only days earlier.
Giving Republicans credit where due
As stated in the article, “COVID Mandates Are Being Lifted but Still Continue—End the ‘National Emergency, ’” a group of 47 Congress members issued a letter to Austin in mid-September, requesting he revoke the COVID shots mandate for all service members, civilian personnel and contractors. In addition, the letter urges the Defense Secretary to reinstate the position of Americans discharged for noncompliance, and questions the potential consequences of recruitment shortages by highlighting data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Indeed, nearly 40 percent of men aged 18 to 24 are not “fully vaccinated” with COVID jabs. Moreover, in the Southern United States, an area responsible for enlisting half of the U.S. military, that proportion is over 50 percent, automatically disqualifying the majority “in the most fertile recruiting grounds.”

“*” indicates required fields

After the new bill was issued, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, said he plans to investigate who was impacted by the COVID shots mandate. Indeed, more than 8,000 active-duty service members have been reportedly discharged after refusing to be jabbed.
To put the above number into perspective, the Department of Defense has reported that approximately 2 million service members have been “fully vaccinated” since late November. Aiming to become chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the next Congress, Rogers said, “some folks have moved on are not going to want to come back.

For sure, Americans—irrespective of their profession—have a God-given right to refuse the shots, if nothing else, due to the concern that while a typical vaccine development timeline is 5 to 10 years, the COVID shots’ development under “Operation Warp Speed” was less than a year. And recapping a thought expressed in an earlier article is a potent reminder of our duties as good citizens:
The idea of being a lawful citizen and member of the armed forces who trust their government, while simultaneously resisting a mandate issued by that same government they’ve agreed to serve, can seem contradictory. And it’s right here, where an intrinsic belief in those “certain inalienable rights” can protect our personal freedom—and the freedom of future generations.
And if the timeline of the COVID shots trial isn’t disconcerting, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that many service members have grown familiar with the mounting number of studies linking the shots to severe adverse reactions.

Why service members might have rejected the COVID-19 shots
Since the rollout of the COVID jabs, study after study has highlighted the waning efficacy against infection of the virus that causes COVID-19. In summary, such publications conclude that these shots provide “protection” for around six months.
Moreover, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices concluded in late June 2021 that a COVID jab contributed to an “elevated risk for myocarditis”, especially in young males between ages 12 and 29. A growing number of independent studies highlight that the incidence of myocarditis increases after receiving a COVID shot, particularly after the second dose among men under 30 years old.
To add to the above, multiple studies have reported the “rare risk” of blood clotting inside a blood vessel (thrombosis) and low platelet levels (thrombocytopenia). Such studies include “thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome” or “vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” an adverse reaction occurring mainly but not exclusively among women between 20 and 50 years old.
Personally speaking, if I were a member of the armed forces (or the parent of one) and knew of the above risks, I would be seriously concerned.
Reinstate service members who were discharged
We must note that the NDAA does not include the reinstatement of troops discharged over the mandate. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky tweeted that the “next steps” are to “reinstate all members of the military wrongfully terminated due to vax.” Furthermore, Air Force Master Sergeant Nick Kupper told Breitbart News he was “relieved” that the NDAA “will save roughly 70,000 careers” but disappointed it “does nothing to repair the damage” inflicted on more than 8,000 service members.
Indeed, many are more than disappointed. The next step is to move from tweeting and issuing statements to lawmaking. A group of grassroots military community activists have reportedly called on the Pentagon to reinstate service members who were forced out over the ill-formed mandate:
The repeal of the COVID vaccine mandate in the NDAA is a step in the right direction. However, it is only a small step towards rebuilding the trust between service members and their leadership, both uniformed and civilian. To continue the journey towards reestablishing trust, the [Department of Defense] DOD must reinstate those forced out and deprived their livelihoods.
In support, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas reportedly told Fox News Digital in early December that he wanted to introduce legislation to pay and reinstate military members fired over the “vaccine” mandate. On this note in relation to the NDAA, the grassroots military community activists added that:
The legislature must stop standing idly by as a rogue DOD flagrantly violates its own [The Uniform Code of Military Justice] UCMJ and federal laws. Congress is duty bound to leverage the power of the purse as well as subpoena authority to force accountability of the executive branch. Policy needs to be written to ensure the protection of service members and their rights.
The group added that, “We as a community are not satisfied and want to assure the 118th Congress that this issue is not going away.” Indeed, the one responsibility of government is, and has always been, to secure our natural rights—and this includes protecting our body as part of a deeply held religious belief. Again, I personally look to Biblical scripture for guidance:
1 Cor 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which isin you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Read More

Global “Restructuring” Through Vaccine Passports And Digital Money Issued By Central Banks

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
While the G20 supports “proof of vaccination” for international travel, the head of WEF calls for global “restructuring,” during which time the NY Fed launches a digital money program.
In mid-November, the Group of Twenty (G20) published a statement supporting ways to facilitate “seamless international travel,” including the need to provide proof of vaccination.
Founded in 1999, the G20 is a global consortium of the world’s largest economies from industrialized and developing nations, including: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The European Union takes a seat as well.
The joint statement was releaseed following the annual G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia. Leaders had gathered to address “global digital health networks” that would support pandemic prevention under the “framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the International Health Regulations 2005 was developed under the World Health Organization (WHO) and serves as a “legally binding agreement of 196 countries to build the capability to detect and report potential public health emergencies worldwide.”
IHR instructs all member countries to detect, assess, report, and respond to “public health events.” It also requires them to establish and maintain capacities for surveillance and response at border crossings, and may also require “health documents” for international traffic.
Moreover, the G20 leaders said that these global digital health networks should build upon existing “digital COVID-19 certificates” schemes implemented throughout many countries.

“*” indicates required fields

Here’s a Big Concern: such vaccine passports might be used by governments to enhance surveillance of individuals and allow large corporations to manipulate their decision-making by restricting access to employment or leisure services—and, yes, travel.
Digital health certificates for travel?
Unsurprisingly, the G20 declaration comes after Indonesia’s Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin offered a similar “suggestion” about providing vaccination evidence to “move around” during a Business 20 (B20) panel held ahead of the G20 summit.

Established in 2010, the B20 serves as the official G20 dialog forum with the international business community. During the panel discussion, Sadikin advocated for the use of “digital health certificates” as essentially normative:
Let’s have a digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO. If you have been vaccinated or tested properly, then you can move around. So for the next pandemic, instead of stopping the movement of people a hundred percent, which stopped the economy globally, you know, you can still provide some movement of the people.
Indeed, a report published by the B20 contains recommendations for G20, including the creation of “robust guidelines on health emergency preparedness to ensure global coordinated response for future crises, enhanced by a technology-enabled ‘always-on’ global health infrastructure.”

Furthermore, Sadikin added that G20 leaders had agreed to such global digital health certificates, the idea of which may be introduced at the upcoming World Health Assembly in May 2023, Geneva, Switzerland.
Requiring proof of vaccination
It is common for international travellers to certain countries with a history of yellow fever as an endemic and epidemic disease to present relevant proof of vaccination. The motivation is to protect individual travellers who may be exposed to the yellow fever virus and to prevent the risk of importing the virus to countries where the vast majority of the public is not suitably immunized.
According to a report from the CDC, most patients with yellow fever are asymptomatic. Still, among the 15 percent who develop severe illness, the case fatality rate is 20 to 60 percent. In contrast, a single yellow fever vaccination reportedlyprovides lifelong protection for most people.
But for many, the G20 proposing proof of vaccination for international travel post-2020 might imply: we are going to demand evidence of “protection” against a virus that causes a disease, in which roughly 98 percent of U.S. patients survive on average, and has waning efficacy with every passing month, hence the justification for booster doses.
For many, something isn’t right—something is up.
That something can be illuminated by listening to remarks made by Klaus Schwab at the B20 summit. Schwab, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), is a leading globalist who advocates for public-private sector partnerships and stakeholder capitalism to improve the “whole of society.”
Calls for global “restructuring” at B20 summit
Schwab couldn’t help himself—he called for a global “restructuring” of political, social, economic and ecological systems and said this “deep systemic and structural restructuring” would result in hardship for ordinary people. He added, “The world will look differently after we have gone through this transition process.”
During his keynote address, “Harnessing the Power of Innovation for Future Economic Growth,” Schwab said that there needs to be a particular emphasis on “restructuring” supply chains and accountability for those who contribute towards polluting the environment. He also added that:
If you restructure a company, you write off the costs and, of course, the shareholders are suffering. If you restructure an economy, the result is a reduction of income, of disposable income, which can lead to extensive social tensions, which we see in our world.
The chairman of the WEF openly communicated his vision: there is a need for private industries to team up with public governments; and businesses need to move towards stakeholder capitalism. He said more specifically:
Governments and businesses have to cooperate in order to become a fast fish because in our world today it’s not anymore so much the big fish who eats the small fish, but it is the fast fish who eats the slow fish.
Talking of “restructuring” an economic system, it almost seems like Schwab is openly communicating an undertaking that many nations have accepted—perhaps drudgingly or gradually—but accepted nonetheless.
New York Federal Reserve launches digital dollars program
Around the same time the G20 published their statement, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced a 12-week program with major financial companies, including Citigroup, HSBC Holdings, Mastercard, Wells Fargo and PNC Financial Services. Not exactly lightweight. The pilot program uses digital dollars to supposedly improve financial settlements, including participation from central banks, commercial banks and regulated non-banks.
The proof of concept (PoC) program will explore a “regulated liability network” that operates exclusively in U.S. dollars. In this PoC, commercial banks issue simulated digital dollars or “tokens” representing their customers’ deposits that are settled on a simulated central bank reserve on a shared distributed ledger.
The director of the New York Federal Reserve’s Innovation Center expressed that the center “looks forward to collaborating with members of the banking community to advance research on asset tokenization and the future of financial market infrastructures in the U.S. as money and banking evolve.”
Although the program is PoC and will be conducted in a test environment using only simulated data, many central banks are exploring retail central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) for use by the general public and businesses. In addition, wholesale CBDCs are also being tested, wherein fiat money as “tokens” is exchanged among financial institutions.
Suppose money is purely digitized and provided directly by the government, as would be the case with implementing CBDCs. In that case, there is virtually no limit to the level of control that government might exert over its citizens. Normalizing CBDCs could provide officials from the federal government total control to track and monitor a person’s wealth, movement of money and purchases.
We, the People, who care about protecting our liberties and the right to personal privacy, must be ahead of the globalist game and a government that is likely beholden to the WEF agenda.
We have already witnessed the COVID “vaccine” or injection game plan. First, there came incentives; when the majority of the public failed to get jabbed in return for free donuts, beer and the chance to win a $1 million lottery, then came coercion. Yet, when a stubborn proportion of the public started challenging their company and applying for religious exemptions, many as “born again Christians,” then came the smackdown mandates. Finally, many brave men and women brought over their kids’ education from school to home, opted out of university for self-learning, and found other employment or dived into self-employment.
We, the People, need to stay well ahead of the CBDC game plan and start planning alternative paths of storing personal wealth, and finding businesses that are beholden to the principle that privacy—how we choose to use our honest earned income as a lawful citizens—is a fundamental human right.

Read More

Why Any Federal Law Defining “Marriage” Is Unconstitutional

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
While Republicans and Democrats are having a tug of war in defining “marriage,” they have involved the government in a sacred religious ceremony, stepping into unconstitutional territory.
What an incredible difference the 2022 midterm election made for the Republican Party—the one political organization many conservatives rely upon, and hope the party will uphold traditional Christian family values and channel these values through policies and decision-making in Congress.
In recent years, many Americans have come to view the Grand Old Party (GOP) as responsible for “conserving” personal liberties, and the social and moral fabric of the Republic. We look to the GOP as the mature sibling of the Democratic Party, and to safeguard America as our Founding Fathers intended when they framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
In mid-November, Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York was re-elected House Republican Conference Chair, and Tom Emmer of Minnesota was elected House Majority Whip.
Congratulations—
I would’ve finished the above sentence but stopped short after learning they voted in favor of legislation proposed by the Democratic Party to codify “same-sex marriage” in federal law.
Stefanik and Emmer were among 47 Republicans in the House of Representatives who joined Democrats in mid-July to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RMA) which would repeal the largely unenforced “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA.)

“*” indicates required fields

Enacted in 1996, DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman under federal law and allows individual states not to recognize a “same-sex marriage” performed and legally recognized in another state. DOMA also clarifies that a “spouse” is someone of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
In contrast, RMA would recognize under federal law a “marriage” between two individuals performed by a state, and require all other states to recognize that “marriage” regardless of the “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.”

Furthermore, according to Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who also voted in favor of RMA, the bill does not authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriages.
For now, that is—because there is no bottom to pandora’s “marriage” box and an excellent opportunity for pressure groups and activists to fight for the “right” to a federally recognized “polygamous marriage.”

Some habits are hard to change. For example, Stefanik and Emmer voted in May 2016 among 43 Republicans for an amendment requiring any federal contractor to institute a policy refusing to “discriminate” individuals who identify under the umbrella of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” (LGBT.)
At one point, Stefanik also backed the “Fairness for All Act” (FFAA) in February 2021, a bill that would prohibit “discrimination” based on “sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, while providing certain benefits and exemptions to religious providers.” However, she eventually withdrew her support after mounting pushback from conservatives who argued that the bill offered minuscule protections for religious liberty.
In effect, the FFAA was a “moderate” version of the “Equality Act” (EA) proposed by the Democratic Party, which aimed to amend the “Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”
The EA would restrict employers with 15 or more employees from “discriminating” them based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” It would also demand that individuals be given access to a “shared facility,” including a restroom or locker room, based on their personal “gender identity.”
Which political party carves America’s path?
One can observe that many Republicans attempt to hinder the pace of America on par towards cultural erosion, often supported by a tide of conservative resistance—but a trajectory they have nonetheless seemingly resigned will come to pass. At the same time, their Democrat counterparts are all too willing to push forward America’s voyage towards moral decline at a much faster rate.
Pressure group lobbyists who advocate for “rights” under the LGBT umbrella channel their activism through the more sympathetic Democratic Party, thus setting the trend of “progress.” At the same time, Republicans find themselves fighting to “conserve” traditional marriage; this struggle, this resistance can seem futile because over 70 percent of Americans say “homosexuality should be accepted” and about 60 percent say “legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society.”
Even Donald Trump, as a Republican, became the first American president to enter office already supporting “same-sex marriage,” calling the act “settled” by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS.)
The idea of marriage—that is, the psychological and emotional benefits and economic advantages of a monogamous union between a man and a woman—must regain momentum at the grassroots level. It must be “sold” to emerging youth as “progress” towards good mental health and financial stability. The desire for children will naturally follow to a lesser or greater extent. But such a, dare I say, radical idea must be viewed by the target population as “progress” in their pursuit of happiness and not “going backwards.”
Thus, the Republican Party could go on the offense insofar as supporting pro-marriage and pro-family initiatives at a local level. But, unless there is a radical change among Republican lawmakers in the next few years, it might take at least a decade to educate an uprising of Americans who enter the GOP with a commitment towards upholding the moral backbone of society—and the Constitution.
Is DOMA or RMA even constitutional?

Let us not forget that New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced RMA with claims to repeal the federal statute DOMA “and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.”
Interestingly, the SCOTUS had already ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional in 2013 (United States v. Windsor) and then again in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges.) Furthermore, regardless of the desire to codify “marriage” as a union between any two individuals in federal law, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the Constitution addresses the duty that all states have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” In other words, passing DOMA in the first place did not change what is already enshrined in one of America’s founding documents.
With the above said, even if a Supreme Court rules a state or federal statute as unconstitutional, that statute still exists—what changes are how courts, prosecutors and judges will proceed when evaluating whether to execute that particular statute. Thus, RMA merely cleans the DOMA federal statute that the SCOTUS already struck down on two separate occasions.
The biggest problem with RMA and DOMA is driving away the idea of marriage from a religious context and forcing the state to “recognize legal marriage.”
Is this idea entirely new? No.
If we dig back in time, we learn about anti-miscegenation laws criminalizing interracial marriages from the late 17th century through the late 1960s, until the SCOTUS ruled such laws unconstitutional via the 14th Amendment adopted in the late 19th century.
So here’s another radical thought.
How about We, the People, do not allow the government to define marriage?
Period.

Read More

Insight From an Open Cabal: They Always Tell the World What They Plan To Do

body #gform_wrapper_2 {border-width: 0; border-style: solid;background-color:#f7f7f7;padding-left:15px;padding-right:15px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:15px;background-color:rgba(247,247,247,1);}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button{border-style: solid;font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; border-width: 0px;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_previous_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer .gform_next_button:hover,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield#field_submit .gform-button:hover {border-style: solid;border-style: solid;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer button.mdc-button:hover {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_page_footer,body #gform_wrapper_2 #field_submit.gfield {}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gfield_radio label {font-weight: normal; font-weight: bold; width: auto;}body #gform_wrapper_2 .gform_body .gform_fields .gfield .gfield_label {font-size:20px;}/* Styling for Tablets */@media only screen and ( max-width: 800px ) and ( min-width:481px ) {}/* Styling for phones */@media only screen and ( max-width: 480px ) {}/*Option to add custom CSS */
Over 40 percent of Americans believe a “secret cabal” runs the U.S. government. If we care to look in the right places, a global “open cabal” explicitly shares its agenda step-by-step.
Former President Obama’s campaign pollster, Joel Benenson, surveyed a thousand registered U.S. voters in late October to test the appeal of “QAnon’s language that the world is controlled by a secret cabal.”
To say the least, the Benenson Strategy Group’s results were surprising.
Recall the phenomenon of QAnon

In October 2017, an anonymous or “Anon” user posted on the imageboard 4chan that Hillary Clinton or “HRC” would be arrested in two days. These messages, over time, became known as “Q drops” written cryptically with pledges and positive themes around Donald Trump.
QAnon, at its core, is based on a theory that Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who are members of an elite class within leftist corporate media, Hollywood, big business and government. Indeed, a Pew Research Center study in September 2020 found that nearly half of Americans had heard of “QAnon,” of which around 20 percent held a positive view of the movement.
A poignant aspect of QAnon is providing its supporters with a sense of reassurance—that Trump is playing smart political moves and how We, the People should “trust the plan” by passively staying in the passenger seat, allowing Donald the Savior to cleanse the government and leading authorities of moral corruption.
Put aside the deplorable mistreatment of detainees after they protested the outcome of the 2020 election on January 6, 2021. Put aside the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate or the FBI arresting former Trump advisor Peter Navarro—how has the QAnon “trust the plan” been working out thus far?

“*” indicates required fields

Fast forward to the recent Benenson poll; a stunning 44 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “The federal government is controlled by a secret cabal.” Among those who hold this belief, 53 percent are Republican, 41 percent are Independent and only 37 percent are Democrat.
Interestingly, the same poll shows that 59 percent of U.S. voters “agree that the U.S. is a strong democracy.” When broken down by political affiliation, 66 percent are Democrat, 55 percent are Republican and 54 percent are Independent.

A “secret cabal” versus an “open cabal”

Consider Professor Klaus Schwab, a past student of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kessinger, and founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF.) In 1971, Schwab established the WEF as a “not for profit” foundation headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
Carefully weaved into its mission statement, the WEF serves as an international lobbying organization and declares, “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 “all walks of life” refers to public-private sector cooperation, harnessing the skills of leading figures in politics, big business, academia and culture to shape global, national and industrial plans.
During a 2017 conference at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Schwab boasted that “we penetrate the cabinets,” asserting that at least half of Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were graduates of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders initiative. Indeed, so too were Argentina and France mentioned, referring to then-newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron.
“And I have to say, when I mention our names, like [former German Chancellor] Mrs. Merkel, even [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and so on,” Schwab said. “They all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.”
How has WEF “penetrated” the U.S. government?
Indeed, the U.S. government has its fair share of WEF graduates according to a list compiled by The Malone Institute, ranging from Republicans such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, Texas Rep. Daniel Crenshaw through Democrats such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.
We can infer from the chairman of the WEF that he proudly boasts and openly shares a vision for an increasingly technological world, including the exact steps taken to fulfil what he—and many of his comrades—believes should be the direction of national governments in the 21st century.
In fact, Joe Biden spoke as Vice President at the WEF annual meeting in January 2017 with a clear message:
In two days, there will be a new President of the United States [Donald Trump], but the challenges we face and the choices we must make as an international community do not hinge exclusively on Washington’s leadership.
Biden also emphasized the importance of “a liberal international order” and to “ensure that the benefits and the burdens of globalization and digitization are shared more equitably.”
By the time Trump was sworn in as the 45th U.S. President, his daughter and advisor, Ivanka Trump, was already a WEF graduate of 2015 and married to a senior advisor to the new commander-in-chief.
Introducing “The Great Reset Initiative”
For many people worldwide, the “COVID-19 pandemic” resulted from the response to a “novel” coronavirus outbreak, including government-issued lockdowns, “nonessential” business closures, stay-at-home orders and separation from elderly loved ones who passed away in nursing homes.
Schwab, meanwhile, saw a “unique opportunity” for something akin to an economic revolution. In June 2020, the WEF launched “The Great Reset Initiative,” to which there are three main aspects: build an environment for a “stakeholder economy,” foster an “equitable, inclusive and sustainable” society and utilize the innovations of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
While discussing his new book “COVID-19: The Great Reset” with CNBC International, Schwab said that the “pandemic” brought forth a “unique opportunity to reset our global agenda” and to recreate a global framework “which, really, is in line with the requirements of a society in the 21st century.”
The latest “requirement” is usually published on the WEF website, and discussed during various panels and annual conferences. My concern is that any “solution” to a “problem” proposed by the WEF tends to favor extended centralization of power; a higher emphasis on personal borrowing instead of personal ownership; and greater surveillance and micromanagement through public-private sector partnerships.
Taking advantage of American exceptionalism
Alongside the Second Amendment, the United States has two unique strengths: the First Amendment; and being a driver of cultural changes and scientific advancements.
Thus, the WEF will seek to channel and express its vision through American exceptionalism; it will simultaneously aim to control and suppress the flow of information perceived as “harmful,” “dangerous,” “misinformation,” or “disinformation.”
Any expression of thought that doesn’t align with a narrative beholden to the WEF agenda, and other ideologically compatible lobbying groups, will aim to be condemned and banished from leading social media platforms, corporate industry—and even academic institutions that are equally beholden to a progressive left worldview.
WEF reveals Google’s partnership with United Nations
During a WEF panel on “tackling disinformation” in late September, a United Nations (U.N.) representative announced that they “own the science” in relation to a partnership with Google around “climate information.” The U.N.’s Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, justified the collaboration:
For example, if you Google “climate change,” you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of U.N. resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled “climate change,” we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.
Fleming also pointed out that the U.N. collaborated with the video-sharing platform TikTok to counteract “COVID” viewpoints that didn’t bode well with their “science.”
“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” Fleming said.
Indeed, Fleming recognizes the power of social media; she reasoned that recruiting influencers to promote the U.N.’s messaging around “COVID” would be essential to counteract mistrust of international institutions:
Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers, uhm, influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.
It must be stressed that the commitment of WEF members or associates is striking; they appear dedicated to clamping down on any form of speech that opposes the organization’s narrative. For instance, a professor from Brown University weighed in on major media platforms’ responsibility to “mitigate the harms of polluted information.” In collaboration with leading figures within the U.N, media and academia, they aim to get ahead of the curve by involving Big Tech to carry the fire of burning “information leading to harm.”
To emphasize the above point, a senior physician might provide an empirical opinion about adverse reactions associated with COVID “vaccines” on Twitter. A high school biology teacher might state on TikTok that there are only two sexes, and rare genetic conditions involving an extra or absent chromosome. A disgruntled store manager might rant on Facebook about the “cleansing” of a group he finds repugnant while claiming to be a “Christian.” Chances are that all three cases are going to be treated as “harmful” information, their accounts will be terminated, and their lives may be changed forever.
The power and danger of distraction
While many Americans are outraged, perhaps entertained, but nonetheless distracted by growing political polarization—it is not by coincidence. The more socially and politically divided a nation leans to the point of exacerbated infighting, the easier it can be manipulated by an external lobbying force that carefully infiltrates public and private sectors responsible for driving policy, economy and culture.
Remember the “build back better” slogan?
Ever wondered where the Biden administration whipped up the slogan “build back better” for the name of a $1.75 trillion social spending plan that passed through Congress in November 2021?
Interestingly, in June 2020, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom (U.K.) announced a “New Deal” as part of government plans to “build back better” by investing nearly $6 billion equivalent to accelerate infrastructure projects and fuel “economic recovery.”
Moreover, the European Commission announced in May 2020 an investment under $800 billion equivalent to support European Union (E.U.) member states after the “consequences of the COVID-19 crisis.” The E.U.’s “Green Deal,” which combines public and private sector funding, is central to its economic recovery and objective of “climate neutrality.”
Interestingly, $500 billion of Biden’s “Build Back Better Act” represents investment in renewable energy tax credits, which are indirect federal subsidies to finance the production of renewable energy. Even the U.K. government published its own “Build Back Better: our plan for growth” in March 2021, with a focus on investment in “clean energy technologies” that prevents carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere, such as carbon capture, utilization and storage.
The “build back better world” partnership
Not one to ignore nations grappling with the consequences of government-issued lockdowns, President Biden and G7 partners in June 2021 agreed to launch the “Build Back Better World” initiative described as:
[A] values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership led by major democracies to help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic…investments will be made in a manner consistent with “achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.”
And by September 2021, the White House published that the “U.S. and the E.U. will expand cooperation for global action toward vaccinating the world, saving lives now, and building [back] better health security,” particularly in relatively low and lower-middle income countries.
So the phrase “build back better,” which refers to an economic revival involving a surge in “clean energy” investment after the “COVID-19 pandemic” crushed many local businesses, could have originated outside the United States—but where and why does it matter?
A common origin for “build back better”

Perhaps the use of this phrase within the Anglosphere and E.U. around a similar timeframe, as highlighted in a 93-second video, is a coincidence and doesn’t infer a shared overarching influence—or authority. But, as much as one might suspect its source lies outside Washington D.C., leading figures in government, regardless of their political party membership, have either resigned to or accepted the ideas proposed in the Great Reset agenda to “build back better.”
Acceptance of the Great Reset in Washington D.C.
During a WEF panel discussion in November 2020 entitled “The Great Reset: Building Future Resilience to Global Risks,” the former Secretary of State and current Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, expressed that the Great Reset will happen with “greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.”
Although Kerry emphasized the need to tackle the “climate crisis,” he touched upon a topic that presumably reflected the popularity of Trump and said he was astounded that Americans had still voted for a “level of chaos, breach of law and order.” Kerry reasoned that “rising national populism” was the “underlying reason” that needed addressing. He went on to say:
[W]e’re moving at a digital pace, and everything is moving faster—ideas, people, goods—but not government. Government has to find a way to move faster and to address more of the real concerns of its citizens or there will be, I think, increasing backlash.
Exactly how Kerry intends to “address more of the real concerns of its citizens” is debatable. However, believing that a “secret cabal” is running the U.S. government fuels the sentiment that there is minimal power—or point—in building any infrastructure that might deviate from Washington D.C.’s accepted plan.
While many in government want to take the United States in a particular direction, it’s going to be We, the People who build communities, businesses and political institutions from the local level upwards. The stronger our moral framework and financial pillars, the more vigorous the exertion of political influence upon the direction of America, as our Founding Fathers intended.

Read More
  • 1
  • 2

FreeSearch

FreeSearch PRIVATE UNCENSORED SEARCH
Search without Big Brother Watching

FreeSearch

Subscribe to
Treat yourself to current Conservative News and Commentary conveniently delivered all in one place, right to your computer doorstep.

Pin It on Pinterest