Discussion in 'The Globalist Climate Change Agenda' started by admin, Dec 17, 2017.
A Business of Medical Philanthropy
THE TRUTH BEHIND PHILANTHROPY AND FOUNDATIONS
By: Cassandra Anderson
May 25, 2012 · 3:14 am
Many “philanthropic” foundations have been used in America as a tax dodge to protect family fortunes, to polish tarnished images of robber barons and worst of all, to make the public fund depopulation and other detrimental policies that benefit the controlling elite. Some tax-funded depopulation programs include vaccines, genetically modified (GM) crops and “reproductive rights” which is a euphemism for abortion, birth control and sterilization under the elites’ eugenics programs. Incredibly, the public is paying for its own demise! This brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘death and taxes’.
What is a Foundation?
There are 1.6 million so-called ‘nonprofit’ 501(c)3 organizations in the US. Nonprofits are misnamed and are anything but not-for-profit; a more accurate description is that they are TAX EXEMPT organizations. The two two major types of tax exempt organizations are:
Foundations- these are the grantors and they are required to donate 5% of their assets each year to charitable organizations. They enjoy enormous tax breaks from the federal government and pay no income tax, no corporate tax and no capital gains tax. States and local governments may also exempt them from property and sales taxation. Some powerful foundations are extremely influential in setting political policies and making laws that benefit their enterprises and pass the cost onto taxpayers.
Nonprofit Organizations or NPOs also enjoy the same tax exemptions as foundations (no income, corporate or capital gains taxes). NPOs are structured like a business and seek grants from foundations, government subsidies and corporate and private donations. They do pursue profits.
Foundations make grants to NPO “charities”. Assets within foundations are not owned by individuals, but individuals control the assets. Because they are allowed to continually re-invest assets without taxation, foundations are used to protect family wealth through estate planning; this scheme is now expanding into business development which means that some businesses are seeking to cut their taxes by pretending to be charitable organizations.
Foundations date back to Greek and Roman times. They became popular with the elites in the U.S. when they created the fraudulent Federal Reserve System and the income tax.
How the Public Pays for its Own Demise
The formula for coercing the public to pick up the bill for destructive programs begins with foundations creating a constituency, buying off politicians, and convincing Congress that an issue should be regulated by the government. Once the issue is government controlled, it becomes taxpayer funded.
A good example of this man-made global warming, one of the cornerstones of UN Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for total control and depopulation. Fear and hysteria were created (based on flawed science from the UN) using NPOs in order to usher in government regulations funded by taxpayers.
Here is a more detailed explanation of the process:
1. Foundations create constituency groups or supporters.
Education- foundations provide grants to schools and colleges; they often place one of their representatives on the school Board of Directors to influence curriculum.
Media- foundations spend a lot of money to make a splash in the news, sponsor media events and generate publicity.
Activism- foundations and their officers “donate” to NPOs and may then direct them.
2. Politicians may bought or receive funding that influences them. They may receive “donations” and campaign contributions from foundations, corporations and individuals. OpenSecrets.org is a good source for finding information on political and lobbying contributions.
OpenSecrets.org provides information on politicians, their donors, contributors to government departments, corporate donors and lobbyist groups.
3. The most critical step is for representatives of foundations argue in Congress that their issue should be regulated or acted upon by the government. Once government policies are created, costs are passed on to the public through taxes, permit fees and other governmental charges. David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer prize winner and author, said that this can be proven by investigating legislative back history, but it is very laborious process.
Foundation-inspired laws and regulations are not limited to the federal government, as state and local governments are targeted, too.
4. Foundations may write the actual laws and regulations and administer them.
5. Foundations may also lobby for for tax breaks and subsidies that benefit their interests.
6. In some cases this entire process can be bypassed if there is enough money and power involved. For example, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates met with Obama recently to discuss “fixing” the U.S. economy- who knows what deals were struck behind closed doors.
Another example is the prince of the UAE who pledged $50 million to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for vaccines; ultimately, the prince’s money is derived from the citizens.
7. Foundations can bolster their image or the image of their members at a discount rate by employing the ‘Pillsbury Formula’; this method is when the foundation puts up half the money (or some percentage) and demands matching funds from another source. The finished project is created in their name and generates positive publicity at a bargain rate.
Malthusian overpopulation myths are lies perpetrated by the controllers who seem to fear losing power and command over resources. In fact, The UN’s owndocuments are a direct contradiction to their lies; world population is expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050 and is projected to remain at that level through 2300. Many large foundations are dedicated to depopulation, especially those controlled by Rockefeller, Buffett and Gates.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett’s ‘Giving Pledge’ is a not a foundation; it is merely a promise by wealthy elites to donate over half of their fortunes to “philanthropy” upon their death. The Giving Pledge currently has over 50 members; the goal is to accumulate $600 billion in pledges from 400 billionaires. The donors may choose any foundation or “charitable” foundation that they woud like to support. Many are likely to choose a foundation that will take their donations and invest it in markets to make money, with an annual payout of only 5%. Therefore, generating more wealth and influencing political policy to be funded by taxpayers (and destructive to the public in many cases) is a plausible result. This is hardly admirable.
People who are interested in finding out more about foundations and NPOs may obtain a free membership for independent researchers at GuideStar.org to investigate tax exempt entities’ IRS 990 tax forms which provides information about how much money they have, and may include the names of grant recipients, the names of the donors and a list of companies with whom they invest. Not all foundations are corrupt, but the large ones that influence public policy deserve close scrutiny.
Michael Shaw, President of FreedomAdvocates.org, lawyer and former tax expert says;
“Foundations, Non Governmental Organizations and non-profits are generally exempt from income taxes. They have been arranged from the beginning to promote globalism and today this is accomplished through the implementation of Agenda 21. The creation of the Federal Reserve coupled with the adoption of the income tax in 1913 provided the one world elite opportunity to avoid taxes throughout the formation of Foundations and other tax exempts. This was key to creating the financing system that has promoted globalism and which now threatens us all with world tyranny.”
“Charity consoles but does not question. ‘When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint, and when i ask why they have no food, they call me a communist.’
Unlike solidarity, which is horizontal and takes place between equals, charity is top-down, humiliating those who receive it and never challenging the implicit power relations. In the best of cases, there will be justice someday, high in heaven. Here on earth, charity doesn’t worry injustice, it just tries to hide it.”
– Eduardo Galeano
Globalist Plan for 2015-2050
Zero-Energy Consumption-humans largely expendable,except as energy-food source
Geoengineering and weather control to support 'climate change'
Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrail Cover-Up (Full Length • HD)
Monday, 14 May 2018
UN Attempting to Create a Legally Binding Climate Change Pact
Written by James Murphy
The UN globalists have taken a first step toward making their international climate regulations enforceable by the UN.
The United Nations voted Thursday to take a first step toward creating a legally binding agreement on climate change. The body voted 143-5, with 7 abstentions, to have Secretary General Antonio Guterres produce a report by the next General Assembly session in September, which identifies gaps in international environmental laws and related legal instruments to enforce such laws.
The resolution also mandates the creation of a working group that will look at options for addressing the gaps in international environmental law by 2019, with an eye toward holding a conference to “adopt an international instrument.” In other words, unlike the Paris Accord, the UN is looking to create a worldwide environmental agreement with teeth.
The United States was among the five no votes, along with Russia, Turkey, Syria, and the Philippines.
“The unprecedented deterioration of our environment is already causing hundreds of thousands of deaths due to planetary warming, water and air pollution, and the deterioration of biodiversity and soils,” said French Ambassador Francois Delattre, who spoke on behalf of more than 90 co-sponsors of the resolution. “These attacks on the environment are affecting the most vulnerable populations first. If we don’t act decisively, we are exposing ourselves to dire consequences: the exhaustion of natural resources, migration, and an upsurge in conflicts.”
Pretty frightening words. But so far, the United States isn’t buying into the scare tactics. Ambassador Niki Haley said in a statement, “When international bodies attempt to force America into vague environmental commitments, it’s a sure sign that American citizens and businesses will get stuck paying a large bill without getting large benefits…The proposed global compact is not in our interests, and we oppose it.”
Secretary General Guterres was also pushing hard for the new resolution. “It is about our duty of care to provide an environment that supports the health, well-being, dignity and prosperity of everyone on this planet,” Guterres said. “Let us support this worthy initiative.”
The catalyst for this attempt to create a new climate agreement with UN enforcement power is French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron has been at odds with the White House since President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Accord last June. On April 25, Macron addressed a joint session of Congress.
“What is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live, destroying the planet, while sacrificing the future of our children,” Macron told Congress. “By polluting the oceans, not mitigating CO2 emissions and destroying our biodiversity, we are killing our planet.”
Macron, who took office in May of 2017, is the youngest president in France’s history. His party, La Republique En Marche! is described as trans-partisan and looks to transcend the traditional left/right paradigm through a populist approach to governing.
Thus far, however, Macron is governing as just another globalist. He seems to be intent on getting the United States to heel on climate change. In his speech to Congress, he issued a not-so-subtle dig at President Trump’s campaign slogan. “We have to work together with business leaders and local communities…let us work together in order to make our planet great again.”
Macron went on to chide the president and opponents of the ineffective Paris Accord, hinting that we might have lost our way for a time, but will eventually realize the error of our ways. “And I am sure one day the United States will come back and join the Paris Agreement. And I am sure we can work together to fulfill with you the ambitions of the global compact on environment.”
Climate change has become the globalists' rallying cry — their cause to unite around. A pact such as the one proposed by the UN is not really about the environment; it’s about control. The pact could have far reaching effects, as Climate Depot’s Marc Morano points out, stating: “The U.N. and France are pushing this new global pact on the environment, which will be binding to all nations that sign onto it. The new pact could become the E.U. on steroids, with all nations that sign onto it being forced to bow to new regulations emanating from U.N. bureaucrats.”
There are well meaning and sincere people who believe that climate change is a real threat. But this UN proposal isn’t about that. It’s about attacking national sovereignty — particularly the sovereignty of the United States. Because globalists don’t care about a hypothetical increase of global temperature at all. All they care about is control.
Photo: IMNATURE/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus
More in this category: « Scientists' Message to Pope: Be Skeptical of Climate Change Alarm California Bureaucrats Will Soon Require Solar Panels on New Homes: But Is It Safe? »
back to top
Jerry Robertson • 9 hours ago
“When international bodies attempt to force America into vague environmental commitments, it’s a sure sign that American citizens and businesses will get stuck paying a large bill without getting large benefits…The proposed global compact is not in our interests, and we opposse it..." Thank you Ambassador Haley!
CockerSpaniel • 9 hours ago
Another reason why this country must leave the UN, a corrupt organization, whose founders include the Soviet spy and convicted perjurer Alger Hiss, at once.
Long - CockerSpaniel • 3 hours ago
Hiss was the primary author of the UN Charter, which he designed specifically to subvert the US Constitution.
Jude MacAbaech - CockerSpaniel • 5 hours ago
C'mon folks. Don't you have even the slightest clue as to the millions of women who will still have their 'honor' intact if the you-en fades into obscurity? Satan will not be happy.
On a completely different note, for how much could Trump sell a used you-en headquarters building with its lovely view of New York City's East River? Should be easily repurposed as a hotel / convention center.
Tom W • 9 hours ago
Climate change has never been about climate change; it is about income redistribution from successful countries to impoverished countries. In the run-up to the final agreement, a UN official even admitted it:
"…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.” —United Nations Climate Official Ottmar EdenhoferWhen President Trump made the wise decision to withdraw the US from this scam, the UN lost the deep pocket they were counting on.
LeftCoastDittoHead • 9 hours ago
Anyone else notice how without the US open checkbook the PCA just kind of went phht!
Codygunn • 9 hours ago
The U.N. is and has been a nothing burger. Time for its demise.
Vectormanic • 7 hours ago
No thanks UN, we're not in need of your binding guidance and enforcement within our boundaries.
sandraleesmith46 • 6 hours ago
And the UN cannot stop volcanoes! Time to get us out of that legalized theft that wants to throw us back to the 10th century! It's not the UN's place to impose laws on us or any other nation! The UN is nothing but the NWO's action arm and WANTS some 6 1/2 billions of us to die, especially whites, Christians, and any others who might dissent to their usurpation of powerl
Jude MacAbaech - sandraleesmith46 • 5 hours ago
Maybe the you-en cannot stop volcanoes. Maybe it can. But if every you-en Ambassador and his or her staff not representing The United States, Russia, Turkey, Syria, or the Philippines would simultaneously take a flying leap into the belly of an active one, we might know for certain. It's at least a start.
Linda MacLeod Goodman • 5 hours ago
Nikki Haley's statement is misleading... ““..it’s a sure sign that American citizens and businesses will get stuck paying a large bill without getting large benefits…" There are not only NO benefits, it's entirely to our detriment.
Old Pioneer • 6 hours ago
It's past time we dumped the UN, moved them out to an African country (their cost), give the building to Homeless and Disabled Vets (with the city of New York paying all costs), as well as arresting all diplomats who haven't paid their parking tickets!!! Enough is Enough!!!!
Rebel Yell • 4 hours ago
If the UN were serious about "climate change" the first things to outlaw are chemtrails and HAARP. These are the 2 main tools for "climate change" and they're in full force today. This website gives a great deal of information of them, how they work, and how it's slowly killing all of us.
Harvey Bonin • 4 hours ago
Let me know how it turns out!
Streets • 5 hours ago
I failed to mention that the continuous spraying of chemicals in the upper troposphere is most likely a united nations function that MUST end. Chemtrails are NOT contrails and they are making us sick and demented. Look at the horrific rise in autism due to this garbage.
Streets • 5 hours ago
The U.N. (Unified Nutjobs) Should be driven from our soil and never heard from again. They object to every U.S. cause and idea., but we just keep throwing money at them. Trump will, one day withdraw our nation from this monkey island.
Mindy Watkins • 6 hours ago
This was always the end game. The UN's pushing of climate control is intended to create another huge bureaucracy to siphon off money to the corrupt and the greedy. Standard UN method of operation.
California Turns Off the Water. You Will Not Be Able to Wash Clothes and Shower in the Same Day
June 4, 2018 Grindall61 Globalism 2
California is now the first state in the nation to enact tough new mandatory water rationing, under the excuse of fighting global warming. The rules will begin restricting water to 55 gallons per person, per day by 2022, and 50 gallons by 2030. An 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water, a load of laundry up to 40 gallons. California homeowners will be forced to retrofit their homes for low-flow faucets and toilets that will be monitored and controlled through smart meters. [If you still think that man-made global warming is real, you owe it to yourself to check out the DVD album, Global Warming, An Inconvenient Lie. Gary Gileno, the producer and narrator of this video report, will be one of the presenters at the upcoming Red Pill Expo, in Spokane, Washington, June 201-23. Laran about it here..]
By JW Williams
In this video report, Gary Gileno argues that, if California really did have a water shortage, why does it invite unlimited migrants? The California water shortage is greatly exaggerated for political purposes, which is the justification for more government control. It is a jarring fact that only 11% of available water is allocated for urban use, 41% goes to agriculture, and 48% is allocated to protect the environment. The federal government has control over that portion and requires most of it to flow into the Pacific Ocean!
As we have seen in California’s Central Valley, which used to be the breadbasket of America, supplying over 50% of the nation’s vegetables, fruits and nuts, government control over water has become control over the food supply. No water, no food.
The goal of Agenda 21 is to keep adding so-called environment regulations to single-family residences until compliance becomes so expensive that more and more people will be forced to move into ‘stack ’em and pack ’em’ high- rise apartment buildings that will monitor all elements of human behavior. Orwell’s fictional book, 1984, is becoming reality.
Three months ago, the California Water Resources Control Board announced that it will allow treated recycled sewer water to be added to reservoirs, the source of California municipal drinking water. The Water Board says the water will be “highly treated.” San Diego is leading the state to begin carrying out a sewer-to-reservoir operation. and the rest of the state likely will follow.
It is true that chemical treatment can kill most bacteria in sewage, but there are other things even more dangerous than bacteria. Who dares to look at all the chemicals, including prescription drugs that have been excreted into sewer lines? It is not hard to imagine that these, in combination with chemicals used for purification, could be even more toxic than plain sewage. It is ironic that government planners are not interested in building reservoirs to store clean rain water as it heads out to sea from the Sierra mountains. Let’s drink treated sewage instead!
In the early 2000’s, the community of Sun Valley in Los Angeles County was faced with flooding that impacted homes and businesses during winter rains. The county planned to spend $47 million on a storm sewer system to drain the flood waters from streets and dump it in the Pacific Ocean. Instead, community planners decided to invest those funds in underground cisterns that would capture the water for later use. The result was a system, using ancient Roman technology (click here for photo), that captures 8,000 acre feet of water each year, about twice what the entire city consumes. And it is clean.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
Separate names with a comma.