All posts by Mattyu

Mattyu is also my Gamer tag name as well my Public Display Name on Wordpress

REPORT: UN, SOROS BEHIND MIGRANT CARAVAN INVASION

Infowars
20 October 2018
Jamie White

This is how globalists plan to collapse Western civilization

The UN and billionaire globalist George Soros are the driving forces behind the massive migrant caravan marching to the U.S. southern border, according to reports.

As with the previous caravan that sprung up last spring, the open borders group Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which is connected to Soros’ Open Society Foundation, is involved with organizing the caravan of 4,000, and the leader of the group was arrested Thursday for attacking Mexican immigration agents.

The UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees has intervened in the situation to aid in the migrants’ travels.

“We’re in discussions. UNHCR is talking to the government to see how we can best help them,” said Sibylla Brodzinsky, a UN spokesperson. “This is just starting. Talks are happening.”

Pueblos Sin Fronteras is but one of several Soros groups financially and logistically supporting the caravan.

“The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, [b]ut the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLIN), the American Immigration Council (AIC), the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services (RICELS) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) – thus the acronym CARA,” WND reported in April.

“At least three of the four groups are funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.”

Even President Trump called out the caravan’s questionable origins, noting the convenient timing for Democrats just weeks before the midterm elections.

“We’re starting to find out, and I won’t say 100 percent, I’ll put a little tiny question mark at the end … but a lot of money has been passing through people to come up and try to get to the border by election day,” Trump said during a Montana rally Thursday.

“They wanted that caravan, and there are those who say that caravan didn’t just happen,” he added.

Tensions between the U.S., Mexico, and Honduras escalated after the caravan violently tore through the Guatemala-Mexico border, underscoring both the caravan’s disregard for national sovereignty, as well as the rule of law.

“This is an organized effort to come through and violate the sovereignty of Mexico, and so we’re prepared to do all that we can to support the decisions that Mexico makes about how they’re going to address this very serious and important issue to their country,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday.

Note: It you want to watch videos click on the source link.
https://www.infowars.com/report-un-soros-behind-migrant-caravan-invasion/

Advertisements

South Africa will be like Zimbabwe, but more…

In 1994 the media used Zimbabwe as an example of a successful multicultural country with a strong economy. They said we could be just like them. Today the media says it’s impossible, South Africa will never be like Zimbabwe. They are right though, it will be much worse. Be Ready.

Mayor Michael Feyen On Industrial Hemp, ALLCAPS Podcast

Vinny Eastwood interviewing Michael Feyen The Mayor of the Horowhenua and staunch supporter of industrial Hemp and the potential benefits it could bring his region. http://www.horowhenua.govt.nz
The conversation takes a turn as the correctly titled ‘Right Honorable’ Mayor explains the constraints upon his position,
and the difficulties he’s faced as a local leader trying to get central government (or even his own district councilors) to listen to information about Hemp.
But even then, if they did listen, the laws would then need to be “okayed” by “local government New Zealand” which isn’t even a government department!
It’s an unelected private corporate governance body who unbeknownst to even the interviewer (and likely most of the country) essentially can control how our nations regions are governed and even outrank our own elected representatives!
The ultimate conclusion of this discovery is that Cannabis laws can’t be changed at the local level and need to be changed at the central government level, which is exactly what ALCP is here to do!
Thanks for watching!
Vinny Eastwood
Joint Chief Of Web & Social Media
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Global Warming issue is use an excuse to push more taxes on Gasoline

A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING

Dailycaller
10 October 2018
Michael Bastasch

  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) , the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.

That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), but still no walk in the park.

California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.

“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius](2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.

In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C (2.7°F) pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”

But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.

The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C (2.7°F)-consistent cost-effective pathways.”

My Conclusion: Thing is that why UN, IPCC and the other global elites want Global warming or Climate Change to be a problem. Because they want more money and power; they know: that Global Warming or Climate Change is never an issues but it a natural occurring event that occurs everyday, that carbon dioxide is plant food, That solar minimum is on it’s way and earth will cooler within decades to come.
With the IPCC thinking the earth will be 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer by either 2040 or 2050 is not going to case because we would be in a new solar minimum at that time. Once IPCC is caught for misleading and keeping people in the dark and soon one day IPCC will have to explain themselves why they’re deliberately deceiving people to either make money and gain power. The reason why they keep scare people will the global warming the climate change nonsense because they think they can get away with it and achieved their agenda.
We need to call those people who pushing climate change by scaring us into accepting their agenda; out or we may face another dark age. The Climate Change scare has nothing to do about saving the planet nor protecting the environment.

Study: Geoengineering, other technologies won’t solve climate woes

Watts Up With What
11 October 2018
Anthony Watts

Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.

By Steinar Brandslet

The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological

“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.

The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.

Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.

Untested, uncertain, and risky

Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more COby planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?

“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.

In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.

Stumbling blocks

Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.

Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.

How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.

We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.

NETs and airy plans

So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.

Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.

Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.

And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.

“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.

No substitutes for cutting emissions

Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.

Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.

The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.


The paper:

Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3

Raucous Calgary rally rails against carbon tax

MSN
6 October 2018
Lauren Krugel

CALGARY – A raucous crowd of more than 1,500 crammed into a Calgary convention centre Friday night to hear Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, leader of Alberta’s Opposition United Conservative Party, rail against the federal carbon tax.

“It’s really, my friends the worst tax ever, a tax we can’t afford, a job-killing tax that hikes up the price of services and goods and drives up the price of heating your homes,” Ford told the anti carbon-tax rally.

The crowd frequently rose to its feet waving signs that said “Renew The Alberta Advantage” and “Scrap The Carbon Tax.” Many jeered when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s name was mentioned.

So many people showed up that some had to listen from the hallway so as not to run afoul of fire codes.

Ford made no secret of who he will root for in Alberta’s provincial election next spring.

“Let’s elect a new United Conservative government in Alberta,” he said. “A new day has dawned in Ontario and a new day will dawn in Alberta.”

Kenney has said the repeal of Alberta’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax will top his agenda if his party wins the election.

“There is no compassion in telling seniors on modest fixed incomes that they can’t have an active life just so you can feel virtuous by imposing this carbon tax on Albertans,” he said.

“It isn’t progressive and it’s not compassionate.”

Kenney said the “multibillion-dollar job killing carbon tax” was not in the NDP’s 2015 election platform.

“It is not just the biggest tax hike in Alberta history. It is the biggest lie in Alberta history,” he said.

“Why are we engaged in this act of economic masochism when it will not make one whit of difference for the environment?”

Heavy equipment operator Steve Spackman came to Calgary from Okotoks, just south of the city, for the rally because he’s fed up.

“We’d probably hire more people at work I bet you, if they didn’t have that carbon tax every month coming in for gas,” he said.

Alberta’s NDP government introduced the provincial levy before Ottawa required it. With the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion in limbo, Premier Rachel Notley is now refusing to raise it in line with federal requirements.

Ottawa passed legislation last spring to give it authority to impose a carbon price on any province without its own beginning Jan. 1, 2019. It is starting at a minimum of $20 per tonne, rising $10 per year until 2022.

Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government scrapped that province’s cap-and-trade system in July and launched a challenge of the federal carbon plan.

Provincial resistance to Ottawa’s carbon policy has been ramping up.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Ford met in Saskatoon on Thursday, where the two conservative leaders said they will continue to fight the tax together. To that end, Moe announced Saskatchewan will file for intervener status in Ontario’s court challenge.

Ontario had already pledged to support Saskatchewan’s court challenge when the premiers met in New Brunswick in July. Moe’s government has asked Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal to rule on whether the federal plan is constitutional.

Ford and Moe gained another ally Wednesday when Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced his province will not go ahead with a $25-a-tonne levy that was to come into effect in December.

“We’ll all be at the premier’s table defending common sense and Canadian taxpayers to fight against Trudeau’s carbon tax,” Ford said Friday.

Trudeau said earlier in the day that Canadians gave his government a mandate in the last election to implement a national carbon price and that is exactly what it is going to do.

“Pollution should not be free anywhere across this country,” he said at an event in Windsor, Ont.

Alberta Education Minister David Eggen said earlier Friday that Albertans should be disturbed by Ford and Kenney working together.

“Certainly we know how to solve our issues in Alberta and we don’t need someone form Ontario coming and telling us what to do,” he said.

“Our climate action plan is very effective up to now in creating jobs, helping to diversify the economy and quite frankly is helping to reduce pollution as well.”

 

The NZ Govt is teaching your child that Class 1A ecotoxin 1080, banned by most countries, is ‘not very dangerous to humans’

The Indoctrination in New Zealand is here. The NZ govt is now teaching child about 1080 (Sodium Fluoroacetate ) is safe and it’s okay to rain it upon the forest. In a fact that  teaspoon of 1080 is enough to kill over a 100 people. If know something toxic you would want to keep you children away from it so they don’t either get sick or die from it. You would not certainly teach or mislead your children; telling that 1080 is safe; in fact it’s not. If person thinks 1080 is safe; they’re more than screwed over; they’re mislead about the danger of 1080 poison.

Rangitikei Enviromental Health Watch

Over all, this item featuring a Year 10 Science book & its fairly ho hum description of the toxicity of 1080, appears to be normalizing the use of poisons.

Dr Meriel Watts says about 1080 poison:

“1080 is classed by the World Health Organisation as an Extremely Hazardous pesticide (Class 1a WHO). You may not be aware that as such it falls within the category of Highly Hazardous Pesticides for which the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) is seeking a global phase out.

42093980_2210072019273112_6648787559516209152_n Image & info supplied by Carol Sawyer

There is no antidote for 1080. Poisoned  by it, you have no hope of being saved. However, our esteemed authorities in higher places have seen fit to describe it to our children as not very dangerous to humans. Wherever you stand on the use of 1080, be it for or against, I would…

View original post 886 more words

You’re not supposed to have more than two children

This video on You Tube From Roosh V. People would say to me “Matthew are you watching Roosh V?” Truthfully yes. Yes very good reason why? Roosh V cover social engineering; why the elite are doing what ever they can to keep us conditioned to remain in line. Why does the elites don’t what us to have family and raise children. Why they don’t want men to be masculine, nor they want woman to be feminine. It’s like the elite do not want humans to be natural nor have them thinking outside the box.

For What Roosh V said in this video is well said.

1080 propaganda exposed by activists Alan Gurden & Emille Leaf With Vinny Eastwood

anti-1080 activists Alan Gurden & Emille Leaf join Vinny Eastwood on a live stream!
Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXgaA…
We will break down a recent Newshub piece about 1080 and explain the compound 1080 as it relates to:
-The Treaty
-Kaitiakitanga
-Blatant Arrogance
-Bribery
-Conflict of interest
-Lack of transparency
-Nepotism
-Mitochondrial disorders and Featherston
-Cover ups
-Taking posts down when they’re already public knowledge
-“tens of thousands of dead deer”