John Kerry Defends Taking Gas-Guzzling Private Jet to Accept Climate Award in Iceland, “The Only Choice For Someone Like Me”

Joe Biden’s pompous Special Climate Envoy John Kerry defended taking a gas-guzzling private jet to accept the Arctic Circle award in Iceland in 2019, according to a new report by Fox News.

John Kerry defended taking a private jet and said he’s special because he’s the one battling climate change and trying to save the world.

“If you offset your carbon, it’s the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle,” Kerry said.

John Kerry “offsets his carbon” by owning several mansions, a private jet and a mega yacht.

“I negotiated the Paris Accords for the United States. I’ve been involved in this fight for years. I negotiated with President Xi to bring President Xi to the table so we could get Paris,” he said.

John Kerry said he’s just too busy to ‘sail across the ocean’ and flying commercial isn’t even an option for someone like him.

“I believe the time it takes to get me somewhere, I can’t sail across the ocean. I have to fly to meet with people and get things done,” Kerry said.

“But what I’m doing, almost full time, is working to win the battle of climate change and in the end if I offset and contribute my life to do this, I’m not going to be put on the defensive,” he said.

WATCH:

John Kerry is also waging a war on the energy business as he’s busy flying around on private jets.

Kerry is so out of touch with the common American worker that he recently told unemployed Keystone XL pipeline workers to “go make solar panels.”

Source: The Gateway Pundit

Study: Sea-Level Rise The Same Since 1958 As From 1900-2018

A new analysis of global sea-level rise rates concludes the rising trend was 1.56 mm/yr−¹ from 1900-2018.

This is the same rate as for 1958-2014 (1.5 mm/yr−¹), indicating there has not been a long-term distinctive change in sea-level rise rates in the last 120 years. In 2018, Frederikse et al. assessed the contributing factors to long-term sea-level rise from 1958 to 2014.

They determined ice melt and thermal expansion combined to add 1.3 mm/yr−¹ to sea levels during this period, and the overall rate of sea-level rise was 1.5 mm/yr−¹.

Then, in a study published last August, Frederikse et al. (2020) assessed global sea-level rise rates and its sum of contributors since 1900.

Interestingly, they found the rates of sea-level rise were effectively the same for the entire 1900 to 2018 period (1.56 mm/yr−¹) as they were from 1958-2014 (1.5 mm/yr−¹).

The overall long-term trend in sea-level rise has undergone an oscillation: high rates in the 1930s and 1940s, a slowdown during the 1960s and 1970s, and then a return to high rates in recent decades.

It’s interesting to note that the ice-melt contribution to sea-level rise – including the ice-melt contribution from the Greenland ice sheet – was higher in the 1930s and 1940s than it has been during the last few decades.

In fact, the contribution from total ice-mass loss from glaciers was higher for the entire 1900-2018 period (0.70 mm/yr−¹) than it has been since 1957 (0.52 mm/yr−¹), suggesting a relative slowdown.

Neither of these trends – the multi-decadal oscillation in rates or higher ice-mass contribution prior to 1950 – would appear to correlate well with the linearly accelerated rise in CO2 emissions since the 1940s.

Read more at No Tricks Zone

Davos World Economic Forum Unveil Plans for THE GREAT RESET

For those wondering what will come after the Covid19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

On June 3rd, WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.

Interesting is that WEF spokespeople frame the “reset” of the world economy in the context of the coronavirus and the ensuing collapse of the world industrial economy. The WEF website states, “There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” So the Great Reset of the global economy flows from covid19 and the “opportunity” it presents.

In announcing the 2021 theme, WEF founder Schwab then said, cleverly shifting the agenda: “We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind.” The implication is that climate change is the underlying reason for the coronavirus pandemic catastrophe.

To underscore their green “sustainable” agenda, WEF then has an appearance by the would-be King of England, Prince Charles. Referring to the global covid19 catastrophe, the Prince of Wales says, “If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.” On board with Schwab and the Prince is the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He states, “We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.” Note his talk of “sustainable economies and societies”—more on that later. The new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also endorsed The Great Reset. Other WEF resetters included Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.

Make no mistake, the Great Reset is no spur-of-the moment idea of Schwab and friends. The WEF website states, “COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.” The WEF sponsors have big plans: ”…the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” This is big stuff.

Radical changes

Schwab reveals more of the coming agenda: “…one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.” These are supposed to be silver linings?

He suggests that those radical changes be extended: “The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination… and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy…” It would include “changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.

The second component of the Great Reset agenda would ensure that, “investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.” Here the WEF head states that the recent huge economic stimulus budgets from the EU, USA, China and elsewhere be used to create a new economy, “more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building ‘green’ urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”

Finally the third leg of this Great Reset will be implementing one of Schwab’s pet projects, the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.” The Fourth Industrial Revolution includes gene-editing biotech, 5G telecommunications, Artificial Intelligence and the like.

UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset

If we compare the details of the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 with the WEF Great Reset we find both dovetail very neatly. The theme of Agenda2030 is a “sustainable world” which is defined as one with income equality, gender equality, vaccines for all under the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) which was launched in 2017 by the WEF along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2015 the UN issued a document, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Obama Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification knowing it would fail. Yet it is being advanced globally. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, extending an earlier Agenda21. The 17 include “to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions… to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change…“ It calls for sustainable economic growth, sustainable agriculture (GMO), sustainable and modern energy (wind, solar), sustainable cities, sustainable industrialization… The word sustainable is the key word. If we dig deeper it is clear it is code-word for a reorganization of world wealth via means such as punitive carbon taxes that will dramatically reduce air and vehicle travel. The less-developed world will not rise to the developed, rather the other way, the advanced civilizations must go down in their living standards to become “sustainable.”

Maurice Strong

To understand the double-speak use of sustainable, we need to go back to Maurice Strong, a billionaire Canadian oilman and close friend of David Rockefeller, the man who played a central role back in the 1970s for the idea that man-made CO2 emissions were making the world unsustainable. Strong created the UN Environment Program, and in 1988, the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) to exclusively study manmade CO2.

In 1992 Strong stated, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” At the Rio Earth Summit Strong that same year he added, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.

The decision to demonize CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, human and plant, is not random. As Prof. Richard Lindzen an MIT atmospheric physicist puts it, “CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.

Lest we forget, the curiously well-timed New York pandemic exercise, Event 201 on October 18, 2019 was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. It was based on the idea that, ”it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.” The Event201 Scenario posited, “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.

The declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030 “sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of the covid19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far more sinister world after the covid19 pandemic fades.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Source: http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO9Jun2020.php

Wikipedia Co-Founder Publishes Blog Post: Wikipedia Is Badly Biased

Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, a world-renowned technologist, respected information expert, an in-demand public speaker, and co-founder of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia, wrote a blog on his website titled ‘Wikipedia Is Badly Biased.’

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.

Wikipedia’s favorite president?

Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat it differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.

Not Wikipedia’s favorite president

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are “false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.

I leave the glowing Hillary Clinton article as an exercise for the reader.

Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view. No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices. More to the point, abortion opponents consider the fetus to be a human being with rights; their view, that it is not safe for the baby, is utterly ignored. To pick another, random issue, drug legalization, dubbed drug liberalization by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalization policies; it mostly serves as a brief for legalization, followed by a catalog of drug policies worldwide. Or to take an up-to-the-minute issue, the LGBT adoption article includes several talking points in favor of LGBT adoption rights, but omits any arguments against. On all such issues, the point is that true neutrality, to be carefully distinguished from objectivity, requires that the article be written in a way that makes it impossible to determine the editors’ position on the important controversies the article touches on.

What about articles on religious topics? The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.” In another place, the article simply asserts, “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means it is not neutral for that reason—in other words, the very fact that most Christians believe in the historical reliability of the Gospels, and that they are wholly consistent, means that the article is biased if it simply asserts, without attribution or qualification, that this is a matter of “major uncertainty.” In other respects, the article can be fairly described as a “liberal” academic discussion of Jesus, focusing especially on assorted difficulties and controversies, while failing to explain traditional or orthodox views of those issues. So it might be “academic,” but what it is not is neutral in the original sense we defined for Wikipedia.

Of course, similarly tendentious claims can be found in other articles on religious topics, as when the Christ (title) article claims,

Although the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, Jesus was usually referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, son of Joseph”.[11] Jesus came to be called “Jesus Christ” (meaning “Jesus the Khristós”, i.e. “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed”) by later Christians, who believe that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

This article weirdly claims, or implies, a thing that no serious Biblical scholar of any sort would claim, viz., that Jesus was not given the title “Christ” by the original apostles in the New Testament. These supposed “later Christians” who used “Christ” would have to include the apostles Peter (Jesus’ first apostle), Paul (converted a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion), and Jude (Jesus’ brother), who were the authors of the bulk of the epistles of the New Testament. “Christ” can, of course, be found frequently in the epistles.3 Of course, those are not exactly “later Christians.” If the claim is simply that the word “Christ” does not appear much in the Gospels, that is true enough (though it can be found four times in the book of John), but it is also a reflection of the fact that the authors of the Gospels instead used “Messiah,” and quite frequently; the word means much the same as “Christ.” For example, he is called “Jesus the Messiah” in the very first verse of the New Testament (Matthew 1:1). Clearly, these claims are tendentious and represent a point of view that many if not most Christians would dispute.

It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when the Establishment seems unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.

The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untesteduntestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.

Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, perfectly unexciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.

It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.

Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5

The world would be better served by an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere. We will certainly develop such a network, but if it is to remain fully independent of all governmental and big corporate interests, funds are naturally scarce and it will take time.

  1. The misbegotten phrase “neutral point of view” is a Jimmy Wales coinage I never supported. If a text is neutral with regard to an issue, it lacks any “point of view” with regard to the issue; it does not take a “neutral point of view.” My preferred phrase was always “the neutrality policy” or “the nonbias policy.”[]
  2. On this, see my “Why Neutrality?“, published 2015 by Ballotpedia.[]
  3. Both in the form “Jesus Christ” (e.g., 1 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1) and in the form “Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2).[]
  4. That it was Wikipedia’s original notion, see the Nupedia “Lack of Bias” policy, which was the source of Wikipedia’s policy, and see also my final (2001) version of the Wikipedia neutrality policy. Read my “Why Neutrality?” for a lengthy discussion of this notion.[]
  5. UPDATE: In an earlier version of this blog post, I included some screenshots of Wikipedia Alexa rankings, showing a drop from 5 to 12 or 13. While this is perfectly accurate, the traffic to the site has been more or less flat for years, until the last few months, in which traffic spiked probably because of the Covid-19 virus. But since the drop in Alexa rankings do not seem to reflect a drop in traffic, I decided to remove the screenshots and a couple accompanying sentences.[]

Source: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Democrats Block Critical Coronavirus Relief Bill as Markets Plummet

In a 47-47 vote, Senate Democrats blocked a critical $2 trillion coronavirus economic relief package on Sunday. The move sent futures markets plummeting by over 5%. According to the Washington Examiner, the Democrats have stalled the plan to pass the bill by Monday and send it to the House for a vote.

President Donald Trump and congressional leaders hoped the measure would send a signal that would help stabilize the stock market and U.S. economy amid fears of recession as economic analysts estimate unemployment levels could hit up to an unprecedented 30% in April-June with GDP contracting by 50%, figures not seen since the Great Depression.

The bill included trillions in aid for working families and small businesses

Democrats blocked a package that includes direct cash payments averaging around $3,000 per family ($1,000 per adult and $500 per child), as well as an expansion of unemployment benefits and over $850 billion in loans to small businesses and industries directly impacted by the deadly pandemic that has brought the U.S. economy to a grinding halt.

As recently as Saturday, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) was hailing the measure as bipartisan, but Democrats sang a different tune on Sunday, arguing the relief amounted to a “slush fund” for corporations. Republicans blasted the Democrats for playing politics at the expense of American taxpayers.

“You’d think the nonsense [Bernie Sanders] class warfare rhetoric would take a break for a minute during a pandemic,” a Senate source told RealClearNews. “Corporations employ Americans. This is about keeping their jobs, not corporate executives.”

‘Utterly absurd’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blasted Democrats’ obstruction in a fiery Senate floor speech.

“The notion that we have time to play games here with the American economy and the American people is utterly absurd,” he said.

“We’ll have this … vote again at some point of my choosing and hopefully some adults will show up on the other side of the room and understand the gravity of the situation and the need to act before the markets go down further and the American people become even more depressed about our lack of ability to come together under the most extraordinary of circumstances,” McConnell said.

McConnell also noted that Democrats would not have been disadvantaged if they had allowed the bill to proceed in its current form and further negotiations would have still been possible.

“If this vote had succeeded … it would have required potentially 30 more hours of discussion during which negotiations could go on as long as they would like,” he said.

The following day, Nancy Pelosi debuted a 1,120-page coronavirus rescue bill.

The bill includes a wish list of Democrats’ pet issues including:

  1. Increased fuel emission standards for airlines receiving funds and carbon offsets: (1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall require each air carrier receiving assistance under section 101, to fully offset the annual carbon emissions of such air carriers for domestic flights beginning in 2025.
    ….
    (1) IN GENERAL. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall require each air carrier receiving assistance under section 101 to:(A) make and achieve a binding commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the domestic flights of such air carrier in every calendar year, beginning with 2021, on a path consistent with a 25 percent reduction in the aviation sector’s emissions from 2005 levels by 2035, and a 50 percent reduction in the sector’s emissions from 2005 levels by 2050, applying the standards, recommended practices, and guidance agreed to by the United States pursuant to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011
  2. Payment for up to $10,000 in student loans: (1) MINIMUM STUDENT LOAN RELIEF AS A RESULT OF THE COVID–19 NATIONAL EMERGENCY. Not later than 270 days after the last day of the COVID–19 emergency period, the Secretaries concerned shall jointly carry out a program under which a qualified borrower, with respect to the covered loans and private education of loans of such qualified borrower, shall receive in accordance with paragraph (3) an amount equal to the lesser of the following:(A) The total amount of each covered loan and each private education loan of the borrower; or
    (B) $10,000.
  3. Same-day voter registration, early voting, voting by mail, ballot harvesting The bill includes several provisions on voting laws and regulations, as Democrats argue that the crisis should force the government to revisit voting regulations to make it easier to vote, allowing same-day voter registration and voting by mail, and mailing out ballots to absentee voters. Other voting fraud watchdogs raised flags about ballot harvesting and grants for conducting risk-limiting audits of election resultsSame-day registration:

    ‘‘SEC. 325. SAME DAY REGISTRATION.

    ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
    ‘‘(1) REGISTRATION.—Each State shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a Federal election—

    ‘‘(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to revise any of the individual’s voter registration information); and

    ‘‘(B) to cast a vote in such election.

    Online voter registration:

    (a) REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR VOTER REGISTRATION.—

    (1) REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR REGISTRATION.—The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

    Ballot harvesting:

    (2) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT.—

    The State— (A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and ‘(B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

    Automatic mailing of absentee ballots:

    ‘(A) AUTOMATIC MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO ALL VOTERS.—If the area in which an election is held is in an area in which an emergency or disaster which is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b- 5(g)(1)) is declared during the period described in subparagraph.

    Grants for risk-limiting audits:

    PART 8—GRANTS FOR CONDUCTING RISK- LIMITING AUDITS OF RESULTS OF ELECTIONS ‘‘SEC. 298. GRANTS FOR CONDUCTING RISK-LIMITING AUDITS OF RESULTS OF ELECTIONS.‘(a) AVAILABILITY OF GRANTS.—The Commission shall make a grant to each eligible State to conduct risk-limiting audits as described in subsection (b) with respect to the regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office held in November 2020 and each succeeding election for Federal office.

  4. Preserving collective bargaining powers for unions Several provisions in the bill include carveouts for big labor, including labor protections, collective bargaining, and organizing, as well as overturning President Trump’s executive orders regarding federal employee unions.
  5. The expansion of wind and solar tax credits. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other lawmakers specifically called out Democrats for trying to negotiate the expansion of wind and solar tax credits in the bill.
  6. Requirements for federal and corporate gender and racial diversity data The bill demands that corporate recipients of financial assistance are required to report racial and gender data regarding salaries, number of employees, supplier diversity, and membership on corporate boards. It also requires federal agencies to use businesses and financial institutions owned by minorities or women.
  7. Post Office Bailout

    UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE PAYMENT TO POSTAL SERVICE FUND

    For payment to the ‘‘Postal Service Fund’’, for revenue forgone due to the coronavirus pandemic, $20,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2022: Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  8. Automatic extension of nonimmigrant visas. Rep. Paul Gosar flagged a provision regarding the automatic extension of nonimmigrant visas.(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to any alien whose nonimmigrant status, status under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a), or employment authorization has expired within the 30 days preceding the date of the enactment of this act, or will expire not later than one year after such date, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall automatically extend such status or work authorization for the same time period as the alien’s prior status or work authorization.
  9. Restricting colleges from providing information about citizenship status

    (1) INFORMATION.—Only information requested

    On the official 2020 decennial census of population form may be provided to the Bureau of the Census pursuant to this section. No institution of higher education may provide any information to the Bureau on the immigration or citizenship status of any individual.

  10. Money for Planned Parenthood The Hill reported that Democrats want the bill to prop up Planned Parenthood, just another reason why bipartisan efforts have failed to reach a consensus.

Read the legislation below:

Full text: Nancy Pelosi Cor… by charliespiering on Scribd

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s new stimulus bill would mandate nationwide “ballot harvesting,” allowing party operatives to return other people’s ballots to polling places without “any limit” on the number of ballots.

“Ballot harvesting” was legalized in California in 2016, and first used in the 2018 midterm elections. It allows anyone to drop off someone else’s mail-in ballot at a polling station. There is no process for vetting or verifying those delivering the ballots — no background checks or identification requirements. Democrats dropped hundreds of thousands of ballots off at polling stations in 2018, helping Democrats as they flipped seven Republican seats.

The practice is illegal in most other states, largely because it is susceptible to fraud and intimidation. Republicans were caught flat-footed in 2018; they have experimented with the tactic in recent special elections, only to find the their voters adamantly refuse to give their ballots to strangers. Democrats are more open to the practice — often became the “harvester” also registers the voter, according to Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel.

California’s “ballot harvesting” law has yet to be challenged in court. It is one reason that California remains a one-party state, with little prospect for change in the foreseeable future.

Pelosi wants to take that system nationwide.

Her bill, released Monday afternoon, provides that every state:

A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and (B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

In other words, paid party operatives can literally truck thousands and thousands of ballots to the polls, provided they earn a salary or fee, and are not paid by the ballot.

It is a practice that is known in Third World countries as “ballot stuffing,” and is outlawed in every democracy, no matter how poor — even in countries where the physical and administrative obstacles to voting are far greater than in the world’s most developed economy.

And it is Pelosi’s condition for saving the U.S. economy from coronavirus.

She insists on playing partisan politics and putting the Democrat party’s far-left agenda ahead of people’s lives while Americans are dying and losing their jobs.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went over the liberal policies Democrats are pushing in this rescue bill.
It is truly disgusting.

Source: Breitbart, Breitbart, TGP