Rise of Communist China - Why "Its not fine"

Industrial Apartied - How to stop the New World Order - And How a Canada-China investment deal allows for confidential lawsuits against Canadian Taxpayers, chicom veto over Canadian law

 My Comment for today:
 
It is not any one event or story that gives us the big picture but the information in aggregate. We the people are not happy about what we are seeing. The other day I was listening to an interview by Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the treasury, an insider at the highest level of government. He was speaking about how the economy was outsourced to the communist chinese. Shortly after I left the house and saw a police car painted over all black, no sirens. Inside was an officer wearing all black (unusual) black armor everything. His kit resembled what they wear when they disperse protests. I was followed to my destination.

I can remember when I was younger learning about the rise of fascism and asking how could the people be so calm almost accepting of their fate? Why did not more people leave ahead of time? Why did they not feel threatened by the big guys in black with guns? Now I understand a little bit better their lack of fear. When you get old, you are too old to be afraid. You see the world with different eyes.

We are living in a system I like to call "Industrial Apartheid". I wanted to coin this phase publicly so it would be granted some immunity from the memory hole.  

All regions have a right to industrial capacity. All people have a right to opportunity. When wealth is concentrated in one place, china the worlds factory, the rest of the worlds people are denied opportunity to use their talents to benefit humanity. A new economic system must be established based on localized production, democratic accountability, environmental sustainability, and human rights protection. 

We must resist the rise of Globalist Corporate Fascism. The New World Order we are living in amounts to Industrial Apartheid. I have been researching, and would like to elaborate more but I don't have time right now. About a week ago I came across an article that illuminated how the New World Order could be stopped. Ukraine trade demand shocks global partners.  
Notice the chosen photo is clearly propaganda. Basically the existing wto system that underpins the New World Order and created huge trade imbalances/ deficits has a weak spot. When countries raise tariffs they have to raise them equally on all trade partners. This presents difficulty because large nations with very diversified trade have an incentive not to retaliate for fear of affecting trade with other nations. A domino effect could have nations making strategic calculations on tariff policy that could have large and potential disruptive effects on trade flows. This potential chain reaction is a good thing as the current system of trade is unbalanced unsustainable and privately controlled by corporations and the communist party of china.

I have no time. I have to go now. Pray the black shirts don't get a hold of me.

Here's an article you might like:               

This is a credible source. There has been a lot of scholarly research published about international trade and investment law. It's out there for anyone to find, just look up "investor state provisions". I have spend countless hours studying these things.  They essentially are a way for the corrupt and powerful to get around democratic decision making, and while their at it steal taxpayers money.

The author of this article is Gus Van Harten, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School where he specializes in international investment law. His research on investor-state arbitration is available at www.iiapp.org and http://ssrn.com/author=638855.

 

Canada-China investment deal allows for confidential lawsuits against Canada

 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1264290--canada-china-investment-deal-allows-for-confidential-lawsuits-against-canada

The Harper government is very keen on Chinese investment. On this there is little doubt, now that the Canada-China investment deal has been released.
The deal will tie the hands of Canadian governments, especially in the resource sector, once Chinese firms buy Canadian assets. It allows Chinese companies to sue Canada outside of Canadian courts. Remarkably, the lawsuits can proceed behind closed doors. This shift to secrecy reverses a long-standing policy of the Canadian government.
Under the deal, Chinese firms can sue in special tribunals to protect themselves from Canadian government decisions. Canadian companies can do the same against China. The technical name for this is “investor-state arbitration.” In Canada, it has been in operation since NAFTA.
In turn, any decision by any state entity in Canada — from federal or provincial legislation to a Supreme Court of Canada decision — can be challenged by a Chinese investor. The arbitrators, if they conclude that the decision violates flexible standards of investor protection, can issue orders and award damages against a country.
On the other hand, no one in Canada including the government will be able, under the deal, to sue a Chinese investor for breaking any laws. The claims are one-way. Also, only the federal government can participate in the arbitrations. Provincial governments, Canadian companies and other constituencies have no right of standing even if their interests are affected directly.
There is reason to doubt the independence of the arbitration process. Unlike judges, the arbitrators do not have secure tenure and set salaries. They depend for business on investors (to bring the claims) and on arbitration houses (to choose the arbitrators when the disputing parties disagree). Further, the arbitrators’ decisions on legal issues are not subject to judicial review.
So, it is prudent to ask, who are the arbitrators more likely to see as the major country, Canada or China?
Canada has a mixed record in investor-state arbitration. We have lost about half of the decided cases against the government, all by U.S. companies under NAFTA. Canada has had to pay about $160 million in compensation, with another award pending in a case involving research and development rules for the Hibernia and Terra Nova offshore projects.
Worse, Canadian investors have sued other countries, usually the U.S., 16 times and lost every case. We have lost on softwood lumber, cattle and gold mining. We have lost on gasoline additives, hemp and funeral homes. We have lost on a lot of things.
It is reasonable to expect that Chinese investors will use the Canada-China deal to pressure governments in Canada, especially in the resource sector. About one in five investor lawsuits involves a resource dispute. At least nine of the U.S. lawsuits against Canada under NAFTA have related to resources.
Most surprisingly, the Chinese lawsuits can be kept secret. This is in stark contrast to other treaties signed by Canada. Under NAFTA, since 2001, Canada and the U.S. have ensured that investor-state arbitrations were open.
Under the Canada-China deal, the arbitration hearings and all documents, except an actual award, can be kept confidential at the discretion of the country that is sued. This suggests that China objected to disclosure of Canadian lawsuits against it. More importantly for Canadians, the Harper government did not insist on disclosure when Canada is sued by the Chinese.
By implication, we shall have to assume in time that there are hidden Chinese lawsuits against Canada. We will not know why we have been sued or who is deciding the case. We will not know what the government is arguing on our behalf. And we will not know if Canada has been ordered to change government decisions.
Confidentiality is fine in commercial arbitration where the disputes do not affect the public. It is noxious in investor-state arbitration, which often involves matters of public importance. Incidentally, the secrecy has little to do with encouraging settlements; investors can and often do pursue confidential settlements before bringing a claim.
The turn to secrecy is an about-face for the government. Canada was until now a champion of openness in investor-state arbitration. As countries like Australia, India, and South Africa pull away from investor-state arbitration, we are embracing it in a virulent form.
The Canada-China deal undermines basic Canadian principles of public accountability and open courts. It raises dramatically the stakes of Chinese takeovers in the resource sector. If ratified, it will tie the hands of future elected governments for at least 31 years.

 

Why I think we are absolute idiots if we approve CNOOC take-over of Nexen

By Elizabeth May on 18 September 2012 - 9:35pm

 http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2012-09-18/why-i-think-we-are-absolute-idiots-if-we-approve-cnooc-take-over-nexen

It is hard to know how else to put it. I don’t want to get anyone freaked out or overly alarmed, but are we paying any attention?
Attention should be paid to the fact that the Prime Minister has signed a deal with President Hu of China that promises investor protection. The text of said deal is not yet before the House of Commons, but everything I read about it (including from business analysts at Heenan Blaikie and Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt) anticipates the deal will include investor-state provisions similar to those in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows corporations from Mexico or the USA to claim damages against Canada if any level of Canadian government (municipal, provincial or federal) causes them to experience less profits than they had anticipated. Canada has actually repealed a law limiting a toxic gasoline additive when the US-based manufacturer sued under Chapter 11 — and we paid $10 million plus in damages. This outrage only gets more outrageous if the claims for multiple millions in damages come from a non-democratic enormous economy to which we have hitched our wagon as a compliant resource colony.
When will Mr. Harper share the text of this investor agreement with Parliamentarians? When will it be shared with Canadians? It was signed on September 8th when both Harper and Hu were in Russia. It must now be ratified. Assuming all the Conservative MPs who are worried about selling out our country to China do what they always do and submit to the will of the Boss, it will become a trade obligation. China will, if offended by any new health, labour, or environmental law, be able to make a claim for damages. I have already witnessed the chilling effect of Canada knowing a US based corporation can sue under Chapter 11. It was rumoured that former Liberal Health Minister Allan Rock refused to ban cosmetic use of pesticides for fear of Chapter 11 claims by US pesticide manufacturers.
What happens when Canadian laws, passed democratically, are struck down in hotel room arbitrations launched by the Communist Party of China?
I pay attention to things that CNOOC’s CEO says in public. In the August 29, 2012, Wall Street Journal, CNOOC CEO Wang Yilin said, “Large-scale deep-water rigs are our mobile national territory and a strategic weapon.” OK, so the bitumen isn’t mobile – until you mix it with diluents and stick it in a pipeline. But the oil sands do become Chinese territory. What did he mean about “strategic weapon?”
Are there national security implications?
I would love to trust in a national security review under the 2009 amendments to the Investment Canada Act, except that Stephen Harper specifically rejected the advice of the blue ribbon panel (struck after the Minmetal attempt to buy Noranda) that Canada needed a clear, objective definition of “national security.” The experts thought we should have a definition and use it to assess any takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign interests — particularly state-owned enterprises. Our PM rejected the advice. Instead the Canada Gazette for the 2009 amendments says that “national security” cannot be defined. It is, apparently, a fluid term.
Smart people I respect, like Andrew Coyne, say “don’t worry — there’s no national security threat when you cannot take the resource out of the country.” But then I run into stories like this:

Beijing hints at bond attack on Japan

Jin Baisong from the Chinese Academy of International Trade – a branch of the commerce ministry – said China should use its power as Japan’s biggest creditor with $230bn (£141bn) of bonds to “impose sanctions on Japan in the most effective manner” and bring Tokyo’s festering fiscal crisis to a head.

Writing in the Communist Party newspaper China Daily, Mr. Jin called on China to invoke the “security exception” rule under the World Trade Organisation to punish Japan, rejecting arguments that a trade war between the two Pacific giants would be mutually destructive.

Separately, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported that China is drawing up plans to cut off Japan’s supplies of rare earth metals needed for hi-tech industry.

- The Telegraph, September 19, 2012

OK, maybe he’s just threatening to destroy Japan’s economy. Maybe he doesn’t mean it. Maybe the WTO wouldn’t let him do it…. but then there was the Sino-Forest fraud, busted by the Ontario Securities Commission:

OSC puts the spotlight on Sino-Forest gatekeepers

In its allegations Tuesday, the OSC noted that auditors Ernst & Young “were not made aware” of Sino-Forest’s “systemic practice of creating deceitful purchase contracts and sales contracts.” The commission makes no further comment on the audit firm’s work. A spokeswoman for Ernst & Young could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The OSC issued a report in March calling on boards, underwriters, auditors and stock exchanges to improve the practices for listing foreign companies on Canadian stock exchanges, saying there has been a broad lack of “skepticism” about business practices in emerging companies like China.

- Globe and Mail, May 22, 2012

There’s a beautiful term: “broad lack of skepticism.”
It makes me nervous that Chinese companies are merely branches of the Chinese government. The Communist Party hierarchy appoints the boards of directors of CNOOC, Sinopec and Petro-China.
When I read in the business pages that Petro-China wants to bid on construction of the Enbridge pipeline, and read in the same story that Chinese companies are very competitive in their bids because of low labour costs, I picture the labourers who built the national dream of Pierre Berton’s imaginings… with a brutal and nasty history. We have a temporary foreign workers programme. It could happen. And the bitumen going through the proposed pipeline is to go to Chinese supertankers to Chinese refineries.
Losing sovereignty to China makes me nervous. I don’t want to be intolerant. But I want us to trade items made in Canada, by Canadians, to China. I don’t like the idea of China owning Canada. It makes it hard for us to point out to the Chinese government that it must start respecting human rights. We need to be really forceful in advocating for religious and political freedom in China. How do we do that when they have veto power over Canadian laws? And then there are issues of global tensions. Mr. Harper and John Baird are talking tough to Iran. But what about the fact that, while we claim we are exerting sanctions on anyone doing business with Iran, Sinopec, now a major stake-holder in Syncrude, is Iran’s number one customer for oil? Or, that Chinese oil money helps prop up Bashar al-Assad?
So, bottom-line, the Nexen-CNOOC deal doesn’t have me nearly as freaked out as the investor deal Stephen Harper signed in Russia. But when I think about the idea of “net benefit” I just don’t see any answer but “no.”

Death by China Documentary Film - Official Trailer

Learn more: http://www.deathbychina.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/deathbychina
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/deathbychina

DEATH BY CHINA Documentary

From best-selling author and filmmaker, Peter Navarro, comes DEATH BY CHINA, a documentary feature that pointedly confronts the most urgent problem facing America today -- its increasingly destructive economic trade relationship with a rapidly rising China.

Since China began flooding U.S. markets with illegally subsidized products in 2001, over 50,000 American factories have disappeared, more than 25 million Americans can't find a decent job, and America now owes more than 3 trillion dollars to the world's largest totalitarian nation. Through compelling interviews with voices across the political spectrum, DEATH BY CHINA exposes that the U.S.-China relationship is broken and must be fixed if the world is going to be a place of peace and prosperity.

Premiering in Los Angeles on August 17, 2012 and in NYC on August 24th, DEATH BY CHINA will be touring cities across the U.S.

Visit http://www.deathbychina.com for screening locations and additional dates.

NWO - Red Dawn TRAILER (2012)

China Invades America. EMP weapon detonated, all electronics fried. These weapons do exist and America does not currently have the defenses to protect against them. There are measures we could put in place to protect ourselves but their is not the political will to put them in place. China ordered this film to be censored and the company producing the film complied. After the film had finished shooting they had to spend about a million dollars editing out all references to china replacing them with north korea. Hollywood producers are careful to not anger china as they all are afraid of loosing access to the chinese market. In a way, the biggest threat to us is not the enemy itself but our own weak leaders who outsource our jobs, reduce our nuclear weapons capacity, and basically sell us into slavery. Patriots Unite in Resistance to Tyranny.

Wake up Canada - New World Order Has Arrived

china controls Canadian oil / Prime Ministers office

Stephen Harper is Dismantling Canadian Sovereignty for Globalism

We need to get the pipeline economics right


By Robyn Allan       http://www.robynallan.com/
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/need+pipeline+economics+right/6611396/story.html

Achorus is singing the praises of the oil industry's economic benefit, from the boardrooms of Alberta to the Prime Minister's Office.

They advocate the rapid export of Alberta's crude as a panacea for our economic future. They cite big numbers from studies prepared by industry-funded research institutes and consulting firms.

But what if the studies are more marketing tools than reliable research? What if more B.C. jobs are lost with Northern Gateway than without it - jobs that actually exist and sustain our diversified economy? What if a stand against the pipeline actually means a healthier, more sustainable economic future for B.C.?

After extensive analysis of the Northern Gateway economic-benefit case prepared by Enbridge, it is clear the study is bogus. It suffers from erroneous assumptions, calculation errors and inappropriate use of an input/output model. The study assumes the Canadian dollar depreciates to 85 cents US by 2016, and stays there for 30 years.

Enbridge's economic case is not only unreliable, but unusable. The benefits don't exist - not for B.C. and not for most of Canada. Northern Gateway will benefit a handful of large oil companies, including Sinopec, China National Offshore Oil Company and PetroChina, all owned by the Communist Party of China.

Northern Gateway has been presented as a way for oil producers to get higher prices in Asia. What we aren't told is these price increases apply to every barrel sold in Canada, and these price increases are passed onto Canadians.

When I filed my report with the National Energy Board, Enbridge confirmed the intent of their pipeline - higher oil prices in Canada with Northern Gateway than without it, on every barrel, every year for 30 years.

Canada is a net exporter of oil, so pipeline proponents claim higher prices outweigh the cost to the rest of us. What is not widely known - and excluded from the Enbridge analysis - is Canada is a major importer of crude oil.

Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are almost completely dependent on foreign crude oil imports from volatile and uncertain markets such as the Middle East, the same markets China is trying to protect itself from by importing our crude. Be careful of spin masquerading as substance. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Northern Gateway is in the national interest, it may not be Canada's.

As long as Canada depends on foreign markets for almost half of its crude-oil needs, Canadian economic security and stability is threatened. Exporting raw crude also means loss of value-added potential in upgrading and refining, and the jobs that go with it.

Harper promised he would not let this happen when running for re-election in 2008. A Times Colonist editorial on May 4, 2012, suggested the "construction of the pipeline will create 60,000 jobs over five years, most of them in our province."

Not really. Those "jobs" are person-years of employment and the analysis was conducted on expenditures made from 2009-2017. Enbridge allocates 57 per cent to B.C.

Person-years of employment are erroneously interchanged with jobs, but they are not jobs. They represent the full-time equivalent of one year of employment. If we want to discuss jobs, divide by 9 years.

Total on-site B.C. construction employment according to Enbridge is 455 jobs. But recent statements made by Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel suggest even those jobs may not benefit B.C. workers.

China's state-owned PetroChina - which owns oil-producing rights in Alberta, a fleet of tankers, refineries in China and builds many of China's pipelines - has expressed an interest in bidding on the construction contract for Northern Gateway.

With millions of workers and lower labour rates, it's likely PetroChina could deliver a competitive bid, all the more easily facilitated by the Harper government's recently introduced Temporary Foreign Worker Policy.

Northern Gateway means almost an oil tanker a day transiting Douglas Channel. This traffic crowds out local economic activity. As "super natural" British Columbia becomes a super-oil-tanker terminal for Alberta, we put at risk B.C. jobs in tourism, fishing and related activities, as well as First Nations' rights and way of life, all for no measurable economic benefit.

This is even before we talk about oil-spill risk. Why would we even contemplate this project going through?

Robyn Allan has had a lengthy professional career in senior executive positions in the public and private sector, with an emphasis on insurance, finance and real estate.


Keep the oilsands' wealth at home


Direct costs to consumers are often ignored in expansion talk