Truth News Headlines November 2, 2018

UN’s Global Compact for Safety, Orderly and Regular Migration | Armstrong Economics

Austria and Hungary have now joined Trump in backing out the United Nations migration deal. The UN’s Global Compact for Safety, Orderly and Regular Migration, which is not actually legally binding on any country lacking jurisdiction or power in the UN over the entire world. This deal was finalized and it is widely seen as pro-migration and unrealistic. The greatest problem with this proposal is that the industrialized nations of Europe and America are in fact SOCIALIST states so migrants get benefits for coming that they would not get at home. The problem is that when mass-migration took place from Europe to America in the 19th century and the first near 50% of the 20th century, that migration was to freedom economically and the opportunity to work. The migration into Europe is by no means of the same quality. They go there with no prospect of employment, understanding or speaking the language, and live far better on state welfare that would possibly have at home. The incentives are completely reversed. Trump pulled out of that deal and no both Austria and Hungary have joined as they are inundated with migrants who just have their hand out and drain the economy rather than adding to it. The UN’s Global Compact for Safety, Orderly and Regular Migration, is simply unrealistic and fails completely to understand that there is a huge difference between subsidized migration and migration for an opportunity. In the USA, Trump carried Florida with the legal Mexicans voting for Trump because they had to prove they could speak the language and had skills. The same took place in Britain where the Indians voted for BREXIT for most who migrated to Britain also had to have a skill set which was most commonly in the field of medicine. Those in power do not understand that those who learned skills to migrate are now upset at this idea of just opening up the doors under the welfare model. It undermines what they had to go through to make it to a new homeland.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/refugees/uns-global-compact-for-safety-orderly-and-regular-migration/

You can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

They now want to Reduce Dog & Cat Ownership to Stop Global Warming | Armstrong Economics

Well, it was only a matter of time that when you read between the lines concerning pet population of dogs and cats, the solution is to REDUCE their numbers – which is really what they argue for behind the curtain concerning humans. I have written previously how they really want to starve humans to reduce the population. I have previously told the story about attending a White House dinner in Washington back in 1996 and being seated with the entire Environmental group. It was a Washington elite political dinner and because I attended with my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University and I was an adviser to the University, whoever it was that made the seating arrangements for these tables of 10 seated us with the environmental groups. This was in the mid-90s. Dick was the one who kept trying to drag the truth out and there it came. These were the heads of the top three environmental organizations. They admitted that the real goal was to reduce the human population by making it difficult to expand and build houses. Labeling everything wetlands would reduce the ability to expand housing and thus shrink the population. When Dick got them to admit that he moved in for the bottom-line question and asked: “So who’s grandchild are you trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?” They now are targeting your pets. They already are taxing farmers per cow because they fart and are causing Global Warming. Now they are honing in on your dog or cat. The argument is that pets constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts of animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides. Their solution: Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other pets that offer similar health and emotional benefits would considerably reduce these impacts. What’s next? Quotas on having children? That did not work so well in China.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/they-now-want-to-reduce-dog-cat-ownership-to-stop-global-warming/