Honey for the Heart
Fitness & Health • Science & Tech • Preparedness
Exploring old and new ideas to bring us together for a life filled with meaning.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
ESG

My thoughts because if I don’t share them they are going to burn up my brain. 😉

The progressive ideology called “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) includes various things from climate change to social justice. ESG criteria have been imposed on corporations for years by the finance industry, including activist asset managers, banks, rating agencies, proxy agents, and elite global clubs such as Climate Action 100+, the Global Investors Statement to Governments on Climate Change, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. Collectively, these organizations have succeeded in compelling corporate executives to fall in line behind a strict uncompromising agenda.

In March, Standard & Poors, one of the world’s top credit rating agencies, announced that ESG scoring would be expanded beyond company ratings to now include U.S. states as well. And in December, FICO, the consumer credit rating agency, predicted that personal ESG scores would soon follow, stating that “one example would be the inclusion of property energy ratings data in mortgage valuation and decisioning.” FICO scores determine a person’s ability to get a mortgage, car loan, bank loan, or credit card. Simply stated if you can not or will not support their initiatives you are barred from loans to buy a home, a car or have a credit card.

“I think it is highly likely that within the next two years, you’re going to see financial institutions start to use a personalized social credit score of some kind to make decisions about things like your access to loans, your interest rate, or whether you’re eligible for insurance coverage,” said Justin Haskins, director at the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank. “All the signs are pointing to that happening very soon.” Jobs ask now if you have complied with medical procedures and drugs they want you to take or they will not hire you. Here we are on the raggedy edge, those of us who prefer to understand and agree without coercion to participation in a group run program.

“We should be very thankful that our government doesn’t have the power to mandate that,” said Jonathan Williams, chief economist at the American Legislative Exchange Council, a membership organization for state legislators. But progressive control over the financial system could mean “having people’s freedoms eroded without any legislation ever having to be passed, whether it’s companies with a radical take on ESG or FICO personal credit scores.” Oh no we don’t need to pass a law. You simply can’t participate in society until you comply.

“They can’t pass the Green New Deal in the United States Congress,” said New Hampshire State Rep. J.D. Bernardy, “but the banks can certainly implement it. The major banks and financial management firms and insurance companies are de facto deciding how we will be able to live. They are becoming our new legislatures.” Bernardy has introduced a bill in New Hampshire to bar financial institutions from using personal social credit scores. This has long been the corporation of the United States of America we simply didn’t notice it was happening.

The power that banks have over people was demonstrated in February when Canadian banks froze the personal accounts of protestors and their crowdfunding donors, instantly cutting them off from their own money, savings, and income. While U.S. financial companies have not come close to doing anything so brazen, they have started to selectively deny banking and payment services to groups and individuals they consider politically undesirable.

The Heritage Foundation reported that Chase Bank closed the accounts of former Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in 2021 for “reputational reasons,” and Wells Fargo made a “business decision” to eject Republican Senate candidate Lauren Witzke. In 2019, PayPal revealed it was working with the Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing group, to determine who should be blocked from using its payment services. A new group of undesirables. What is hard for me to understand is why the current “in” group cannot see the tide always turns and they will in their turn become the undesirables with nothing to protect them.

In November, JPMorgan subsidiary WePay canceled payment services to a conservative fundraising event. In response, Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick informed the bank that his state “would not do business with them so long as they continued to discriminate against customers based on their mainstream political positions.” Who determines what is “mainstream”? Who watches the watchers?

In January, Bank of America, without due process or a warrant, mined the data of hundreds of personal accounts to see who had traveled to Washington D.C. or purchased firearms around the time of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. Soon afterward, the Biden administration attempted unsuccessfully to compel all banks to report to the IRS any transactions greater than $600. Under the Obama administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) carried out an illicit program called “Operation Chokepoint,” which arm-twisted banks to cut off lending to firearms retailers, telling banks that such loans would be considered “high risk” by regulators. What happens when their cause is not the darling of the day?

During its first week in power, the Biden administration canceled a rule enacted by the Trump administration that prohibited banks from conducting Chokepoint-style discrimination against customers on ideological grounds. This reversal now provides legal cover for ideological lending, such as banks reducing credit to fossil fuel companies and Citibank’s policy that it will not do business with gun makers or small-business retailers who sell to people under the age of 21 or who sell “high capacity magazines,” which are considered magazines of more than 10 rounds. While Citibank states that it is not on “an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms,” the federal legal age for rifles and shotguns is currently 18 and most semi-automatic handguns and rifles come with standard-issue magazines with more than 10 rounds, which effectively bars most of the gun industry from Citibank’s services, regardless of their creditworthiness. There is so much these days that screams of the illogical. I listened to a Congressman state that no criminal shooter had ever been stopped by a gun. 😳 And then requested statistics. In my humble world I’d need examples of what stopped them that didn’t include a firearm.

The Biden administration took similar action with credit unions. In March of 2021, Todd Harper the chairman of the National Credit Union Association (NCUA), a regulatory agency, stated that “a credit union’s field of membership is often tied to a business like an oil refinery or a community linked closely to farming … such credit unions will need to consider adjusting their fields of membership or altering lending portfolios” to reduce “the impact of climate change.” This caused North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to protest that while “we appreciate NCUA’s concern about climate change,” its agenda could hurt family farmers and ranchers, which are often criticized as carbon emitters and could be put out of business if they can’t get access to credit.

The administration’s support for ESG was further demonstrated by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s announcement in March that all listed companies must soon deliver audited reports on their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. The Federal Reserve recently joined the global Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for the Greening of the Financial System. The Department of Labor reversed a Trump administration regulation that prohibited private pension managers from investing pensioners’ money according to non-financial criteria, including ESG. And the Department of Justice announced in May that it was establishing an Office of Environmental Justice that “will engage all Justice Department bureaus, components and offices in the collective pursuit of environmental justice.”

Many argue that, as private companies, banks and insurers are free to pursue ESG policies and do business with whomever they choose. However, U.S. anti-trust law prohibits companies from colluding to harm other companies or industries, which likely includes the various global finance clubs whose members signed pledges to jointly curtail the use of fossil fuels.

All the major banks and insurance companies have pledged to use their power to cut carbon emissions “not just within their businesses but across their entire portfolios, including all lending decisions,” Haskins said. “How can you reduce CO2 emissions across your entire portfolio if you don’t know that the person coming to your bank to get a mortgage has a house that’s running on natural gas? The same thing would be true of car insurance because insurance companies have made the same pledge.” Why do people think electric cars would be better? Mining Lithium is terrible for the environment and you would have to plug them into a failing power grid that RUNS ON FOSSIL FUELS. So many glaring illogical issues to address.

“The first hurdle is that this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory,” Bernardy said. But the recent hikes in fuel prices and their ripple effect on other sectors including farming have brought home to many people the effects of ESG ideology. Added to this are pronouncements from billionaire financiers like Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, that “behaviors are going to have to change. You have to force behaviors and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.”

What moral or intellectual superiority gives Blackrock the right to “force” behaviors? They are not elected, they were built and bought with our money. We slept and consumed while they grew.

The push by financiers to “force behaviors” comes on the heels of a series of pandemic-related lockdowns and other intrusions on individual liberty. Based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, it was reported that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked Americans’ cell phones to monitor movement and compliance with COVID-19 lockdowns. Municipalities like New York City mandated that people present “vaccine passports” in order to enter a restaurant or other indoor spaces. Similarly, countries in the European Union issued “Digital Covid Certificates” that gave vaccinated citizens travel, dining, and entertainment privileges.

“World history demonstrates that liberty requires a continual effort to fight for it,” Lucero said. “If people are distracted or they are not willing to preserve the liberties that have been fought for and given to them by prior generations, then those liberties will continue to erode.”

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
January 22, 2025
2025 Keeps up the Weird-Louisiana Blizzard

It was 10 degrees here when I woke up in the Bayou State. 🥶🙄

00:00:44
December 08, 2024
Vintage Christmas

I love vintage decor ❤️🎄

00:00:55
December 07, 2024
Santa by State

Color me amused.

00:01:04

Antarctic.

post photo preview

When in Mesopotamia, beware the mesopotamus. (From the Latin, "between two horses" * ).

  • false etymology
post photo preview
January 01, 2025
Bone Sante

Bonne santé !!! ❤️☀️💃

The chief beauty about time
is that you cannot waste it in advance.
The next year, the next day, the next hour are lying ready for you,
as perfect, as unspoiled,
as if you had never wasted or misapplied
a single moment in all your life.
You can turn over a new leaf every hour
if you choose.
Arnold Bennett

post photo preview
October 23, 2022
post photo preview
UN Sustainable Development Goals—Agenda 2030

The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, often referred to as Agenda 2030, were adopted in 2015 by the organization and its member states as a guide to “transforming our world.” Hailed as a “master plan for humanity” and a global “declaration of interdependence” by top U.N. officials, the 17 goals include 169 targets involving every facet of the economy and life.

“All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan,” declares the preamble to the document, repeatedly noting that “no one will be left behind.”

Among other elements, the U.N. plan calls for national and international wealth redistribution in Goal 10, as well as “fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services.”

Using government to transform all economic activity is a critical part of the SDGs, with Goal 12 demanding “sustainable consumption and production patterns.”

Among the specific targets outlined in Goal 12 are several directly linked to agricultural policies that undermine food production. These include “sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.”

Perhaps more importantly, the document demands “environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks.”

As a result, people and especially farmers must “significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.”

Other SDGs that are directly tied to what critics have called the “war on farmers” include Goal 14, which addresses “marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including … nutrient pollution.” The U.N. regularly describes agriculture and food production as a threat to the ocean.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), led by former CCP Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Qu Dongyu, is helping to lead the charge.

In its 2014 report “Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: Principles and Approaches,” the U.N. agency calls for drastic restrictions on the use of fertilizers, pesticides, emissions, and water in the agricultural sector.

As an example of how agriculture must be reformed to be considered sustainable by the U.N., the FAO report declares that “excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer is a major cause of water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Another of the 17 SDGs with a direct impact on agriculture and food production is Goal 2, with its calls for “sustainable agriculture” and “sustainable food production.”

Goal 6, meanwhile, calls for “sustainable management of water,” which includes various targets involving agricultural water use and runoff.

Because U.N. leaders see agriculture and food production as key contributors to what they call manmade climate change, Goal 13 is important, too. It calls for governments to “integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.”

Goal 15, which deals with sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, also has multiple targets that affect agriculture and food production.

All over the world, national and regional governments are working with U.N. agencies to implement these sustainability goals in agriculture and other sectors.

For instance, responding to U.N. biodiversity agreements, the European Union has enacted various U.N.-backed biodiversity programs such as Natura 2000 and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which have been cited by the Dutch government and others in their agricultural policies.

The U.N. also boasts publicly about its role in imposing the SDGs in Sri Lanka and other nations suffering from food shortages and economic calamities linked to the very same global sustainability programs.

Around the world, almost every national government says it’s incorporating the SDGs into its own laws and regulations.

 

Read full Article
October 22, 2022
post photo preview
UN, World Economic Forum Behind Global ‘War on Farmers

The escalating regulatory attack on agricultural producers from Holland and the United States to Sri Lanka and beyond is closely tied to the United Nations’ “Agenda 2030” Sustainable Development Goals and the U.N.’s partners at the World Economic Forum (WEF)

Indeed, several of the U.N.’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are directly implicated in policies that are squeezing farmers, ranchers, and food supplies around the world.

High-level Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members within the U.N. system helped create the SDGs and are currently helping lead the organization’s implementation of the global plan.

If left unchecked, multiple experts said, the U.N.-backed sustainability policies on agriculture and food production would lead to economic devastation, shortages of critical goods, widespread famine, and a dramatic loss of individual freedoms.

Already, millions of people worldwide are facing dangerous food shortages, and officials around the world say those are set to get worse as the year goes on.

There is an agenda behind it all.

Even private land ownership is in the crosshairs, as global food production and the world economy are transformed to meet the global sustainability goals, U.N. documents reviewed by The Epoch Times show.

As explained by the U.N. on its SDG website, the goals adopted in 2015 “build on decades of work by countries and the U.N.”

One of the earliest meetings defining the “sustainability” agenda was the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements known as Habitat I, which adopted the Vancouver Declaration.

The agreement stated that “land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals” and that private land ownership is “a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

“Public control of land use is therefore indispensable,” the U.N. declaration said, a prelude to the World Economic Forum’s now infamous “prediction” that by 2030, “you’ll own nothing.”

Numerous U.N. agencies and officials have outlined their vision of “sustainability” since then, including calls for drastic restrictions on energy, meat consumption, travel, living space, and material prosperity.

Experts say that some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful corporate leaders are working with communists in China and elsewhere in an effort to centralize control over food production and crush independent farmers and ranchers. Bill Gates is now the largest land owner in my state.

The WEF, a network of major multinational businesses that collaborates closely with the CCP, is a “strategic partner” of the U.N. on Agenda 2030.

The increasing regulation of food production and even efforts to shut many farms and ranches come as officials around the world such as U.S. President Joe Biden and U.N. World Food Programme chief David Beasley warn of looming food shortages worldwide.

But instead of easing restrictions and encouraging more production, Western governments and many governments dependent on aid are clamping down even harder.

Dutch farmers, already at the breaking point, have responded this summer with massive nationwide protests. That followed violent unrest in Sri Lanka tied to food shortages caused by government policy.

Governments and international organizations have cited various pretexts for the policies, ranging from increasing “sustainability” and protecting various flora and fauna, to promoting “economic justice” and even returning lands to aboriginal peoples.

According to critics of the policies, though, the goal isn’t to preserve the environment or fight climate change at all. Instead, the experts warn that the “sustainability” narrative and the other justifications are a tool to gain control over food, agriculture, and people.

“The end goal of these efforts is to reduce sovereignty on both individual nations and people,” said Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a public policy organization specializing in environmental and development issues.

The intent for those pushing this agenda is not to save the planet, as they purport, but to increase control over people. The goal is to centralize power at the national and even international level.

 

 

Read full Article
October 22, 2022
post photo preview
Food Inflation Soars to Highest Level Since 1980, With More Pain to Come, Producers Warn

Food prices in the United States shot up in May at their fastest annual pace in 42 years, according to new government data, with some food producers warning American households to brace for more inflationary pain ahead, as some input costs have yet to be reflected in grocery store prices.

The food component of the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, released on June 30 by the Commerce Department (pdf), showed food prices vaulting at an annual 11 percent in May, the highest reading since 1980.

The multi-decade high reading marks the 11th consecutive month that food prices have climbed in the United States. It’s also double the 5.5 percent pace of food price inflation notched just last November.

A number of U.S. farmers interviewed by The Epoch Times have said that soaring fuel and fertilizer costs have yet to fully make their way down the food production chain.

“Usually, what we see on the farm, the consumer doesn’t see for another 18 months,” said John Chester, a Tennessee farmer of corn, wheat, and soybeans.

“People don’t realize what’s fixing to hit them,” Texas farmer Lynn “Bugsy” Allen said. “They think it’s tough right now. You give it until October; food prices are going to double.”

The grim forecasts come as the American Farm Bureau Federation said in a recent report that American consumers can expect to pay 17 percent more to eat this coming July 4 compared to Independence Day last year.

The average cost of a summer cookout for 10 people would total $69.68, an increase of about $10 from 2021, according to the report.

Meanwhile, the so-called core PCE price index, which excludes the volatile categories of food and energy and is the Federal Reserve’s preferred gauge for measuring inflation, rose by 4.7 percent in the year through May, Commerce Department data show.

While that’s a slight decline from the prior month’s 4.9 percent pace of growth and roughly in line with analysts’ estimates, it’s more than double the 2 percent inflation target that the U.S. central bank aims for when it sets monetary policy, chiefly interest rates.

And while the over-the-year core PCE inflation gauge inched down, the month-over-month reading remained flat at 0.3 percent in May for the fourth month in a row, suggesting that inflationary pressures remain stuck in high gear, and the Fed’s fight to lower price growth will be protracted.

“Inflation appears to be cooling, but it may be a mirage, as sequential momentum remains strong,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, wrote on Twitter, referring to the elevated monthly inflation readings.

The Fed has pivoted in its view on inflation, initially considering it a temporary spike that would soon pass but now describing it as persistent and problematic.

The central bank has embarked on an aggressive rate-hiking cycle in a bid to tame runaway prices, with some analysts seeing a growing risk that the U.S. economy will tip into recession.  Pretty sure we are there.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals