The Problem of De-Banking

Pushing Back Against ‘De-Banking’ Due to Discrimination by Banks of Certain Viewpoints

On paper, Zulfat Suara and Steve Happ don’t have much in common.

One, a Muslim woman, immigrated to the U.S. from Nigeria in the 1990s and now serves on the Nashville City Council. The other, a Christian man, is a Memphis native with a background in software who began a ministry partnering with Ugandan non-profit charities that care for orphaned and at-risk children in 2015.

But they do have at least one thing in common: Both were canceled by large national banks with little warning and virtually no explanation.

Suara, who like Happ, is also involved in non-profit work, received a vaguely worded notice of cancelation from Regions Bank earlier this year, giving her 30 days to find a new bank. Happ’s cancelation by Bank of America came in 2023 shortly before he made a trip overseas—forcing him to scramble for solutions and delay hard-earned paychecks to Ugandans.

Happ’s notice said he was operating in the wrong “business type.” As we reported in this year’s report for our Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index, which measures corporate respect for free speech and religious liberty, these problematic policies are present in at least 69% of the country’s largest financial institutions.

Incidents like these are a small sample of a larger trend of viewpoint-based discrimination in financial services—known as “de-banking”— which has also affected firearms and fossil fuels because of radical net zero emissions commitments and government initiatives like Operation Choke Point. It has also garnered the attention of both sides of the political aisle.

These incidents propelled Tennessee lawmakers to adopt a landmark legislative solution aimed at curbing this dangerous weaponization of the financial system. Like a similar law that recently went into effect in Florida, the legislation is a first-of-its-kind consumer protection bill that prohibits big banks from canceling customer accounts based on their constitutionally protected speech and religious exercise.

The Tennessee law applies to banks with at least $100 billion in assets—which includes both Regions and Bank of America—the latter of which has also been exposed by U.S. House oversight as working hand-in-hand with the U.S. Department of Treasury to profile as domestic terrorist threats my organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, and everyday Americans who committed the sin of shopping at Bass Pro Shops or buying “religious texts.” It should come as no surprise that this same government entity has now spoken out in opposition to these state-level attempts to protect the God-given freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In a recent letter lauded in these pages by Hispanic Leadership Fund president Mario H. Lopez, the Treasury makes a series of false assertions about Tennessee and Florida’s laws. Chief among these specious claims is that the laws prevent Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) from dealing with money launderers and terrorist threats.

There’s no need to provide a nuanced answer to this accusation. It’s simply untrue. Twenty state attorneys general recently responded to this letter and rightly observed that the standards the Treasury is attacking in the state laws are the exact same standards the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed—and the Treasury did not object to—only a few years ago.

Likewise, Lopez’s reactionary appeal to free market principles fails. Banks don’t operate in a free market. ESG is avowedly anti-free market. And the market is not free if access depends on your political and religious views.

First, banks are highly regulated. But in exchange for those regulations, they benefit from a wide spectrum of government subsidies. Those include bailouts, tax credits, property tax abatements, and grants at the state and federal levels. Since 1998, for example, JPMorgan Chase has received over $1.7 trillion from American taxpayers in the form of subsidies.

Second, ESG activists, and even government regulators, are introducing non-financial and subjective factors into decision-making by classifying groups like mine as domestic terrorist threats and denying service to ministries that support orphans and widows for being the wrong “business type.” Someone should explain how these groups, or those of Christian broadcaster Lance Wallnau or U.S. Ambassador Sam Brownback, present national security threats. Of course, one of the features of the state laws is that customers like Wallnau and Ambassador Brownback can demand a written explanation from the banks.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/08/pushing-back-against-de-banking-due-to-discrimination-by-banks-of-certain-viewpoints/

Organic Farming For Your Health, Your Survival

Ronnie Cummins Describes Strategy for Taking Back Organics

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • I interviewed Ronnie Cummins, cofounder and international director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), in honor of Regenerative Food and Farming Week
  • One of OCA’s major endeavors is the Billion Agave Project, an ecosystem-regeneration strategy being used by Mexican farms to turn agave into inexpensive animal feed
  • While small farms around the globe are using organic methods to grow food, they’re not getting credit for the truly sustainable farming methods they’re embracing because they’re not certified
  • OCA’s No. 1 project is to replace “the bogus carbon credits” with a system that measures the ecosystem services that farmers are providing, so they can be paid for these beneficial services along with the food they provide
  • OCA and their collaborators are working on a cellphone app that will streamline the organic certification process, enable farmers to apply to be certified organic and demonstrate higher levels of regenerative practices

I recently spoke with Ronnie Cummins, cofounder and international director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), in honor of Regenerative Food and Farming Week. OCA is one of the philanthropic organizations that we support, and Cummins shared some exciting updates in the field of organic and biodynamic agriculture.

One of OCA’s major endeavors is the Billion Agave Project, an ecosystem-regeneration strategy being used by Mexican farms in Guanajuato, a high-desert region.1 Cummins was in San Miguel, Mexico, when we spoke, which was right in the middle of the dry season.

As Cummins explains, there’s typically no rain in the region for eight months out of the year, and since 86% of Mexican farmers don’t have a well, the use of organic and regenerative farming techniques is very important for good production and to improve the environment.2

‘Regeneration’ Being Used for Greenwashing

When you hear terms like regenerative agriculture, it’s important to look at its source. While small farms around the globe are using organic methods to grow food, in part because they can’t afford expensive agricultural chemicals, they’re not getting credit for the truly sustainable farming methods they’re embracing.

Meanwhile, corporate giants are using terms like “regenerative” to make it seem as though their industrial farming methods are natural. “Regenerative food and farming has become a buzzword in natural and organic food circles,” Cummins explains.

“More and more people understand what it is. But unfortunately, a lot of the … agribusiness corporations are using the term regeneration to avoid going organic or biodynamic, and they’re using it more as greenwashing. So, we’re still looking for people to understand that, you know, regenerative needs to be organic or biodynamic as its bottom line, and then you can improve on those practices.”3

As it stands, however, the small farmers aren’t typically getting rewarded for their regenerative methods the way they should. Cummins continues:4

“We shouldn’t allow big corporations like Monsanto to be paying bogus carbon credits to, you know, industrial monoculture, corn and soy farms in the Midwest, and claim that if they change one little thing, like they don’t plow because they use glyphosate instead — or if they use cover crops, but then they burn them down with glyphosate — there’s nothing really regenerative about that.

And, if you look across the world of farming systems that are really increasing soil fertility, putting more carbon in the soil, increasing water retention, preserving or even expanding biodiversity, and providing a decent living, these farms are using all the techniques of organic and regenerative, and these are the best practices we need to be looking at and that need to be rewarded for their organic plus practices.”

In Guanajuato, as part of the Billion Agave Project, farmers are harnessing the desert species agave to reform their food system. While agave leaves have historically been discarded as waste, as they’re difficult for farm animals to digest, the farmers are now chopping up agave leaves and fermenting them, which turns the leaves into an excellent and inexpensive animal feed. Mexico is the largest buyer of GMO corn in the world, which is primarily used for animal feed:5

“So, one of the things we’re trying to get across to the Mexican government is that farmers who are feeding corn to their animals — chickens, pigs, cows, whatever — they shouldn’t be feeding it to cows and herbivores.

But farmers that are feeding this feed can substitute fermented agave and protein from … other sources to eliminate this water intensive, energy intensive, really destructive monoculture of corn and soybeans. So, we’re pretty excited about this … farmers are picking up on this across the country, and we are getting inquiries from all over the world.”

All Agriculture Was Organic Until 1940

Organic agriculture is sometimes viewed as trendy, but to put this into perspective, all agriculture was organic until about 1940, Cummins notes, pointing out that “it’s only been 80 years of this disastrous experiment with chemicals, and chemical fertilizers and GMOs,” along with lab-grown meat and dairy products.

“If you look at the state of health in 1940, at various things like chronic disease, I mean, why is it four times higher chronic disease, you know, now than it was 80 years ago? Well, I think part of that is the diet,” Cummins says.6 Now, however, “people with the biggest megaphones,” like Bill Gates, have stolen concepts like sustainable, regenerative agriculture in an attempt to gain control over the world.

Small victories are occurring, however, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) new proposed rule to only allow meat, poultry and egg products derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the U.S. to use the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” claim on their labels.7

Current regulations allow products from multinational corporations to claim their meat is a “Product of USA” if it passes through a USDA-inspected plant, even if the meat is imported.8 “We’ve been fighting this for 20 years,” Cummins says of the “Made in the USA” label, continuing:9

“I never thought we’d win. But all of a sudden, they finally do something right. And two months ago, they tightened up the requirements for importing foreign grains and organic ingredients. And you know, not just letting people claim they’re organic, pay off a few people overseas, and get here. But in general, I think we have got to stop focusing so much on the federal government and look more at what can be done at the grassroots level.

Measuring Ecosystem Services to Reward Small Farmers

Carbon credits are another greenwashing tool that allow globalists and multinational corporations to “offset” their pollution. It’s a matter of smoke and mirrors, however, that leaves small farmers once again at a disadvantage. While the rich can continue to pollute and buy carbon credits, small farmers may be forced out of business — leaving the wealthy polluters to grab their land and resources.

OCA’s No. 1 project is to replace “the bogus carbon credits, bogus carbon offsets, bogus payments for so-called prevented deforestation — in other words, the across-the-board greenwashing that’s now happening — with a system that really is alternative … it’s called organic ecoservices.”10

The idea is to measure the beneficial farming practices, or ecosystem services, that farmers are providing, so they can be paid for these services along with the food they provide. According to Cummins:11

“We’ve got to start paying organic and organic plus producers a premium for the food they produce so that they will become more regenerative and really take over … 71% of organic farmers in the United States … are not certified organic. OK, across the world there are 60 billion farmers that could easily be certified organic, if there was a financial incentive to do so. And market access.

… we’re developing a system to where the only payments that we want the polluters to pay, and be able to enhance their PR or their supply chain dynamics, are two things. We want them to stop carbon offsetting and do only carbon insetting.

That is, a carbon inset is something that a corporation does in its supply chain that enhances these environmental services, and puts carbon and fertility in the soil. Or else we want these companies to just pay out money in the form of … ‘MCs’ … these are mitigation contributions. So we don’t want Nestle to be able to claim, ‘Oh, yeah, we’re gonna be net zero emissions by 2050.’”

Why ESG Funds Are a Scam

Pouncing on investors’ interest in environmentally friendly, sustainable investing, the S&P 500 ESG Index was launched in 2019.12

ESG, or environmental, social and governance, funds are supposed to be those focused on companies with strong environmental ethics and responsibility, but further investigation reveals rampant greenwashing has occurred, and many ESG-labeled funds are far from “sustainable.” Globally, an estimated $41 trillion flowed into ESG funds in 2022.13 Cummins explains:14

“We’re going to have to make the polluters really squirm if we want them to pay out. ESG companies that file ESG reports now have a total of $125 trillion in assets. That’s not billion, that’s trillion … you got all these companies filing these, they’re bragging about their carbon offsets, their carbon credits … how they paid to defer deforestation here and there … our solution to this is we can’t write a big company’s ESG.

But we can say, if you don’t make a sizable contribution to these mitigation contributions, that are actually restoring the environment and sequestering carbon and biodiversity around the world, we’re coming after you … there are only about six major carbon credit certifiers in the world, and it’s now coming out that it’s all corrupt — and that 90% or more is bogus.”

App in the Works to Streamline Organic Certification

OCA and their collaborators are working on a cellphone app that will enable farmers to apply to be certified organic and demonstrate higher levels of regenerative practices. Right now, costs and regulatory red tape make it difficult for most farmers to become certified organic and stay that way.

“We know full well the reason farmers that were once certified organic stopped getting recertified, or the reason why the overwhelming majority of organic producers in the world are not certified at all, is because it costs money and it takes time … the recording is onerous,” Cummins says.15

The app will make it much easier for farmers and organic certifiers by providing an online system of records “instead of a bunch of copies of receipts and hand-drawn maps of farms.” They’re also using sophisticated drones that can fly over 50 acres a day combined with satellite information to help determine where and how many soil samples should be taken and how to determine water retention in soil, biodiversity and more.

They’re even using microphones tied into databases to identify bird calls and figure out how many birds live in the area. It’s so detailed, it can determine which birds live there year-round and which are just migrating.

By making the organic certification process easier, and getting more farms certified organic, Cummins hopes that the agricultural system will transform to one that produces healthy, toxin-free food in a truly sustainable way:16

“We’re obviously in the middle of a … crisis and organic and regenerative nutrient-dense food is what’s got to be made available to everyone. And we can’t do this by paying organic farmers enough for their food to where it gets priced out of the range of more and more people.

We’ve got to start thinking of how do we pay farmers and ranchers and land managers for the environmental services that they provide for all of us, and for reducing poverty.

And so we’ve got to come up with a new system. We need a campaign to rejuvenate the organic movement worldwide … many farmers in the world … aren’t certified and aren’t getting any reward in the marketplace. We can change this, and the way to change it is public education.

We’ve got to expose not only the machinations of the World Economic Forum and Gates and World Trade Organization, but we’ve also got to point out that this new magic bullet that they’re offering up is just greenwashing — and that we have an alternative. This alternative is organic and regenerative, and it’s based on the cutting-edge science and verification that are now within our reach for the first time.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/04/04/ronnie-cummins-taking-back-organics.aspx

ESG-Whizz

The Roots Of ESG And How To Get Rid Of It

ESG exists as part of the WEF’s Great Narrative leading to the WEF’s Great Reset. It is primarily used to attack the US, demolishing the world’s engine of capitalism and free market economics. It also provided the bond between Big Business and Big Government. ⁃ TN Editor

At this point, everyone knows about ESG, and everyone knows that companies and firms that embrace it are intent on pushing an environmental, social, and governance agenda, mostly on America. But the full story is very interesting and extremely disturbing.

Recently, I had the chance to hear Vivek Ramaswamy, the founder of Strive Asset Management, speak about ESG, how it came to be, how it functions, and how to combat it.

Ramaswamy said that the problems of ESG are not state or even national economic ones. They make up a transnational, trans-partisan battle for the heart and soul of democracy itself. It is not Democrats versus Republicans, Left versus Right, black versus white, or gay versus straight. Rather, the real issue at stake is democratic-republican self-governance versus monarchy. Ramaswamy said that it is not a 2022 question but a 1776 question. ESG, says Ramaswamy, is a secular religion that started when ideas such as identity and the ability to achieve in life based on race, gender, or sexual orientation rose to the fore.

According to Ramaswamy, there were two toxic ideologies of the 20th century—the first being German Nazism, and the second Soviet-style Marxism. Blend the identity politics of the first with the oppressor-oppressed philosophy of the second and you have planted the seeds of ESG. This, in turn, allows for the application of labels to those who question the new cultural norm. Those labels include, but of course are not limited to, “racist,” “misogynist,” “climate-denier,” and “bigot.” Once those labels are applied, all debate is silenced.

The current problem, said Ramaswamy, began with the 2008 financial crisis. Ramaswamy was working for a Wall Street investment firm. He said anger began to rise when banks received financial bailouts, causing people to begin to question modern American capitalism. It also served as a nursery of sorts to the Occupy Wall Street movement. This movement, running on the fumes of the old progressive ideology, demanded that money be taken from the rich and given to the poor. But the neo-progressive movement was just starting to come into its own, and this movement postulated that the real problem was not poverty or economic injustice but rather racial injustice, bigotry, misogyny, and climate change.

Ramaswamy said that Wall Street saw a way to get off the hot seat. Corporations realized that they could get activists off their backs by doing things such as putting token minorities on corporate boards and championing the combatting of climate change and its supposedly racist impact. But the corporations said that the price would be for the Left to conveniently look the other way with regards to corporate power. In addition to being left alone, these companies also expected that the movers and shakers in government and these movements would give them certain business advantages. Ramaswamy cited a move by Goldman-Sachs in which it said it would not take a company public if it did not have a sufficiently diverse board. Ramaswamy called it a cynical grand bargain or even an arranged marriage between two sides that didn’t even so much as like one another. Ramaswamy likened it to “mutual prostitution,” which resulted in the “Woke ESG Industrial Complex.” This is a far more powerful entity than Big Business or Big Government, which allowed both elements to accomplish together what they could not do on their own.

This created the chance for new asset management companies to ride in on their proverbial white horses in the wake of the ’08 financial crisis. These included companies like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, which would create “better capitalism.” According to Ramaswamy, these three companies, over 15 years, have acquired enough assets to manage more than $21 trillion of investment funds. This money is then used to advance a progressive agenda that would have never survived a legislative session.

Seeing Wall Street’s success, Ramaswamy said that Silicon Valley realized that it would also like a piece of the action. Even back in 2008, the tech lords knew that it was the Left that posed a threat to their burgeoning monopoly on at least a philosophical level. So the tech lords said they would use their corporate power to advance progressivism, doing things like censoring opinions and eliminating “hate speech,” as the Left defined it. In return, the Left would conveniently ignore the tech monopoly.

Seeing how well things worked out for Wall Street and Silicon Valley, much of corporate America would follow suit. Ramaswamy cited Coca-Cola speaking out against Georgia’s voting laws and forcing its employees to take diversity training, including courses on how to be “less white.” At the same time, Coke could ignore its product’s effects on American obesity. Nike could condemn “systemic racism” in America, while people overseas toiled in sweatshops for slave wages and, as Ramaswamy asserted, in conditions of slave labor to make high-end sneakers for sale in the U.S., often to people who might not be able to afford coats for their children.

Even though the two sides still loathe one another, the system, which is the merger of state and corporate power, stays in place because it continues to work so well. Ramaswamy called it the most powerful force in modern American life. Ironically, liberals allowed themselves to forget about their skepticism of big business, and it duped conservatives because the system was presented in the context of the free market. Ramaswamy said that he knows principled people on the left and the right who are deeply concerned about the issue, in part because free speech and open debate in the public square, where all voices and votes count equally, is being neutralized.

That is the “S” or social prong of ESG. Far more sinister, said Ramaswamy, is the “E” prong, or energy. Climate change has been used to envelop the social prong and make it a Trojan horse. The major asset management firms and banks have served as an arm of the government to implement climate change policies, such as the Green New Deal, which could not have passed Congress. Democrats realized that the private sector could be used to that end. Climate Czar John Kerry was able to get companies across the nation to sign a “climate pledge” to put the Green New Deal into effect without any debate or vote in the legislative branch. Ramaswamy said that the tactic has not only contributed to a generational supply/demand imbalance for global energy, but it also hasn’t even been effective. This is because we are in a global energy market, and countries like China and Russia snap up every unit of energy that ESG takes out of play in the West. So, according to Ramaswamy, on the other side of the world, carbon emissions continue unabated. On top of that, Russian and Chinese energy production is much dirtier than it is in the U.S. Methane produced by those countries is far worse than in the U.S.

Read full story here…

from:    https://www.technocracy.news/the-roots-of-esg-and-how-to-get-rid-of-it/

BlackBalling BlackRock

Republicans Withdraw $1 Billion From BlackRock Due To Its ESG Policies

Multiple U.S. states governed by Republicans are withdrawing state funds from BlackRock’s management, as they disapprove of the ESG investment policies of the world’s top asset manager, the Financial Times reports.

In recent weeks, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and Arkansas have announced they would divest funds from BlackRock totaling more than $1 billion.

Last week, Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder announced in a letter to BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink that he would divest all Treasury funds from BlackRock. Louisiana has removed $560 million to date and will pull out a total of $794 million by year’s end, Schroder noted.

“This divestment is necessary to protect Louisiana from mandates BlackRock has called for that would cripple our critical energy sector,” said Schroder. “I refuse to spend a penny of Treasury funds with a company that will take food off tables, money out of pockets and jobs away from hardworking Louisianans.”

South Carolina will pull $200 million from BlackRock by the end of the year, State Treasurer Curtis Loftis told FT in an interview.

For months now, Republican states have said they would not do business anymore with asset managers who have ESG-aligned investment policies, which, the states say, show that those financial firms are boycotting the oil and gas industry.

Texas, the largest oil-producing state in America, is leading the campaign against this movement. The Lone Star State published in August a list of financial firms that could be banned from doing business with Texas, its state pension funds, and local governments.

Texas and other Republican-led oil and gas states see the ESG investment trend as an implicit attack on fossil fuels and a boycott of conventional energy resources, the revenues from which make up a large portion of state budgets in the oil, gas, and coal country.

In early August, the Attorney Generals of 19 states—including Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Ohio—sent a letter to BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink expressing concerns with the asset manager’s commitment to net-zero emissions across all its assets.

“Rather than being a spectator betting on the game, BlackRock appears to have put on a quarterback jersey and actively taken the field,” the attorney generals wrote.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

from:    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Republicans-Withdraw-1-Billion-From-BlackRock-Due-To-Its-ESG-Policies.html