1

London to Join 7 European Countries to Impose Car-Mileage Tax


The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, published his plan for a VMT tax (vehicle miles traveled).  Drivers will be tracked by GPS.  This scheme has been implemented in Germany, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, and in several locations in the US. [It is part of a UN master plan, called Agenda 21, to force everyone into cities with public transportation. Although touted as a move to protect the environment, it’s real goal is to force everyone into cities where they can be more easily monitored and controlled.] –GEG

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has published a transport strategy that outlines his vision of the future of transportation in Britain’s capital. The strategy conforms to his pledge to be London’s “greenest mayor” as it will reduce motor vehicle traffic while simultaneously encouraging walking and cycling. As a way to discourage motor vehicle journeys, Khan plans to charge drivers a distance-based fee for using city roads. While the scheme is likely to represent an important new revenue stream for the city (or the firm that wins the contract), the plan also seems to resemble parts of the global elite’s technocratic agenda. 

First of all, London’s proposal is not the only one of its kind. Various forms of road charging are in use in countries around the world, with many more proposed; the type that charges motorists based on the distance they drive is often called  a ‘vehicle miles traveled tax’ (VMT tax). This type of scheme has so far been implemented in Germany, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland, as well as in several locations around the United States, such as Oregon with its OReGO program. Other similar schemes are being tested in countless locations internationally. Numerous think tanks and governments – including the UN and EU – have been urging the adoption of VMT taxes for some time, in what is clearly a coordinated international push.

An obvious problem with this idea is that charging for road use according to distance driven will discriminate against lower-income people and small business, but favour wealthier individuals and larger corporations. When Khan says, “we have to make not using your car the affordable, safest and most convenient option”,  he is clearly saying that using a car would become less affordable under the scheme. This broadly fits with the UN’s Agenda 21 plan, which aims to reduce the use of motor vehicles by the general public – as we shall see.

What Khan does not say is that the new policy would be used to raise revenue for London at drivers’ expense, which is not likely to be popular. As the BBC stated, “politicians don’t usually like talking about road charging.” Nevertheless, the revenue generated by the scheme is likely to be a powerful factor motivating Mayor Khan to attempt to introduce it. According to a study by the Policy Exchange, tax revenues from fuel duty could fall by as much as £170 billion by 2030 due to the ‘decarbonisation’ of transportation, largely as a result of the growing number of electric vehicles in use. With such a huge amount of money at stake, politicians are likely to try to make up for it in some way, either through the introduction of VMT taxes, new toll roads or a combination of the two.

Drivers already have an incentive to drive electric or low-emissions hybrid vehicles as these are exempt from road tax in the UK; within London, drivers have an even greater incentive to go electric, as these vehicles are also exempt from central London’s congestion charge. Fuel duty makes a very sizeable contribution to Britain’s treasury, and it has been reported in the past that British fuel tax is higher than that of any other country in Europe.

A further problematic aspect of distance-based road charging is that it will contribute to the ongoing erosion of our privacy. Many of the schemes rely on GPS trackers to calculate distance, and therefore track not only the distance driven but also the location of the vehicle. When combined with all the other forms of surveillance and tracking we are subjected to, will there be any privacy left?

Smart Cities & the Internet of Things

The issues surrounding Mayor Khan’s proposal go much deeper than its immediate economic effects or its effect on privacy, however. His transport strategy is almost certainly just one piece of a larger plan – to transform London into a smart city through the use of technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT).

The internet is expanding from your desktop, tablet and phone into devices all around us, such as our dishwashers, fridges, televisions and whatever other devices and appliances you can imagine. Thanks to Bilderberger and former CIA Director David Petraeus, we already know that spy agencies plan to capitalize on the flood of data these devices will make available. According to Wired magazine, Petraeus told a conference for In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, that IoT technologies would be “transformational…. particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.” He went on to say:

“Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters – all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing.”

Now take that idea and apply it to an entire city the size of London. The central idea of a smart city (similar to the ‘smart grid’ for electrical power) is to use information and communications technologies – especially IoT – to enable the city to collect, communicate and process data from all of its assets, with a view to better managing the city. This covers roads and transportation systems, buildings and land, hospitals and health services, water and energy infrastructure, waste management systems, law enforcement, and so on. Smart cities provide city managers an unprecedented amount of data about what is happening at every node of the grid, and therefore much greater control over the city.

Read full article here…




More than Half of US States Refuse to Give Trump Commission Voter Registration Data for Voter Fraud Investigation

President Trump’s voting commission requested all 50 states to submit voter names, addresses, criminal records, party affiliation, and voting records as part of an investigation into voter fraud.  Many states are refusing to comply because they say it could make the information more available to hacking. [There are better reasons than that to withhold this information from the federal government, but there also are ways for the federal government to assist the states to do this investigation on their own without sharing voting records. The most amazing thing about this story is the way in which the reporters spin the conclusion: In spite of the evidence of voter fraud on a massive scale, they tell viewers that there is no reason to be concerned, because fraud has not changed the outcome of any elections. Incredible!] –GEG

California is one of many states refusing to help President Trump’s voter-fraud investigation team. The reason is that the data might be hacked. However, the state sells the same information for what it calls ‘scholarly and journalistic research’ and for use in ‘elections’ and ‘politics’.

 

 AMAZING! CALIFORNIA SELLS THE SAME VOTER DATA THEY WON’T GIVE TRUMP

President Trump’s voting commission asked all 50 states for voter names, addresses, party affiliation and voting records, part of an investigation into voter fraud by a commission he launched last month.

 Officials in 10 states already announced they would not comply at all with the request. Those states are California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

Via FOX News

President Trump tweeted about this earlier on Saturday:
“What are they trying to hide?”

Now this…
California won’t give the requested information to the Trump administration but sells it to organizations in the state.

Via Reddit
From a NBC 7 San Diego News article back in June 2013:

If you’re a registered voter, are you aware that what you write on your registration form is publicly available?

“Commercial” interests are barred from that data.

But all sorts of other people have legal access to it.

A lot of people think only government agencies can access voter registration information – the courts, for instance, to summon you for jury duty.

But it can be purchased for purposes such as scholarly and journalistic research, and for use in “elections” and “politics”.

Read full article here…




CNN Journalists Horrified over Prank Video of Trump Taking Down ‘CNN’ at a Wrestling Match

CNN journalists react to a prank video tweeted by Trump showing him at a wrestling match body slamming a character with the letters CNN superimposed over his face. Trump apparently thought this concocted video, which was posted to the Internet by someone else, would be the equivalent of an animated cartoon one might see in the newspaper. However, since it was video instead of a drawing, CNN journalists reacted by claiming the video could incite violence against CNN reporters. [It could be argued that it was not ‘Presidential’ for Trump to forward this twee. but the fact that CNN has not shown similar concern over leftist celebrities calling for very real violence against Trump is a giveaway that the concern over this video is politically motivated.] –GEG

Journalists reacted in horror Sunday morning after President Trump tweeted a fake video that showed him body-slamming “fraud news” CNN in a fake wrestling match.

While many of the president’s supporters online reacted to the video with humor, the consensus among journalists seemed to be that Trump was inciting violence against the media.

“It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters,” CNN said in a statement responding to the tweet.

ABC News’ chief political analyst Matthew Dowd claimed Trump is “advocating violence against media” and demanded Republican leaders “put country over party” in response to the fake video of fake wrestling.

“Around the world, journalists are murdered with impunity on a regular basis,” Poynter managing editor Ben Mullin gravely stated. “This isn’t funny.”

CNN commentator Ana Navarro called the tweet “an incitement to violence” in an appearance on ABC News. “He is going to get somebody killed in the media,” she claimed.

New York Times reporter Alan Rappeport called the president’s tweet “A call for violence against the media.”

ABC News’ Martha Raddatz took the fake video seriously in an interview with Homeland Security adviser Thomas Bossert. “That seems like a threat,” Raddatz asserted. “No one would perceive that as a threat,” Bossert replied.

The Washington Post headlined its news coverage of the tweet, “Trump appears to promote violence against CNN with tweet.” WaPo reporter David Nakamura wrote: “A day after defending his use of social media as befitting a ‘modern day’ president, President Trump appeared to promote violence against CNN in a tweet.”

Atlantic editor David Frum similarly took the president’s tweet to mean that he was encouraging violence against the media.

New York Magazine writer Frank Rich called the president’s tweet “insanity” and “an attempt that might be successful to drum up violence against journalists.”

Read full article here…

 




New ‘Project Veritas’ Covert Video Exposes Anti-Trump Bias of CNN Associate Producer

James O’Keefe of Project Veritas delivered a shock video that exposed Jimmy Carr, the Associate Producer for CNN’s New Day program. Not only is Carr vehemently biased against the President but reveals his low opinion of American voters – and admits that most CNN staff hold the same views. Included is video from CNN’s New Day show that was selectively edited to make a Trump supporter look like a conspiracy theorist by cutting him off just before he offered proof of voter fraud. –GEG

 




25 Democrats Launch Initiative to Remove Trump from Office Because of Mental Incompetence

Twenty-five Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin, have endorsed an initiative that calls for removing President Trump from office for being mentally incapable. [This ploy is highly unlikely to succeed but may be part of an on-going high-profile attack against Trump to prepare the public to accept the ‘inevitability’ of an attempt on the President’s life. I fervently hope I am wrong in this analysis.] –GEG

Several Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have signed onto an initiative that could lead to President Trump’s removal using 25th Amendment powers.

According to the Washington Post, Raskin’s bill would activate a probe into whether President Trump has been too far “incapacitated” to continue as the leader of the free world.

The 25th Amendment deals mainly with presidential succession, denoting that the vice president would take over for a deceased or removed president, and so on.

Raskin said his legislation would focus on Section 4 of the 1967 amendment, which reads in part:

“Whenever the vice president and a majority of … bod[ies] such as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the president pro-tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.”

Raskin said he is concerned that “something is seriously wrong” with Trump, citing a “sustained pattern of behavior” and several “errant and seemingly deranged tweets.”

“It certainly doesn’t feel like the ship is on an even course right now,” he said.

The bill would order Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to each choose a physician and psychiatrist to be part of a commission that will determine Trump’s ability to continue as president.

One of the bill’s top supporters, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Trump is “incompatible” with the Oval Office, and called him “incompetent” in a recent interview on FBN.

Lee and Raskin were chiefly joined by Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), along with several other Democrats.

However, as the Constitution reads, in order for the 25th Amendment powers to be activated, Vice President Mike Pence would have to sign off on the removal.

Raskin’s fellow Marylander, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Eastern Shore) called the move a partisan ploy.

Harris, a medical doctor by trade, said it takes “years of schooling” to be able to “evaluate someone’s mental and physical health,” suggesting that congressmen should not be diagnosing Trump.

He called it an “insult to the [medical] profession.”

Read full article here…