Posts Tagged ‘CFP’

Nancy Pelosi–conspirator in pearls – Delivering American sovereignty over to the United Nations

August 17, 2008

Judi McLeod, Editor-Owner

Judi McLeod Canada Free Press.com and Toronto Free Pressfounding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 25 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard and the former Brampton Daily Times.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Queen of the Democrats Nancy Pelosi will deliver the sovereignty of her own country over to the United Nations. In fact, she’s been working on it since 1992.

An untold story, the 66-year-old’s Resolution 166 has been one of steadfast steps on a long road to stealthy success.

To understand her infinite patience in getting where she wanted to be, one must go back to the beginning.

“On August 5, 1992, Nancy Pelosi (CA) introduced a concurrent resolution in Congress (H.CON.RES. 353), saying that the United States of America should reform all domestic and foreign policy to adhere to the agreements of the Earth Summit, develop a national strategy to implement Agenda 21, and regularly report to the United Nations our progress on that path. (www.freedom21santacruz.net, Sept. 10, 2004).

Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Strong
“Undaunted by slow going in Congress, Nancy Pelosi returned to the
House floor on March 29, 1993 and introduced a joint resolution
(H.J.RES 166) to renew the call for the United States to “assume a
strong leadership role in implementing…Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit
agreements.” Pelosi eventually gathered 67 co-sponsors for her bill, 32
of whom are still in Congress.”

As freedom21santacruz.net writer Michael Park points out, researchers on the subject could content themselves that Pelosi’s fancy work got bogged down in subcommittee purgatory, but they would be wrong.

Pelosi’s revolutionary resolutions were picked up by an incoming President Bill Clinton, who on June 14, 1993, with only six months in office, signed an executive order establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)–which would carry out the exact functions called for in Pelosi’s earlier resolutions.

The fix was now in even though many average Americans knew nothing about it.

Were Republicans asleep at the switch when in a widely circulated White House press release, Clinton announced that the Council’s primary goals would be to:

. “Educate the public about the far-reaching opportunities in sustainable development”; “Recognize outstanding sustainable development achievements through an annual Presidential award,” among other things?

Courtesy of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 policy recommendations filtered into every federal agency in America. Many of those agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), had their own representative in attendance at the Rio Earth Summit and were already acting upon Agenda 21, but this new source of support from the White House gave extra clout to their activities.

Anti-American, Canadian environmental guru Maurice Strong was the godfather of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Strong–who more than a decade later was to be driven off the radar screen when his alleged ties to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal became public–was the one-man force who pulled the wool over the world’s eyes with Agenda 21. At Rio, dubbed “the mother of all summits” while his occultist wife, Hanne was “tapping into Mother Earth’s energy”, hubby looked after the serious business of setting policy on sustainable development for the entire world. Hanne staged a three-week vigil with ‘Wisdomkeepers’, a group of “global transformationalists”. “Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat and meditation, the group helped hold the “energy pattern” for the duration of the summit.”

And if that sounds like the kind of bunk more befitting to fast-buck hucksters, very few among world leaders and the tens of thousands attending the summit blinked an eye.

We don’t know whether Madam Pelosi danced Hanne’s occultist dance, but she was unquestionably first off the mark in shepherding Agenda 21 through American Congress.

Continue reading article at CFP

Advertisements

Wind Turbines; Offensive industrialization of human space

July 30, 2008

Editor:

I want to personally thank all those who have fought the fight since the beginning. Without the dedication of  those people, against extreme odds, there would be no chance of stopping the degradation of rural Ontario, or any other rural area. Wind farms are all about power. Not electrical power – but the power of Govt. and Corporations over the population.

The wind industry is a typical example of what democracy, removed, looks like.

Never forget – Democracy is not a right. If you want to live in a democratic country you must demand and defend it.

The media as whole is closed to you and me. It has become a mere tool, used to push govt. and corporate agendas, with no regard for the public.

The time has come for every citizen to wake up and become a participant in their democracy.

You need to make demands on your govt. and the media. Change only comes from pressure.
It is time we all proved our worth as citizens and apply the pressure required. You, own your country.
It does not belong to the govt. or the corporations.
It belongs to you and your children. Take the opportunity to prove to yourself and your children that you intend to live in a true democracy.

What other choice do you really have. Roll up your democratic sleeves and get to work.

Write your govt. and demand changes. Even more important, write your local and national media outlets and tell them in no uncertain terms that you intend to boycott them until they start reporting the truth.

Every wind farm in Ontario has had negative affects on the people and their property.

The bastardization of Ontario must stop
NOW!

Canadian Free Press

The list of environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people are now being recognized

By Online Monday, July 28, 2008

By: Dr. Brian L. Horejsi, Dr. Barrie K. Gilbert, George Wuerthner

People are barking up the wrong tree by promoting, or succumbing to,
wind turbine construction regardless of where it is proposed and how
many there might be. Many North Americans are infected with tunnel
vision and erroneously appear to believe that turbine generated energy
is somehow linked to reversing the growth in and impact of Green House
Gas (GHG) emissions.

There exists NO evidence anywhere that Turbine energy is
substituting for or displacing fossil fuel dependence, nor is there any
evidence that it is in any material way slowing the rate of GHG
emission growth. Turbine energy is a non factor in the never ending
growth agenda of the fossil fuel industry, and it is not a factor in
the agenda of governments promoting growth in and dependence on oil and gas consumption. There can be no better example than North America of the failure of turbine energy to slow growth in anything.

People have been hoodwinked into promoting wind turbine energy as
some sort of Nirvana all while human population growth and per capita
energy consumption continue to spiral upward. Turbine energy generation
is fueling growth in human population and energy consumption and growth
in a false “economy”. It is NOT doing the opposite.

Matching the folly of the energy replacement misunderstanding is denial by governments and promoters of the ecological impacts and health effects of turbines; the ugly reality is that they are a serious addition to the industrialization of quiet rural landscapes that people have long valued for quality of life, retirement, and recreation.

The list of environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people are
now being recognized; they are far from meaningless, but they have been
trivialized by turbine promoters and politicians that have systematically tilted the deck sharply in the developers favor.
Environmental costs have been systematically ignored by a political and
regulatory system that has corrupted individual and societal freedom
and environmental integrity by relegating these values to some distant
offshoot of economic growth. These costs, and those who stand by them,
are treated with contempt; how dare they influence the decision to
grant some landowner a chance to make a buck by carving your backyard
and your space into fragments with giant chopping machines?

Wind turbines are an assault on human well being and act to degrade
the human “gestalt”. Promotion of wind turbine energy is a case of
serious misjudgment by those who fraudulently use green wash to promote
their commercial aspirations.

Buried deep within the human genome is an innate recognition and
suspicion of monsters – large objects – looming on the horizon. Wind
turbines are todays versions of a threatening monster, jammed down the
throats of neighbors and localities. 30% of the human cortex occupies
itself with processing visual information, far more than any other
sense, and nothing delivers a more intrusive and intense visual picture
than the tower and blades of wind turbines. Turbines erode freedom of
the human mind hour after hour, night after day, virtually forever,
like a cell phone ringing incessantly and yet no one is able to turn it
off. To many people this intrusion into their physical and physiological space is an insidious form of torment. The mental effect is analogous to the physical effects of a heavy smoker sitting next to you essentially for life!

We do not subscribe to the managerial / market approach to democracy
or conservation with its deeply entrenched bias against human values
such as an unadulterated horizon. This largely corporate view denigrates the value of freedom of the human spirit – the very pedestal upon which human dignity, character and strength are built.

In an honest and fair regulatory and political environment, local
citizens and communities would bury turbine projects long before they
get to the serious implementation stage. Once again, however, citizens
are being forced to try and employ the very tools that degrade our
quality of life and humiliate us as mere pawns of some corporate
created market economy. That being the case, it occurs to us that wind
turbines wearing eternally on the human psyche, constituting a “taking”
by corporate promoters and biased government collaborators; a taking
that damages the well being of all residents. We asked ourselves if
$1000 payment per person would compensate for the damages imposed on
the ever day life of hundreds and thousands of affected citizens? Not
even close. Perhaps then, $3000, or $8000? Would that kind of money
make up for the forced collapse of part of your quality of life, your
loss of right to space, loss of privacy, loss of political power, curbs
on your freedom, and the mental and physical costs imposed on you by
stress associated with constant angst, irritation and distraction? For
some, we suspect yes would be the answer. For others, like those who
have lost a child to negligent corporate behavior, been strangled
slowly by nicotine, or been poisoned by toxic emissions or effluent, no
amount of money can compensate for the deprivation and harm they have
and will suffer. Regardless of the compensatory damages you might place
on that part of your life lost because of turbine industrialization,
should you not be compensated for this taking?

The commercial private sector is forcing itself into your life, and
that constitutes a taking of your rights, benefits and well being. We
propose that each person impacted by a turbine receive, as a starting
point for negotiations, $3000 annually, to be paid by the developer for
the loss of private and citizen rights, a very large portion of which
includes peace and satisfaction, a critical part of your state of mind.
We all know that is a significant part of personal, social and democratic well being. The concept is simple; if the developer and some uncaring land owners want to destroy your rights and those of other citizens, inflicting on you suffering and mental distress, the good old “free” enterprise system developers and local governments love to hide behind, comes into play; they pay to destroy part of your life. There has to be pain and resistance in the system for those who knowingly exploit the public and individual vulnerability, a now institutionalized vulnerability which commercial and private sector interests worked hard to establish.

The recent proliferation of wind turbine farms is just one more case
of the serious aggression and destruction that reflects the continuing
expansion of an extremist private property and commercialism agenda.
This socially, legally and politically defective agenda and process is being exploited by corporations, some local residents, and local governments. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not freedom and it is not democracy; it is vandalism and oppression in the name of commercialism.
As citizens we have the right, and we say the obligation, and we must
marshal the courage, to reject wind turbine invasions as a corruption
of our well being that is cached “in our spirit rather than in our wallet”.

Dr. Brian L. Horejsi

Behavioral scientist and citizen advocate for democratic process

Box 84006, PO Market Mall

Calgary, Alberta, T3A 5C4

403-246-9328

And

Dr. Barrie K. Gilbert

Wildlife Ecologist and conservation activist

Box 252

Wolfe Island, Ontario KOH 2HO

613-385-2289

And

George Wuerthner,

Ecologist and writer.

POB 719, Richmond,

Vermont 05477

802-434-3948

28 July 2008

Canadian Free Press

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

February 12, 2008

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, February 11, 2008

David Suzuki's LegacySo David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb  7, 2008).

It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.

Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claim natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.
Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.

Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don’t. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Suzuki’s image is being increasingly tarnished as evidence accumulates against his positions and statements. This was bound to happen with climate because he ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses. As Richard Lindzen said about the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would cause significant global warming; the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

Despite personal attacks and a campaign of disinformation by alarmists, it is science that is destroying the human-caused climate change hypothesis. The disinformation of alarmists, Suzuki included, has gone through many phases–the now familiar ‘consensus’ argument, the ad hominem attacks (’climate deniers’, ‘climate criminals’, ‘international outlaws’, etc.) to presenting misinformation to political leaders.

The latest position is that ‘the science is settled’.

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.” Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects.

Hoggan continues to provide ongoing support to the DSF Nature Challenge and its Capital Contribution campaign. Hoggan also recently prepared a report for the DSF Board based on extensive national research on how to guide the evolution of the DSF’s communications strategy to help become more effective in building broad-based support among decision makers, opinion leaders and other influential Canadians.”

It would be hard to imagine a closer relationship between supposedly distinct entities that that which exists between Hoggan and Suzuki. Hoggan and Associates list the David Suzuki Foundation as one of their “Research Sponsors” and Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the DSF for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.

According to the DSF 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki regularly boosts Hoggan’s global warming projects in the media and Hoggan is quick to use his project to attack those of us who dare disagree with Suzuki. That Hoggan’s project has been funded by an Alberta-based lawyer who has pleaded guilty to multi-million dollar money laundering charges seems to bother no one.

Complete article at CFP (Canadian Free Press) 

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

February 10, 2008

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

By Tom Deweese 

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.

The Three Es

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.

The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).

Social Equity

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice.” It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase “social justice” was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism?

This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.”

Economic Prosperity

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.

In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses – particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.

Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.

As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.

Ecological Integrity

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

Source CFP