Elizabeth May Green Party Leader Calls Canadians Stupid

Ms. May needs to call her leader Maurice Strong. There’s no place for you in Canada. When you leave take Suzuki with you.

You, Suzuki, Strong, Gore and the rest of the UN elitists have been undermining this country for way too long.

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass.

You should all be quite happy in China.

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Elizabeth May has radical environmental agenda

Cloak of Green – Get a copy of this book or read it online

Advertisements

Todays Headlines From National Wind Watch

Read the news about wind farms that you won’t see on the main stream media. Find out whats going on in the wind industry any where in the world It’s all about politics. Wind  and politics – they go together.

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

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 

Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

Editor:

Dear David Suzuki:Have you lost your mind?
Elaine DeWar wrote “Cloak Of Green” which took four years to research. I suggest students pick up a copy and understand once and for all what the “Green Movement” is really about. Once read they may be looking to have you jailed Mr. Suzuki.
Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”

 You are worried about Global Warming. Maybe you should start worrying about other things, like the reality that these people envision for you. Enjoy the quotes
Green Agrenda Quotes

 Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

Environmentalist denounces economists’ obsession with GDP

By Sarah Babbage
The McGill Daily

David Suzuki delivered a scathing and powerful speech to a packed house at McGill Thursday night, calling on young people and business leaders to reverse the demise of ecology at the hand of shortsighted economic theory.

Suzuki, an award-winning Canadian scientist, environmentalist, and broadcaster, kicked off the McGill Business Conference on Sustainability by addressing the conference’s theme of “looking backward and moving forward.”

“The only guide for our future is our past, and we don’t look back,” he said.

Suzuki underlined the importance of looking backward by explaining that, because the past 50 years have seen a boom in technology and population expansion, ideas of economic growth have been skewed.

“That means you have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period,” Suzuki said to the young audience. “You all think [economic] growth and change is normal. It’s not.”

He said we need to do more to look forward, as well. He cited a brochure from 1992 entitled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”, signed by over 600 of the world’s top scientists, that expressed the seriousness of modern threats to the environment.

“No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished,” he read from the brochure.

He noted that no major news outlets deemed the story newsworthy at the time.

“If that brochure was frightening, the response of the media was terrifying,” Suzuki said, adding that the media was instead preoccupied with celebrity figures.

He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.

mcgilldaily.com

Elizabeth May has radical environmental agenda

Editor:
The Green Agenda that both May and Dion are involved in is based on the teachings of Gaia, the pagan earth goddess. The movement blames Christians for the ills of the world. The Green Movement also wants to reduce the world population down to 2 billion from its present 6 billion. Beware the GREENS. They are not about saving the environment, they are pushing the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda. I thank Ms. May for letting the cat out of the bag. Will the media take this opportunity to tell Canadians the truth?

Read and learn The Rise of Global Green Religion

and Agenda 21 

So the deal boils down to this. Vote for the Liberals or the Green Party and they hand the sovereignty of Canada over to the elites at the UN.

Vote for Harper and he hands over the sovereignty of Canada to the USA.

Time to wake up Canada, because if you don’t, Canada won’t be around much longer. 

Green Party Leader and Stéphane Dion ally Elizabeth May criticized the presence of Canadian and other ISAF forces in Afghanistan as representing a “Christian/Crusader heritage,” that would actually “fuel” the “jihad.”

Elizabeth May’s comparison of the Afghan protection and reconstruction effort as a Christian Crusade is evidence of her shocking ignorance of foreign policy, Afghanistan and the current mission.

The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are serving at the invitation and with the active encouragement of the Afghan Government.  Every day the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces are risking their safety and security to help the people of Afghanistan live peaceful and secure lives. Considering that Canadian soldiers have lost their lives protecting the people of Afghanistan, it is outrageous that a Canadian politician would make such an insult of this sacrifice.

Ms. May’s comments also betrayed a shocking lack of knowledge about Afghanistan’s people and its history.  None of the Crusades ever came anywhere close to Afghanistan.

These kind of ignorant, insensitive comments have sadly come to characterize Stéphane Dion’s alliance partner.  Elizabeth May has repeatedly referred to those who do not share her radical environmental agenda as being guilty of “a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.”

Stéphane Dion can no longer ignore Elizabeth May’s inflammatory and insensitive rhetoric.  His already weak leadership was left reeling when his musings about invading Pakistan drew a sharp rebuke from that country’s government.  Now the woman with whom he has chosen to form a “Red Green” alliance—and whom he is running as his Liberal candidate in the riding of Central Nova—has, in one breath, managed to insult both the Canadian Forces and the people of Afghanistan.

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?

 

Wind Power Flaps

 Editor:
Elizabeth May is the leader of the Federal Green Party of Canada. She loves wind farms, even though she doesn’t seem to understand them particularly well. She is just now starting to  understand some of the realities. Credit to her for finally starting to listen to people. The people fighting wind farms are not NIMBY’S, they are citizens with real concerns that are not being properly addressed. The info in her letter about Ont. is completely  wrong. The wind farms that are being built in Ont. are sited just as improperly as the ones her friends in the wind industry say are improper in Nova Scotia. We also have people being driven from their homes here in Ont. I invite anyone who feels a wind farm, proposed or already installed, is improperly sited to give Elizabeth a call or send her an email. Link at end of story.

Wind Power Flaps
July 16th, 2007

This last week there have been a number of wind power related controversies. One played out through the blog pages of this web site; another continues to rage in the little village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia.

There is no question that the Green Party of Canada is unequivocally in favour of wind power. We need to catch up with the rest of the world, with the leadership of Denmark and Germany, to generate a significant amount of energy from wind.

The Green Party is also firmly committed to grassroots decision-making, local democracy, self-determination – however you want to describe the values of supporting the local in the face of global pressures.

What to do when these two commitments appear to be in conflict?

My approach is first to listen. To try and find out what the main objection is to a project that falls within our general mandate, in this case to promote renewable energy.

When I was Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, I was contacted by a Nova Scotia man, Daniel D’Entremont, who claimed his and his family’s life was being destroyed by the proximity of his home to a 17 turbine wind farm. He called me because he knew I had worked to help local residents impacted by the Sydney tar ponds and coke ovens site. He thought I was someone who would care.

Helping someone against a wind farm was a real stretch for Sierra Club, but I asked the local Atlantic Canada chapter if they thought there was anything to his claims. I asked a friend who is in the wind energy business to look at the Pubnico Wind Farms and check out the proximity to the D’Entremont home. It was about 400 meters away and yes, their health was suffering. The kids couldn’t sleep well. The family had more headaches. No one helped them. Sierra Club Atlantic Canada Chapter publicly called for relocation for the D’Entremonts and proper siting of wind farms. Still, no one helped. In the end, they abandoned their house and moved.

Last week I had a call from a reporter wondering what I thought about Anne Murray being against a wind farm near Pugwash My first thought was not sympathetic. I think objections to wind farms based on aesthetics, not liking the look of the towers, should give way to the need to shut down coal plants and bring in wind. I disagree with the position taken by someone I admire enormously, Robert Kennedy Jr, who has been against turbines located off the shores of Cape Cod. With Bush’s smog policies (codenamed “Clear Skies”) it would be hard to see the turbines from the famous Hyannis port complex.

Nevertheless, before shooting from the hip, I called around. I went on the company website. I found that it was the same developer who had had conflicts with the D’Entremonts. And, once again, my contacts in the wind energy field in Nova Scotia said this was bad siting. So I stood up for Anne Murray, who is not guilty of NIMBY but is putting herself in the public eye to help a large group of community residents who don’t get the media attention one of Canada’s best loved singers can get.

(She phoned to thank me and said before she had done anything public, she had checked with David Suzuki to see if he thought it was the right thing to do).

Meanwhile, the whole controversy highlights the weaknesses of Nova Scotia’s renewable energy policy. There are no standard offer contracts, as in Ontario, to help bring in lots of smaller, better sited, projects. There are no standard set-backs agreed upon to ensure that renewable energy doesn’t destroy life for the neighbours.

Are there health effects when wind is too close to homes? The literature says yes. Should those of us who believe in wind energy forget the human element? Should local grassroots democracy only matter when we like the result?

Green Party of Canada