Are Parasites Protecting Their Gains?

Flanders

Verified User
Soviet Communists flocked to the environmental fraud on the day the Soviet Union imploded. In the 28 years since the ‘Implosion Heard Round the world’ —— U.N. environmental parasites made more inroads in this country’s sovereignty than the Soviet Union ever accomplished throughout its brutal 74 year life span.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...d-To-The-United-Nations&p=2756578#post2756578



driessen123018.jpg


Environmental ripoff artists are not getting away with global warming scare tactics as easily as they did in the years immediately after the Soviet Union imploded:

As 2019 arrives, we leave behind a year in which there were increasingly dire warnings about global warming calamity from the United Nations and other Leftist institutions coupled with even more momentous pushback against policies aimed at ‘curbing’ climate change.

Both politicians and voters rejected attempts to raise energy prices as part of the global climate crusade. As noted by The Daily Caller, the rejection began in earnest in Ontario, Canada, with the election of Premier Doug Ford in June.

Voters overwhelmingly chose Ford’s conservative coalition over rivals after he ran on a platform of torching the Canadian province’s carbon cap-and-trade program, which many saw as responsible for rising energy prices.

Ford’s first priority after taking office, he said, was to “cancel the Liberal cap-and-trade carbon tax.” Afterward, he joined in a legal challenge that was led by Saskatchewan against Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau’s policy of the central government imposing a carbon tax on provinces that had not already implemented one.

Opponents of the carbon tax plan called Trudeau’s effort an attempt to “use the new tax to further redistribute income, which will increase the costs of this tax to the economy.”

Meanwhile, another carbon rebellion was building in another former British colony 10,000 miles away — in Australia. There, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull lost his power base just a few days after failing to pass legislation that sought to reduce carbon emissions.

Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but his effort was opposed by conservatives in Parliament led by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He sought to delay a vote on the initiative but it was too late; he was forced to resign in August and was replaced by Scott Morrison.

In the U.S., a Washington state initiative championed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee was backed by a $45 million campaign. But opponents outspent supporters and the initiative tanked.

“The Inslee-backed measure called for taxing carbon dioxide emissions at $15 a ton in 2020, which would increase at $2 a year above the rate of inflation until the state meets its emissions goals,” The Daily Caller reported.

However, voters rejected it in November, marking the second time in as many years that voters expressed more concern for their personal economics over nefarious and unproven claims of “climate change.”

Nationally, voters rejected a group of House Republicans who also backed a similar carbon tax initiative.

The most dramatic rejection of wealth redistribution under the guise of ‘fighting climate change’ is still playing out — in France.

Citizens are in near-rebellion over a massive increase in the gasoline tax imposed by President Emmanuel Macron under provisions of the — ironically — Paris Climate Accords from which POTUS Trump withdrew the United States.

Macron has since rescinded the tax but French unrest continues.


Despite UN’s dire warnings, world is revolting against ‘climate change’ policies
Posted on January 1, 2019 in Climate, Congress, Democrats, Environment, Liberalism, Policy, regulations, United Nations, Weather, World // 5 Comments

https://thenationalsentinel.com/201...is-revolting-against-climate-change-policies/

Could it be that self-protection is taking place among established parasites? I sense that the education industry, the healthcare crowd, the illegal alien lobby, and so on want to hang onto their gains rather than offer a Johnny-come-lately group of parasites a permanent seat at the public trough? If I am onto something that would be a major retreat from the U.N.’s global government agenda.
 
REMEMBERING A DEAD FREAK

Environmental ripoff artists are not getting away with global warming scare tactics as easily as they did in the years immediately after the Soviet Union imploded:

There is nothing to miss about Maurice Strong. Living environmental freaks are losing ground to be sure, but their tax dollar incomes show that Strong was not buried deep enough. Nobody except wealthy global warming hustlers miss him.

Conversely, I do miss the first “famous environmentalist” Iron Eyes Cody (1904-1999).




Iron Eyes Cody (born Espera Oscar de Corti, April 3, 1904 – January 4, 1999) was an Italian-American actor. He portrayed Native Americans in Hollywood films, famously as Chief Iron Eyes in Bob Hope's The Paleface (1948). He also played a Native American shedding a tear about litter in one of the country's most well-known television public service announcements, "Keep America Beautiful". Living in Hollywood, he began to insist, even in his private life, that he was Native American, over time claiming membership in several different tribes. In 1996, Cody's half-sister said that he was of Italian ancestry, but he denied it. After his death, it was revealed that he was of Sicilian parentage, and not Native American at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

NOTE: No one should forgive Elizabeth “Cherokee” Warren because she is from the environmental school of tax dollar liars. Everybody should forgive Iron Eyes because he was only an actor.

The facts about Maurice Strong only buttress the negative opinion held by everybody who knew what he was. If you never heard of Maurice Strong read James Delingpole’s article if you want to learn just how bad this guy was:


Maurice-Strong-R-United-Nations-Earth-Getty-640x480.png



Paris, COP21 Climate Summit – One of the most dangerous men of the Twentieth Century has just died: and the weird thing is, hardly anyone noticed.

His name was Maurice Strong (picture above, on the right), Canadian billionaire, diplomat and UN apparatchik, and though you may not have heard of him, he probably did more to make your world a more expensive, inconvenient, overregulated, hectored, bullied, lied-to, sclerotic, undemocratic place than anyone post Hitler, Stalin and (his personal friend) Mao.

He’s the reason, for example, that most of the world’s leaders, 40,000 delegates and their attendant carbon mega-footprint descended here on Paris yesterday in order to talk about magical fairy dust for two weeks and then charge you $1.5 trillion (that’s per year, by the way) for the privilege.

He’s the reason that “climate change” is now so heavily embedded within our system of global governance that it is now almost literally impossible for any politician or anyone else whose career depends on the state to admit that’s it not a problem and to argue that there are more important issues in the world, like maybe the terrorism that killed over 130 innocent people just the other week now, where was it?- oh yeah, here in Paris where for some bizarre reason all the delegates are talking about carbon emissions instead…

He was the father of the mother of all climate summits: the one in Rio in 1992 that spawned a million and one bastard offspring, like the one in Paris now.

He was the main instigator of the blueprint for arguably the most sinister and insidious assault on liberty and free markets: Agenda 21.

If you had met him – if you’d even noticed him – you would have probably quite liked him:


One of the most remarkable things about Strong was how unremarkable he was in person. Somebody once said that you wouldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two.

Nevertheless, he was an avuncular and likeable figure, even to those who disagreed strongly with his world view, as I did. I interviewed him numerous times over a 20-year period, and found that he took scarcely-concealed delight in explaining his often Machiavellian political manoeuvrings.


But as I argue in Watermelons – which gave a lot of space to Strong – it’s a big mistake to expect that supervillains will always have scars down the side of their face and fluffy white cat on their lap.

Strong’s true evil lay in the effects of his acts, not in his (claimed) good intentions.

Then again, the mask did occasionally slip.

In his 2000 autobiography Where Are We Going? he projected that by 2031 two thirds of the world’s population might have been wiped out. This, he chillingly described as:


“A glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”


See: it’s perfectly OK to fantasize about the deaths of maybe 5 billion people – as long as you show at the end that you really care: you’re thinking about the future of humanity.

Strong sincerely believed all this Malthusian stuff and that was the problem. It became our problem because unfortunately – see that charm, above – he was such a skilled operator, with an endless appetite for labyrinthine bureaucracy and the will to embed it in the system.

The United Nations, which he joined early in 1947 as a lowly assistant pass officer in the Identification Unit of the Security Section in New York, was his perfect playground.

It was where, he quickly realized, he could achieve his dream of a world of global governance by a self-appointed elite. And the best way to go about this, he understood, was by manipulating and exploiting international concern about the environment.

Strong was never shy of admitting what he was about:


“Our concept of ballot box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safeguarding the global environment.”


Or, as he put it when he’d wormed his way through the system to the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1991:


Current lifestyle and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning and surburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.


This was the purpose of the Rio Earth Summit – and on the non-binding but secretly deadly agreement Strong managed to gull 179 sovereign nations into signing: Agenda 21.

If you don’t know about Agenda 21, you should. This final quote from Strong will give you an idea how illiberal and undemocratic it is – a blueprint for one-world government by an unelected bureaucracy of technocrats, enabled by diehard progressive activists.


The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of global environmental security.


Now perhaps you understand why the people in the world most saddened by Maurice Strong’s death are currently all at Le Bourget on the outskirts of Paris at COP21, plotting the new world order.

“We thank Maurice Strong for his visionary impetus to our understanding of sustainability. We will miss you,” said Christina Figueres, the head of the UNFCC, which is in charge of the Paris conference.

The rest of us, once familiar with what Maurice Strong did, may not feel quite so teary-eyed.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum, they say. But I think we can make an exception for this particular totalitarian control freak.


Ding, Dong – The Godfather Of Global Warming Is Dead!
by James Delingpole
1 Dec 2015

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/01/ding-dong-godfather-global-warming-dead/
 
Flanders has a bad habit of producing long-winded OP narratives that nobody has time to read. I've tried to persuade him to create a short OP with something that sums up his Topic.
So, I've not read any of his lengthy diatribes since I don't have that much time to waste.
 
Flanders has a bad habit of producing long-winded OP narratives that nobody has time to read. I've tried to persuade him to create a short OP with something that sums up his Topic.
So, I've not read any of his lengthy diatribes since I don't have that much time to waste.

Normally you read the title, or a few sentences, and realize your reading, what I'd like to coin as political smut.
 
Normally you read the title, or a few sentences, and realize your reading, what I'd like to coin as political smut.

I agree. You want to tell what the Topic is, and generate some interest so a Discussion ensues.
(Sadly, Flanders seems more intent in bloviating )
 
Back
Top