The Green Movement - Eco Terror or Socialist Plot?

Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.

The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability. All of this draws Senator Kerry’s involvement with environmental legislation into serious question. With that kind of money changing hands, there must be a trade off. Has Kerry been promised a “soft landing” when the eco-activists finish tearing our Constitution and economy to shreds? Will these deals leave the Heinz-Kerry fortune one of the fortunate “untouchables” in a post-America, Socialist elite club with George Soros, Maurice Strong and Al Gore?

Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.

One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.

Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”

A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”

Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”

Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on his desire for globalization and his disgust of the free market. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”

The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.

Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.

You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?

Last summer, half a million acres of fertile California farmland in the San Joaquin Valley have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will ultimately wield much of the power in the “New World Order".

Paul

Will the 2010 Elections be Enough?

I wonder if the 2010 elections will be enough. After all, it seems like anyone we have ever sent to Congress have all succumbed to the same disease. It’s as though power is a virus to which there is no immunity or cure. Even those that have been rejected still seek that alluring aroma of power. In addition to the great and near great, there is that whole undercurrent of real power players; the dark overlords that hold the strings of our political puppets. They live in the shadows and create grand strategies for power on a global scale using the greed of our politicians to achieve their nefarious goals. To them, Congress is but a small outpost and the Presidency is a mere pawn in a much larger game.

After all, who benefits from the legislation that this historically liberal administration has passed or proposed? The bank bailout was passed because the banking system appeared to be on the verge of collapse and that would have stalled the Progressive’s agenda for years. In fact, the banks couldn’t have been nearly as damaged as they first appeared since many of them raced to pay back the TARP money as soon as they found out that the executive salaries of companies that received TARP money would be severely curtailed. Instant liquidity…isn’t that amazing! Of course Freddie and Fanny are the exception and in fact, are seeking hundreds of billions more but then again, they have been latched on to the public teat for years.

Then we have healthcare legislation. It’s been changed at a least a half dozen times, the last two times, behind closed doors and hidden from all but a select few. Still, the proponents argue that we don’t have to debate this bill any more since it has already been in debate for months. Well the general issues may have, but the substantive changes made by Harry Reid and the President’s staff haven’t and most of our illustrious Senators had never been granted the courtesy of even seeing the manager’s amendment (Reid’s work) until after they were forced to vote on it.

The biggest winner would be the Federal government. It is no secret that the Progressives in Congress are still pursuing the utopian dreams of FDR through the socialization of America. Medicare and Medicaid were bankrupting the Federal government just as the opponents of these programs said they would back in 1965. Of course there was the “fix” in 1968 that placed Social Security “on budget” then robbed the assets from the trust fund to cover the shortages in Medicare/Medicaid and now all three of these programs are broke. If healthcare does not pass, the government may have to concede failure and admit their gross mismanagement; something that does not help the cause of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that wants more and more radical social programs, not fewer.

It is clear that Andy Stern and SEIU played a major part in crafting at least some of the provisions in this bill so I would have to say they are also one of the big winners if this and several other major bills pass. Under this bill, the only hospitals that are eligible to receive funds for nurse training are those that are unionized. The President already signed an Executive Order earlier this year giving union contractors preference in government contracts with a value of $25 million or more and that is clearly another bone for Andy boy. At least we know some of the reasons that Andy Stern had visited the White House nearly two dozen times since Obama’s inauguration.

There is also proposed legislation for a brand new amnesty program for illegal immigrants. SEIU has admitted that substantial portions of its membership are so-called “undocumented workers” (illegal immigrants) and “POOF”, Congress proposes legislation to make that all better for our good friend Andy. Why is it that people employing illegal immigrants are subject to fines and/or jail but unions can represent those same illegals with impunity? Andy Stern is clearly one of those people behind the scenes with global aspirations and he is using his membership’s dues to fund the political campaigns of anyone that will help him achieve those goals. Quoting a page from the Communist Manifesto, Stern said in an interview that “Workers of the world unite is no longer a slogan”, it is what Stern and the SEIU believe their future is. A global union poised to represent a global workforce in a world dominated by a global government.

One of the displaced power mongers is Al Gore. Gore was so close to becoming President in 2000 that he still has the taste of inaugural champagne in his mouth. I suspect that is what keeps Al Gore on center stage shouting about climate change while the rest of the world reads how scientists conspired to corrupt the data and hide the proof that there is no such thing as global warming.

Al Gore actually resides in both camps and in addition to his unsatisfied appetite for power, has a mercenary reason for his love of climate change. He is heavily invested in a software company that would become a key provider in greenhouse gas tracking software that would be required under cap and trade. If this draconian legislation passes, Gore and the rest of his investment group would become billionaires. Gore’s investment company is also heavily involved with the Chicago climate exchange; North America’s only private exchange for carbon credits as well as five other so-called, greenhouse gases. Gore is not alone; a certain university professor that preferred to teach Saul Alinsky theory (Barack Obama) was also involved in the creation of the Chicago exchange and so was Maurice Strong. Who is Maurice Strong?

Maurice Strong is a Canadian ex-patriot and petroleum entrepreneur who was president of Power Corporation until 1966. Strong was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the early 1970’s before becoming the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. Strong is also one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations’ involvement in world affairs and most of his recent affairs reflect those beliefs.

Strong also chaired the U.N.’s University for Peace, an international education chartered through the UN and able to grant masters and doctoral degrees. The educational programs are centered around the peace and security objectives of the United Nations so I am sure that there is a great deal of emphasis on global governance. The University of Peace also offers short courses to non-registered students on subjects that include the undeniably Socialist curriculum of Nonprofit Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector, and Educating in the 21st Century. We wouldn’t want them to miss the opportunity to co-opt the unfortunate stooges that can’t afford the regular tuition, now would we?

Strong was one of the heads that rolled in 2005 during the U.N.’s “oil for food” scandal. Oil for Food was a program that was ultimately found to be laced with corruption as U.N. officials were accused of taking bribes to mold the program to favor Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. A check for nearly a million dollars was found to have been issued from a Jordanian Bank made out to an “M. Strong” and hand delivered by South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park. The check was ultimately endorsed by Maurice Strong who was then, The U.N. Envoy to South Korea. Amid the scandal, Strong stepped down from his position saying he would sideline himself “until the cloud was lifted” but Strong was never returned to his former position.

Maurice Strong is one of the increasing numbers of people with questionable ties to the United Nations that is considered an environmentalist. Of course! After all, Socialist radicals had already identified the environmental movement as the key vehicle to achieve their goals. He began his involvement during the first Earth Day in 1970 and has been tinkering around with it ever since. In fact, Strong was one of the architects of the first UN climate conferences held in Stockholm. Titled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”, the conference clearly endorsed the need for a global authority because the threat of man-made climate change is international.

Of course in 1971, the climate panels in the UN were screaming “Ice Age” and the impending crisis was that man’s pollution was cooling the globe so much so that much of the northern hemisphere would be under a mile of ice by the end of the century. One would think that the cry of “wolf” back then would have discredited the climate alarmists for good but they apparently have too much invested in this strategy to let something like a failed climate theory stop them now.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Strong never did return to Canada. He now resides in Beijing China and has been orchestrating his climate chaos from there. Another curious thing is that if the United States enacts cap and trade and the other European powers sign on to the U.N.’s treaty on climate; that would leave China in a very strong position to be the next emerging Super Power as the West’s economic situation atrophies. Naw; it’s just a coincidence that Strong lives in China now in a gated community with armed guards protecting the entrances.

Paul