Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!
UN-hinged: United Nations wants $76 trillion for ‘great green technological transformation’A new report from the United Nations claims that natural disasters have quintupled over the past 40 years and that developed countries should spend $1.9 trillion annually through 2050 in a “great green technological transformation.
Green, brown and bloody all over
Much has been written about the Nazis' so-called ecological activism. But were they truly conservationists? And if so, does that change our perception of their crimes?
As you read this please keep this in mind; greenies aren't necessarily conservationists. Most of them are preservationists. Conservation carries a mentality of future use. Preservation carries the connotation of non use....forever. RK
"How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment and Nation in the Third Reich (Ecology and History)" by Franz-Josef Brueggemeier, Mark Cioc and Thomas Zeller, Ohio University Press, 288 pages, $22.95
Nazism and ecology? The Nazi party as a green movement? At first glance such analogies seem ridiculous, absurd, outrageous. In 1985, historian Anna Bramwell published a book in which she claimed outright that the Nazi party was a "green party." She focused on Richard Walther Darre, the agricultural minister of Nazi Germany, and his "Blut und Boden" ("blood and soil") ideology. Darre, wrote Bramwell, was the head of the "green" faction of the Nazi party, which greatly influenced the thinking of leading Nazis, among them Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. Bramwell called Darre the "father of the greens" for his support of organic agriculture, restrictions on the use of mechanized farming methods, and so on. In its time, if I am not mistaken, the book was quite esoteric.
My Take - I agree that in reality the Nazi's weren't true greenies, although the leadership were subscribers to the philosophy; they were not true believers. They are similar to the green movement today. Those at the top and those who support them are only fractionally green, and use the green concept to attain other goals, just as did the Nazi's. The Nazi's used 'green' to impose their control over private property and the population as a whole. So, what is the difference between the green movement of Nazi Germany and the worldwide green movement of today? To declare that Nazi Germany was not a green government is erroneous in my opinion. If they imposed greenie policies they are a green government, period. The fact that they abandoned 'green' because of the war is immaterial. In point of fact; Nazi Germany was the first green government. Please visit The History of Environmentalism.
Merkel´s agenda today: "A dance to the music of the enviro-fundamentalists"
There were great expectations, in Germany and internationally, when Angela Merkel took over as Chancellor of Europe´s most powerful country. However, things did not turn out so well for Frau Merkel: A growing number of Germans - as well as international observers - are frustrated with her lack of leadership. The main source of frustration is probably Merkel´s total cave in to the "green" enviro-fundamentalists, who now appear to have taken over Germany.
Memo to Hal Rogers: ‘Hope’ is not a strategy for dealing with EPA
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said that the proposed 18 cut in the FY2012 budget for EPA “sends a very strong message” to rein in EPA’s actions. Rogers then added, “I am hopeful that these provisions are sufficient to prod EPA in the right direction.” But we’ve been down this path before. The EPA doesn’t generally respond to such “messages.” The EPA knows that the Democrat-controlled Senate will reject the House budget cuts and the Republicans will then fold like a cheap suit. If Rogers wants to get the EPA’s attention, he’ll need to turn the agency’s lights off for awhile — that will require an Alamo-like stand to deep cuts in the EPA budget.
Rogers may view the proposed 18% budget cuts as deep, but we view them as approving of 82% of what the EPA does.
Senator Inhofe on the outrage of the year: EPA sending your money to China for global warming propaganda July 8, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. – “Outrage of the Year” – that is what U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling the distribution of tax dollars to China by the Obama Administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to promote its climate change agenda. This information comes from a report released by Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Fred Upton: All talk and no actionNo doubt the EPA is trembling (or snickering?) at the sight of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s media release about the EPA’s so-called “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.”
Samet: No end to EPA air regulationIf Jean-Paul Sartre were still alive he might be induced to update his play “No Exit” to be about Americans locked in a room discussing how EPA air regulation destroyed their standard of living.
EPA’s Shell game
Maybe the EPA is just trying to help Shell explore for oil off the coast of Alaska — or maybe the agency is simply setting up Shell (and the rest of us) for failure.