Even with taxpayers ponying up the tab for globe trotting politicians everywhere, the guest list for Earth Summit II, the worldwide environmental pow-wow scheduled for Johannesburg in August, is sparse.
So far, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is the only Western leader who has committed to attend Earth Summit II. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had not announced his decision as of mid-July.
Perhaps the United Nation’s call for protecting the planet for future generations just doesn’t cut it anymore. The World Summit on Sustainable Development is supposed to refocus international attention on the cause of sustainable development but it could be a summit in name only.
Multimillionaire Maurice Strong, Manitoba-born businessman who has devoted much of the last 30 years to orchestrating a UN `global governance campaign’, must be pacing the floors at his Lost Lake residence one and a half hour’s distance from Toronto. Fondly known as ""Uncle Mo" by Ontario’s first Socialist Premier Bob Rae, Strong as chairman of the far-out Earth Council, earned the nickname Father Earth. It was Strong, afterall, who orchestrated the UN Earth Summit in 1992, which called on the developed world to fork over, for its multiple environmental sins, $600-billiom to the Third World.
Despite a series of passionate prepatory meetings for the upcoming Johannesburg summit, negotiators have been unable to agree even on an agenda.
"From the perspective of what the likely outcomes are, it’s not likely we’re going to get anything meaningful," Angela Rickman of the Sierra Club of Canada told the Globe & Mail.
"Governments aren’t willing to take stock of the progress or lack of progress they’ve made in the past 10 years. They’ve decided they don’t want to make this an accountability session."
Perhaps Rickman and company should take elections into account when scheduling future earth summits.
Some people fight terrorism. Some people fight oppression. Others pit themselves in struggles against the system and its bureaucracy.
Gucci socialist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his band of merry movie stars, fight your right to eat meat.
In a stunning blow to Kennedy Jr.’s all-out jihad against the U.S. pork industry- and his ego-- a federal judge in Tampa has dismissed a lawsuit brought against pork producer Smithfield Foods by lawyers representing Kennedy and his organization, the Water Keeper Alliance, reports the U.S.-based Centre for Consumer Freedom.
Even more galling for the silver-spooned environmentalist: the Kennedy boy and his legal team have been ordered to pay Smithfield’s attorney fees and court costs.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich wrote that the Water Keeper Alliance’s legal complaint "failed to state anything at all" worthwhile, and that "no reasonable attorney" …could reasonably believe that (the lawsuit) had any reasonable chance of success."
Kennedy’s lawsuit, which literally accused Smithfield of racketeering (among other things) was just his latest in a long line of attacks on American livestock agriculture. In a tour of Midwest towns earlier this year, Kennedy compared domestic pork producers to Osama bin Laden, saying they represented "(a) threat…greater than that in Afghanistan." But farmers shouldn’t expect an apology, says the Des Moines Register, noting that Iowa residents saw Kennedy’s comments "simply as an attack on agriculture".
Despite this recent judicial setback, Water Keeper attorney Dan Estrin told the Associated Press that the Water Keeper Alliance still has two pending North Carolina lawsuits, and "those cases are alive and well." But why press onward? Follow the money: Kennedy himself has estimated that the right lawsuit could bring "damages" of up to $13 billion (that’s billion with a B). Divide the likely attorney’s "commissions" among Water Keeper’s 11-firm legal dream team, and Kennedy’s own two-partner law office, he could have a $200 million payday.
Speaking for the Water Keepers, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made no bones about his endgame, telling the Los Angeles Times: "I promise you this: We will march across this country and we will bring these kind of lawsuits against every single pork factory in America if we have to."
And referring to beef and poultry producers, he has also warned: "We’re starting with hogs. After the hogs, then we are going after the other ones."
Populist Fortuyn died in a hail of bullets following a radio interview on May 6. Police immediately collared Van der Graaf and utter silence has followed his subsequent arrest.
According to Washington Time’s writer Michael Standaert, Fortuyn lost his life over fur farming. …"The man charged with the Netherlands’ first political assassination in modern times had no problem with victim Pim Fortuyn’s stance against immigration.
"Instead, he was apparently enraged by Mr. Fortuyn’s fondness for fur coats."
"Mr. Fortuyn, who sought to become the Netherlands’ first homosexual prime minister, had not only campaigned on restricting the number of immigrants, reducing crime, cutting bureaucracy, but also on one small topic most would tend to overlook.
"He wanted to lift restrictions on fur-farming, and he died in a hail of bullets.
"Mr. Van der Graaf, 32, continued to sit in jail last week as immigrant-weary Dutch voters gave Mr. Fortuyn’s party 26 seats in the 150-member parliament, second only to the centre-right Christian Democrats, which won 43 seats.
"Mr. Van der Graaf hated anyone who ate animals, raised livestock, used animals in laboratory experiments or those who wanted to raise them for pelts to make fur coats."
(Mr. Fortuyn traveled everywhere with his two beloved dogs who were waiting for him in his car at the time of is death.)
When police arrested Mr. Van der Graaf shortly after Mr. Fortuyn’s murder, they found animal rights’ leaflets and computer files on animal rights and ammunition matching that used to kill Mr. Fortuyn."
Even three months later, neither Van der Graaf’s family nor police are talking about the case.
Why?
Solving the problems of the world is the focus of most environmental conferences.
An environmental conference held in Aspen, Colo. earlier this month focussed on "whether a sustainable future is even possible."
The Sopris Foundation of Aspen and the Worldwatch Institute of Washington hosted a far-reaching panel at the Aspen Institute, convening environmental and social thinkers to dissect trends they say are putting the global economy on a collision course with the Earth’s ecosystems.
"Unlike other feel-good environmental conferences where the audience is assured our problems can be solved and that everything will be alright, this conference will confront, head-on the harsh realities and the dramatic steps that have to be taken," said Kate McBride Puckett, president of the Sopris Foundation and conference director.
In a letter to conference directors, former undersecretary of state and Colorado Senator Tim Wirth phrased the problem this way: "The fact is that by every single measure, the state of our Earth’s health is declining. A huge and radical turnaround is necessary."
Among the several speakers were former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm and immigration specialist Jonette Christian.
Police withholding McTaggart car crash Investigation results?
It is now a year and a half since the death of Greenpeace Canada co-founder David McTaggart, killed in a car crash on a stretch of lonely country road in central Italy, on Friday, March 23, 2001.
The head-on collision claimed the life of an elderly Italian farmer driving the other car. Although his wife, a passenger in the car survived, she will be on medication and rehabilitation for the rest of her life. Yet, investigating Italian police have never revealed the findings of their investigation.
Why?
Canada Free Press founding editor Most recent by Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Judi can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement