Posts Tagged ‘Lorrie Goldstein’

It's green fever madness!

February 24, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

It’s green fever madness!

Only a politician would try and sell you on the idea that more taxes can save the planet

There was a time that when politicians raised taxes, they called it what it was: Raising taxes.They didn’t, at least not with a straight face, make grandiose claims that raising taxes was all part of their plan to save the planet and kickstart a “social movement” into being.But that was before green fever madness gripped our politicians.

It was in the throes of that condition last week that B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor actually claimed, with a straight face, that her province’s imposition of Canada’s first carbon tax (a tax on fossil fuels) could be the start of a new “social movement” across the country.

For gawd’s sake, let’s hope not.
Because that “social movement” is designed to hoodwink taxpayers into believing they no longer have the right to complain about our usuriously high taxes, lest they be shamed into silence by the Suzuki Nation as global warming “deniers.”

This madness would be laughable, if it wasn’t happening right before our eyes.

* In B.C., where charging people more for gas and heat by Premier Gordon Campbell’s government, part of a tax shell game we’re assured will be “revenue neutral” (no comment), is praised by the politician doing it as courageous and revolutionary, while mesmerized media pundits, having forgotten the story about the emperor having no clothes, mindlessly repeat the mantra.

* In Ontario, where Premier Dalton McGuinty is paying outrageously high prices, using tax money, for very little solar power, instead of doing something that would help the environment — cleaning up the air pollution spewing out of the province’s coal-fired energy plants, the same ones he promised five years ago to close by last year, and now won’t close, or even clean up, for six more.

* In Quebec, where consumers are being told by their government, with a straight face, that there’s nothing it can do to stop a new “green” tax intended to target oil and gas industry profits, from being passed along to them. Gee, how about not imposing the !@$@?! tax in the first place?

* And finally in crazytown … Ottawa … where, amongst so many other absurdities on the environmental front, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, a man who can’t control his caucus, has a plan to control the climate.

In the real world, if you understand the first thing about man-made global warming, Canada’s relatively minor contribution to it, and what a cluster muck the Kyoto Accord is, all of these things are beyond farcical.

Actually, they’re entering Twilight Zone territory.

Here’s another absurdity courtesy of our hysterical politicians, as they shamelessly don green shoes, sport green ties and name their dog “Kyoto” to convince us of their environmental “street cred.” (You can’t make this !@$# up.)

Years ago, governments used to do a thing called “capital spending.” It wasn’t glamourous, but it was important — stuff like buying garbage trucks, police cruisers, ambulances, buses and building subways, highways, hospitals, schools.

But today, whenever governments buy a garbage truck, or some new garbage bins, or a garbage dump, or some new buses, or promise us another subway to nowhere (a Toronto specialty), or raise gasoline taxes, in exactly the same way they’ve been doing it for decades, we’re supposed to believe it’s all part of their big “green” plan to save the planet from global warming. It’s utter nonsense.

Finally, have you noticed how politicians have suddenly stopped talking about the outrageously high gasoline prices we’re paying — something you couldn’t shut them up about for decades — although of course they never did anything about it?


Problem is, politicians can’t complain about high gas prices now that they’re all thinking of raising them higher, ostensibly as part of their “green” plan to prevent a 20-foot rise in sea levels from wiping out Newfoundland.

It’s as if we all went to sleep one night and woke up in the Oceania of George Orwell’s 1984, where, instead of telling us on Monday that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia and on Tuesday that we’ve always been at war with Eurasia, now on Monday its: “High gas prices bad” and on Tuesday: “High gas prices good.”

I can hardly wait for the Two-Minute Hate and the free Doublethink classes.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca

Suzuki's foundation should lose status

February 15, 2008

Once you understand what Suzuki is up to, you might ask for his Order of Canada back. Ask David why China and India are exempt from Kyoto. Those two countries have close to half the worlds population. Ask David about CIDA, set up by his mentor Maurice Strong. From there Canadian tax dollars were used, under the guise of environment, to influence politics in Brazil and other countries. David is just doing what he has always done. This time he is doing it Canada. David if you want to be in politics then it’s time you threw your hat in the ring.

When the fraud of global warming is finally exposed, will you claim ignorance or will you move to China with Maurice Strong.

Before you donate to any environmental fund read the Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar. You will never look at the environmental movement the same again.

Thanks again to Lorrie for doing his best to get the story out. You won’t get the story from the CBC.

Suzuki’s foundation should lose status



Is there anyone who doesn’t think, based on his own words, that David Suzuki wants voters to throw out Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Conservative Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in their upcoming elections?

If so, why hasn’t the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable status of the David Suzuki Foundation?

CRA’s website says charities are “prohibited” from participating in “partisan political activity,” meaning anything that “involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office.”

Recently, in a speech at McGill University, Suzuki basically suggested Harper and Stelmach should be jailed for indifference to climate change, although a Suzuki spokesman later said he wasn’t speaking literally.

According to the National Post, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail, because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” Sounds literal to me.

Sarah Babbage of the McGill Daily reported: “(Suzuki) gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands, (adding) It is an intergenerational crime that … they keep dithering as they are.’ ”

Vincii Tsui of the McGill Tribune reported on Suzuki, “singling out (Harper and Stelmach) for prioritizing the economy over the environment.”

The Post reported Suzuki said: “We can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton.”

I’m guessing he wasn’t talking about the Liberals.

Last year, the Calgary Sun reported on Suzuki attacking Harper before an audience of elementary school children as he accepted $835 they collected for his foundation.

“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,” Suzuki said. “I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body — he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment …” That’s non-partisan?

In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: “I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they’re trying to take away my charitable (status),” adding he now had to preface remarks with: “Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation.”

Really? Quick — name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.

Visit the foundation’s website, davidsuzuki.org. You’ll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside “David Suzuki Foundation.” Both are to the left and slightly above the “DONATE Now!” icon.

Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): “Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?” where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.

How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?

In June, a government spokesman denied Suzuki’s allegations, saying politicians don’t launch CRA audits. Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Post the CRA had dramatically increased audits on environmental groups in recent years but: “This is something I would not blame the Conservative government for …”

Charities can spend 10% of their budgets for non-partisan political activities to influence public opinion, policy and relevant laws, including organizing conferences, lectures, rallies, letter-writing campaigns etc.

But what Suzuki’s doing? C’mon. This isn’t about free speech — he can say whatever he likes.

But if partisan political activity is “prohibited,” why does his foundation have charitable status, meaning it doesn’t have to pay income taxes on its $6 million in annual revenues (2006) and can issue tax receipts to donors? If you agree, call the CRA’s charity directorate at 1-800-267-2384 and complain.


The new CEO of Sharia Green

January 24, 2008

Life is strange. I never cared for the Toronto Sun or Stephen Harper, but they seem to be the only ones trying to inform Canadians about some very important realities. Harper is blocking Kyoto because he knows what it’s about. It’s about giving up the sovereignty of Canada to the UN. I’m not sure why Harper is working behind closed doors to integrate Canada the USA and Mexico. To save us from the UN takeover? The result will be the same, the lost of Canada’s Sovereignty.
Send Lorrie an email or a letter to the paper and encourage him to continue to inform his readers about the reality of “GREEN” 

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, January 24, 2008
The new CEO of Sharia Green

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Lorrie Goldstein reporting live for Sun TV. Today it’s my pleasure to introduce you to a global warming expert who’s taking the world by storm — Osama bin Kyoto, founder and CEO of the environmental organization, Sharia Green.

“Mr. Osama bin Kyoto, welcome to our show.”

“Thank you, infidel.”

“May I call you Mr. Kyoto?”

“Of course, infidel.”


“Thank you. Mr. Kyoto, what is your reaction to the latest roller coaster ride of the world’s stock markets and hysterical media reports of impending global economic collapse?”

“This is wonderful news, infidel. We applaud global economic collapse because it’s the only conceivable way major industrialized nations can achieve their greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Kyoto accord. How do you think Russia and all those other former Soviet satellites got to be world leaders in reducing GHG emissions and now have billions of dollars of hot air credits to sell to suckers … uh, I mean to countries like yours? Energy-efficient light bulbs? Wind farms? Solar panels? Stop, you’re killing me! No, they achieved it through total economic meltdown. Why do you think we chose 1990 as the base year for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just as the Soviet Union was imploding?”

“Uh … to screw the United States?”


“But Mr. Kyoto, surely you’re not suggesting global economic collapse and the resulting human carnage, social deprivation and widespread suffering that would result would be a good thing?”

“Of course it would be good, infidel! Economic collapse means you will have less money to buy stuff and the less stuff you buy, the fewer greenhouse gas emissions there will be. Our computer models show that for every 2,000-point drop in the Dow, not only will your retirement date be pushed back five years, but 56.7 polar bears in the Arctic will be saved from drowning.”

“But Mr. bin Kyoto, you folks can’t even agree on whether last year was the second, fifth or seventh warmest in the past century or so. How can you have a computer model that relates drops in the Dow to my retirement date and polar bear drownings?”

“It’s the same one that allows us to predict the precise impact of a carbon tax on the cost of living 50 years from now. Next question.”

“Mr. bin Kyoto, suppose China stops using coal to power energy plants. Suppose the developing world abandons the use and development of fossil fuels. Won’t millions of people in the poorest countries die as a result? Why do you only talk about shortened life spans people might suffer due to climate change, never about the certain deaths we know will occur if the developing world never … uh … develops.”

“Why, infidel? Because that’s complex thinking and we prefer mindless simplicity. So what if a few billion people die? People are a major source of man-made global warming — except for me, of course.”

“But Mr. bin Kyoto, your position is just knee-jerk anti-growth, anti-development, anti-capitalist, anti-Western and especially anti-American. It shuns complex thinking in favour of simplistic and false moral imperatives its adherents accept on blind faith and which ultimately hold human life to be cheap. Mr. bin Kyoto, you and Sharia Green sound a lot like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.”

“Your point, infidel?”

• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca


Kyoto snow job by Lorrie Goldstein

January 7, 2008

I would like to thank Mr. Goldstein for bringing this to the attention of his readers. Write or call him and encourage him to continue to enlighten his readership with news that matters.
Health care,Education,Energy and Agriculture, all vital to our economy and well being,  and all badly under reported.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

more quotes
Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, January 6, 2008
Skip the Kyoto snow job

Canadians will back a realistic green plan — we just haven’t seen it yet


Let’s examine what the Kyoto treaty on man-made or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is and isn’t.

First, it’s an example of globalization, despite the fact many of its advocates claim to oppose globalization.

But it is not, primarily, an environmental treaty.

If it was, it would require the developing world to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it does for a relative handful of industrialized nations, including Canada.

The lack of targets for the developing world reveals Kyoto as primarily a mechanism for redistributing wealth from the First World to the Third, unsurprising given its origins in the United Nations.


Then there’s Kyoto’s accounting tricks.

Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions.

Kyoto’s successor will be even more controversial.

To be environmentally credible, it must compel developing nations like China (the world’s largest or second largest GHG emitter in tandem with the U.S., depending on whose calculations you believe) to cut its emissions.

But forcing the Third World to do so will be an example of the First World imposing its priorities on the Third, the very thing critics argue is immoral about globalization.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe totalitarian countries like China, given their low public health, environmental and manufacturing standards, will comply with GHG cuts, even if they agree to them?

That said, we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists.

In fact, Canadians have shown a serious commitment to environmentalism, when they are provided with realistic ways to do so.

But we are also a big, cold, sparsely-populated, northern country, which has logically used our fossil fuel resources to improve our quality of life, exactly what China and the developing world aspire to today.

If we’re telling them, post-Kyoto, they cannot even attempt what we did through industrialization powered by fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, we had best offer them better reasons than Gore’s doomsday hysteria.

Why do you think the Liberals, for all their pro-Kyoto rhetoric, let Canada’s GHG emissions skyrocket during their 12-year reign, despite promising in their 1993 Red Book to cut them well beyond what later became the Kyoto standard?

They (like the present Conservative government) knew accomplishing this would demand enormous sacrifices Canadians might well reject, if the choices were put to them clearly and honestly.


For us to comply with Kyoto now would see huge spikes in the price of everything sensitive to the cost of fossil fuels, meaning gasoline, electricity, heat and water as well as transportation, most manufactured goods and food, all of which are directly or indirectly sensitive to the price of fossil fuels.

This would dramatically lower our standard of living and just as dramatically increase poverty.

Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.”

It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.

• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca