Today, Maurice Strong sits atop the global environmental movement headed by the United Nations and its interlocking NGO’s and tax-exempt foundations.> Actually, because of corruption scandals involving lovely Maurice he was forced to move out of the limelight. But the NGO network he created can only be described as work by a genius. Impenetrable, untouchable, interlocked... A David Rockefeller protegé who has been able to stay out of Mainstream Media for decades, while working out his great plan and assignment. If you just read a summary of what M Strong has managed to accomplish it will dizzy you.

Here's a Wiki link to the 1992 Summit:

"172 governments participated, with 108 sending their heads of state or government.[1] Some 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attended, with 17,000 people at the parallel NGO "Global Forum" (a.k.a. Forum Global), who had Consultative Status." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_...

Well I certainly heard that. And even when you get to reading one...

I recently started (trying to read) an E-book about the Krakatoa Explosion- fascinating and very well written.

But I found it very tough sledding- I never know what zoom level to set- if I set it too high, I'm constantly having to scroll, which breaks my concentration. If I set it too low, I can't see a bloody thing.

QUESTION: are you able to enjoy an E-book? Because I'm having a lot of trouble getting used to them.

I bought several books, real ones, the past few months, and those I can digest much more easily, simply because they are beside my bed, and I pick them up when I am awake, or I am so into it that I take them to the living room during the day, the couch, and turn page after page.

It's in fact a completely different experience.

But I want to ask you, had you heard of <Maurice Strong> in your years in Canada? Strong is from Canada, and THE environmental movement King Pin, and in general much more powerful and influential than passing figure-heads like De Ceullar, Kofi Annan, etc.

"Canada" is more of an idea than a country, and I think people have forgotten what the idea might have been.

Generally, the country is long and thin with everyone living at the bottom right across the border from the Excited States.

The massive bulk of economic activity goes directly south and back, not "side to side" across the country.

People on each side of the border even have the same accent.

For all intents and purposes, Canadian provinces are basically northern extensions of the US states they border.

And not that far norther either. Maybe 30 miles more.

There was a moose spotted a couple of towns over the other day:

http://www.ctpost.com/default/artic...

However, the United States tried to move north- twice.

The last occasion was in 1812 and on both occasions the Americans had guns with them.

However, you may be pleased to hear that the Match score was

Canada 2 US 0.

Shocking to see as <madly> and <goldenbear> said that they feel like shouting into a vacuum (dutch crooked translation). Oscar Peterson said the same.

The psychological sanity of a state is hard to define and put into words, but my favorite spokesmen on liberty and restoration of past constitutional rights are from CANADA. Brave men and women, living hand to mouth often.

Their battle may be a lost one, but I intend to do them justice and inform you and Larry or any person who lends an ear about it even though I realize that you are doing your utmost to keep conversation "light and varied".

My job to learn to deal with and accept that.

It's hard to address issues in a race in which you are a complete "under"dog. But I stubbornly believe in it. Just 4 years ago I hardly knew what I was ruminating about.

I sensed it but didn't have an educated clue on how bad it really was.

I know--to many people this conversation of ours is going to sound like pure poppycock. Unfortunately, Maurice Strong is a real person, a Canadian billionaire and would-be moral/economic/cultural arbiter for the entire world, who really did say the things you've mentioned. And yes, he did hope the Rio Earth Summit would be the start of an international campaign to wear down the United States and turn it into an impoverished has-been. There are a lot of people working on that, including our own current "president" and his confederates.

<Jessicafischerqueen> Yes, the media and the antiwar movement did give LBJ the devil's own hard time, and LBJ was a Democrat. But things have changed. I don't think there's anybody at the AP, for instance, who's even capable of criticizing Obama. My memory is not so short that I can't remember all these people screaming bloody murder every time George Bush moved a piece on the military chessboard. They sure have clammed up, lately.

On a more pleasant subject, Mrs. PGP is a great admirer of your videos and would like to learn how to make them herself. Is there any special equipment she needs? Can you recommend anything in the nature of a tutorial site on-line? Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

<Esteemed colleagues> Or should I say "steamed colleagues"? Look, I am a Republican. I admit it. I also admit it's getting harder and harder to defend my position, especially when it's attacked by persons who see it from the vantage point of another country.

So let me put it this way. I do unreservedly admit that the Republican Establishment is part of the problem, and the sooner the Tea Party can drive it into extinction, the better. I admit that their idea of "politics" is for everyone in Washington to be one big, happy family getting rich at our expense.

But if labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are getting fudged nowadays, still, they used to mean something. And to some of us--like me--they still do.

So, let me put the whole partisan thing another way. If the GOP is dry rot in your house, and threatens to make the whole place collapse someday, then the Democrat Party is a raging fire in your living room. You've got to put out the fire before you can address the dry rot.

Friends in Europe and Canada, our American two-party system is what we have here and what we're stuck with, and we have to make the best of it. Do the party leaders collude together against us? Of course they do! But if we ever did raise up another party to become established and powerful, Washington D.C. would just suck all the integrity out of it and we'd have three gangs pillaging us instead of two.

I didn't get where I am today by getting steamed about the woes of domestic and international politics. I know who my friends are online and offline, I enjoy my life, and I hold my head high. I also enjoy long walks on the beach.

My scotch? Dewar's White Label.

My current research passion is chess history, which is 99 percent of the reason I come to this website. I come to <Mr. and Mrs. Pgp> forum for the interesting and varied discussions featuring a hearty and civil host and various esteemed guests. If they get a little esteamed from time to time, I'm certainly not going to hold that against them.

<playground player> I'd like to be able to converse with you by email, if you trust me with it and have the inclination. Just in case you do,

I'm at

jessicafischerqueen@yahoo.com

I can write you a very detailed message with all the links Mrs. Pgp needs to get started making her own videos.

Mr. JFQ and I have always understood the importance of helping your better half learn how to make videos.

1) I'm actually quite interested in Canada and to which extent its "former" ties to British Government have been "exterminated." Or the desirability of that even. My first question as a relative ignorant would be like "Why did it take that long?" to then try and grasp some of the history of the colonies to rid themselves of imperial "Majestic" rule. You use the word "jettisoned", and thanks btw for your description re the British North America Acts.

But there was an unprecedented event in Canada in 2008 that I heard of a while back, namely the "suspension" of, wait, let me quote this BBC article before I trip:

"Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has won a bid to suspend parliament, blocking an opposition attempt to topple his minority government.

The governor general agreed to Mr Harper's request, unprecedented in the country, after talks.

If the request had been rejected, he would have had to step down or face a confidence vote he was sure to lose.

Opposition parties had called the vote for Monday, accusing the government of failing to shore up the economy.

Governor General Michaelle Jean agreed to prorogue - or suspend - parliament until 26 January when the government is set to present its economic plan.

<Ms Jean - the representative of head of state Queen Elizabeth II - has the right to make a final decision on such matters.>" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7765206....

So, was "Billie Jean", in her capacity as Queen Lisbeth's representative, the de facto Head of State?

Did this row stir up more talks and controversy? I mean did people, canadian citizens, newspapers, debate this openly? Constitutional scholars denouncing this course of action?

2) In Holland the descendents of Wilhelmina are supposed to only have a "ceremonial" role, and function, if you will. But there is quite some debate and indeed some mild mannered controversy, in parliamentary circles, over limiting Monarchial involvement to zero centigrade.

There is however some movement within alternative media that goes much further than that, there is a website called "Pro Republica", and they basically accuse Beatrix of occupying the Throne completely unlawfully. She and her following live off tax-payer's money while she's one of the richest broads on the planet with her Royal Dutch Shell holdings, together with Elizabeth btw. Also, someone who threw some paint on her <Golden Carriage> has been locked up for 1.5 years now and is being drugged as I speak, because he is supposedly out of his mind and a danger to Her Maj and the State.

Her power is actually enormous, she moves not only in front of the scenes, but also behind, having quite a big hand in placing top government officials in position, also those who never make headlines, and don't have to be "sworn in." She and her offspring are all out internationalists, her sons working for Wolfensohn (former World Bank chief) and Co., and way up high at the EU even. Hangs out with David Rockefeller on a yearly basis, probably more than just yearly, so there you go.

Formally she plays just a "ceremonial" role, but there is a rather large shadowy other side of the coin.

Speaking of coins, she recently decorated <Jean Claude Trichet> while dining out with three former Dutch Ministers of Finance. Quite a busy lady, Beatrix. Her activities in this regard are mostly kept under the radar, all the more remarkable when you consider that Trichet is the Chief of the European Central Bank.

1) I'm reminded of Ecclesiastes 8 - also painfully aware of the catch 22 situation one can find oneself in, already <within> a political party (in your case Republican), within the two party system, multi-party, but <especially> as a Christian within that system.

<9All this I have seen so as to give my heart to every work that hath been done under the sun; a time that man hath ruled over man to his own evil.

10And so I have seen the wicked buried, and they went in, even from the Holy Place they go, and they are forgotten in the city whether they had so done. This also [is] vanity.

11Because sentence hath not been done [on] an evil work speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of man is full within them to do evil.>

2) I think there is little room for compromise, "You're either with us, or against us". Jesus offered us the same choice, follow in his footsteps, unwavering, unconditional, and accept his Father's authority over all other man-propped would be authorities- as you said in your column, claiming His Throne. This includes the tyrants within the Republican party imo.

I think secession is probably the only consistent course of action. At least that is what I would suggest for myself, in my personal position, not belonging to any particular church or party. Very very hard indeed.

Yes <Billie Jean> was only supposed to be the TITULAR head of state.

One of the more unprecedented actions of <Harper> asking her to serve Perogies to the Parliament was that it was the first time a sitting government had requested a Constitutionally illegal action.

According to the Canadian Constitution of 1982 the Governor General has ZERO political authority.

Nor is a sitting government allowed to serve Perogies to the Parliament.

This was- in fact- a coup d'etat.

But you see in Canada, the NDP and Liberals and BLOCKHEAD Quebecois parties all screamed to the press it was a coup d'etat, but none of the voters actually cared.

I think the fact that Canada has the highest number of daily marijuana users in the world has something to do with this.

To tell you the truth, if Canada became a dictatorship tomorrow, I doubt many would even notice, let alone care.

To address another of your points- I think it's appalling that any vestige of English colonial control exists in our government.

This would only be appropriate if Canada were a colony.

It isn't.

At least your Royal family is supposed to be from your country.

It's like a freakin twilight zone if you ask me. But people seem to like it. Amsterdam, or a few bordertowns here are marijuana heaven for many Canadians I reckon.

A Coup d'État, eh?

Well, I'll be ....

In fact, I might well write about Maurice Strong again, one of these days--if I can find out where he is (still in Chinese Turkestan?) and what he's doing.

I asked a couple of UN diplomats (American) about him, and they just laughed him off.

<Jessicafischerqueen> Does Canada really have a higher percentage of pot-heads than the USA? That would explain a lot.

I see you and <achieve> are kind of down on monarchy. Hey, just be glad you don't have King Obama!

It would be nice if there were actually somebody we could trust in politics, wouldn't it? But don't ask the USA if we can spare you some of our surplus honest men and women!

But we are having a special on Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Anthony Wiener, Newt Gingrich, Chris "Waitress Sandwich" Dodd... What one thing do all these slobs have in common?

Didn't she run against slick Rick Perry last year? Forgot the exact details but in audio interviews she came across pure as gold. Exaggeration perhaps, and why does a guy from Holland care about "Medina"... I happened to at the time scan several radio broadcasts and she caught my eye, or ear. Did she run for Texas governor? I'm sure it was around april/may last year, and her time to "catch up" was running short.

I'd easily google that, but first I think I'd want to encourage you to, as the dutch expression goes, name man and horse, when it comes to the UN environmental strangle-hold, and the major role of Maurice Strong and Mikail Gorbachev.

They cross party lines, and when Clinton ratified UN Agenda 21, revised version, was it 1996?, it didn't matter if there was a Dem or Rep sitting on the White House pluche.

Most countries in the world have ratified, and so a smooth transition into global governance is ensured. Those are all verifyable facts, supported by signed official documents.

My main problem with this organizational structure has to do with extreme limitations to individual rights, expression and (land-) ownership. Property Rights. I had a conversation on this in Dutch with Dak, and merely invited him to study this, but in fact there is a whole school of new wave economics students taught that this is the only way for humanity to proceed along. You know the adagium of abolishing the sovereign state model and replacement by a "socially justified" totalitarian, communitarian model.

Prince Charles of Wales plays a leading role in this, no surprise, as he and the Bushes gathered in a royal yacht together with financiers to get the Rio Summit off the ground. Lift it up and send it flyin.

<The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum (PWBLF) is spearheading this governmental change along with major multinationals. At about the same time as Charles became influenced by holistic philosophy, organic farming, architecture, homeopathic medicine and the return to Mother Earth, the UN adopted the environment as its mantra.>

Now what are we going to do? Is this genuine concern for the environment?

We know better, and should expose the pervs at every opportunity we have.

<So let me put it this way. I do unreservedly admit that the Republican Establishment is part of the problem, and the sooner the Tea Party can drive it into extinction, the better. I admit that their idea of "politics" is for everyone in Washington to be one big, happy family getting rich at our expense.

But if labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are getting fudged nowadays, still, they used to mean something. And to some of us--like me--they still do.>

... And was reminded of a speech, address at a university, back in 2007, that is on Youtube. I downloaded that clip to my harddrive some two months ago, not only because it impressed me, but also made me realize how little i know compared to some, and need to keep informing myself, if I want to enter a discussion.

Here's an excerpt of a transcription that I made of those two clips, total about 13 minutes, and see if you can guess who is talking about whom. Also it struck me how similar this description is in large part to yours, on the "meaning, value, of conservativism" and how it has been hijacked.

"It's not conservativism, and as [politician X] recognized and said many times, this has nothing to do with conservativism. They CALL themselves conservative. They have been able to gull our indolent and negligent press and the public, into believing that they are an administration of values, particular conservative values. These are hollow facades that mask the one value that they consider worth fighting for -- look at their feet rather than listen to the seductive noises coming from their mouths -- which is Corporate profittaking. They claim to be conservatives, but they have torn the "conserve" out of conservativism.

"They say they like free markets, but they DESPIZE Free Market Capitalism; what they really embrace is Corporate Crony Capitalism, corporate welfare, capitalism for the poor, and Socialism for the rich. And what we have to understand as Americans, is that there's a huge difference between free market capitalism, which makes a nation more efficient, prosperous and democratic,- and the kind of corporate crony capitalism, as embraced by the bellway in Washington DC, which is as antithetical to democracy, efficiency and properity in America, as it is in Nigeria.

I have an objection to what I call "secular conservatism," which to me seems only liberalism with a "don't spend so much money" fig-leaf over it. What we ought to be loyal to is the Word of God; if our country and our politics jibes with it, so much the better. Meanwhile, secular-cons make really nice useful idiots for the global governance crowd.

I firmly believe that God will only let the Strong-Gorbachev-Prince Charles-Climate Change-Obama crowd go so far, and build so high, before destroying them. The kind of control they dream of imposing on the human race is simply impossible to manage, nor is there enough money in the world to pay for it.