9 comments

  1. Stephen Smith says:

    When you’re rich like Ted is calleed being excentric.

  2. Gerry says:

    I personally don’t understand why Canada would sign such a document or agreement. I feel that the UN is now a defunct organization with no clout.

  3. Constantin says:

    Leaving the U.N. is getting really urgent. I hope our government hears us. Thank God we have some cool heads in Ottawa, at least temporarily.
    Canada needs to understand that leaving the decision as to what constitutes “sustainable” vs. “unsustainable” development to an unelected political elite trying to take over the world, will tax Canada to no end. In that “world” we are “the one percent”. If Canadians think there is much room for improvement in their lives now, they should wait and see how tough it gets when Agenda 21 starts bleeding us to death, while also preventing true development everywhere or, worse yet, explicitly denying us what everyone else would be allowed to do in spades.
    One really has to be brain washed, economically illiterate, and a fool to refuse looking behind the lofty sound of the “sustainable development” mantra. Admitedly school failed you miserably, and it is not easy to learn to think at later times. However, a good start would be to not close your ears ,to follow the debates on this issue, and to refuse to classify as lofty any far reaching proposition simply because its name sounds vaguely familiar and right. There is no consensus as to what “sustainable development” means and even less as to who will decide it, particularly in a world institution dominated by the likes of Sudan, Iran, and other close “friends” of Western civilization. If you feel generous, do it it with your own money, but do not squander the future of your children and protect a country that is strong and free! The issue is not whether “sustainable development” is a good or a bad thing. It is about decision making slipping away from politicians that are accountable to you through the democratic process, and moving, incidentally, much closer to some who really hate you and wish you harm.
    Let’s keep the decision as to what is or is not sustainable in Ottawa and with our local governments. It is safer there than anywhere else and much more likely to have a vague connection with real science.

  4. Alain says:

    I can add nothing to the excellent comments of Constantin. Hear! Hear!

  5. Guyle Nunweiler says:

    The Green Dragon continues its march to impoverish humanity through flawed philosophy and science. I use the Bible and science to make sense of how to live.

  6. Ken_m says:

    Sustainable development, or sustainable growth, are simple terms in concept. But not simple in reality. I agree that the UN and UN committees are not the ones to define and manage them.

    But by far the worst people to define and manage them are elected officials. And this isn’t a slur against the intent and effort of elected officials. It’s just that any strategy that will have any real affect must look at the very long term. But the nature of democracy is that it doesn’t look more than a few years ahead. Although I think that democracy is the best form of government, this is it’s biggest weakness.

  7. Bill Elder says:

    Turner supports the UN because they are dedicated to running population control programs – a thing near and dear to the hearts of social darwinist eugenics freaks. Do a bit of sleuthing and discover the sordid record of this man’s quest to eleviate the planet of “just too many of the wrong kind of people” – morbid elitism at its disgusting worst – no doubt he found soulmates in the UN.

  8. Ken Petkau says:

    Brian, great article, and Constantin, great comment.

    This Agenda 21 thing is becoming scary when even some of our premiers have bought into people control.

    Stalin was more blunt about his people control, but would have approved of the stealth methods used by these people.

  9. brian mouland says:

    Turner from mover and shaker to silly old man

Comments are closed.