I say follow the EXTREME RIGHT WING AGENDA HOGLIARS:
Got my curiosity up after reading this story, and just looking at the sources quoted as their basis. THIS WHOLE CONTRIVED THEORY DESERVES MUCH CLOSER REVIEW, so checked out the quoted sites and their authors:
The MAIN SOURCE to this Ann Jane Gray ‘piecing together of nonsense article’ that discredits Strong, Martin, and Rae is this one:
Article By Ronald Bailey Published in The National Review September 1, 1997
Mr. Bailey is a freelance journalist and television producer in Washington, D.C. He is author of “Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse.”
This is one of the sources of this persons research to produce this propaganda manipulation, ‘BIASED ALL TO HELL’ piece of crap: this article by Ronald Bailey describing prominent Canadians, liberals, Maurice Strong, and Bob Rae (their view of all those leftists in Canada) who was at the time considered an NDP (article was written in 1997).
http://tinyurl.com/ymyc5n AUTHOR, RONALD BAILEY, AN AMERICAN WHO IS SELF-DESCRIBED AS:
Libertarian transhumanism is a political philosophy synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.
Self-described libertarian transhumanists, such as Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, advocate the right to human enhancement in a free market economy.
Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought defined by philosopher Max More, used to include the promotion of a libertarian sociopolitical system, known as "spontaneous order", in its principles.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit public policy organization founded in 1984 by Fred Smith. CEI's stated belief is that consumers are best helped not by government regulation of commercial interests, but by consumers being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace.
CEI is a think tank that is funded in large part by corporations and organizations interested in the focus of the CEI's work, including the Scaife Foundations, ExxonMobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation. (More details below.) CEI cites its major issues of concern as Environmental Policy, Regulation and Economic Liberty, Legal and Constitutional, and Health and Safety. Among the methods used to implement the organization's agenda are various press releases and policy papers, testifying at governmental hearings, suits against various governmental agencies, paid advertizing, editorial and op-ed pieces, open letters, books, and NGO operations.
He has lectured at Harvard University, Rutgers University, McGill University, University of Alaska, Universite de Quebec, the Cato Institute, the Instituto de Libertad y Desarrollo (Chile), and the American Enterprise Institute."
In his 1993 book, Ecoscam and other works Bailey criticised claims that CFCs contributed to ozone depletion and that human activity was contributing to global warming.
>>>>The NATIONAL REVIEW (Republican) is hardly a leftist advocacy group, NOR IS THE SOURCE AUTHOR BAILEY BY ANY STRETCH, quite the contrary, Kate OBeirne and William F. Buckley etc.? Robert Novak? And the defenders of Rick Santorum, the most outspoken, dogmatic, literal biblical spokesperson of the Christian Right in the U.S. in Congress? Attacks on all Democrats.
The right wing that wants to eliminate any power like the UN that stands in the way of multinational control, and corporate free reign over the world, and most of all, U.S. Imperialism? Yes, we all subscribe to their ‘TRUTHS’. Like hell.
It is exactly the opposite of what this scheming article claims. It is the CR and the WH that is stacking all kinds of positions at the UN, in an attempt to remove all opposition to their world-wide control of all of the messages, and the entire mandate of the UN. While at the same time, claiming the UN is a useless organization ‘that wants to use peacekeepers’ in conflicts. These Right wing groups deplore that concept, and anything that stands in the way of their war agenda.
Bailey's reference quotes in this blog as warnings to America about Strong and the UN:
“Well, you should have. Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America.”
“Yet his most prominent and influential role to date was as Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development -- the so-called Earth Summit -- held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.”
"He's dangerous because he's a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system]," comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. "I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left."
”Sometimes, indeed, it seems that Strong's network of contacts must rival the Internet. To list a few:
-- Vice President Al Gore. (Of course.)”
“It's not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces -- namely, market forces. And though the crises change -- World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the "energy crisis" in the Seventies -- the Left's remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: "If we don't change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Apocalypse soon -- unless international bodies save us from ourselves. ”
“It also recommended that "user fees" might be imposed on companies operating in the "global commons." Such fees might be collected on international airline tickets, ocean shipping, deep-sea fishing, activities in Antarctica, geostationary satellite orbits, and electromagnetic spectrum. But the big enchilada is carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas. "A carbon tax," the report deadpans, ". . . would yield very large revenues indeed." Given the UN's record of empire-building and corruption, Cato's Ted Carpenter warns: "One can only imagine the degree of mischief it could get into if it had independent sources of revenue."
“The CGG was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. Then Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed it. The CGG naturally denies advocating the sort of thing that fuels militia nightmares. "We are not proposing movement toward a world government," reassuringly write Co-Chairmen Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, ". . . [but] this is not to say that the goal should be a world without systems or rules." Quite so. As Hofstra University law professor Peter Spiro describes it: "The aim is not a superstate but rather the establishment of norm-creating multilateral regimes . . . This construct already constrains state action in the context of human rights and environmental protection and is on a springboard in other areas."
“THE Commission also wants to strengthen "global civil society," which, it explains, "is best expressed in the global non-governmental movement." Today, there are nearly 15,000 NGOs. More than 1,200 of them have consultative status with the UN's Economic and Social Council (up from 41 in 1948). The CGG wants NGOs to be brought formally into the UN system (no wonder Kenneth Minogue calls this Acronymia). So it proposes that representatives of such organizations be accredited to the General Assembly as "Civil Society Organizations" and convened in an annual Forum of Civil Society.”
“It also recommended that "user fees" might be imposed on companies operating in the "global commons."
“Among others: Thilo Bode, executive director of Greenpeace, to represent the scientific and technological community; Yolanda Kakabadse, the president of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature; and "from the farmers, I have chosen an organic farmer, Denise O'Brien from the United States, who is a member of the Via Campesina." In what sense are these people "representative"? Whom do they represent? Were the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of Toshiba, and the president of the Farm Bureau all too busy to come talk to the General Assembly?”
“The delegates were selected through a process based on national councils for sustainable development, themselves set up pursuant to the Earth Summit. Membership in these councils means that an organization is already persuaded of the global environmental crisis. So you can bet that the process did not yield many delegates representing business or advocating limits on government power.”
AND THE LINKS TO THIS SITE:
http://iresist.com/cbg/Christian_Nation.html and this was the link on this article ‘God governs the affairs of men’. This is a Christian Right propaganda article, and you cite this on babble?
http://iresist.com/cbg/guncontrol.html and this one “will you let them take your guns”.
http://iresist.com/cbg/intent.html and this right winger ‘arguing against the separation of church and state”.
http://iresist.com/cbg/ramble/impeached.html ‘arguing for the impeachment of Clinton’ ad nauseum.
http://iresist.com/cbg/food.html ‘resistence to tyranny is obedience to God’.
http://www.hydroone.com/en/about/history/timeline/ and this October 1998: The Energy Competition Act authorizes the restructuring of Ontario Hydro and the eventual opening of wholesale and retail electricity markets in Ontario. (Put in place by Mulroney to bust up our public utilities, and Flaherty / Harris crew then divied up our ‘paid for’ hydro assets in ‘thieving give away deals’ to big foreign corporations so they could gouge us on our ‘own utilities’ and take the control right out of the public’s hands, making huge profits for corporate thieves, and taking all consumer protections out of the equation? YES WE LOVE THIS RIGHT WING AGENDA PROPAGANDA. This bunch was against having public utilities that worked for the benefit of ‘our industry’, and ‘our consumers’in our own hands. AND YOU ARE AGREEING WITH THIS BUNCH OF THIEVING HOGLIARS?)
http://tinyurl.com/y22hoz And they’re (and you too?) against this reference KYOTO PROTOCOL in that article that demonstrates world leadership to save our planet? This is why they hate Strong, and Martin, and 'all those leftists in Canada'?
Then this article tries to connect Mulroney’s agenda to bust up public ownership of our own utilities, and sell them to foreign multinationals, and you think that somehow put into the same context should discredit anyone who ever had anything to do with our energy resources? Just completely misleading, and completely fabricated innuendo, and the spurious links of the people involved is massively unbelievable. All for the Right Wing's agenda to get rid of their opponents.
The author's connected to this article are AGAINST PEACE KEEPING in a huge way, against world wide attempts to reign in the globalized corporate power to pollute and destroy the planet with no checks and balances by the UN, in favour of ALL OUT CORPORATE FREE REIGN, against labour rights, against minority rights, women’s rights, in favour of CHRISTIAN RIGHT WING CHURCH RUNNING THE STATE. They were arguing for the impeachment of Clinton for an indiscretion which also at that same time forced tons of Republicans to resign for far worse sexual indiscretions, including Gingrich, and some of the highest level Republicans in Congress.
This group you are touting is also arguing PRO GUN LOBBY, and resistance to tyranny is OBEDIENCE TO GOD? This is republican HOGLIAR mumbo jumbo that ranks right up there with the rest of the Christian Right hogwash pumpers to the nth degree.
The links from person to person in this ‘insanely crafted’ piece of pure propaganda are so out of context, out to lunch, sick in the head, it’s unfreakin-believable.
If you are on the progressive side of this global fight, there is not one single thing here that even begins to represent TRUTH. It’s pure moronic Right wing LIES.
However (Bailey), says he has subsequently revised his views, stating in 2005 
He has since recanted and now says (2005): Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.
You must read about what this guy believed in at that time (in 1997), and despite admitting it is real more recently, he still dismisses Global Warming? This is who you think is a reliable critic of Kyoto? He now finally admits global warming exists, BUT DOES ANYTHING HE CAN TO PRETZEL HIMSELF to DOWNPLAY Climate Change to the max. He backs his ‘right wing’ friends in the corporate sector, by now claiming there's ‘nothing much to worry about’? Now this Bailey admits ‘global warming is real’, just like G.W. finally admitted it (no admission from Harper or Ambrose), but then he ‘NOW CLAIMS IT’S JUST REALLY EXAGGERATED’. This is sick.
No wonder he hated Maurice Strong and Paul Martin, and Bob Rae and everyone he quoted on what he calls “the left in Canada”.
Read about who this guy is, before you go trashing those he so demonizes on behalf of his lunatic Extreme right wing fringe, pro-capitalism, unfettered freedoms for corporations, and his entire agenda is to protect big business, no matter what the cost.
This may be your idea of idyllic journalism, but your friend Ann Jane Gray is not only unknown anywhere, but her blatant creation of a story that is cripplingly insane, the unknown, unlinked source of this supposed suspicious to all hell RCMP/ CSIS report, and her source agenda like Bailey etc., likewise completely full of it, that this article is the biggest piece of crap ever put on babble.
Who is this ‘unknown’ blogger? And what kind of nonsense do people have to stoop to believing? This is so overwhelmingly contrived, it’s a joke that beats all. This Ann Jane Gray is who? She suddenly appears as a blogger on this site for just this one extremely misleading & biased article? What kind of fool put this little scheme together? Ha, Ha, Ha, and then some.
The whole premise of this crap is to discredit the proponents of more involvement of civil societies, global environmentalists, international multilateralism, sustainable development, everyone on the left, into all future talks on Global Trade. YET YOU THINK THIS DICREDITS PAUL MARTIN, MAURICE STRONG AND BOB RAE? Totally and utterly laughable.
If these guys were in favour of reigning in corporate power, multinationals, the extreme destruction of this planet at will, and WERE FOR GIVING POWER TO THE NGO’s and UNIONS in this fight against globalization, you think they were ‘the bad guys’? Quite the contrary, these ARE the good guys in this fight.
No wonder when this was used in the last election to discredit Martin, we all fell for it. No one took the time to look at the agenda, or the facts, OR WHO WAS BEHIND THIS BIG LIE.
MARTIN DESERVES AN APOLOGY FOR THE ATTACKS LEVELED AT HIM ON THIS ONE.
In fact as Canadians were fighting globalization in Quebec City, Martin was not allowed in the talks, but was outside demanding that civil society, environmental groups, labour, and civil society should be included in every element of the negotiations. And he was the bad guy? No, he was the guy ‘kept on the outside of these talks’ that this Right Wing Power Group would never allow to be Prime Minister of Canada, because the Harper (heavily promoted and pushed into power by U.S. right wing), was waiting in the wings to stop any progressive movement that the citizens of the world wanted. Get real, if you think this discredits Paul Martin. As for Maurice Strong, the Right wing wants all of his kind out of the UN, so they can control the whole damn world.
This blog writer and referenced supporters are pro ‘one God Christian Right rule’, pro-gun lobby, pro-corporate world dominance, anti-regulation of all industry, pro-pollution free agenda, pro RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN, anti-Kyoto, anti-civil rights, anti affirmative action, anti women’s rights, anti disabled rights, pro racial profiling, anti equal pay for work of equal value & equity pay for women, pro property rights for Industry over OUR natural resources and labour rights (like those Jamaican ‘free enterprise zones’?), and obviously back HARPER, as a condition of all this, and you think this discredits what these monsters call the left? What a disgrace that you put this on babble, without taking the time to source the proponents of this insidious, ‘malicious propaganda’.
Their labels are the anti-liberals of the world. These are deemed their ‘classical liberal views’, more enlighteningly known as ‘neo-liberalism’, ‘libertarianism’, and a host of anti people agendas all rolled into one. They HATE liberals on all sides. WE are all ‘liberals’ to them. But you think this is worth touting on this board as a slander against ‘ALL’ liberals in Canada? This is a disgrace to see this entire premise on babble.
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR SALES JOB ON THIS ONE.
[ 28 October 2006: Message edited by: happy go leftie (Red Tory) ]