Seldom Heard Quotes – Trees, Kids & Us – Part 5.1

“I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace
Access to Energy
Vol. 10, No. 4, December 1982

Another caring, humane solution from an environmental activist who is obviously advocating the eradication of human life (precious little children) to save precious little birds.


“When you are as old as I am (the teacher) it will be a major crime to cut them down. Don’t cut down trees, because when all the trees are gone, you will probably die because it gives off oxygen for us to breathe. So if we cut down trees, we won’t have oxygen to breathe, so we will die.”

A nine-year-old child’s notes from school printed in
People For The West, July 1992
The father, Richard Lassen of Reno Nevada,
filed a complaint with the school board.

One of the most deplorable effects of the environmentalists’ political agenda is that our children are being brainwashed, and they aren’t given a chance to hear the other side of the story.

In Nazi Germany, Hitler went after the kids because he knew as each year passed, the snow job got easier. The constant brainwashing of the children to accept an ideology ensures the future preservation of any regime. All tyrants know this, including environmental tyrants.

I am not attempting to compare the eco-terrorist movement and the Nazi party. I am trying to point out that some of their control tactics are very similar to Nazi methods. Beware of anyone who resorts to these kinds of tactics. Beware of anyone who can’t rely on the truth to accomplish their goals.

Or should I be talking about ducks?


“Six million trees a day are planted in America.”

In Green America, published by the American
Forest Council, 1990
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

That’s 2.7 billion per year; in fact America’s commercial forest annual growth exceeds removals through harvesting by 31% annually. With improved forest management and harvesting procedures, America has more trees today than it did in 1910.

Yet the doomsayers and the media continually paint a picture of disaster in our forests. This is easy to do because a picture of a recently cut forest is not as beautiful as a forest of standing trees. The eco-terrorists know that and play on the sympathy of good Americans.

Besides ignoring the truth about our forests’ overall growth, environmentalists don’t tell you about the decline in all the preserved national forests where human intervention is not allowed, nor that unmanaged forests have 10 % fewer trees than they did forty years ago.

Wise use and sound harvesting procedures will allow humans to enjoy our forest-derived products, forever. Preservationists will destroy both the forests and our economy by not allowing any use at all.

UPDATE 6/25/2013 The number of trees planted may be down to 4.2 million a day due to Bill Clinton destroying the logging industry. As a result the first time buying American’s couldn’t afford to buy a home because the price of wood increased.


“We have more trees today than we had in 1910.”

In Green America, published by the American
Forest Council, 1990
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Today the eco-terrorists are trying to stop the natural evolution a third world country must work through to increase its standard of living. The environmentalists’ solution is a worldwide welfare system with you paying the bill. They propose to keep third world countries at the poverty level to save the forests.

We must allow the third world countries to progress and share with them the fruits of our experience. They will clear forests for a while, and they will do so in a destructive manner. We can show them how to get the most out of their land. But they should not turn the forests over to the indigenous people who have not developed intellectually enough to use modern technology to feed their country’s people.

In America it was necessary for us to clear a certain amount of land for agricultural purposes. Had the environmentalists been here in greater numbers at that time, we would probably be a third world country today.


“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

David Brower, former Executive Director of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of Earth, in The Coercive Utopians
by Racheal Jean Isaac and Erich Isaac, 1985


“Chosen?” Sounds like Nazi Germany in 1939. Brower is one of many alarmists who believe the world is over-populated, and the only cure for poverty and pollution is a more tyrannical world.

These free spirited, free thinkers of the 1960’s hippy world seem to believe total government control is required as long as it incorporates their “tyrant’s” agenda.


“The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.”

Kenneth Boulding
originator of the Spaceship Earth concept,
1982, in Progress and Privilege
by William Tucker
pp. 105-6


The same mindset tells us how valuable our freedoms are. Yet they profess an authoritarian state, for our own good.

I guess it would be enforced by a green police squad waiting to arrest us should we decide to have a family and bear children.

Does this mean we have to scrap the Constitution?


“We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.”

Carl Amery, the Green Party of West Germany


The one subject the greenies of earth love to expound is how we must make the earth a safer place “for our kids.”

I guess they really mean that if they have to make a choice between a child and a tree, our kid’s future doesn’t look too bright.


A child born in America will consume 40 times more of the world’s goods and resources than a child born in India over the course of a lifetime.”

Phil Shabecoff of the Greenwire
on CNN, June 1992


Shall we all move to India? Shall we destroy our economy so we can live like Indians?

Here’s a novel idea: how about showing India how to change its economic structure using the American model.

Today, the eco-terrorists like, former Senator/VP Gore are trying to stop the natural evolution a third world country must go through to increase its standard of living. Their solution is a worldwide welfare system with the U.S. taxpayer paying the bill.

Radical environmentalists propose to keep third world countries at the poverty level to save their natural resources , and later reimburse these impoverished nations with a welfare check.

Their solution has another dark side, kind of a final solution.


“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable, but a good thing…. This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.”

The Economist, a London weekly
December 28, 1988


In the sentence,  “There is no way of showing it will be much help,” “it” refers to humans. They are saying we (humans) will not be much help to the world in the long run.

What is a world without humans?

Do they really mean the extinction of the human species would be a good thing? Yes they do!



The Pasadena Research Institute estimated that California’s stringent regulations, particularly environmental standards and enforcement procedures, resulted in the loss of almost 227,000 jobs in Southern California alone from 1988 to 1991.”

Mr. Kent Jeffreys
Director of Environmental Studies
Competitive Enterprize Institute
said during testimony to the
“Global Warming: Revealing the Truth” hearing
Washington D.C.
May 28, 1992

By now all of America knows that California is in trouble. Companies are leaving just as soon as they can afford to. What many people don’t know is that in Southern California, an estimated 227,000 jobs were lost between 1988 and 1991 due to excessive and restrictive environmental regulations and controls. What must it be across all of America?

The environmental movement has cost American taxpayers $800 billion since the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most of which didn’t need to be spent. Just as African-American “leadership” will call you racist, or militant homosexuals will call you homophobic just for disagreeing with them, should you disagree with an environmentalist, you are labeled as anti-clean air and water, or a big business puppet. This immediately puts you on the defensive in any argument.

It’s not about clean air or clean water–it’s about bigger government; it’s about the government owning our property; it’s about individuals losing their property rights; it’s about the redistribution of wealth. The bottom line–it’s about a political change toward a socialist model.

The bottom line agenda of the environmental movement is anti- industrialization, anti-progress, anti-technology and anti-humanity. If you would rather hear it from one of their own, listen to the words of Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford doomsayer,

We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.”

By the way, what shape is our economy in today after decades of EPA rule? And in ethnic socio-economic terms, how many of the 227,000 jobs were lost by people who live in south central Los Angeles?