Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave; When First We Practice to Deceive

Sir Walter Scott would be dumbfounded by the entanglements 

created by this Web of  Radical Environmental Groups

Opinion Piece by Janet Wilcox                        
Published in Free Range Report 3/7/17

Welcome to the World-Wide Web of Environmental Multi-Level Marketing which has recently reached an all-time nationwide frenzy. Benefits of joining up are staggering and multiple web sites and propaganda are always just a click away.

While promoting “progressive” protectionists policies, global environmentalists have determined to discredit state’s rights and attack elected officials and rural families who choose to live in the West. Not only have they launched attacks against Utah Congressmen using half-truths, and fear mongering, but Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, and even W. Virginia, and Hawaii have been their targets.  Their “Monumental” maneuverings to sell out America have been going on for some time. It doesn’t take a degree in geography to see that Obama's 553 Million acres of “Monumental” manipulation, has put our country at risk, and under subjugation to those who can afford to pay off our $20 trillion-dollar debt. That is one of the reasons freedom loving people didn't elect another "One World Order" queen with ties to Russia’s Uranium One company.   A quick review of the Clinton scandal involving Russian mining engineer, Frank Giustra follows:

New York Times Article: “The path to Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side. . . .‘In three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s, Giustra, used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.”  In other words, by making money in energy related, businesses, he could afford to donate millions to support environmental causes via the Clintons. Was this hypocrisy or ulterior motives, or both?

Next Giustra came to SE Utah. “Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities, the company declared.”

Then he advanced the cause of environmental multi-marketing. “Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million.”  Therein lies the rub. Why would locking up land in the United States be beneficial to Russia?

At some point, investors will want benefits. This connects “Monumental Money” donations to the push to restrict American extraction, thus,  forcing below-the-surface fossil fuels to hibernate for “future generations” or as collateral for foreign investors?  Since the Conservation Lands Foundation cares more about land than people, more about ideology than freedoms, and because they are funded by "monumentally" wealthy people who want to control energy markets for their own financial gain, they are only too happy to use such money in the name of “protection.” Foundations the likes of William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Wyss Foundation, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, and the Wilburforce Foundation love to prey on rural America, the working man, and those living outside the "inner circle of wealth."

David Bonderman’s life, further illustrates this dichotomy. About 17 years ago, Jim Stiles, the environmental writer/historian/publisher of Canyon Zephyr, discovered that some of the “world’s wealthiest bankers, financiers, and industrialists were throwing huge amounts of money into mainstream environmental organizations. The contributions trickled all the way down to SUWA and Friends of Cedar Mesa; in exchange, many of these mega-wealthy benefactors acquired positions of influence, often as members of the groups’ boards of directors.”

Bonderman is a venture capitalist and the founding partner and powerbroker at TPG Capital. This is a “private equity firm with more than $65 billion in assets; TPG has invested across the country and around the world. To get an idea of just how vast the TPG empire is, click here and here to see their portfolios.”

In 2015 “Environmentalists in Utah, led by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), supported the Red Rock Wilderness Bill, calling for the protection of 9.2 million acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Grand Canyon Trust, with offices in Moab, also supported RRWA.” Bonderman was on the Board of Directors of the GCT and was a major financial supporter of the Red Rock Bill.  However, at the same time, Bonderman’s company TPG ironically “invested heavily in the energy sector including Alinta Energy, Amyris, Beta Renewables, China Renewable Energy, Maverick American Natural Gas and more.

Knowing this, why would any true environmental group tolerate Bonderman’s dichotomy and the double-faced strategies which he uses for his own benefit?

In June of 2015 David Bonderman was caught between profits and being politically correct — and he chose profits. The private-equity mogul attended Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum against the wishes of the White House. Yes, Bonderman plays both sides, using his Russian connections.  So when SUWA, Outdoors, Friends of Cedar Mesa, Patagonia, or the Utah Dabakis supporters, et al, protest capitalism and corporate influence and its impacts on public land decisions, they have no further to look than their own sugar daddy “venture capitalists.”

Following the money trail of wealthy foundations is very troubling as is learning how environmental special interest groups are funded. For example, William and Flora Hewlett, Wyss, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the Wilburforce Foundation all donate to environmental issues. Their donations, which are often tax exempt go to the Conservation Lands Foundation, or to “protectionists” Non-Governmental Organizations such as SUWA, Dine’ Bikayah, Sierra Club, ad infinitum. Envision millions of dollars accumulating in those coffers, and you will see why land inside Monuments, has multiplied over the past eight years to 553 million acres! -- who cares if the donors live lavishly, as long as their money “protects” the environment!  “They want a new Porche, when the U.S. government can hardly afford a used Ford,” said Charlie Taylor (Blanding local), referring to the nation’s $20 Trillion debt.

Jim Stiles described David Bonderman’s lavish lifestyle in an earlier article, “David Bonderman continues to be one of the “most extravagant environmentalists on the planet. He owns palaces in Moab, Utah and Aspen, Colorado; he resides frequently in his Gulfstream jet. For his 60th birthday, he celebrated in style, at the Bellagio in Vegas, with the Rolling Stones for entertainment. For his 70th, he hired Paul McCartney and John Fogarty. Each party cost between $6 and $10 million. To secure the Pavlovian loyalty of his adoring guests, he gave each of them $1000 to contribute to their ‘favorite cause.”  True, those with money should be able to spend it on their preferred lifestyle, but when they espouse conservation and care of the planet, it seems they are only being “user friendly” when it fits their agenda.

Equally disconcerting was the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation climate change gala in St. Tropez, France, in 2016 which required its A-list guests to travel thousands of miles by air to attend.  Contrast that with Navajos in San Juan County who want and need good jobs, and worry whether they will have enough wood for the rest of the winter, and if they will be able to haul water to their home on muddy roads – or ranchers whose grazing rights are controlled by the whims of the BLM. Such is the disparity between the wealthy and many rural San Juan County residents, who are opposed to the Bears Ears Monument and want it rescinded. 

Non-governmental organizations also play a strong role in this environmental multi-marketing networking plan. The term NGO was first coined in 1945, when the United Nations (UN) was created.  Today NGO money (received from wealthy businessmen) flows like a river into beautifully crafted pro-monument videos playing on prime-time TV; then the river of wealth pours onto cookie-cutter environmental web sites nationwide, with almost identical repetitive messages.  The green flow then soaks into the pockets of CEOs, pollsters, “consultants” and play makers for the liberal left, and then ironically it sends streams of cash to promote tourism in the “fragile landscape” of Grand and San Juan counties.  All the while, Bonderman, Wyss, and Hewlett portfolios continue to grow.

Recently CLF’s “Bears Ears Campaign” (part II) amped up. Worried that the BE Monument might be rescinded and states would have more control, has caused the flood gates of Green money to open and paranoia and fear mongering increased exponentially.  Sensationalized headlines such as “Rob Bishop Thinks Our Public Lands are Worthless.”  Or “Bears Ears opposition is about denying Native Americans a Victory” shout at the unsuspecting and uninformed. Verging on yellow journalism, such extreme declarations are intentionally exaggerated and based upon ideological lobbying, not factual investigation. (Think of other MLM meetings you may have attended!) This scenario explains why Senator Mike Lee sees radical protectionist efforts as “a solution looking for a problem.”  

Jami Bayles, recently elected as president of Stewards of San Juan, stated, “A NGO should never -- no matter how much foreign money it accepts -- have the power to trump sovereign State rights, nor duly elected officials.  No one in the Four Corners area voted for SUWA, CLF, or Grand Old Broads for their representatives.  Globalists and extreme environmental organizations which seek to weaken this republic, do not represent Utah, nor San Juan County.”

Yet, “advancing strategic solutions” is the watchword of the Wilburg Foundation, and currently their “solution” involves the massive 1.3 Million acre Bears Ears National Monument, in Utah—a state which is already filled with 40+ National and State Parks and is 63% public land, which we all enjoy and love. Yet NGO minions demean locals, and decry Utah congressmen, claiming they do not value “public” land. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Wilburgforce is one such non-government foundation and has funded Resource Legacy Fund. http://resourceslegacyfund.org/programs/bears-ears-fund/  One of three pet projects is The Bear Ears Community Engagement Fund which will provide grants for projects that will. among other things, create “opportunities for sustainable recreation use and management by local communities.”  In other words, they have elected themselves to fill the role of county/state/ federal land managers. 

Contrast this web of multi-level marketing to the “No Monument” grass roots effort in rural Utah.  It has functioned without benefit or obligation to wealthy NGOs and backers, using only the money they have raised through local benefits. Thus, when wealthy globalists secure more and more monuments and prevent multi-use of parts of local land and spend millions to do so, locals see it not only as immoral, but illegal and presumptous.  They decry the prospect of turning Bears Ears communities into Moab look-alikes.

Ironically, Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia at least partially agrees: “When you see the guides on the Bighorn, they’re all out of central casting. Beard, bill cap, buff around the neck, dog in the bow. . .It’s so predictable. That’s what magazines like Outside are promoting. Everyone doing this ‘outdoor life style’ thing. It’s the death of the outdoors.”   

When NGOs are held hostage by their donors, the hostages often become purveyors of donor messages, (i.e. Patty Hearst and the Stockholm syndrome).  If the mantra of the donor is “cattle free in ‘23” then the recipient uses Wilburgforce or Patagonia donations to advance that position. If corporate donors, who are often board members of environmental groups, say “Forbid the use of below ground resources”, (not knowing some of their corporate friends have ulterior motives) they respond like puppets, canting and chanting the dictated slogans.  It is truly a “Monumental Multi-Level Marketing” plan top down, and all around!

 Unfortunately, by hoping to eradicate ranching, farming, and extraction opportunities in the public domain, the solution of “sustainable” tourism comes with a whole new set of problems. Pairing tourism in the name of “protection” is an environmental paradox. Locals know from the experiences of those living in the shadows of Grand Staircase Escalante, there is much to lose. NGOs are working to eliminate jobs, families, and life styles (not of the rich and famous), but of rural Americans. As the Green MLM has expanded into Utah, Colorado, Oregon and Nevada, we see the ever-creeping web of bureaucratic power under the guise of protecting mother earth.   

By expanding the globalist web of deception via National Monuments, the ideology spills onto western terrain, and seals up productive land, as well as smaller legitimate antiquity landscapes in one fell swoop. The “We Won’t Share” attitude on the part of hard core “progressives” has caused backlash and anger from those who believe “less is more” when it comes to government-layered public lands.  We support “elected” Utah Congressmen and “elected” San Juan County officials in their efforts to rescind the Bears Ears Monument and believe that pubic land should allow multiple-use. 

 Top of Form