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
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.”
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.
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!
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.
