Activism Change

PNEWS: Are environmental organizations really grass-roots?

Question:

Wow!!  Thanks for unmasking this COMMUNIST activity!  It sure ends discussion of environmental issues when you point out that it’s all STRAIGHT OUT OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO!! From now on I will not engage in pro-environment activism, thanks to your stunning EXPOSE!!! THANK YOU!

Response:

http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/start.html

Response:

Are environmental organizations really grass-roots?    Recently, I compared the budgets of several major environmental organizations to see if they should be considered "grass-roots,"  truly representing the thinking of average Americans, or, if they are elitist in nature, receiving a large percentage of their budgets from well-financed corporate interests. The following figures are from the "Encyclopedia of Associations" (31st Edition; 1996): Sierra Club Annual budget: $35 Million Membership: 550,000 National Audubon Society Annual budget: $44 Million Membership: 600,000 Environmental Defense Fund Annual budget: $24 Million Membership: 300,000 Nature Conservancy Annual budget: $131 Million Membership: 880,000 Now use the above figures to calculate the budget dollars per member ratio for each group: Sierra Club: $64/member National Audubon Society: $73/member Environmental Defense Fund: $80/member Nature Conservancy: $149/member Now compare these figures to that obtained for a well-known grass roots organization: the NRA. National Rifle Association of America Annual budget: $66 Million Membership: 2,524,000 Budget dollars per member ratio: $26/member    We see here that the major environmental organizations are elitist in nature, and, thus do not truly represent the thinking of average Americans with regard to environmental issues.    Take special notice of the huge budget dollars per member figure obtained for the Nature Conservancy ($149). They have created a "cash cow" that ensures a steady source of "contributions" from reluctant property owners. They’re scheme transfers private property to the government at great profit to themselves. In the early to mid 1990’s, the Nature Conservancy, the largest environmental group in the country, backed by a host of large tax-exempt foundations, was purchasing over 1,000 acres of private property per day. Most properties are quickly posted for sale to federal agencies at enormous profit. Sales are often forced by getting a federal agency to threaten environmental action, forcing the property owner to "contribute" to the Nature Conservancy by selling at greatly reduced value. In 1993 alone the Nature Conservancy sold $73 million worth of private land to the federal government.    By now it should be obvious that environmentalism is not about "saving" the environment, it’s about *STEALING* the environment. Stealing from you. Stealing from your children.    This is no secret among the environmentalist elite. According to Bruce Babbit, Secretary of the Interior, "Endangered Species is the wedge for imposing a new land ethic that compares land ownership to slaves and involves discarding that concept of property and trying to find a different understanding of the landscape." In other words, in Babbit’s world, owning land is considered just as repulsive as owning slaves. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Babbit to give up *HIS* property.    There is nothing new about the "new land ethic" referred to by Mr. Babbit. In 1848 Karl Marx wrote the first plank of his Communist Manifesto which called for the "abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society, confirmed the true nature of environmentalism when he stated "We reject the idea of private property."    One American has already tasted eco-fascist shoe-leather. John Pozsgai is a mechanic who came to America in 1956, escaping the tyranny of the Soviet Army. He thought when he immigrated from Hungary he had escaped the excesses of government. Pozsgai bought property, zoned light industrial, in 1986. The property had been a debris strewn dump yard for years before Pozsgai purchased it. After obtaining state and local approval to construct a truck repair garage, he began clearing the junk and debris. Shortly thereafter, Pozsgai was arrested in a raid conducted by 12 federal agents. The Army Corps of Engineers decided he had violated federal "wetlands" regulations. They hired Pozsgai’s neighbors to spy on him and prosecuted him in federal court. The jury was shown pictures of "wetlands" with ducks on it. They were not allowed to see the actual property, which had no such "wetlands." Pozsgai was convicted, fined $200,000 and sentenced to 3 years in prison. Even though he payed his fine and served his time, Pozsgai still has not been permitted to build on his land. However he is still required to pay the property taxes.    Is this your idea of "saving" the environment? If it is, then you can count me out. Preserving the environment takes a back seat to preserving our inalienable rights. Our American Bill of Rights is more precious than any plant or bug. Like thousands of Americans before me, I’d rather fight than switch.    Spread the word. When dealing with environmentalism, not all that glitters is green. <end via PNEWS http://www.applicom.com/pnews/

Response:

Filed under: Environmental Activism

Related Posts

• Experience with Sierra Club...
• Amnesty International Online?
• Looking for information on Earth First
• On site report of the John Quigley take down
• What >is< an "environmental whacko"?
• Action Alert - Proposed Oil Drilling In Alaska
• Aviation's friend, Mayor Dick Daley
• Wood goes Trout
• EnviroNews is Back!
• Can we get the harasser's off this board?