Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Group's Suit Seeks Data On EPA'S Award Of Grant Money To Activists
Inside EPA ^ | 12/4/02 | Tenille Tracy

Posted on 01/03/2002 7:00:05 AM PST by wcdukenfield

A free-market legal group filed suit against EPA and two other federal agencies last month to compel them to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for information on federal grant money being awarded to environmental groups such as World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense and The Nature Conservancy.


Sources with the Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF) say they suspect environmental groups are using millions of dollars in federal grant money to further their political agendas, a move that is illegal under federal tax rules and violates the intended purpose of the research or pilot project contracts under which the money was awarded.


LLF sources say their goal is to ensure that groups that are found to use the money for political purposes no longer receive federal funds. “Our ultimate goal is to make sure that no advocacy groups, right or left, are misusing the funds,” one Landmark source says.


Landmark sources also say they suspect federal agencies are not tracking how the money is used. The legal foundation says it was forced to file suit against EPA, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management and the Agriculture Department's Forest Service when the agencies did not respond to FOIA requests filed in October 2001. The legal foundation is expected to file a similar suit in the next few weeks against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.


The FOIA requests ask for information on the terms and conditions of contracts written for the federal grant money, how much the grants were for, and whether federal agencies are performing audits or management reviews on the groups receiving grant money. Landmark is seeking all information dating back to January 1993.


At press time, none of the three agencies had responded to the FOIA request, but one source at the LLF says EPA has been most willing to at least look at what information it could provide.


The FOIA requests were prompted by an October article in The Sacramento Bee that alleged that since 1998, $400 million in federal grants have gone to environmental groups to further their political agendas.


The group also has another lawsuit pending in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, where it accused former EPA Administrator Carol Browner and several high-ranking agency officials of intentionally destroying records regarding the interaction or contact EPA had with environmental groups during the crafting of new regulations.


Sources with environmental groups were unavailable for comment.


Issue: Vol. 23, No. 1


© Inside Washington Publishers


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 01/03/2002 7:00:05 AM PST by wcdukenfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Carry_Okie
You might find this interesting.
3 posted on 01/03/2002 7:09:47 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield;snopercod
All Right!!!
4 posted on 01/03/2002 7:32:37 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Good for Landmark. By funding these groups, we (the taxpayers) are funding our own destruction. They shouldn't be getting a dime of taxpayer funding. Let them raise their own money from their few supporters and see how effective they are.
5 posted on 01/03/2002 7:43:06 AM PST by holyscroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield; 1Old Pro; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; a_federalist; abner; Angus_Day; AnnaZ...
'Bout time!
6 posted on 01/03/2002 7:57:57 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Let's Roll!
7 posted on 01/03/2002 8:00:16 AM PST by Flyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
"Sources with environmental groups were unavailable for comment."

Next we have to render them unable to comment :-)

8 posted on 01/03/2002 8:02:21 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
Makes the Federal money which may fund a gay and lesbian retirement home in Florida seem like chump change, doesn't it?
9 posted on 01/03/2002 8:08:09 AM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
One may well presume that these groups have used tax money for their advocacy possibly disguised as education. They do not give a rats behind about sensible envirornmental policy only about getting more.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

10 posted on 01/03/2002 8:09:56 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The FOIA grants agencies 90 days to respond to an information request, if I am not mistaken. It looks like Landmark filed this suit on the 91st day.

IANAFL, but I would bet money that no agency has ever been found guilty in Federal Court of failing to comply with the FOIA. They always stand up before the judge, hold hands, and chant, "We're understaffed...We're overworked...We have no money...We have no time", at which point the good judge orders them to do better next time and sends everyone on their way.

I'm sure you will remember the success Larry Klayman has had in this sort of thing...

11 posted on 01/03/2002 8:21:40 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the ping.

The FOIA requests were prompted by an October article in The Sacramento Bee that alleged that since 1998, $400 million in federal grants have gone to environmental groups to further their political agendas.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


12 posted on 01/03/2002 8:23:46 AM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
OK, I give. What the hell is "IANAFL"?
13 posted on 01/03/2002 8:26:07 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the ping.
14 posted on 01/03/2002 8:28:32 AM PST by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
This is the tip of the iceberg. What has happened is that left wing activists, especially during the Clinton years, built a machine in which activists placed in government agencies put government funding in place for advocacy groups. The left's political base thus continues to live on the public nickel even when a democrat is not in the White House. This is one of the reason the Senate democrats are fighting so hard to thwart Bush's second and third level nominees to the agencies from being confirmed. They are the ones who would prune the funding. And it is not merely for political advocates, but also the corrupt. Remember when Arthur Coia, head of LIUNA, a labor union, had a 200+ count corruption indictment pending at the Justice Department? He started giving large amounts to the DNC, was invited to the Clinton White House, and eventually the indictment was dropped, and instead he was put in charge of the union "clean-up." But that's not all, not long after, the federal government gave this corrupt union millions of dollars for various "training" programs.
15 posted on 01/03/2002 8:29:54 AM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield;Carry_Okie;SierraWasp;AuntB;Jeff Head
Here is the original article from the SacBee that prompted this lawsuit. It may have been posted on FR, but I couldn't find it due to the "blown" search engine...

Taxpayer dollars help fund many environmental groups

By Tom Knudson, Bee Staff Writer - (Published October 22, 2001)

A major investor is helping The Nature Conservancy -- America's largest environmental group -- buy land and protect species across the United States.

The same benefactor is providing financial aid to the World Wildlife Fund for international conservation. It is spending heavily to help other groups, from the American Farmland Trust to Trout Unlimited, hold conferences, post Web pages, restore habitat and sway public opinion in favor of protecting the natural world.

Few philanthropists, in fact, have ever showered money so broadly across the environmental community.

Who is this conservation-minded patron?

You -- and every other taxpayer in the United States, that's who.

It's well-known that the government dispenses billions for foreign aid, medical research and other socially desirable activities. It's not common knowledge that it also distributes financial assistance to environmental organizations, including activist groups that seek to influence, and even sue, the government.

"When the federal government subsidizes one side of a public policy debate, it undermines the very essence of democracy," said Randal O'Toole, a senior economist at The Thoreau Institute, a free-market environmental think tank in Oregon.

Those who receive such funds have a different view.

"This is part of the give and take of democracy," said Michael Replogle, transportation director at Environmental Defense, a nonprofit advocacy group. "Government agencies have a role to play" in reaching out to the environmental community, he said.

Just how much public money flows to environmental groups has never been calculated, partly because it springs from so many sources. More than two dozen federal entities, from the State Department to the Fish and Wildlife Service, make awards to environmental groups. But no government agency charts the total spending, identifies trends or assesses what taxpayers are getting for their money.

Information gathered by The Bee, though, shows the volume of federal support for environmental groups is substantial, and growing.

Last year, about $137 million flowed to 20 major environmental nonprofit groups -- an average of $377,000 a day -- up 27 percent from 1999. Since 1998, more than $400 million in federal money has been granted to environmental groups.

Four groups -- The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund -- have gotten more than two-thirds of the money since 1998. More than 15 nonprofits received $1 million a year or more.

Most large environmental groups take government grants, but some -- such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace -- do not.

More than half of the money is used to help groups purchase, restore or protect land and species. That process, which often involves mingling federal and private dollars to maximize their impact, has achieved dramatic results for fish, wildlife and open space across the United States.

Conservationists say such teamwork is vital to preserving the biological diversity of life on Earth.

"When you look at what it is going to cost to protect biodiversity, it far exceeds our capability, even as one of the wealthiest conservation groups," said Mike Horak, a spokesman for The Nature Conservancy, which last year received $37.3 million in federal funds -- the most of any group.

The rest of the federal money is channeled to hundreds of projects and purposes, worldwide. It trains park rangers in Central America, pays for mollusk monitoring in Tennessee and funds anti-poaching programs in Africa. It underwrites pro-nature radio ads in Ohio, condor recovery efforts in California and water pollution control efforts in the Appalachians.

But federal audits, reports and records show public money also trickles into more controversial activities, such as lobbying and advocacy. Some also helps fund government adversaries.

Few groups have been more critical of the U.S. Forest Service than The Lands Council, which calls itself a "front-line activist-based forest conservation group" that favors a ban on commercial timber sales on public forests. Recently, the council received a $30,000 grant -- about 10 percent of its budget -- from the Forest Service.

"How can the Forest Service justify funding an organization whose mission is to prevent management on federal lands?" asked Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, which represents timber companies and sawmills. "Clearly, there needs to be some better checks and balances in terms of how this money is spent."

The Forest Service defended the award.

"The grant is not paying them to market their no-commercial-cut philosophy," said Bob Swinford, staff assistant to Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth. Rather, it will be used for workshops on fire safety in rural communities.

Fire safety "is something we actually agree with the Forest Service on," said Mike Peterson, conservation program director for the Spokane-based council. "We've made a commitment to stay on message."

But it's not the first time Forest Service grants have kindled controversy.

A 1998 federal audit found numerous problems, including "expenses which appeared unreasonable" at the National Forest Foundation, a congressionally chartered private nonprofit organization funded in part by the Forest Service. Among the expenses drawing attention were consulting fees of $82,700 for "a retired Forest Service employee and to an ex-Foundation board member"; luncheon, dinner and banquet tabs of $10,108; and $123,500 spent trying to recruit members, which brought in only $13,000 in membership fees.

Such problems have since been resolved, said Doug Crandall, the group's new vice president. "Basically, we're starting over. We have a new board, new direction and a lot more focus."

The Environmental Protection Agency has run into trouble, too.

In April, the General Accounting Office noted "wide-ranging problems" with EPA grants, including the use of EPA funds "for unallowable activities such as lobbying." In May, the agency's inspector general observed the EPA "does little to promote competition" when awarding grants. And in June, the GAO said EPA's "oversight of nonprofit grantees is not likely to ensure that funds are spent as intended or allowed."

The EPA did not respond to any of those findings, despite repeated requests from The Bee.

Federal funding for environmental groups may not be secret, but it's certainly not well-publicized. Much of the supporting information is squirreled away in obscure places -- such as financial summaries in annual reports and IRS nonprofit tax returns. That drought of data can lead to confusion and surprise.

One day in 1998, for example, Peter Samuel, publisher of Toll Roads Newsletter, which serves toll road managers and consultants, was scrolling through a Web site of The Smart Growth Network, www.smartgrowth.org -- a coalition of nonprofit groups that seeks to curb urban sprawl.

Curious, Samuel sent an e-mail to the Webmaster.

"Please inform me who controls the content of this Web site and give me their phone number," he wrote.

Not long after, he got a reply -- from the Environmental Protection Agency.

"The Smart Growth Network is an EPA initiative," an agency employee wrote. "The Web page is written and funded by the EPA."

Samuel was stunned.

"Government money should not be used for activist groups," he said. "It should be used for genuine, impartial research."

A senior EPA official said the agency funds the Web site because "it provides information about different development options." EPA does not control the content, the official said, and many groups contribute to it. The official said the EPA would not allow him to be quoted by name.

Since 1998, the EPA has awarded more than $5 million to nonprofit groups that pursue so-called smart-growth objectives, which include working with state and local governments to promote conservation-friendly urban development.

"Working together really is quite a natural," said Betsy Garside, spokeswoman for the American Farmland Trust, a member of the Smart Growth network and a recipient of EPA and other federal funds. "If we can help the government be more efficient, and they can help us be more far-reaching, the public benefits."

But O'Toole -- a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley -- contends such alliances shortchange democracy.

As he put it in "The Vanishing Automobile," a new book about urban sprawl: "EPA funding creates the appearance of a grass-roots movement against sprawl when in fact much of the 'movement' is supported by a federal agency."

The senior EPA official disagreed. "There is widespread concern about the impacts of growth and development," he said. "We are responding to people's concerns."

Concern about taxpayer-funded advocacy is a recurring theme in Congress, where at least five hearings have addressed the subject since 1995.

"Organizations have every right to advocate and advance their point of view. What they don't have a right to is taxpayer dollars," said Jonathan Adler, who testified at one hearing. Adler is a well-known critic of the environmental movement and author of "Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America."

The issue is not that simple, according to Replogle, who works for Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that receives federal grants.

"Environmental groups represent tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of ordinary citizens," he said.

"Efforts to tie a gag around (October 21, 1:58 p.m. PDT) groups, to cut them off from any access to government grants seeks to undermine essential parts of public involvement in the democratic process," Replogle said.

Federal funding of environmental advocacy is at the heart of concerns about the $30,000 federal grant to The Lands Council, which has repeatedly attacked Forest Service timber policies. Members of Congress have complained to the agency.

"This is a little uncomfortable," said Mark Rey, a Department of Agriculture undersecretary who oversees the Forest Service. "But getting people together and finding consensus (on wildfire issues) requires a certain amount of discomfort."

Some say such funding aids advocacy indirectly.

"When the government funds a group to do things you may not disagree with, it frees up resources for it to do things you do disagree with," said O'Toole.

But Peterson said it works the other way. The grant "is actually diverting resources out of our regular program. I'm spending a lot of hours trying to interpret long documents and figure out how to comply" with federal rules. "And I'm not funded to do that."

Sometimes federally funded environmental groups also sue the government.

On July 1, 1997, the National Wildlife Federation sued the EPA over water quality. The same day, it applied for a $70,000 EPA clean-water grant, records show. A few weeks later, it got the money.

The federation succeeded with its suit as well, eventually getting the federal government to pay its $14,000 legal costs.

"The government is doing a lot of good work. ... And we work with them wherever possible," said Philip Kavits, vice president of communications for the federation. "By the same token, that does not, in any way, insulate the government from (legal action) where we feel they are doing the wrong thing."

Some lawmakers have raised concerns about the EPA's "practice of providing grants to organizations that have initiated legal action against the agency," according to the GAO.

Most federal support for environmental groups is put to work in a more pragmatic manner: to buy land and protect habitat.

One such arrangement is unfolding along a stretch of the Sacramento River in Northern California where The Nature Conservancy purchased 67 acres -- then sold a piece to the government.

A mix of orchards and cropland, the place is no scenic wilderness. But a 27-acre piece of forest and savannah along the river is vital habitat for many species, including migratory songbirds.

That is what drew the attention of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is seeking to expand its holdings in the heavily farmed Sacramento Valley.

But last year, when the parcel came up for sale, the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't have the cash. Nor did it want the farmland. Enter the conservancy. "We stepped in and held the property as an interim owner," said Sam Lawson, director of the conservancy's Sacramento River project.

Today, the conservancy has sliced and diced the land into saleable units. For $71,980 in federal funds, the river section will soon become part of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge. The farm portion is to be sold to a local grower.

"It's a win-win for everyone," said Glenn County Supervisor Denny Bungarz. "Land suitable for habitat goes into habitat. Land that should stay in agriculture stays in agriculture."

Yet such transactions generate suspicion among conservatives.

"Land purchases are an extremely political matter and an increasingly controversial policy," said Christopher Morris, who scrutinizes environmental groups for the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

"There is nothing inherently wrong about The Nature Conservancy wanting to preserve scenic places," Morris said. "But the scope of its efforts ... come at the expense of private landowners.

And, he charged, "the conservancy also makes money" by selling land to the government.

Lawson insisted that that's not the case.

"We have a 'no-net-profit' rule, which says we are not allowed to sell (land) to a government agency for more than we paid for it," he said.

On the Sacramento River property, records show the conservancy sold the 27 acres to the Fish and Wildlife Service for just what it paid for it: $71,980.

International conservation is another huge ticket item. Last year, more than $37 million in federal funds were routed, through environmental groups, to programs outside the United States. A small portion -- $1.7 million -- ended up in the lowland rain forests of northern Guatemala where Conservation International is using it to establish sustainable farming practices, set up health clinics and jump-start a new industry, eco-tourism, in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve.

"People are willing to pay big money to hike into the forest and camp out and explore the Mayan ruins with somebody who knows something about it," said James Nations, a Conservation International vice president.

One 1997 foreign award to the Natural Resources Defense Council even had links to a prominent politician: then-Vice President Al Gore.

The goal of the $20,000 Department of Energy grant was to support Peter Miller, an NRDC scientist, in testing an ultraviolet water purification system in South Africa. The low-cost process has potential for improving public health in developing nations.

After the work was complete, NRDC sent a billing letter to the government, which said, "DOE requested that we initiate the effort at this time in order to have a site ready for the visit of Vice President Al Gore and the meeting of the U.S./South Africa Bi-national Commission in February."

In the end, though, Gore didn't show up.

"We would have hoped to get some nice publicity but, frankly, it was more of a pain," said Miller. "We kind of scrambled around trying to get the thing set up in time for him to visit so he can get the photo op -- and he went to some other project."

|||

The Bee's Tom Knudson can be reached at (530) 582-5336 or tknudson@sacbee.com.

16 posted on 01/03/2002 8:31:19 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the Pings J
17 posted on 01/03/2002 8:32:00 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holyscroller
Good for Landmark. By funding these groups, we (the taxpayers) are funding our own destruction. They shouldn't be getting a dime of taxpayer funding. Let them raise their own money from their few supporters and see how effective they are.

At least this will alert some of the public to this abuse. I certainly have high hopes for Mark to succeed here.

18 posted on 01/03/2002 8:34:12 AM PST by tubebender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor;holdonnow
I'm glad to see someone investigating this. Let 'em raise their own money, not extort & extract it from us!
19 posted on 01/03/2002 8:38:18 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
INAFL = I'm Not A F***ing Lawyer

Maybe I should have used the no-contraction version: IANAFL

20 posted on 01/03/2002 8:43:37 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: backhoe, holdonnow
I am so glad this is happening. Thank you Mark! Go get um....and get that information ASAP!

I recoil when I think of the horrors our tax money supports. How awful to think that our tax money is used to support agendas we find replusive and marxist. Thank you for caring, Mark! WE LOVE YA!

21 posted on 01/03/2002 8:43:53 AM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
The grant money is probably just used to pay off the people who are planting evidence of endangered species
22 posted on 01/03/2002 8:44:49 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: editor-surveyor
Ping! Sometimes the only ones going to the government trough are activists who lean more toward the environmentalist wacko position. I think groups like eco-logic need to come forward and counter them. So do the conservationists.
24 posted on 01/03/2002 9:00:52 AM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix
"Thanks for the Pings"

Yes, they're cheaper by the dozen!

I don't know if it is just me, but for the past week I have had boo-coo dificulty with posting articles, and replies. - Very slow, lots of error messages, etc. - Sometimes I think that it didn't post due to the "400" series errors so I re-do it :-)

25 posted on 01/03/2002 9:07:24 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the heads up, good article
26 posted on 01/03/2002 9:20:15 AM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
"Environmental groups represent tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of ordinary citizens," he said.

"Efforts to tie a gag around groups, to cut them off from any access to government grants seeks to undermine essential parts of public involvement in the democratic process," Replogle said.

"This is a little uncomfortable," said Mark Rey, a Department of Agriculture undersecretary who oversees the Forest Service. "But getting people together and finding consensus (on wildfire issues) requires a certain amount of discomfort."

Doesn't it seem like these leftists make this stuff up as they go along? They must be giggling inside when they get away with it.

Mark Rey is the Clinton era bureaucrat who just approved the plan which will lead to massive infernos in the Sierra Nevada forest.

27 posted on 01/03/2002 9:44:57 AM PST by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
Makes the Federal money which may fund a gay and lesbian retirement home in Florida seem like chump change, doesn't it?

Yes indeed. These kinds of things are legion in our current nation.

I suppose if more people had questioned as I do today, only 150 years or so ago, maybe we'd be in a different boat. Just a daydream of mine, please disregard.

28 posted on 01/03/2002 9:53:38 AM PST by Lumberjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The 'about time' comment is correct. Several years ago, Insight magazine ran a story about how various groups were receiving $$$$ from the fedgov, i.e., a lot of the environuts, that group that is a seniors' group, etc.

Only worse than the giving of our money to any of these groups is the ARROGANT REFUSAL TO PROVIDE ACCOUNTING!!

29 posted on 01/03/2002 9:54:13 AM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Amen!
30 posted on 01/03/2002 10:55:05 AM PST by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Yes, they're cheaper by the dozen!
Hey...a
Gilbreth BUMP!
31 posted on 01/03/2002 11:06:41 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor;Mudboy Slim
"Landmark sources also say they suspect federal agencies are not tracking how the money is used. The legal foundation says it was forced to file suit against EPA, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management and the Agriculture Department's Forest Service when the agencies did not respond to FOIA requests filed in October 2001. The legal foundation is expected to file a similar suit in the next few weeks against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service."

Question for you, e-s?
Could it be these departments are so infested with Leftist activists posing as bureaucrats that the Bush Administration actually is intimidated by the potential for political suicide if they were to intervene visa vi Ashcroft's Justice Department?
The entire matter has a peculiar smell about it which I cannot quite put my finger on, is why I ask.
This doesn't even begin to square.

...are the fed liviathon bureaucratic inmates running the Federal penitentiary, here; or, is this by design?

32 posted on 01/03/2002 11:16:54 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner
Mark Rey is the Clinton era bureaucrat who just approved the plan which will lead to massive infernos in the Sierra Nevada forest.

I read that one. Bush really let the country down, I'm afraid: Agriculture chief upholds management plan for 11.5 million acres of Sierra

Doesn't it seem like these leftists make this stuff up as they go along?

Yeah, they always come up with lame "dog ate my homework" excuses like the mental adolescents they are. But so far that tactic seems to work on the dumbed-down American public.

They seem to have difficulty understanding that if you "preserve" the forest by not allowing any logging, then you are really condemning it to a fiery [and early] death.

33 posted on 01/03/2002 11:37:15 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Hey, we now know how much a farmer gets in government support thanks to an enviral group!

Payback is only appropriate. We should know down to the penny how much of our tax $'s go to the various enviral groups so they can then attack us!

Also, I want to know how much the Opecker Nations, like Saudi Arabia, contribute to these envirals, who in turn, contribute to people like Da$$hole, Boxer, ChiFi, Kennedy, and on down the line. Then, these and other senators work 24/7 since 1973 to make us more dependent on Opecker oil. Da$$hole alone has kept us from drilling in Anwar to lessen our dependence on Opecker oil!

34 posted on 01/03/2002 12:05:28 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
SC posted, "The grant money is probably just used to pay off the people who are planting evidence of endangered species."

The money probably went to some enviral think tank which came up with planting the linx hairs. Then they hosted seminars for the various envrial organizations that hate America 24/7. Ran the seminars which were packed with Forestry Service People, Interior Dept. people, Epa people, USDA people and other govermental wh$res for envirals! At these seminars, these governmental wh$res for envirals learned how to plant the lynx hairs and where to order them. Then if they got caught to use the old ACLU excuse for drug dealers when they get caught, "I was just working for the good guys and testing the system! I wasn't doing anything wrong!"

They know that even with changes of administrations, these Feds stay employed and can carry out their anti American envirals scams from Lynx hairs, Spotted Owls, Sucker Fish and the upcoming Red Legged Frog. They know that we can't shoot nor fire these federal employees regardless of what they do!

35 posted on 01/03/2002 12:17:37 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: holyscroller
Why is it that Justice for the country seems to come EXTERNAL of the DOJ, and our Federal Government?

Go Landmark! Mark Levin for Supreme Court!

Can we pass some sort of law that says if a Government Agency fails to comply with a FOIA or Court ruling to release info, the Agency staff are FIRED (unless National Security is involved)?

36 posted on 01/03/2002 12:25:10 PM PST by Itzlzha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"Could it be these departments are so infested with Leftist activists posing as bureaucrats that the Bush Administration actually is intimidated..."

That W seems intimidated seems obvious. - The question is why?

He is enjoying historically unparalleled public support, and I am convinced that the public is so radically anti-bureaucrat that failing to act is a far more likely source of public displeasure.

37 posted on 01/03/2002 1:09:41 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie;SierraWasp;Jeff Head;AuntB;farmfriend;randita;sauropod
I thought post#16 would be like throwing red meat into the middle of a pack of Dobermans...or bringing a chain saw to a Sierra Club meeting...

I have an excuse: I'm snowed in here in WNC. What's yours?

38 posted on 01/03/2002 1:14:09 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
May be because most have already seen it. Busy marketing a product and managing distribution. Setting up for a mailing to a batch of university department heads. I'll take any prayers I can get.
39 posted on 01/03/2002 1:59:05 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
To tell you the truth, I haven't seen any evidence that he has a strong disagreement with environmentalism. He restored his ranch to a natural state. He may be in favor of ANWR because we need the oil. Otherwise, he doesn't pay much attention. He put a lightweight Republican woman in charge of Interior. He turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Klamath farmers. He doesn't seem to care about the principle of private property vs. government confiscation. Right now he may have put the brakes on implementing the Sierra Nevada plan, but eventually it will go through.

Bush is a terrific politician. He's positioning himself for his next Presidential run. He has to court the Western vote. Which way do you think the majority of urban voters think about preserving forests? It wouldn't be popular to take a strong stand against a popular environmental cause like "preserving the forest" in California--a state that is critical for him to win. This is pure speculation on my part, of course. And what do I know? I'm just a Westerner.

40 posted on 01/03/2002 2:09:34 PM PST by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: snopercod; editor-surveyor
Thanks for the repost; I had not seen this previously.

"When the government funds a group to do things you may not disagree with, it frees up resources for it to do things you do disagree with," said O'Toole.

Exactly !!
The federal government has no authority to provide any funding to any specific group, regardless of their political or social position. It is getting close to the time when we will need to reacquaint the new Tories in DC of the consequences brought on by The Declaration of Independence.

Thanks for the ping, e-s.

41 posted on 01/03/2002 2:17:31 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Any organization that receives any taxpayer money should be required to post a prominent notice to that effect on all fund-raising appeals [at least].
42 posted on 01/03/2002 2:26:46 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
--about time! I hope those leaders of those orgs get some jail time out of it as well, and it shocks the sheeples into stopping the 'voluntary" funding as well as cutting off the fed gov tax payer ripped off coerced at freeking GUNPOINT money funding.
43 posted on 01/03/2002 2:26:56 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"That W seems intimidated seems obvious. - The question is why?"

I'm sorry, e-s; when I cannot understand a person's mode of reasoning?
I can't in good conscious ccite their motive, "obvious."
Merely not understood; to me.

"He is enjoying historically unparalleled public support..."

Yea; thanks to the towl head SOBs; only.

"...and I am convinced that the public is so radically anti-bureaucrat..."

Again; I disagree.
I only use, for example, the bold & shameless behavior(s) of Dashole as proof many are not radically anti-bureaucrat!
"Pro-American" at a time when she's threatened?
Yea, sure.
Don'tcha think it might be somewhat hasty to assume the average 'rat voter's support for Dubya is a statement of an anti-bureaucratic sentiment?
The main Lib pigs don't seem to think so.

Many of these pro-Dubya bozos are nuzzled-up to the public teet in one way or another; just remind 'em of that & watch what happens then, & methinks Dubya's aware of this finickiness.
Surely you remember the Yellow Stone Park vendor quoted here, there, and everywhere during the '95 (?) Thanksgiving budget showdown?? Hmmmm?
There're a lot of those type of people out there who're on the one hand very patriotic in their support of a POTUS during a time like this, and just as spirited in their support of the clymers who protect their place at the nipple.
Add to that, Dubya's got to plan his moves around an incredibly viscious, maniacal Liberal Lamestream media minefield on any & all things the Liberals lay claim to? (enviro-socio-racial et al issues)
Means, you, I, US are (probably) not going to know what the hell's happened with this guy's administration until after the fact?
Hell, look how he's running the war abroad to get a clue how he's got to run the one here at home.

"...that failing to act is a far more likely source of public displeasure."

To us; his base -- his shifting base.
A base which is continually being minimized by one side, the other, or both at one time or another; depending what outcome they want?

...anyway; that's how it seems to me.

44 posted on 01/03/2002 2:42:54 PM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner
Bush is a terrific politician. He's positioning himself for his next Presidential run

Translation: Bush cares more about getting re-elected than about property rights or the environment.

45 posted on 01/03/2002 3:26:46 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

...and one more thing, I am sick and tired of so-called conservatives selling us out. And I am also sick and tired of people excusing sellout after sellout as "good politics":

What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom , cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

--Ayn Rand, Conservatism, an Obituary

46 posted on 01/03/2002 3:33:50 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: brityank;Grampa Dave;snopercod
"The federal government has no authority to provide any funding to any specific group, regardless of their political or social position."

While I was in government, I developed tinitus in my left ear from the constant din of the leftist buzz phrase... "Public/Private Partnership!"

It was part of "Reinventing Government!" It was to provide opportunities for "collaberation" between Non-Governmental Organizations(NGO's) and the world's greatest "Democracy!"

It always lead to ways to use taxpayer extractions called a "revenue stream" to throw money down some stream on some stupid "erosion control" or "watershed restoration" or "viewshed restoration" or "hysterical (excuse me) historical restoration" or some other pet project of the CA Native Plant Society, or the Audubon Society, or the American River Conservancy, yada, yada, yada... BARF!!!

snopercod, as to post #16, that is called "chummin the waters for rants!" Right?

47 posted on 01/03/2002 4:58:31 PM PST by SierraWasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the waste, fraud and corruption ping.
48 posted on 01/03/2002 5:25:52 PM PST by sistergoldenhair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
Good deal. This is a racket-- I've read about it from other sources as well-- and it needs to stop. But, as far as I am concerned, money is fungible. Our government should not be in the business of giving money to political groups, period. If the organization in question participates in any political activities at all, it should not receive federal funds and that rule should be applied to ALL activist groups, not just environmental ones. Research grants should be given to research organizations exclusively. Or, more accurately, the government should subcontract and pay for research from research organizations with no political agendas or affiliations.
49 posted on 01/03/2002 6:02:54 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walden
We understand that this Save the Whales group rec'd a disproportionate share! Something smells here!

SAVE THE REALLY BIG WHALES?

50 posted on 01/03/2002 6:10:35 PM PST by stlrocket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson