“Green Activists” disguised as “Charities” re-write history … to avoid criminal charges!!!

Posted: May 9, 2012 in Uncategorized

When the Canadian Government finally has had enough of the meddling in our economic affairs from foreign interests who want nothing more than the complete DESTRUCTION of our country’s ability to thrive, the weasels who have caused the problems are outraged and at the same time scrambling like hell to cover their tracks!

These foul creatures who, for years have had massive amounts of $$$$ funnelled through their clammy hands to try and dismantle our country all in the name of “Green”, are finally on the defensive and may even be charged with criminal acts!

Calling these entities out on their “behind the scenes” manipulation of our political, academic and economic institution’s in our country has “stirred up the hornet’s nest of malcontent’s” and their websites and public statements are being cleansed of any references to past deeds so they don’t face criminal charges.

TOO LATE!

Vivian Krause: Damage control

  May 8, 2012

Green charities rewrite grant descriptions in wake of budget

One of the big American charitable funders of environmental campaigns in Canada and the U.S., the Oak Foundation, has rewritten the publicly stated purpose of several grants to Canadian environmental groups. Three days after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s March 29 budget announced a review of political activity by charities in Canada, Oak said in a website posting that it had “modified and added additional content to some grants to reflect progress, lessons learned and achievements.” But the changes mostly remove aspects of grant descriptions that might draw criticism and regulatory attention.

Oak didn’t say which grants it recently modified. However, a comparison of Oak’s grants before and after the federal budget shows that Oak rewrote grants for oil sands-related campaigns to Tides Canada, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, and the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. The value of the rewritten grants, awarded within the last two years, is more than $1-million.

Oak has offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Europe. The foundation says that it was created by Alan Parker, one of the co-founders of Duty Free Stores. In 2011, Oak granted $158-million to 312 organizations in 41 countries.

Oak is one of the foundations that supports a U.S. strategy called “Design to Win,” in which voter and consumer campaigns are funded as a way to shift investment capital toward solar and wind energy and away from fossil fuels.

This isn’t the first time a U.S. charitable foundation has quietly tweaked multiple grants for a million-dollar campaign. Several years ago, the San Francisco-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation rewrote descriptions of four grants worth $3.6-million for a marketing campaign against farmed salmon. One $560,000 grant originally stated that the expected outcomes were “identification of anti-farming audience and issues, integration of aquaculture science messages into anti-farming campaign, standardization of anti-farming messaging tool-kit, creation of an earned-media campaign, and co-ordination of media for anti-farming ENGOs.” All that was deleted in the rewrite. Since 2003, Moore has granted a total of $93-million to organizations in BC. Of that, $30-million went to Tides Canada.

In all, at least 15 American foundations and environmental groups have rewritten or removed online information since I began tracking the U.S. funding of Canadian environmental campaigns.

The Oak Foundation’s recent rewrites are notable because of the timing — three days after Ottawa’s federal budget announcement — and because the changes significantly alter the stated objectives of the grants. For example, Oak rewrote its description of a grant for $97,131 to the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. The rewritten grant omits a sentence which said, “The desired result [of the grant to West Coast Law] would be a permanent legislative tanker ban and cancellation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.”

Oak also rewrote a $299,879 grant to ForestEthics. The project started in August of 2010 — more than a year earlier — so it seems a bit late to be rewriting the grant.

ForestEthics is not and has never been a federally registered charity in Canada. Instead, until earlier this year, ForestEthics Canada was part of Tides Canada, the sister organization of the U.S. Tides Foundation. U.S. tax returns show that in 2009 alone, Tides Canada paid $783,603 to ForestEthics Canada “for capacity building support.”

Originally, Oak’s grant to ForestEthics was for “creating a perception of economic risk, whereby tar sands imports become less attractive to U.S. corporations and, the Canadian government questions its unbridled support for expanded and unregulated development.” The rewritten, toned-down version says that ForestEthics is funded for “creating awareness” of economic risks rather than “creating perception.” The part about getting the Canadian government to question the Alberta oil industry is gone.

Oak’s original grant description also said that ForestEthics was funded to get at least one Fortune 500 company “to exert influence within the U.S. government to support regulations that will disadvantage Tar Sands fuel.” Those words have been removed.

Oak also rewrote a 2011 grant of $200,000 to Tides Canada to develop “A New Energy Future for Canada.” The original grant said that Tides Canada, which has charitable status in Canada, was funded “to develop a plan and a pathway to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.” Oak also funded Tides Canada “to develop a compelling narrative and use it to sustain critical pressure and focus public attention,” but those details are now gone.

Oak also rewrote details of a grant for $424,373 to Greenpeace for a campaign called “Stop the Tar Sands,” a project that has been underway for more than a year. The original grant said that Greenpeace was funded to get Norway’s Statoil and BP to discontinue investing in the Canadian oil sands. In the rewritten grant, references to Statoil and BP are gone.

Oak’s original grant also said that Greenpeace was funded “to convince a total of 10 Alberta municipalities to support legislation for an Alberta-wide feed-in tariff.” In the re written version, there’s no mention of convincing 10 Alberta municipalities.

Oak’s original grant said that Greenpeace was funded “to create enough financial, regulatory and political uncertainty that prominent financial analysts will publicly state their concern about investments in the tar sands.” The rewritten version says that Greenpeace will “create awareness” of uncertainty in investments in the tar sands. Again, creating awareness and creating uncertainty are not the same; creating uncertainty hardly seems like a typical charitable activity.

READ MORE HERE:

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Georgetta says:

    Hi, i think that i noticed you visited my weblog thus i came to “go
    back the choose”.I’m trying to to find things to enhance my web site!I guess its good enough to make use of some of your ideas!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s