New Sierra Club leaders needed
February 3, 2004
Until fairly recently, the Sierra Club responsibly endorsed U.S. population stabilization with measured, sustainable immigration levels.
Then came political correctness, mass immigration, a rumored $5 million buy-off to keep population matters off the club’s agenda, more corrupting millions in corporate money, and the club’s board took a radical about-face and fashioned a nontraditional, “neutral”-castrated-immigration/population policy.
The club now treats overpopulation as a “global issue” (exclusively) requiring global solutions, dismissing the environmental imperative, Think Globally-Act Locally. It is curious and telling that the club’s bosses understand that deforestation is a global issue, but they aren’t waiting for some miracle global deforestation cure. Hell no! They are litigating, lobbying and exhorting locally, not globally.
That’s why David Brower ” the grand man of 20th century environmentalism and longest holder of a board seat in the club’s history ” just before his death in 2000, resigned from the board, saying, “The world is burning and all I hear from [the club’s board] is the music of violins. Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed.”
Just who are these “insurgents candidates” cited in last week’s article as supported by “misanthropes” “racists” and “extremists” holding “anti-human views” and who are plotting a palace coup to takeover the club’s board and supplant its Old Guard?
They are Cornell University professor David Pimentel, a modest, unassuming humanitarian and one of the world’s most important environmental scientists; Dr. Frank Morris, a sweet, soft-spoken, gentle man, a long-time civil rights activist, a scholar, educator and the former director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; and Colorado’s former three-term governor, Dick Lamm, who, as a young lawyer, cut his legal teeth on civil rights and environmental law.
Recommended Stories For You
Proffered as evidence to support the accusations, the article asserted, “All three have been outspoken advocates of controlling population growth or restricting immigration.” Knowing all three personally, I belly-laughed myself to the floor at the suggestion that these three could collectively generate even a single calorie of misanthropy to move the indicator on the I-hate-people meter.
In an e-mail to a club member from its executive director, Carl Pope ” appropriately tagged on the Internet as “Letter from the Pope” ” the Pope unconvincingly denied complicity in this orchestrated smear campaign. He then went on to write, “… it is also the truth that there is a concerted and substantial effort on the part of people who are racists to intervene [in the club’s elections].”
This isn’t the first time the Pope and his inner circle have engaged in maniacal machinations, but this most recent weasel-worded outburst is much more aggressive and vitriolic, an indication of just how desperate things must appear from inside the palace walls.
That explains why the Pope and his court, paranoid and jealous of their entrenched power and position, launched this latest offensive which, in style and smell, move for move, is right out of Joseph McCarthy’s playbook on character assassination.
Regime change, indeed, must come to the Sierra Club.