For years, the Sierra Club has refused to support population stabilization and immigration reduction, preferring to concentrate its efforts on selling scenic calendars and urging people to bicycle to work.
The Club's lack of seriousness and vision was, I assumed, attributable to many of its members inhabiting loony left catchment areas such as the San Francisco Bay cities. In places like that, you buy into the whole multi-culti, p.c. ideology or else you are a pariah dog.
However, a subset of Sierra Club members calling themselves SUSPS (Support U.S. Population Stabilization) is unhappy that their organization avoids the obvious conclusion that tearaway population growth — most significantly caused by immigrants with high fertility rates — is the main reason our cities are sprawling all over creation, traffic gets worse all the time, and you have to make reservations well in advance to visit our popular national parks.
Not only that. SUSPS has found evidence that the Sierra Club has, literally, sold out.
Is it any wonder that the Sierra Club, supposedly the environment's best friend, will not stoop to mere principle?
Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations. Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy.
Human nature being what it is, the Sierra Club's surrender to greed isn't unusual. Organizations that start out dedicated to good causes all too often sink into institutional tar pits. The organization takes on a life of its own, and one that comes before any other consideration.
Maybe SUSPS can spank some sense into the Sierra Club, a big, fat, spoiled child. But my suggestion to the SUSPS members and other environmental realists is that they leave the Sierra Club in the hands of its Liberal Establishment plutocrats and instead support Numbers USA, a group that knows where those numbers are coming from and is doing everything they can to counteract the most serious environmental threat.
"Hey, Gringo, don't look now but we're taking your country."