Sierra Clubs SUSPS Repudiates Dr. Abernethy, et al.

=v= Glad to hear it, though to my ears 'not rely on the support of' doesn't come across as strongly as, say, 'not accept any support from.'

=v= For example, the relationships described in Mark Dowie's book _Losing_Ground_ would seem to qualify for the former but not for the latter. <_Jym_>

The exact text of the declaration states that the members of SUSPS 'repudiate any support from...' It also says that they are 'shocked and repulsed by ... xenophobes, neo-nazis, and racists of any kind.' I don't know how they could have made that any stronger.

I think it shows great courage for SUSPS to repudiate the support of so many members of the immigration-reduction camp. Even some who have claimed to be SUSPS members. But clearly it is the right thing to do. We should all applaud SUSPS for taking this stand.

I am very pleased to be able to continue to support the Sierra Club too! If the club used our funds to support mean, racist pursuits I'd have to quit.

Thank you, will. SUSPS promotes U.S. population reduction and stabilization at ecological carrying capacity. Incidentally, this is Sierra Club policy. SUSPS disagrees with the Sierra Club that the contribution of mass immigration to U.S. population doubling this century should be ignored - both fertility and immigration need to be addressed.

A good overview of our U.S. population crisis can be viewed at www.SUSPS.org

Actually, that is strictly your opinion. And to tell you the truth, neither I nor SUSPS are interested in your race-baiting witch hunt.

Actually, that is strictly your opinion. Research is research and it will stand or fall on its own.

Actually, that is your opinion. Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one.

SUSPS has never repudiated any individual and is not in the business of doing so. I suspect they might, however, make an exception for race-baiters and witch hunters.

Fred Elbel

Oh, gosh, Willl, I bet they wrote it because they have not solicited support from those with a racial agenda who incidentally want to reduce U.S. population - which is 2/3 driven by mass immigration.

You can read more about SUSPS' concern about U.S. population doubling at www.SUSPS.org .

Now there you go, expressing your opinion again. I'm really glad you have an opinion. Without it, our life would be much less entertaining.

However, it must be elucidated that SUSPS is not interested in your race-baiting witch hunt, nor the ruling of your Kangaroo Court in which due process is distinctly lacking. SUSPS is not judge, jury and executioner and, by the way, neither are you.

SUSPS has never repudiated any individual, but I heard that they may change policy in your case.

Oh, my. Now I am a defender of alleged racial views purportedly held by someone else? That's quite a logical jump - hopscotch, really. Indeed, logic seems not to be your strong suit.

Golly, now you're hanging a second person. Mob rule and vigilanteism went out of style a century ago back in the old West.

Fred Elbel

'Rena,

I agree. I too am very pleased that SUSPS has finally come out against racists, xenophobes, neo-nazis, and all others with racial motives for immigration reduction. If SUSPS had not, and if its endored candidates had gained a majority on the Sierra Club's board, then many of us would have faced the same decision that you mention. Fortunately that was not the case and in fact the club is moving forward stronger than ever.

However I will admit that I am dismayed that at least one SUSPS member, Fred Elbel, has been denying that SUSPS repudiates anyone. He seems to think that it would be appropriate for the Sierra Club to base its policies on the work of people like Dr. Abernethy, John Tanton, or even William Shockley. It is inexplicable to me that on the one hand he would promote SUSPS's agenda within the Sierra Club while at the same time defending the conclusions of theorists who are widely regarded as having racial views on immigration. Unfortunately, Fred is out of step with both the Sierra Club and with SUSPS.

But the rest of SUSPS and the Sierra Club see the bigger picture, and they say 'No to racism, Yes to environmentalism.'

-Will McW.

Honest question from a non-Sierra Clubber: Does 'yes to environmentalism' for the Sierra Club mean reducing immigration and stopping illegal immigration for the sake of the environment? Thanks, Perfesser White

Well, Perfesser, the Sierra Club obviously cannot stop illegal immigration. That is a job for the federal government. I, for one, encourage the feds to enforce all laws against those that harm the environment. I have seen photos of the litter in parks left by border-crossing immigrants and I am appalled. I hope that the feds make sure that the laws against littering are strictly enforced and make sure that our borders are safe.

While many club members favor immigration reduction, the majority have decided that it is not within the club's agenda and have endorsed the board's current policy of club neutrality. That neutrality allows those who have differing opinons on the matter to work together on issues that they do agree on, like littering and pollution.

Fortunately, there are already many organizations which directly address immigration reduction. If that is a topic of interest to you I suggest you look into one of them and consider joining. The Reform Party is a particularly large and influential organization that still needs more support in order to succeed.

Thank you very much, that answers my question. Perfesser White

PS- wouldn't it be ironic if the illegal border crossers were arrested for littering, not for trespass.

ok, lets let everyone in the usa! FOOL!

Why do that?