Fake Environmentalists Exposed

America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San
Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to
grapple with their elephant in the living room, namely the U.S.
population explosion caused almost entirely by immigration. Now, as the
nation approaches 300 million, the enviro-elites' denial is becoming
hard to ignore.

The environmental establishment has mostly abandoned talking about the
nation's growing populace, particularly as it relates to immigration.
The topic is dogged by internal squabbles, divisive politics and a
desire to avoid ethnic discrimination.

One result is that ecological factors are rarely mentioned in the
current effort to establish a new immigration policy. The debate mostly
centers on economics and national security.

"People have been avoiding it like the plague," said U.S. Rep.
Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, a hawk on illegal-immigration issues.

"[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their
stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends'
toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are
willing to look the other way."

"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more
U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program
director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth
protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else."

How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their
annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American
environment was worth saving? And despite the obvious global
interconnectedness of natural systems, we citizens have far more to say
about what is done in our own country than across the planet.

The Sierra Club in particular is corrupt to the core, having accepted a
"donation" of $100 million on the condition that immoderate
immigration not be mentioned as detrimental to environmental
preservation.

The article included a preview of a report to be published in
September, with some disturbing news about America's environmental
health.

About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes
are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological
filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year,
mainly because of development.

Roughly 6,700 species in the country are at risk of extinction, most
often because of habitat loss.

Half of the continental United States no longer supports native
vegetation, largely because people have altered the terrain
significantly.

See the theme running through? Too many people crowding up the place,
paving over every living thing in sight. And Bush's Washington is
planning on importing at least 100 million more in the next 20 to 35
years.

But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American
overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846

On 15 Aug 2006 05:42:51 -0700, landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote:

>America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San
>Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to
>grapple with their elephant in the living room, namely the U.S.
>population explosion caused almost entirely by immigration. Now, as the
>nation approaches 300 million, the enviro-elites' denial is becoming
>hard to ignore.
>
>The environmental establishment has mostly abandoned talking about the
>nation's growing populace, particularly as it relates to immigration.
>The topic is dogged by internal squabbles, divisive politics and a
>desire to avoid ethnic discrimination.
>
>One result is that ecological factors are rarely mentioned in the
>current effort to establish a new immigration policy. The debate mostly
>centers on economics and national security.
>
>"People have been avoiding it like the plague," said U.S. Rep.
>Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, a hawk on illegal-immigration issues.
>
>"[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their
>stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends'
>toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are
>willing to look the other way."
>
>"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more
>U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program
>director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth
>protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else."
>
>How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their
>annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American
>environment was worth saving? And despite the obvious global
>interconnectedness of natural systems, we citizens have far more to say
>about what is done in our own country than across the planet.
>
>The Sierra Club in particular is corrupt to the core, having accepted a
>"donation" of $100 million on the condition that immoderate
>immigration not be mentioned as detrimental to environmental
>preservation.
>
>The article included a preview of a report to be published in
>September, with some disturbing news about America's environmental
>health.
>
>About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes
>are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological
>filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year,
>mainly because of development.
>
>Roughly 6,700 species in the country are at risk of extinction, most
>often because of habitat loss.
>
>Half of the continental United States no longer supports native
>vegetation, largely because people have altered the terrain
>significantly.
>
>See the theme running through? Too many people crowding up the place,
>paving over every living thing in sight. And Bush's Washington is
>planning on importing at least 100 million more in the next 20 to 35
>years.
>
>But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American
>overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse."
>
>http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846

Some of this certainly applies in the UK and the following paragraph
definitely applies to the fake conservationists who don't want to step
on the toes of their shooting and hunting friends.

"[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their
stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends'
toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are
willing to look the other way."

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message <1155645770.934030.267790@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
landnotloans@hotmail.com writes

>"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more
>U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program
>director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth
>protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else."
>
>How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their
>annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American
>environment was worth saving?

But the statement "the entire planet is worth protecting, not the U.S.
over anywhere else" does not imply or equate to "...didn't believe the
American
environment was worth saving".

>But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American
>overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse."
>
>http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846

Possibly not, but why not consider populations from a world rather than
local point of view ?

J/.
--
John Beardmore

amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
>
> Some of this certainly applies in the UK and the following paragraph
> definitely applies to the fake conservationists who don't want to step
> on the toes of their shooting and hunting friends.

Hunting and fishing are certainly compatible with sustainability, but the
England and Wales Green Party ducks the issue of immigration (and hence
population) control, promoting an ecologically and socially disasterous
laissez-faire policy of completely open borders. The nearest they come to
tackling this core issue is the ultra-vague and weak aim to "promote debate on
sustainable population levels".

They trot out the usual lie that trying to live within the carrying capacity of
the land is "racist" or "defending privilege".

However their policies are somewhat two-faced, possibly reflecting the presence
of a subset of relatively sane members, deliberate spin or general ideological
incoherence. While they oppose deportation of illegal immigrants, they also
have a contradictory policy:

"MG204 Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward
migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied:
a) The ecology of the recipient area would be significantly adversely affected
by in-comers to the detriment of the wider community (eg. National Parks,
Antarctica);
b) The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg
Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely
affected by in-comers;"

However the most probable explanation of this contradiction is PC bigotry which
means this is not meant to apply to Britain.

Also they state [immigration policy] "will not aim to allow increased net
migration to Britain other than for humanitarian reasons or as a result of other
Green Party policies" which seems to be dishonest greenwash with sufficient
caveats designed to allow their specific anti-sustainable policies.

So if you want an ecological disaster, vote Green.

Toby

landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote:
> America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San
> Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to
> grapple with their elephant in the living room namely the U.S.
> population explosion

Wrong. Population Connection ( http://www.zpg.org ) has been dealing
with both worldwide AND U.S. overpopulation issues for over 20 years.

> caused almost entirely by immigration.

Wrong. Population growth in the U.S. is caused about half by
immigration, half by Caucasian family growth. ( http://www.census.gov
).

> "Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more
> U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program
> director in Washington, D.C.

Again, SIERRA CLUB DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE GREEN PARTY.

> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846

Racist source. And the author accuses Sierra Club of lacking
credibility? Pot calls the kettle what?

/Roy

In article <1155645770.934030.267790@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote:
>America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San
>Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to
>grapple with their elephant in the living room, namely the U.S.
>population explosion caused almost entirely by immigration. Now, as the
>nation approaches 300 million, the enviro-elites' denial is becoming
>hard to ignore.
>
>The environmental establishment has mostly abandoned talking about the
>nation's growing populace, particularly as it relates to immigration.
>The topic is dogged by internal squabbles, divisive politics and a
>desire to avoid ethnic discrimination.
>
>One result is that ecological factors are rarely mentioned in the
>current effort to establish a new immigration policy. The debate mostly
>centers on economics and national security.
>

Another xenophobic bigot who wants to take over the environmental movement and
use it to force his eugenics on everyone.

>"People have been avoiding it like the plague," said U.S. Rep.
>Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, a hawk on illegal-immigration issues.
>
>"[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their
>stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends'
>toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are
>willing to look the other way."
>
>"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more
>U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program
>director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth
>protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else."
>
>How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their
>annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American
>environment was worth saving? And despite the obvious global
>interconnectedness of natural systems, we citizens have far more to say
>about what is done in our own country than across the planet.
>
>The Sierra Club in particular is corrupt to the core, having accepted a
>"donation" of $100 million on the condition that immoderate
>immigration not be mentioned as detrimental to environmental
>preservation.
>
>The article included a preview of a report to be published in
>September, with some disturbing news about America's environmental
>health.
>
>About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes
>are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological
>filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year,
>mainly because of development.
>
>Roughly 6,700 species in the country are at risk of extinction, most
>often because of habitat loss.
>
>Half of the continental United States no longer supports native
>vegetation, largely because people have altered the terrain
>significantly.
>
>See the theme running through? Too many people crowding up the place,
>paving over every living thing in sight. And Bush's Washington is
>planning on importing at least 100 million more in the next 20 to 35
>years.
>
>But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American
>overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse."
>
>http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846
>

Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote:
> > America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San
> > Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to
> > grapple with their elephant in the living room namely the U.S.
> > population explosion
>
> Wrong. Population Connection ( http://www.zpg.org ) has been dealing
> with both worldwide AND U.S. overpopulation issues for over 20 years.
>
> > caused almost entirely by immigration.
>
> Wrong. Population growth in the U.S. is caused about half by
> immigration, half by Caucasian family growth. ( http://www.census.gov
> ).
>
> > "Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more
> > U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program
> > director in Washington, D.C.
>
> Again, SIERRA CLUB DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE GREEN PARTY.
>
> > http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846
>
> Racist source.

Ad hominem. Don't attack the source, address the arguments.

There certainly are racist groups glomming on to the
overpopulation/immigration issue. But just because these racist groups
essentially have the same stance on the illegal immigration issue as
other individuals, that does not make these other individuals racists.
It's just not logical.

For example, David Brower's position on illegal immigration is the same
as some racist groups, therefore David Brower was a racist? Yikes. I
know you didn't say that, but that's essentially the argument many of
the folks in orgs like the Sierra Club have been using against people
like David Pimentel, who tried to run for the board of directors and
was labeled a racist.

I don't blame the people who are trying to get into this country for
doing what they're doing; you or I or any other human being would do
the same thing if in their shoes. But where do you draw the line?

The first step would be for our government to actually acknowledge the
overpopulation issue, and then include illegal immigration reform as
part of an overall plan to address overpopulation. Then maybe we can
get to the actual root causes instead of just dealing with the
symptoms.

> And the author accuses Sierra Club of lacking
> credibility? Pot calls the kettle what?
>
> /Roy

	#1
landnotloans@hotmail.com	Fake Environmentalists Exposed America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to grapple with their elephant in the living room, namely the U.S. population explosion caused almost entirely by immigration. Now, as the nation approaches 300 million, the enviro-elites' denial is becoming hard to ignore. The environmental establishment has mostly abandoned talking about the nation's growing populace, particularly as it relates to immigration. The topic is dogged by internal squabbles, divisive politics and a desire to avoid ethnic discrimination. One result is that ecological factors are rarely mentioned in the current effort to establish a new immigration policy. The debate mostly centers on economics and national security. "People have been avoiding it like the plague," said U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, a hawk on illegal-immigration issues. "[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends' toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are willing to look the other way." "Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else." How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American environment was worth saving? And despite the obvious global interconnectedness of natural systems, we citizens have far more to say about what is done in our own country than across the planet. The Sierra Club in particular is corrupt to the core, having accepted a "donation" of $100 million on the condition that immoderate immigration not be mentioned as detrimental to environmental preservation. The article included a preview of a report to be published in September, with some disturbing news about America's environmental health. About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year, mainly because of development. Roughly 6,700 species in the country are at risk of extinction, most often because of habitat loss. Half of the continental United States no longer supports native vegetation, largely because people have altered the terrain significantly. See the theme running through? Too many people crowding up the place, paving over every living thing in sight. And Bush's Washington is planning on importing at least 100 million more in the next 20 to 35 years. But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse." http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846

	#2
amacmil304@aol.com	Re: Fake Environmentalists Exposed On 15 Aug 2006 05:42:51 -0700, landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote: >America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San >Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to >grapple with their elephant in the living room, namely the U.S. >population explosion caused almost entirely by immigration. Now, as the >nation approaches 300 million, the enviro-elites' denial is becoming >hard to ignore. > >The environmental establishment has mostly abandoned talking about the >nation's growing populace, particularly as it relates to immigration. >The topic is dogged by internal squabbles, divisive politics and a >desire to avoid ethnic discrimination. > >One result is that ecological factors are rarely mentioned in the >current effort to establish a new immigration policy. The debate mostly >centers on economics and national security. > >"People have been avoiding it like the plague," said U.S. Rep. >Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, a hawk on illegal-immigration issues. > >"[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their >stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends' >toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are >willing to look the other way." > >"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more >U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program >director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth >protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else." > >How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their >annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American >environment was worth saving? And despite the obvious global >interconnectedness of natural systems, we citizens have far more to say >about what is done in our own country than across the planet. > >The Sierra Club in particular is corrupt to the core, having accepted a >"donation" of $100 million on the condition that immoderate >immigration not be mentioned as detrimental to environmental >preservation. > >The article included a preview of a report to be published in >September, with some disturbing news about America's environmental >health. > >About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes >are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological >filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year, >mainly because of development. > >Roughly 6,700 species in the country are at risk of extinction, most >often because of habitat loss. > >Half of the continental United States no longer supports native >vegetation, largely because people have altered the terrain >significantly. > >See the theme running through? Too many people crowding up the place, >paving over every living thing in sight. And Bush's Washington is >planning on importing at least 100 million more in the next 20 to 35 >years. > >But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American >overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse." > >http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846 Some of this certainly applies in the UK and the following paragraph definitely applies to the fake conservationists who don't want to step on the toes of their shooting and hunting friends. "[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends' toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are willing to look the other way." Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

	#3
John Beardmore	Re: Fake Environmentalists Exposed In message <1155645770.934030.267790@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, landnotloans@hotmail.com writes >"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more >U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program >director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth >protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else." > >How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their >annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American >environment was worth saving? But the statement "the entire planet is worth protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else" does not imply or equate to "...didn't believe the American environment was worth saving". >But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American >overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse." > >http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846 Possibly not, but why not consider populations from a world rather than local point of view ? J/. -- John Beardmore

	#4
Toby Kelsey	Green Party population policy [was: Re: Fake Environmentalists Exposed] amacmil304@aol.com wrote: > > Some of this certainly applies in the UK and the following paragraph > definitely applies to the fake conservationists who don't want to step > on the toes of their shooting and hunting friends. Hunting and fishing are certainly compatible with sustainability, but the England and Wales Green Party ducks the issue of immigration (and hence population) control, promoting an ecologically and socially disasterous laissez-faire policy of completely open borders. The nearest they come to tackling this core issue is the ultra-vague and weak aim to "promote debate on sustainable population levels". They trot out the usual lie that trying to live within the carrying capacity of the land is "racist" or "defending privilege". However their policies are somewhat two-faced, possibly reflecting the presence of a subset of relatively sane members, deliberate spin or general ideological incoherence. While they oppose deportation of illegal immigrants, they also have a contradictory policy: "MG204 Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied: a) The ecology of the recipient area would be significantly adversely affected by in-comers to the detriment of the wider community (eg. National Parks, Antarctica); b) The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers;" However the most probable explanation of this contradiction is PC bigotry which means this is not meant to apply to Britain. Also they state [immigration policy] "will not aim to allow increased net migration to Britain other than for humanitarian reasons or as a result of other Green Party policies" which seems to be dishonest greenwash with sufficient caveats designed to allow their specific anti-sustainable policies. So if you want an ecological disaster, vote Green. Toby

	#5
Roy. Just Roy.	Re: Fake Environmentalists Exposed landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote: > America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San > Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to > grapple with their elephant in the living room namely the U.S. > population explosion Wrong. Population Connection ( http://www.zpg.org ) has been dealing with both worldwide AND U.S. overpopulation issues for over 20 years. > caused almost entirely by immigration. Wrong. Population growth in the U.S. is caused about half by immigration, half by Caucasian family growth. ( http://www.census.gov ). > "Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more > U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program > director in Washington, D.C. Again, SIERRA CLUB DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE GREEN PARTY. > http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846 Racist source. And the author accuses Sierra Club of lacking credibility? Pot calls the kettle what? /Roy

	#6
Lloyd Parker	Re: Fake Environmentalists Exposed In article <1155645770.934030.267790@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote: >America: taking it to the limit?, published August 6, 2006 in the San >Diego Union Tribune, details environmental organizations' refusal to >grapple with their elephant in the living room, namely the U.S. >population explosion caused almost entirely by immigration. Now, as the >nation approaches 300 million, the enviro-elites' denial is becoming >hard to ignore. > >The environmental establishment has mostly abandoned talking about the >nation's growing populace, particularly as it relates to immigration. >The topic is dogged by internal squabbles, divisive politics and a >desire to avoid ethnic discrimination. > >One result is that ecological factors are rarely mentioned in the >current effort to establish a new immigration policy. The debate mostly >centers on economics and national security. > Another xenophobic bigot who wants to take over the environmental movement and use it to force his eugenics on everyone. >"People have been avoiding it like the plague," said U.S. Rep. >Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, a hawk on illegal-immigration issues. > >"[Environmentalists]will sidestep major challenges to what their >stated goal is because it may end up stepping on political friends' >toes," he said. "They have credibility problems when they are >willing to look the other way." > >"Some people...want the Sierra Club to have a position that is more >U.S.-centric," said Stephen Mills, the club's international program >director in Washington, D.C. "We feel that the entire planet is worth >protecting, not the U.S. over anywhere else." > >How many average Sierra Club members would continue to send their >annual dues if they knew the management didn't believe the American >environment was worth saving? And despite the obvious global >interconnectedness of natural systems, we citizens have far more to say >about what is done in our own country than across the planet. > >The Sierra Club in particular is corrupt to the core, having accepted a >"donation" of $100 million on the condition that immoderate >immigration not be mentioned as detrimental to environmental >preservation. > >The article included a preview of a report to be published in >September, with some disturbing news about America's environmental >health. > >About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes >are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological >filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year, >mainly because of development. > >Roughly 6,700 species in the country are at risk of extinction, most >often because of habitat loss. > >Half of the continental United States no longer supports native >vegetation, largely because people have altered the terrain >significantly. > >See the theme running through? Too many people crowding up the place, >paving over every living thing in sight. And Bush's Washington is >planning on importing at least 100 million more in the next 20 to 35 >years. > >But don't expect the compromised faux-greens to criticize American >overpopulation - as long as it's "diverse." > >http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9846 >