Comrade Obama

Just exactly how does "preserve, protect, and defend" mean "destroy, harm, and attack"?

The Anchoress asks:

When you voted for Obama - if you did - did you think you were voting for socialism? When Obama talked to you about “remaking America” was socialism and “not wasting a good crisis” what you had in mind? Do you really think the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed, and not a bit of genius?

Obama's actions have indeed been foreseeable. The playbook was written long ago --

Obama constantly engages in class warfare:
"The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."

Obama attacks and demonizes the "wealthy" and "investors," blaming them for causing the economic crisis:
"Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

Obama's call for "change":
"Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. . . . Law, morality, religion, are to [the proletarian] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. . . . Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. . . . the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. . . . Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."

Obama the "community organizer":
"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. . . . The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

Obama's master plan of centralizing power:
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
"These measures will of course be different in different countries.
"Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. . . .
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (we have this in the U.S.)
"3. Abolition of all right of inheritance (while inheritance has not been abolished, estate taxes in the U.S. do confiscate substantial portions of decedents' estates) . . . .
"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (we increasingly have this in the U.S., especially following the various bank "bailout" programs)
"6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (we increasingly have this in the U.S. with (a) the Democrat-mainstream media partnership, government ownership of the airwaves, and heavy government regulation of the telephone industry, and (b) anti-car "green" initiatives to force people into public transportation)
"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State (we increasingly have this in the U.S., especially following the various non-bank "bailout" programs). . .
"10. Free education for all children in public schools. (we have this in the U.S., thereby ensuring state control of what children are taught)"

Looking at Obama's history and past associations, his public comments, and his current actions, it is pretty apparent that his guiding ideology is fairly in line with the above excerpts from the Communist Manifesto, and that, in implementing such ideology, he is part of the vanguard of the proletariat, the intelligensia and professional activists whose vocation is to overthrow the existing order and impose a new ruling regime. If not a socialist, then quite possibly a Bolshevik and communist.

Of course, it is possible that President Teleprompter is not, himself, such a revolutionary ideologue, but it is clear that the people around him and behind him are.

Meanwhile, the Dow is down another 80 points today. Da svidaniya, America!
.

How a Spendulus Bill Becomes Law

Here, sign this.

What? Sign what? What is this?

Just sign it.

Well, what does my signature mean?

It means you agree. SIGN IT.

But . . . what does it say? What's in this?

How many times to I have to say it? SIGN THE DAMN THING! You don't need to read it. You don't need to know what's in it. JUST AGREE, DAMN IT!

Oh, OK.
.

Idiot Growth, Urban Hell-Holes

Dear Leader has decreed, “Building sprawl stops now!”

This is part of the neo-Stalinist “Smart Growth” agenda, which aims to make us all live in high-rise, concrete hell-holes, packed in, one on top of the other in hyper-density “urban villages,” where it is so crowded that it is impossible to use an automobile and you must, instead, either walk everywhere or use public transportation, where you can only go where the government allows you to go, and only when they allow you to go there, if they provide you the service at all. In short, forcing everyone to live in inner-city ghettos.

They will justify it on things like the environment, but to them, grey concrete is the new green, tall buildings blocking the sun is the new open sky, the sound of your neighbor’s activities is the new bird song, and being a slave to public transportation is the new freedom of movement. They saw the hyper population denisty in Soylent Green and they thought they were seeing paradise.

This is EXACTLY what the neo-Stalinist left is doing to Arlington and other parts of Northern Virginia, which are increasingly coming under one-party dictatorial rule. They have allowed developers to cause an explosion of growth in some very small areas. Of course, all of this insane growth is making the cost of living actually more expensive, not more affordable. Many of Arlington’s roads have become a parking lot so that, while they are on the one hand demanding that the auto companies produce a 50-mpg fleet, their “green” transportation policies are resulting in people actually getting about 10 mpg in cars that were made to get 25-30 in the city, due to all the idling while stopped and stop-and-go traffic.

If I wanted to live in the damn city, I would have moved there in the first place, don’t ya think??? But I moved to Arlington precisely to have that small-town atomosphere combined with the nearness of the city if one chose to go there. Much of that small-town aspect is gone, replaced by the “let’s turn this into New York City” mindset of the leftists who have moved here from the North, who have the lockstep support of those who moved here from “south of the border.”

How about Leftist Sprawl Stops Now?? Can we try that?
.

Put Not Your Trust in Man or the World

So, while the State of Washington votes for a ballot measure for physician-assisted suicide, America has voted for politician-assisted suicide.

Wow, dude — you really think it that dire?

Yeah, I do. The storm clouds are nearly upon us. The tsunami tidal wave is just over the horizon. We’ve been talking about the slippery slope for many years now — well, eventually you’ve gone so far as to slip off the slope and into the abyss. When things as fundamental as truth have been, not only relativized, but turned into something that can be applied or not applied, or wholly manufactured out of whole cloth, at the will of those having power — government, politicians, media, academia — when truth no longer exists as truth, then we are past even a dictatorship.

Perhaps the problem is that we have been guilty of the same error as the “progressives,” who think that we can and should create a utopian paradise here on earth. We conservatives have long held to the idea that America is a “shining city on a hill,” that we are a beacon of hope and liberty to the world. If that was ever true, then it surely has been the rarest of exceptions in the history of mankind. We have had it really good in this “land of liberty” for a long time, and we perhaps have allowed ourselves to falsely believe that this is the way it has always been and always will be, here and everywhere. In our zeal for natural rights, we have perhaps failed to see the world as it really is in practice. If we take a truthful look, we must see that freedom has been the exception in the world, and that, more often than not, the bad beats the good. (That will not be the case in the end, but it has been the case in the meantime.)

In short, perhaps we must come out of our dream and realize that being in the oppressed minority is the (worldly) usual state of things. And that our trying to create a conservative utopia, a conservative Kingdom of God on earth, is as much a folly as is a progressive utopia and Kingdom.

Perhaps we must realize that, although we may be in the world, we are not of the world. We are strangers in a foreign land. We are merely sojourners passing through the shadow of the valley of death. We pass our days on earth, but are citizens of heaven. Perhaps it is time to remember that. All of this — America included — will inevitably turn to dust. So we should place our trust and hope in those persons and things which do not decay or decline, we should place our trust and hope in those persons and things which are eternal and incorruptible. Trust Him and only Him.
.

President Bush Needs to Take Charge and Do the Job that McCain Refuses or is Unable to Do.

Dan Henniger reports, "Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: 'If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable.' What!!??"

Since the presumptive nominee for the Maverick Party is not up to the job, I would urge President Bush to take charge, even if it will make McCain look incredibly small by comparison.

George W. should put together a grand-slam of a speech -- putting together all of the above points, noting that high gas prices are really hurting the economy and threatening the national security; that putting food (corn) into our gas tanks only exacerbates the problem and creates new problems; that oil is used for more than gasoline (the History Channel or some other cable channel last night had a show demonstrating how practically every product we use in everyday life has a petroleum component to it); that we have "clean" and "safe" methods of extracting oil from all sorts of areas; that current alternatives actually end up using more energy than does oil; that the economy would boom from new jobs building and operating new drill sites, new refineries, etc.; that we are in our current mess ONLY because of the obstruction tactics against drilling and refining that have gone on for the last 25 years; and that we need to drill, drill, drill, and refine, refine, refine.

George W. should then present these facts point-by-point in a speech in a prime-time Oval Office speech, and announce that he is recalling Congress from their derilicition of duty and abdication of their responsibilities, and ordering them back into session until they pass a comprehensive bill that he is presenting to Congress obtaining all the necessary objectives. Or better yet, call Congress back into session and give it another similar speech before a joint session.

George W. should hammer it home again and again and again, loudly and with all the public-relation resources at his disposal. I know that he does not want to steal any thunder from McCain, and so he is holding back more than he otherwise might, but it ain't going to get done by the current crop of candidates.

America

Land of the free for those who seek to destroy her and land of the oppressed for those who wish to preserve and save her?

.

The Crisis -- The Judiciary, the Left, and Islamic Terrorism

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. . . .

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. . . .

I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. . . .

It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.

My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man, [such as those on the Supreme Court]. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. . . .

This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils -- a ravaged country -- a depopulated city -- habitations without safety, and slavery without hope. . . . Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

COMMON SENSE.
.

Authentic Freedom of Choice

Why is it that "pro-choicers" and advocates of a "woman's right to choose" so adamently oppose authentic freedom of choice? For a choice to be freely made, it must necessarily be an informed choice, not a decision made in ignorance or, worse yet, misinformation. It must be made knowingly, intelligently, and willfully, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of the choice and the action to be taken. Without such information, such as the living and human nature of the unborn in the womb, a decision such as whether to abort, and thereby terminate the life of that unborn, is made blindly, and to willfully and purposely withhold such information from the one making such choice and taking such action is to deprive her of the ability to make a free choice, it is to oppress her, not respect her liberty or autonomy. This is simple commonsense, and a court has FINALLY upheld the principle. --


Mike Rounds, Governor, et al. v. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 05-3093 (en banc)
June 27, 2008

The Governor and Attorney General of South Dakota ("the State"), along with the intervenor crisis pregnancy centers, appeal the district court's preliminary injunction preventing the 2005 version of South Dakota's statute regulating informed consent to abortion from becoming effective. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I.

In 2005, South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 ("the Act"), amending the requirements for obtaining informed consent to an abortion as codified in S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.1. Section 7 of the Act requires the performing physician to provide certain information to the patient as part of obtaining informed consent prior to an abortion procedure and to certify that he or she believes the patient understands the information.

* * *

In addition, § 8(4) of the Act amended S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-1 to define "Human being" for the purposes of the informed-consent-to-abortion statute as "an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation." A physician who violates the Act knowingly or in reckless disregard is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.2.

* * *

In June 2005, Planned Parenthood moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Act from taking effect as scheduled on July 1, 2005. In support of the argument that §§ 7(1)(b)-(d) would violate physicians' free speech rights by compelling them to deliver the State's ideological message, rather than truthful and non-misleading information relevant to informed consent to abortion, Planned Parenthood's evidence consisted solely of affidavits from Dr. Ball and bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe, Ph.D. In her affidavit, Dr. Ball described her professional background, including a board certification in obstetrics and gynecology. Without elaboration, Dr. Ball stated that the disclosures in §§ 7(1)(b)-(d) "are statements of ideology and opinion, not medicine or fact." Ball Aff. P 2. Dr. Ball also stated that she would be unable to clarify the disclosures upon a patient's request, as required by § 7, "because these are not medical statements or facts that I am trained as a Medical Doctor to address." Id. P 4. The affidavit made no reference to the Act's definition of "human being" in § 8(4).

Dr. Wolpe's affidavit included a curriculum vitae detailing his expertise in "the area of ideology in medicine and bioethics." Wolpe Aff. P 1. Dr. Wolpe stated that the proposition "that from the moment of conception, an embryo or fetus is a 'whole, separate, unique, living human being' . . . is not a scientific or medical fact, nor is there a scientific or medical consensus to that effect." Id. PP 2, 3. Dr. Wolpe further averred that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation." Id. P 6.

In its opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, the State introduced portions of the Act's legislative history and several affidavits. The legislative history includes testimony from several women who had obtained abortions in South Dakota and felt their decisions would have been better informed if they had received from their abortion providers the information required by § 7. In addition, the legislative history includes testimony from experts such as Marie Peeters-Ney, M.D., a physician and geneticist, explaining the scientific basis for the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Dr. Peeters-Ney testified that use of the term "human being" was accurate because:

Becoming a member of our species is conferred immediately upon conception. At the moment of conception a human being with 46 chromosomes comes into existence. These chromosomes, the organization, the chromosomal pattern is specifically human. The RNA, the messenger protein, the proteins are distinctly human proteins. So this new human being is a member of our species, and humanity is not acquired sometime along the path, it occurs right at conception.

Senate State Affairs Comm. Hearing at 25. Dr. Peeters-Ney also stated that an embryo or fetus is whole in the sense that "[a]ll the genetic information sufficient and necessary to mature, and the information that is needed for this human being's entire life is present at the time of conception"; that it is "separate from the mother" because "[t]he genetic program is totally complete and this human being will mature according to his or her own program"; and that it is unique because it has "a totally unique genetic code." Id. at 25-26.

The State augmented the points raised in the legislative history with eight affidavits from medical experts and eight from women who had undergone abortions or worked at crisis pregnancy centers. For example, David Fu-Chi Mark, Ph.D., a molecular biologist employed in the pharmaceutical industry, stated that the Act's definition of "human being" as an "'individual living member of the species Homo sapiens,' including human beings living in utero, makes it clear that the statement under [§ 7(1)(b)] is stated as a scientific fact and nothing more. As such, it is truthful and scientifically accurate." Mark Aff. P 1. The affidavit described in detail the DNA and RNA science supporting the accuracy of the statement. Similarly, Bruce Carlson, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of medicine and author of a widely used textbook on human embryology, stated that "[t]he post implantation human embryo is a distinct individual human being, a complete separate member of the species Homo sapiens, and is recognizable as such." Carlson Aff. PP 1, 5.

* * *

In Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that "a requirement that a doctor give a woman certain information as part of obtaining her consent to an abortion" implicates a physician's First Amendment right not to speak, "but only as part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State." 505 U.S. 833, 884, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992) (plurality opinion). However, the Court found no violation of the physician's right not to speak, without need for further analysis of whether the requirements were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, id., where physicians merely were required to give "truthful, nonmisleading information" relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion, id. at 882. * * * Furthermore, the fact that the information "might cause the woman to choose childbirth over abortion" did not render the provisions unconstitutional. Id. at 883.

* * *

Taken in isolation, § 7(1)(b)'s language "[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" certainly may be read to make a point in the debate about the ethics of abortion. Our role, however, is to examine the disclosure actually mandated, not one phrase in isolation. Planned Parenthood's evidence and argument rely on the supposition that, in practice, the patient will not receive or understand the narrow, species-based definition of "human being" in § 8(4) of the Act, but we are not persuaded that this is so.

* * *

The disclosure actually mandated by § 7(1)(b), in concert with the definition in § 8(4), is "[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," § 7(1)(b), and that "human being" in this case means "an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens . . . during [its] embryonic [or] fetal age[]," § 8(4). The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, cf. Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. at 1627 ("[B]y common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."), and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation." Wolpe Aff. P 6. This statement appears to support the State's evidence on the biological underpinnings of § 7(1)(b) and the associated statutory definition. Planned Parenthood's only other evidence, Dr. Ball's affidavit, ignores the statutory definition of "human being." Finally, this biological information about the fetus is at least as relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion as the gestational age of the fetus, which was deemed to be relevant in Casey. See 505 U.S. at 882. As a result, Planned Parenthood cannot meet even the less rigorous requirement to show a fair chance of prevailing, much less the more rigorous requirement applicable here to show that it is likely to prevail, on the merits of its claim that the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the decision to have an abortion. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997) (per curiam) (emphasizing that a preliminary injunction "should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion" and presents proof even more substantial than that required on a motion for summary judgment) (quotation omitted).

* * *

Given Planned Parenthood's failure to produce sufficient evidence to establish that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its compelled speech claim, we need not address the remaining Dataphase factors. In summary, the district court abused its discretion by failing to give effect to the statutory definition of "human being" in § 8(4) of the Act. Planned Parenthood's evidence at the preliminary injunction stage does not establish a likelihood of proving that, with the definition incorporated, the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is anything but truthful, non-misleading and relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion, and thus "part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State." Casey, 505 U.S. at 884. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction entered on compelled speech grounds by the district court. * * *

The larger question, raised by the implications of this decision, is whether the decision could be a vehicle by which to affirm in law the personhood of the unborn, or at least to, once and for all, torpedo Roe's reliance on "philosophy" and "theology," rather than scientific fact, to deny that the entity in the womb is a living and separate and distinct human being.

.

Putting Food in the Gas Tank - Save the Planet, Kill the People

Another case of societal desolation and starvation by global warmists --


Biofuels to increase poverty among Timorese

According to a report by Oxfam, growing crops for biofuel will remove land from food production and push up prices. In East Timor the government is prepared to turn over a sixth of the country’s arable land to biofuel crops.

Dili (AsiaNews/Agencies) – The government of East Timor has come under fire over its decision to turn over 100,000 hectares or a sixth of the country’s arable land to a $100 million ethanol project by an Indonesian company, GTLeste Biotech. The reason is that the replacement of traditional fuels with biofuels has dragged more millions people worldwide into poverty, this according to a report by the Oxfam aid agency.

Under the terms of the agreement, GTLeste Biotech is granted a 50-year lease over “unproductive land” with an option for another 50 years.

The government is touting the move as a major potential source of foreign cash that could generate more than 2,000 jobs.

The foreign company plans to grow sugar cane and other plants to produce ethanol.

But East Timor’s main opposition party has complained that the plan was made with little public consultation, arguing that the land in question cannot be unproductive if there are plans to grow sugar cane. Furthermore, it stressed that increasing food production is more important and that creating 2,000 jobs is not much for 100,000 hectares.

“We have learned from other countries that sugar cane plantations will have negative impacts on agriculture and farmers’' lives. Over 80 percent of Timorese are farmers, they live on agriculture, so the land is important for them,” said Maximus Tahu, from development watchdog La'o Hamutuk. “Our concern is that the project will contribute to the destruction of land fertility.”

In its report Oxfam accuses biofuel-oriented farming of removing land valuable for growing food. This in turn has contributed to the current food price hike, pushing an additional 30 million people into poverty.

The report's author, Oxfam's biofuel policy adviser Rob Bailey, criticised rich countries for using subsidies and tax breaks to encourage the use of food crops for alternative sources of energy like ethanol.

“If the fuel value for a crop exceeds its food value, then it will be used for fuel instead,” he said. The net result is that food supplies will be reduced and prices pushed up.

Don't think that this drive for forced poverty will end with the poor countries -- the global warmists and social engineers seeking to recreate man and the world are looking to destroy all of the contemporary world and send us all back to the 18th century.

.

Will Things Get Worse or Better?

Let us start by going backward, to something I wrote more than a year ago regarding future prospects, electoral and otherwise. Looking at things today, what with the lightweight that is Barack Obama and the utter disaster that is John McCain, I cannot say that I was that far off --



Originally Posted May 15th, 2007

I wish it were not so, but it appears that politically and socially things will get worse -- much worse -- before they get better, if they get better.

Not only in this country, but throughout the world, we have one side who has rejected truth and another side that is too afraid to stand up for the truth. One side caught up in the dictatorship of relativism, with all its attendant horrors, and the other side is full of little more than self-interested cowardly fools -- at least on the political level.

I know that George W. and Dick Cheney both have a pair, but it is astounding that the rest of the organized Republican Party still has the ability to reproduce without a single testicle between them all. But I suppose it is even more astounding and miraculous that they are even able to live without any spine or intestines. I don't know, perhaps they are all human-worm hybrids, the product of some fantastic heretofore unreported breakthrough on the genetic front.

Now, on the other side, we have a party that clearly has the fortitude to fight, at least when the fight is not against the real enemies of the country or society, but they have abandoned any desire for truth, preferring to create their own truth to fit their objectives. They are a side that has abandoned even the truth of their own name, opening rejecting the democratic system in favor of eternal dissent when the majority vote does not go their way, advancing the cause of Marxist anarchism, or absolute rule by judges on high, destroying all concept of self-government. Everywhere you look, every traditional institution and thought is under attack. For examples, do we really need to go any further than their exultation of the slaughter of the most innocent and vulnerable among us?? For them to advance the death of one of these innocents is bad enough, but 45 million in this country alone? Is it really any wonder that their willful and knowing rejection of the truth of the life and humanity of these innocents would lead to their attack on the truth of other components of the most fundamental institution of society, namely the family?

But, previously, even that state of affairs did not prevent us all from coming together in common cause on occasion. However, since the advent of Clintonism, where truth is relative, especially with regard to language, and even "is" has different meanings, together with their "Move-on" comrades, destruction of their human-worm-hybrid opponents, and the tradition that they stand for, if they had spines to be able to stand, has been their number one objective. They are not deterred from this objective even by the fact that a very real and long-standing enemy (1,400 years) is ready and waiting to put half of them in a burka, while smiting the necks of a good proportion of the rest.

Hot, yes, but it will get a lot hotter before it gets better. After a lifetime of dissent and attack, regardless of the outcomes of democratic elections, does anyone really think that the Dems will lay down their weapons and join hands with the Republicans if the Republicans win in '08? And if the Dems win, does anyone really think that the Republicans, even being the worms that they are, will be in the mood to forgive and forget and get down on their knees and satisfy the Dems (RINOs aside)?

Things will get worse before they get better. And it would be bad enough if it was just us fighting amongst ourselves. But there is an external enemy reveling in this. People think that the war front is in Iraq. They think that the civil war is in Iraq. The problem with that way of thinking is that, for the enemy, Iraq is only a side show, a diversion. The most advantageous front for the enemy is right here in D.C., and that aspect of the war is being fought without the enemy having to engage a single suicide bomber -- our disunity and political and societal civil war right here at home has encouraged and emboldened the enemy enough to give him a generation of sustenance. And within a generation, even those anti-technology cave-dwellers will have been able to obtain at least one piece of certain highly sophisticated technology and then things will be really, really hot.