RFFM.ORG

Property Rights Expert Predicts Dire Future For American Agriculture: Global Intrigue + More Will Escalate Food Prices Drastically

 

What will a loaf of bread cost next year?

 

Guest Commentary by Joyce Morrison

Joyce Morrison is a pro-family activist whose field of expertise includes private property rights.  Morrison attempts to educate the public regarding the dangers coming to their local communities through Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 programs which are designed to gradually take control of all private property through undue regulations.  Morrison is also a farmer.

The mere thought of a food shortage in America is unthinkable…or is it? 

 

Headlines read, “Planting season weather perplexing for farmers.” “Weather may cut yields,” “Further spike in food costs feared due to floods,”  “Food shortages,” -- these are headlines preparing us for the fact we will no longer have the cheapest, safest food in the world.

 

All spring the breadbasket of America has been deluged with floods, wind storms, tornados, heavy rain and hail.  Illinois has even felt tremors from earthquakes.  Farmers have struggled for their fields to be dry enough to get a crop planted only to have the seeds pounded in the ground by more rain.  Beans break their necks trying to get through the crust left by the hard rains -- and they have to be replanted.  Water has stood on the small seedlings that have sprouted, while acres sit idly by, too wet to plant.

 

Major flooding has hit the whole area including Arkansas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wisconsin, South Dakota and Minnesota…on top of devastating tornadoes.  Upland fields have been flooded by 5 to 10 inches of rain in one storm.

 

In Central Illinois there have been reports of enough standing water in the fields that when the wind is blowing, there are big waves.  Water standing on crops for more than a couple of days will drown the plants.

 

We have had cold weather when it should have been warm.  We have had warm weather when it should have been cold.  People are skiing on fresh snow in Colorado…in June. 

 

Major cities in Iowa have flooded and, as the waters recede, the Mississippi River is flooding communities and fields down river as it travels to the Gulf of Mexico.  Thousands of acres of rich farmland are now under water.

 

Some of the richest farm ground in the nation will not produce a crop this year because the flood waters will not recede in time to allow the ground to dry to plant.  Farmers in other parts of the country are suffering from drought.  Fires have become common in California and Florida.

 

Corn did not get planted in a timely manner this spring.  The growing crop will not produce as well because the July heat will injure the pollen that is necessary to fill the ears with grains of corn.  It is too late to replant corn and very chancy on beans, if the weather turns hot and dry.

 

What is going on?  People who have survived many disasters in their lifetime are shaking their heads in disbelief.  This time it is different.  Man-made global warming is not causing this.  31,000 scientists dispute man has caused global warming--in spite of what Al Gore says.  Some scoffers have actually been reading their Bibles and found that Revelations 6:6 talks about a day’s wage for a loaf of bread.
 
If we have the technology to go to the moon, or survive in outer space, do we also have the technology to control the weather?

 

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm." -- writes former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book "Between Two Ages.”

 

Weather modification is the general term that refers to any human attempt to alter the weather.  On March 3, 2005, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (S.517), 1st Session, 109th Congress, on the floor of the U.S. Senate.  The bill would establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board to overlook weather modification research.

 

As levees are over-topped by unprecedented flooding -- only comparable to 1993 -- it is cause to wonder, “Is there a reason to clear the Mississippi River Corridor?  Does the National Park Service (NPS) have plans that does not include human habitat along the Mississippi River Corridor?"

 

What about certain legislation such as HR 1796?  “To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Route of the Mississippi River from its headwaters in the state of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico for the study for potential addition to the National Trails System as a National Scenic Trail, National Historic Trail.” 

 

Are we being paranoid knowing the power of eminent domain that goes with the NPS and the Trails system?  Are we putting the wrong dots together -- or is the real picture unfolding?

 

Henry Kissinger was reported to have said, “Control the food and you control the people.”  Controlling people is as simple as controlling food and water, through a variety of controls, including control of the land.

 

Related article:  "In Her Own Words" -- Joyce Morrison -- 4th in an RFFM.org series: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/04/joyce-morrison-.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Liberals and Intelligent Design – Part 3: Do The Math: 30 Billion Miles of DNA by Bill Zettler

From the Desk of Bill Zettler

In this third and last column on “Liberals and Intelligent Design,” I will examine the mathematics that liberals point to for their ultimate argument against Intelligent Design.

Their theory could be best described as “Accidental Design” (AD) whereby starting with methane gas, sulfur compounds, water and perhaps lightening, mechanistic forces plod through eons of time creating species by minute selective steps interrupted occasionally by mutations. The end result, according to AD, is all living things.

The problem with AD is after 148 years (Darwin’s book was published in 1859) it still cannot explain how complex biological systems, such as eyesight, developed. Darwin anticipated this when he wrote in that same 1859 book: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And, as an example, Darwin continues, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Absurd in 1859 and even more absurd today.

And these same elitists constantly attempt to use mathematics or “numbers” to prove other points. For example they state that the estimated number of planets in the universe is 10 to the 23rd (10 with 22 zeroes after it) and therefore other intelligent species, perhaps thousands or millions of them, must be “out there” just waiting to contact us. And, of course, they must be smarter than us. And if these alien species are smarter than us, then the Intelligent Designer must not think much of us. Therefore, either we are not important or there is no Intelligent Designer.

Another problem AD’ers have is that the numbers do not add up, i.e. the earth has not existed nearly long enough to have developed its complexity via Darwin’s theory. For example scientists (not priests or religious figures) have calculated the probability of certain biological functions developing randomly. In two independent studies (among many others) scientists Yockly and Sauer both came up with the same odds for a simple, functioning 100 amino acid protein to develop randomly: 1 in 10 to the 65th power. That’s 10 with 64 zeroes after it--a number so large as to approach impossibility. Applying known rates of mutation to that probability gives a time frame trillions of times the age of the universe. Many scientists disagree with Yockly and Sauer’s calculation, but have not come up with any viable estimates of their own. Whatever the probability is, it is certainly large.

If a simple protein of 100 linked chemical compounds (a complex protein would be a chain over 1,000 chemical compounds long) has long odds of being randomly created, whatever those odds are, then what is the probability of randomly creating an 18 billion chemical chain that would live, think and procreate? That chain of chemicals, the great protein creator, is called human DNA.

And, amazingly, every cell in your body contains over a yard of DNA. That’s 30 billion miles of DNA in every human being – and, supposedly, all by accident.

The numbers go on. What are the odds of those 18 billion chained chemicals randomly creating 30,000 specific genes? What are the odds of those 30,000 genes randomly creating 100,000 specific proteins? What are the odds of those 100,000 proteins randomly creating one unique, specific human life, unique as a snowflake?

So it is long odds, times long odds, times long odds, times very long odds. Like winning the lottery a trillion times in a row. Not likely, even in the four billion years of earth’s existence.

Since Darwin’s theory cannot explain how even the simplest protein developed and all of life is a series of cellular events choreographed by specific proteins in precise sequence and with precise timing, one has to wonder why the theory is still hanging around in its current state. The sun does not revolve around the earth and Darwin’s evolutionary theory cannot explain life as described by DNA. Darwin would be the first to agree.

No one knows the answer to the math question, but one could argue that the probability of human DNA happening randomly, out of cosmic dust, would be many, many magnitudes greater than the number of livable planets in the universe and, therefore, the odds of other intelligent life in the universe approaches zero.

Meaning ET is not coming and the SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) radio broadcasts into outer space have not received an answer back because there is no one out there to answer.

This is important because--if true--then we are most certainly alone and we are the most intelligent entity in the universe-–except, of course, for the Intelligent Intelligence Designer.

* * * * *

Part 1:  Men + Women Are Equal: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/08/liberals-and-in.html

Part 2:  What Would Darwin Do? http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/08/liberals-and--1.html  

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Liberals and Intelligent Design – Part 2: What Would Darwin Do? by Bill Zettler

In the first column "Men and Women are equal" in this three-part series titled “Liberals and Intelligent Design”, [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/08/liberals-and-in.html] I discussed the liberal concept of male and female equality. In this column, I will discuss the liberal concept of species equality.

When it comes to species--other than the human species--there are many “Intelligent Design” theories from the secular Left. The best-known example is the concept of the need for “species diversity”. Thus we should save Lyme-disease vulnerable deer and bird-flu vulnerable Canadian geese, even if this harms our own species. And we should reintroduce coyotes, wolves and bears to our environment and even share our backyards with them. This is not Darwinism at all. Darwin would say kill the predators before they kill us and harvest the prey to feed our children and community. Anything else is a religious belief system unfounded in science and completely lacking in empirical evidence. In other words, leftist Intelligent Design that should not be taught in our schools.

Darwinian facts state if 90% of all species had not been destroyed by some unknown calamity 300 million years ago (the Cambrian Extinction) we, the human species, would not be here. Ditto for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction 65 million years ago when 85% of those species remaining from the Cambrian de-specification were destroyed, including dinosaurs. So, if you believe in Darwinian logic, saving species now--as liberal secularists want to do--is denying future species their rightful place in the inexorable march of Evolution. To deny that is to practice “Intelligent Design’ i.e., we humans know, because we are so intelligent, which species should survive. Very God-like, but very unscientific.

A more recent example would be the ground sloth, which died out about 10,000 years ago. To visualize what a ground sloth looked like imagine an 800 pound possum in your back yard. Here’s a way to test the liberal's “all species must survive” theory. At your next barbeque, ask your neighbors this question: “Which of you have been negatively affected by the ground sloth’s extinction?” My guess is the barbeque attendees will give you a look something on the order of “He’s been spending too much time at the beer cooler”. No one cares because it has had no effect on us. Unfortunate for the ground sloth perhaps, but, to all the remaining species, it is a non-event because our species survived and there is now one less competitor for resources. That’s Darwinian logic at work.

And you will notice that the species “Intelligently” chosen to survive by the liberal elite tend to be the cute ones – deer (remember Bambi?), wolves (they look like Rover), dolphins (they’re just like us), baby seals and, inexplicably, killer whales whose favorite meals include baby seals and dolphins.

When was the last time you saw anyone protesting to save sewer rats or baby cockroaches? Isn’t choosing to save baby seals over baby cockroaches “Intelligent Design” and intruding liberal elitist secularist religion into science? Why aren’t liberals throwing themselves on Roach Motels to save baby cockroaches from evil exterminators rather than attacking destitute Eskimos for harvesting baby seals?

Darwin said there is no “feel good” about other species, as liberal theology would have you believe. In fact, Darwin’s theory explicitly and demonstrably states that if any species must kill (and eat) every other species in order to survive then indeed, that is what it should do. Darwin said we have one job and one job only: to make certain our species survives at all costs. We pass the genetic baton on to the next generation, just as our parents passed it on to us.

For example, in 10,000 B.C. there were three million humans and 20 million wolves. In 2000 A.D. there were six billion humans and 200,000 wolves. Who then is the master Darwinian survivor? Humans, of course, because we killed them before they killed us. For now at least we have won that Darwinian battle.

And that is what elitists cannot tolerate. In their view, humans do not deserve to win--we are a curse and need to be held in check. Bring back the wolves, they are better than us. Plus, they are really cute--except, perhaps, when they are disemboweling fawns and family pets.

In the end, the argument is this: are human beings special, chosen, designed, created differently than all other species or are we just one of many--meaningless as flat worms and amoebas, doomed to be cast to the side of the evolutionary road as our betters, mutant replacements, pop up.

Leftists would have us believe that we are special in the sense that we know which species should survive and which should die (preferably humans) and we are all in this together, philosophically speaking. But we are not really, really special in the sense that we are chosen and have an innate moral sensibility given to us by a superior intelligent designer. Liberals would have us believe that we are the “choosers” but not the “chosen”.

But how can that be? If we are not chosen, but just one of the many, then how can we be morally superior to the cockroach? Deciding which species lives or dies is a moral decision: where does that moral superiority come from, better mutations?

So you must make a choice: either accept that Darwin is right and we are an inexorable accident and, like the wolves, in a fight for survival at all costs against all other species; or admit there is some a priori moral intelligence in our birthright that allows us to decide right from wrong, who lives and who dies.

You cannot have it both ways.

In the third and final column on “Liberals and Intelligent Design” I will explore the mathematical probabilities of human existence in an un-designed universe.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.

Liberals and Intelligent Design – Part 1: Men + Women Are Equal by Bill Zettler

From the desk of Bill Zettler

Liberals fulminate regularly in the media about how “Intelligent Design” and its concept of “irreducible complexity” fall completely outside of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and, in fact, constitute the intrusion of religion into science. But, if you look closely, you will notice liberals have several of their own versions of “Intelligent Design” that fall outside the concept of Darwin’s Theory. However, when liberals stroll outside the bounds of Darwinism, as they often do, nary a word of criticism is heard.

In this three-part series, I will explore several Intelligent Design concepts of the Left to determine if they are truly Darwinian.

One of the most obvious examples is this: men and women are equal.

I am not speaking of equal rights or woman’s suffrage here. No one would argue with political equality.  I am speaking about the liberal, anti-Darwinian belief that physically, mentally and emotionally men and women are the same, i.e. equal. They are genetically equivalent and can--and should--do the same jobs equally.

There is a reason there is no WNFL – Women’s National Football League. The participants of the WNFL would be crippled up in enormous numbers – women’s bodies are not “designed” to take the kind of pounding that men’s bodies are. Their bones are thinner, their musculature is much less robust, their connective tissue is weaker and their innate physical design is to carry babies with big heads and this design makes them especially prone to hip, pelvis, knee and ankle injuries.

And consider this fact: every single world record in track and field, the most basic of physical contests, is held by and has always been held by a man and, in every case, by a large margin. For example, there are no women who would rank in the top 1000 of the shot put, javelin or 200-meter dash. This record of physical superiority is overwhelming, 100%, not even close.

The reason for this is called sexual dimorphism, an evolutionary concept every biologist would agree with. Since sexual dimorphism shows us that female humans cannot compete equally with male humans in physicality, why would we believe they should be in combat platoons or on fire ladders or with police SWAT teams? Darwin says they should not be and, in fact, in those physical situations, women are likely to be a danger to themselves and others.

Who can forget what happened in Atlanta, Georgia on March 11, 2005 when Brian Nichols, a 6’2”, 235 pound former college linebacker on trial for murder, overwhelmed his guard, a 51-year old female sheriff’s deputy, 5'2" Cynthia Hall. As Darwin and sexual dimorphism would have predicted, the larger, much more powerful male easily overwhelmed the smaller, much weaker female. Nichols beat Hall so severely she was brain damaged. As she lay on the floor of the courthouse bleeding and unconscious, he took her sidearm. Nichols then shot and killed a judge and a court reporter with Hall’s gun. Un-Darwinian political correctness killed two innocent people in Atlanta that day.

Elitists who say women should be treated equally in physical occupations are practicing a very dangerous kind of secular “Intelligent Design”.

It is also known that men and women’s brains are different. Men’s brains are more symmetrical and spatially oriented, women’s are more asymmetrical and language oriented. If you think about this, it makes sense for survival: men, as hunters and explorers, need spatial skills to track game and enemies and find a new home--if the old one becomes dangerous. Women need community and language skills to teach and successfully raise children. Thus, under Darwin’s Theory, sexual dimorphism would increase the chance for survival. The innate, Darwinian, evolutionary skills of both sexes are equally valuable, but different. Women cannot hunt or defend as well as men and, by the same token, if men were the child raisers, the human species would have died off millennia ago.

For more than 99.95 per cent of Homo sapiens 120,000-year existence (all but the last 50 liberal-feminist years), sexual dimorphism was never in dispute. During that time frame, humans expanded from a few thousand to billions of individuals and became the dominant species on earth. It would be hard to argue that such success was just serendipitous.  We have survived and prospered because of the differences between men and women, not in spite of them.

History shows that men and women are equal, but not interchangeable. Men cannot have babies and women cannot drag 250 pounds of wounded soldier and his gear off of the battlefield and out of harms way.

Those who deny this are denying Darwin and embracing “Intelligent Design”. Their intelligence, of course, and their design, not Darwin’s.

In Part 2 of this three part series, "Liberals and Intelligent Design," I will discuss the liberal concept of species diversity.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.