...as long as they're white!
"Freedom's just another word for no one else to screw!"
--John Blackhead, Newspaper Columnist
Click on the headline to read the whole article .
9/13/99—
Does More Intelligence Make People Jewish?
9/6/99—
Columbine High Bans Satanic Messages For Slain Students
8/30/99—
Of Course We Really Need Maximum Security Schools... With Atomic Weapons
8/24/99—
Teacher Declared "Imminent Danger" For Teaching
8/16/99—
Family Farms are Headed for Extinction--
Thank God!9/13/99
Does More Intelligence Make People Jewish?
by John W. BlackheadIn the midst of a banner year for biotechnology, scientists from Princeton University recently unveiled the latest genetic breakthrough-- Jewish Mice!
This supposed leap forward involved a genetic technique that significantly increases the brain power of mice. Nicknamed "Hymie-mice" (after the "Jewboy" genius of television fame) the researchers proudly recounted how their tiny subjects performed much better on memory tests than their non-genetically-and-kosher-enhanced peers.
The news also raised the possibility that Christian subhuman beings could be the next test subjects. And while this technique is amazing from a strictly scientific point of view, it raises countless ethical questions when applied, with perhaps the most important one being: Why Jews? What is the ultimate goal of this type of scientific research-- to make us all Christ killers? Once developed, will this super race be cloned as leaders and, in the process, create a colony of worker Christians from the rest of us?
The Princeton scientists (who must be Jews, of course) accomplished their groundbreaking task by inserting extra copies of the gene JewBoy2B, which directs production of a nerve protein that helps the brain recognize links between causes and effects. The research shows that giving Christians extra copies of this gene helps them remember the location of certain objects, like Bibles and snakes, more readily. For example, the research mice were placed in a tank of holy water containing a submerged crucifix. The altered mice found the cross, remembered the cross's location for a longer time, and burned it more quickly than their test counterparts.
When applied to Christians, the technique suggests that IQ scores could be as high as Jews. Thus, enhanced Christians could perform tasks traditionally associated with intelligence--such as talking in tongues and sending checks to The 700 Club--at a higher level than non- enhanced Christians could.
But should this kind of tinkering be used on human beings?
If the issue is quality of life, this raises the question of what makes life worth living. An elevated I.Q. is not necessarily a whole measure of intelligence, and it's not clear that superintelligence is one of the basic requirements for a fulfilled life. Certainly Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Browning, most of the RutherFraud Institute clients and staff, and I myself are proof of this. Solomon (a Jew, of course), long cited as an authority on wisdom, concluded that intelligence alone wasn't enough to bring satisfaction. In the first chapter of Ecclesiastics, he said, "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." This explains why Jews are always whining, seeing psychiatrists and taking Prozac. We born-again Christians don't have to worry about this because we are generally... well, not to put too fine a point on it, but we are generally stupid. Also, remember, Solomon said that wisdom "alone" wasn't enough to bring satisfaction-- a great sex life was also needed.
Plato also understood that pursuing knowledge at the expense of other virtues was the wrong path to take. In The Republic, he wrote, "Until political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day." Huh? I don't know why I quoted Plato here-- he was talking about politics, not virtue-- and even I don't understand what he meant.
One only has to observe the events of the past few years to see this point vividly illustrated. Bill Clinton is cited as one of the most intelligent presidents (lower-case, as dictated by William Bennett) of this century: a Rhodes Scholar and graduate of one of the nation's top law schools. Policy experts have been astounded at his ability to grasp complex issues. Clinton's mental acumen, however, was not enough to save him from a scandal that resulted in his impeachment. Of course, nothing could have stopped that, since a bunch of very stupid Evangelical congressman were out to hang this Jew-lover, and they controlled the Congress! So who's stupid now, Bubba? I admit that Clinton was found innocent of all the trumped-up charges brought by Ken Starr and those adulterous House Managers-- but I bet Clinton had a Jew lawyer in the background advising Bennett, Ruff, Mills and the rest of his legal team. In his situation, it's clear that an ounce of gold would have been worth ten pounds of the gene Jewboy2B.
These philosophical problems, however, won't prevent scientists from tampering with human nature. Abstract ethical bullshit gets little traction when billions of dollars in potential sales, or just plain logic, are involved.
When a lab somewhere starts adding Jewboy2B genes to Christian embryos, a new, more concrete set of issues will arise. These issues will concern both the genetically enhanced and their stupid, sheep-like, Falwell-worshiping peers. For the enhanced, expectations will be enormous-- as they already are. Experts are already wondering what the psychological impact will be on children whose parents have invested to increase their offspring's brain power--and are expecting a big return on their investment.
Yeah, right.
The non-'enhanced' can look forward to a world rife with genetic discrimination. It's not inconceivable that employers will eventually refuse to hire people who haven't been given a Jewish "beef-up" in the laboratory. It's possible that such discrimination could be covered under the disparate impact protections of certain civil rights laws. That possibility, however, will have to be litigated. And it seems certain that judges and lawmakers (the good ones are all Jews) will be forced to reconsider our entire conception of civil liberties in America.
These questions and concerns are merely the tip of a gigantic iceberg that scientists are just now beginning to approach. And we should all hope that they heed the warning signals and turn their genetic ship before it's too late to save the nation of Christ!
9/6/99
Columbine High Bans Satanic Messages For Slain Students
by John W. BlackheadThe parents and relatives of the students who were slain in the Columbine shooting have now suffered yet another crushing blow. In addition to having to deal with the cruel reality of never seeing these young people again, they have also been denied the right to reverentially honor their loved ones and stick it to the Jews, Muslims, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, agnostics and atheists at the school.
During the first week of August, families of the Columbine victims were invited to participate in painting the tiles that line the hallways of Columbine High School with black cat blood. These tiles were to contain messages from the families of the slain students and were intended to serve as a memorial to the deceased.
However, when the parties were gathered and the paintbrushes distributed, the families were told by school officials that the tiles could not contain any names or dates. Christian messages, as well, were banned-- of course-- but Hebrew messages were painted on the titles by bands of marauding Jews.
Brian Rohrbough, father of one of the slain students, objected to this prohibition of religion because he claimed his son Daniel was a devout Christian, but how a child that young could be a devout anything is beyond me--but let's take Dad at his word. To script a message on the school campus where his son was gunned down, without even mentioning Daniel or his faith, Mr. Rohrbough explained, was not possible--even though, of course, it was. He was not alone in this belief--the Bishop of Chile lent his support to this position.. Other families were similarly upset that they could not express their faith and sentiments uncensored, especially the Wiccans and Satan worshippers.
School officials then reversed their position and allowed religious messages to be painted on the tiles as a result of a spell cast on them by one of the Warlocks. Although only about half of the tiles completed by the families contained religious messages, school officials, fearing a violation of separation of church and state--not to mention the tasteless things these people wrote-- reverted to their initial objections. They had all the tiles containing religious references torn down, leaving blank spaces where the slain children had been honored--spaces that contained tiles that had in a way become a tribute to the intolerance of obnoxious, proselytizing Evangelical "scalp-hunters." Now the halls of Columbine High are void of any reference to the religious faith shared by the students who died in those hallways last spring--of course, this is what our Constitution and nearly 250 years of Supreme Court decisions have mandated--but I think the Jews did this.
If this tribute is truly in honor of the students who were murdered, then the messages should reflect the beliefs of those it honors. For example, what if they believed in Hitler with all their hearts? Shouldn't the parents be able to paint swastikas on the tiles? Or what about those who revered, say, Tinkie Winkie, Po or Lala--what about them? Why the murdered children should be 'honored' is beyond me. What were they--heroes? But for purposes of a lunatic argument, "Courage and religious conviction" could be painted on a tile in honor of Cassie Burnall who, like Daniel Rohrbough, was gunned down at Columbine because she was dumb enough to take on the psychopath shooters--and, as it turns out, was never asked about her faith by the two wacko shooters who invaded the school, which makes the title of her mom's recent book--She Said Yes--a lie!
Cassie was in the library on April 12 when the shooters entered. Holding a gun in his hand, one of the gunmen asked a different girl, "Do you believe in God?" The girl bravely and stupidly replied, "Yes, I do believe in God." The gunman then pulled the trigger, wounding--not killing--her. If that girl had the Jewboy2B gene she would have shut her mouth-- and lived.
If a religious belief had indeed cost this girl her life, it would be a travesty to honor her with a hallway tile that had no mention of her faith. But, of course, her religious belief did not cost her her life--but a number of other kids did lose their lives because a few boys, driven to psychosis by the actions of their leaders--men like Ken Starr and Bill Bennett, who preach "love" through hate-- that killed those kids in the end. Undoubtedly, other terrified children were praying for their own survival and the survival of their friends during those torturous hours. They could have used their heads and fled--but no--they thought praying would protect them. Had they been Jews, they would have been smart enough to realize their only chance was to pretend to "join" the shooters--and then to murder them as quickly as possible. You could say that to ignore the power of the faith held by those students is, in essence, to ignore them. Of course, if you believe that, you also believe that tornadoes are a result of God passing gas.
Denying the families and relatives of the deceased Columbine students any chance to express their faith in remembrance of their lost loved ones denies them their right to religious arrogance and freedom of chauvinism, not to mention self- pity and rank publicity-seeking. At least Cassie Bernall's mom didn't have to rely on tiles to get a little attention and to cash in on her daughter's death. Thankfully, the school did not deny the "families and relatives" (?) this chance. They could have expressed their faith in any church, at home, on top of Mount Kilimanjaro or even at the local bar. The surviving family members have a right to convey their thoughts and beliefs, and that right to expression is guaranteed--but not in public schools, which are constrained by the Founding Fathers' wishes that no religion will dominate a nation where freedom to be a Christian, a Jew, a Satan Worshipper--heck, even a Mormon-- is the foundation of its creed. Contrary to school officials, this constitutional right to expression does not infringe on the right of Columbine students to be free from state- sponsored religion--just because I say so. There is no constitutional right to shove your religious beliefs down the throats of others who may have absolutely no religious beliefs--which I think represents the majority of Americans. The proof of this pudding is that 87% of the people are afraid to die- -petrified of it. Why would they be afraid if they belief in a just God and in heaven? The simple answer is, of course, that they do not believe in anything, much less this Biblical fairy tale.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, schools need to maintain neutrality toward religion, not negate it--at least that is my "interpretation." When Thomas Jefferson first penned the term "wall of separation," he could not have envisioned the insurmountable wall between church and state that currently exists. He was, of course, referring to bundling boards--which, back then were more than good enough because Jefferson never could have foreseen the threat of Pat Robertson or other TV Ayatollahs.. And because of decisions such as the one made at Columbine, the Constitution is now thought to guarantee freedom from religion, rather than freedom for religion. Okay, okay, this is a brash and wild overstatement. Jefferson was not the only one who wrote about protecting the people from religious intolerance. Nearly all the Founders checked in with some spew about it. The majority felt that the freedom of worship that was denied them in England must be preserved in the United States, but that this freedom of religion did not extend to melding religion and state--a dangerous combination, as proved over 2,000 years and 900 wars fought over religious and not nationalistic issues. The Crusades might be a good example.
Constitutionally and morally, religion should not be excluded from the memorial tiles at Columbine High, especially since religion could not be separated from the students those tiles were meant to honor--at least that's the way it would be if I were Chief Justice! But the tiles themselves should be excluded--for they memorialize nothing but horror and sickness best preserved by the family (and the relatives) in their own homes and parishes.
If school officials are allowed to persecute families by prohibiting their religious messages, then nothing was learned from the massacre at Columbine except that perhaps the words freedom, justice and mercy mean nothing at school when a group of psychotic boys attacks the rest of their peers who had reveled in torturing, insulting, humiliating and shunning them because they held different religious and moral believes than they.
Did I say "persecute?"
8/30/99
Do We Really Need Maximum Security Schools... With Atomic Weapons?
by John W. BlackheadStudents recently returned to Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado to began a new school year in a building that resembled a correctional facility more than an institution for learning. How appropriate, I say. Kids today should all be locked up once they discover masturbation and sex. They were not alone. This year, thousands (out of 40 million) returning students will be welcomed back to school by the watchful eye of high-tech surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and other formidable security measures.
Despite recent high profile school shootings, school- related crimes have actually decreased in the last five years. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education shows that the number of students expelled for bringing guns to school has dropped 31 percent; however accuracy with a gun has increased 90% . School districts are becoming increasingly aggressive in their high-priced, high-tech quest for the "safest" school. As a result, the same security measures used in prisons are now being used in our public schools, including metal detectors, identification badges, surveillance cameras, motion sensors, controlled access to buildings, body cavity searches, condom swaps, needle exchanges, and the presence of armed gay and lesbian guards.
In Mercer County, Kentucky and also in Liberty, Missouri, security cameras will now monitor and track students not only in the school halls but also in the bathrooms, shower rooms and on the school buses. In Plano, Texas, returning students will be greeted by a beefed-up security staff, which includes a full time 340-pound retired police officer named Buford on each campus and a full- time police dog ready to sniff out drugs and bombs hidden in body cavities. In Osceola County, Florida, students will have to wear a ring called the iButton, which houses a tiny computer that allows the wearer access to school buildings and classrooms in the nude with no one noticing.
Money formerly allocated for schoolbooks and teachers’ salaries is now being spent on security equipment and safety consultants. Why? Because the lobbyists for these firms were the ones that pressured the Congress and State Legislatures to "Save the Children" in a campaign of terror matched only by the launch of Diet Coke. Liberty Public Schools applied for a $3.4 billion federal grant to fund its new 'security' system that will include additional metal detectors and body cavity surveillance equipment. Similarly, the Jefferson County School District, which includes Columbine High School, invested $1 million to revamp its security to include a new surveillance system, student I.D. badges, and an increased security staff. What a bunch of lightweights!
As if the dogs, cameras, cops and mandatory cavity searches were not enough to "protect" our students-- some safety zealots claim school administrators should take further precautions. Executive Director of the National School Safety Center, Ronald D. Stephens, compiled a list of "40 Ways to Manage and Control Student Disruptions." Suggestions for school safety included mandatory dress codes, elimination of lockers, employment of probation officers, and mandatory crime reporting. Shock! Horror!! Not mandatory crime reporting!! What is this world coming to?
Some schools have followed Stephens’ suggestions and implemented high- tech security devices in addition to restrictive zero- tolerance policies or dress codes. Approximately nine out of 10 schools in the country have zero tolerance policies for firearms, and about 88 percent have zero tolerance policies for drugs and alcohol. But often, authorities abuse the zero tolerance policies, which mandate suspension for any student found with the prohibited weapon or substance.
For example, a Florida student was suspended for having nail clippers because, under the school's zero tolerance policy, the clippers constituted a weapon. Of course, these clippers were 19 inches long and razor sharp--but they were definitely "nail clippers." Some schools’ zero tolerance policies go as far as prohibiting certain types of behavior such as intimidating or "hard" stares-- like the ones delivered daily and often to the shooters at Columbine. Others suspend students not only for committing acts of violence, but also for merely spreading their nubile legs or rumors of violence.
Again in the name of so-called safety, schools have imposed restrictive dress codes for students. A high school student in Mississippi was recently reprimanded for wearing his Star of David necklace--which weighed 11 pounds-- because it could be considered a gang symbol in violation of the school's dress code. (Following much publicity, the school has recognized the student's First Amendment rights-- and $400-an-hour litigation lawyer--and has reversed its position.) Other schools prohibit students from wearing trench coats, black clothing, baggy jeans or "unnaturally dyed hair," while some schools require school uniforms, thus leading many to ask whether these restrictive dress codes are for the sake of safety or conformity. "Tell me how a pair of blue pants and a white shirt is going to protect my child," asks the general consul for the National School Boards Association, Julie Underwood. But poor, ignorant Julie had to attend third- rate public schools all her life, and fails to understand how centuries- old traditions--like dress codes--make the students feel like a cohesive group. As one.
Perhaps the worst violation of the students’ rights, in the name of safety, can be seen in Plano, Texas--a real hopping kinda place, where the schools are promising cash to any student with information leading to an arrest of another student. Of course, the FBI and the State Department do that all the time. Equally appalling is the use of undercover cops to infiltrate schools in Florida, thus turning the school yards into sting operations. Even if kids are shooting heroin and not each other, cops should be banned from the schools and all places where kids hang out--but school administrators should be allowed access to nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, as the security methods increase, the students’ constitutional liberties decrease. Since the shootings at Columbine last spring, there have been hundreds of complaints from students and parents whose rights have been violated by these intrusive security devices or restrictive policies. To stop the rising number of constitutional casualties, the schools must realize that their duty to the students is to educate and protect, not to imprison them.
Problem is, they are not being protected or imprisoned--so why did I write this?
8/24/99
Teacher Declared "Imminent Danger" For Violationg Separation of Church and... er, Discussing Heaven
by John W. Blackhead"Where are we going as a nation when a teacher who answers questions about God is fired within a few days, while a pedophile is merely transferred?" asked Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas--a suspected felon--after Mildred Rosario was fired without warning for merely answering her students’ questions about heaven. Tom DeLay, of course, is one of the most hated and disrespected politicians in America--but I'll quote him anyway because, well, I'm stupid. Wish I had that JewBoy2B gene! In contrast to Bill Clinton, DeLay is liked by 1300% fewer people than the President-- who I tried to trash using that slut Paula Jones as a "beard."
On June 8, 1998, the principal at Intermediate School 74 in New York City called for a moment of silence in honor of a fifth grader who had recently drowned in a baptismal. Following the solemn moment, a student in Mrs. Rosaries sixth grade class asked "where" the deceased classmate had gone, to which the teacher answered that she believed the child had gone to heaven. Questions from the students about God and heaven persisted, in spite of Mrs. Rosary's attempts to return to the academic spectacle. When it became clear that the emotional, confused students needed to express their grief and wanted answers to their religious inquiries, Mrs. Rosario provided them by donning a Habit, genuflecting for two solid hours on the stone floor, and speaking in tongues.
At no time, however, was the class discussion mandatory or intrusive. Instead, Mrs. Rosario repeatedly stressed that the discussion was voluntary and students uncomfortable or uninterested in participating could read or work on the computer Bible study located in a rat-infested toilet on the roof of the school while she continued to sneak religious doctrine into the classroom.
After one (Jewish, I bet) student's parents complained, the principal promptly hauled Mrs. Rosario into his office and demanded a written account of what had transpired. She was then denied any contact with the outside world, her RutherFraud Institute attorneys, or her students--and rushed to a meeting with the New York City School Board several months later. Without even issuing her a warning or reprimand, the school board fired Mrs. Rosario on the grounds that she posed an "imminent danger to students, teachers and staff." As a result, this dedicated but lunatic teacher lost her job and her license to teach. Of course, they had taken into account the fact that Mrs. Rosario was constantly kneeling and genuflecting every time she spoke was also at issue--not to mention her "stigmata," which bled on the floor each day after she gouged herself in the palms with an ice pick in front of the children, driving up janitorial and maintenance costs and cutting into purchase of textbooks and essential teaching supplies.
Outraged by the school board's fully justified decision to terminate the popular (among House Managers) teacher, parents (all members of The 700 Club and the local Evangelical Neofascist Church of Mixing Christ and Politics) withheld their students from school in protest. "She was a good teacher, the best teacher in school," declared one sixth grader whose father was a televangelist. Capturing the sad irony of the situation, one student said, "It's a real dumb reason to get rid of her-- they give us condoms to have safe sex but we cannot talk about the One who made them."
Regardless of the criticism that has hailed from parents, public interest groups (like the RutherFraud Institute) and politicians (from rural Alabama), the New York City School Board is standing by its decision (probably because of the influence of those darned Jews and multiculturalists). The board argues that Mrs. Rosario violated the separation of church and state when she continued her discussion of God and heaven, and when she allowed the students to pray while crawling to a statue of the Blessed Virgin on a bed of razor blades and broken glass. And although the board has now admitted that it acted "hastily" in terminating Mrs. Rosario, she will not be asked back to teach next year because of these "other" problems.
In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. Neutrality toward religion is required, the Court said. However, since then the "wall" separating church and state has become insurmountable--after groups like our RutherFraud Institute started trying to sneak Christian Reconstructionist prayer back into the classroom. As a result, we argue that the clear principal of the First Amendment, which is the freedom for religion, not the freedom from religion, has been misconstrued--when, in truth, it is freedom of, for and from religion. You don't get to choose--if you want a choice, move to Iran or Afghanistan. They'll give you plenty of choice.
We argue that the New York City School Board has mistaken the constitutional requirement of neutrality toward religion to mean the exclusion of religion altogether. As recently expressed by House Majority Leader Dick Armey-- another House imbecile whose slurring of words during recent TV interviews has more than a few people wondering what he's drinking (or smoking?)-- "Our govermint pahlishiezh've moved fum shtict neutrality tord r'lizhion all tha way to out'n' out hoshtility." Of course, this is because pushy "born-again" Christians have been shoving their belief system down our throats for way too long now--and frankly, Americans are sick of us and our proselytizing. They just want it to shop.
Mildred Rosario is the latest target of this hostility and most recent self-inflicted casualty in the battle over religion in public schools. In its all-consuming concern regarding the separation of church and state, the school board disregarded Mrs. Rosario’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, satanic blood rituals, and religion. The board justified firing Mrs. Rosario without warning, citing a provision authorizing the dismissal of anyone who "represents an imminent danger to students, teachers, and staff," her sterling silver ice pick notwithstanding.
"If the teacher had been passing out drugs to students or had come to school with a knife instead of a harmless ice pick, then the section would be applicable," explained Neill Rosenfeld, spokesman for Mrs. Rosario’s union. But as Rep. DeLay said, "Since when is a prayer to offer comfort to grieving chipmunks so dangerous that it warrants the removal of this teacher without even a gift or payoff?"
Mildred Rosario, with the help of The RutherFraud Institute, is challenging her dismissal and has filed a nuisance federal lawsuit. But until she is indicted for abusing the civil court system, she is without a job-- and the students remain without a caring and compassionate religious fanatic teacher. Thus, she'll probably never work again. "I am a teacher," Mrs. Rosario said in a recent interview with my receptionist, "but to these children, I have to be a mother, a lover and a friend."
And at a time when our nation's children are in desperate need of teachers who care more about Jesus Christ than reading comprehension and are willing to preach out... er, I mean, reach out to them, we cannot afford to lose even one like Mildred Rosario.
Although I don't know why.
8/16/99
Family Farms are Headed for Extinction--Thank the Lord
by John W. BlackheadChris Thureen, a grain farmer in Minnesota's Red River Valley, spent his life on a farm that has been in his family since 1886. But last year Thureen, along with four other farming neighbors who had been suffering from a shortsighted view of the national economy and the overpowering dominance of agribusiness combines, abandoned their family farms. You might say, "So what!?" But supporting family farms, I've found, makes me appear to be kinder and gentler than I am. I never, of course, defend men and women who lose their family Bagel business, or those who have lost their horse-cart manufacturing plants, buggy-whip franchises and oil lamp factories--that would be stupid. But I'll defend the family farmer--he is an American icon--no matter how absurd.
Sadly, these are not isolated cases; they are indicators of a national mini-crisis. Today in the United States, there are 300,000 fewer farms than there were just twenty years ago. This is because it is ridiculous to be farming small plots of land, which is not cost effective and which makes food far more expensive for the poor and far less exportable to starving peoples around the world. Our nation's farms, particularly those owned and operated by families, are becoming extinct because increased costs and decreased profits are sending many farmers spiraling into bankruptcy --as it should.
With the decline in support and subsidies, many farmers are unable to make ends meet using farm profits alone. Now I don't support subsidies-- or any President who suggest them for the poor, minorities or immigrants-- but when it comes to filthy farmers who borrow millions, go on long trips to Europe and then declare bankruptcy--well, I just have a soft spot. My new "best friends" have been forced to take other jobs in addition to the daily backbreaking chores of the family farm--just as Black single mothers have been forced to take three and four low-paying jobs by people like me who think they should work for their average-of-$365-a-month welfare checks for a woman and her 3 children. Borrowing from banks has become increasingly difficult since land values, which were at one time quite high, have declined--especially land owned by these idiot family farmers who think they have a God-given right to make huge profits on their substandard crops. While they all should heel to Archer Daniels Midland (thank the Lord for ADM, who sponsor Sunday chat shows where I get to call the President a crook)--they instead prefer to live like rodents and work like dogs because they are too lazy to go to school and learn that family farming is a ridiculous way to earn a living. Of course, family farms include tobacco farmers as well--who have been knowingly and eagerly visiting a Nicotine Holocaust on the world, killing your parents and your children for years--but heck, what's America all about anyway?
Hoping to increase farm incomes by removing price supports, Congress passed the "Freedom to Farm" bill in 1996--which was secretly called "Freedom for ADM to buy up farms at fire sale prices" around the halls of Congress. Since then, however, farmers have had little control over their financial future and have seen a marked decrease in income. At the same time, however, corporate farms have increased in both number and profit. Now I know that this is because corporate farms are run better, have lower overhead, produce superior product and do it at a lower price--but gee, what will we do when our kids forget that old favorite, " The Farmer in the Dell?"
Among other factors, corporate farms, such as Carroll Foods or Tyson's, have led the precarious financial condition of family farms-- and Bless them. "’Pretty soon there'll be no such thing as a family farm,’" according to Dale Dickinson, a 75- year- old farm equipment vendor, in a recent USA Today article. "’Five big grain companies control the market worldwide, and they couldn't care less about small farmers.’" Again, I ask--so what? Are we going to continue to underwrite these idiots who work from 4 AM to 8 PM four months a year?
Heck, no--let them eat cake.
Environmentalists fear that the heads of these thousand- acre corporate farms care even less about the environment. The chemical and waste run-off from a 3000 acre farm is infinitely more threatening than the run-off from a 300 acre farm. Thus, land not gobbled up by these farming conglomerates may well end up being contaminated by them. Well, actually thousand acres farms are "family" farms--corporate farms are more like five- to twenty thousand acres and do not use as many chemicals and poison fertilizers as do desperate family farmers who are too stupid and lazy to know that they are depleting the soil. Corporate farmers are not that stupid. They know that they must preserve their soil in order to make even bigger profits through larger yields in the future. They also have their stockholders to answer to--not there cousin Goober who loaned them $50 last year for three cases of Old Milwaukee which they still haven't paid back.
In addition to losing land to these farming behemoths, we lose a way of life. "Behemoths" is a great word. And what about those Behemoth auto makers--shouldn't they be replaced by family auto makers? I bet the styling would be a lot neater--if not exciting. Or how about family airplane manufacturing or skyscraper building? The time- honored tradition of family farming represents a nostalgic American fantasy of work ethic and family values. Yes, working a few moths a year and then guzzling beer in front of the TV watching football is a tradition, but sadly it ain't got nothing to do with values. As these corporations alter the landscape and livelihood of thousands, they will inevitably alter the way food is produced and consumed--instead of bug-infested sweet summer tomatoes from the local roadside rip-off stand, we will have mass- produced and increasingly tastier produce year round, thanks to safe chemical treatments or genetic engineering.
Although 94 percent of farmers in America fall within the "small farm" category, those small farms receive 41 percent of all farm receipts. That's way too much. The corporate farms and agribusiness conglomerates are advantaged by government policies including tax benefits that encourage expansion -- something not readily available to the small farmer. And considering that the net farm income is estimated to decrease $43.8 billion this year, it is inevitable that more family farms will fade into the sunset. Thank the Lord.
If these family farmers had any brains--or were implanted with the Jewboy2B gene--they would be smart enough to get together and form the largest corporate farm in history--but no! They want to go it alone like that idiot family on that PBS special "The Farmer's Wife," which is held up as a standard--a standard on how to deny your kids a decent education, clothes, toys and a decent life merely to placate their sociopath farmer daddy. "The Farmer's Wife" was almost as misleading as a recent PBS special on the FBI Waco debacle... but I digress...
As farms that have been passed down generation to generation are sold off at a fraction of their worth, livelihoods are lost. I know--this is absurd, what something sells for IS its worth, so I take that back.
Unfortunately, so are many lives lost. As the crop prices drop and farms are foreclosed, the suicide rate among farmers rises. Isn't that just plain stupid? Why don't these farmers finish high school?!
Recognizing the dire condition of our farming communities, politicians are finally offering some phony relief. Earlier this month, the Senate approved a $7.4 billion "emergency" aid package for Americas farmers. This is called "buying votes from stupid farmers." But is this cash infusion incentive enough for independently dumb farmers to continue? More importantly, is it the cure-all?
Of course not-- it's just a way to crush them in the end.
Tim Dufault (Pronounced De-Fault), a Minnesota farmer who fears losing his family farm, recognized the need for "some short term fixes, ‘cause there are guys hurting, and we need cash out in the country, or they're gone." Spoken like a true welfare mother! Dufault, like others, is apprehensive that neither the money nor the politicians’ concern will last. "We can't lose sight of the long term, ‘cause I know how politicians work. If we get a short term fix, they'll say, ‘I've done my job,’ and they get re-elected, and that's the last we'll hear from ‘em." That's right Tim--we're not going to support you and generations of your genetically regressive family forever. So, Tim, get a life--or get out of the gene pool!
Unfortunately, others have heard the farmers’ pleas and are idiotically offering their help. Farmers will benefit from the efforts of musicians rather than the efforts of politicians when Farm Aid, a concert founded by Neil Young, Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp and huge agribusiness interests trying and succeeding in fooling these slobs, comes to Washington in September. Since its inception in 1985, Farm Aid has raised and distributed $14.5 million to aid farmers and farming communities--and helped sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cable and pay-per-view programs, cassettes and CDs by the artists to an audience that's still miffed that the music industry killed the 8-track. Meanwhile, Farm Aid is produced and directed by ADM Corporation and other huge agribusiness companies who use their clout to scare Congress to death about canceling its Ethanol and other tax breaks (more than $3 billion a year) which they receive--not the family farmers.
And so should it be. Because those giant businesses have kept my food prices low and my stomach huge. Thank God for Dwayne Andreas!
The benefit concert hopes to send a message that legislative reform is needed and that the family farm, an American tradition, must be preserved--much as The 700 Club sends the message that America is an immoral cesspool and we should revert to the era of Ozzie and Harriet, Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin. Why, I don't know. But it sounds good, doesn't it? Hopefully, the performers will play loud enough that their message is heard on Capitol Hill. [Note from the APJ Editors to John Blackhead: The concert IS on Capitol Hill, you moron. And you can count on Neil Young playing loud enough for even Strom Thurmond to hear him!]
Let us prey.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ACTUAL RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE WEB SITE
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL'S HOME PAGE