Useful Fools

One brand of liberal charity involves food - urging us to donate to end hunger in America.

So, with corn ethanol usage causing huge price increases in food, one would think these groups be shouting from the rooftops “Stop Burning Food!”

But…. do we hear such pleas? Have you heard one? I haven’t.

These charities are run by the left, and ethanol is sacred to the left - even if it causes hunger or starvation. Riots among the Mexican poor over the doubling of the cost of corn tortillas are ignored by these self-acclaimed champions of the poor and oppressed.

So what does one major hunger advocacy group, America’s Second Harvest, say about corn ethanol? The only statement on its website says (emphasis added):

“On Monday, October 29, Hormel Foods Corporation and America’s Second Harvest – The Nation’s Food Bank Network issued a news release sharing the results of the Hormel Hunger Study 2007: A National Perspective.

“While the study contains useful information about public perceptions regarding the problem of hunger in America, the release issued to the media states that a certain percentage of the public believes that domestic hunger is worsening due to ethanol use. America’s Second Harvest takes no position on ethanol use, nor do we suggest any linkages between ethanol and hunger. America’s Second Harvest regrets the inclusion of what may be considered as an endorsement of this claim in the news release.

“America’s Second Harvest - The Nation’s Food Bank Network is the largest charitable domestic hunger-relief organization in the United States. Our focus lies with getting food to hungry Americans.”

Got it? No position on burning food, by a group supposedly dedicated to ending hunger.

But this is hardly unusual. The left is constantly in a state of dissonance - between the consequences of its own goals. When confronted with a contradiction between goals, they simply advocate both, and to heck with logic!

Liberalism is truly a cognitive disorder.

Obama is the sleek young candidate this year, and many love him for it.

But he isn’t really that young, he’s just inexperienced. For a man of 46 years, what has he done? Can anyone name very many achievements or significant life experiences?

He never served in the military. He has never run a business. No significant legislation bears his name. He has few personal achievements other than writing a couple of books. In other words, he really hasn’t done much, and he is three years older than John Kennedy or Bill Clinton was. As far as his life experience, He went to elite schools, lives in the Berkeley of Illinois (Hyde Park), and chose to attend a racist and divisive church 30 minutes away from his home.

In this age of extended life spans, should we select someone because they are inexperienced, naive and elitist?

(Thanks to RLN for the observation leading to this post)

The next president will likely set the course of the Supreme Court for decades to come. This is one of the most important, if little mentioned issues of the upcoming election.

There are two opposed theories of constitutional interpretation: Originalism and “The Living Constitution”. Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the constitution as it was intended by the founders and those who amended it. A living constitution means that, as the time changes, our interpretation should change to adapt to present circumstances.

The living constitution sounds like a pretty good idea. But it’s very, very dangerous. The least democratic portion of our tripartite government is the judiciary, led by the Supreme Court. They decide the meaning of the constitution. If they hold to originalism, they can only disagree about the intent of the founders.

But, with a living constitution, the judges are free to read anything they want into it - in the name of the common good. They can choose to insert modern international law into the reading of our constitution (as some non-originalists have already done). They can essentially erase “obsolete” protections in the Bill of Rights, such as the 2nd Amendment’s right to self defense, or the first amendment’s right to free speech. They can extend the reach of the federal government deeper into the lives of its citizens… whatever it takes “for the common good.” This is the road to fascism!

Defenders of the living constitution say that without it, we are stuck with 18th century rules in the twenty-first. But the founders understood this issue, and provided two different means to “modernize” the constitution through amendment. And indeed, the constitution has been modernized that way 27 times.

For example, when slavery became intolerable, the 13th amendment was enacted to abolish it, and the 14th and 15th to enable that abolition to be effective.

So this year, ask yourself: “Would I rather have a government of laws, with representatives who are elected, or a government controlled by 9 judges who rule for life?”

And if you prefer the former, don’t vote for any Democrat - because they prefer to use the 9 judges, though the living constitution, to control us, when democratic methods fail them.

Alan Colmes tonight on Fox:

But of course, Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.

Lefties love this quote. They misattribute it to Jefferson, thereby pretending he was one of them.

After all, a leftie sees himself (herself, itself?) as the little guy against this or that oppressor. The worst oppressor of all is the state - unless it is taxing or regulating according to the lefties rules in which case complaining as called “cold heartedness”.

It’s all so sixties-ish. Yuk.
…

How about a few higher forms of patriotism:

• A volunteer soldier who risks his life in combat for the nation
• A person who stands up for his country in the face of wrong-headed criticism
• Someone who provides employment for thousands of fellow citizens
• A person who lives a life of honor and civility