[Swiftwater Gazette] Any property or wealth you have is subject to Obama's redistribution...

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Oh yeah!  This guy really knows how to take care of the environment -

http://tinyurl.com/kqb7ja

Brad

On 8/9/09, Ed Kroposki <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> Obama's global redistributionist
>
> A believer in de-developing the United States ...
>
> By Terence P. Jeffrey | Saturday, August 8, 2009
>
> The following is an excerpt.  Complete article can be found at:
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/08/obamas-global-redistributionist/
>
>
>
> "The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution
> within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability
> and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustianability,"
> the authors explain.
>
> Table 1-1 lists among the "underlying human frailties" causing the ills of
> mankind "greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness." These vices,
> they say, "collectively have been elevated by conservative political
> doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the
> status of a credo."
>
> The authors present a formula for understanding ecological "damage," which
> they say "means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation
> or future generations." This doomsday formula is: "Damage = population x
> economic activity per person (affluence) x resource use per economic
> activity (resources) x stress on the environment per resource use
> (technology) x damage per stress (susceptibility)."
>
> Their application of this formula rejects the notion that man, through his
> wit, can not only increase individual productivity and technological
> efficiency but also find new resources to fuel them.
>
> For example, how much potential water lingers in the universe? Well, how
> much hydrogen and oxygen did God create? Mr. Holdren and co-authors claim to
> "know for certain" such thinking is folly.
>
> "We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth
> (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable,"
> they say. "Many of the practices inadequately supporting today's population
> of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable; and at the sustainability limit,
> there will be a tradeoff between population and energy-matter throughput per
> person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and
> well-being per person.
>
> "This is enough," they write, "to say quite a lot about what needs to be
> faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be
> done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material
> consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for
> postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per
> person)."
>
> By the time Mr. Holdren and his co-authors wrote those words, he had been
> sounding the same alarm for more than two decades.
>
> "Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the
> alternatives may be much more horrifying," Mr. Holdren, Mr. Ehrlich and Anne
> H. Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, "Human Ecology: Problems
> and Solutions."
>
> "A far better choice, in our view," they wrote, "is to begin now with milder
> methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the
> means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible
> to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If
> effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or
> repressive measures can be averted."
>
> Within this apocalyptic vision, curbing economic growth and redistributing
> wealth become duties.
>
> "A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment
> in North America and to de-develop the United States," Mr. Holdren and the
> Ehrlichs wrote in the conclusion of "Human Ecology." "The need for
> de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must
> design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more
> equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of
> wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent
> life is to be provided to every human being."
>
> Those are the words of a man who now serves in the White House, providing
> "wise counsel" to a president seeking to restructure the entire U.S. health
> care system.
>
> Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSnews.com
>