"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"; that's what it says in the bible, so why can't the clergy abide by that?
We see too many church leaders go beyond spiritual guidance and enter the realm of the Caesar's world. Bishops and national religious orders have campaigned for immigration reform and require pastors to read messages to their flock urging changes in immigration law. Parishioners are asked to legalize acceptance of illegal immigrants, care for them and reward them with amnesty so they can become citizens. Perhaps this can be attributed to a concern for the impoverished and a desire for humanitarian conduct. But how in the world can religious leaders feel they have a right to dictate whether we separate plastic bottles from other trash?
Southern Baptist ministers have climbed on board the global warming train and want to bring their followers along for the ride too. But, perhaps the most disappointing extension of biblical teaching was recently pronounced on behalf of the Vatican. If we don't recycle plastic bottles, we could find ourselves spending eternity in Hell; that's what a spokesman for the Vatican said as he added to the list of the traditional seven deadly sins. Furthermore, profit-making capitalists contribute to "social injustice" and that could be sinful as well.
You may have learned as I did that the seven deadly sins are lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. Now however, according to Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close aid of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Roman Curia's main courts, as he told the L'Osservatore Romano (the official Vatican newspaper), these seven sins have a "rather individualistic dimension. He said we must be aware of "new sins which have appeared on the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization. He also listed bad ecological practices and economic inequality, "in which the poor are getting poorer and the rich growing richer, fueling an unsustainable social injustice."
Girotti said: "Whereas sin in the past was thought of as being an individual matter, it now has 'social resonance'." "You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos."
So what are the 'deadly sins' of our time? The Vatican says climate change 'will spark global conflict' and therefore to the deadly sin list we must include polluting the environment and contributing to climate change. However, not only are greenhouse gas emitters on the path to you know where, but according to Monsignor Girotti we must add causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs to the list of sins which are "mortal sins".
According to Roman Catholic doctrine, mortal sins are a "grave violation of God's law" and bring about "eternal death" if unrepented by the act of confession. They are far more serious than venial sins, which impede a soul's progress in the exercise of virtue and moral good. The new additions to the seven deadly, or mortal, sins, are, according to the Monsignor "designed to make worshippers realize that their vices have an effect on others as well". "The sins of today have a social resonance as well as an individual one," said the good Monsignor. "In effect, it is more important than ever to pay attention to your sins." Notice the moral equivalency given contributing to global warming with other "vices".
I have read the bible twice and several translations of the Koran. No where in these texts can be found a teaching that contributing to global warming according to the Al Gore doctrine is a sin or even a 'no no'. So why then are religious leaders now defining "sin" to include politically incorrect behavior?
I don't have an answer to the question, do you?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Do we have the will to win an “endless war”?
In the Western conflict against terror, the principle enemy is jihadist Islam; a military theology which requires an unending holy war that is constant, persistent and perpetual. War by jihadist Muslims has been accelerating around the Arab world; adding large numbers of disciples as it continues. The period of despair by Muslims of the last century is over.
The most recent events fueling Muslim disillusionment was the creation of a Jewish state in 1948 and the inability of Arabs to destroy Israel from its creation through several wars, up to and including the 1967 war. However, with the loss of these wars, Muslims have evolved a continuing state of jihadist war, a war without end.
This new war is being fought by Al Qaeda, its allies and offshoots, including the Afghan Taliban; radical Shiah headed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and the multi-branched Muslim Brotherhood directly and through the Palestinian Hamas. Although the three groups may be at each other’s throats sometimes, (in such places as Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine); they are clearly joined in the war against western civilization by classical tactics of terror and, increasingly, in the doctrine of what I call “endless war”; not winning a military war becomes to them a winning strategy.
The “endless war” by Muslims employs tactics that make it possible for the Muslim terrorist-fighters to dispense with victory as the declared goal against their avowed enemies: the United States, Western Europe and Israel. Desire for victory is replaced by a more attainable objective, depriving the enemy of victory by keeping all armed encounters inconclusive.
Muslims use this “endless war” strategy to challenge supremacy of Western military technology. Tactics such as suicide attacks, roadside bombs and primitive missiles which harass innocent civilians, sophisticated armies, air forces and navies, force the enemy and its populations to live behind walls. “Endless war” gives them military confidence for the first time since the Ottomans were turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683. It means that constant combat is its own triumph and reward.
Although domination of the world by Islam is the victory goal, single engagements, big or small, do not have to be won. It does not matter to Muslims how costly in lives of combatants it may be, the loss of life is an end in itself. The struggle of Islam against the West is counted in generations. When Osama bin Laden planned for the destruction of the United States, he was looking into a timeless future.
Other Islamic leaders have also embraced and prophesized “endless war”. The late Ahmad Yasin, one of the founding fathers of Hamas, regularly spoke of Israel’s annihilation as a certainty, but he never specified any future target dates. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, uses the metaphor of a slowly unwinding spider web for the ultimate downfall of America and Israel.
The idea of “endless war” gains strength in the Muslim mind as America began to face difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan and criticism and discouragement at home. It was further encouraged by Israel’s failure to fully defeat Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war. The Israel failure in Lebanon is a perfect example of how “endless war” works in favor of the Islamic objective. Though they did not beat Israel, they came out ahead by denying the Israeli army a victory so they are still able to fight another day.
"Endless war” was how the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Against an absolutely superior military force, Muslims won by stretching the war out beyond the Soviet endurance to sustain loss of lives without achieving military victory.
The same tactic is in play in Israel. With a comparatively very small population, Israel faces millions of Arabs with nothing but time on their side. Muslims whittle away at the Israeli population through terrorism and rockets while Israel succumbs to the demands by the United States for ever-ongoing “peace negotiations”; how long will the state of Israel last?
Islamists are emboldened by the prospect that, if not the present generation living to see the Islamic flag hoisted in Jerusalem as a sign of victory, subsequent generations surely will. This generation of Muslims in the Mid-East is willing to have a mission limited to self-sacrifice because they know “endless war” will be carried on by its progeny. The triumph of their martyrdom not only over Israel but the world lies several generations in the future.
Even in Iraq, according to this Islamic military ideology, war on unbelievers is not about territory but blood. Therefore, the American army could occupy all of Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein and his statue, seize Baghdad and drive al Qaeda out of provincial strongholds, without winning or even ending the Iraq war because the conflict remains inconclusive. For jihadists Iraq and Afghanistan as well, is merely a part of the continuing war which could go on for generations. This is the thinking behind al Qaeda’s declarations that, however many reinforcements America may deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, they will change nothing on the ground; the war will go on.
In the 1980s, Osama bin Laden adopted the motto of his mentor Sheik Azzam Abdullah, whom he later murdered in order to lead al Qaeda himself. The Sheikh’s battle cry was: “We Muslims are invincible because we love death, whereas you (the enemy) love life.”
So is our prospect for the future hopeless; not necessarily. We can win the battle for survival if we employ what Ariel Sharon said while he was still a warrior, and of which he wrote in his book of this title. Reflecting on his years as a courageous soldier fighting for his nation's survival, Sharon wrote in his book “Warriors” that, in dealing with Israel's Arab attackers, he "came to view the objective not simply as retaliation, or even deterrence in the usual sense. It was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction they could never win."
The war against terror will be unwinnable until such time as we are willing to do whatever is necessary to beat the Muslims “so decisively” they “develop the conviction” they cannot win against western civilization either through “endless war” or the womb.
The western world can only succeed with one strategy – win at all cost no matter what the price in loss of public opinion or condemnation by political correctness.
The most recent events fueling Muslim disillusionment was the creation of a Jewish state in 1948 and the inability of Arabs to destroy Israel from its creation through several wars, up to and including the 1967 war. However, with the loss of these wars, Muslims have evolved a continuing state of jihadist war, a war without end.
This new war is being fought by Al Qaeda, its allies and offshoots, including the Afghan Taliban; radical Shiah headed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and the multi-branched Muslim Brotherhood directly and through the Palestinian Hamas. Although the three groups may be at each other’s throats sometimes, (in such places as Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine); they are clearly joined in the war against western civilization by classical tactics of terror and, increasingly, in the doctrine of what I call “endless war”; not winning a military war becomes to them a winning strategy.
The “endless war” by Muslims employs tactics that make it possible for the Muslim terrorist-fighters to dispense with victory as the declared goal against their avowed enemies: the United States, Western Europe and Israel. Desire for victory is replaced by a more attainable objective, depriving the enemy of victory by keeping all armed encounters inconclusive.
Muslims use this “endless war” strategy to challenge supremacy of Western military technology. Tactics such as suicide attacks, roadside bombs and primitive missiles which harass innocent civilians, sophisticated armies, air forces and navies, force the enemy and its populations to live behind walls. “Endless war” gives them military confidence for the first time since the Ottomans were turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683. It means that constant combat is its own triumph and reward.
Although domination of the world by Islam is the victory goal, single engagements, big or small, do not have to be won. It does not matter to Muslims how costly in lives of combatants it may be, the loss of life is an end in itself. The struggle of Islam against the West is counted in generations. When Osama bin Laden planned for the destruction of the United States, he was looking into a timeless future.
Other Islamic leaders have also embraced and prophesized “endless war”. The late Ahmad Yasin, one of the founding fathers of Hamas, regularly spoke of Israel’s annihilation as a certainty, but he never specified any future target dates. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, uses the metaphor of a slowly unwinding spider web for the ultimate downfall of America and Israel.
The idea of “endless war” gains strength in the Muslim mind as America began to face difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan and criticism and discouragement at home. It was further encouraged by Israel’s failure to fully defeat Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war. The Israel failure in Lebanon is a perfect example of how “endless war” works in favor of the Islamic objective. Though they did not beat Israel, they came out ahead by denying the Israeli army a victory so they are still able to fight another day.
"Endless war” was how the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Against an absolutely superior military force, Muslims won by stretching the war out beyond the Soviet endurance to sustain loss of lives without achieving military victory.
The same tactic is in play in Israel. With a comparatively very small population, Israel faces millions of Arabs with nothing but time on their side. Muslims whittle away at the Israeli population through terrorism and rockets while Israel succumbs to the demands by the United States for ever-ongoing “peace negotiations”; how long will the state of Israel last?
Islamists are emboldened by the prospect that, if not the present generation living to see the Islamic flag hoisted in Jerusalem as a sign of victory, subsequent generations surely will. This generation of Muslims in the Mid-East is willing to have a mission limited to self-sacrifice because they know “endless war” will be carried on by its progeny. The triumph of their martyrdom not only over Israel but the world lies several generations in the future.
Even in Iraq, according to this Islamic military ideology, war on unbelievers is not about territory but blood. Therefore, the American army could occupy all of Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein and his statue, seize Baghdad and drive al Qaeda out of provincial strongholds, without winning or even ending the Iraq war because the conflict remains inconclusive. For jihadists Iraq and Afghanistan as well, is merely a part of the continuing war which could go on for generations. This is the thinking behind al Qaeda’s declarations that, however many reinforcements America may deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, they will change nothing on the ground; the war will go on.
In the 1980s, Osama bin Laden adopted the motto of his mentor Sheik Azzam Abdullah, whom he later murdered in order to lead al Qaeda himself. The Sheikh’s battle cry was: “We Muslims are invincible because we love death, whereas you (the enemy) love life.”
So is our prospect for the future hopeless; not necessarily. We can win the battle for survival if we employ what Ariel Sharon said while he was still a warrior, and of which he wrote in his book of this title. Reflecting on his years as a courageous soldier fighting for his nation's survival, Sharon wrote in his book “Warriors” that, in dealing with Israel's Arab attackers, he "came to view the objective not simply as retaliation, or even deterrence in the usual sense. It was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction they could never win."
The war against terror will be unwinnable until such time as we are willing to do whatever is necessary to beat the Muslims “so decisively” they “develop the conviction” they cannot win against western civilization either through “endless war” or the womb.
The western world can only succeed with one strategy – win at all cost no matter what the price in loss of public opinion or condemnation by political correctness.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
U.S. insanity in the Mid East
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Few things can illustrate a failed foreign policy better than attempting to have a different result with the same fact situation that resulted in prior policy failures.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled to the Middle East to speak with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and to twist the arm of Israeli President Ehud Olmert in order to conclude a "peace" agreement before the end of the George Bush presidency. Each time the Secretary goes to the Mid East with this objective, the facts against which peace is to be obtained remain the same and the repeated result is no peace in sight.
What are the facts which remain the same; continued daily rocket bombardment and mortar shells launched into Israel and other acts of terrorism, successful or attempted, that reap destruction and death. Israeli soldiers abducted by Arabs have not been returned despite endless release of imprisoned Arab murderers and donation of slices, like salami, of Israel land to the people dedicated to Israel's destruction.
All Israeli attempts to defend against a continuous onslaught of rockets raining onto Israel cities is considered wrong and the need for Israeli self defense is ignored. Israeli defensive efforts have been even condemned internationally by the European Union and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has accused Israel of using "excessive force" in attempting to destroy the sources of the rockets launched daily that terrorize Israeli citizens.
With time running short, Rice's continuing travel to the Mid East will not cause the Palestinians to change their intent on destroying Israel so it is inconceivable that "peace can be achieved in our (i.e. Bushes') time", or at all. Even though there is only 10 months left in his term of office, Bush said he still believes there is "plenty of time" to get a Mideast peace deal before his term ends. Egad!
History shows peace is only achieved when one side defeats the other. Moreover, further dealing with Abbas is futile since Hamas really runs Palestine and they are unlikely to smoke the peace pipe with Israel in our lifetime. The Bush unrealistic expectation that a deal can be made with Abbas, and that any "agreement" will be abided by the Palestinians, especially while it is actually Hamas that rules, is absurd in the extreme.
Predictably, Israel's military response to the continuing barrage from Gaza has inflamed Arabs around the entire region. Naturally Arabs ignore their provocations and successfully focus world attention on the Israeli response. Arabs never lose the public relations war while never winning a military war.
In an amazing display of "chutzpah", Abbas said there would be no peace talks until Israel stops it attacks in Gaza; which really means until Israel stops defending itself. But Rice ignores the irony by Abbas and asks Olmert to do all Israel can to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. Has anyone heard Rice or anyone else ask Hamas to avoid Israeli civilian casualties?
Abbas declined Rice's request to return to negotiations until Israel "halts its aggression". Rice talking to Abbas about his decision to suspend peace talks because of the violence sounds very much like a mother scolding recalcitrant child who continually ignores her and it will have the same result. The United States and the world find it impossible to understand that one cannot negotiate with Muslims.
Madam Secretary said that negotiations between "moderate Palestinians" and the Israelis are the only solution. "I understand the difficulties of the current moment," she said. "We all must keep an eye on what is important." - How ridiculous! First of all are there any "moderate" Palestinians, and what is a "moderate Palestinian" anyway? Is a moderate Palestinian one that will try to negotiate Israel out of existence rather than blow it away?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled to the Middle East to speak with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and to twist the arm of Israeli President Ehud Olmert in order to conclude a "peace" agreement before the end of the George Bush presidency. Each time the Secretary goes to the Mid East with this objective, the facts against which peace is to be obtained remain the same and the repeated result is no peace in sight.
What are the facts which remain the same; continued daily rocket bombardment and mortar shells launched into Israel and other acts of terrorism, successful or attempted, that reap destruction and death. Israeli soldiers abducted by Arabs have not been returned despite endless release of imprisoned Arab murderers and donation of slices, like salami, of Israel land to the people dedicated to Israel's destruction.
All Israeli attempts to defend against a continuous onslaught of rockets raining onto Israel cities is considered wrong and the need for Israeli self defense is ignored. Israeli defensive efforts have been even condemned internationally by the European Union and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has accused Israel of using "excessive force" in attempting to destroy the sources of the rockets launched daily that terrorize Israeli citizens.
With time running short, Rice's continuing travel to the Mid East will not cause the Palestinians to change their intent on destroying Israel so it is inconceivable that "peace can be achieved in our (i.e. Bushes') time", or at all. Even though there is only 10 months left in his term of office, Bush said he still believes there is "plenty of time" to get a Mideast peace deal before his term ends. Egad!
History shows peace is only achieved when one side defeats the other. Moreover, further dealing with Abbas is futile since Hamas really runs Palestine and they are unlikely to smoke the peace pipe with Israel in our lifetime. The Bush unrealistic expectation that a deal can be made with Abbas, and that any "agreement" will be abided by the Palestinians, especially while it is actually Hamas that rules, is absurd in the extreme.
Predictably, Israel's military response to the continuing barrage from Gaza has inflamed Arabs around the entire region. Naturally Arabs ignore their provocations and successfully focus world attention on the Israeli response. Arabs never lose the public relations war while never winning a military war.
In an amazing display of "chutzpah", Abbas said there would be no peace talks until Israel stops it attacks in Gaza; which really means until Israel stops defending itself. But Rice ignores the irony by Abbas and asks Olmert to do all Israel can to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. Has anyone heard Rice or anyone else ask Hamas to avoid Israeli civilian casualties?
Abbas declined Rice's request to return to negotiations until Israel "halts its aggression". Rice talking to Abbas about his decision to suspend peace talks because of the violence sounds very much like a mother scolding recalcitrant child who continually ignores her and it will have the same result. The United States and the world find it impossible to understand that one cannot negotiate with Muslims.
Madam Secretary said that negotiations between "moderate Palestinians" and the Israelis are the only solution. "I understand the difficulties of the current moment," she said. "We all must keep an eye on what is important." - How ridiculous! First of all are there any "moderate" Palestinians, and what is a "moderate Palestinian" anyway? Is a moderate Palestinian one that will try to negotiate Israel out of existence rather than blow it away?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Have you ever considered the importance of corn?
Our food supply depends to a large extent on corn. We feed corn to cattle and cows to provide meat on the table and milk in our glass. It is fed to chickens to provide a staple in our diet and eggs for our morning breakfast. Corn is used to make fructose which is a basic ingredient used to satisfy our "sweet tooth". And, unfortunately, it is now used as a tool by global warming zeolets who want to change our way of life.
The growing craze to adapt ethanol to a transportation fuel has such far reaching consequences that our's and the entire world's economy, and all our food sources, are disastrously affected.
We have been warned by economists that the our growing dependence on corn will cause soaring prices for food if the nation suffers a drought in the Midwest but even now under "normal" conditions the costs of many foods have increased greatly just because of the present of ethanol binge. At the current rate of corn usage for nonfood purposes we can see eggs at well over $4.00 a dozen and meat prices skyrocketing.
Last year corn prices rose substantially and in the short time of this year so far corn prices have risen an additional 20% because of worldwide demand for corn as livestock feed, use in sweeteners and to produce ethanol. American farmers are foregoing other grains to plant high cash-producing corn. This monetery incentive has even caused wheat supplies to diminish such that wheat prices are also up 21% and soy prices rose 25% this year. One analyst, Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, estimates that corn could reach $8 a bushel from $5.50 now if a water shortage caused by a rain shortfall occurrs.
Babcock also said, referring to the cooling of ocean temperatures that often has a drying effect, "The risk of a drought right now is higher than normal because of the La Niña we are seeing." This is not idle speculation, since 1971 the United States has endured four major weather disasters that destroyed 21% to 29% of the corn crop at a time. Other natural weather calamities such as heat waves and cold spells, have reduced production harvests by billions of bushels. In the past such disasters raised only food prices; in the future gasoline prices will be raised as well. That's because ethanol - produced from corn in the U.S.- will make up about 6% of the nation's gasoline fuel supply this year, and that's expected to rise to 10% over the next five years due to the "Energy Independence and Security Act" passed into law last year. In California alone the amount of ethanol used in gasoline is expected to grow at a faster rate, reaching 10% by 2010.
Bruce Babcock also said "If there were a crop shortfall, the rising price of corn would prevent ethanol distillers from earning a profit, prompting them to slash production". "Oil companies would have to fill any sudden gap with conventional gasoline. "Prices would soar for both fuels", said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an energy economist in Aspen, Colorado.
Verlanger also pointed out: "One way to see this is to look at what happened last year. Industrial accidents, weather and other refining disruptions cut U.S. gasoline production about 10% in February 2007, sending wholesale prices soaring. If there were a crop failure now, we would likely try to ease the shortage by buying from any excess refining capacity outside the country".
It's not as if farmers would not be also affected if a drought occurs and corn production is decreased. The Los Angeles Times reported that Ron Heck, a fourth-generation soy and corn farmer from Perry, Iowa said "A drought would be bad for everyone. The high prices would hurt my customers, and I would have no crop to sell."
Increasing demand for gasoline exceeds refinery capacity so fuel prices will be tied even more closely to the size of the corn crop. Therefore, we might see a situation where even the threat of a drought could cause gas prices to rise. If this isn't bad enough, as long as oil prices continue to exceed $100 a barrel, it would still be profitable for them if ethanol distillers force up the price of corn to $7 a bushel, especially when the government subsidy is added in.The result would be food made directly from these commodities, such as bread, pasta and tortillas, and food made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk and eggs, all staples of our diet, would raise the cost of living and cause increasing inflation.
Even the rest of the world would be affected. Because of the demand for these crops, a major shortfall in the U.S. would cause chaos in global grain and soy markets. This would also be exacerbated because of global food cost inflation. The United States has already said that future food distributions to poverty stricken populations will be curtailed as a result of present high prices here. Can you imagine how many more people in the world will suffer so global warming fanatics and misguided adherents in our government, and those profiting from this hoax (like Al Gore), can boast of cooperating with other countries and "experts" also taken in by this hoax?
Any further reduction in food availability will lead to the "politics of scarcity" (as reported in the Los Angeles Times), that is, when countries will stop exporting their domestic grain and soy crops to keep food prices under control for their own people. Countries like China, Russia and Argentina are imposing export tariffs to keep grains from leaving the country so as to protect their food supplies.
At what point will our goverenment bureaucrats have to make the hard choice; continue blindly with the ethanol production goals outlined in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act or make more corn available in the domestic and international food supply by changing the ethanol policy? Of course, another possibility is to lift tariffs on sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and start buying their competively priced ethanol, but this would not sit well with sugar beet producers and politicians from corn-belt states who like higher corn prices for their constituents.
A spike in food prices as may occur will also contribute to the possibility of a recession, or worse, by large price increases around the country. In the past we have had a separate food economy and a separate energy economy, not anymore; we can thank people who think Earth's climate change is due to mere humans and not the planet's historical dynamics for that.
The growing craze to adapt ethanol to a transportation fuel has such far reaching consequences that our's and the entire world's economy, and all our food sources, are disastrously affected.
We have been warned by economists that the our growing dependence on corn will cause soaring prices for food if the nation suffers a drought in the Midwest but even now under "normal" conditions the costs of many foods have increased greatly just because of the present of ethanol binge. At the current rate of corn usage for nonfood purposes we can see eggs at well over $4.00 a dozen and meat prices skyrocketing.
Last year corn prices rose substantially and in the short time of this year so far corn prices have risen an additional 20% because of worldwide demand for corn as livestock feed, use in sweeteners and to produce ethanol. American farmers are foregoing other grains to plant high cash-producing corn. This monetery incentive has even caused wheat supplies to diminish such that wheat prices are also up 21% and soy prices rose 25% this year. One analyst, Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, estimates that corn could reach $8 a bushel from $5.50 now if a water shortage caused by a rain shortfall occurrs.
Babcock also said, referring to the cooling of ocean temperatures that often has a drying effect, "The risk of a drought right now is higher than normal because of the La Niña we are seeing." This is not idle speculation, since 1971 the United States has endured four major weather disasters that destroyed 21% to 29% of the corn crop at a time. Other natural weather calamities such as heat waves and cold spells, have reduced production harvests by billions of bushels. In the past such disasters raised only food prices; in the future gasoline prices will be raised as well. That's because ethanol - produced from corn in the U.S.- will make up about 6% of the nation's gasoline fuel supply this year, and that's expected to rise to 10% over the next five years due to the "Energy Independence and Security Act" passed into law last year. In California alone the amount of ethanol used in gasoline is expected to grow at a faster rate, reaching 10% by 2010.
Bruce Babcock also said "If there were a crop shortfall, the rising price of corn would prevent ethanol distillers from earning a profit, prompting them to slash production". "Oil companies would have to fill any sudden gap with conventional gasoline. "Prices would soar for both fuels", said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an energy economist in Aspen, Colorado.
Verlanger also pointed out: "One way to see this is to look at what happened last year. Industrial accidents, weather and other refining disruptions cut U.S. gasoline production about 10% in February 2007, sending wholesale prices soaring. If there were a crop failure now, we would likely try to ease the shortage by buying from any excess refining capacity outside the country".
It's not as if farmers would not be also affected if a drought occurs and corn production is decreased. The Los Angeles Times reported that Ron Heck, a fourth-generation soy and corn farmer from Perry, Iowa said "A drought would be bad for everyone. The high prices would hurt my customers, and I would have no crop to sell."
Increasing demand for gasoline exceeds refinery capacity so fuel prices will be tied even more closely to the size of the corn crop. Therefore, we might see a situation where even the threat of a drought could cause gas prices to rise. If this isn't bad enough, as long as oil prices continue to exceed $100 a barrel, it would still be profitable for them if ethanol distillers force up the price of corn to $7 a bushel, especially when the government subsidy is added in.The result would be food made directly from these commodities, such as bread, pasta and tortillas, and food made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk and eggs, all staples of our diet, would raise the cost of living and cause increasing inflation.
Even the rest of the world would be affected. Because of the demand for these crops, a major shortfall in the U.S. would cause chaos in global grain and soy markets. This would also be exacerbated because of global food cost inflation. The United States has already said that future food distributions to poverty stricken populations will be curtailed as a result of present high prices here. Can you imagine how many more people in the world will suffer so global warming fanatics and misguided adherents in our government, and those profiting from this hoax (like Al Gore), can boast of cooperating with other countries and "experts" also taken in by this hoax?
Any further reduction in food availability will lead to the "politics of scarcity" (as reported in the Los Angeles Times), that is, when countries will stop exporting their domestic grain and soy crops to keep food prices under control for their own people. Countries like China, Russia and Argentina are imposing export tariffs to keep grains from leaving the country so as to protect their food supplies.
At what point will our goverenment bureaucrats have to make the hard choice; continue blindly with the ethanol production goals outlined in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act or make more corn available in the domestic and international food supply by changing the ethanol policy? Of course, another possibility is to lift tariffs on sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and start buying their competively priced ethanol, but this would not sit well with sugar beet producers and politicians from corn-belt states who like higher corn prices for their constituents.
A spike in food prices as may occur will also contribute to the possibility of a recession, or worse, by large price increases around the country. In the past we have had a separate food economy and a separate energy economy, not anymore; we can thank people who think Earth's climate change is due to mere humans and not the planet's historical dynamics for that.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The mislabeled “Energy Independence and Security Act” is even worse than we thought
When I wrote about the “Energy Independence and Security Act” (EISA), now the law of the land, I pointed out the mislabeled law provided neither independence nor security. What I didn’t know then was that not only does the law not provide independence from mid east oil, it also deprives us of a secure oil source.
A little-noticed provision of the ironically named "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last December bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. The obscurity of the provision and the fact that the media doesn’t understand its importance has made it virtually unknown to the public.
The Financial Times in its February 15th edition noticed that section 526 of the energy bill prohibits the federal government from buying oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, a reserve that holds about two-thirds the amount of recoverable oil as compared to reserves in Saudi Arabia. Because it takes greenhouse gas-producing energy to extract oil from the tar sands, the article focused on the fact that the law could affect billions of dollars of trade in oil, particularly since the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest single buyer of light refined petroleum.
But while the Financial Times observed a provision overlooked, or deliberately ignored, by the US media, it failed to appreciate the more significant aspect of this prohibition; namely, that this is yet another effort by environmentalists and their congressional toadies to disrupt our energy supply.
Democrat representative Henry Waxman and RHINO Republican Tom Davis already are pressing the Department of Defense to comply with the provision because the Air Force is using oil from coal to fuel airplanes to determine the log term viability of this energy source. In a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Waxman and Davis asked the DOD how it will ensure that the fuel it buys doesn’t come from Canadian tar sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing.
Waxman and Davis apparently expect the military to take on the impossible task of tracing the source of the fuel it purchases and then to refuse North American oil from unconventional sources apparently in favor of oil from OPEC sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How’s that for energy independence and security?
If you believe as I believe that tar sand and coal-to-oil processes is the path to energy independence, then you will agree this law is a damaging step along the path global warming fanatics want to drag us through on the way to making the United States less than the great nation it is.
The plain language of section 526 can also be read to include banning the federal government from purchasing ethanol, since its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum, but notice that Waxman and Davis say nothing about ethanol because it is now the fuel de jour.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy reported in the February 7th edition of Science "Turning native ecosystems into 'farms' for biofuel crops causes major carbon emissions that worsen the global warming that biofuels are meant to mitigate”. Another study in the same issue of Science projected that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission from ethanol over 30 years is twice as high as from regular gasoline.
Yet, interestingly, Waxman and Davis specifically excluded biofuels from their letter to the DOD.
If the government is barred from use of tar sand and coal-to-liquid fuels, how long will it be before a government ban spreads to contractors that do business with the federal government, to states and their contractors, and then, by default, to the nation as a whole? How can we take the presidential candidates, President Bush and Congress seriously on the energy independence issue when none of them opposed a bill that actually makes us more dependent on OPEC?
A little-noticed provision of the ironically named "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last December bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. The obscurity of the provision and the fact that the media doesn’t understand its importance has made it virtually unknown to the public.
The Financial Times in its February 15th edition noticed that section 526 of the energy bill prohibits the federal government from buying oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, a reserve that holds about two-thirds the amount of recoverable oil as compared to reserves in Saudi Arabia. Because it takes greenhouse gas-producing energy to extract oil from the tar sands, the article focused on the fact that the law could affect billions of dollars of trade in oil, particularly since the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest single buyer of light refined petroleum.
But while the Financial Times observed a provision overlooked, or deliberately ignored, by the US media, it failed to appreciate the more significant aspect of this prohibition; namely, that this is yet another effort by environmentalists and their congressional toadies to disrupt our energy supply.
Democrat representative Henry Waxman and RHINO Republican Tom Davis already are pressing the Department of Defense to comply with the provision because the Air Force is using oil from coal to fuel airplanes to determine the log term viability of this energy source. In a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Waxman and Davis asked the DOD how it will ensure that the fuel it buys doesn’t come from Canadian tar sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing.
Waxman and Davis apparently expect the military to take on the impossible task of tracing the source of the fuel it purchases and then to refuse North American oil from unconventional sources apparently in favor of oil from OPEC sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How’s that for energy independence and security?
If you believe as I believe that tar sand and coal-to-oil processes is the path to energy independence, then you will agree this law is a damaging step along the path global warming fanatics want to drag us through on the way to making the United States less than the great nation it is.
The plain language of section 526 can also be read to include banning the federal government from purchasing ethanol, since its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum, but notice that Waxman and Davis say nothing about ethanol because it is now the fuel de jour.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy reported in the February 7th edition of Science "Turning native ecosystems into 'farms' for biofuel crops causes major carbon emissions that worsen the global warming that biofuels are meant to mitigate”. Another study in the same issue of Science projected that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission from ethanol over 30 years is twice as high as from regular gasoline.
Yet, interestingly, Waxman and Davis specifically excluded biofuels from their letter to the DOD.
If the government is barred from use of tar sand and coal-to-liquid fuels, how long will it be before a government ban spreads to contractors that do business with the federal government, to states and their contractors, and then, by default, to the nation as a whole? How can we take the presidential candidates, President Bush and Congress seriously on the energy independence issue when none of them opposed a bill that actually makes us more dependent on OPEC?
Caution - "danger ahead"
How else can one describe laws passed recently by congress except as "tyrannical"? From petty laws dictating what kind of light bulbs we may use to essentially banning popular automobiles to raising taxes as our economy appears to be stumbling, very bad left-wing ideas control legislation now as they have sometimes in the past. (Who can forget the 55-MPH speed limit?)
The tragedy is that angry Democrats are voting in record numbers; far outpacing Republicans at the polls this primary season. Democrat fundraising soars well above amounts raised by Republicans; and this has ominous implications. In both Iowa and North Carolina, and all other state voting primaries, Republican turnout was way down.
But the real problem in November, 2008, in addition to loss of the White House, is the potential acquisition of a Democrat veto-proof majority in the senate. Almost half of the Republican Party's 49 senate seats are up for reelection in 2008, as compared to only 12 seats Democrats have to defend. At least 11 of the Democrat seats are considered by "experts" as safe and in seven of 11 seats the incumbents are unlikely to lose because they have been in the senate four or more terms.
A Democrat gain of three to six seats is more than possible and a turnover of nine Republican seats gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. In the event of a close case scenario, Republicans would have to rely on RINOs like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to sustain a filibuster. Couple this with the likelihood Nancy Pelosi will lead a House with an even bigger Democrat majority, and a Democrat president, and we have an unavoidable disaster for our country ahead.
A Washington Times analysis January 21 gave a realistic appraisal of Democrat prospects in the house:
"While it is surely far too early to make definitive judgments about the vote itself, a rash of Republican retirements in competitive districts has left the party standing on defensive terrain."
With the real possibility of the Democrat left-wing taking over government, here are some of the entirely likely legislative results we will see:
- a "sun-setting" of the Bush tax cuts (favorable rates on capital gains and dividends will expire in 2010) and increased taxes for tax payers, (all of whom Democrats regard as "the wealthy among us" or "rich")
- a mandatory universal healthcare program (the differences between Obama and Clinton proposals are slight) with coverage for illegal immigrants
- bailout of imprudent home loan borrowers, punishing the responsible home buyers and rewarding the irresponsible
- possible Puerto Rican statehood to add two Democrat senators and six to eight Democrats in the House
- a "comprehensive" illegal immigration law granting citizenship to illegal aliens while leaving our borders wide open
- global warming initiatives that will further diminish our freedom and lifestyle
- a turn over of some inherent national rights and prerogatives to the United Nations or some other international authority ("light bulbs and cars came first, what's next, gun rights?)
- increasing and expanded entitlement programs paid for by tax payers as gifts to those not paying taxes
Democrat plans for socialized medicine under the rubric "universal healthcare" alone will cost trillions of dollars and would likely bankrupt the country. Clinton herself estimates the cost at $1 trillion but remember when Medicare was created in the 1960s proponents said the program would cost $9 billion by 1990; in fact it cost $66 billion by 1990. Applying this 700% unanticipated increase to Clinton's plan suggests a more reliable $7 trillion cost for her mandatory health coverage program. Obama's healthcare scheme costs about the same; so if either becomes president and they successfully work with a Democrat congress to produce socialized medicine, our present flirtation with a recession will seem like an economic boom in comparison.
The tragedy is that angry Democrats are voting in record numbers; far outpacing Republicans at the polls this primary season. Democrat fundraising soars well above amounts raised by Republicans; and this has ominous implications. In both Iowa and North Carolina, and all other state voting primaries, Republican turnout was way down.
But the real problem in November, 2008, in addition to loss of the White House, is the potential acquisition of a Democrat veto-proof majority in the senate. Almost half of the Republican Party's 49 senate seats are up for reelection in 2008, as compared to only 12 seats Democrats have to defend. At least 11 of the Democrat seats are considered by "experts" as safe and in seven of 11 seats the incumbents are unlikely to lose because they have been in the senate four or more terms.
A Democrat gain of three to six seats is more than possible and a turnover of nine Republican seats gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. In the event of a close case scenario, Republicans would have to rely on RINOs like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to sustain a filibuster. Couple this with the likelihood Nancy Pelosi will lead a House with an even bigger Democrat majority, and a Democrat president, and we have an unavoidable disaster for our country ahead.
A Washington Times analysis January 21 gave a realistic appraisal of Democrat prospects in the house:
"While it is surely far too early to make definitive judgments about the vote itself, a rash of Republican retirements in competitive districts has left the party standing on defensive terrain."
With the real possibility of the Democrat left-wing taking over government, here are some of the entirely likely legislative results we will see:
- a "sun-setting" of the Bush tax cuts (favorable rates on capital gains and dividends will expire in 2010) and increased taxes for tax payers, (all of whom Democrats regard as "the wealthy among us" or "rich")
- a mandatory universal healthcare program (the differences between Obama and Clinton proposals are slight) with coverage for illegal immigrants
- bailout of imprudent home loan borrowers, punishing the responsible home buyers and rewarding the irresponsible
- possible Puerto Rican statehood to add two Democrat senators and six to eight Democrats in the House
- a "comprehensive" illegal immigration law granting citizenship to illegal aliens while leaving our borders wide open
- global warming initiatives that will further diminish our freedom and lifestyle
- a turn over of some inherent national rights and prerogatives to the United Nations or some other international authority ("light bulbs and cars came first, what's next, gun rights?)
- increasing and expanded entitlement programs paid for by tax payers as gifts to those not paying taxes
Democrat plans for socialized medicine under the rubric "universal healthcare" alone will cost trillions of dollars and would likely bankrupt the country. Clinton herself estimates the cost at $1 trillion but remember when Medicare was created in the 1960s proponents said the program would cost $9 billion by 1990; in fact it cost $66 billion by 1990. Applying this 700% unanticipated increase to Clinton's plan suggests a more reliable $7 trillion cost for her mandatory health coverage program. Obama's healthcare scheme costs about the same; so if either becomes president and they successfully work with a Democrat congress to produce socialized medicine, our present flirtation with a recession will seem like an economic boom in comparison.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Caution - "danger ahead"
How else can one describe laws passed recently by congress except as "tyrannical"? From petty laws dictating what kind of light bulbs we may use to essentially banning popular automobiles to raising taxes as our economy appears to be stumbling, very bad left-wing ideas control legislation now as they have sometimes in the past. (Who can forget the 55-MPH speed limit?)
The tragedy is that angry Democrats are voting in record numbers; far outpacing Republicans at the polls this primary season. Democrat fundraising soars well above amounts raised by Republicans; and this has ominous implications. In both Iowa and North Carolina, and all other state voting primaries, Republican turnout was way down.
But the real problem in November, 2008, in addition to loss of the white house, is the potential acquisition of a Democrat veto-proof majority in the senate. Almost half of the Republican Party's 49 senate seats are up for reelection in 2008, as compared to only 12 seats Democrats have to defend. At least 11 of the Democrat seats are considered by "experts" as safe and in seven of 11 seats the incumbents are unlikely to lose because they have been in the senate four or more terms.
A Democrat gain of three to six seats is more than possible and a turnover of nine Republican seats gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. In the event of a close case scenario, Republicans would have to rely on RINOs like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to sustain a filibuster. Couple this with the likelihood Nancy Pelosi will lead a House with an even bigger Democrat majority, and a Democrat president, and we have an unavoidable disaster for our country ahead.
A Washington Times analysis January 21 gave a realistic appraisal of Democrat prospects in the house:
"While it is surely far too early to make definitive judgments about the vote itself, a rash of Republican retirements in competitive districts has left the party standing on defensive terrain."
With the real possibility of the Democrat left-wing taking over government, here are some of the entirely likely legislative results we will see:
- a "sun-setting" of the Bush tax cuts (favorable rates on capital gains and dividends will expire in 2010) and increased taxes for tax payers, (all of whom Democrats regard as "the wealthy among us" or "rich")
- a mandatory universal healthcare program (the differences between Obama and Clinton proposals are slight) with coverage for illegal immigrants
- bailout of imprudent home loan borrowers, punishing the responsible home buyers and rewarding the irresponsible
- possible Puerto Rican statehood to add two Democrat senators and six to eight Democrats in the House
- a "comprehensive" illegal immigration law granting citizenship to illegal aliens while leaving our borders wide open
- global warming initiatives that will further diminish our freedom and lifestyle
- a turn over of some inherent national rights and prerogatives to the United Nations or some other international authority ("light bulbs and cars came first, what's next, gun rights?)
- increasing and expanded entitlement programs paid for by tax payers as gifts to those not paying taxes
Democrat plans for socialized medicine under the rubric "universal healthcare" alone will cost trillions of dollars and would likely bankrupt the country. Clinton herself estimates the cost at $1 trillion but remember when Medicare was created in the 1960s proponents said the program would cost $9 billion by 1990; in fact it cost $66 billion by 1990. Applying this 700% unanticipated increase to Clinton's plan suggests a more reliable $7 trillion cost for her mandatory health coverage program. Obama's healthcare scheme costs about the same; so if either becomes president and they successfully work with a Democrat congress to produce socialized medicine, our present flirtation with a recession will seem like an economic boom in comparison.
The tragedy is that angry Democrats are voting in record numbers; far outpacing Republicans at the polls this primary season. Democrat fundraising soars well above amounts raised by Republicans; and this has ominous implications. In both Iowa and North Carolina, and all other state voting primaries, Republican turnout was way down.
But the real problem in November, 2008, in addition to loss of the white house, is the potential acquisition of a Democrat veto-proof majority in the senate. Almost half of the Republican Party's 49 senate seats are up for reelection in 2008, as compared to only 12 seats Democrats have to defend. At least 11 of the Democrat seats are considered by "experts" as safe and in seven of 11 seats the incumbents are unlikely to lose because they have been in the senate four or more terms.
A Democrat gain of three to six seats is more than possible and a turnover of nine Republican seats gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. In the event of a close case scenario, Republicans would have to rely on RINOs like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to sustain a filibuster. Couple this with the likelihood Nancy Pelosi will lead a House with an even bigger Democrat majority, and a Democrat president, and we have an unavoidable disaster for our country ahead.
A Washington Times analysis January 21 gave a realistic appraisal of Democrat prospects in the house:
"While it is surely far too early to make definitive judgments about the vote itself, a rash of Republican retirements in competitive districts has left the party standing on defensive terrain."
With the real possibility of the Democrat left-wing taking over government, here are some of the entirely likely legislative results we will see:
- a "sun-setting" of the Bush tax cuts (favorable rates on capital gains and dividends will expire in 2010) and increased taxes for tax payers, (all of whom Democrats regard as "the wealthy among us" or "rich")
- a mandatory universal healthcare program (the differences between Obama and Clinton proposals are slight) with coverage for illegal immigrants
- bailout of imprudent home loan borrowers, punishing the responsible home buyers and rewarding the irresponsible
- possible Puerto Rican statehood to add two Democrat senators and six to eight Democrats in the House
- a "comprehensive" illegal immigration law granting citizenship to illegal aliens while leaving our borders wide open
- global warming initiatives that will further diminish our freedom and lifestyle
- a turn over of some inherent national rights and prerogatives to the United Nations or some other international authority ("light bulbs and cars came first, what's next, gun rights?)
- increasing and expanded entitlement programs paid for by tax payers as gifts to those not paying taxes
Democrat plans for socialized medicine under the rubric "universal healthcare" alone will cost trillions of dollars and would likely bankrupt the country. Clinton herself estimates the cost at $1 trillion but remember when Medicare was created in the 1960s proponents said the program would cost $9 billion by 1990; in fact it cost $66 billion by 1990. Applying this 700% unanticipated increase to Clinton's plan suggests a more reliable $7 trillion cost for her mandatory health coverage program. Obama's healthcare scheme costs about the same; so if either becomes president and they successfully work with a Democrat congress to produce socialized medicine, our present flirtation with a recession will seem like an economic boom in comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
