"Federal Government: You Need More Trees, Less Food"

Check out this story from the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/.
Apparently the Department of Agriculture has been reading a report suggesting (read that: "commanding") that the government give "incentives" to farmers to turn over some 59 million acres of land into forests. (Translation: The Federal Government will tax the daylights out of farmers and strong-arm them into surrendering their land to the government so that they will plant things we cannot eat.)

It sounds like the Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is a little worried about this latest decree from on high. I mean, after all, it means less food for Americans, and we've been plundering the planet for far too long. We need to starve a little. Don't pay any attention to all the starving masses in Third World countries who need food from America to survive. Let them eat cake.

Where do they come up with nutty ideas like this? Why, from the Global Warming/Climate Change "activists," of course. Trees are good because they "eat up" all the excess carbon dioxide that the evil people of the world (i.e. Western industrialized nations) expel. We need to go on a diet anyway, I guess. After all, the government knows what's best for you and me, right?

After I read the whole article, I had a few parting questions:
1. When do things ever work out just fine according to "government computer models?"
2. How is this any of the federal government's business according to their charter (a.k.a. the Constitution--you know that old fashioned document that gives Congress and the President their job descriptions. . .)?
3. Do we have a shortage of trees in this country? (I thought we have a worldwide shortage of food. . .)
4. Why is anybody with any sense still listening to global warming hysteria--especially after the fraud behind it has been exposed by way of the hacked e-mails from East Anglia University? Oh, I forgot, these are Big Government idealogues in charge--they don't care about empirical evidence or logic. They just like control. And less food for you makes you easier to control.
Happy New Year!

"Climate 'Justice'?"

What in the world is "climate justice?" The term itself sounds ridiculous, but the fact is that there were some pretty large groups of people at the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change that were ranting about the need for "climate justice." Does the dictionary help? The best I came up with was the definition of justice: "The rendering of what is due or merited. Conformity to law. The administration of law."

What does the weather have to do with this? How can earth's various climates be redistributed according to what is due or merited or lawful? Huh? Oh wait. I'm using logic. Sorry. Gotta cut that out. I need to twist my brain into "thinking" like the protesters at the Copenhagen summit and begin to assume that a lot of pseudo-scientific things are actually true, then I must couple that with pseudo-economic half truths and full lies from marxism in order for the term "climate justice" to make sense. O.K. Here goes. . . . . now I get it and I will explain "climate justice" from the leftist/progressive/communist perspective (by the way--this is what is being taught to most of America's school children and college students everyday):

The earth is rapidly warming because of the carbon emissions coming from the eeeeevil industries of western nations. The rest of the world is poor because their resources were stolen by the eeeeevil western nations. The poor nations' environments are being destroyed (rain forests dying off) because of the rich nations' industries. Therefore, we must find a way to stop the rich nations from producing more (stop their industries from using the fuels they need), and make the bad, bad rich nations hand over their eeeeeevil profits to the good, good poor nations. Then, after that is done (no time limit on when that is done), the earth will be clean, and all nations will have equal wealth, and everyone will be clean and happy and will share and share alike. The end!

Now you understand "climate justice." Get ready to be fleeced by third world tyrants, beginning with our own government. Or get ready for 2010 to run the tyrants out of our government at the ballot box.

A Time for Senators With Guts

The huge issue in front of the U.S. Senate right now is their "Health Care Reform Bill" (so-called). However, the other issue looming two inches right behind it is the Copenhagen summit on climate change. Reuters reports on December 8 that now "church leaders" in Copenhagen are handing out petitions with half a million signatures on it to the United Nations representatives to demand that a treaty be made to strangle the industrialization of advanced nations, tax them for their "carbon excesses" and transfer the wealth to poorer nations (read that: to dictators in third world nations).

I'll comment more on the sham of this entire Copenhagen meeting and the entire lying premise of global warming in another blog, but suffice it say that our President is completely in agreement to sign anything that will surrender our national sovereignty to the United Nations and to cripple the industrial power of a free United States.

But in order for this "climate change" treaty to take effect it must be passed by the U.S. Senate. Are there enough Senators with enough knowledge of our history, with enough belief in the basic God-given rights to freedom, with enough common sense to see through the lies of this marxist "climate change" hoax---and with enough guts--to vote down this attack upon the United States?

Check out this website which will show you which Senators are up for election in 2010. Then give them a call and remind them that their constituents are watching--and will vote next November:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Class_III.htm.

"Say What?????"

I really wonder sometimes if someone drugged me and dropped me off in a lunatic asylum, because day after day our government continues to say and do things that make no sense at all. Just the other day, our President told a group of unemployed people in Allentown, Pa., that banks need to start lending more money to businessnes. You can read more of this story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091204/pl_nm/us_obama_jobs. A key line is: ". . . the president said that one of the keys to reviving growth was to try to encourage greater lending to small business. . . "

Huh? This from a man who has never operated a small or large business a day in his life. A man who has never, ever had to make payroll for employees.
Furthermore, isn't this how we got into this financial collapse in the first place? Not by banks doing their job and loaning money to good credit risks, but by the federal government forcing banks to loan money to people and institutions who were bad credit risks. Through Jimmy Carter's Community Re-investment Act of 1977 and Bill Clinton's 1999 policy of accelerating the loans to bad credit risks.

And so Big Government that forces banks to become charities is at it again--strong arming banks to loan out more money, instead of getting out of the lending businesss altogether and letting sensible people conduct their own business and succeeding or failing on their own. You can really trust this government to give out good, sensible fiscal policy--that explains how they have put us in the hole 1.4 trillion dollars this year alone. When the Federal Government proposes a "solution" (which is more of the same garbage) to a problem they created in the first place, run the other way.