Environmentalists May Be The Cause For World Famine

The Global Warming zealots and Ecologists may have created a problem of unintended consequences for our country and the world.

Because of the demand for fuels made of grain products like corn and wheat, to replace fossil fuels, there is a growing shortage world wide of wheat and corn.

Military use of bio fuels is also being explored. Sandia, UOP, Honeywell Aerospace and Cargil are involved in a joint effort to develop JP-8 jet fuel from Soy beans and other food grains to fuel military jets.

They are working together to help develop, evaluate and commercialize the processes of bio feedstock and bio fuel production that will scale-up pathways needed to enable reliable, high-volume, competitively priced jet fuel production based on vegetable and/or algae oil rather than petroleum.
“The focus of our renewable energy efforts has been to develop technologies that align with today’s standard refinery practices, but allow a broader range of feedstock options,” says Jennifer Holmgren, director of UOP’s Renewable Energy and Chemicals business unit. “

This shortage has already shown up in our grocery bills. Bread and cereals have been priced higher, and the price raises will only get worse before they get better.

Beef prices will soar, because to produce a fat steer one must feed it large amounts of grain.The same for pork, lamb and other popular meats. They all will cost more as the supply of grains for food is reduced by the stampeded to produce bio-fuels. Wheat prices in U.S. futures markets hit a whopping $24 a bushel. The price of wheat has doubled already this year, and risen from just $3 a bushel four years ago. The blame for this is laid at the feet of the Goreites!

Even the Palestinians in the Middle East are suffering as they have just seen up to 90 percent of their crops wiped out by extraordinary frosts and cold weather.

It's grim news for everybody. The global economy is just about coping with the sub-prime crisis, the fall of the dollar and oil at $102 a barrel. But the inflationary surge in the costs of food, which now dwarfs the rise in oil prices, could prove to be the final straw.
World grain reserves are at their lowest levels since records were first kept back in 1960, and the U.S. stockpile had not been this low since 1948.
This problem has been coming for some time, driven by three separate factors. The first is overall population increase. The second is that emergent economies like China and India are climbing up the prosperity chain and demanding more meat protein, which takes eight times as much land to produce as vegetable protein. The third is that short-sighted government subsidies for bio fuels is eroding the amount of crops available for eating.
This is already having important political effects around the world. Pakistan has re-introduced food ration cards, an unpopular and crisis-driven move that has contributed to the unpopularity of President Pervez Musharraf and helps explain his party's recent stinging electoral defeat.
Egypt has extended its own food rationing system, and the Indian government is straining to maintain its food price subsidy system as the costs soar. China and Russia are imposing price controls, and Argentina and Vietnam are reducing supplies to the world market through rationing and higher export taxes.

Some food industry executives are already starting to use the dreaded F word for Famine. This could make Saudi Arabia reconsider its decision to stop growing wheat and start importing some 3 million tons a year. It should not. With intelligent use of arable land for food crops, suitable irrigation and seed technology and an end to market-distorting farm subsidies, the world can produce enough food. It is a political problem we face, rather than a food shortage. Source: The Mideast Times 2/29/08

We will not only be subject to gasoline prices of $5.00 per gallon, but we may have to resort to food rationing as have many country's like India and Pakistan if the bio. fuels situation gets out of hand. Certainly if the UN has it's way we will have to share what food products we have with the rest of the impoverished rest of the World.

This is a gift sharing that is noble, but may result, if people like Obama are elected, in shortages in food supplies here in America unlike anything since the days of food stamps during WWII!

When Race Is Used To Advantage

The late Reggie White, a full blood Black American, and probably the best defensive end in professional football history, was vilified and lost a job on national television because he said the truth.

He said, and I paraphrase his comments before the Wisconsin State Legislature, that the Bible holds homosexual life style as a sin, For this the press and Liberal intelligentsia branded him a homophobic!

Fast forward to 2008, and you will find both Barrack and Michelle Obama use race bating as a political one- up- manship, and no one says a word.

If you can't see the connection, I will explain. Both Racism and Homophobia are unacceptable viewpoints in our politically correct society unless you are a favorite of the media. The new political "savior"!

In a campaign speech in the past month Obama had this to say: “We spend our whole lives caught up in being told what we can’t do. And what’s not possible, and that children have to be poor and race always is going to matter in this country and there’s always going to be injustice and the economy can never work for anybody. We’re fed that stuff all the time. Mostly by folks who are in power and take advantage of the status quo.” —Barack Obama

His all Black wife, Michelle Obama, who seems to be concentrating her efforts on Black audiences, wrote her thesis at Princeton with this comment included that shows her racial bias. "In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community," the Princeton student wrote, "I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture." Other thesis statements specifically pointed to what was seen by the future Mrs. Obama as racially insensitive practices in a university system populated with mostly Caucasian educators and students: "Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments".

It appears that Mrs. Obama fails to recognize, or chooses to ignore, the fact that Ivy league schools such as Princeton have a very active affirmative action scheme that allows Black students like her to attend even though their grades are lower than the majority of White students admitted. More than 35 schools have replaced loans with scholarships, grants and paid work-study positions in an effort to recruit high-achieving, economically disadvantaged students to increase economic -- and, indirectly, racial -- diversity. Since eliminating loans for low-income students in 1998, Princeton University reported a more than 100 percent increase in the number of financially disadvantaged students to matriculate. Harvard University reported a 20 percent increase in the number of low-income grads after replacing the amount their parents were expected to contribute with grants, according to a 2006 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Source MSN Encarta 2/29/08

As News Max reported this week. Obama gets a pass despite his continued affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Church in this way: "Imagine if John McCain's church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”
The media would pounce, and McCain's presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and apologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System. Reverend Wright had these words for his congregation one Sunday: "Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued. “That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”

We all know that Obama is only half Black. His mother is White, but he revels in his Blackness for political and personal reasons known only to him and God. His Black half of his genetic composition also appears to be the attraction White liberals have for him.

A PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD BE BAD FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

Tuesday night during the Democrat candidates debate, Senator Obama revealed his animus for the military systems deployed and under development. Among other things, Obama talks about slowing development of "future combat systems." That will sure scare our avowed enemies!

And he talks about cutting investment in "unproven" missile-defense weapons. I guess his handlers forgot to tell him about the successful shoot down of the falling satellite that was larger than a train car!. Yes, one of those "unproven" missiles shot down a falling satellite just last week? Unproven? ? ?

The real statement that should alarm all Americans who are concerned about Our security, and unless you are an embedded terrorist, you all should be concerned. Was his dismissal of the future development of weapons systems. This I believe, is a real threat to Our national security.

Had previous Presidents taken this approach, we would not have stealth bombers, laser guided smart bombs, and night vision capability, to name just a few of the weapons now available to our troops. Weapons that make them more combat capable, but also cause less loss of life for civilians from collateral damage.

In an August 27, 2007 article by Joe Gandelman, Obama's response to questions about fighting terrorism was stated this way.

Asked by The Associated Press after a breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Obama replied: "There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss".
When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did. Thus if he was President the Iranians, Syrians, Russian, Chinese and North Koreans know they can do what ever they want in the way of aggression with no possible threat of nuclear retaliation.

WE lost Korea, and Vietnam because the leaders of this Country publicly claimed they would never use nuclear weapons for fear of a Russian retaliation. The negative media led by Red Walter "C" was a factor also in our country's lack of will to win.

Now we have a man who wants to occupy the Oval Office with one hand tied behind his back, while the tyrants and despots have no such compunctions about their nuclear capability. Iran is a prime suspect to use "nukes" if and when he gets them.

And don't give me the old lame argument that using nuclear weapons is immoral. Terrorism and despotic tyrants are not moral and neither is radical Islam. The left has for too long used their arguments about the immorality of this country. The immorality comes when you commit men and women to die fighting, if you don't intend to win!

The real immorality is in the removal of the threat that would keep tyrants from attacking us with their nuclear weapons, by taking the "nuke" off the table even before he is in the Oval Office.

Besides the question was about "tactical nuclear weapons", not the type bombs that were dropped on Japan! There is a huge difference!

A very wise Winston Churchill said this: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival"...Winston Churchill

UNMASKING THE REAL OBAMA

Senator Barrack Hussein Obama presents himself as a populist whose concern is with the "common" man. In reality his idea of the common man is a man in every impoverished country in the world.

Just a few weeks ago, on the 12th of February, Accuracy in Media reported about the single piece of signature legislation Obama has introduced in his two years in the Senate.

The Bill if passed would mandate the spending of 845 billion dollars of tax payers money to eradicate poverty. It also mandates that future American Presidents bring US in line with UN mandates on the percentage of National GNP we give to fight poverty! "A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations".

So far Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

During President Bush's two terms he has authorized, by signing foriegn aid bills, more money to eradicate poverty than any other President since the Marshall Plan. Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will certainly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Obama has molded himself into the modern day version of the Messia. The crown prince of niceness, bravely denouncing divisiveness, condemning controversy, eulogizing unity, and retelling his feel-good life story about how he, the child of a black scholar from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, grew up to be editor of the Harvard Law Review.

However, Obama cherishes every cause for complaint he can discern against white folks. He is constantly distressed at being half-white. Obama says he “ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,” even though he surely realizes that his media-sensation status stems from how much white people love highly accomplished blacks who speak with white accents. He would’t be a the Media's favorite candidate for President if he were not part black.

His penchant for his "blackness is shown in the people he uses as mentors. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the man who until recently was Obama's Pastor and spiritual advisor. This man of the cloth has written many times about his admiration for Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is notorious for his hatred of white people and particularly Jews, and has said:
- “They call (Hezbollah) terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That’s what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn’t want to deal with because the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States and around the world.”
- “The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.”

Speaking to thousands of members of the Nation of Islam at their annual convention Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing the nation's racial divisions . Farrakhan compared Obama to Fard Muhammad saying, “A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Obama is still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, an Afrocentric church that preaches what the New York Times calls Black liberation theology. A good question to ask is why does he continue to affiliate with a church, a pastor, that honors Louis Farrakhan, a man who called Judaism “a gutter religion,” the Pope an “Antichrist” and Adolf Hitler “a wickedly great man,” and said that “White people are potential humans - they haven’t evolved yet”?

DO YOU WANT THIS MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE?

Revisiting Our Troops In Foreign Countries

The Democrats and left leaning RINO's have a mantra that keeps my mind in a constant state of anxiety. "Bring the troops home from Iraq Now".

Not unlike the protesters during the Vietnam war, the cry is to save the lives of our service men and women by withdrawal. Never mind that withdrawal leaves those left behind vulnerable to massacre.

Seldom do you hear the argument made for the withdrawal of troops from Korea, Germany or Japan.

U.S. troops in Europe and Asia dwarfs the small numbers of troops stationed in the other three regions: Africa, the Middle East, and the Amer­icas (excluding the United States).

During the second half of the 20th century, 52 percent of deployed troops were in Europe and 41 per­cent in Asia. More than one-third of troop deployments during 1950–2000 were to Ger­many alone, which hosted over 10,000,000 U.S. military personnel. source: US government archives

United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries. The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.

Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany. At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377.

On average, 2.3 million U.S. troops were on duty per year from 1950–2000. Of this average, 535,000 troops (23 percent of all military personnel) were deployed on foreign soil. The pattern of deployment varies over time, as deployment loca­tions and levels respond to changing threats as well as for­eign wars.

President Bush's proposed redeployment of 70,000 troops from foreign countries to domestic bases has been greeted as a major movement, but it needs to be kept in perspective. An average of 311,870 troops were stationed in Europe per year during 1986–1990. That force was slashed by two-thirds after the Berlin Wall fell, to an average of 109,452 troops per year during 1996–2000. This is a very small number when you consider that the Great Bear of Russia is once again raising their military might under Putin's directive.

No other military in world history has been so widely deployed as that of the United States. Troop deployments are overwhelmingly supportive of host countries, and warm relations between sol­diers and local populations are generally the norm. How­ever, the first priority in deployment strategy is not a particular foreign government’s desire to keep a certain number of American troops in its country, but the American need to align its forces against contemporary and future threats. source:Tim Kane/Heritage Foundation

In my not so humble opinion, the cry for withdrawal is more of a hope and ploy to have the USA lose another war, than a sincere desire to save our troops from more casualties. The troops in every foreign Country are at risk, especially those in Korea, where there has been a "cease fire" with the Communists from the North and their co-conspirator China. But nobody has called for their withdrawal for the 50 years they have been deployed!

Let us not forget that if Iran is successful in developing nuclear weapons, they will pose a threat to the whole Middle East and in the not to distant future to USA. Wouldn't we be better off keeping a strong force in the Middle East rather than have to make a mass movement of troops and equipment to the field of battle when needed? And don't be deluded by Leftists like Barrack Hussein Obama who say we can talk our enemies to resolve their differences with us!

Reasons I believe Obama Is Not Presidential Material

First there was the endorsement by a statement from 16 supporters and leaders in the African American and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, including Tobias Wolff and Otis Moss Jr..Recently there has been an endorsement by Louis Farrakhan, radical African Muslim leader.

Then Michelle Obama said to a group of adoring Obama African-Americans that believe Obama is God's gift to our country, that for the first time in her life she was proud of America.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barrack has done well, but I think people are hungry for change.”—Would-be First Lady Michelle Obama
Barrack Obama later defended his wife: “What she meant was this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America. She has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”
The Obamas fit in nicely within the “blame America” ilk and apparently missed things like our nation’s unity and resolve after 9/11; its victory in the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall; the first black Supreme Court Justice and first (and second) black Secretary of State, just for starters.
Michelle, who along with her husband boasts multiple Ivy League degrees and professional successes, might do well to recall the words of a real patriot, George Washington: “The name of American, which belongs to you... must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.” Not just when you feel things are going the way you want them!

Then in Austin ,Texas he said: " I have said earlier in this campaign I would meet not just with leaders we liked,” Obama said, “but leaders we didn't. Not just our friends but with our enemies, and I was told by Washington, ‘Oh you can’t do that! You can’t do that. That would be naive, that would be irresponsible." This blogger believes such talk is not only naive, but down right stupid.Case in point Neville Chamberlain's talk and pact with Adolph Hitler only gave Hitler more time to build his war machine that caused millions to lose their lives!

In January, the communist newspaper People’s Weekly World published a letter from a supporter celebrating Obama’s Iowa caucuses victory as “more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” The words "transformational leadership" have been used to describe the "empty suit" who has little or no record of Governmental experience.

Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. Obama is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.” He gave hints about his strong feeling for Arabs in his speech in 2004 when he said: "that whenever someone insults or hurts Arab Americans, I am hurt too."
There is an inherent contradiction in seeking to become the next leader of the free world while apparently clinging to Marxist philosophy. WE would expect that one who would want to bear the standard of liberty,( as President) should embrace its philosophies. Unfortunately, common sense has become rather uncommon in today’s political arena., as platitudes and slick looks have taken over. But underneath the smooth talking good looks is the man who has embraced Frank Marshall Davis as his writer. Mr. Davis is a known member of the Communist Party of The United States of America!

Had it not, perhaps more scrutiny would be directed toward the Senator from Illinois who grasps Marxist ideologies with one hand and seeks to lead the United States of America with the other.