
As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, wheat prices soared last week to their highest levels in history.
As many consumer products are made from this grain, and media love to carp and whine about inflation, one would have expected great focus to be given to this issue.
However, as some of the upward pressure on wheat prices is directly attributable to biofuels, a global warming obsessed media seemed concerned to address this inflationary issue for fear that it would bring negative attention on soon-to-be-to-Dr. Al Gore's beloved ethanol.
Bucking the wheat boycott trend was the Washington Post which published a very balanced article on this subject Saturday (emphasis added throughout):
Earlier this year, corn began getting pricey because it was in high demand to make ethanol. That sent prices rising for other corn-dependent products, including milk and meat. Now wheat is costing more and more because of poor harvests and greater global demand, sending grocery bills still higher.
The price of wheat futures reached a record $9 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade on Wednesday. And the higher food prices that have resulted from the increase -- items like baguettes, rigatoni and cupcakes cost more -- come at a time when consumers are already feeling strained by energy prices and mortgage debt.
Although wheat doesn't touch as many foods as corn, which is used in products as varied as livestock feed and high-fructose corn syrup, its price directly affects staples such as cereal and bread.
Wouldn't you imagine media, who have been focusing on oil price-related inflation for several years, would have been all over this story?
Unfortunately, it seems on this issue, their desire to protect Al Gore and global warming alarmism is more important than bashing President Bush and the economy, for besides this Post piece, precious few press outlets seriously addressed soaring wheat prices last week, and even fewer addressed the ethanol connection.
As the Post elaborated, this is likely why:
Ethanol, a fuel that can be derived from corn products, set some of the rising grocery prices in motion. Demand for ethanol caused a worldwide shortage of corn this year, sending prices for futures of the crop on the Chicago Board of Trade above $4 a bushel last June, compared with about $2.50 two years ago. As farmers scrambled to grow more corn, crops such as wheat and soybeans were replaced, reducing their supply, according to Michael Swanson, a Wells Fargo agricultural economist.
Understand why the Post's coverage of this issue was such an anomaly? After all, from what I can tell from Google News and LexisNexis searches, although the New York Times briefly mentioned the wheat price issue, they chose not to address the ethanol connection. Ditto USA Today.
On cable television, only CNN addressed wheat prices. But, the six brief mentions Thursday didn't discuss the relationship to ethanol, and didn't focus much attention on the inflationary component. Instead, they typically dealt with a pasta boycott in Italy Thursday as a result of rising prices.
As a result, the only television news outlet that not only reported the soaring price of wheat last week, but also addressed the connection to ethanol was Friday's "CBS Evening News" with Harry Smith sitting in for Katie Couric:
HARRY SMITH, anchor:
If you think your grocery bill is creeping higher, you're right. In the last year the price of a pound of beef is up 27 cents. Twelve ounces of frozen orange juice up 60 cents. And milk is up a whopping 66 cents a gallon. Add cereal, pasta and bread and you've got a recipe for sticker shock at the supermarket. Cynthia Bowers reports on what's behind it all.
CYNTHIA BOWERS reporting:
Complaints from a baker in Chicago.
Ms. EVE COOPER (Red Hen Bread): And we have no choice but to pass some of these costs on to our customer.
BOWERS: Protests from pasta lovers in Italy.
Unidentified Man: (Italian spoken)
BOWERS: A shortage of wheat worldwide is causing a frenzy on the trading floor and driving prices to record highs, up to nine bucks a bushel. Three months ago it was just five. And while that's good for wheat farmers like Bruce Otte in Kansas...
Mr. BRUCE OTTE (Kansas Wheat Farmer): To the farmer that raised the crop, it means that he's going to have a very good year after several years of poor crops and poor harvests.
BOWERS: ...it's not so good for the rest of us. The pinch is already being felt at grocery stores around the world. In Italy, fettuccine, linguine and spaghetti are up 20 percent. In this country a loaf of bread is up 13 cents. Here's the problem: Over the past few years farmers have been planting more corn to take advantage of the demand for ethanol. That means fewer farm fields for soybeans and wheat, so those grains were already in short supply when bad weather crippled the wheat crops in Australia, Canada and Europe. Now there is simply not enough wheat to go around. High demand, low inventory adds up to higher prices.
The government says things made with wheat, such as cereal or baked goods, could rise twice as much this year as they normally do, and that means an extra nickel or more per item at checkout.
Commodities analyst Tim Hannigan says, across the board, food prices that have been holding steady for the last decade are set to explode.
Mr. TIM HANNIGAN: We've had the pretty cheap food prices here in the US for a lot of the years. It's going away.
BOWERS: Add the increase in wheat products to eggs, already up 33 cents a dozen, and coffee that's up 20 cents a pound, and it's easy to see, a nickel here, a dime there are adding up to more dollars on your grocery bill. Cynthia Bowers, CBS News, Chicago.
From what I can tell, besides the Post and CBS, the major press outlets in America boycotted this story completely. Think it would have been so ignored if not for the ethanol connection?
No, I don't either.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
A related story the media is just as likely to ignore
September 15, 2007 - 16:05 ET by RJ...redefining the word chutzpah....
Due to rising costs that are the direct result of their turning food into fuel, the producers of ethanol are said to be looking for increases in their subsidies.
...I'm betting the government says yes, redefining the word stupidity....
Sorry, it's not what you think.
September 15, 2007 - 17:02 ET by kch50428Ethanol is not a food OR fuel proposition. It's food AND fuel.
When corn costs $3 per bushel:
*A 12-ounce box of cornflakes costs $2.79 but uses less than a penny’s worth of corn.
*A quarter pound hamburger at the drive-through is $2.69, but it took just 13¢ worth of corn to feed the beef.
*The corn to produce a six-pack of soda costs only 5.5 cents.
Food AND fuel?
September 15, 2007 - 17:04 ET by RJYou're kidding, right?
Since large-scale and mandatory use of ethanol has come into being, the price of grain products has been rising sharply around the world. Third world peoples, not Americans, have been hurt the most.
Rain forests are being cleared to grow palm oil for ethanol. In America and elsewhere, shallow-rooted (meaning topsoil-losing) corn is replacing deeper-rooted (soil preserving) crops.
All of this for a fuel that barely produces more energy than it takes to manufacture it.
If you weren't kidding, please make the case for this most stupid of fuels. I can't wait....
13 cents to feed a cow?
September 15, 2007 - 17:12 ET by bassndude13 cents to feed a cow? Wow. What farm did you grow up on? McDonalds dosent use corn fed beef. Most of their meat is filler. Most beef is raised on hay and feed of one kind of other. They dont feed them corn untill the feed lot. Kinda leans them out some. You go buy some good corn fed beef, you wont buy it in wal-mart or sams or the grocery store. You will buy if from the rancher.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Costs
September 15, 2007 - 20:31 ET by UnsaneThat 12-oz box of conflakes costs that much because of the Latin phrase below, and advertising costs.
The same goes for the quarter-pounder/Royale.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You're on the right track
September 15, 2007 - 20:41 ET by echojackI agree with your concept, but I believe the numbers are slightly higher. Factoring in waste and such the 12 ounce box of cornflakes would contain five to seven cents worth of corn at $3 per bushel.
A one pound loaf of bread would contain about 16 cents worth of wheat and sell for $2 or more.
In either case the costs of feedstocks are insignificant in comparison to the costs of production and distribution.
The price of beef isn't really determined by the cost of corn. It is determined by the price the farmer gets at auction or has contracted for. The supplier adds his expenses on top of that.
But I like the way you are looking at it. I've never seen anyone bring those points up.
No one "brings those points up" because they're indefensible
September 15, 2007 - 21:25 ET by RJThe real costs of production and distribution of ethanol aren't just seen in the price of American corn flakes and bread.
Read my post just above for only the tip of the iceberg of the true ethanol cost.
kch50428
September 15, 2007 - 23:36 ET by SportPoliticsIn other words, the added cost of corn and wheat is not what's driving up the grocery prices as much as they who say so claim.
There are components of transportation (fuel costs) and the panicking "commodities markets" where it isn't the famer banking the buck so much as it is WALL STREET causing the gigantic rise in consumer prices while they suck up their added income from consumers pockets. No doubt they're snapping up grocery chain stocks and allowing profit to go up there as well, and all along the supply chain.
We have a somewhat liberal economy anymore. The "bulls and bears" have their emotions all in a tither ( we are constantly told it's panic and fear - as if 1929 was happening every day of the week ) but what is really occurring is the $$ signs are rolling through their eyeballs like a bugs bunny cartoon.
Same thing happens with the oil market being tight. As long as they can get sustained increases in price over time, you can keep buying and selling and buying and selling and buying and selling - and you always make a profit by hanging on for a short period of time.
If the price goes down, whomever is holding gets hammered ONCE, but that is far less than the commodities held and profits gained on all those months and months and years of accumulating value while rolling buys and sells through over and over again.
I agree, the increased cost of wheat in a loaf of bread or the high fructose corn syrup will be a few pennies, but by the time everyone along the line takes their 15 cent "cost offset" price raise, endprice is doubled. They've all got it down to a science.
This goes up 2%. ok we charge 17% extra and pass it on, plus we have a new fiscal year starting, so we have to offset regular inflationary pricing..., we tell them our costs have increased ... and on and on it goes. All you need is the initial confirmed "base increase" - and the whole chain sets off like wildfire.
I told you ... I told you
September 15, 2007 - 16:32 ET by drillanwrI told you ... I told you this would happen. It is happening with corn, and now grains.
Call it a sin ... Call it extremely stupid, especially when there are people in the world who could actually eat the food that is being used for bio-fuels ... Or just call it completely WRONG!
Until we come up with some new form of fuel source ... Cold fusion, nuke, or H3 from the surface of the Moon ... DRILL ANWR, and anywhere else that can be drilled! Meanwhile, continue to develope synthetic alternatives ... But leave the food sources alone!
Right on Noel
September 15, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Parker1227The bash "big oil" meme has received extra push from the Leftist hate Bush/Cheney/Halliburton obsession for some time now.
The fact is, oil extracted from the ground is cheaper, more efficient, and more enviromentally safe than bio-fuels.
We need to conserve our precious top soil for food production, and open up more areas (such as Alaska) for safe, regulated, high-tech oil extraction.
Big Wheat
September 15, 2007 - 17:38 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThe bash "big oil" meme has received extra push from the Leftist hate Bush/Cheney/Halliburton obsession for some time now.
You got that right and you won't be hearing cries of 'windfall profits' that Hillary wants to 'take' from Big Wheat.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
As rises the cost of
September 15, 2007 - 17:03 ET by bassndudeAs rises the cost of ethanol, so rises the price of pop corn. Not to mention corn flakes, tacos and cream corn. First time I can remember that the price of fuel is directly related to the price of corn. Always been reversed in the past.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Misinformation on hydrogen
September 15, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Parker1227Maybe one of Newsbusters' crack reporters could do some work to expose the lazy, stupid reporting (and seeming disinformation) about hydrogen fuel common in the MSM.
Hydrogen powered cars might end up being a great thing, but hydrogen is not a source energy even though it is often reported that way.
(As in, "Why not just use clean burning hydrogen instead of diesel or gas?")
Hydrogen is made artificially by separating hydrogen atoms from H20 (water) which is a very energy intensive process. It is created using large amounts of electricity from hydro (dams), and or nuclear, coal, and gas power plants.
In other words, hydrogen is simply a convenient way to hold, carry, and use energy.
Hydrogen might help in reducing air pollution (depending on the source of electricity used to produce it), but hydrogen is NOT a part of the energy solution.
Think it would have been so
September 15, 2007 - 18:02 ET byThink it would have been so ignored if not for the ethanol connection?
It would be used as a means to attack W on the economy. It would be used to promote a socialist agenda pushing for govt. control/subsidies on agriculture
It will not be used to promote drilling ANWR
Support our Troops
Raising crops involves
September 15, 2007 - 18:55 ET by MidAmericaRaising crops involves a lot of labor, especially compared to the refinement of crude oil.
The more ethanol used the higher the price of grains. The higher the price of grains the higher the price of ethanol/fuel. The higher price of ethanol/fuel the higher the cost of producing ethanol. I'm seeing a bad pattern here.
"Since large-scale and
September 15, 2007 - 20:10 ET by ckc1227"Since large-scale and mandatory use of ethanol has come into being, the
price of grain products has been rising sharply around the world. Third world peoples, not Americans, have been hurt the most."
Wow, who knew? Turns out global warming may cause starvation afterall, lol.
Not so much global warming as
September 15, 2007 - 20:31 ET by sarcasmoAgricultural socialism, in the form of subsidies. In a true free marketplace, ethanol would be a minor fuel at best, IMO, because the competition would kick its subsidized ass every time, but so-called "capitalists" are in reality scared-to-death of true capitalism, it seems, and they tend to get emotionally-upset with me whenever I talk about it, reverting to accusations about my personal motivations instead of (horrors!!!) logic. Tough. Don't believe me??? Let's see how a free-for-once marketplace sorts it out, instead of politicians in Washington, DC... May the best biofuel-crop win.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
"Let's see how a
September 15, 2007 - 20:59 ET by ckc1227"Let's see how a free-for-once marketplace sorts it out, instead of
politicians in Washington, DC... May the best biofuel-crop win."
Sounds good to me, but it will never happen. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a biofuel crop.
Not sure if capitalists are afraid of true capitalism, but they definitely have no problem with government intervention, as long as it benefits them by giving them an advantage over the competition.
Not GW, its nature
September 15, 2007 - 22:20 ET by Conservative_in_mass.The rising cost of grain based food items has been upon us for the past year or so due to several factors: The hurricanes of 05 (Bush's fault of course) did affect crop yields due to excess rainfall which actually hurts the harvest if it occurs at the wrong time. Flooded crop fields rot if over hydrated.
The ethanol frenzy caused additional upward pressure in the price of corn ( libs, this is supply & demand in its naked form) as demand for this crop increased dramatically. Farmers then converted fields to corn from other crops (ie wheat) because they could yield more dollars per acre. Common sense says you plant the money crop. Now we see a spike in the price of wheat based items. As these crops become higher in value, their production will no doubt be increased, causing the stabilization of its price. Farmers also have the option of planting fallow fields to increase production of these now higher value crops (you don't plant if it's not worth it). Production increases to meet demand.
Once again the summer of 07 brought higher than normal rainfall in the grainbelt (not a result of hurricanes this time, but still Bush's fault) which exacerbated the 06 "shortages.
As both corn and grain prices rose, so did the price of livestock based food items (milk, cheese, meat etc). Livestock eats grain, grain costs more, milk & other livestock byproducts cost more as you pass along the increases, yada yada...
To conclude that this is a result of Global Warming is bunk, except for the relatively small diversion of corn for ethanol which was the RESULT of GW hysteria, the classic chicken & egg argument. Its supply and demand, simple as that.
As someone who has been in the wholesale foodservice business for 20 plus years, these inflationary trends are cyclical, though not 100% predictable. Our nations farmers are quite skilled at adapting to these changes and do so as quickly as nature allows ( the time it takes to grow a particular crop.)
Having said that, they are still at the mercy of Mother Nature (if you get a prolonged frost in Florida in March, the price of O.J. goes up). That I'm sure is also Bush's fault.
Let this nation's farmers do what they do best, and things will stablize...they always do. As for reducing our nation's reliance on fossil fuels? LEAVE THE FOOD CHAIN ALONE! Nuke plants, Hydro, wind...fine. Converting raw foodstuffs into energy products is taking one resourse and subbing it for another. In the long run it will hurt more than it will help.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
CIM
September 15, 2007 - 22:34 ET by Noel SheppardCIM,
Well, what I find interesting is whether many of the farmers who switched to corn as those prices rose will start moving back to wheat as a result of this move thereby creating another ethanol shortage driving that price up as well as gas. Thoughts? ns
Noel
September 15, 2007 - 23:43 ET by Conservative_in_mass.It depends on what the futures (commodity) markets tell them, and in turn whether they want to believe it! Farmers do not convert all of their acreage to one crop or another, they adjust the percentage of which plant they will raise.
It is our belief (as wholesalers) that the amount of corn planted for ethanol will increase; there seems to be no movement afoot to inhibit refining corn for fuel.
Also, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of items being produced for retail use that are corn based (the translucent drink cups used for soda or beer for example). This is also contributing to upward pressure on corn. Manufacturers know "going green" sells, and like good businessmen, they take advantage of it.
My guess is that overall corn poduction will continue to increase by planting fallow fields as opposed to replacing fields used for other crops. Farmers do not want to lose that business either.
As I mentioned, wheat production suffered due to the flooding the mid-west experienced this past summer. Under "normal conditions" the amount of acreage harvested for wheat is sufficient to meet demand. In short, wheat is durable and yields predictable...under normal weather patterns.
I can tell you that the past three years have been the most volitile I have seen in quite some time. Chicken, beef, cheese and flour have swung as much as 125% in price during that time. There are several factors driving this, not the least of which has been a robust economy (people eat out more, and better when things are good).
Sorry for the long winded answer to your inquiry. hope it helps.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
CIM
September 15, 2007 - 23:53 ET by Noel SheppardCIM,
Thanks. As a former commodities trader and arbitrageur, I still find all this stuff quite fascinating, and am watching it on a daily basis. Just seems to make sense that I'd rather grow wheat at $9 than corn at $4, especially since, as you said, wheat is easier to grow and more durable.
Sadly, it appears that no matter what happens, this whole experiment to burn as fuel that which can be eaten has significantly more cost than benefit. In fact, from what I can see, this ratio is so skewed, continuing it defies logic.
Yet, because no politician in America wants to go against ethanol, this mess is likely to get much worse before there's any real pressure to arrest it. How truly sad. ns
Commodities are fun...
September 16, 2007 - 00:15 ET by Conservative_in_mass.at least when their not giving me gray hairs!
We can only hope that someday SOMEONE will have the courage to end this farce of ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuels. If not, be prepared for the 10 dollar Big Mac.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Ethanol will raise the cost
September 16, 2007 - 08:54 ET by MidAmericaEthanol will raise the cost of food. It will not lessen our dependence on foreign oil and will not make the air cleaner.
If prices for grain were to remain at a high price the value of land will skyrocket and that will result in wealthy speculators driving out the last of the family farmers and almost all farmland will be owned by multinational corporations, many not American.
A very telling statement Mid...
September 16, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Conservative_in_mass."If prices for grain were to remain at a high price the value of land will skyrocket and that will result in wealthy speculators driving out the last of the family farmers and almost all farmland will be owned by multinational corporations, many not American."
I can only speak for my company, but half of our finished pasta comes from from overseas already. That amounts to about 5 tons a week. I'm sure if we are doing it others are also.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
You keep talking like it's food OR fuel
September 16, 2007 - 08:04 ET by kch50428It's not.
Ethanol production results in a number of other commercialy viable products that end up in the food chain.
If they're "commercially viable products" then
September 16, 2007 - 08:11 ET by sarcasmoHow come my taxes pay any subsidies for ethanol?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Good question. I assume
September 16, 2007 - 11:17 ET by Jack BauerGood question.
I assume because politicians know better than you how to spend your money, especially for the purpose of social engineering.
You are taking a portion of
September 16, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Conservative_in_mass.You are taking a portion of the unprocessed food supply and divertng it to energy production. For the crop diverted to energy production, it IS choosing fuel over food.
How much energy is expended to process corn into ethanol? Much more than it takes to grind it up for the base component of a tortilla. And certainly more than to drop it in a feeding trough for beef cattle or other livestock.
I have yet to see a finished food product sanctioned by the FDA packaged for human consumption that was a by product of ethanol production.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
You are taking a portion of
September 16, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Conservative_in_mass.double post...sorry
Food as a Weapon
September 15, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Lame CherryI have honestly tried to educate people here, but the lessons do not seem to gather any momentum or understanding for the simple reason most people here think crops and regions are interchangeable when nothing is farther from the truth.
It will floor people here that all wheat is not wheat. Arid areas like North Dakota and Kansas produce winter wheat which is used in pasta and is called Amber Durum. Hard Red Spring Wheat which South Dakota and Nebraska produce in quantity is bread wheat.
These arid areas are not profitable nor capable without massive irrigation to plant into corn or soybeans.......for one major reason the season are too short for long season 120 day corn.
Added to this places like Arkansas and Louisiana grow rice. North Dakota in the Red River Valley grows sugar beets and Arizona produces vegetables. NONE OF THESE AREAS are being sown into other crops, because it would make no profit sense.
For the most part, Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana grow row crops like corn and beans. They might grow wheat if it's 7 dollar a bushel price DRIVEN UP BY CHICAGO TRADERS holds into next season on their speculation.........BUT THE MOMENT A MILLION MORE ACRES SHOWS UP IN WHEAT, the Chicago Board will sell short, profit from the crop price drop and leave farmers holding worthless wheat.
It took the alarmists over a 6 months to figure out what I blogged about in there being shortages due to the fact ethanol is only an additive and not a main fuel in supply. What the dolts have not figured out yet is all that corn and soybean for bio fuels IS ALL STILL FOOD and in fact better food as the steaming and fermentation all break down the grains to more digestable matter for livestock.......and people if they would eat the stuff as people do not normally eat oil soybeans no more than genetic corn as it is grown for livestock feed and after market products like corn oil.
What has driven up prices are trader's speculating on data like they always do and absolute suckers going into panic over "shortages". The fact is world food supply shortages were starting several years ago. One major factor was China eating up everything and the other was the Clinton's sold off the America "Joseph food supply reserve" which this nation has always kept in the advent of catastrophe.
This is why I have been advocating Congress start investingating Al Gore and people like Galen McKinley in the combined billions these hucksters are taking in in global warming scams when this money should be invested in seed banks and a national food and shelter reserve.
Now to inform the kiddies of where this is going now that most are chattering about bio fuels not understanding a thing they are discussing.
My attention perked up immensely when George Bush announced his bio fuels plan. I know this from the grain, fermenters to distribution scams inflating prices on the west and east coast. I knew something was being planned as the President had just initiated a policy leaving the Middle East in 2 years to it's own destruction and was pulling the rug in behind America.
Added to this was the Mexican drilling in the Gulf of new vast oil reserves when America was leaving it's supplies all untapped. Yes there is mucho renewable oil not drilled and just as much sitting drilled and untapped all across the west "waiting higher prices".
All of that pointed to a major shift in national policy and that is what I let the cat out of the bag in the SUBJECT, FOOD AS A WEAPON.
No one has noticed this and besides my personal letters this is a Newsbuster exclusive again. It appears a failsafe has been initiated in a doomsday plan that is going to rock the world. The dollar has deflated which is what is driving up with speculation oil and the cost of food. President Bush is quite intelligent as are his advisers and they know very well that the market forces will do what they are doing in driving food prices higher..........but you have seen nothing yet.
Food is the equalizer and if you study consumption trends, China has already purchased all of the Asian food supply available. China nor India has no more land or water to grow more food. Europe is at it's output level and Russia is incapable of increased production.
That leaves Oz which is arid and can only grow wheat, but not in abundant supply. South America is bean country and at supply. Africa is a net loss and the only nation capable of driving supply is the United States and it sold off it's Joseph reserves and is now inflating prices at a counter measure to nuclear bombs, asian hordes and Muslim oil prices.
Try pouring a bowl of uranium in the morning, sopped up with oil and a side order of people........and one soon concludes that in real life Eurasian theaters that the entire almost 4 billion people who are quite hateful to America are sitting upon a doomsday clock waiting to implode.
According to my calculations Iran will die, like China, India and Indonesia literally in 90 days. They can not invade by sea nor can they march to Europe as their troops would die before they arrived. This is checkmate on a world stage and food by market forces is being waged as a weapon of war.
I do not believe none of the communists have quite got this figured out yet nor have the children in America squawking about bio fuels. Russia has prepared with nuclear cities and new nuclear toys, but even in mass they can not waste them upon America as they have 3 billion very angry Muslims, Chinese and Indians on their borders. The Chicom males are extremely ripe right now as there are no women for them to pacify them as they have all been aborted by government orders.
A powder keg has been set and when push comes to shove as it is approaching the United States will be hurt immensely in consumer problems in pricing........but Americans will still have the food to buy even if it takes all their money and the rest of the world will be quite angry at being hungry and at that moment they will do what nations always do is send the boys out to conquer something so the leadership doesn't have to deal with a revolution.
As stated I have posted this in public here first to try and educate people on where this curve is trending, because while it appears everyone is dogging it about the trail being left they have no idea who laid the trail and where it is leading.
At least in part now the children do and now can start liberal whining is food as a weapon regulator a just cause.....considering the alternative is eating Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons in Chicago and all over America, logic would dictate the conclusion it is a perfect response from this President.
I may not agree with President Bush a whole lot lately as I know there are "Reagan out of the box" ways out of this in God's Grace, but that Texican is a whole lot brighter than 99.999% of Americans in playing this game years down the line.
Hopefully before the nitwits catch up and start intitiating dufus ideas again like they are now about "food prices" readers here can at least say, "Oh I read about that months ago on Newsbusters and that is not what is going on at all."
There are always more secrets, but that is enough to digest for now as we enter the future born before it's informational time.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
We'll see.
September 16, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Dave in Texas"According to my calculations Iran will die, like China, India and Indonesia literally in 90 days."
Okay. I've marked December 12 on my calender. We'll meet back here then and see if you were right.
Food as a Weapon
September 16, 2007 - 11:27 ET by River CityIncreasing corn and wheat prices make some of the libs perfectly happy. Particularly the ones that think humans are the curse of the earth. If fewer of us can afford to feed ourselves then more of us will die off and there will be fewer of us to harm their planet. I don't know who is in charge of their grand plan though. Who is the one who knows when enough is enough? Who will report back when everyone is dead? Just wondering how their kooky plan works.
“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” Ronald Reagan
They Don't Stop...
September 16, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Wildcatter1980...to think about the unintended consequences. This just further reinforces my belief that for the "true" believers, global warming alarmism has little to do with saving the planet and much to do with wresting political control for themselves. Little do they realize that if there is a significant political and cultural change in the USA as they think they are trying to achieve, the unintended consequences will be the very loss of Constitutional freedoms they think are being eroded if there is no change in our current politics and culture. An ever growing government will move to protect itself from any and all challengers, real or perceived. Through crippling taxation and wide-spread participation in entitlement programs, the masses will become loath to speak out against the various political and bureaucratic ills that will be the staples of larger and larger governments.
Just my $0.02