Food Riots Coming?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41062817/ns/business-consumer_news/

If you don't believe food riots can and will happen in this country, please read the following and think about it.

-- 1% of the US population grows all of the food for all Americans.

-- Nearly all Americans know essentially nothing about where the food they eat every day comes from. How it gets from the ground to them. And they don't want to know about it. It's cheap, as close as their local store, and of high quality. So no worries.

-- The bulk of the food we eat comes from grain. Although they raise a lot of fruits and vegetables in California, Arizona, Florida, Oregon and Washington, those things don't compose the main part of the average diet. Half of what a meat animal is raised on is grain so when you eat meat you are really eating grain. And, of course, we eat grain directly as bread, bagels, doughnuts, pasta, etc. Milk (and milk products like cheese) comes from cows that eat grain. A lot of grain. And the grain they eat is not produced where the cows are located.

-- The lion's share of grain produced in the US is done in a concentrated part of the US Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri is the center of this area). The grain is moved to the coasts (where 70% of the population live) by only TWO (2) railroads.

-- Nothing is stored for very long in a supermarket. One day grain travels (by rail) from Kansas to Seattle to a flour mill. The next day the flour mill makes the flour and sends it to a bakery. The next day the bakery makes it into bread (and other baked things) and the next day it is at the store where it is purchased that day. Nobody stores anything. The grain is produced and stored in the Midwest and shipped daily in a single railroad pipeline to the rest of America where the people live.

-- Up until the 1980s there was a system that stored a lot of grain in elevators around the country. At one time, a whole year's harvest of grain was stored that way. But since taxpayers were paying to store it, certain urban politicians engineered the movement of that money from providing a safety net or backup for their own food supply in order to give the money to various other social welfare things. So now, nothing is stored. We produce what we consume each year and store practically none of it. There is no contingency plan.

White House Staff Watch

2011 is going to be a rather interesting year in terms of White House Staff and appointments. Rumors have been floating about that there will be a mass exodous of staff, so we shall begin with Robert Gibbs. It has been confirmed Gibbs is leaving. BYE-BYE Bobby, don't let the door hit your pudgy ass on the way out!! The guy's a dweeb, always has been, so, no big loss. But, for anyone that actually admits to liking the guy, not to worry, he'll be working on Odumbo's 2012 re-election campaign I'm sure. Via Geraghty and Hotair:

Obama has been mulling for months the possibility of naming former commerce secretary William Daley to be his chief of staff, meeting with him at least once in person, two Democrats said. Although familiar with the Daley family – William is the brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley – Obama did not have a personal relationship with William Daley and wanted to get to know him better. The secret has been tightly held, without as much as a mention in senior staff meetings, an administration official said. The official, like others cited in this report, asked not to be named in order to speak freely about private deliberations.

Autism, Vaccination link..Complete Fraud! Duh.

Some may wonder why anyone still wondered about the credibility of an infamous study conducted by Andrew Wakefield and published by The Lancet that purported to show a link between vaccinations and autism. Two years ago, the Times of London published its exposé of Wakefield’s “research,” in which Wakefield faked data and drew conclusions from a ridiculously small sample — a fact that should have warned the Lancet to refuse publication in the first place, even if Wakefield hadn’t faked the data. However, belief in Wakefield’s claims continues, even after Reason addressed the issue in May 2010 once again as anti-vaccination advocates insisted that Wakefield’s research was valid and that the Times debunking was either incorrect or a sellout to Big Pharma.
This time, it’s Wakefield’s colleagues in medicine who are calling him a fraud:
A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an “elaborate fraud” that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.
An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.
“It’s one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors,” Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, told CNN. “But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data.”
Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. “Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession,” BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

VIA hotair.com

Another Win For Progressives..Wake up America!

The AP reported that the war memorial cross on public land is unconstitutional.
The cross was erected in 1954 and has served as a memorial for over 50 years. Chalk up another win for the progressives. Disgusting.



A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a San Diego war memorial marked by a four-story-tall Christian cross on public land violates the U.S. constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion.

Capping a legal dispute brewing since the late 1980s, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court decision that threw out a legal challenge to the hilltop cross brought on behalf of Jewish war veterans.

The three-judge panel concluded in its 47-page opinion that the U.S. "district court erred in declaring the memorial to be primarily nonsectarian and granting summary judgment in favor of the government and the memorial's supporters."

A group that filed a brief on behalf of 25 members of Congress supporting the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, the American Center for Law and Justice, condemned the appeals court ruling as "a judicial slap in the face to our military veterans."

The appeals court, recognizing volatile feelings generated on both sides by the case, wrote that America's war veterans can and should be honored, "but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion."

In its 3-0 decision, the court stopped short of ordering removal of the cross and left open the possibility that the memorial could be redesigned to incorporate a cross in a way that would "pass constitutional muster."

But the appellate panel took no position on a remedy, leaving the question of how the memorial might be reconfigured to be decided by the lower-court judge.

David Blair-Loy, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego, said U.S. District Judge Larry Burns might order the parties to confer or engage in mediation to reach a final resolution to the case.

There was no immediate word on whether the Obama administration would petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling.

The site of the 43-foot-tall cross overlooking the Pacific was acquired from the city of San Diego by the federal government through eminent domain in 2006.

The transfer was authorized in legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush after the city was ordered to remove the cross under a previous court challenge.

The first cross on Mount Soledad was erected in 1913 but was replaced in the 1920s with another one that blew down in 1952. In 1954, a third, larger cross was installed.

The site served as a gathering place for annual Easter services and was designated as a war memorial in the late 1980s only after the legal dispute was initiated.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled another federal judge who had ordered the removal of a large cross intended to serve as a desert war memorial in the middle of the U.S.-owned Mojave National Preserve.

But Blair-Loy said that case differed from the Mount Soledad dispute because the site of the desert cross was on private property surrounded by public land.

Obama To Sign Food Safety Bill

It's going to cost $1.4 Billion, but they say it will protect us. Protect us from what? Salmonella, ecoli? - Sure, because millions of Americans die each year from these types of food borne diseases, right? WRONG. Actually, the fact is an estimated 3,000 people in the U.S. die from food borne illnesses.

This Food Safety Bill is not at all about safety, it is not about protecting you, or myself, or your cat or dog. It is about control. Once Odumbo signs this Bill, our food will be controlled by the U.S. Government. - Welcome to the Socialist U.S.! --

Forget about farmer's markets in your community, forget about growing your own garden for fresh fruits and vegetables. Your government is here to put a stop to all of it.

Here's an excellent site for the truth:

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/food/news.php?q=1293821089

National Debt - $14 TRILLION

VIA hotair

Finally: National debt crosses magical $14 trillion thresholdShare69posted at 9:12 pm on January 3, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly The perfect companion piece to this essay in the new issue of Foreign Policy. American decline: It’s real and it’s spectacular.
The U.S. Treasury website today reported that as of last Friday, the last day of 2010, the National Debt stood at $14,025,215,218,708.52.
It took just 7 months for the National Debt to increase from $13 trillion on June 1, 2010 to $14 trillion on Dec. 31. It also means the debt is fast approaching the statutory ceiling $14.294 trillion set by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last February…
Some Republicans in the new Congress have said they’ll seek to block an increase in the Debt Ceiling unless a plan is in place to significantly reduce federal spending and unfunded government liabilities on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
It’s hard to conceptualize the rate at which debt is being incurred for us to be able to say we’re “fast approaching” a limit that’s more than $250 billion away. Imagine how drastically spending would have to be cut to run budget surpluses capable of making a dent in that overall number. When it comes to revenue-generators, we’ll have to be creative. Maybe start seizing small assets? Maybe start seizing … large assets?
Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard tweeted this afternoon that he’s hearing the GOP will tie its acceptance of a new debt ceiling to a balanced budget amendment. A bold stroke, if true, but I hope Boehner realizes that once he’s onboard that rocket, there’s no way to get off. If Democrats call his bluff by refusing to agree to a BBA, he’ll be forced either to oppose raising the ceiling or to cave and drop his amendment demand, which will turn his name into a curse word among tea partiers. Is he ready for high-stakes poker? Exit question: Which rabid conservative once said this on the Senate floor before voting against raising the debt ceiling?
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Jim DeMint, you say? Not exactly.