Copenhagen Math

I'm a little confused about why the U.S. should cough up $100 Billion per year to help other countries deal with their committments on UN regulation of "climate change."  That means we will pay for it twice -- once in a subsidy through a corrupt organization (the UN) that will pass on a portion of it to corrupt governments (most of the developing world), and then in the increased price of goods that we will likely purchase from those very countries.

I know, $100 Billion doesn't sound like much now that we toss around numbers like $3 or $4 Trillion, but if you divide it by the current population of the U.S. it comes out to about $328 per person or $1,312 per family of 4.  We probably need to double those numbers because of the increased cost of goods and services.  No, we should probably triple it because the government is such an inefficient allocator of wealth that the true cost to our economy will be much larger than the $100 Billion.

Obama: World's Will on Climate Change 'Hangs in the Balance' at Copenhagen

Mexican Drug Cartel "Boss-of-Bosses" Killed in Fight

The drug violence in Mexico has been rampant for an extended period.  The Mexican government under President Felipe Calderon is fighting back but the battle is only beginning.

Top Mexican Drug Lord Killed in Fight With Law Enforcement

Now we will likely see a battle for control of the Beltran Leyva Cartel.

Regulating Cattle Emissions and Conspiracy Theories

OK. I’ve finally had enough of the ludicrous idea that the way to control greenhouse gases is to regulate emissions by livestock. I suspect it is really a plan to destroy the livestock industry by those who think we should all become Vegans. Or, maybe it is something even more sinister.

The carbon cycle is relatively simple to describe although its actions are complex. Living things are carbon-based. This includes plants and animals. Plants take carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere, trap the carbon into their tissue in the form of various molecules such as sugars and then release Oxygen. Animals eat plants (or other animals) and through the process of digestion, break down the complex molecules (such as sugars) from the plant material and utilize the released energy to fuel their existence. In the process of digestion, some of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as various gases and carbon dioxide is released through respiration. This process cycles the carbon in a somewhat continuous loop. Plants also release carbon when they die. The process of decomposition releases carbon into the atmosphere.

This carbon cycle has continued since the beginning of life on this planet. At one time in pre-history, there was significantly more carbon floating around in the atmosphere which fueled riotous growth of plants. Many of those plants were then trapped in sediment and over time changed to oil, gas and coal or were bound into limestone and other sedimentary rocks.

Until we began releasing the carbon that was “sequestered” in the form of oil, gas and coal, carbon wasn’t a problem. It was cycled through plants and animals just as it is today. It was this release from the utilization of fossil fuels of huge amounts of carbon back into the carbon cycle that created what some scientists today are claiming to be a cataclysmic problem for life on earth. In other words – it isn’t the cattle that are causing “climate change,” it is the burning of fossil fuels that released huge amounts of trapped carbon into the atmosphere that is causing the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

So, why do our government and the governments of other nations throughout the world think the solution lies in regulating gas produced by cattle? Here is one possibility – it is part of the plan to control the world food supply. In the U.S. most crops are subsidized through various support payments. Livestock production is not. Placing regulations on the livestock producers under the guise of controlling greenhouse gas emissions makes sense only in the context of attempting to gain control of one of the few lightly regulated industries left.

It fits into what could be construed as a plan to force a one-world government. The way I see it, if one wanted to control the world you would begin with a series of induced crises. The crises would be designed to gain control of some key things – banking, energy and food. Hmmmm…..we recently saw manipulation of the first two of these items. That leaves food. I wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes in Copenhagen……