Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax

Remember the Energy Act of 2005? Remember how ethanol was to be our savior from high gas prices and was supposed to help us get off of our dependence on foreign oil? Well, those promises were as empty as the space that fills the light-years between solar systems.

As you have probably noticed, gas prices have gone up and you've probably also noticed that we are still just as dependent, if not moreso, on foreign oil as we were before. You've probably also noticed the unintended side-effect of higher food prices for us consumers to pay.

Anyone schooled in basic economics would have seen this coming. Further, anyone schooled in basic economics can see where it is going and more importantly, why.

Dr. Walter Williams notes the following in his latest column:

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines. Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent. Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone. There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Because this whole thing has been a sham and a hoax. The only results are that we have less efficient fuels, higher prices for food, use of even more oil to produce the ethanol and only the big corn and ethanol companies and interests are showing any profit from it.

Dr. Williams goes on:

But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot. The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits.

So, when are the socialist Dems going to investigate "Big Corn" for price gouging?

Congress needs to end this madness now, before it costs us so much that we won't be able to afford any new research into truly viable alternative energy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
March 12, 2008

Disturbing Idea For The United Nations

Writing for the New Media Journal, Frank Salvato puts forth a very disturbing idea: a standing army for the United Nations. Now, in a world where power grabs by despots and leftist elitists are common, the last thing we should ever approve of is a corrupt, immoral organization like the U.N. having its owned armed force.

Mr. Salvato writes:

That the United Nations is a corrupt and ineffective institution is an understatement. The list of illegal activities and instances of institutionalized bigotry are so numerable that they weave a tapestry of embarrassment that would incite any governmental body with integrity to disband. Truth be told, they can’t even agree on a definition for “terrorism.” As they say, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. An example of the UN’s corrupt leadership can be seen in the Oil-for-Food scandal, one of the larger blemishes on the face of the organization. Alas, it is a blemish that the secular-progressive press failed to expose in detail. You see, a few corrupt world leaders – we’ll cite Jacque Chirac as a prime example – were utilizing their seats on the UN Security Council to hold the United States and aligned coalition countries at bay while they violated the resolutions put in place by that very organization. Their actions defrauded the Oil-for-Food program of millions if not billions of dollars and enriched Saddam Hussein in the process.

If the U.N. were that bad before, what other human rights violations would they be getting into if we gave them an armed force?

More:

And while many of those who support the charitable efforts of the UN tout their humanitarian missions, i.e., their efforts to feed the starving and treat the diseased, the fact is that most often the food and medicine provided by the UN literally serves to empower the oppressive elements of those affected regions. Food and medicine routinely sit idle at the drop-off locations only to be used by warlords and militias as leverage against the very people the supplies were meant to benefit. Today, with all these many failures to show for its tenure, the United Nations is now attempting to expand its potency in an effort to create authority beyond its chartered mission statement: “The stated aims of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards, and fight diseases.” Nowhere in the UN charter does it give the international body the authority to impose any kind of tax on its member nations or the citizens thereof. Additionally, its charter does not give the body the authority to redefine – especially in a time of peace – the sovereign borders of any nation, regardless of the economic benefit. Yet two initiatives championed by the United Nations establish these authorities.

Those initiatives are the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) and the other is Global Warming which is turning out to be a huge hoax.

Mr. Salvato goes on:

To declare that the scientific debate on mans role in the global warming and cooling cycle is over, a consensus reached, is to promote a blatant lie. The only consensus that exists is entered into by those politicians and scientists who believe man is a major element in the current global warming cycle. Those who agree that man is a significant cause of global warming have formed a consensus. Responsible scientists, devoid of political pressure and eco-agenda, have been feverishly attempting to bring forth information that debunks mans influence on the naturally reoccurring global warming and cooling cycles. They have been thwarted every step of the way by not only the Green movement, environmentalists and that entrepreneurial opportunist, Al Gore, they have been rendered voiceless by the counter-culture eco-generation of the 1960s, now in control of mainstream media and the United Nations hierarchy itself. A shadow of doubt is cast over the legitimacy of the science presented by the UN and its manmade global warming proponents by basic scientific dogma. A scientist is taught to systematically “rule out” detractor arguments and possibilities in their quest for a theory’s validation. In essence, a consensus should never be reached unless it is a consensus that a group of scientists cannot disprove a theory. In the case of manmade global warming there is a sizable contingent of scientists who can disprove manmade global warming but they are being silenced by the eco-community, even to the extent of being banned from the most recent climate conference in Bali.

With all of this on their resume, the U.N. should never, under any circumstances, be given its own armed forces. They should, and rightly so, rely on the forces loaned to them by member nations and use those forces only in peacekeepng operations.

Due to the corruption and graft that is rampant at the U.N., only a fool would give them any kind of enforcement capability.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Standing Army For The United Nations
Frank Salvato
New Media Journal
December 14, 2007

---

Democrat leaders in Congress will have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that millions of people will have their tax returns delayed next year. Why? Because the Dems took too long in passing the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief. But instead of admitting their own responsibility, they have a plan in the works to try and blame the Bush Administration for it. Their plan is going to fail.

Writing for Cybercast News Service, Susan Jones has this:

Millions of Americans are expected to face delays in getting their tax refunds because the Internal Revenue Service must scramble to revise and print tax forms -- and change its computer programs -- to reflect the changes. The New York Times reported on Dec. 5 that the delay in passing the AMT fix was already endangering a "smooth start" to the tax filing season. According to that Dec. 5 report, the main problem is reprogramming I.R.S. computers: "The agency's protocol calls for seven weeks to analyze changes in tax law, write the software code and test it, as well as notify all the tax professionals and others affected," the New York Times reported. But Pelosi and Reid said the IRS should have anticipated what Congress would end up doing. "On October 30, 2007, the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional tax-writing committees wrote to Acting Internal Revenue Service [Director] Linda E. Stiff to notify her that Congress would soon act on our AMT legislation," Pelosi and Reid wrote to Bush on Thursday. "This letter also provided specific details about this legislation so the IRS could prepare to process 2007 returns." The tax-writing committees urged the IRs "to take all steps necessary to plan for changes that would be made by this legislation," Pelosi and Reid said. At a White House press conference on Thursday, President Bush noted that Congress had passed an AMT patch. : But, he added, "unfortunately Congress passed this legislation after a lengthy delay, and the delay is going to add time it takes to process tens of millions of dollars in refunds." Bush said his administration would "work hard to minimize the impact of the congressional delay so that Americans can get their refund checks as soon as possible."

Reid and Pelosi are trying to make the case that the IRS should have anticipated passage of the AMT relief bill. But experience shows that one cannot trust a Democrat controlled Congress to get anything meaningful done. In fact, it is just as likely that the Dems would have changed the rules a second time if the IRS had begun preparations before the bill was passed, just to hand an embarrassment to the Administration.

You can access the article on-line here:

Democrats: IRS Should Have Acted Before We Did
Susan Jones
CNSNews.com
December 21, 2007

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis

So, now that Al Gore has won a Nobel Prize for his work based on junk science, what will furture generations think of us when they look back and see how all of the Al Gore types ran around like Chicken Little and they were honored for it?

Alan Caruba asks that question and a few others in his latest column dealing with Global Warming. Here is an excerpt:

The United Nations conference in Bali, attended by some 10,000 participants and observers, is likely to make future generations conclude that ours was deranged to be discussing how humans could have any affect whatever on the climate. They will, in retrospect, agree that the global warming theory was a lie whose agenda was to retard anything that might extend and enhance life on earth. The Protocol is based entirely on a lie that predicts dramatic and imminent global warming. Global warmers insist that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced, but carbon dioxide does not cause climate change. Climatologists will tell you that any rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not precede, but follows warming cycles.

That's right. How many GW alarmists have ever allowed anyone to even mention the Medieval Warming Period when global temperatures were even warmer than they are today?

[Note: Global Warming alarmists tried to discredit the Midieval Warming Period based on a November 2006 report from the National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration, but that report itself was debunked when NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies revamped their temperature measurements in August of 2007.]

However, Caruba goes on and addresses the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on regional economies:

A November 30 Bloomberg News article by Kristian Rix and Mathew Carr reported that Japan, Spain, and Italy face as much as $33 billion in fines as the result of having agreed to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions and failed. These three nations are deemed the “worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.” Among the nations exempt from the Kyoto Protocol are China and India, both of whom represent two of the six billion people on planet Earth. The idea that limits on carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved without their participation is idiotic. ... Consider now how many schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, and other benefits to their citizens that $33 billion represents to Japan, Spain, and Italy. Such fines will be transferred to the coffers of the United Nations for having failed to curb CO2 emissions that are actually a benefit to the Earth! An entirely bogus system of “carbon credits” has been created to transfer huge amounts of money from industrialized nations accused of producing too much CO2 to those nations that, for lack of development—failed economies—will garner funding as they “sell” their excess credits. The same system would allow various industries to sell the same worthless credits to those—primarily producers and users of energy—deemed to be major CO2 “polluters.” Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen prey to the lie that CO2 represents a form of “pollution” and should be regulated, the known science renders this decision an egregious juridical error The Earth, over billions of years, has gone through cycles of warming and cooling that are well established. It has gone through periods when the CO2 content in the atmosphere was far higher than today. The latest cooling period is called the mini-ice age and lasted from around 1300 to 1850. The Earth has been warming naturally since then. There is no dramatic warming occurring. Predictions of this are based on totally flawed computer models, none of which can begin to approximate the sheer chaos and complexity of the Earth’s weather system.

And a very important question, as Caruba asks, is: What would that $33 billion in fines have meant to the people of the nations being forced to pay them? Further, what exactly is the United Nations going to do with it? (This scheme conjures up memories of the Iraqi Oil-For-Food Scandal that made so many UN bureaucrats rich at the expense of Iraqi children.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis
Alan Caruba
Canada Free Press
December 10, 2007

Pelosi Proposal Would Send American Economy Into A Depression

Nancy Pelosi seems to be getting desperate. The general view that the American public has of the current Democrat controlled Congress is that it is a do-nothing legislature completely impotent in it's own world. Thus, she came up with H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill is supposed to take us towards greater energy independence and less reliance on fossil fuels. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, she does not understand economics nor does she have a grasp of history.

The National Taxpayers Union breaks down the problems with H.R. 6 here:

Huge Tax Increases -- The House previously passed $14 billion in vengeful tax hikes on so-called "Big Oil." Though billed as a way to move us toward energy independence, similar taxes in the past have simply reduced domestic oil production and increased oil imports. Congress ought not to repeat those mistakes. Renewable Fuels Standard -- Forcing Americans to consume 36 billion gallons of heavily-subsidized ethanol and other alternative fuels will serve to dramatically raise fuel prices, taxes, and food costs for everyone. Renewable Portfolio Standard -- Requiring that 15 percent of all electricity be produced by alternative sources will likewise raise utility bills, causing harm to those Americans who can least afford the additional expense. Higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards -- Though raising CAFE standards may appear productive at first blush, ultimately this policy would have little effect on total fuel consumption while creating vehicles that are more expensive and less safe. Price Gouging Language -- There is no evidence that price gouging has taken place, even after disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Congress ought not to interfere with the delicate balance of energy markets.

These five items are all in H.R. 6. This bill needs to be defeated, or, if passed, vetoed.

You can access the original article on-line here:

An Open Letter to Congress: Taxes, Regulations, And Subsidies Are NOT The Answer For Energy Security!
National Taxpayers Union
December 3, 2007