BluegrassBulletin.com

I May Switch Parties

I am a fourth generation Kentucky Republican.  My wife's family have been republicans since the Civil war.  I've devoted myself to the cause of the Republican party over my entire life.  But I'm about to tell them, enough is enough.

Congress is celebrating the upcoming vote in favor of the likely passage of the Farm Bill.  Once again the GOP is bought and paid for by big business.  Here's just one little straw they added to my back.

Congress‘ mammoth farm bill restores the imposition of an extra fee on home heating oil, hitting consumers in cold-weather states just as utility costs are spiking.

The fee — two-tenths of a cent on every gallon sold — was tacked on to the end of the 959-page bill, which is winding its way through Capitol Hill. The fee would last for nearly 20 years and would siphon the money to develop equipment that is cheaper, more efficient and safer, and to encourage consumers to update their equipment.

It’s just one of dozens of provisions tucked into the farm bill, which cleared the House on a bipartisan 251-166 vote last week and faces a key filibuster test in the Senate on Monday. It is expected to survive and face final passage Tuesday before heading to President Obama’s desk.

Taxpayer groups say the bill could increase spending over the previous version and that it’s crammed with favors for individual lawmakers, such as rules legalizing industrial hemp.

The heating oil fee was backed by Northeast lawmakers who said it would fund important research to benefit consumers. [Washington Times]

Forget the fancy hemp provisions that somehow have blinded the rest of my fellow Kentuckians into falling in line behind the farm bill.  And put aside the slam to those of us who use heating oil.  Do you know what the farm bill really is?

[T]he bill’s main budget attribute is that it ratifies the huge recent increase in food stamp spending. The House bill had proposed trimming a modest $39 billion (5 percent) from food stamps, but Republican leaders caved in and agreed to just a token 1 percent trim in the final bill.

The farm bill is far too costly. George W. Bush vetoed the 2008 farm bill because it “would needlessly expand the size and scope of government.” Unfortunately, Congress overrode his veto and enacted that bill, costing $640 billion over 10 years. Today, the House is considering a farm bill that would cost taxpayers $940 billion over 10 years — 47 percent more than the one that even big-spending President Bush couldn’t stomach.

Food stamp costs have exploded. About four-fifths of the cost of the farm bill is for food stamps.

Farm subsidies are reverse Robin Hood.Farm subsidies even go to millionaire farmland owners such as Mark Rockefeller and Ted Turner.

Subsidies are very concentrated. Although politicians love to discuss the plight of small farmers, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to the largest farms. In recent years, the biggest 10 percent of farm businesses have received three-quarters of farm subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Farm programs harm free trade.

Farm subsidies are scandal-prone. As in all federal subsidy programs, a substantial share of farm subsidies are wasted on fraudulent and improper payments. Subsidies also go to farmers who haven’t suffered substantial losses. [CATO]

Now back to the heating oil tax.  I don't think that many of my republican elected officials have any sense whatsoever of the plight of millions of their countrymen.  I know many people trying to live on less than $700 per month.  That's TOTAL INCOME!

Out of that they have to pay rent, or a mortgage payment, utilities, taxes, insurance if they can afford it, food, gasoline, car repairs, medical expenses, pharmacy expenses, clothing and all of the other things needed to survive in this world today.  They do it on less than $700 per month. 

Do you Republicans have any sense whatsoever of how hard it is for those people to survive?  They are your grandmothers, your disabled brother, your neighbor.  They are human beings and they are struggling while the big businesses, like big agriculture, are getting billions in support.

Yes, the farm bill does indeed fund food stamps.  And that is a help to some, but the next time you have a minute, go to Walmart, watch a family of illegals push two or three shopping carts piled to spilling over up to the checkout and pay for it with their food stamp card.

And then watch as the hard working guy with a paycheck struggles to pay for a few items in a nearly empty cart out of his earnings.  Why is this wrong?

Because the money for food stamps isn't really helping all the poor.  Not all of them qualify for food stamps.  I know many people who own their homes who don't qualify but are trying to pay for everything else on a pittance.  And now you want to tax their heating oil, in the middle of this cold winter, to fund research?

Bullship!  That research money is going to go to some of the well connected who will spend it to conclude that we need to give the government control over thermostats, or that we need tighter emission controls on furnaces in order to force people to buy new furnaces, a ploy by the furnace makers, or some other cockamamie pop culture idea that will either result in fewer freedoms or be swept into a dust pan with all the other wasted money we spent researching how the government can make life better.

If any one of our Kentucky republicans votes for the farm bill with this level of spending and with this heating oil tax in it, you will disgrace our Commonwealth and our party.

Get over yourselves.  What you do hurts real people.  Forget the rich donors for once and be human again.

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

Government Cartoon Training Children To Submit

When the communists in the 50's vowed to take over America without firing a shot they focused on indoctrinating the next generations with propaganda via the schools and universities.  The technique has now re-educated our nation into being very much more accepting of socialism and other government controls.

The same techniques are now being used to make children more compliant with government intrusions into their personal privacy and away from the concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment and the remainder of the Bill of Rights.  Here is just one example of how kids are being taught to think.  Removing distrust of government and teaching submission to government are the lessons of this cartoon.

 

Pandering, Profiting And Politicizing On The Back's Of Kentucky's Unemployed

The U.S. Senate democrats led by the words of Barack Obama and now many democrats in Kentucky have begun trying to build a voter block on the backs of the unemployed.  In a nation which at one time stood for unbridled opportunity and the land of prosperity, this is a shameful display of inhumanity.

Let's face facts.  The agenda, the decisions and the actions of Barack Obama, aided by a complicit U.S. Senate, have all combined to worsen the living conditions of millions of Americans since he took office in 2009.

There Are 7.7 Million Americans Who Are Currently Working Part-Time Because They Can’t Find Full-Time Employment. 

27 Percent Of Unemployed Americans Have Been Unemployed For A Year Or More – Up From 11 Percent When Obama Took Office In 2009.

The “Real” Unemployment Rate, Including Those Who Have Given Up Looking For Work Or Are Involuntarily Working Part-Time, Is 14.6 Percent In Kentucky. The Real Unemployment Rate In Kentucky Was 12.6 Percent When Obama Took Office In 2009.

The Labor Force Participation Rate Is 63 Percent – Down From 65.7 Percent When President Obama Took Office In 2009. [Bureau Of Labor Statistics]

In other words, the Obama administration, pursuing his policy agenda for America, with the help of the U.S. Senate democrats have made matters far worse for America's workers since he took office in 2009 and now they want to paint the picture as if "they" are out to help the unemployed by extending benefits.

Look, get the teat out of your mouth and think for a minute.  If they really wanted to help they would stop bankrupting the country and playing politics with the future of Americas middle class, get off the backs of businesses and working people and let this economy flourish creating REAL jobs, not made up government paychecks sent to potential voters.

You don't think that the democrats are essentially buying votes with this behavior?  Well, Candy Crowley at CNN has virtually admitted that they are.

CANDY CROWLEY: If I am an unemployed American and I hear from Republicans that, “Yeah, you know, we should go ahead and do that provided we do the following three things,” and it’s a caveat approval of extending those [unemployment] benefits, or if I am a minimum wage worker and I find, I see Republicans who say, “You know what? It's artificial, it messes with the marketplace, it might mean some teens can't get into the job market,” why would I become a Republican? How do you message that in any way to reach out to those who are disinclined to sign up for the Republican Party?

Doesn’t Crowley know that she indicted the Democratic Party as one that is basically buying votes?

So folks that are currently unemployed or on minimum wage must support politicians that promote policies that hurt the very job creation that might lead to them having better lives?

And if Republicans aren’t willing to support such failed policies, it behooves such people to be Democrats thereby potentially condemning themselves to mediocrity and possibly lifetime government dependence?

Clearly, Crowley has forgotten that in 1980, a great deal of unemployed and minimum wage workers voted for Ronald Reagan because they realized Democratic policies weren't helping them. [Newsbusters]

It is time for the people of America to wake up.

The stated "need" to continue extending these benefits is a symptom of the Democrats economic failures under Harry Reid and Barack Obama and their biggest failure is the fact that they’ve failed to create jobs. 

So of course the people of Kentucky are being bamboozled into thinking that all we need to do to make things better is to shift the balance of power in the Senate by getting rid of Mitch McConnell, the most powerful counter force to this failed agenda, and replace him with another reliable vote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Ignorance is the offense which condemns those guilty of it to the consequences of their inaction.  Remember the words of Patrick Henry:

"There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come....

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"

Does Rand Paul's Support Come From The "Hate America" Crowd?

Representative Peter King of New York had this to say about Rand Paul:

The New York Republican accused Rand Paul of “lies” and “misperception” :

“So Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about. And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people. And, he also today, I understand on the show, he was also was comparing General Clapper to Snowden. To me, he’s either totally uninformed or he’s part of that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn’t deserve to be in the United States senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies to be honest with you.“ [Gateway Pundit]

What he was referring to was a comment by  Rand on the  Sunday shows discussing his lawsuit against the NSA over illegal snooping.  In some of those comments he had this to say:

"I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison; I think that's inappropriate, I think that's why he fled, is that's what he faced," Paul, a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said on ABC's "This Week." "Do I think it's OK to leak secrets and give up national security [information] that endangers lives? I don't think that's OK, either. But I think the courts are now saying he revealed something the government was doing that was illegal."

Paul, who's pushing a class-action suit against the National Security Agency over its data collection tactics, has said that Snowden and Clapper should "share a prison cell," charging that Clapper lied to Congress.

"It is a grand tradition," he said. "Part of that tradition is, you pay the consequences. If you break the law because your conscience says you have to, you stand trial." [POLITICO]

So the question I have for readers today is this: Does some part of Rand Paul's support come from the "hate America" crowd that Congressman King mentioned?

Let's take a look.

Clearly there is a portion of the Obama support group that one could argue hates many things about America.  Dinesh D'Souza has made the argument that Obama is out for revenge over what his father hated which is "colonialism", the kind of attitude he attributed to the United States participation in "raping" third world countries of their riches to make Americans rich.

In addition Obama has aligned himself with radicals and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who clearly hate many things about America.

So, is Rand Paul courting those folks?  I think not, but on the other hand he might find some support among the less militant among the remaining sixties liberals who like his stance on personal freedom and pot and the kind of things Richie Havens and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were singing about.

But who among the GOP crowd might be pegged as part of the modern day "hate America" crowd?  Well, that depends upon which America you are talking about.

The "big business" America which has become the controlling interest in most legislation and regulations over the past thirty years has its share of supporters.  They don't hate America.

But the small business, ultra conservative TEA party crowd does have its share of "hate America" folks.  At least they seem to hate the incumbent elected officials who they view as ruining America.  They see America headed in the wrong direction.  And some of them even hate many of the institutions of America such as party politics, checks and balances and the orderly interpretation of the Constitution through the court system.

Some of the more militant among this last bunch seethe with contempt for the "mainstream", which of course is the American mainstream and tend to lean very far toward the very liberal philosophies of Libertarianism and even anarchy.  They hate that America won't let them steer the ship of state, are angry about it and do in fact pose some threat to our national security.

And then out there on the real fringes are those who are systematically plotting against America, the true enemies of our way of life, whether driven by religious extremism or a desire to consume our resources even if it means war.  They are the ones who stir up civil unrest, engage in acts of terrorism to disrupt society and take advantage of every opportunity to destroy America because they truly, to their core, hate us.

Obviously Rand Paul is not courting the support of any of the fringe or the near fringe.  But, and I say this with obvious respect for Senator Paul, the razor's edge he walks in order to build his own constituency on his way to a 2016 run for the White House is a topic of frequent discussion in the media.  Clearly any divergence from the hard line of the TEA party gets him nailed by its members.  Any time he leans toward a more moderate position his TEA party friends try to pull him back.  And then he goes and tries to win them over again by standing firm on issue after issue of greatest concern with them, like his lawsuit against the NSA.

I'd like you to weigh in on this, but in my humble opinion, Rand Paul does in fact get some of his support from those who hate the way America has been run, who hate the excesses of our government and hate the fact that they seem to be fighting the very people they entrusted with the reins of power.  Is this what Peter King was referring to?

Those of us who have been standing up for civil liberty, freedom from government overreach, demanding accountability and honesty from our elected officials for as long as I have don't consider ourselves as hating America, but rather loving all that is good about America and hating that those are the very, most precious things about the America we love which we seem to be losing.

Rand has the chance to stand very tall in this fight, but he needs to be very careful not to give in to the other forces at work on the fringes and in the shadows.  The closer he becomes with what can be labeled "extreme" positions the more frequently he will have to face accusations like those of Peter King and though his TEA party friends might rush to his defense he will have to work that much harder, and spend that much more money to discredit people like King than he needs to.

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

POLITICO has a piece up on top of its website today that starts like this:

If this was a dud year in Washington, get ready for 2014 — the year to “go small.”

Lawmakers had already lost their appetite to “go big” this year, letting reforms of immigration, guns and the Tax Code slip away in the face of gridlock and dysfunction.

And now there’s a new problem. Lawmakers are reluctant to rely on the federal government to get anything done — a guilt-by-association consequence of Obamacare’s botched rollout. Republicans have called it an indictment of more than a website, but of Big Government itself.

While Democrats argue the problem is obstructionism — not ideology — the result will be the same: As Washington laments the end of a do-nothing year, lawmakers are fully prepared to do as little — or even less — in the new year.

“I think anything that has a significant expansion or role for the federal government is going to be problematic,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a top Republican message strategist, told POLITICO. “Because I just think there’s going to be such a cynicism and skepticism attached to any promises made with regard to the federal government’s role.”

Ron Paul, the Grand Poobah of the smaller is better ideology has been saying that the Republicans and Democrats are all the same, even saying on some occassions that they are all part of the same party.

Does this mean that his brand of governance which has usurped the TEA party movement has finally caught on?  The answer is no.

The reaction that POLITICO is predicting for 2014 is more a response to the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration and a growing uneasiness with what many used to dismiss, but now fear, are his nefarious plans for America.  In fact most of the anger and angst of the TEA party was born in reaction to Obama, has fed off of Obama's agenda and is still a reactionary movement rather than a pro-active one.

I saw this meme on Facebook sent out by a local TEA party group:

 

You have to ask yourself, what does this really say to people?  Is it some sort of rallying cry to keep the flames of discontent burning hotter than ever?

The phrase "More Constitution" means what exactly?  Lower taxes?  Taxes are undesirable no doubt, but they are certainly constitutional.  Does it mean more civil liberty?  We certainly have suffered in this area lately and numerous cases are working their way through the court system which ultimately decides, as the arbiter of these debates, what is and what is not constitutional.

How does this meme fit into the reality of political life?  What, no republican who wants more civil liberty and lower taxes can be trusted, and neither can any democrat?  Then who?  What other party is out there?  Aren't most of the TEA party candidates running as republicans?  And isn't it a fact that in places where they do, for the most part, they give democrats an added advantage of being able to run on their liberal agenda while republicans eat each other alive in primaries?

So just what does the observation of the POLITICO piece mean.  Has the TEA party won the battle of ideas in Washington?  Is there really some meaning to the concept of "More Constitution" that is controlling how elected officials act?

No, and no.

The fact is that even the proper role of government, as seen even by TEA party types, is considered dangerous territory.  Standing up in favor of building bridges and fixing roads, and repairing a half century or older infrastructure lights a match under the "big spender" accusers who have found a way, much like the protesters of the sixties did, to get attention in front of cameras and try to steer the policy of the nation.

Spend no money, collect no taxes, go to Washington, do nothing, dismantle the federal government, weaken our military, and withdraw into a kind of isolation that fools people into believing that the world will just leave us alone and allow us to prosper so long as we don't intervene in anybody else's business.

Foolhardy, reckless, ignorant thinking like this makes America vulnerable to the evil forces at work in the world.  If the worst happens it will be on the shoulders of those who failed to take charge in difficult times.  The blame will be squarely upon the heads of those who would give Israel over to the Palestinians, chemical weapons to Assad, control of Afghanistan to the drug cartels, who would remove border security and issue terms of engagement to our military that told them to stand up and take the first shot before firing back.

War is, as the saying goes, hell.  And hell is at our doorstep.  The last thing we need is a nation of bong hugging gamers driving the ship of state.

If the TEA party really wishes for an America that used to be, maybe they ought to be asking things like, where are the real men, the John Wayne's of our time, instead of asking that old time policy be implement by a bunch of impotent 'fraidy cats. 

Think about it.  America was strong, and stood up for itself in the days the Ron Paul folks wish they could return us to.  To get there might take a much tougher, rougher approach than the rally attending, flag-shirt wearing, malcontents and protesters can deliver on their own.

If a do nothing Congress is the result of a TEA party victory, then I think Merle might have asked the right question a long time ago: Are the good times really over for good?

 

Hmmmmm..... Is New Egyptian Policy A Scary Reflection Of Obama's Plans For America?

When Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt he did so with an iron fist that killed any dissent.  Then the Muslim Brotherhood rioted (with the encouragement of President Obama) and took over the country, installing Mohamed Morsy as the new Brotherhood leader of Egypt.  Then the people rose up and ousted Morsy.

Now the new government, installed after the military removed Morsy, has declared all of Morsy's supporters and the entire Muslim Brotherhood to be "terrorists", vowing to arrest and kill every single on, even women, following a series of attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood which have killed or wounded hundreds.

Egypt may be moving more toward a true democracy, but think about how they are accomplishing this.  They have labled the opposition as "terrorists".

Not too long ago the Obama administration sent out a memo to various law enforcement agencies around the nation.  It was a study funded by his "Department Of Homeland Security".  In the report various groups of people, such as veterans returning to the United States were identified as potential terrorists.

Now think about that.  If the government can label you as a terrorist with the stroke of a pen, then you could be arrested, imprisoned and maybe even executed.

This kinda makes you wonder if the new Egyptian Policy is a scary reflection of our President's attitude.

Obama's Green Plans Killing The Earth

Corn farmers love the ethanol program.  They are getting record high prices for their crops, they have found support industries developing strains of corn and types of equipment to substantially increase yields and they are big enough politically now to dictate to entire regions what ground will be planted.

Ethanol is really just distilled moonshine, with a chemical added to keep you from drinking it.  Same process as a mountain still, chemically treated and then added to your gasoline as part of the goofy idea that some how this is reducing "greenhouse gases".  And just to show you how little respect the "Greenies" have for your intelligence the must be laughing behind your back when you use the words "greenhouse gases" to picture something toxic.  Ever been to a greenhouse?  What gases?  Carbon dioxide which is given off by all living plants whether in a greenhouse or not?  The next time you use the term "greenhouse gases" to make a point about air pollution stop for a moment and savor the thought of how much of an idiot the "greenies" think you are.

So just how "green" is this ethanol program?  What you are about to read might surprise you.

The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.

Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined - have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.

In some cases, such as its decision to allow wind farms to kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc it believes global warming could ultimately cause.

Ethanol is different.

The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases. That makes the hidden costs even more significant.

"This is an ecological disaster," said Craig Cox with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, now finds itself at odds with the White House.

But it's a cost the administration is willing to accept.

Losing conservation land was bad. But something even worse was happening.

Farmers broke ground on virgin land, the untouched terrain that represents, from an environmental standpoint, the country's most important asset.

The farm industry assured the government that wouldn't happen. And it would have been an easy thing for Washington to check.

But rather than insisting that farmers report whenever they plow into virgin land, the government decided on a much murkier oversight method: Washington instead monitors the total number of acres of cropland nationwide. Local trends wash away when viewed at such a distance.

The Department of Agriculture began keeping figures on virgin land only in 2012 and determined that about 38,000 acres vanished that year.

But using government satellite data - the best tool available - the AP identified a conservative estimate of 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone that have been converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006, the last year before the ethanol mandate was passed.[MyWayNews]

Still think that the plan is to improve our environment?  Or is it really just another example of the government being the enforcement arm of big business?

Ky Court Shredding The Constitution Behind Closed Doors?

Because there is a statute making the proceedings in Kentucky juvenile cases confidential I am not at liberty to discuss any particular case or reveal anything that could identify a child or the proceedings in a Family Court case.  In otherwords, the public is prevented from seeing what is going on.

But I'd like to ask you this: suppose a Kentucky judge has, behind these closed doors, made these ruling:

Based solely upon the claim by a social worker that an anonymous caller accused two Kentucky parents of smoking marijuana in the presence of their children suppose the judge ordered both parents to submit to a blood test within 24 hours and to give statements to the government about their home life.

It is quite clear in the law that a blood test is a search and a seizure.  It is also quite clear that before a search can be conducted there must be presented probable cause that a crime is being committed.  And it is also quite clear that an anonymous tip cannot alone form the requisite probable cause to order a search.

It is also the right of every citizen to remain silent, that is no person can be compelled to become a witness against himself, in other words be forced to give a statement to a government official. 

But suppose a Kentucky judge ordered two citizens to submit to a blood test and give statements to government officials in a juvenile case behind closed doors in which the officials admitted under oath that the results of the blood test and/or the statments could expose the parents to criminal charges.

By what power would this judge be acting?  The answer is simply this: the power to punish the citizens for contempt if they do not comply, putting them in jail for up to six months, all behind the closed doors and out of view of the public under the protective cloak of the juvenile court confidentiality statutes.

The Kentucky Child Protective Services has been under close scrutiny for some time and has been the subject of at least one heated legislative hearing earlier this year.

And as a lawyer I can tell you that this agency of the government feels quite at ease intruding into the lives of ordinary citizens under the guise of "protecting children" when in fact these agencies themselves all around the country, and in Kentucky have had some serious questions raised about their ability to protect children in the past.

It should be of concern to every liberty loving Kentuckian that the rights of citizens not be violated and that the Kentucky Cabinet For Health and Family Services operating as a government agency be constrained by the Constitution rather than be permitted to engage in their intrusive behavior by judges operating behind closed doors and out of public view.

Obama's Ex-Body Guard: "It's Worse Than You Know"

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino – “It’s to the point where these (Obama) scandals in and of themselves would be huge, backbreaking scandals are just lost in the ‘scandal fog’ of this administration.” He added: “It’s worse than people know; I’m not trying to scare you either.” [gopthedailydose.com]