Your waistline: the latest global warming culprit

In case you were wondering what's next on the global warming/climate change agenda -- which is the same as the Obama agenda -- you may not have to look further than your (growing) waistline. A new study in the UK as reported by the BBC has found that getting back to the "slim trim days of the 1970s" would help to tackle climate change: "The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food than 40 years ago, a study suggests.

That could equate to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the team calculated.

Transport costs of a fatter population were also included in the International Journal of Epidemiology study".

Apparently, then, that spare tire that you are more likely sporting  today is not only less attractive to look at, but  takes more fossil fuels and carbon to carry around town. In addition to calculating the increased food costs of the heavier population, the research also addressed how much additional fuel would be needed for transportation of modern-day UK compared with the 1970s version:

"Greenhouse gas emissions from food production and car travel in the fatter population would be between 0.4 to 1 giga tonnes higher per 1bn people, they estimated."

But lest you think this might lead to a campaign against obesity, the self-esteem police are making sure that everyone's "fatness" is to blame:

"This is not really just about obese people, the distribution of the whole population is what's important," said Dr Edwards.

"Everybody is getting a bit fatter. Staying slim is good for health and for the environment.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change."

So, we're all at fault for not being able to fit into those 70s era hip-hugger jeans and tight knit tops with the wide stripes (not to mention the platform shoes). One wonders whether the fashion of the 1970s followed our collective level of slenderness, or whether those tight-fitting fashions and non-breathable poly-blends forced us into a perpetual state of starvation. Whatever the cause-and-effect, the eco-fanatics are now targeting our food consumption as the latest attack on mother earth. It's quite in line with the other prohibitions of personal enjoyment that are now on the chopping block, like taking that family vacation in your fuel-guzzling motor home or driving that V8 Dodge Charger you've always wanted. Nope, from now on you'll squeeze your tight little bum into a Prius and enjoy the rev of that high-performance electric motor -- that sweet hum only a committed tree-hugger could truly enjoy.

In any event, stay tuned. You can bet that this is the next agenda on the Obama mission to remake America. Last year I wrote a piece entitled "The Left's Nanny Aspirations", where I detailed attempts to ban smoking, fast-food and other sins. Left alone, these efforts -- linked to public health considerations -- pose a significant threat to our freedoms. But being able to link our eating habits to climate change will flow nicely with the EPA's recent ruling that CO2 is a pollutant that threatens our health -- even if it is the most common element in the earth's atmosphere. Finding a causal link to global warming should put us on notice that further regulation of our food consumption is coming. You can bet that second helping of potatoes on it!

'Corporatocracy' bashed at Regis

John Perkins, far-left author of the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, came to Regis University this week to discuss topics ranging from what he calls a “corporatocracy” and greedy executives to remarkable accomplishments of the likes of Rosa Parks and Barack Obama and the importance of following your passions. Beyond the rhetorical flare of some of the core values that each and every one of us share, the topics John (as he insisted he be called) discussed, his approach to those subjects and his rhetoric raise questions given Regis’s status as an academic institution. Take a look at some of the things he said at this meeting, which was attended by roughly 450 people—so many that they overflowed into another room to watch a live stream:

“Many executives are like thieves, rapists and villains.” “Corporations are here to serve us, not a few executives who make sickening amounts of money.” “Milton Friedman was wrong” about giving executives “free rein and they’ll do the right thing.” “I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned strict borders.” And, of course, there is his argument that corporations have to pledge to be sustainable, just and serve common interests (whatever those are) in order to renew their charter.

Never mind the broad brush of the word “many” in that first sentence, or the fact that corporations are here to serve their shareholders, not us and not executives. Nor that Milton Friedman in fact argued that individuals should be granted free reign in a competitive marketplace to make the best of their lives—not just executives, but everyone.

We can also ignore the inaccuracies of his argument that the Founding Fathers did not intend to have strict borders. And that John made the statement that executives are making “sickening amounts of money” without defining what he means or answering a question to that effect.

Moreover, we can ignore the fact that the United States is operated under the rule of law—something called the “Constitution”—and nowhere is the government granted to right to alter the terms of an agreement—a company’s charter—simply because they want to impose a new set of values.

The issue at hand is not whether John Perkins was right or wrong in his analysis, or if his points were reasonable. The issue at hand is whether or not the approach of and the circumstances surrounding the speaker are appropriate.

Regis University is an academic institution. Students have a reasonable right to expect that a widely-publicized event would involve the dissemination of more than just feelings and emotions, but also facts upon which to base one’s opinions.

Many students were either required to watch or given extra credit to listen to a speaker arguing from a viewpoint that is, by any reasonable perspective, rather far to the left. In the case of the former, they had no choice; in the case of the latter, they had a choice, but it was a confined choice.

In the speech, Perkins presented a lot of arguments that could hold merit—if they were backed by facts and not pure conjecture. Take his statement that there is “no question” that less money spent on military and police spending results in less violence. “We know that,” he affirmed. But how do we know that? He gave no factual support for his claim.

One student told me it was a “rah rah” for Obama supporters and liberals—and she was right. The only time an alternative viewpoint was presented was when I stood and asked two questions, one of which was entirely passed over. Other than that, it was corporation-bashing, executive-bashing and so forth, on the whole.

That’s not to say that there was no value in what he said or good points that everyone can rally behind. For instance, Perkins is right: If you have an issue you’re passionate about, you have an obligation to stand up and do something about it; you cannot just sit idly by and expect others to bring about change. If closing down sweatshops is your issue, for instance, you better believe you should start sending letters to companies letting them know that you are boycotting their products until they change their ways. Alternatively, if supporting free market reforms to fix our healthcare crisis is your passion, go for that, too.

It is especially important, as he said, for young people to step out to the forefront and help shape their future, for the world we create now is the world we will inherit tomorrow. And indeed, as Rosa Parks proves, one person can rise from menial jobs in a restaurant to becoming a famous civil rights leader making a huge difference. President Obama also shows how, with hard work and determination, anyone can go from being entirely unrecognized to becoming President of the United States. These are indeed prime examples for the community.

But when students are required or incentivized to go and we are at an academic institution, don’t we have the right to expect that there will at the very least be facts to back up the assertions and help form judgments instead of having to read his book in order to get it? That other viewpoints will be encouraged and brought into the conversation, their questions answered? That, yes, the speaker may bring in strong viewpoints, but the dialogue qualities universities like Regis espouse are actually put into practice?

This is my disappointment and frustration. Regis University is an educational establishment. Education is about the acclamation of different facts and ideas in order to form independent judgments. But if no facts are given to support arguments and no variety of viewpoints exists, that mission is not accomplished.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, online radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly. He is also College Liaison for BackboneAmerica.net, working through the Backbone Americans group on Facebook.

Six rules for financial backbone

Editor: This quick primer for recession survival was offered on our 3/29 radio show by David Bradshaw of Swiss America, the gold firm. 1. Don’t borrow: The U.S. is suffering from a chronic debt addiction of monumental proportion. We've now amassed $1 trillion in bad mortgage debt, $1 trillion in weak consumer credit card debt and nearly $10 trillion in government debt. Debt enslaves us to an economic system in a chronic state of collapse. Learn to live within your means.

2. Own hard money: If you have money, put a portion of it into tangible assets before the dollar’s value is further destroyed by inflation. Precious metal and U.S. rare coin prices recently corrected and today represent an excellent value buy for both safety and long-term growth.

3. Think for yourself: Search for reliable information about the economic and political situation. Read books and turn off the TV and video games. Discuss ideas and issues with your kids, family and friends.

4. Develop new skills: Learn to be more self-reliant. Do your own household repairs. Grow and cook your own food. Shop at thrift stores. Start your own part-time business. 5. Become politically active: Register, vote and demand honest elections. Support politicians with integrity, who favor smaller government, lower taxes and the Constitution. Reread the Constitution as a reminder of your rich American heritage. Demand changes in accordance with your core values.

6. Fear not, God is in control: We tend to be overwhelmed by external forces such as government, corporations, banks, credit ratings, the economy, media, armies and technology. In reality, God is the only source of power in the universe. The more we realize God's presence, the less we fear externals. By God’s grace we can reverse the trend from being a bailout nation to being a blessed nation again.

Bradshaw's website has the original piece here.

He also provided this link to Swiss America's free DVD offer with short trailer.

Henry Ford rolls over

Barack Obama has now unveiled the next iteration of America's new industrial policy, and if you own shares of Ford Motor Company you have every right to be angry. The bailout of GM and Chrysler and the intrusion of the White House on their corporate governance is now part of a program to pick the winners and losers in the U.S. auto industry. The President has made it clear that GM will not fail due to ineptitude, decrepitude or attitude, and the full faith and credit (such as it is) of the United States has now interceded to ensure it. The market no longer is working, because your government wants the UAW to have jobs, and is willing to use your tax dollars to fund them. And, of course, it wants American auto companies to build small "green" cars, and now that it controls the behemoth that is General Motors, you can bet that they will -- whether you want to buy them or not. And what of Ford Motor Company? The company that brought you the modern automobile industry has, of course, struggled over the past year in a tough market. But due to superior products and better management, Ford has managed to resist the need for tax payer dollars. In a true market, Ford would now be enjoying the fruits of its effort by gaining on GM and Chrysler -- both of which would now be in bankruptcy. The company's employees and shareholders would now be benefiting from the demise of two of its main competitors and be rewarded for its ability to negotiate the difficult waters of CAFE standards and tough credit by surviving in the short-run and and expanding in the long-run. A great American success story, right?

Only not in Obama's America -- where it is more important to reward vested interests than it is those who play by the rules and do a good job. Why should Ford be in a position of watching its two primary domestic competitors receive government aid that will make them leaner and more effective competitors? How is that fair? What is the incentive for doing a good job and not needing a hand out if it puts you at a strategic disadvantage? This is the ultimate moral hazard -- that it is actually better to fail than to succeed, because the government will be there to save you. No matter what.

And don't be mislead. The taxpayer is now on the hook for saving GM and Chrysler. And if you work at Ford or own Ford stock -- tough luck. You will have to sit back and watch as the government puts is ample resources into making your competitors stronger. You lose for winning. What an ironic place to be for the company that Henry Ford built -- the man that created the foundation for mass production, who developed the Model T and established the roots of the modern transportation industry. A man built to compete, with a legacy that is now threatened by the ultimate in non-competitive forces.

One thing you can be sure of: somewhere in his grave in the Ford Cemetery in Detroit, Henry Ford is rolling over.

Obama may abort the American dream

I have been looking for "the sign" that the good times are over for good. It came in a Denver Post headline: "Abortions increase in face of economy". Family planning has a new definition. In the words of country singer Merle Haggard, "Are we rolling downhill like a snowball headed for Hell?" Good ol' Merle said things would be better when Ford and Chevy made cars that last ten years like they should.

Gone are the days of procreating children to help run the family farm or business. The word "family" has been destroyed by cultural revolution. The most famous family today depicts a welfare mother prostituting the images of eight new babies. Now there is a retirement plan.

President Obama and Democrats will do what they want now that they can. It's frustrating. Plans for retirement for most of us now must consider a future of massive inflation to repay more debt than all the nations previous presidents had accumulated. Charge today! No payment till next year!

President Obama talks about the urgent need to pass his oversized-credit-card economic plan, some of which already passed without a chance to readthe fine print. Congress deserves a pay cut. Withdrawal is the new plan for the Middle East. Our Mexican border leaks immigrants and drugs, both of which are killing us in their own way. Shall we expect "amnesty and legalization" as a bold border plan? It would fit the mold.

Mortgaging a nation on "false appraisal" is worse than mortgaging our homes for 125 percent of speculated value was. U.S. taxpayers have been conned into bailing out bad-banking behavior. Our creditors have noticed. The Chinese are abandoning the dollar because they fear our inflation will erode their investments. The international Ponzi scheme has been outed.