Image via Wikipedia
Clint Didier played tight end for the Washington Redskins in the 1980s. As a Redskin he won two Super Bowl championship rings–one in Super Bowl XVII; the other in Super Bowl XXII.
Now, he’s a farmer in The State of Washington, and the head of the EPA wants to establish a 500 foot “buffer” on each side of every fresh water lake, river or creek in Washington. Didier claims this “buffer” will deprive farmers of use of up to 61% of their land. He says he (and other farmers) are ready to fight–and he understands some constitutional fundamentals.
Taking control of a 500-foot buffer around waterways may sound fairly reasonable, but 500 feet on all sides means each mere 3-foot wide creek could take a 1,003-foot-wide strip of land out of agricultural production.
We tend to find creeks meandering through the lowlands. The lowlands tend to be the flat and fertile lands. The flat, fertile land is where we tend to farm. In general, farmland is riddled with creeks.
Because some states are crisscrossed by little creeks, 60% of more of current agricultural land could be taken out of production based on these 500-foot buffers. It’s not impossible that if this 500-foot buffer plan were implemented nationwide, that we might lose as much as half of our current agricultural land.
In case you haven’t noticed, people need to eat and the price of foot is already rising dramatically. What do you think will happen to the price of food if the EPA’s “buffer” program succeeds in removing 30 to 50% of American farmland from production?
On the one hand, it’s disturbing that the EPA wants to remove so much land from agricultural production. On the other hand, it’s encouraging that there are growing numbers of farmers who are articulate, knowledgeable and “ready to fight”.
But there’s a third side to this conflict between the “evil” EPA and the “heroic” farmers: farm subsidies. It’ll be interesting to see how many of the “heroic” and “independent” farmers (who are now faced with the prospect of losing use of their land) have previously become merrily dependent on government farm subsidies over the past two generations.
The gov-co giveth and the gov-co taketh away. Those who live by the subsidy, die by the subsidy.
Taking subsidies from gov-co is just like taking a new satin dress from a pimp. That dress may seem pretty nice to a naive young girl, but sooner or later the pimp will expect that little girl to “put out” to repay the cost of the dress–and lots more.
Similarly, America’s most successful farmers have grown rich taking gov-co subsidies. Now, gov-co wants its “little girls” to put out. These “little girls” are shocked to discover that they are not the gov-co’s brides-to-be, but merely the gov-co’s whores. The EPA is trying to break these agricultural welfare queens in to their true station in life by taking 1,000-foot wide strips of agricultural land out of production.
Make no mistake. I’m rooting for the farmers–even the ones who prostituted themselves by taking gov-co subsidies. I’m absolutely against the gov-co pimps. But my pro-farmer favoritism doesn’t prevent me from stating the truth: farmers can’t play the dependent whore and the independent hero. If farmers want gov-co subsidies, I guarantee they’ll also have to accept onerous gov-co regulations. If farmers want sole control their land, they’d better also accept sole responsibility for their land. Sole responsibility means farmers had better stop sucking off the gov-co for welfare and find a way to grow crops without subsidies.
I guarantee that if you take the subsidy, you’re gonna take the regulation.
video 00:04:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiDKWy_oSMw&feature=related
Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)
June 2, 2011 at 4:23 PM
This is not the first time in my life that I suddenly became aware of the embarrassing possibility that all of civilization may be nothing but a macrocosm of any Red Light District in every town.
One great big heirarchy of prostitutes and pimps.
Whooooo-eee!
God knows best but I can’t help wondering anyway whether his promise never to kill everything again by flood, as in Noah’s Ark…may have been premature.
Anthony
June 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM
After reading about this lunacy of “agenda 21” it time for the American agenda. This agenda calls for the removal by any means of the worthless, intrusive and dangerous EPA .Its obvious that they are run by Dr. Demented and his band of crazies. After this is accomplished we can dismantle the rest of the insane asylum know as Washington DC.
Adask
June 2, 2011 at 5:19 PM
I wonder if God really did have the “Rapture” on May 21st–but only about 5 people were called up, so nobody noticed.
Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)
June 10, 2011 at 4:25 PM
I don’t know about portents of “rapture” from God but Satan-sponsored, infernal “raptures” of a lascivious, covetous grasping sort, among his minions of the malignant, mesmerized and moronic, seem to be “bustin’ out all over” down here.
A.K.A. a frenzied and deranged, decades-long, debt-based worthless FRN consumption carnival about to tragically derail at high speed.
And behind the scenes, every stealthy and barbarous event, like “Agenda 21″ is demonic spade work for the entrenchment and solidification of the coming NWO Servile State for those MSM-spellbound consumers.
Sometimes all this reminds me of the right-hand panel of some Hieronymus Bosch triptyches
woobyluv
June 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM
With respect, The Bible is clear that the “Rapture” occurs on “The Day of the Lord” Rev 6:12-17 (The 6th Seal), Rev 11:15-19 (7th Trumpet), Matt 24:29-31 There are more verses as well. As to destroying the world? I think Isaiah 13:9-13 explains it best. Fear not, the Lord with get His…
The point here is that what they have taught in school or church for the past 100+ years has been a doctrine of wishful thinking and false expectations, setting believers up for major disappointment when things don’t turn out the way they think it should. Of course, this sets the stage for disappointed believers to blame God for Him not fulfilling their erroneous expectations.
However, I believe I detect some sarcasm in the jape about the rapture and I find it quite funny in that context. :)
woobyluv
June 2, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Sorry meant to include 1 Corinth 15:51-53 as further evidence the “Rapture” happens at the 7th Trumpet :)
Rich H.
June 3, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Matthew 24 deals with the destruction of the temple and that already came to pass (70 A.D.) Since that time the Jews have not had a temple (tabernacle) to make a proper sacrifice, which isn’t necessary because Jesus already fulfilled it once and for ever.
I wouldn’t mind if the EPA suffered a rapture.
woobyluv
June 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Reread Matt 24. This time remove your own assumptions about what you were told it says. Just read it as it appears. I think you will see it in a different light.
I respectfully disagree that this passage has already happened. There is no record of…
Matt 24:29-31
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. “And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
NASB
…having occurred. There would have been a historical record of such an event. It would have been recorded in the Roman records and in the Hebrew records. Such an event would certainly be talked about in the literature of the period. There has been none. The reason, is that The Lord was speaking of a future time that has yet to come.
Verse 1-3 does cover the destruction of the Temple (70AD), but immediately following the disciples asked The Lord about the signs of His return. Please reread it.
messianicdruid
June 8, 2011 at 5:21 PM
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/COLDFUSION/booklet.cfm?PID=112
Why do people always assume the wicked will be left instead of the righteous?
woobyluv
June 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM
I made no such assumption. In fact, the Bible is clear that the righteous are among the wicked to the very end.
Truth-Seeker
August 19, 2011 at 8:14 AM
You are right!
In the days of Noah the wicked were taken and the righteous remnant inherited the earth. Matthew 24:37-41
And in Luke 17:29-30 it was Lot who remained after Sodom was destroyed with all the inhabitants.
The meek shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5, Psalm 37:11
There are many more references but these are just a few.
Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)
June 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM
This essay, Mr. Adask, you’ve yet to post…but here’s one comment to it before you do…
Three generations stunned, hypnotized and softened to the sordid reality being surreptitiously built by night;
Three generations emasculated by publicity and advertizing everywhere – are about to be horrified into all those things they preferred to deny and flippantly sneer at grim prophets about…
About the ever malevolently lurking prison-hell constructed, nearly complete, beneath the lies.
Three genrerations galavantin’ in feathered fetters will now behold the iron beneath the artificial velvet and ermine on their neck and wrists…
Three generations of Americans after WWII stripped naked at last beneath God’s burning sun without shade or succor for their blistered skins.
Bob Dylan’s “Hard Rain” is about to fall.