“You can have my ribeye when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.”
The radical left first came after guns…then they came after gasoline-powered cars…then gas stoves, air conditioners, refrigerators, furnaces, and ceiling fans…now they’re after our steak. If some 14 US cities have their way, The Federalist reports they will ban meat and dairy by 2030.
Think it couldn’t happen? It has already partially happened in New York City, where feckless Mayor Eric Adams…who makes Bill de Blasio seem sane in comparison…announced the Big Apple would put caps on the amount of meat and dairy served in city facilities, such as schools and prisons.
We were shocked when the U.K. banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles effective 2030, then found out states like New York, California, and soon Massachusetts will sign on to the same madness. There is also currently a proposal in Connecticut to do the same.
The initiative is being pushed by something called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which cites an “ambitious target” date of 2030 to eliminate the consumption of meat and dairy, restrict people to “three new clothing items per person per year,” “zero private vehicles” owned, and “one short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every three years per person.”
This sounds eerily similar to The Great Reset pushed by far-left globalists like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, companies such as BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase, and other loons whereby “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”
The draconian measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic were merely a test run to find out how susceptible people were to being controlled. It turns out they are very vulnerable.
As to C40, they have included their dystopian plan in “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5° World,” published in 2019. It has again reared its ugly head now that COVID is (theoretically) in the rearview mirror.
That organization is headed up and funded primarily by former New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
There are nearly 100 cities worldwide that are members of C40. Fourteen of them are from the United States—Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle…a virtual whose who of far-left cities being sent down the sewer pipe by Democrats… except Miami, which somehow has a Republican mayor.
Conservative commentator Glenn Beck is one who has been on top of what the C40 has been up to and what their plans are. That, of course, has made Beck a target of so-called “fact checkers,” who are typically geeky, bespeckled college students with oversized glasses who sip soy lattes in their mommy’s basement while swapping time between playing video games and “fact-checking.”
One such fact checker came from AFP Fact Check, who went after Beck’s reporting of what was actually in their manifesto. Their “fact checker” said Beck’s statement that the group sought to ban meat and dairy, limit air travel, and limit clothing consumption were “not policy recommendations,” The Federalist wrote.
In their plan “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5° World,” it reads, “This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities and other actors can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”
The soy-swilling “fact checker” bought that statement hook, line, and sinker.
You have to give the globalists who wrote this report credit…they knew they would get eviscerated by anyone possessing more than a couple of brain cells. As The Federalist notes, they likely included the statement as a form of damage control. All of this comes down to, they note, the definition of “target.”
Definition of “target” - a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack (noun)
-select as an object of attention or attack (verb)
The report speaks to a target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030. It is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices”—not necessarily voluntary choices. It's more like mandated “choices.”
Clearly, if these were not the end game, The Federalist notes, they would not have been labeled “ambitious targets.” The actions taken by Adams and legislators in California, New York, and Massachusetts indicate eliminating these choices for consumers is the end game.
The measures taken during COVID-19 are all a bit too convenient, primarily because the World Economic Forum is trying to use that for a “global reset” to deal with “climate change.” As many conservatives have pointed out, the climate change agenda is more about redistribution of wealth and social control than anything.
How so? As The Federalist points out, “If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ calculation, will soon be underwater.” Don’t even mention Barack Obama and his mansion on the beach in Martha’s Vineyard.
Unfortunately for us peons, banning meat, gas-powered cars, and fattening milkshakes is the least of our worries. The globalist elites have much more planned for us. We are not here to push conspiracy theories about Maui, but something smells wrong. It could all be a coincidence, though, right?
Meanwhile, billionaires like Bill Gates have bought up farmland throughout the United States, with a January 18 story in Popular Mechanics putting the acreage at about 270,000 acres, making him the largest private landowner in the country. In a January Business Insider piece, they mention a Reddit user who asked Gates what he planned to do with all the farmland he purchased.
“My investment team bought the farmland…”We invest in farms to raise productivity. Some are near cities and might end up having other uses.” [emphasis added]
“Other uses.” What could Gates have in mind?
Climate change alarmists also advocate for so-called “climate lockdowns.” If you liked the COVID lockdowns, you’ll love the climate lockdowns. Among ideas are to lock people in their homes, restrict air travel, and have a Universal Basic Income and a maximum income, which punishes achievement and rewards the lazy.
Some of the more bizarre (and frankly chilling) ideas include one floated by a “bioethicist” linked to the WEF, where he proposes humans be “genetically modified” to be “allergic” to meat. Another brilliant idea is to “shrink” the physical size of human beings via eugenics or hormone injections so they “consume fewer resources.”
Climate activists attempt to scare us by claiming global warming (or is it cooling this week?) will kill us all. However, the data doesn’t support those claims. The International Disaster Database shows that, in actuality, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have collapsed even as CO2 emissions have increased—those damn statistics.
The hypocrisy of the climate change zealots becomes even more apparent when you look at their opposition to nuclear power. Nuclear power is among the safest forms of energy and is much more reliable than wind or solar. Nuclear accomplishes the goal of weaning us off fossil fuels, at least when it comes to our electrical grid. However, environmental wackos (RIP Rush Limbaugh) are as opposed to nuclear power as gasoline-powered cars.
For those who favor banning meat, we invite you to read the ingredients in the fake stuff. In fact, according to a blog called Science Alert, fake lab-grown meat is probably worse for the environment than raising beef cattle, with a current study showing cultured meat production may emit four to 25 times more CO2 per kilogram than regular beef.
Two University of California at Davis professors, in a paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed, believe more study needs to be done.
“This is an important conclusion given that investment dollars have specifically been allocated to this sector with the thesis that this product will be more environmentally friendly than beef,” they wrote in their paper.
“My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment,” Professor Derrick Risner said.
All of this matters not to the climate change hucksters. Just as they ignore the environmental damage caused by mining cobalt for lithium batteries to power electric cars, so do they ignore the possible downside to fake meat.
That shows that it’s more about the money than any environmental concern.
Now give us a 20 oz. Ribeye!
The radical left first came after guns…then they came after gasoline-powered cars…then gas stoves, air conditioners, refrigerators, furnaces, and ceiling fans…now they’re after our steak. If some 14 US cities have their way, The Federalist reports they will ban meat and dairy by 2030.
Think it couldn’t happen? It has already partially happened in New York City, where feckless Mayor Eric Adams…who makes Bill de Blasio seem sane in comparison…announced the Big Apple would put caps on the amount of meat and dairy served in city facilities, such as schools and prisons.
We were shocked when the U.K. banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles effective 2030, then found out states like New York, California, and soon Massachusetts will sign on to the same madness. There is also currently a proposal in Connecticut to do the same.
The initiative is being pushed by something called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which cites an “ambitious target” date of 2030 to eliminate the consumption of meat and dairy, restrict people to “three new clothing items per person per year,” “zero private vehicles” owned, and “one short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every three years per person.”
This sounds eerily similar to The Great Reset pushed by far-left globalists like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, companies such as BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase, and other loons whereby “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”
The draconian measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic were merely a test run to find out how susceptible people were to being controlled. It turns out they are very vulnerable.
As to C40, they have included their dystopian plan in “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5° World,” published in 2019. It has again reared its ugly head now that COVID is (theoretically) in the rearview mirror.
That organization is headed up and funded primarily by former New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
There are nearly 100 cities worldwide that are members of C40. Fourteen of them are from the United States—Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle…a virtual whose who of far-left cities being sent down the sewer pipe by Democrats… except Miami, which somehow has a Republican mayor.
Conservative commentator Glenn Beck is one who has been on top of what the C40 has been up to and what their plans are. That, of course, has made Beck a target of so-called “fact checkers,” who are typically geeky, bespeckled college students with oversized glasses who sip soy lattes in their mommy’s basement while swapping time between playing video games and “fact-checking.”
One such fact checker came from AFP Fact Check, who went after Beck’s reporting of what was actually in their manifesto. Their “fact checker” said Beck’s statement that the group sought to ban meat and dairy, limit air travel, and limit clothing consumption were “not policy recommendations,” The Federalist wrote.
In their plan “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5° World,” it reads, “This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities and other actors can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”
The soy-swilling “fact checker” bought that statement hook, line, and sinker.
You have to give the globalists who wrote this report credit…they knew they would get eviscerated by anyone possessing more than a couple of brain cells. As The Federalist notes, they likely included the statement as a form of damage control. All of this comes down to, they note, the definition of “target.”
Definition of “target” - a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack (noun)
-select as an object of attention or attack (verb)
The report speaks to a target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030. It is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices”—not necessarily voluntary choices. It's more like mandated “choices.”
Clearly, if these were not the end game, The Federalist notes, they would not have been labeled “ambitious targets.” The actions taken by Adams and legislators in California, New York, and Massachusetts indicate eliminating these choices for consumers is the end game.
The measures taken during COVID-19 are all a bit too convenient, primarily because the World Economic Forum is trying to use that for a “global reset” to deal with “climate change.” As many conservatives have pointed out, the climate change agenda is more about redistribution of wealth and social control than anything.
How so? As The Federalist points out, “If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ calculation, will soon be underwater.” Don’t even mention Barack Obama and his mansion on the beach in Martha’s Vineyard.
Unfortunately for us peons, banning meat, gas-powered cars, and fattening milkshakes is the least of our worries. The globalist elites have much more planned for us. We are not here to push conspiracy theories about Maui, but something smells wrong. It could all be a coincidence, though, right?
Meanwhile, billionaires like Bill Gates have bought up farmland throughout the United States, with a January 18 story in Popular Mechanics putting the acreage at about 270,000 acres, making him the largest private landowner in the country. In a January Business Insider piece, they mention a Reddit user who asked Gates what he planned to do with all the farmland he purchased.
“My investment team bought the farmland…”We invest in farms to raise productivity. Some are near cities and might end up having other uses.” [emphasis added]
“Other uses.” What could Gates have in mind?
Climate change alarmists also advocate for so-called “climate lockdowns.” If you liked the COVID lockdowns, you’ll love the climate lockdowns. Among ideas are to lock people in their homes, restrict air travel, and have a Universal Basic Income and a maximum income, which punishes achievement and rewards the lazy.
Some of the more bizarre (and frankly chilling) ideas include one floated by a “bioethicist” linked to the WEF, where he proposes humans be “genetically modified” to be “allergic” to meat. Another brilliant idea is to “shrink” the physical size of human beings via eugenics or hormone injections so they “consume fewer resources.”
Climate activists attempt to scare us by claiming global warming (or is it cooling this week?) will kill us all. However, the data doesn’t support those claims. The International Disaster Database shows that, in actuality, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have collapsed even as CO2 emissions have increased—those damn statistics.
The hypocrisy of the climate change zealots becomes even more apparent when you look at their opposition to nuclear power. Nuclear power is among the safest forms of energy and is much more reliable than wind or solar. Nuclear accomplishes the goal of weaning us off fossil fuels, at least when it comes to our electrical grid. However, environmental wackos (RIP Rush Limbaugh) are as opposed to nuclear power as gasoline-powered cars.
For those who favor banning meat, we invite you to read the ingredients in the fake stuff. In fact, according to a blog called Science Alert, fake lab-grown meat is probably worse for the environment than raising beef cattle, with a current study showing cultured meat production may emit four to 25 times more CO2 per kilogram than regular beef.
Two University of California at Davis professors, in a paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed, believe more study needs to be done.
“This is an important conclusion given that investment dollars have specifically been allocated to this sector with the thesis that this product will be more environmentally friendly than beef,” they wrote in their paper.
“My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment,” Professor Derrick Risner said.
All of this matters not to the climate change hucksters. Just as they ignore the environmental damage caused by mining cobalt for lithium batteries to power electric cars, so do they ignore the possible downside to fake meat.
That shows that it’s more about the money than any environmental concern.
Now give us a 20 oz. Ribeye!
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments