ADVERTISEMENT

‘They’re coming for your food’: Expert warns the ‘fix is in’ and ‘restrictions’ will be next

TigerGrowls

Woodrush
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
20,825
12,108
113
Those bugs are in your future libs.


April 25, 2023 | Kevin Haggerty


Globalist social engineering took another step forward in New York City as Mayor Eric Adams (D) rolled out his new emissions goal that led one expert to conclude, “They’re coming for your food.”

(Video: Fox News)
Often boasting of his own “plant-based centered life,” Adams has continued to champion his lifestyle choices as the path forward for residents of the Big Apple. Last week, that included his announcement with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection that the city would be aiming to cut food-based emissions by 33 percent by the year 2030 by keeping a greenhouse gas inventory.

Joining “Fox News Tonight,” Marc Morano, author of “The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown” outlined the slippery slope such an endeavor was careening down.
“First they came for your energy. Then they came for your gas-powered cars, your freedom of movement, your cheap flights,” he contended. “Now they’re coming for your food.”
Adams’ commitment, which saw him partnering with mayors from cities around the world, set forth a goal of “reducing the city’s food-based emissions at agencies by 33 percent by 2030 and challenging our private sector partners to join us by cutting their food emissions by 25 percent in the same time period.”
The seeds of this had already been planted when Hizzoner had made plant-based meals the primary option at schools and hospitals despite being cornered on his own departures from meatless options. He asserted, “We already know that a plant-powered diet is better for your physical and mental health, and I am living proof of that. But the reality is that thanks to this new inventory, we’re finding out it is better for the planet.”

“They will be monitoring what you eat,” Morano told host Brian Kilmeade of the planned inventory that aligned with the ideals of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scoring. “What’s coming next are the restrictions. We are already seeing it globally with a net-zero commitment. They’re going after high-yield agriculture trying to collapse them. We saw the disaster in Sri Lanka. You also have Bill Gates…America’s number one single farmland owner and his goal is to get us to eat his billions of dollars invested in lab-grown synthetic beef made from the stem cells of animals and literally put in a steel vat and printed on a 3D printer. Not making that up. The fix is in.”
As previously reported, Sri Lanka had been thrown into turmoil leading to mobs overtaking the presidential palace last July when inflation had hit a record 54.6 percent. Insistence on using environmentally-friendly organic farming practices through the banning of chemical fertilizers had cut the country’s production by half during a period of supply chain disruption. The resulting food shortages compounded economic turmoil leading to the unrest.


“This is crazy. What this is is a revolution of the powers that be,” Morano continued as elitists dictate how the rest of society should live. “They’re always looking for reasons why the rest of us can’t be free. So now they’re going after rice production — there’s a big story in major media about rice causing all this global warming and emissions — they’re going after the meat — it’s a way to make everything a problem in a climate of urgency. So therefore, they have to be in charge of all this food. They’re not really gonna try to ban it, but they wanna take over the means of production so that the rest of us don’t destroy the Earth.”
“We have to be managed,” he asserted the position was. “And that’s what we’re looking at.”
“This will only happen if we allow it. They’re going after our modern diet. You will eat nothing and be happy according to this plan,” Morano noted.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PontificatingUnifex
Maybe, just maybe providing Mother Earth, who is finite, a proper number of the most advanced species is a good idea. Otherwise, we will spending an exorbitant amount of time trying to curtail it elsewhere to address the problem.

I don’t have a definitive number but I do know not openly addressing global population with some constructive discussion around what population should look like is missing the mark and cause more and more of these restrictions.
 
Those bugs are in your future libs.


April 25, 2023 | Kevin Haggerty


Globalist social engineering took another step forward in New York City as Mayor Eric Adams (D) rolled out his new emissions goal that led one expert to conclude, “They’re coming for your food.”

(Video: Fox News)
Often boasting of his own “plant-based centered life,” Adams has continued to champion his lifestyle choices as the path forward for residents of the Big Apple. Last week, that included his announcement with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection that the city would be aiming to cut food-based emissions by 33 percent by the year 2030 by keeping a greenhouse gas inventory.

Joining “Fox News Tonight,” Marc Morano, author of “The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown” outlined the slippery slope such an endeavor was careening down.
“First they came for your energy. Then they came for your gas-powered cars, your freedom of movement, your cheap flights,” he contended. “Now they’re coming for your food.”
Adams’ commitment, which saw him partnering with mayors from cities around the world, set forth a goal of “reducing the city’s food-based emissions at agencies by 33 percent by 2030 and challenging our private sector partners to join us by cutting their food emissions by 25 percent in the same time period.”
The seeds of this had already been planted when Hizzoner had made plant-based meals the primary option at schools and hospitals despite being cornered on his own departures from meatless options. He asserted, “We already know that a plant-powered diet is better for your physical and mental health, and I am living proof of that. But the reality is that thanks to this new inventory, we’re finding out it is better for the planet.”

“They will be monitoring what you eat,” Morano told host Brian Kilmeade of the planned inventory that aligned with the ideals of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scoring. “What’s coming next are the restrictions. We are already seeing it globally with a net-zero commitment. They’re going after high-yield agriculture trying to collapse them. We saw the disaster in Sri Lanka. You also have Bill Gates…America’s number one single farmland owner and his goal is to get us to eat his billions of dollars invested in lab-grown synthetic beef made from the stem cells of animals and literally put in a steel vat and printed on a 3D printer. Not making that up. The fix is in.”
As previously reported, Sri Lanka had been thrown into turmoil leading to mobs overtaking the presidential palace last July when inflation had hit a record 54.6 percent. Insistence on using environmentally-friendly organic farming practices through the banning of chemical fertilizers had cut the country’s production by half during a period of supply chain disruption. The resulting food shortages compounded economic turmoil leading to the unrest.


“This is crazy. What this is is a revolution of the powers that be,” Morano continued as elitists dictate how the rest of society should live. “They’re always looking for reasons why the rest of us can’t be free. So now they’re going after rice production — there’s a big story in major media about rice causing all this global warming and emissions — they’re going after the meat — it’s a way to make everything a problem in a climate of urgency. So therefore, they have to be in charge of all this food. They’re not really gonna try to ban it, but they wanna take over the means of production so that the rest of us don’t destroy the Earth.”
“We have to be managed,” he asserted the position was. “And that’s what we’re looking at.”
“This will only happen if we allow it. They’re going after our modern diet. You will eat nothing and be happy according to this plan,” Morano noted.

Explain why this is bad @TigerGrowls. I'd like to hear how well you read for comprehension
 
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger and okclem
The government should not be allowed to decide what or how much you eat and drink.

However, I’m completely on board for surcharges on fats who, on average, cost the government (ie tax payers), employers and health plans exponentially more than their normal BMI counterparts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
The government should not be allowed to decide what or how much you eat and drink.

However, I’m completely on board for surcharges on fats who, on average, cost the government (ie tax payers), employers and health plans exponentially more than their normal BMI counterparts.
Republicans can't get on board with anything unless some group is discriminated against. It's just part of the deal. 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger
Republicans can't get on board with anything unless some group is discriminated against. It's just part of the deal. 🤣

It’s not that. If you’ve paid attention to my political philosophy at all, you’ll know it’s deeply rooted in personal responsibility.

If your choices lead to higher healthcare costs, you should be responsible for that. An in-shape middle class single mother shouldn’t pay more for her health insurance because some fats couldn’t stay out of the mickie dees drive thru.
 
It’s not that. If you’ve paid attention to my political philosophy at all, you’ll know it’s deeply rooted in personal responsibility.

If your choices lead to higher healthcare costs, you should be responsible for that. An in-shape middle class single mother shouldn’t pay more for her health insurance because some fats couldn’t stay out of the mickie dees drive thru.
I have never bought the personal responsibility talk from Republicans. That is personal responsibility as defined by you. Someone else's idea may differ. It's discrimination no matter how you dress it up. It's in the DNA of right wing philosophy.

There are too many people with too many different lifestyles to try and legislate stuff like that. I agree it's not a good lifestyle, but how do you measure obesity against alcoholism, or a smoking addiction. They're all bad lifestyle choices but it isn't up to us to legislate against it. It's just part of the deal of living in a free society. People are free to make bad choices with their health, as they should be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger and dpic73
The government should not be allowed to decide what or how much you eat and drink.

However, I’m completely on board for surcharges on fats who, on average, cost the government (ie tax payers), employers and health plans exponentially more than their normal BMI counterparts.
we are now celebrating being fat…. Which might be brilliant.

Would be interesting to see:
1. Fat ass with a bunch of medical issues but dies at 72

2. Healthy responsible person, develops standard aging health related matters and dies at 85.

Who costs the government more? Remember, 13 years more of SS payments and Medicare cost.

The fat celebration might cost us less. Sure they are more expensive TODAY, but what about long term?? Would be an interesting $$ study.

Average obese lifespan
Average in shape lifespan
Delta costs??
 
Didn't read the thread, only part of OP.

When China, Russia and India are onboard with reducing the 'greenhouse effect/footprint/whatever else you think man can do to change the planet' ...then I'm with you.

The US is NOT saving the world by itself.

As a matter of discourse, the US is hardly 'saving' itself.

go on with yourself.... internet aluminum foil hats
 
I have never bought the personal responsibility talk from Republicans. That is personal responsibility as defined by you. Someone else's idea may differ. It's discrimination no matter how you dress it up. It's in the DNA of right wing philosophy.

There are too many people with too many different lifestyles to try and legislate stuff like that. I agree it's not a good lifestyle, but how do you measure obesity against alcoholism, or a smoking addiction. They're all bad lifestyle choices but it isn't up to us to legislate against it. It's just part of the deal of living in a free society. People are free to make bad choices with their health, as they should be.

Hmm. The Affordable Care Act allows health insurance companies to charge 50% more for premiums if you are a smoker.

So if you are equating obesity with smoking - which I agree with - and you support the ACA, it seems you would be supportive of charging fats more for health insurance. Is that right?

It’s really simple actually. We already do it with life insurance. You pay a premium commensurate with your risk profile. Fats are riskier.

And I agree with you. People are 100% free to make bad choices with their health. However, I don’t think people are free to allow their bad choices to adversely affect others. When fats increase healthcare costs in a risk pool and raise premiums for all, that’s when their free choices unfairly penalize responsible people. That’s not right. That’s not fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Maybe, just maybe providing Mother Earth, who is finite, a proper number of the most advanced species is a good idea. Otherwise, we will spending an exorbitant amount of time trying to curtail it elsewhere to address the problem.

I don’t have a definitive number but I do know not openly addressing global population with some constructive discussion around what population should look like is missing the mark and cause more and more of these restrictions.
Ok, god.
 
Hmm. The Affordable Care Act allows health insurance companies to charge 50% more for premiums if you are a smoker.

So if you are equating obesity with smoking - which I agree with - and you support the ACA, it seems you would be supportive of charging fats more for health insurance. Is that right?

It’s really simple actually. We already do it with life insurance. You pay a premium commensurate with your risk profile. Fats are riskier.

And I agree with you. People are 100% free to make bad choices with their health. However, I don’t think people are free to allow their bad choices to adversely affect others. When fats increase healthcare costs in a risk pool and raise premiums for all, that’s when their free choices unfairly penalize responsible people. That’s not right. That’s not fair.
scotchtiger, excellent post!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Hmm. The Affordable Care Act allows health insurance companies to charge 50% more for premiums if you are a smoker.

So if you are equating obesity with smoking - which I agree with - and you support the ACA, it seems you would be supportive of charging fats more for health insurance. Is that right?

It’s really simple actually. We already do it with life insurance. You pay a premium commensurate with your risk profile. Fats are riskier.

And I agree with you. People are 100% free to make bad choices with their health. However, I don’t think people are free to allow their bad choices to adversely affect others. When fats increase healthcare costs in a risk pool and raise premiums for all, that’s when their free choices unfairly penalize responsible people. That’s not right. That’s not fair.
Yeah I've heard all this before too. See my previous post for my response.
 
Are you gonna tell me that man has not made considerable change to the planet?

When is human population # enough for planet sustainability? If you are unable to even consider the question, you are an extremist.
No. I agree with you. We were dropped off by aliens. We don't belong here.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DW4_2016
No. I agree with you. We were dropped off by aliens. We don't belong here.
it's more likely that a man made a woman with a rib, walked on water, and rose from the dead than it is that we're affecting the planet? i don't think we'll ever be able to unravel how badly your parents fvcked you.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: flotiger and dpic73
it's more likely that a man made a woman with a rib, walked on water, and rose from the dead than it is that we're affecting the planet? i don't think we'll ever be able to unravel how badly your parents fvcked you.
That's a broad statement. To my knowledge I've never shared my stance on climate??
 
It’s not that. If you’ve paid attention to my political philosophy at all, you’ll know it’s deeply rooted in personal responsibility.

If your choices lead to higher healthcare costs, you should be responsible for that. An in-shape middle class single mother shouldn’t pay more for her health insurance because some fats couldn’t stay out of the mickie dees drive thru.
The fact that you call people fats says all anyone needs to know about you as a person.
 
The fact that you call people fats says all anyone needs to know about you as a person.

So you think an in-shape middle class single mother should pay more for health insurance because obese Americans (is that better?) can’t find a salad and a treadmill? Or do you agree that is unfair and people should take financial responsibility for their choices?

Fats is a pretty common rivals message board slang btw. But we really shouldn’t be tip toeing around how terribly unhealthy it is to be overweight.
 
"who controls the food controls the people, who controls the energy controls the region, who controls the money controls the world"
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT