The U.N. is warning us that it can’t afford to feed the world.

May be true. But more importantly, I say, we can’t afford to let them even try.

We all know Confucius’ fortune cookie wisdom of self-reliance: “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” The UN, like any self-serving socialist organization, understands that there is a secret third part to this anecdote: “Promise an endless supply of fish and men will depend on you for food, thus you gain power over them.” There’s your blue-print for gaining power through the nanny-state. Or in the case of the U.N., redistribution on a global scale. And when the providers fail to live up to their promise - which is inevitably the case - it’s a blue-print for suffering and strife.

Rising prices for food have led the United Nations programme fighting famine in Africa and other regions to warn that it can no longer afford to feed the 90m people it has helped for each of the past five years on its budget.

The World Food Programme feeds people in countries including Chad, Uganda and Ethiopia, but reaches a fraction of the 850m people it estimates suffers from hunger. It spent about $600m buying food in 2006. So far, the WFP has not cut its reach because of high commodities prices, but now says it could be forced to do so unless donor countries provide extra funds.

And what’s causing the budget straining price increases?

You guessed it, global warming. Or more accurately, the hoax that is anthropogenic global warming.

She said policymakers were becoming more concerned about the impact of biofuel demand on food prices and how the world would continue to feed its expanding population.

The warning could re-ignite the debate on food versus fuel amid concerns biofuel production will sustain food inflation and hit the world?s poorest people.

The WFP said its purchasing costs had risen ?almost 50 per cent in the last five years?. The UN organisation said the price it pays for maize had risen up to 120 per cent in the past sixth months in some countries.

Biofuel demand is soaking up grain production as is rising consumption in emerging countries for animal feed.

?We face the tightest agriculture markets in decades and, in same cases, on record,? Ms Sheeran said. Global wheat stocks have fallen to the lowest level in 25 years, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Ms Sheeran added: ?We are no longer in a surplus world.?

The biofuel craze driving up food prices is the result of global warming fear mongering. Biofuels are “environmentally superior” and therefore less offensive to the Gaea spirit. It’s seems the third-world is in for a bumpy century. If global warming is “allowed” to happen they’ll either drown in the rising seas, be engulfed by the spreading deserts, washed away in the drenching monsoons or withered by the widespread droughts. In the meantime, however, in order to prevent these catastrophes, we will literally burn much of the planet’s food supply.

Ironically, the solution to the problem might be some genuine global warming. Longer growing seasons worldwide would mean the planet could support a much larger human population.

Although, Shrillary might have an alternative solution of her own.

Even before Hillary finishes her second term as President, her advisors would have American taxpayers pay a fixed 0.7 percent of our Gross National Income toward global funding of the United Nations? Millennium Development Goals. This means that the United States alone would have to pay nearly $140 billion per year for development assistance, to be administered by the United Nations.

In case you are wondering where the funding of this massive increase in foreign aid will come from, Hillary Clinton?s advisors have an answer - a new carbon tax. The Center for American Progress? tax ?expert? recommended this tax as one alternative to raise as much as $100 billion dollars a year in new ?green? revenue. He wrote that ?[W]hat Congress has to realize is that we need more ?good? taxes and fewer ?bad? taxes.

Except in the minds of those hardcore income redistributionists who think they know better how to spend our money than we do ourselves, how can any tax be described as ?good??

Trackback URI | Comments RSS