Patterico's Pontifications

8/26/2015

Trump: Pandering on Oreos

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:59 pm



He’s not a conservative:

Hotel magnate and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that he will stop eating Oreos, a decision he came to after Nabisco parent company Mondelez International, announced last month that it’s replacing production lines in Chicago with new ones at a plant in Salinas, Mexico.

“I’m never eating Oreos again,” Trump said on Tuesday, reaffirming statements he first made last week at a rally in Alabama, where he said, “Mexico is the new China . . . I love Oreos. I will never eat them again. Nabisco closes the plant in Chicago and they are moving the plant to Mexico.”

A quick fact-check: that last sentence isn’t true. Mondelez is not closing the Chicago plant, but it is cutting 600 jobs there as a result of the new investment in Mexico, the Associated Press reports.

And why would a company making a foodstuff, whose key ingredient is sugar, find it cheaper to manufacture that in Mexico?

TOTALLY UNRELATED QUESTION: Why does Mexican Coke taste so much better than Coke made in the U.S.?

OR IS IT UNRELATED AFTER ALL? If you’re familiar with the absurd ways that the U.S. Government subsidizes sugar, you’ll see these questions are related. As the Dartmouth Business Journal explains:

America’s sugar farming industry is currently one of the most protected industries in the United States. Two centuries ago, the U.S. government embarked on this protectionist trend in order to gain the loyalty of the sugarcane farmers in the Louisiana Territory. Today, the original program has evolved into a series of complicated import tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) that heavily distort the sugar market. These TRQs are combinations of quotas, limits on the amount of the good that can be imported, and tariffs, taxes on these imported goods. The TRQ used to protect the American sugar industry allows a certain amount of sugar to be imported at lower tariffs, but for all sugar exceeding this amount, tariffs rise to around 150% of the sugar’s cost. On average, Americans pay 3 times the world price for sugar. This huge price distortion is one of the largest in the U.S. and has had far-reaching negative consequences, both at home and abroad.

One of the things this policy does, is drive businesses dependent on sugar across the border to Canada or Mexico.

If a candidate wants to talk about Oreos being made in Mexico — and if that candidate is a classical liberal, limited-government conservative — that candidate will pledge to undo sugar quotes and tariffs.

If, instead, the candidate is a huckster making a cheap populist appeal to Americans too ignorant to understand what’s going on, that candidate will run his mouth about Nabisco and pledge not to eat Oreos.

UPDATE: I have talked about sugar protectionism and its unintended side effects before, here.

75 Responses to “Trump: Pandering on Oreos”

  1. Loser.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. Sheesh, I was going to make a complaint about this post making me hungry just before I was headed to bed, and I see that Patterico responded in a comment before I even posted my own comment!

    CayleyGraph (dfcefe)

  3. Here’s where establishment Republicans tell us that abolishing sugar tariffs will solidify Florida for the Dems, put Louisiana into play, and even make the party spend more resources defending Texas than we otherwise would. What’s principle when there are votes to be counted?

    JVW (ba78f9)

  4. The reason the US has a struggling sugar industry, that every patriotic American should have no qualms about paying higher prices to support, is because countries like Brazil have the right climate to grow sugar cane.

    They are getting the benefits of that climate for free! That is an unfair trade advantage which our domestic sugar producers can’t be expected to try to compete with. The only fair thing to do, is for Americans to pay our sugar producers extra to make up for that free climate. It can be in taxes or tariffs, whichever it is, we are not being fair to the sugar producers if we don’t make ourselves pay more for sugar.

    And of course all the corn growers benefit when nobody buys sugar at these high prices and uses corn syrup instead. That will probably depress sugar sales some, so we should probably try to give the producers some subsidies to make up for the lost income from not selling sugar.

    In time we can tax each other more and distribute the tax money to all industries, which will be relieved from the necessity of having to make anything. Then we’ll all have great jobs, even if we have less stuff.

    Gabriel Hanna (13a147)

  5. They are getting the benefits of that climate for free! That is an unfair trade advantage which our domestic sugar producers can’t be expected to try to compete with. The only fair thing to do, is for Americans to pay our sugar producers extra to make up for that free climate. It can be in taxes or tariffs, whichever it is, we are not being fair to the sugar producers if we don’t make ourselves pay more for sugar.

    I made the same point to the government when I was trying to get them to subsidize my plans to grow coffee beans in some tundra land I picked up for really cheap in northern Minnesota. It’s totally unfair that I have to compete with Peru, Colombia, Kenya, and even Hawaii.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  6. It’s also why my cranberry farm just outside of Tucson failed.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  7. Let us be fair to the huckster. He probably has no idea of the connection to sugar. Truth to tell, I had not thought of it until you pointed it out. In fact, I would suspect labor costs have a bigger connection. A classical liberal should campaign on the bad effect of the minimum wage. I suppose such a candidate would be unelectable, but you can’t have everything :)

    You are right about the sugar scheme. And that he is a huckster.

    kishnevi (93670d)

  8. Oh, for crying out loud! Mexican sugar is cheap because the Mexican government owns the sugar processing plants, and 20% of the fields and otherwise heavily subsidizes its sugar industry. Governments don’t need to make a profit on either production or farm loans, so they have a competitive advantage in the “free market”. Our producers are not competing with Mexican producers, they’re competing with the Mexican government which, as the first link shows, is not above engaging in dumping in order to drive U.S. producers out of business altogether.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Sorry. *a quarter of* the processing plants.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. Our producers are not competing with Mexican producers, they’re competing with the Mexican government which, as the first link shows, is not above engaging in dumping in order to drive U.S. producers out of business altogether

    Rather like our other friends, the Saudis.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  11. Yes, kishnevi.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Oligarchies, lording it over large proportions of hungry and disaffected, struggling to make the most of their cash crops to perpetuate their positions

    nk (dbc370)

  13. There are people serving 10 year stretches because of Mexican coke!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. Gabriel Hanna #4,

    See, you think I don’t pay attention to your comments, but I know you’re a Bastiat fan and that you’re laughing behind your hand as you write your own little satire here.

    I’m lobbying you hard on all this Austrian stuff because I see you as a potential ally.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  15. Our producers are not competing with Mexican producers, they’re competing with the Mexican government which, as the first link shows, is not above engaging in dumping in order to drive U.S. producers out of business altogether

    Instead of whining about it, they should do what Herbert Dow did with bromine. Look it up. Great story. Or just click this link.

    Before long, in early 1905, the Bromkonvention went on a rampage: it poured bromides into America at 15 cents a pound, well below its fixed price of 49 cents and also below Dow’s 36 cents. Jacobsohn arranged a special meeting with Dow in St. Louis and demanded that he quit exporting bromides or else the Germans would flood the American market indefinitely. The Bromkonvention had the money and the backing of its government, Jacobsohn reminded Dow, and could long continue to sell in the United States below the cost of production. Dow was not intimidated; he was angry and told Jacobsohn he would sell to whomever would buy from him. Dow left the meeting with Jacobsohn screaming threats behind him. As Dow boarded the train from St. Louis, he knew the future of his company—if it had a future—depended on how he handled the Germans.

    On that train, Dow worked out a daring strategy. He had his agent in New York discreetly buy hundreds of thousands of pounds of German bromine at the 15-cent price. Then he repackaged and sold it in Europe—including Germany!—at 27 cents a pound. “When this 15-cent price was made over here,” Dow said, “instead of meeting it, we pulled out of the American market altogether and used all our production to supply the foreign demand. This, as we afterward learned, was not what they anticipated we would do.”

    Heh.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  16. I’m lobbying you hard on all this Austrian stuff because I see you as a potential ally.

    I think JEF could maybe help you with that. I heard he is fluid in Austrian.

    Gazzer (feaf20)

  17. lets distinguish between demonstrations and policy,

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/08/if-you-like-your-401k-you-can-keep-your.html

    romney had implemented skydragon temples for the northeast, and had let masscare to come into being, newt had some vague notions of same, who were we told was the reliable one?

    narciso (ee1f88)

  18. Actually, folks, it has nothing to do with sugar producers. The reason for the import limits and the price supports is to make it cheaper to use Corn Sweetener than to use Sugar. The lobbying power and bribes behind all this is Big Corn (AKA Archer Daniels Midland).

    If all the market distortions were released tomorrow, consumption of sugar would skyrocket and consumption of corn sweetener would plummet.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  19. Actually, folks, it has nothing to do with sugar producers. The reason for the import limits and the price supports is to make it cheaper to use Corn Sweetener than to use Sugar. The lobbying power and bribes behind all this is Big Corn (AKA Archer Daniels Midland).

    Our economy and corrupt political culture are such that there is room for plenty of snouts in the trough.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  20. Steven den Beste,

    I have little doubt that Big Corn pays off lawmakers, but it is beyond argument that Big Sugar does too.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  21. Our economy and corrupt political culture are such that there is room for plenty of snouts in the trough.

    *Like*

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  22. Oh now I understand trump is a bast@Rd if doesn’t commit to doing what no Republican administration or congreso has done in two hundred yeRs…
    Yeah that makes sense.

    Pierre (afa685)

  23. We need to import sugar. We don’t produce enough for our domestic demand. The corn syrups are acceptable only up to a point by consumers. Like you said, why does Mexican Coke taste better than American Coke?

    But I suspect that labor costs much more than sugar costs are the reason for sweets makers moving their factories to other countries. Here’s why. I went shopping yesterday. I paid $2.00 for 907 grams (2lb. box) of Domino table sugar. I paid $4.99 for a six-pack of Hershey’s plain chocolate bars containing a total of 144 grams of sugar (6 x 24). (Before tax. 😉 )

    nk (dbc370)

  24. I’m no Trump fan, but I’ll be damned if I’ll let some poof named Pierre slander the Grand Old Party

    Colonel Haiku (ef4f0e)

  25. @Patterico:I’m lobbying you hard on all this Austrian stuff because I see you as a potential ally.

    I’ve been an ally for a while. Like France is for the US. There’s some bickering, sure, and it’s not always clear what help I’m contributing, but I’m happy to make left-handed compliments and offer qualified verbal support in lieu of any concrete action.

    Gabriel Hanna (13a147)

  26. @nk:Governments don’t need to make a profit on either production or farm loans, so they have a competitive advantage in the “free market”.

    Exactly, the Mexicans are subsidizing cheap sugar-which we can’t even cost-effectively grow. They are paying us to use their sugar, which we should have been buying anyway. It’s an even better deal than taking advantage of their climate.

    And you think the solution is to refuse their subsidy and instead pay extra. They are taking poison, hoping to get healthier from it, and you want us to “retaliate” by taking poison ourselves. That will show them…

    Gabriel Hanna (13a147)

  27. But I suspect that labor costs much more than sugar costs are the reason for sweets makers moving their factories to other countries.

    You can suspect that, nk, but it’s wrong. I have discussed this before, right here on this very blog, in this post.

    I don’t normally support long quotes in comment sections, but it’s my comment section, and I’m quoting from my post.

    And I think the comments so far show that a few of you would learn something by reading it (or re-reading it).

    So.

    The Planet Money episode opens with a CEO of a candy company talking about how he could expand his operations here in the U.S., rather than send massive parts of his operations to Mexico. What does he need? he asks rhetorically. Lower tax rates? Workers’ comp reform? A right to work law? Nope. He says he could pay no taxes, and get all those other things, and would still manufacture candy canes in Mexico. What does he ask for?

    “Let us buy sugar on the free market.”

    People say: What? You can’t do that?

    No, you can’t.

    The program explains that there are two prices paid for sugar: what people pay in the U.S., and what the rest of the world pays. The U.S. price is, on average, 15 cents more per pound than it is in the rest of the world.

    Just 15 cents? What’s the big deal? Well, the candy CEO mentioned above uses 100,000 pounds of sugar a day. So he pays $15,000 extra per day. That’s between $3 million and $4 million extra per year — a “sugar penalty” the businessman must pay as a cost of doing business in the U.S.

    Why? If you guessed “federal law,” you have been paying attention. The operative provision is contained in The Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (aka the U.S. Farm Bill), under which the U.S. Government guarantees a minimum price for sugar: 22.9 cents per pound.

    The sugar beet farmers says foreign competitors are getting subsidies. Economists respond that the solution to unfair trade practices is a complaint to the World Trade Organization — or having the U.S. slap a tariff bigger than the subsidy received by the foreign grower. Not setting a minimum price.

    The most revealing story: the sugar CEO says that, according to the Ken Starr report, Clinton took a 22-minute phone call from someone while getting serviced by Monica Lewinsky. (Supposedly he was trying to break it off — but the cigar incident had not happened yet, so . . . ) Who was Clinton talking to for 22 minutes at such a moment? A sugar magnate. Now that’s access. It turns out that the sugar industry spends a ton on lobbying — double what the food and beverage industry spent as a whole in one recent year.

    The hosts talk to a Congressman who is a big supporter of the minimum price. He says people call him a communist — a central planner — and he’s fine with that. After all, it’s 25% of the economy in his district. The lobbying doesn’t affect me, he says. The sugar folks support me because I support them. Sugar creates jobs in the U.S., he says.

    The candy guy replies: yeah. And it also costs the U.S. jobs in my industry — jobs that are going to Mexico.

    Every government intervention into the economy has consequences — often unforeseen ones that are the opposite of what government intends. Yet the machinery of interference creaks on, inevitably — as lobbying money greases the wheels. And businessmen and consumers suffer.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  28. Gabriel, where did I say what you said that I said?

    But you know what? Yes, absolutely we should not give total control of our food calories to a foreign government by letting it drive our producers out of business with artificially low prices. No more than we should give total control of our petroleum calories (or is it BTUs?) to foreign governments by letting them drive our domestic drillers out of business with artificially low prices.

    Because when Mexico collapses, what would you put in your coffee? And when Saudi Arabia is taken over by Al Qaeda, what would you put in your car?

    nk (dbc370)

  29. I’m investing all my money in the coming salt shortage. I’m pretty sure that global warming will create a salt deficit and we will have to depend on Norwegian farmers to use reindeer antlers as a source when our supply runs out.

    God bless NPR’s heart for alerting us last year to the coming disaster.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  30. I remember that post well, Patterico.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. @nk:we should not give total control of our food calories to a foreign government

    Which no one is proposing, and would never happen anyway.

    etting it drive our producers out of business with artificially low prices

    Which has never worked. This has literally never happened. Some producers would go out of business, some would adapt using the advantages they have that aren’t price (such as proximity or perceived higher quality). And all consumers of the good would benefit, which is mysteriously missing from your accounting, because they could meet their needs with less money and have money left over to expand current industries or develop new ones.

    Because when Mexico collapses, what would you put in your coffee? And when Saudi Arabia is taken over by Al Qaeda, what would you put in your car?

    Prices would rise to the point that domestic production became competitive again. That has always happened, and it always will. It’s like you think the Men in Black will wipe out all knowledge of oil production.

    Gabriel Hanna (13a147)

  32. Curious. If we want Mexicans to stay in Mexico instead of illegally crossing into the US, why wouldn’t we want some business to go to Mexico as an incentive for them to stay home?

    Mike Wiley (28a693)

  33. American companies should have rebuilt mexico decades ago, but decided on promoting china.

    mg (31009b)

  34. I’m tired of subsidizing everybody else. If the Mexican government wants to subsidize my consumption of Oreos, I’m all for it.

    ThOR (a52560)

  35. JVW is right, though. How is Trump’s pander any different than the scores of panders Republicans routinely engage in?

    ThOR (a52560)

  36. I don’t believe Trump has said he is a conservative, isn’t it the common understanding that he’s basically a democrat seeking the republican nomination? And that further, his supporters are well aware of that and are will to have him as President if it means he hollows out the GOP and eliminates the current cabal of democrats posing as republicans.

    Why do people judge the Donald on the same criteria that a GOP congress would fail on, yet they say the Donald is somehow the problem. The GOP is the problem. Donald is the weapon intended to destroy them.

    Mr Black (f1b3a7)

  37. Sugar has been at least 10 cents cheaper a pound on the world market versus the domestic price since the 70’s. Mostly more than that. On rare occasions, when the world price spikes due to some upset, it comes momentarily close to parity.

    The only reason anything sues HFCS is the tariff on sugar. Were it not for transportation costs, every soft drink would be bottled in Mexico and use sugar.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. Price chart.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. # Funny killing Coal does not cost Democrats votes but not subsidizing sugar does for Republicans?

    So stupid. We are talking like 15 workers in both States, no of which will lose their jobs in the short run.

    What it will do is piss off uber liberal Pepe Fanul and his gangster family in Palm Beach. A guy greedily looking to reclaim lost property in Cuba and has much to thank Obama for.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  40. … and not exporting US Oil does not cost Democrats votes? Be nice if the Brent and Cushing price came together some for the benefit of US Producers.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  41. Ted Cruz panders too. Is he a loser? Cuz there are lots of things Trump is but loser?

    Reminds me of the cartoon recently depicting Tom Brady as some ogre from a sub species of humans. Really?

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  42. — Button, button, who’s got the button?
    — Which button?
    — The red button?
    — What does it do?
    — It drops 4,000 hydrogen in the world.
    — Yarrrrghhhh!

    nk (dbc370)

  43. hydrogen *bombs*

    nk (dbc370)

  44. Why do people judge the Donald on the same criteria that a GOP congress would fail on, yet they say the Donald is somehow the problem. The GOP is the problem. Donald is the weapon intended to destroy them.

    Mr Black (f1b3a7) — 8/26/2015 @ 11:21 pm

    What?

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  45. Donald Trump would indeed destroy the GOP were he its candidate. Worst failure ever. He’d make Barack Obama look good. A lot of the people backing him want to see the GOP self-destruct, and now they have their instrument.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  46. The idea of electing someone President for the purpose of destroying a political party is deranged stuff. Of course that would mean ushering the next Obama in to power (and there’s a bunch of them waiting in the wings) with another huge Congressional majority in place. They’d start by putting a wrecking ball to the private health care system.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  47. #47 The idea of electing someone President for the purpose of destroying a political party is deranged stuff.

    Why?

    To me, blowing up the Republican Party as it stands is not a bad thing at all. Democrats have no interest in it really since they are a useful foil and end-of-the-day the RINOs go along with everything the Democrats want.

    So while I don’t believe in Donald the President his ability to burn down the house with the RINOs in it is a very good thing.

    I, for one, have had enough of the Country Club Harvard fake Conservatives. More interested in their Cocktail Party Circuit invites than doing the right thing. Bush family great example. Two of the SCOTUS we have another.

    Enough already.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  48. #49 and truth be told a smaller party more effectively communicating its values and living those values will do exponentially more to winning votes and elections.

    Right now the Republicans Brand is damaged because it is view as hypocrites above all on matters of morality and free market economics. Evidence Chuck Grasserly and all his Corn Subsidies for ethanol. Kirk in IL.

    Party has got to change to be effective in both a) opposition and b) holding executive power.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)


  49. A lot of the people backing him want to see the GOP self-destruct, and now they have their instrument.

    Absolutely true.

    Colonel Haiku (ef4f0e)

  50. A lot of the people backing him want to see the GOP self-destruct, and now they have their instrument.

    Kevin M, @ 8:13 am

    A lot of the people backing him want to see the GOP Establishment self-destruct, and now they have their instrument. FIFY

    The GOP Establishment regularly stabs Conservatives in the back just as soon as elections are over and arrogantly turns their collective backs on the very campaign promises that got them elected in the first place. Well, a growing majority of us are through begging for table scraps from those who betray our trust, feast at our expense, and blame us for their failures, ad nauseam.

    ropelight (b6c46a)

  51. To me, blowing up the Republican Party as it stands is not a bad thing at all.

    Party has got to change to be effective in both a) opposition and b) holding executive power.

    I don’t understand what the scenario is that you are envisioning. Trump becomes President. Then what happens?

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  52. Trump becomes President. Then what happens?
    Gerald A (e1ec12) — 8/27/2015 @ 8:56 am

    I expect a sublime comi-tragedy.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  53. Does the rate of the exchange between the US dollar and Mexican Peso balance? If it doesn’t (it doesn’t) then Trump is schooling most of the people posting replies. The attack comes from the Bank of International Settlements (aka BIS) who set the exchange rates. This ruins the business in the USA, and it is on purpose. Trump has argued that we need to fight back, that we shouldn’t simply acquiesce to everyone who wants to rape us, that we should be the home of the brave. The BIS is one of Trump’s primary campaign points. Show me another candidate who makes the same point.

    Joe (658b03)

  54. Funny, he says “Chicago” and “Mexico” as if they were two separate countries.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  55. Pat is digging pretty far into the weeds to find a bad thing to say about Trump.

    That’s my take away from this post.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  56. i don’t agree Mr. tiger i think this post does a good job of demonstrating how stupid trump is

    he’s just not a smart person

    First of all who cares what kind of cookies he DOESN’T eat? He’s a whore! He needs to tell us which cookies he DOES eat so those of us who don’t want to eat whore cookies can make informed choices.

    Secondly I know for a FACT that Megyn Fox hasn’t had an oreo since the mid-80’s and that was this one time when she was on her period and she immediately went to the bathroom to throw up.

    Thirdly oreos made in failmerica are too expensive and they can’t compete. Failmericans can’t afford to pay a Trump Premium when they’re buying cookies cause of they only get a limited amount of food stamps every month.

    This is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis.

    All in all I think this demonstrates how stupid trump is and he should shut his stupid face and stop all this inane cookie babble.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  57. The day Obama lost in court over how long his cronies in the wind farm business can continue killing eagles for free, whether it will be just till the end of the one’s term, or until the end of time, Donald showed up with an eagle on his arm.

    YouTube (:59).
    Doesn’t say a word. Doesn’t have to.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  58. The day Obama lost in court over how long his cronies in the wind farm business can continue killing eagles for free, whether it will be just till the end of the one’s term, or until the end of time, Donald showed up with an eagle on his arm.

    YouTube (:59).
    Doesn’t say a word. Doesn’t have to.

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 8/27/2015 @ 11:45 am

    What are you talking about?!?!

    I think the Trump supporters are on drugs.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  59. R.I.P. Darryl “Chocolate Thunder” Dawkins, legendary backboard shatterer

    Icy (988f34)

  60. So you’re saying we need a professional negotiator in our dealing on tariffs, international relations and the like. If I get the gist.

    Some bimbo dropped glass in the batter.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  61. I am on drugs, but so what> oh! Here it is.

    On August 11, 2015, a decision was handed down in a Federal Court setting aside the 30-year Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) killing permits. The suit to stop these permits was filed on behalf of three parties all connected to the conservation group American Bird Conservancy (ABC). The defendants in this case were none other than the FWS and representatives of the wind industry.

    In the aftermath of this decision ABC is claiming a major victory for our eagles. Though it is a comfort to know that the corrupt wind energy bullies had their 30 year permits set aside, there is no comfort in knowing that this ruling will not stop the wind industry’s hidden slaughter of eagles.

    The wind turbine eagle slaughter will continue because this industry was previously handed 5 year eagle killing permits by their FWS accomplices and the validity of all wind energy related incidental take permits was not challenged by ABC. The killing can also continue because this decision did not address the lack of ethical accountability or require any mortality thresholds for the wind industry.

    Nothing has changed.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  62. “Missing are statements from people in the trenches saddled with gag orders that are witnessing the wind turbine slaughter. This includes FWS agents that face up to 3 years in prison if “unauthorized” information is released. It is hard to imagine but in this sick world, the penalties for talking about the wind industry’s slaughter to eagles is far worse than the act of actually killing them illegally.

    The industry’s turbine mortality numbers are fabricated. The fatality to millions of protected birds and bats from wind turbines is being hidden from the public. The turbine fatalities pertaining to special status species like our bald eagles, peregrine falcons and endangered species is also hidden and the industry has been keeping an especially tight lid on these fatalities for years.

    Scientific research and real data pertaining to wind turbine mortality impacts has been missing since 1985. From 1997 to 2014 approximately 31,000 eagle carcasses were shipped to the Denver Eagle Repository. The Interior Department is hiding the paper trail for all these carcasses. This trail includes the agents that picked the carcasses from around wind farms and shipping records pertaining to all these dead eagles. The Interior Department is also in possession of the paper trail for tens of thousands of other highly sensitive species that have been shipped off to their government repositories.

    The numbers of mutilated raptors being sent to rehab centers that were found around wind farms is being hidden. For example the Alexander Lindsey Museum (rehab center) in Walnut Creek, CA takes in mutilated raptors picked up from around the wind turbines of Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills wind resource areas. In the past 12 months, the Alexander Lindsey museum has treated 238 raptors , six of which were golden eagles.

    I sent 27 emails and phoned this facility asking them for specific details about the raptors smashed by wind turbines they have treated. They will not tell me or make this information public. What is even more alarming is that most raptors found still alive after being smashed by a turbine blade must be euthanized and their numbers represent just a small fraction of the raptors actually being killed. The few lucky ones that live end up in animal parks but will never return to the wild. I was told this by a Lindsey Museum staff member years ago when they were treating far fewer raptors.

    Rezad the whole thing.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  63. The GOP has been self-destructing ever since H.W. broke his promise a very long time ago. The self-destruction continues apace this very day with Boehner’s calling Cruz a “jackass” and will continue as long as the Boehners of the Party continue to control things. If there is anything surprising in all of this, it is how long it has taken for the backlash to develop. Mike Flynn has a pretty good article on this very topic over at Breitbart.

    Trump’s beggar thy neighbor comment about Oreos is just the sort of cartoon-ish stand we’d expect from the man, though beggar thy neighbor policies are no joke. The Fed’s zero interest rate policy, now in its 7th year, is of a kind and far more pernicious. How ’bout the crude oil ban and the Keystone obstruction? Or the Ex-Im for that matter. All four remain in the headlines; all four are more serious examples of xenophobic protectionism and the creation of monopolies for the benefit of corporate interests.

    ThOR (a52560)

  64. On the other hand we can vote republican and be represented by boner, mcconnel, gramnesty and mccain. What’s better?

    Jim (b6b06c)

  65. #52 I don’t understand what the scenario is that you are envisioning. Trump becomes President. Then what happens?

    Well first of all I hope he guts and shames all the RINO into retirement. Need pictures? Find them. Need charges? Make them up. But please put these dinosaurs to rest in the most vicious and petty way possible — just as they have others who wanted to actually do what they promised.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  66. papertiger – thanks for the info. This has been a pain in my arse for many years. I have seen flocks of Ducks and Geese fly directly into these man made wind turds. Pathetic.

    mg (31009b)

  67. *Raises hand*

    Are there other cookie/crackers made in the USA that are also effected by the subsidized sugar costs that have stayed in the states?

    Why haven’t they left and should they just offset their costs of labor in the states using H1-B visas?

    Is there nothing that anyone can do to solve what appears to be this contagious problem to varying degrees or should we simply accept it, call it a day and cut a few more EBT cards for out of work Americans.

    Or

    Is this just a rather small problem that I am too ignorant to grasp?

    Drider (340c7b)

  68. Drider, you have not declared what you to be the “contagious problem”. Because it sounds like you’re victim-blaming.

    The problem is Big Out Of Control Government. Bringing Government back within the strictures of the Constitution would solve 86 percent or more of this country’s problems. But that’s the one thing the Democrats and the Republican superstructure absolutely do not want to happen.

    John Hitchcock (d91027)

  69. NAFTA. NAFTA. NAFTA. Oreo/Nabisco/Mondelez is the dregs trickling out. The flood of candymakers leaving Chicago for Mexico were Brach Candy, Ferrara Pan and (I suspect) Mars, who manufacture in Mexico and only package and market out of Chicago.

    H1-B is for skilled labor not available in the United States. It is abused but not to the extent of below-minimum wage unskilled labor. Yet. The Shrub wanted to create an employer-based visa program for unskilled laborers which led to a green card and citizenship (expanded H-1) but that did not go anywhere. We might still see it with Jeb and a Chamber of Commerce, ahem, err I mean Republican Congress.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. faceva pensare più di quel giorno funesto a Cambridge che anche del fatto che in quel momento Verena era fuori con il signor Ransomhad andata a prendere la piccola passeggiata quotidiana con lui per il quale era stato disposto che il loro godimento di ogni altre società deve essere ridotta. Disposti, dico; ma che non è esattamente la parola per descrivere il compromesso raggiunto attraverso una sorta di scambio di tacita supplica in lacrime e stretta stretta,borse gucci immagini,

    stivali gucci (0eb35a)

  71. Al I got is: Faciva, think most of that fateful day at Cambridge…. Seems to be Argentinian. Hola!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  72. Maybe Italian?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  73. Italian. the Translation according to Babylon:

    Was thinking more of that day of despair in Cambridge that also of the fact that at that moment Verena was out with the mr Ransomhad went to take the little daily walk with him for which it was arranged that their enjoyment of each other company should be reduced. Arranged, i say; but that is not exactly the word to describe the compromise reached through a sort of exchange of tacit supplication in tears and close close, handbags gucci images,

    felipe (56556d)

  74. Thanks, filipe. I was screwing around with it but I don’t have a translator. I tried google but they want me to add some translation bar and I don’t do that.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3298 secs.