Biden is bringing Europe's war on food to America

VW Pics / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Throughout history, when food production is radically changed or when agriculture is disrupted, the results are catastrophic.

Europe has been doing this ever since the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. The United States would be exactly where Europe is now, but Donald Trump disrupted the entire shift. Today, European farmers are so fed up that they are spraying government buildings with manure in protest.

Biden’s Build Back Better has not only wreaked havoc on most families across America, but it has also equated to a stealth war on American farmers.

Have you heard about any of these protests in any real detail on the news? Remember the yellow vest protests? The coverage was everywhere, and it was 24/7. Why such sporadic reporting in comparison on these farmer convoys and protests?

No one is asking the farmers why they’re leaving their fields to protest in the city. It gets minor mention, or you see articles like this from the Guardian, which, in the writer's “expert” opinion, claims the farmers are “being exploited by the far right.”

It surely isn’t about Europe’s crazy Agenda 2030 plan. It isn’t about diesel prices blowing through the roof or fertilizer becoming more expensive and less available. Or how about the fact that government regulators are more concerned with globalist climate goals than the economic wellbeing of the people they claim to represent? That’s what happens when you are governed by unelected bureaucrats beholden only to the globalist elites.

Less land, less food

The European Commission published its plan to completely upend food production. It’s masked in words like, “to increase the resilience of agriculture and forestry against climate change.” It points out that agriculture accounts for 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. The next line lays out its plan for a quasi-nationalization of every industry and means of production in Europe.

It says farming emissions come behind energy, transportation, residential, commercial, and finally, agricultural industries. It wants direct government interference in basically every industry until there’s no private industry left. This is 21st-century fascism, and it has nothing to do with climate. This is a power play. It’s about seizing control.

But the problem for these neofascists is that farmers are not the type to let anyone push them around. That’s why we’re seeing farmers protesting all over Europe right now.

The EU’s agriculture climate document discusses cracking down on two major “greenhouse gasses”: methane and nitrous oxide.

Methane emissions come mainly from livestock. Cutting those emissions could entail anything from culling herds to mandating different kinds of feed. This alone radically alters how much food is available, and it incurs new expenses atop already sky-high operating costs.

Nitrous oxide is a major component of fertilizer. We all know where this leads: a full-on ban. Two years ago, a ban on nitrous oxide led to the absolute collapse of food production in Sri Lanka. One rice farmer told Reuters: “Last year, we got 60 bags from these two acres. But this time it was just 10.”

The European Commission’s plan for farmers includes “Green Direct Payments.” These are effectively bribes for anyone who bends the knee. To get these bribes, farmers and ranchers must “maintain permanent grassland” — in other words, farm less land. That means less food.

They must also “undertake crop diversification.” This is the European government telling farmers what to plant. How on earth did farmers survive thousands of years without “experts” in their government telling them how to do their job?

Finally, they must “dedicate 5% of arable land to ecological focus areas.” This also means fewer crops and less food.

Keep in mind, in Europe, these are not suggestions. This document describes the “monitoring process” that will be employed, and how it is all backed up on a “legal basis.”

If the media bothered to ask the farmers in Europe what they’re protesting about, here is what they would tell them: These restrictions not only entail less food for the people but also the inability of farmers and ranchers to make a living for their own families.

Biden wreaks havoc

This has nothing to do with the climate. It’s about forcing the agriculture sector into a partnership with the government. This used to be called fascism, but now it’s just called Build Back Better, the Great Reset, or whatever else they plan to rebrand and rename it in the future.

But this is not just happening in Europe. It's just further along than we are. Joe Biden has stated that farmers under his administration are “thriving,” but if you talk to any of them, they will tell a much different story.

One Kansas wheat farmer told Fox News that he and his family are in “survival mode.” He cited the volatile market, out-of-control diesel costs, and the rising price of fertilizer as the main contributors to their financial woes. Sound familiar?

Biden’s Build Back Better has not only wreaked havoc on most families across America, but it has also equated to a stealth war on American farmers.

Since Biden became president, operating costs on farms have increased by $100 billion. The total costs for American farmers to raise crops and livestock is now at a record high of $460 billion. Who can afford that?

The better question might be, Is that the actual point?

They want farmers in a no-win situation where partnership with the government is the only option left. Just like the EU, Joe Biden announced a bribe method to reel in farmers and ranchers.

Biden in November announced a $5 billion package for rural communities. It includes many of the same regulations pushed by the European Commission. All that’s missing is the compliance checks and legal framework for punishment, but how long before that gets added?

Donald Trump halted our disastrous trajectory that Europe has already embarked on, but how long until Europe’s war on food is adapted and implemented by our own government? Do you want a government that can tell farmers what to grow and what not to grow? Do you want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats who are more concerned with climate goals than whether the American people have enough food?

These are all downstream from the Great Reset, and who you vote for in November will have major ramifications on whether they will come to fruition.

VP debate recap: A Vance victory

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This might have been the most consequential VP debate in recent memory.

For those of you who missed the debate, it was a decisive victory for J.D. Vance and the Trump-Vance team as a whole. Vance presented a calm, collected, and considerate side of the Republican party that compliments Trump and helps to make their platform more palatable. Meanwhile, Tim Walz had a lackluster, though certainly not catastrophic, night. He had a few embarrassing gaffes and came across as overly nervous, but like Vance, kept it civil.

Both VP candidates entered the stage as relative unknowns to most Americans, and by the end, both men had given an accurate representation of their characters. Here is a brief recap just in case you missed the debate:

J.D. Vance looked great

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance came out of the gate swinging, with a stellar opening statement that helped set the stage for the rest of the debate. He delivered a concise yet compelling recap of his life, which framed him as everything Walz claims to be: a relatable veteran from humble beginnings who earned his position through hard work and service. He then went on to deliver a clear and palatable defense of Trump's platform and mission while cooly drawing attention to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

Overall, J.D. Vance looked incredibly presidential. He presented himself not just as a capable vice president, but as a strong successor to Trump and as a valid replacement if anything should happen to the former president between now and the end of his hypothetical second term. Vance also successfully dispelled the notion that he is "weird" as Walz called him, and if anyone looked strange during the debate, it certainly wasnot Vance.

Tim Walz's gaffes

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

While Tim Walz certainly didn't have an awful night, he did not stack up well against Vance. Walz had a major gaffe around halfway through the debate when asked to explain the change in his position on assault weapon bans. Walz then claimed that he had befriended school shooters during his time in office. While that was clearly not the intention of what he was saying, it was embarrassing nonetheless.

Another weak moment was when the moderators asked Walz to explain a claim he had made regarding being in Hong Kong during the infamous Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, which has since been proven false. Walz gave a long-winded, rambling answer about taking students to visit China and how Trump should have joined in on those trips, before being called out by the moderator for dodging the question.

Vance fact-checked the fact-checkers

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

One of the conditions of the CBS debate was that the moderators would not fact-check the debaters live, but instead rely on after-the-matter fact-checking. But, CBS couldn't keep to its own rules. While Vance was describing the migrant crisis that has swelled during the Biden-Harris administration, one of the CBS moderators, Margaret Brennan, chimed in with a "fact check." She claimed that the Haitian migrants in Ohio have legal status, to which Vance clapped back by calling Brennan out for breaking the rules of the debate, then proceeded to correct her, explaining that they only had legal status due to overreach by the Biden-Harris administration.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor, Dia Dipasupil / Staff | Getty Images

The first (and likely only) Vice President debate will be held on CBS News on Tuesday, October 1st.

The debate takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be the first time we see J.D. Vance and Tim Walz face off in person. Typically, the VP debate is little more than a formality, and rarely does it affect the election in any significant way. But this is no ordinary election. The stakes are higher than they have been in years, and Trump and Harris are still in a razor-thin race, according to the polls. Both Vance and Walz are relative newcomers to the national stage and still have room to make an impression on the American people, and with the race as tight as it is, that might make all the difference.

So what do you think? Can this VP debate make an impact on the election? Are you going to tune in? And what sort of questions and issues need to be brought up? Let us know in the poll below:

Will this VP debate be important in the overall election?

Are you going to watch the VP debate?

Should the debaters be asked about the Biden-Harris administration's failing economy?

Should the debaters be asked about climate change and energy policy?

Should the debaters be asked about the rise of globalism?