“Climate change,” gun confiscation, Ukraine, & other reasons to not trust the media

Featured

Skewed Climate Change reporting made right

Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions

In s 20 September 2019 Breitbart article, Nick Nolte lists 41 doomsday predictions that climate experts got wrong. Here are the first few.

ChildrenMarch

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

  1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
  2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
  3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
  4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
  5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

(Read more at Breitbart)

If they had the truth on their side, why wouldn’t they predict correctly

Rather, if they had the truth on their side and just knew that they could not predict, why not just withhold a prediction? Of course, the reason would be that the climate alarm activists want to gin up fear of impending doom that is just far enough away as to be actionable.

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

Breitbart reported in a 24 September 2019 article how 500 scientists have signed a letter stating that no climate emergency exists.

NoClimateEmergency

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”

“If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world,” they state.

Although Obama claimed the matter was settled, these 500 scientists dissent

When I worked at NASA as a technical writer/editor, I worked alongside subject matter experts that disagreed with the concept of global warming. At that time, I was also aware of a subject matter expert who supported the concept. Would you like to guess who the local media interviewed any time that the topic of “global warming” came to the forefront?

You would be correct if you wagered that the local media went to the subject matter expert who supported global warming.

Gun confiscation

“Beto: People can’t fight a Tyrannical Government nor do they have the right to”

A 26 September 2019 video posted by Colion Noir shows Evan MacDonald as he observes how the Second Amendment was constructed to allow the citizenry to stand against a tyranical and overreaching government. In response, Democrat presidential wanna-be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke maintains that citizens cannot fight a tyranical government and do not have the right to fight that overreaching government.

On this count, O’Rourke is right that we cannot afford to buy the type of weapons the US Army carries. However, …

If we use the logic that Democrats most recently used to support their suggestion that American government (aka, taxpayers) must pay for healthcare for all, then you would be handing all sorts of high-powered, military-grade weapons and ammunition to the populace.

Many liberals might rightfully complain that some of these weapons might be used by criminals and the mentally ill. Truth of the matter is that they have and will. However, through the balancing power of good people with weapons, we would be able to fend off more criminals than if we were all disarmed.

Woman Who Confronted Beto O’Rourke Speaks Out, And She’s Got A Message For President Trump

In a 21 September 2019 Daily Caller article the forthrightness of Lauren Boebert comes to the fore.

LaurenBoebertLauren Boebert, the Colorado restaurant owner who confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke about his gun control proposals during a Thursday town hall, discussed the issue on Saturday morning’s “Fox & Friends.”

“I am here to say hell no, you’re not,” Boebert, who owns a pro-Second Amendment restaurant called Shooters Grill, told O’Rourke on Thursday. “I have four children. I’m 5 foot zero, 100 pounds, cannot defend myself with a fist. I want to know how you’re going to legislate that, because a criminal by defense breaks the law. So all you’re going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens like myself.”

In addition to discussing what led her to confront the presidential candidate, Boebert also had a few more words for O’Rourke along with a message for President Donald Trump.

“Well, I heard that Beto was coming to my state of Colorado to talk about gun control or maybe gun legislation, and I heard what he had to say about taking away our Second Amendment rights and our firearms,” Boebert said, responding to a question about why she decided to confront O’Rourke. “And I really wanted to go down there and just reverse his statement, and tell him absolutely not. Because I’m sure that that is every gun owning American’s immediate response to his ‘hell yes’ was an immediate, firm ‘hell no.’”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

For more democracy, get involved

Ms. Boebert demonstrates a central idea within our democracy: to be heard, speak up early, speak up loudly, speak long enough to be heard, and (though not demonstrated in this article) keep speaking until you have spoken at the ballot box.

Then rinse and repeat.

Beto O’Rourke Widely Criticized Over His Gun Confiscation Answer During Reddit Q&A

The Daily Caller reports in a 20 September 2019 article on the boomerang-effect experienced by Democrat presidential wanna-be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke.

Beto-ORourke-Hell-Yes-We-Wil-Take-Your-GunsDemocratic 2020 hopeful Beto O’Rourke participated in an “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) on the popular link-sharing site Reddit Thursday, and his answer on gun confiscation was widely criticized.

In an AMA thread, users are encouraged to ask whatever questions they want in the comment section, and the creator of the thread can then choose what to answer. Reddit users can either up-vote or down-vote comment based on how well they contribute to the discussion.

TAGAO’Rourke’s AMA thread had over 26,000 comments as of Friday afternoon. Though Reddit’s users found some of O’Rourke’s answers satisfactory, he was strongly down-voted for his other answers.

“How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s?” one user asked. The candidate has previously said that he plans to enact a mandatory gun confiscation program for AR-15s and AK-47s.

O’Rourke responded:

“Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war. Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in their schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts… everywhere. I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s fun to shoot but would give it up. Because they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.”

That answer received over 12,000 down-votes, and Reddit users deconstructed all the things wrong with his answer. One user gave a detailed response to O’Rourke’s question, asking him how he would find so many unregistered guns and how he would pay for the “buyback” program.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

With both gun confiscation and impeachment, we need to show all Democrats how much we disagree

As with abortion, this does not work as a “meet our friends from the other side half-way” sort of situation. This is a “stand your ground” sort of situation. In fact, to the believer, I would quote (possibly not in full reference to the impeachment situation, but more to our charge to witness and protect):

Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:13 NASB)

The issue of the Ukraine

Congressional Democrats have no credibility on impeachment

The Federalist explains in a 27 September 2019 opinion piece how the problems with the most recent impeachment push will likely backfire on Democrats.

The problem with the Democrats’ impeachment gambit—aside from the fact that it appears to rest largely on a complaint riddled with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and hearsay—is that the American people don’t trust Congress and will likely have little confidence in any impeachment process undertaken by Democratic congressional leaders.

And no wonder. Ever since President Trump won the presidency in 2016, Democrats have been grasping for some pretext to invalidate the results of that election.

First, it was the outlandish claim that if Trump didn’t liquidate his global business interests upon taking office, he would be in violation of the emoluments clause. Then it was more than two years of the Russian collusion hoax that fizzled with the release of the Mueller report this spring. Along the way, there were repeated attempts to pin obstruction of justice on Trump for his firing of FBI director James Comey, as well as accusations about payments to Stormy Daniels, questions about Trump’s tax returns, and allegations of sexual assault.

None of this, in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, ever approached a justification for impeachment. A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found that just 37 percent support impeachment. A Monmouth poll last month showed just 35 percent support. For years, polls on impeachment have stayed in this range.

Democrats are therefore very far out of step with the American people on the question of impeachment, and it’s hard to see how the transcript of Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, much less the “whistleblower” complaint released Wednesday evening, will change that. The complaint, with its allegation that Trump solicited interference in our elections from a foreign country, is in effect a continuation of the Russian collusion narrative Democrats spent two years pushing, to no avail.

In short, congressional Democrats don’t seem to appreciate how tenuous their position is now, or how a blatantly partisan impeachment inquiry could demolish all remaining confidence in our democratic institutions and set the country up for a crisis in the 2020 elections.

(Read more at The Federalist)

If the Democrats had the truth on their side, why would this be a parade of lies?

If Adam Schiff had the truth on his side, why did he lie into the Congressional record and then call it “parody” when other representatives call him out for making up testimony?

If the bureaucrats of the “deep state” had truth on their side, why change the forms associated with a whistleblower complaint so that second-hand information can be submitted? If they had truth on their side, why not allow the time-tested American justice system to play out and allow President Trump to face his accuser?

If Nancy Pelosi has the truth on her side, why does it seem that she had prior knowledge of a top-secret document within the White House? Is there a possibility that this “confidential informant” situation is a Democrat-devised scheme to remove President Trump from office?

If Schiff really believed that politicians who collaborated with other governments should be removed from office, why hasn’t he resigned after being caught on tape trying to get dirt on Trump from those who he thought were Ukrainian operatives?

Gutfeld on the media’s manipulation of the Ukraine story

In a video posted on 25 September 2019, Greg Gutfeld outlines the media’s manipulation of the Ukraine story.

Right now, the media’s face is pressed up against the window of the candy store and they’re salivating. The glass is fogging up. They are hoping against hope, staring into a field of dreams. Believing that, if they build an impeachment, a crime will follow.

So let’s step back and see this for what it is: another example of the media and the Democrats fashioning the worst of things out of the best of times all to avenge an emotional loss.

Do you want some examples?

  1. As America leads the way in climate with cleaner energy, Democrats tell our kids they have a decade to live.
  2. As race relations improve from the mass demonstrations of five years ago, the media sees racism in every nook.
  3. As men and women reach equality in all facets, the media questions whether gender is just a fantasy.
  4. As women and minorities gain more employment than ever, the man running the show is called a bigoted sexist.

A guy called Trump. A guy who wakes up every morning in that candy store called America wondering what we can get out of the world (and not the reverse).

Whistleblower Rules Secretly Changed Right Before Report Filed Against Trump

The Federalist Papers reports in a 28 September 2019 article that the Whistleblower law was secretly changed to allow second-hand information in a report against President Trump.

The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump.

The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.

But in the time between May 2018 and August 2019 that rule was changed, which has many wondering what involvement the intelligence community had in the complaint, The Federalist reported.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

(Read more at The Federalist Papers)

Thank God for those who work as watchmen on the wall

Thank God for the watchful eye of those at The Federalist and other true journalistic endeavors.

Good news not reported

Trump Shines Spotlight on Christians Being Killed, 1st President to Host UN Religious Freedom Meeting

The Christian Broadcast Network reports in a 24 September 2019 article how President Trump was the first American President to host a religious freedom meeting at the UN.

Donald Trump has become the first US President to ever host a meeting at the United Nations on religious freedom.

“As President, protecting religious freedom is one of my highest priorities,” Trump told the nations of the world on Monday.

In his keynote address to the UN, President Trump pointed to alarming statistics showing 80% of the world’s population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.

“When I heard that number I said, ‘Please go back and check it because it can’t possibly be correct.’ And sadly it was 80%,” Trump said.

And followers of Christ are among the most heavily persecuted around the world. In fact, it’s estimated that 11 Christians die each day for their faith.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

By shining light, many regimes will scramble

However, the light must be persistent.

Considering the cover provided by the American press, President Trump’s speech may have only transitory effects unless we support him with action and prayer.

Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats

Real Clear Politics addresses the big problem the great economy provides for the Democrats.

Presidential elections are won on the shoulders of a strong economy, which is why the voters are certain to reject the Democrat Party’s ongoing effort to promote radical economic change.

Out of all the Democrats running for president in 2020, none are acknowledging the significance of President Trump’s accomplishments on the daily lives of American families. Their push for dramatic changes to key pocketbook issues, including health care, taxes, and regulations, ignore a simple yet crucial political reality: American taxpayers are winning again.

The U.S. unemployment rate, for instance, is currently hovering near a 50-year low, after dropping by an entire percentage point since the president’s inauguration. More importantly, the ongoing economic resurgence is making the American Dream more accessible than ever before.

The U.S. economy has already added more than 6 million new jobs in just 2 ½ years, and employee compensation and savings are skyrocketing — clear indications that working Americans are experiencing the benefits of this booming economy.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the American people are well aware of the tremendous economic progress this country has made under President Trump’s leadership, and they expect the good times to keep on rolling.

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that a whopping 71% of Americans “expect their personal finances to improve” over the course of the next year, while only 15% expect their finances to get worse. The lopsided result reveals a remarkable degree of confidence that this president’s pro-growth policies and “America First” trade agenda are responsible for our ongoing economic success, and that’s devastating news for the Democrats.

In order to have any chance at all against Donald Trump in the next presidential election, the Democrats will have to convince millions of voters that the ongoing economic renaissance isn’t real, which is only possible by brazenly lying to voters.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

That is, a good economy is bad news for the Democrats until …

The good economy is bad news for Democrats until conservatives and Republicans get complacent and leave it up to others to go to the polls. Moreover, when we do not push the middle-of-the-road people to vote, then we lose and the Democrats win.

Do you want the Democrats to win?

(Social) media giants exposed in their support of the left

Facebook Admits It’s a Publisher in Court Filings

A 10 September 2019 article at Breitbart shows how Facebook came to admit its role as a publisher (and the implications).

Facebook, in court filings defending itself from a lawsuit filed by activist and congressional candidate Laura Loomer, has cited its first amendment rights as a “publisher,” contradicting public claims by the company that its social media service is a platform.

LoomeredThe distinction between publisher and platform is central to the legal protections enjoyed by big tech companies, and is frequently cited by Republican lawmakers in their criticism of Silicon Valley’s political bias.

Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech platforms have immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to to host) user-generated content. Unlike publishers, which are liable if their writers defame someone, a tech platform is not held liable for content created by its users.

Yet Facebook appears to be jettisoning this categorization in its court filings, saying it has a First Amendment right as a publisher not to carry Loomer’s content.

Via Facebook’s legal filings (p2):

Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message.

This contradicts public statements made in a Senate hearing last year by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who insisted that Facebook is a platform and not a publisher.

(Read more at a href=”https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/18/facebook-admits-its-a-publisher-in-court-filings/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>Breitbart)

Since too many get their news from Google and Facebook, this is a threat

Both Facebook and Google must be broken up and brought to adhere to the laws applied to other publishers (that is, until they truly begin to provide an unbiased platform for all ideas). Admittedly, this will cause an opportunity for unsavory parts of the publishing community and it will require the watchfulness of parents and other protectors of the weak. However, to have the free speech right of all restored, it will be worth it.

Facebook incites violent war on ICE

OneNewsNow shows how Facebook incited people to attack ICE.

On Thursday, Sept. 19, Abolish ICE Denver and the Denver Communists are organizing a protest outside the house of Johnny Choate, the warden of the immigrant detention facility in Aurora, Colorado.

Abolish-ICEAbolish ICE thugs in Colorado want to see the homes and families of immigration enforcement officials set aflame.

Denver communists want alien detention facility employees dead, swinging from nooses with broken necks.

Both groups are brazenly using Facebook to spread their inflammatory and violent messages. So, where is Silicon Valley — whose top companies partner with the Southern Poverty Law Center smear machine to de-platform conservatives, pro-lifers and Donald Trump supporters — to stop the open borders left’s escalating hate?

On Thursday, Sept. 19, Abolish ICE Denver and the Denver Communists are organizing a protest outside the house of Johnny Choate, the warden of the immigrant detention facility in Aurora, Colorado. Choate works for GEO Group, which operates the center. Instead of laying blame at the feet of global profiteers who induce illegal immigrants to risk their families’ lives to trespass our borders, anti-ICE agitators are targeting homeland security employees and contractors who simply enforce federal immigration and detention laws passed by Congress.

The Denver Communists group shared a poster on Facebook with Choate’s face superimposed over a generic neighborhood map with private residential homes. “CONFRONT LA MIGRA WHERE THEY LIVE,” the radicals urged members. The graphic describes Choate as “warden of Aurora’s notorious ICE concentration camp.” That’s the same inflammatory and defamatory language popularized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and used by antifa militant Willem Van Spronsen, who attempted to firebomb the Tacoma ICE facility, also run by GEO Group, in July.

The protest announcement also includes the phrase, “Chinga La Migra!” It’s the slogan of Mijente, a Latino activist group leading the Abolish ICE movement. Translation: “[Expletive] the Border Patrol.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Facebook allows this type of incitement to stand. There should be consequences.

Just as we all have free speech, we also will face consequences if we choose to shout “Fire” at a crowded theater. In similar ways, there should be consequences for the Antifa thugs who called for action against our border agents and for Facebook, who provided a means of communicating.

If the Presidential election were today, who has earned your vote

Featured

7 Stories on Liberal hypocrisy


AirDrake

  1. Superstar rapper Drake, who rails against climate change, buys massive private jet

The hypocrisy of rapper Drake comes out in a Climate Depot post of 10 May 2019.

The rapper Drake, who has surpassed The Beatles in song popularity, is now the proud owner of a 767 cargo jet despite his vocal climate change campaigning.

Drake acquires a gigantic plane. – Via Daily Caller – “The superstar rapper showed off his plane, called “Air Drake,” on Instagram Friday, and it’s downright absurd. The interior is absolutely massive, and he points out that it’s not a ‘timeshare’ or ‘rental.’ It’s just all his.”

While I support his right to use a jet and as many gas-guzzling SUV’s as he wants in the commission of his work, he needs to stop preaching unproven theories to the rest of us.

AOCripsUber

  1. Socialist ‘It’ Candidate Ocasio-Cortez Rips ‘Unregulated’ Uber, Then Spends $4,000 On … Uber

In a 28 August 2018 Investor’s Business Daily article, the way AOC uses ride shares (rather than public transportation) comes to light.

Socialism: Self-described social democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving. The youthful socialist can hardly go a day without saying something that undescores the hypocrisy of her beliefs.

Last week, we noted the irony of the socialist movement’s most visible star (besides Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, of course) lamenting the closure of the restaurant she once worked at. Turns out, the restaurant closed largely due to enormous hikes in the minimum wage — a policy Ocasio-Cortez would enthusiastically impose on the whole country.

For her latest display of socialist hypocrisy, you have to go back to March.

Then, tragically, a New York cab driver named Nicanor Ochisor took his own life. He did so apparently in response to financial struggles. As Zuri Davis of the Reason.com blog points out, New York Times reporter Noam Scheiber immediately blamed ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft for the death and faulted local government for letting the ride-sharing companies operate.

Seeing a chance to score political points, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “NYC’s fourth driver suicide. Yellow cab drivers are in financial ruin due to the unregulated expansion of Uber. What was a living wage now pays under minimum.”

And she had a whole socialist agenda for fixing the problem, as she saw it.

“We need:

-to call Uber drivers what they are: EMPLOYEES, not contractors

-Fed jobs guarantee

-Prep for automation”

But, surprise! Fox News reports that Federal Election Commission records show that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign used Uber repeatedly, despite her sharp criticisms of the business model.

Indeed, her campaign spent around $4,000 on 160 Uber rides in California alone from April to late June. For the record, Ocasio-Cortez isn’t running for office in California, but in New York. Apparently, California is where the really BIG socialist billionaires live.

(Read more at Investor’s Business Daily)

For someone who claims to be so so concerned about the environment (to the point of forcing the rest of us to embrace socialism and abandon our cars), she sure does not want to sacrifice anything.

Hypocritical Democrat. AKA, common Democrat.

AOCrecants

  1. #AOC recants: ‘…world ending in 12 years due to climate change’ – it was “a joke”

In the electronic folds of the Watts Up with That blog, we are informed that AOC’s demands that we should give up all for the Green New Deal were just a joke that sea sponges should have understood.

Ocasio-Cortez recants with insult: I Was Joking About World Ending In 12 Years, and you’re an idiot if you believed me

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that she was joking around when she claimed the world was going to end in 12 years if we do not take serious action against Climate Change, a declaration she’s been widely criticized over. The 29-year-old socialist mocked the Republican Party for taking her claim about the end of the world seriously, which she suggested was a combination of “dry humor + sarcasm.”

AOC in a tweet published on Mother’s Day:

Read the Full Article

She looked dead serious to me when she first said it:

(Read the whole article at Watts Up with That)

I am with Mr. Watts. I saw her proposal of the Green New Deal as a real platform for her. However, I can also see the other side.

That is, by AOC making her own “deplorable” statement like this, she shows that she is the joke and those that vote for her are the punch line.

alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-speech-tout

  1. Green New Deal Vote Exposes Democratic Hypocrisy on AOC-Led Insanity

Even left-leaning CNN cannot help but poke at AOC’s Green New Deal as a stupid idea.

One thing Democrats are notorious for is sticking together. However, the ludicrous Green New Deal is going to expose which of them will break ranks from the ascendent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party and air on the side of sanity.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has set a vote over the Green New Deal for Tuesday afternoon. Most Democrats have boasted about the greatness of the radical proposal since it was introduced last month. However, since McConnell said, “okay, let’s vote,” they’ve been screaming bloody murder.

When the resolution for the deal is introduced, the word is many Democrats plan to vote “present.” That way they avoid actually saying yea or nay.

Do they think that by dodging the question in this manner, the American voter won’t see their complicity? If it’s such a good thing, sounding off on it early would be great, right?

(Read more at CNN)

Further down in the CNN article, the author says “virtually all” Democrat presidential contenders support the Green New Deal. However, an incomplete post that I had to leave behind found that all of the then-18 (now 24) contenders were for the Green New Deal. They reaaly need to own their issues.

  1. AOC is a Hypocrite on Global Warming

A 5 March 2019 opinion piece by Michael Knowles outlines the hyprocrisy of AOC.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likes to talk a good game on environmental issues, but recent findings show that while she talks the talk, she does not walk the walk. Michael Knowles calls her out on Monday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show.” Transcript and video below.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our favorite socialist from Yorktown Heights, she said (paraphrasing), “We’re like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” That’s what she said, so what she is saying is we need to have zero greenhouse gases, we need a full transition off of fossil fuels within ten years or else the world will end, or else it is not okay to have children, that’s what she said, (paraphrasing) “You have to ask yourself if it’s moral to have children in this world. And what did we learn from federal filings?” She’s a hypocrite, she doesn’t practice what she preaches. So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lives in the city with the greatest subway system in the world, and according to her federal filings, she listed over 1,000 Uber, Lyft and Juno transactions during her campaign. She spent $30,000 on rideshare apps. Guess where her campaign headquarters was located? One minute away from the Seven Train and the Seven Train can take you anywhere because the Seven Train connects to a bunch of other lines so you can get all around. She lived a one-minute walk away from the Seven Train and she spent 30 G’s on ride-share apps. To put that into perspective, Max Rose, who’s another freshman Democrat from New York, he only spent $6,000 on rideshare apps and he only spent them on 329 rides during his campaign, so she used multiples more than this.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Add to this, AOC flew to SXSW so that she could spout liberal tripe in front of an accepting Democrat audience.

AOC-apartment

  1. “More Equal” AOC lives in a luxury apartment

As noted by a 19 February 2019 Washington Examiner article

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswoman’s campaign platform.

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, who said in November that she was concerned about being able to afford rent in D.C., now earns a $174,000 annual salary and is living in a newly built high-rise in the city’s Navy Yard area, the Washington Free Beacon reported last week.

The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.

But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.

In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.

“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life,” Ocasio-Cortez said last March. “Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue – it’s happening in every US metro area.”

Ocasio-Cortez also promised not to take campaign contributions from luxury developers during her campaign. “It’s time we stand up to the luxury developer lobby,” she said in a speech last April. “Every official is too scared to do it – except me.”

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Sure, she is a hypocrite, but look at her mentor Bernie.

SandersHowMany

  1. Lifestyles of the rich and socialist: Bernie Sanders has 3 houses, makes millions

Considering the fact that Bernie preaches the confiscation of wealth, you would think that he would live meagerly. You would think that one house (not three), public transportation (not $100K sports cars), and the health care system he forced us to use would be sufficient. However, if we go to a 21 February 2019 Fox News article, we get a description of his holdings that does not match up with his socialist preaching.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., entered the 2020 presidential race this week promising to transform America with a left-wing vision of economic and environmental justice. But the self-described democratic socialist’s high-end income, multiple houses and fondness for air travel have already opened him up to criticism that his lifestyle doesn’t always match the rhetoric.

Sanders has pitched himself as a grassroots economic populist, focusing on income inequality and higher taxes for the rich.

“Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice,” he said.

“Together you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revoution,” he said. “Now it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.”

But Sanders has raised eyebrows over his spending and personal wealth. Notably, he owns three houses. In 2016, he bought a $575,000 four-bedroom lake-front home in his home state. This is in addition to a row house in Washington D.C., as well as a house in Burlington, Vermont.

“The Bern will keep his home in Burlington and use the new camp seasonally,” Vermont’s Seven Day’s reported in 2016.

Ah, but what do we expect? Socialists who live up to their preaching?

6 things to know about the new Democrat House


1. By reviewing the Ocasio-Cortez initial announcement on the “Green New Deal,” we can see her blind spots and her focus

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Suggests Super Wealthy be Taxed Up to 70% to Fund ‘Green New Deal’

In a 4 January 2019 Mediaite article, the basic information on the Anderson Cooper interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which she first unveils the Green New Deal appears in print.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat with Anderson Cooper for an upcoming 60 Minutes interview set to air this Sunday, a portion of which has been released as a promotion. In the released segment, Ocasio-Cortez reveals how exactly she suggests paying for the environmental agenda known as the “Green New Deal” — with remarkably higher tax rates for the super wealthy.

Ocasio-Cortez suggests in the clip that in her esteem, people should be doing more to pay their “fair share.” When Cooper pressed on how she could possibly pay for the deal, she pointed to the progressive tax rate system in the 1960s, explaining that if you earn 0 to $75,000 a year, you would only pay 10% or 15% in income tax.

She continued:

“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your $10 millionth, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

(Read more at Mediaite)

From reading this, we can glean:

  • Regarding her view of salaries and rich people
    1. Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to understand that if income (or another reward) is removed, people will likely not produce at the same level
    2. The people earning $10 million are company owners that — when they scale back — may cause many people to lose their jobs. It seems she didn’t learn anything from Obama’s “The Great Recession” or Solyndra.
    3. She objectifies rich people as miniature banks for funding her pie-in-the-sky programs (not as people capable of compassion, mercy, or other laudable traits).
    4. She wants to divide us (the noble “green” voters) from the “rich” (who, according to her, do not pay their “fair share”).
  • Regarding her elevated view of “green” projects
    1. She assumes that “green” projects are so noble that they will escape strong questions by the press
    2. When she does get the muted criticism that this is “radical,” she glosses over the undercurrent of association with the failed states of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and many other broken states by glorying in the title.

Democrats are dangerous to business

2. By reviewing the details of her “Green New Deal,” we can see how it will explode costs and kill jobs

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more dangerous than you think

The 3 January 2019 Washington Examiner opinion piece that describes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed “Green New Deal” should be reviewed by all (along with the linked draft resolution).

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., hasn’t officially started her first term in office, but she’s already pushing a massive, far-left proposal that would fundamentally transform much of the economy and push the country closer than ever to socialism.

For several weeks, you might have heard Ocasio-Cortez reference the creation of a “Green New Deal,” but until recently, few people knew what would be included in the plan. In a draft resolution to form a select committee in the House that would help develop legislation to put her plan in action, Ocasio-Cortez finally outlined numerous proposals that she says should be part of future Green New Deal legislation. Taken together, the many ideas included in Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would be the most radical policy shift in modern U.S. history, dramatically increasing the size and power of government and running up the national debt by trillions of dollars.

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and at least 40 House Democrats, would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.

This policy alone would create widespread economic chaos. Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation. My colleagues at the Heartland Institute found that electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.

Not only is Ocasio-Cortez proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, she’s demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal doesn’t merely advocate for a gigantic shift in the U.S. energy industry. Her draft resolution says one of the proposed House committee’s priorities would be “upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” Taken literally, this mandate would cost trillions of dollars. There were about 136 million housing units in the United States in 2017, not including any businesses. Even if it would cost just $10,000 to “upgrade” every home and apartment, an extremely low estimate, this one relatively small part of her plan would cost more than $1.3 trillion.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

As much as people have enjoyed the sudden renaissance of jobs caused by Trump’s deregulation, Ocasio-Cortez’s turn towards the bureaucracy of socialism must be resisted. Not only does it abandon our resources of oil, gas, and coal — it cannot do anything to regulate the biggest polluters (China, India, and third world countries).

Additionally, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill plays loosely with tax dollars being collected and handed out. In fact, it is wrong on so many levels, because:

  1. The quickest way to raise the price of a commodity (like electrical power) is to mandate that the public buy that commodity from a monopoly (the green power producers)
  2. The best way to ensure a service (like the installation of green power conduits) is inordinately high-priced involves requiring everyone install them under penalty of law
  3. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates the use of natural resources (that — through gasoline formulation technology and scrubbing technology — have become increasingly cleaner)
  4. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates currently good-paying jobs in a time window too short to allow a workable transition

3. If the above issues are not enough, Ocasio-Cortez doubles down on forcing entrepreneurs from New York

Ocasio-Cortez Tax Plan Creates 82.7% Top Income Tax Rate for New Yorkers

If we go to a 4 January 2019 article by Americans for Tax Reform, we find a bleaker picture painted for the job creators of New York.

In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will call for federal income tax rates of up to 70 percent as part of a proposal to create vast new government spending programs.

The current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket.

New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent:

Federal income tax rate: 70.0%
NY state income tax rate: 8.82%
NYC income tax rate: 3.876%
TOTAL: 82.696%

New Yorkers would not be the only ones suffering under the Ocasio-Cortez plan. California taxpayers would pay a top rate of 83.3 percent (70 percent plus the California rate of 13.30 percent).

(Read more at Americans for Tax Reform)

If this is not a formula for speeding the exodus of businesses from New York, I don’t know what is.

Pelosi gives it away to foriegn nations

4. For those concerned with border security, the new House Democrats have nothing. But they do have a nice gift for the dictators of Central America.

Democrat Spending Bill Offers $12 Billion More for Foreign Aid, $0 for Border Wall

A 3 January 2019 Breitbart article outlines the excesses the Democrats have taken to advance socialism and abortion internationally.

The spending bills proposed by House Democrats to end the partial government shutdown offer no funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, but provide over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested, according to a statement on Thursday from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The statement warned the new House Democrat majority of President Trump’s intention to veto the bills, noting that the administration “cannot accept legislation that provides unnecessary funding for wasteful programs while ignoring the Nation’s urgent border security needs.”

The statement reiterated President Trump’s request for “at least $5 billion for border security” and asserted that the Democrats’ proposal “does not come close to providing these necessary investments and authorities.”
The White House then highlighted the billions in funding the Democrats are offering for “unnecessary programs at excessive levels” beyond what the Trump administration requested, including:

  • $12 billion more for “international affairs programs,” including $2.9 billion more “for economic and development assistance, including funding for the West Bank/Gaza, Syria, and Pakistan, where our foreign aid is either frozen or under review.”
  • $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restored funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund, which would undermine the administration’s Mexico City Policy that bars the use of taxpayer dollars for foreign organizations that “promote or perform abortions.”
  • Approximately $2 billion more than requested for the Environmental Protection Agency
  • $7.1 billion more than the administration requested for Housing and Urban Development programs

(Read more at Breitbart)

Of course, these Democrats have to know that these measures will not pass the Republican Senate and will not be signed into law by President Trump.

Still, forget reality. These are the Democrats.

5. Democrats know from commercial sources that America wants Border Security

Americans want border security, and the numbers show it

A 5 January 2019 Fox News article on a recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans value border security.

President Trump is far from alone in his determination to secure our borders — according to a recent Gallup poll, Americans view immigration as the second-biggest problem facing the country today.

That’s bad news for the Democrat Party, which is hellbent on opposing the president’s efforts to fix our broken immigration system, especially the border wall he needs in order to get illegal immigration under control.

The Democrats have a very simple, two-part strategy on immigration: first and foremost, they want to keep President Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people; second, they want to make it even easier for foreigners to enter this country illegally.

With Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, it’s no surprise that Americans are deeply troubled by the immigration crisis.

Over the past several decades, millions of illegal immigrants have successfully evaded our efforts to enforce immigration laws, putting local economies and welfare programs under tremendous pressure to cope with the massive influx of undocumented workers and their families, most of whom receive at least one form of government welfare.

In fact, illegal immigration costs taxpayers a staggering $134.9 billion a year while contributing only $19 billion in state, federal, and local taxes. At the federal level, medical costs make up the lion’s share of government expenditures on illegal immigrants, while education is the largest single expense that illegal immigration imposes on state and local governments.

(Read more at Fox News)

Although it is the Democrats who seem hellbent on denying border security to America, I have to admit that the Republicans have had ample chances to fix the problem over the past two years.

6. If you don’t live in a major population center, the Democrats do not care about you.

Nolte: Tyrannical Democrats Introduce Bill to Kill Electoral College

According to a 4 January 2019 Breitbart article, the Democrats would like to silence the fly-over states between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to kill the electoral college.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen said in a press release. “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”

Democrat frustration over losing the presidency when they won the most votes is certainly justified. But it is also their own fault. If these triggered snowflakes would get over their Red State prejudices and dare to live amongst us, that influence might flip enough states. But they refuse to. These snobby bigots find Middle America icky, so they cower together in coastal and big city bubbles.

If you will pardon a small digression… never forget that those who claim to believe in Global Warming also choose to stubbornly live on the very same coasts that are supposed to be underwater already.

Anyway, eliminating the electoral college is the road to tyranny — which is why Democrats and the media desperately want it eliminated.

Trust me, the last place any free person wants to live is in a country where 51 percent of the population can strip the rights away from the 49 percent.

Imagine a country where the only way to get elected president is to appeal to the left-wing extremists who live in large population centers, which is exactly what would happen. In fact this would be the only way to win the presidency because it would be the easiest — the cheapest as far as ad buys, getting out the vote, and that most precious commodity of all: time. Campaigns are going to go to where the most votes are.

(Read more at Breitbart)

While the Democrats know that getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment to the constitution, I have read elsewhere that Democrats are doing an end-run on the electoral college by getting individual fly-over states to voluntarily give their delegates to the popular winner of the overall presidential election.