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.

The Problem Obama’s Built: Nuclear Muslim Lands


This photo comes from a 2015 Pakistan Tribune article.

On One Hand Obama Creates a Less Stable, More Nuclear Middle East

Pakistan Army Chief: ‘We’ll Wipe Iran Off the Map’

After Saudi Arabia executed a top Shia cleric for supporting anti-government protests and Iran responded by ransacking and burning the Saudi embassy in Tehran, the Muslim world began to split further. Kuwait recalled its ambassador from Iran while Bahrain, Sudan, and the UAE took other steps to distance themselves from Iran.  The leader of Pakistan’s army warned that if Iran moved against the Saudi kingdom, Pakistan would “wipe Iran off the map.”

On the Other Hand, Obama Requires No Respect for the USA

Charles Krauthammer’s Assessment of Obama’s Fine Mess

In the 7 January 2016 Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer wrote the following summary of the most recent Obama debacle:

“If you’re going to engage in a foreign policy capitulation, might as well do it when everyone is getting tanked and otherwise occupied. Say, around New Year’s Eve.

Here’s the story. In October, Iran test-fires a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in brazen violation of a Security Council resolution explicitly prohibiting such launches. President Obama does nothing. One month later, Iran does it again. The administration makes a few gestures at the U.N. Then nothing. Then finally, on Dec. 30, the White House announces a few sanctions.

They are weak, aimed mostly at individuals and designed essentially for show. Amazingly, even that proves too much. By 10 p.m. that night, the administration caves. The White House sends out an email saying that sanctions are off — and the Iranian president orders the military to expedite the missile program.

Is there any red line left? First, the Syrian chemical weapons. Then the administration insistence that there would be no nuclear deal unless Iran accounted for its past nuclear activities. (It didn’t.) And unless Iran permitted inspection of its Parchin nuclear testing facility. (It was allowed self-inspection and declared itself clean.) And now, illegal ballistic missiles.

The premise of the nuclear deal was that it would constrain Iranian actions. It’s had precisely the opposite effect. It has deterred us from offering even the mildest pushback to any Iranian violations lest Iran walk away and leave Obama legacy-less.

Just two weeks ago, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards conducted live-fire exercises near the Strait of Hormuz. It gave nearby U.S. vessels exactly 23 seconds of warning. One rocket was launched 1,500 yards from the USS Harry S. Truman.

Obama’s response? None.

The Gulf Arabs — rich, weak and, since FDR, dependent on America for security — are bewildered. They’re still reeling from the nuclear deal, which Obama declared would be unaffected by Iranian misbehavior elsewhere. The result was to assure Tehran that it would pay no price for its aggression in Syria and Yemen, subversion in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and support for terrorism.

Obama seems not to understand that disconnecting the nuclear issue gave the mullahs license to hunt in the region. For the Saudis, however, it’s not just blundering but betrayal. From the very beginning, they’ve seen Obama tilting toward Tehran as he fancies himself Nixon in China, turning Iran into a strategic partner in managing the Middle East.

This is even scarier because it is delusional. If anything, Obama’s openhanded appeasement has encouraged Iran’s regional adventurism and intense anti-Americanism.
The Saudis, sensing abandonment, are near panic. Hence the reckless execution of the firebrand Shiite insurrectionist, Sheik Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, that has brought the region to a boil. Iranians torched the Saudi Embassy. The Saudis led other Sunni states in breaking relations with Tehran.

The Saudis feel surrounded, and it’s not paranoia. To their north, Iran dominates a Shiite crescent stretching from Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean. To the Saudi south, Iran has been arming Yemen’s Houthi rebels since at least 2009. The fighting has spilled over the border into Saudi Arabia.

The danger is rising. For years, Iran has been supporting anti-regime agitation among Saudi Arabia’s minority Shiites. The Persian Gulf is Iran’s ultimate prize. The fall of the House of Saud would make Iran the undisputed regional hegemon and an emerging global power.

For the United States, that would be the greatest geopolitical setback since China fell to communism in 1949. Yet Obama seems oblivious. Worse, he appears inert in the face of the three great challenges to the post-Cold War American order. Iran is only the most glaring. China is challenging the status quo in the South China Sea, just last week landing its first aircraft on an artificial island hundreds of miles beyond the Chinese coast. We deny China’s claim and declare these to be international waters, yet last month we meekly apologized when a B-52 overflew one of the islands. We said it was inadvertent.

The world sees and takes note. As it does our response to the other great U.S. adversary — Russia. What’s happened to Obama’s vaunted ‘isolation’ of Russia for its annexation of Crimea and assault on the post-Cold War European settlement? Gone. Evaporated.

John Kerry plays lapdog to Sergei Lavrov. Obama meets openly with Vladimir Putin in Turkey, then in Paris. And is now practically begging him to join our side in Syria.
There is no price for defying Pax Americana — not even trivial sanctions on Iranian missile-enablers. Our enemies know it. Our allies see it — and sense they’re on their own, and may not survive.”

Regarding the US Sailors Captured, Obama Defends Iran First

As everyone knows, Obama did not mention the captured US sailors during the State of the Union address — he was too busy lauding the merits of Syrian refugees to be bothered with Americans in need.  However, when he did open his mouth, it was to defend the Iranians.  As reported by the Hill, Obama administration mouthpieces went to their fictive work:

” ‘The Geneva Convention applies for a time of war between nations, and we’re not at war with Iran,’ State Department spokesman John Kirby said. ‘So it’s difficult to see how the provisions of the Geneva Convention can be applied here or us citing them as violations of it, because we’re not at war with Iran.’

‘If we were at war with Iran or another country, then, yes I think you could look at what happened as a breach of the protocols in there,’ he added. ‘But they don’t apply.’ “

Iran Did Violate the Geneva Conventions

Nonetheless, despite the words out of a “transparent administration’s” mouths, facts are stubborn things (as the following quote from a 14 January 2016 Breitbart article points out):

“The Obama administration announced on Thursday that Iran had not violated the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war when it published photographs of captured U.S. Navy sailors, forced them to appear on television and make an apology for the circumstances of their capture, and compelled a female sailor to wear a hijab (head covering).

Under Article 13 of the Geneva Convention, prisoners must not be subjected to “insults and public curiosity.”  Under Article 14, they must be treated with honor, and female prisoners must not suffer worse treatment.

On Wednesday, the State Department would not say if Iran had violated the Convention, but on Thursday, spokesperson John Kirby said definitively that it had not.

‘…[T]he Geneva Convention applies for wartime,’ Kirby said. ‘We’re not at war with Iran, so it’s a moot question….I’m not a lawyer, but it’s very clear, if you read the conventions, they are for wartime, and we’re not at war with Iran.’

Kirby is wrong, as the text of the Geneva Convention makes clear.

Article 1 says: ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.’ The phrase ‘all circumstances’ applies to peacetime as well as war, as noted by Article 2.

Article 2 states clearly: ‘In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.’

Article 5 notes: ‘Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.’

So the Geneva Convention–to which Iran and the U.S. are both parties–applies, at least partly, to peacetime, and to conflicts that fall short of declared war. Furthermore, it applies even in the presence of doubts as to whether prisoners qualify for its protections, until the status of those prisoners can be determined by a court.”

The State Department Delusional Self-Assessment

One thing that almost puts a cherry on the top of this precarious situation created by Obama’s lead-from-behind style manifests in the administration’s inability to take the blame and ability to take credit where none exists.  The first case in point comes from the hands of the perpetrators themselves.  On DipNote (a government website named not for the absolute dips that created it, but as a reference to the diplomatic corps), they claimed success in the following areas for 2015:

CNN Survey: Americans Say Terrorists are Winning

As commented by Townhall, a CNN/ORC poll discovered:

“While less than half of Americans say the terrorists are winning, the current 40% who do believe that is 17 points above the previous high of 23% reached in August 2005. Another 40% say neither side has an advantage, and just 18% say today that the U.S. and its allies have the upper hand — 10 points off the previous low for that measure, reached in January 2007.

Majority dissatisfaction with the war on terrorism crosses party lines, with even a majority of Democrats, 59%, expressing unease with the case prosecuted by the Obama White House. Seventy-nine percent of independents and 86% of Republicans also say they are dissatisfied with how it has fared.

A majority of Republicans, 55%, say they think the terrorists are winning, while most Democrats, 52%, feel neither side has an edge.”

Hat tip to the Gateway Pundit