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.

ISIS Chemical Weapon Mortars launched in Iraq at Peshmerga forces


This photo of Syrian civilians comes from AlJazeera.

Allies of Peshmerga in Northern Iraq report Gas Mortars

In the following 26 February 2016 CBN report, evidence of chemical gas mortar shells is displayed.  According to reporter Chuck HoltoN, CBN learned of the chemical weapons through contacts with the humanitarian group Free Burma Rangers (who was providing medical training at the time of the first attacks).

As mentioned in the report, there is concern that ISIS will smuggle these chemical weapons into Europe or the US.

Considering that the “red line” that Obama claimed would send the US into the Syrian civil war was the use of chemical weapons by Syria, why doesn’t Mr. Obama respond to this?  As noted by doctors in the video above, the Kurds cannot understand why neither the US nor the UN seem to pay their requests for analysis of these weapons any attention.

Al Jazeera Reports Gas Attacks on Aleppo, Syria

The Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera says that ISIS …

“is suspected of having used mustard gas against civilians in Syria’s northern Aleppo province.

A medical group reported that those injured after at least 50 mortar shells were fired at residential areas of the town of Marea on Friday were exhibiting symptoms of chemical exposure.

Local sources told the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), a non-profit humanitarian organisation, that ISIL fighters engaged in clashes with rebels had carried out the attack.

SAMS said one of its field hospitals in Aleppo received injured civilians with symptoms including respiratory irritation, wheezing, coughing, irritation and redness of the eyes and mucous membranes, skin irritation, and severe itching.

Roughly 30 civilians developed skin blisters, with doctors identifying the cause to be mustard gas, SAMS reported.

No deaths have been reported as of yet.”

In related news, Al Jazeera reports that the UN is considering investigation of the gas attacks in Syria.

Obama’s Continuous Attack on Truth: Handing the Internet Over From Bad to Worse


On 14 March 2014, Obama announced his plans to move the control of the Internet from the United States’ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to a yet-to-be-determined international group. Subsequently, various news organizations presented differing views on the change. A Washington Post article quotes the Newt Gingrich tweet “What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.” Additionally, the Post article pointed to ways the National Security Agency phone-spying scandal places pressure on the Obama administration to appease the 125 foreign dignitaries caught up in the spying. Conversely, a 17 March Washington Times article points out that the change has been scheduled since a 1998 Commerce Department agreement. Still, any words that bargain away the controlling agency of the Internet while not naming the recipient of the control or the date of the change seems to be just a good gesture.

The Alternatives to American Oversight

Since Obama never specified which recipients might receive the privilege of becoming overseers of the Internet during his blind scramble to obscure his scandals, is there really any reason for us to object to this move? Are there any valid reasons that we encourage him to not transferring this vital resource to some other entity? To prove that there are reasons for rejecting the move of Internet oversight from a setting where free speech standards are set (although sometimes seemingly ignored), consider these:

  1. United Nations – On 9 August 2012, Forbes documented the United Nation’s various reasons behind the several attempts to take over the Internet. If we were to hand the Internet over to these people, we could say goodbye to freedom of speech, religious freedom, and a good portion of online commerce.
  2. China – According to a 12 February 2014 article on the Council on Foreign Relations censorship of the Internet resources within China has increased dramatically over the past five years.
  3. Russia – Considering the way Russia took Crimea and then began pressuring Ukraine (as reported by an 1 April 2014 New York Times article), we can hardly expect Russia not to
  4. Turkey – As a supposedly “moderate” force in the Islamic world, a 9 January 2014 article revealed that the Turkish government has moved to impose strict controls on the Internet by monitoring the activities of online users and blocking certain keywords. Additionally, a 22 March 2014 article in the New York Times the digital ban imposed by the Turkish government. While it is likely that they would allow full text searches of the Quran, something tells me that research on any other religion would be disabled across the Internet if they were allowed to become overseers.
  5. Sudan – Although President Omar al-Bashir allows citizens from South Sudan to be taken as slaves by the north (and even exported to the Arabian Gulf), this 24 March 2014 article details how the Sudanese government seeks to block “negative” websites.
  6. Egypt – This 28 January 2011 article tells how Egyptian government managed to completely shut down the Internet within Egypt during the riots against Mubarak.
  7. Iran – A 9 May 2013 article details how Iran also shut down the Internet in response to calls for greater freedoms from its people.
  8. Sweden – In an effort to prove how tolerant they are, Sweden has opened their borders to Muslim immigrants and has suffered 1000 rapes during the first seven months of 2013. Despite this, debate over the problem is skewed by accusations common to the intolerant left.

Why Christians Might Oppose Moving Oversight

We must act to retain control of the Internet within the United States because our First Amendment provides protection to our religious rights and because we seek to remain true to the following verses from the Bible:

  1. We want to promote the gospel.

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 19-20)

  2. We want to make the world a more truthful place.

    Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. (1 Peter 2:1)

  3. We want to promote all kinds of truth.

    Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)

  4. We want to promote the general welfare of the world.

    When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan. (Proverbs 29:2)

  5. We do not want to support something that is antithetical to both our beliefs and the general welfare of the world.

    Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. (Romans 6:13)

    Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

    Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

Action to Take

The most effective action that we might take is to sign the petition by the American Center for Law and Justice at http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/dont-let-dictators-control-internet-keep-web-free.