The Green New Deal Is Communist Manifesto, 21st Century

https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Ocasio_Cortez_Blank_Sign_Way_Around.jpg

Image via drrichswier.com

 

A 21st-century take on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto was introduced in the form of a nonbinding resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The resolution effectively does nothing other than express the sense that Congress should pass a so-called “Green New Deal” whose wholly unattainable goals would almost certainly wreak havoc on the economy and drive the United States further into debt.

The term “insane” understates how bad the ideas presented in this resolution really are. Both the Green New Deal resolution and the FAQ document released with it read like something concocted in a drunken haze in a college dorm room. Although it’s certainly imaginative, it’s not remotely close to serious public policy. Perhaps that explains why Rep. Ocasio-Cortez removed the documents from her congressional website.

Although the resolution isn’t a serious public policy proposal, conservatives and libertarians do need to take it seriously. Why? Because this is how far to the left the Democratic Party has drifted. Although some wave the banner of “democratic socialism,” others who share socialist ideals avoid the label that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez claims by identifying as “progressives” who support green policies. When one peels back the initial layer of green, the same tired and failed ideas of socialism are there.

The resolution begins with basic findings. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey take the most recent report from the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as though it was handed down from God to Moses on Mount Sinai on stone tablets. Although humans do contribute to climate change, many of the IPCC’s previous claims have been proven wrong. Remember, it was just 2007 when the IPCC warned that the world had only eight years to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The most recent report, released in October 2018, claims that we have 12 years to avoid the worst of climate change. When proven inaccurate, just move the goalposts.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey complain that the United States is “responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014.” Well, during periods of increased prosperity, emissions have been higher. Emissions have declined during periods of slow growth and recessions. As recently as 2017, the United States saw a decline in greenhouse gas emissions.

Eventually, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey offer a long list of things Congress should do in a so-called “Green New Deal.” The resolution is chock full of policy recommendations that radical environmentalists have long demanded. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey want the United States to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” by eliminating fossil fuels. The Green New Deal FAQs document also states that the United States should also eliminate nuclear energy, although the resolution itself doesn’t include such language.

The goal of this aspect of the Green New Deal is to transition the economy to renewable energy. If that sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. Under the Paris Agreement, from which the United States withdrew, Americans were expected to see $2.5 trillion in lost gross domestic product (GDP), the loss of some 400,000 jobs, and an increase in energy costs between 13 and 20 percent. On top of that, the U.S. has led the world in carbon emissions reduction since withdrawing from the agreement. The difference between the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal is that the Paris Agreement, by comparison, wouldn’t have been nearly as economically destructive.

Americans have a love affair with their vehicles. But under the Green New Deal, that car you’re so proud of would be banned. Since the economy will transition away from fossil fuels, your gas-powered vehicle must be given up for an electric vehicle. Forget about the trade-in value; it’s not like the dealership can resell your old car.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey would have Congress invest heavily in high-speed rail. Again, that may sound great, but high-speed rail has proven to be nothing short of a boondoggle in the United States. Take California’s high-speed rail system. This project is years behind schedule and far more expensive than originally projecting, now estimated to cost $100 billion. Although the Green New Deal promises to ensure that the power of eminent domain doesn’t abuse, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey fail to explain how they expect to protect private property while also building costly high-speed rail lines across the country, which would require land acquisition through eminent domain on a massive scale.

International travel would, presumably, become impossible. Those occasional steak dinners you enjoy might be a thing of the past, too. Although the resolution doesn’t explicitly say this, the Green New Deal FAQs document, no joke, states that the sponsors of the resolution “aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” Cows, by the way, emit methane primarily through belching, not flatulence. Livestock represents nearly 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Another wild idea from the resolution is the goal of “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings.” The FAQs for the resolution are more straightforward. That document states that the goal is to “[u]pgrade or replace every building in U.S. for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” There are, uh, a lot of buildings in the United States. The resolution doesn’t specify which buildings would need to be upgraded or rebuilt. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “there were 5.6 million commercial buildings in the United States in 2012, comprising 87 billion square feet of floorspace.” The cost of this would be immense.

The Green New Deal resolution also includes other leftist policy priorities, such as guarantees of “high-quality health care,” “safe, affordable, and adequate housing,” and “economic security.” The resolution doesn’t explicitly state this, but the FAQs document states that the federal government will provide “economic security”  to those who are “unwilling to work.” This is socialism. If you’re completely able-bodied, but you’re too lazy to work, the producers in the economy — well, the few who are left under the Green New Deal — will pick up your tab. That’s not okay.

Finally, there’s the cost of this incoherent, ridiculous monstrosity. The Green New Deal resolution calls for heavy “investments” by the government, claiming that “World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen.” Well, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey are very wrong about the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee in May 1939, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

The FAQs document claims that the United States “invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy” during World War II. It’s true that federal spending rose dramatically between 1942 and 1945, peaking at 42.7 percent of GDP in 1944. Of course, the United States was fighting a major war at the time. Spending declined immediately after the war ended. By 1948, federal spending was 11.3 percent of the economy. Federal spending as a percentage of the economy didn’t rise above 20 percent again until 1975.

In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending will consume about 20.8 percent of GDP, or about $4.4 trillion. It appears that the sponsors of the resolution are suggesting that Congress more than double federal spending, pushing federal spending around $9 trillion to cover the cost of this unrealistic, incoherent, and absurd plan.

The Green New Deal has already drawn the support of several Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D- N.Y.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). After reading through the Green New Deal resolution and FAQs document, one has to wonder if these Democrats regret that decision.

While the Media Accuses Trump of Collusion w/Russia, He’s Fighting Russia in Venezuela

Frontpage Mag

 

Obama colluded with Venezuela’s regime, the way that he had with Putin.

Nine years before the Socialist tyranny became a nightmare of mass murder, repression and hunger, he was pressing its tyrant’s flesh.

After several days of the US and Cuba trading warm words that have hinted at a détente after a half century of hostility, Mr Obama said that he was seeking “a new beginning” with Havana.

But it was his unexpected handshake and the smiles he exchanged with Mr Chavez that caught many at the summit by surprise.

Asked what he had said to Mr Chavez, Mr Obama replied with a smile: “I said como estas”.

Hugo Chavez, the socialist president of Venezuela, told state television: “I hope this doesn’t harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I’d vote for Obama.”

Chavez, who like Obama is seeking re-election, also called the American president “a good guy,” reports Reuters.

“I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he’d vote for Chavez,” said the Venezuela leader.

It’s quite a contrast to how Chavez described Obama predecessor George W. Bush — as “the devil.”

Chavez predicted both he and Obama would win re-election, possibly leading to better American-Venezuelan relations. He said both he and Obama were battling the “extreme right” in their election battles.

“Obama’s atrocious statement on Chavez’s death” was a Washington Post headline in 2013.

While Obama had pandered to Russian clients like Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, President Trump stood up to them. And he’s doing it now.

Private military contractors who do secret missions for Russia flew into Venezuela in the past few days to beef up security for President Nicolas Maduro in the face of U.S.-backed opposition protests, according to two people close to them.

Russia, which has backed Maduro’s socialist government to the tune of billions of dollars, this week promised to stand by him after opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself president with Washington’s endorsement.

It was the latest international crisis to split the global superpowers, with the United States and Europe backing Guaido, and Russia and China urging non-interference.

Yevgeny Shabayev, leader of a local chapter of a paramilitary group of Cossacks with ties to Russian military contractors, said he had heard the number of Russian contractors in Venezuela may be about 400.

Meanwhile the Democrats are doing everything possible to undermine America’s standing in the world and our foreign policy. Moscow no doubt appreciates the assistance that Pelosi and Schumer are providing it. Much as it appreciated Obama’s assistance.

Should Robert Mueller be arrested for obstruction of justice? Under his direction, damning evidence was destroyed to protect Hillary Clinton

(Natural News)

When special counsel Robert Mueller was first appointed more than a year ago, critics pointed out that there was no justification for it — that it was all political — because there was no indication of any crime. “Collusion” with Russia, if it even had happened, is not illegal.

Mueller raised eyebrows again when he brought prosecutors on board who had blown cases in the past by inventing evidence, such as the “corruption” case against former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Critics chimed in again after Mueller hired a number of prosecutors with known connections to Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton and President Obama, several of whom actually donated to their campaigns.

Throughout his investigation into alleged nefarious behavior surrounding POTUS Trump and his 2016 campaign, Mueller has done much to warrant the criticism he has received. And now he’s under fire again for something so obviously wrong it defies belief that he’s still able to continue his investigation.

As noted by Debra Heine at PJ Media, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General could not recover text messages from the iPhones of fired FBI official Peter Strzok and his one-time paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, during their time as members of Mueller’s special counsel team because they were scrubbed.

Fox News added that the iPhones had been given to Strzok and Page by Mueller but were then cleaned by a records officer after both were dismissed from the team, according to a new report from the DoJ IG’s office.

In regards to Strzok’s phone, investigators for the IG’s office were told that it “had been reset to factory settings and was reconfigured for the new user to whom the device was issued.” The records officer for the special counsel said she had “determined it did not contain records that needed to be retained,” and as such wrote in her records log, “No substantive texts, notes or reminders.” (Related: If Dems say acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is biased, why didn’t they feel that way about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?)

Image via Right Bias

 

You can’t make this up

Quoting the report, Fox News noted further that the officer told the IG’s investigators that she did “not recall whether there were any text messages on” Strzok’s phone, though “she made an identical log entry for an iPhone she reviewed from another employee on the same day that she specifically recalled having no text messages.”

Heine writes:

In a phone call, Page told the special counsel’s office (SCO) after she left the team that she left her government-issued iPhone and laptop on a bookshelf at the office. The SCO located the laptop, but when the OIG asked for the iPhone on January 24, 2018, the SCO could not locate it.

It was finally located in early September 2018 and the OIG took custody at that time. The report states that on July 31, 2017, two weeks after Page left the special counsel, her iPhone was also wiped and restored to factory settings.

Her phone was not summarily reissued to anyone else within the agency. What’s more, no one within Mueller’s office or the Justice Management Division of the DoJ has a record of who took custody of Page’s iPhone and reset it, the report says.

“Office of the Deputy Attorney General told the OIG that the Department routinely resets mobile devices to factory settings when the device is returned from a user to enable that device to be issued to another user in the future,” the report notes.

In addition, the report says that a “technical glitch” led to a group of text messages between Strzok and Page to vanish.

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you were trying to write a Hollywood script for a political thriller. And yet somehow the American people are supposed to just swallow all of this without question.

Unfortunately, too many of us will, which is in large part why nobody has really been held accountable yet. Including Robert Mueller.

All The President’s Hacks: Media Fake News Fueled Obama’s Watergate

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

 

Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield

 

When Hillary Clinton cites the “intelligence community assessment” to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the presidential election, she’s really repeating her own lie, that her campaign created, rolled through the media and the government, which used it to spy on the Trump campaign, and then finally became an “assessment” under orders from Obama carried out by political allies like Clapper and Brennan.

The media, which once boasted of exposing Watergate, had played a key role in Obama’s Watergate.

The release of a redacted FISA warrant application exposes the fact that the spying on Carter Page, a figure associated with the Trump campaign, relied on no sources other than Democrats and media allies.

In 2016, an arm of the Clinton campaign began assembling a dossier claiming that the Trump campaign was seeking damaging information about it from the Russians. The dossier actually represented an effort by the Clinton campaign to seek damaging information from the Russians about the Trump campaign.

The man tasked with that job, a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele, then went on to accuse figures involved with the Trump campaign, of doing the very thing he had been hired to do.

One of those men was Carter Page.

Continue reading

The Deep State and Tyranny

Frontpage mag

by Bruce Thornton

The Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report released last week didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know, but merely added more damning evidence for the corruption of the FBI and its investigations over the last few years. More worthy of comment, as Andy McCarthy writes, is its refusal to use common sense and note the obvious interconnections among the various bad actors, and the bond of political bias, seasoned with careerism and arrogance, that united them.

But the problems we are confronting reflect deeper dangers than the professional corruption of some functionaries of corrupt executive agencies armed with the coercive power of the state. The true moral of the story is the dangers to freedom of centralized and concentrated power––the very dangers consensual governments, including our own, were created to minimize.

 

The issue of political bias, which the IG report scanted, has to be understood in the larger nature of the large-scale bureaucratic public institutions that comprise the Deep State. In other words, the structure and functioning of the institution itself creates a bias that selects progressive employees. The bias insidiously becomes a second nature of which they often are no more conscious than a fish is that it’s wet.

Leftist ideology from Marxism to Progressivism is particularly useful for creating such self-serving agencies. American progressivism was founded on the conceit that “technopolitics,” the notion that modernity requires specialists and experts in the “human sciences” who can most efficiently manage the state. Progressives rejected the old democratic and republican notion that virtue, practical experience, and common sense, none of which is dependent on university credentials, are adequate for citizens to govern no matter their wealth, lineage, or education.

This debate about whether men in general are capable of self-government runs throughout the whole history of political philosophy. The antidemocrats denied that the masses are capable of acquiring the knowledge required for participating in government. The champions of democracy, like the Greek philosopher Protagoras, countered that for social life itself to exist, all men must be capable of acquiring the skills of managing relationships with other people. That task always necessarily involves hierarchies of power, common sense borne of experience, and notions of fairness and justice that form the heart of politics.

Two thousand years later, James Madison in 1792 defined the nascent political parties, the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans, in the same terms. The former, Madison argues, hide their aggrandizement of power to an elite behind the ancient charge “that mankind are incapable of governing themselves,” even as the elites use government to further their own interests. The latter believe people “are capable of governing themselves” and can recognize that the opposite view is “an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man.” Thus they oppose any measure “that does not appeal to the understanding of the general interest of the community” or “is not strictly conformable to the principles, and conducive to the preservation of republican government.” All men are capable of thought, and recognize the principles of political equality and freedom, the “rights of man” that government is created to protect and preserve.

Progressives, of course, for all their talk of “equal rights” and “equality” and “democracy,” in fact have more in common with the antidemocratic tradition. Rejecting the permanence of human nature and its vulnerability to the temptations of power and its corrupting influence, they argued that the new technologies and economic institutions had created problems beyond the understanding of the average man, but also created new understandings of how to improve human nature. Now power must be centralized and concentrated, and the federal government expanded with new agencies and offices staffed with credentialed technocrats who understand the “new sciences” of human nature and society, and so can create policies and rules that better serve the citizens now shrunk into wards of government agencies.

Having pursued these aims for over a century, progressives have midwifed the bloated Leviathan that now encroaches into our lives, communities, and businesses. The costs to our freedom and autonomy, as well as the weakening of the Constitutional order, are obvious. But the bureaucratic structure of government agencies leaves them vulnerable to the long-documented pathologies of bureaucracies equally malign to the common good.

Continue reading

Hit Gas, Not Brakes, On Spygate

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/trump-spygate.jpg?w=637&h=636

Image via reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com

 

The American Spectator

George Neumayr

“I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping,” Jon Favreau, one of Obama’s speechwriters, tweeted out in 2017. Members of the media, loath to let anything complicate their anti-Trump propaganda, chided him for this unhelpful slip and he quickly withdrew it, saying that he deferred to James Clapper’s denial of any wiretaps. But Favreau had already given himself away. In retrospect, the tweet is even more telling and confirms that knowledge of the spying was widespread at Obama’s White House. If a White House speechwriter far from the action knew about warrants on Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn, who didn’t?

From the beginning of this farce, the Obama administration has shifted back and forth between taking pride in the spying and denying its existence. We are back in the denial phase. But at the height of the hysteria after Trump’s election and inauguration, members of the Obama administration wanted everyone to know they had been spying on Trump and feared that he would destroy their “intelligence.” They leaked to the New York Times in March 2017 that they had “scrambled” to preserve the supposed damning results of their spying, in order to leave a “clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.”

By “intelligence,” they meant their own feverishly partisan sifting through negligible, half-cocked leads. Had there been any substance to their “intelligence,” they would have leaked it out. Having failed, they still thought they deserved an A for effort. They also saw the future political benefits of sliming Trump with innuendo, striking a posture that can be summed up as: Trust us, you guys, what we have found is really bad, but we can’t tell you yet. They couldn’t tell us because they had nothing to tell, but they needed to leave the impression of yet-to-be-disclosed dirt in order to trigger the Mueller investigation, and thanks to the recusal of Jeff Sessions they pulled it off.

Continue reading

Law Firm Behind Dossier Has Another Lawyer Resigning Ahead Of IG Report

Bauer on far right.

 

 

Founders Code

by

 

Tag team or the whole firm?

So, we know Perkin Coie was the law firm that was hired by Hillary Clinton to pay for the work done on the Trump dossier. The lawyer pinpointed was Marc Elias. Letter of evidence is here. But could there have been another lawyer in the operation, once such Bob Bauer?

Bauer was formerly the top White House lawyer under the Obama administration. His wife is Anita Dunn who was the White House Communications Director at the same time. She is known for giving a speech where she declared her admiration for Mao Zedong. What a pair eh? Anita by the way is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker, a strategic communications firm in DC. Just so you know, SKDKnickerbocker only represents Democrats including Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Fluke. Their favorite issues such as Center for Reproductive Rights, the Obama Presidential Library.

Okay, so meanwhile, her husband, Bob has resigned from Perkins Coie to continue teaching at NYU. He has been a the law firm for 40 years. Bauer served as counsel to the Senate minority leader during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial of 1999, and took leave from the firm to work as Obama’s White House counsel from 2010 through July 2011.

Bob Bauer is also the legal counsel for the Obama Foundation and the Biden Foundation as well as the Democratic National Committee, where Marc Elias served as chair. Elias was the lead counsel of record for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Bauer remains in full support of James Comey and his loyalty characteristics. In part from Bauer’s article on Comey is:

Continue reading