UNEQUIVOCALLY AND ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT – OBAMA KNEW ABOUT SPYING AND WAS IN ON IT

We now know without a doubt the former President Barack Obama was in on the Deep State’s actions to spy on President Trump and entrap his team members.  We don’t know how much spying and attempts of entrapment went on, but we do know Obama was aware of it all.

 

The Gateway Pundit

Joe Hoft

Democrats and Deep State dirty cops have claimed for months that there was no spying on the Trump campaign.  Now we know without a doubt that there was not only spying, but the dirty cops in the Deep State attempted to entrap Trump team members through this spying.  We also know without a doubt that Obama was in on it.

We know Obama was in on it based on numerous pieces of information. 

For starters we know that Obama spied on numerous people for years while he was President.  Obama took the US Intelligence community and corrupted it.  He used the US intelligence apparatus to spy on anyone and everyone and especially his enemies.  We put a list of the many individuals and entities Obama spied on that we know of here.

We also know that Hillary’s long lost emails were found in the White House.  This was reported by Judicial Watch in April 2019 –

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that Bill Priestap, former Assistant Director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division admitted, in writing and under oath, that the FBI found Hillary Clinton’s emails in the Obama White House — specifically the Executive Office of the President!

The FBI also admitted that almost 49,000 Hillary Clinton emails were reviewed as a result of a search warrant for emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

We know that Susan Rice, Obama’s former National Security Advisor, left a email on the last day that she and Obama were in office that confirms Obama was in on it.  Senators Grassley and Graham sent a letter to Rice asking about this email –

Ambassador Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.  In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote:

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’.  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

Rice and Obama must have felt guilty about their crimes because they sent this email in an attempt to cover up their illegal actions.  Unfortunately, nobody is buying it.
We also know that Obama, in essence, told incoming President-elect Trump in the Oval office that he was involved in the Deep State coup.  Obama did this inadvertently by advising Trump not to hire General Michael Flynn.

President Obama warned Donald Trump against hiring Michael Flynn as national security adviser in the days after the 2016 election, according to three former Obama administration officials.

The warning came during an Oval Office meeting between Obama and Trump after the Republican’s victory. Flynn had been fired by the Obama administration as the head of the military’s intelligence branch.

This was plastered all over the media in May 2017 a few days before the Mueller Special Investigation was put into place by Rod Rosenstein.  Obama had to know about the coup in order to make this recommendation to Trump months earlier but the media only thought about using this to discredit both Trump and Flynn.  Now its coming back to haunt Obama.

In March 2019 Deep State coup participant James Clapper said to CNN’s Anderson Cooper –

One point I’d like to make, Anderson, that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s [Trump’s] criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.

President Obama is responsible for that, and it was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place. I think it’s an important point when it comes to critiquing President Obama.

 

Finally, if Clapper hasn’t said enough, former US Attorney Joe DiGenova was on the radio yesterday and he said point blank says that Obama knew about it all –

Obama was in on it.  It was a sham.  The Mueller investigation was a sham.  Obama spied on the opposition party.

Electoral College scheme: Grounds for civil war?

Renew AmericaBy Alan Keyes

 

Though all members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it’s hard to believe that the Democrats among them have any intention of honoring that oath. In their bid to establish dictatorial, totalitarian, socialist rule in the United States, Democrats all over the country are pushing a plainly anti-constitutional scheme to erase the constitutional method for electing the president of the United States. Before considering their scheme, however, we need to remember why the people of the founding generation rejected the idea of electing the president by means of a national plebiscite, in which the people of the entire nation would vote, en masse, to decide the election.

 


People who in one form or another favor schemes for socialist dictatorship push the notion that “democracy” demands simple one-man, one-vote majority rule, in which the mass of the people divides against itself to make choices for the whole. But the leading lights of America’s founding generation rejected this approach in light of the fact that schemes for democratic government based on this approach have invariably failed. Within one or two generations, they declined through the cycle by which democracy declines toward tyranny through the machination of ambitious demagogues.

Demagogic tyranny, by encouraging the machinations of conspiratorial oligarchic cliques, declines toward the tyranny of one or another of the cliques, supplanting, neglecting and usurping democratic means. Oligarchs’ warlike competition impels them to rely more and more openly on violence, and thence on organized military forces. The authoritarian character of their strategic competition shifts power toward the force organized and directed by the most effective military genius. The conspiratorial rule of oligarchs is thus supplanted by the imperial military rule of the force inspired by that genius, military rule that uses it to rule over oligarchs and the people, as a whole.

This cycle of tyrannical regimes has mostly dominated the experience of humanity, punctuated by occasion intervals in which some balance of opposing powers enforces mutual respect for some semblance of right and justice informed by the voice of reason and goodwill. During the colonial period, however, the good people of the United States were encouraged by the potential for self-government discovered by their experiments in Christian polity. Their success encouraged them to believe that people inspired by faith to accept the wholesome self-discipline that Christianity demands of individuals could establish and maintain a form of government in which the occasional respite from the cycle of governments empowered by force and fear could be made permanent. They could transform the accidental balance of powerful forces into a permanent equilibrium of self-disciplined interests.

Instead of opposing forces temporarily stymied by their mutual opposition, that equilibrium would be sustained by the goodwill of individuals, self-consciously avowed to respect a common standard of God-endowed right and justice. That standard would, in turn, inform the measures (laws) they agreed upon to maintain and support their relations with one another. Moreover, as the habit and good fruits of that deliberate cooperation confirmed its worth, these people of goodwill would continually perfect the union born of their common sense of right and justice.

This vision of government of, by, and for the good people of the United States is a far cry from the forced notion of democratic dictatorship, based on the power of the masses. This individual-minded vision assumes that people are just that – human beings, not lumps of stone or clay. It assumes that they are motivated, as individuals, by a decent sense of right and wrong. It assumes that they have a conscience that impels them to see beyond the passions of the moment, in order to appreciate the good of the whole they comprise together, and from which they draw mutually supportive aid and good fruits. Above all, it assumes the activity of individuals, informed by a common sense of God-endowed right, who act in concert deliberately, not in mindless response to the pricks and goad of fear, grievance, or prideful passion.

With this in mind, consider the method of electing the president of the United States known to our history as the “Electoral College.” It involves voting by the whole people of the United States. But in the first place, that whole is divided into individual states. In the individual states, it is divided into individual districts. And in the individual districts, it focuses on the selection of individuals who best represent the whole people of each district.

The resultant vote is national in scope. But in substance, it reflects the diverse judgments of an array of districts. The individuals in those districts are not called to choose for the whole nation. They are called to choose, from among individuals living in their own area and general circumstances, someone who will represent their area’s overall spirit, mind, and circumstances, and will take them into account when making a judgment about the whole nation. But it must also be someone they trust to make that judgment with the care and concern they themselves have for the nation’s welfare.

Because the electors are chosen state by state, each state contributes to the outcome. Because their number reflects the total representation of the state in the national legislature, each state contributes to the result according to its weight in the national councils. The balance of diverse areas, interests and concerns is reflected in the process. It is not just a matter of numbers, but of distribution. No states are neglected, and each is given its due. Even as we describe the process, the description brings to mind the equilibrium the Constitution was crafted to maintain.

Now consider what the Democrats propose to do. They want a vote by the masses in each state. They then want all the states’ electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins a majority of votes nationwide. This would, in some cases, nullify the votes of the people of the state, imposing the national result on them regardless of their preference. Though the liars promoting it claim that this would count every vote, it actually means this: In states that have seceded from the Constitution, if the Democratic presidential candidate wins the national vote, all the states’ electoral votes will go to the Democrat, regardless of how the people of each state or district voted. Voters in non-Democratic districts will send no electors forward to cast their votes according to their preference. Their votes will, therefore, count for nothing, contrary to the Constitution’s intention.

Because the Democratic Party is now openly committed to the imposition of socialist, totalitarian dictatorship, they have no use for the equilibrium of interests the Constitution was framed to maintain. They want domination to result from the force of democratic power, not from a balanced account of the people’s goodwill. The result will reignite the cycle of tyrannical regimes the U.S. Constitution has helped the United States to avoid. It will put us on the path of perpetual tyranny, alternating with periods of bloody conflict, characteristic of human history, and of the totalitarian dictatorships that have blasted the prospects of all the nations socialists have conquered.

Fortunately, the result they aim to achieve cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment. The states have no lawmaking power to alter the authority of electors chosen by the people. States can regulate the manner of choosing the electors, but they cannot dictate the terms of their vote, as if the electors themselves do not exist. Such legislation is not a law; it is an act of rebellion against the duly constituted government of the United States. If they pretend to claim power as a result of this anti-constitutional scheme, their rebellion will properly be the signal for civil war.

© Alan Keyes

Open Letter to Congress

Open Letter to Congress

CFP

By

 

It’s astonishing to watch members of Congress go on live television and pretend they don’t know how the Russian Delusion happened. A Republican congressman went on Fox and said, “we are going to look into what happened and look for ways to prevent it from happening again.” Translation: We are going to use this to pass more tyrannical laws that restrict and oppress the people. For the record, Congress, you enabled the scam by creating an unconstitutional secret court, a Star Chamber, to spy on American citizens. Remember FISA, congressman?

FISA court enabled the Obama administration to violate the Constitutional rights of everyone involved in the Trump campaign

As a matter of fact, a FISA court enabled the Obama administration to violate the Constitutional rights of everyone involved in the Trump campaign including the President, but there’s not one member of Congress, other than Rand Paul, who has acknowledged that fact. That begs the question: Is Congress so stupid that they can’t figure out how it happened, or is it that Congress doesn’t really want to prevent it from happening again? Either way, Congress has a reputation for side stepping issues, kicking the can down the road and creating new problems.

Moreover, Congress has a long standing reputation, well deserved I might add, for being a bunch of self serving politicians. The are many reasons why Americans think you are self serving politicians, and it goes all the way back to 1912 when Congressional Democrats sold America out to foreign bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Congress not only turned America into a debtor nation, they put the American people on the hook for the debt—without the people’s consent.

Furthermore, Congress not only gave the farm away to foreign banksters they farmed out their constitutional responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats who run federal agencies that Congress created for that purpose. Congress created an alphabet soup of federal agencies run by unelected bureaucrats that have the power to make laws under the guise of rules and regulations. Congress also created the Department of Education that turned U.S. schools and universities into indoctrination centers that turn out a steady stream of socialist morons that think the electoral college is a university.

On top of that, Congress gave their Constitutional duty to regulate foreign trade and commerce to foreign bureaucrats under the guise of trade agreements. Talk about sell outs!

Republicans had a chance to restore faith in the Republican party by repealing Obamacare

Additionally, another Republican congressman went on Fox and said, “the American people don’t trust government anymore, and we have to do what we can to restore faith in government.” Hey congressman, try listening to the people who elected you and keeping your promises. Republicans had a chance to restore faith in the Republican party by repealing Obamacare. Remember Obamacare, Congressman, that you promised to repeal? We are still waiting for you to fulfill that promise. We don’t want another socialist replacement for Obamacare, we want it repealed, period.

To put it into perspective, the socialist Affordable Care Act caused the cost of health insurance to become UN-affordable for most Americans, but Congress didn’t share in the inflated costs because they voted themselves a Rolls Royce heathcare plan at the public’s expense. And even though Obamacare is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court, charged with protecting and preserving the Constitution, found a way around it. What’s irritating about it is that the majority of Americans were opposed to Obamacare, but we had no voice in the matter.

Furthermore, Congress has proven, time and time again, that the people do not have a voice in government. Congress passes tyrannical legislation like the phony Patriot Act, reinstated as the phony Freedom Act, that violates our constitutional rights, but we have no way to redress these wrongs, no voice speaking on our behalf, although that’s what Congress is suppose to be – our voice not our oppressors. We don’t have faith in government because we have to accept anything Congress, bureaucrats and courts throw at us, whether it’s constitutional or not.

Speaking of throwing things at us, Congress occasionally throws some scraps at us. The last Social Security raise is a good example of that. An elderly widow, who gets $960 a month, was excited when she heard that a generous Congress approved a 2.8 percent increase in her monthly allowance. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that 2.8 percent of her monthly government allowance wouldn’t buy much. But that’s how socialism works. The government decides how much the people get to live on as well as the quality of healthcare they get.

 

Congress gives away billions of dollars to foreign governments each year

Hey Congress, I know that law school graduates aren’t required to be proficient in math, but 2.8 percent of nothing is still nothing no matter how you figure it. The cost of living raises you approve isn’t enough to cover the inflation of 20 years ago. Generous? I don’t think so. You are only generous with other people’s money if there’s something in it for you.

Furthermore, Congress gives away billions of dollars to foreign governments each year, but giving a decent social security raise is too costly for Congress to consider. There’s just nothing in it for Congress, and it might cut into the billions of dollars Congress gives to oppressive governments, that people are fleeing from. It might also take away from the trillions of dollars that Congress wastes each year on government contracts to their friends, family and associates. And Congress wonders why we call them self serving politicians.

To sum it up, Congress enabled the Russian Delusion scam by passing unconstitutional legislation like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that circumvents the Constitution, and by creating an overblown federal bureaucracy where unelected bureaucrats have the power to make laws and pull off political scams like the Russian Delusion. In a nutshell, all the problems that we face today were created and facilitated by Congress.

Finally, if Congress is really serious about preventing another Russian Delusion and restoring faith in government, they will start by repealing FISA and all the other unconstitutional and oppressive legislation they passed. They will also start dismantling the useless federal bureaucracies they created, including the Department of Education. Unless Congress does all that, they are not fooling anyone except themselves and morons who voted for the likes of Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Door-to-door gun confiscations begin in New Zealand; one gun owner already dead, with thousands more targeted by armed government thugs

DC Dirty Laundry

JD Heyes

(Natural News) If you want to know what tyranny looks like in a “democracy,” turn your gaze towards New Zealand, where liberal tolerance and acceptance has been replaced by anti-gun zealotry and authoritarianism, thanks to a single act of violence by a man who wasn’t even born on the island.

Following Brenton Tarrant’s terrorist attack on a pair of mosques earlier this month, the New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, and her government wasted no time in declaring that an entire class of firearms that were previously legal to own were suddenly illegal to own.

“Assault” weapons of the type used by Tarrant during his attack have no place in a civil society, you see, even if 99.999 percent of them are owned by law-abiding people and used responsibly.

 

As such, they must all be confiscated because getting rid of them will also stop future acts of violence and terrorism. Or so New Zealanders have been told.

Continue reading

So Obama knew all along about deep state’s bid to Get Trump…

American Thinker

By Monica Showalter

Has President Obama finally been caught in the act? Was he in on the FBI’s FISA abuse all along?

Townhall editor Katie Pavlich has dug up something pretty interesting from the trove of newly released emails from the ultra-chatty FBI officials Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe, noted earlier here. She writes:

Next, while Page and McCabe are refusing to clarify, it appears the Obama White House may have been directly briefed on the matter.

She cites this news report from Fox News as the indicator:

On Oct. 14, 2016, Page again wrote to McCabe, this time concerning a meeting with the White House.

“Just called,” Page said to McCabe. “Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there, and WH wants DOJ to host.  So we are setting that up now.  … We will very much need to get Cohen’s view before we meet with her.  Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case.” (“Cohen” is likely then-Deputy CIA Director David Cohen.)

McCabe responded within the hour: “Thanks. I will reach out to David.” On Oct. 19, Page wrote to McCabe that the “meeting with WH counsel is finally set up.”

Neither Lisa Page nor McCabe responded to Fox News’ inquiries as to whether the meeting was designed to brief the White House on the FISA application or some other matter.

Seems like the Fox News question was pro forma. Could such a meeting, a month before the election, back when Hillary Clinton was projected to win, have been about anything else? Would these deep-staters, lining up with their plot to frame Donald Trump, really have lined up as a group to tell the White House Counsel all about their FISA abuse during those electric times and then asked the man to keep the information away from the president? Would the White House counsel have taken in such a meeting and then kept the news to himself, despite his job description? Would Obama have been incurious about such an unprecented meeting?

Color me skeptical.

It very much looks like Obama was in on the plot all along, getting his briefings about it and smiling to himself. And as GatewayPundit has speculated, it certainly would have made sense from Obama’s point of view:

What was Obama’s motive? Simple, he knew if he did that for Hillary, he’d own the next President of the United States, and could blackmail her with the truth till the end of time. It literally would have given him a 3rd and 4th term.

Which is pretty creepy, but also perfectly believable.

Obama, as it happens, has a certain style of governance that is above all characterized by meddling and interference. Here are a few examples from Obama’s post-presidency that I wrote about a few days ago – Obama’s little minions trying to interfere in the Jussie Smollett case, interfering for sure in the Roseanne Barr firing, and maybe having some involvement in the elitist college admissions scandal. They interfere like crazy because they are accustomed to interfering, sticking their fingers in every pie if it benefits them politically. Would Obama have benefited politically from some FISA abuse to spy on Trump and his advisors? Darn tootin’ he would.

Which way down on the horizon raises some questions about whether there should be legal consequences for the illegal activity. If we don’t want to see more of it from Democratic leaders, maybe there has to be.

Congressional Democrat spills the beans, says “gun confiscation” is the ultimate goal

DC Clothesline

(Natural News) Shall not infringe. Shall not infringe. Shall not infringe. How many times do the gun-grabbing Democrats in Congress need to hear these three simple words before they get it through their thick skulls that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects and guarantees Americans’ God-given right to bear arms, is non-negotiable?

Apparently a few more times, as House Democrats are busy scheming up legislation that would make it much more difficult for the people of this country to rightfully buy, sell, and possess firearms. And their ultimate end game, as openly admitted by California Democrat Mike Thompson during a recent press conference, is to eventually confiscate everybody’s guns.

Responding to critics who say that the two Democratic House bills currently being proposed to curtail Americans’ Second Amendment rights would have done nothing to prevent past gun violence tragedies, Rep. Thompson agreed, stating further that the only way to end gun violence is to scrap the Second Amendment entirely.

“As far as anybody who says, ‘Well, this bill wouldn’t have solved this incident,’ the only thing that will solve every one is to do away with guns,” Rep. Thompson is quoted as saying. “So are you telling me that the critics of my bill want to do away with all guns?” he then asked, rhetorically.

For more news about how Leftists want to eliminate the Second Amendment and take everybody’s guns, be sure to check out SecondAmendment.news and Guns.news.

It couldn’t be clearer: Leftists are planning to eventually take everybody’s guns by first starting with “reasonable gun control”

Continue reading

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.