Published on Mar 1, 2019
CALIFORNIANS CAN’T NAME THE 45TH PRESIDENT
Proof government education has completely failed millions of Americans
FEBRUARY 25, 2019
Joined by Borderline Bar shooting survivors Alex Chatoff and Alyssa Shandra, Kaitlin Bennett asked Californians on Venice Beach if they could name the 45th President.
Their answers ranged from Obama, to Clinton and even George Washington.
Study: Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Would Cost Over $600,000 Per Household in the United States
February 25, 2019
The Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation, according to a new study that found it would cost up to $94 trillion dollars to implement.
A study from the American Action Forum found that, in a conservative estimate, it would cost over $600,000 per household over a ten year period.
The study explains that the “heart of the GND is an effort to curb carbon emissions and thus to slow climate change, but the package contains a wide set of other policy proposals that are not directly linked to climate policy: a job guarantee, food and housing security, and a variety of social justice initiatives.”
Since much of the GND is extremely vague, the study focused on the proposals for:
- A 10-year transition to an exclusively low-carbon energy electricity grid;
- Enough high-speed rail transit available that air travel becomes unnecessary;
- Guaranteeing union jobs with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
- Universal health care;
- Guaranteed housing for every American; and
- Food security for every person in the United States.
The Free Beacon reports that the American Action Forum calculated guaranteed green housing would cost between $1.6 trillion and $4.2 trillion; a federal jobs guarantee between $6.8 trillion and $44.6 trillion; a net zero emissions transportation system between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion; a low-carbon electricity grid for $5.4 trillion; and “food security” for $1.5 billion.
“The American Action Forum’s analysis shows that the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation,” Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, told the Free Beacon.
“On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill,” he said. “The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That’s no deal.”
Barrasso’s office estimates it would also skyrocket electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.
Overall, the study found that the burden to taxpayers would be roughly $361,010 and $653,010 for each American household over 10 years.
‘I’m the boss’: Ocasio-Cortez slams climate plan critics, unleashes internet scorn
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has, once again, raised the ire of many online. This time the freshman congresswoman is being accused of arrogance for her dismissal of critics of the Green New Deal climate initiative she is spearheading.
The ambitious climate plan has attracted numerous detractors with many saying it is unrealistic and unachievable. Speaking at a Girls Who Code event in New York on Friday the 29-year-old hit back at those who shot down the deal, saying, until they come up with a plan of their own, she’s in charge.
“Like I just introduced Green New Deal two weeks ago and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried,” she said. “So people are like ‘oh it’s unrealistic, oh it’s vague, oh it doesn’t address this little, minute thing.’ And I’m like ‘you try! You do it. Cause you’re not. Cause you’re not.’”
Video footage of the remarks shows they sparked a gushing response in the room. Online, however, it has been a different story with those opposed to Ocasio-Cortez’s political views seizing the opportunity to attack the left wing politician.
Many accused the Democrat of being “entitled” and labelled her “arrogant” for describing herself as “the boss” only a few months into her congressional career.
Apparently undeterred by the backlash Ocasio-Cortez doubled down on her stance on Twitter, accusing critics of “shouting from the cheap seats.”
That message sparked a spate of responses containing graphs which appeared to show declining carbon dioxide emissions.
Warren, Harris Add Reparations to 2020 Campaign Platforms
By
All Democrats have to do is not be insane. And they can’t do it.
In an effort to pander to black voters, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), both presidential candidates, said they will back reparations for black Americans as part of their campaign platforms.
“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris reportedly said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”
That statement followed a radio interview in which she explicitly agreed with the host when that “government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination.”
Warren echoed a similar sentiment.
“Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported,” The New York Times said.
The report said that Warren “declined to giver further details” about her reparations plan.
These are the same candidates that also support a “Green New Deal,” which will also cost trillions of dollars at the expense of the American taxpayer.
But there are more questions surrounding reparations than exactly how much they would cost.
Mainly, who would pay them?
Would reparations be paid only by white people who have slave-owning lineages, like Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia? Would I, as an Arab American whose family immigrated to the United States through Ellis Island, be required to pay for something in which my ancestors had no part?
Likewise, who exactly would receive them?
Would all blacks receive some form of reparations, regardless of whether their ancestors were slaves? What if someone is half black? Or a quarter? Is that person owed a fraction of the reparations of a fully black American?
And what about poor white people? There are millions of whites who “do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” as Harris argued. Will they be buried more deeply – will they have to become poorer – simply to atone for the color of their skin? Is that justice?
Most importantly, would reparations help repair the cultural strife in this country, which is mostly promulgated by the mainstream press for ratings and Democrat politicians for votes? Wouldn’t the Harris/Warren plan cause more strife and racial tension?
Do these loons really believe that – in a perfect world – reparations would be paid and everyone would simply shake hands, walk away, and that the country will be more united than it has ever been?
These are practical questions that remained unanswered by politicians who are race-baiting for votes.
Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week
By Evan Perez, Laura Jarrett and Katelyn Polantz,
Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of special counsel Robert Mueller‘s Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller’s confidential report, according to people familiar with the plans.
–
The preparations are the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation.
–
The precise timing of the announcement is subject to change.
The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear. Also unclear is how long it will take Justice officials to prepare what will be submitted to lawmakers.
But with President Donald Trump soon to travel overseas for a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Justice officials are mindful of not interfering with the White House’s diplomatic efforts, which could impact the timing.
The Justice Department and the special counsel’s office declined to comment.
Barr has said that he wants to be as “transparent” as possible with Congress and the public, “consistent with the rules and the law.”
–
Under the special counsel regulations, Mueller must submit a “confidential” report to the attorney general at the conclusion of his work, but the rules don’t require it to be shared with Congress, or by extension, the public. And, as Barr has made clear, the Justice Department generally guards against publicizing “derogatory” information about uncharged individuals.
As a result, one of the most pressing questions Barr will face in the coming weeks is the extent to which Mueller’s findings should be disclosed to Congress.
The regulations require Mueller to explain in his report all decisions to prosecute or not prosecute matters under scrutiny. Barr would also need to inform Congress if the Justice Department prevented the special counsel team from pursuing any investigative steps.
–
Trump said Wednesday that it’s “totally up to Bill Barr” as to whether Mueller’s report comes out while he is overseas in Vietnam next week.
–
“That’ll be totally up to the new attorney general. He’s a tremendous man, a tremendous person, who really respects this country and respects the Justice Department, so that’ll be totally up to him,” Trump told reporters in the White House.
Speculation about the end of the probe has been running rampant in Washington. NBC News reported recently the probe would be done by mid-February.
Life after Mueller
While the Mueller investigation may soon come to a close, there continue to be court cases that will be handled by other federal prosecutors.
–
In addition, Mueller has referred certain matters that fell outside the scope of the Russia probe to other US Attorneys to pursue. Some of those investigations have already been revealed, including the investigation in New York into former Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen. That probe has spawned subsequent federal investigations in New York into the Trump Organization and the Trump Inaugural Committee. It is possible the special counsel’s team has referred other matters that have not yet come to light.
–
For close watchers of the federal courthouse and the Mueller team, small changes have added up in recent weeks.
–
On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week, special counsel’s office employees carried boxes and pushed a cart full of files out of their office — an unusual move that could foreshadow a hand-off of legal work.
–
At the same time, the Mueller prosecutors’ wo
-rkload appears to be dwindling. Four of Mueller’s 17 prosecutors have ended their tenures with the office, with most returning to other roles in the Justice Department.
And the grand jury that Mueller’s prosecutors used to return indictments of longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and several Russians hasn’t apparently convened since January 24 the day it approved the criminal charges against Stone.
–
Even with these signs of a wrap up, the DC US Attorney’s office has stepped in to work on cases that may continue longer than Mueller is the special counsel.
That office has joined onto some of the Mueller’s team’s casework, including the cases against Stone, a Russian social media propaganda conspiracy, and in an ongoing foreign government-owned company’s fight against a grand jury subpoena.
–
Mueller and his prosecutors are still reporting to work as frequently as ever — with some even coming in on recent snow days and Presidents’ Day. But also visiting them more often than ever before are the prosecutors from the DC US Attorney’s Office and others in the Justice Department who’ve worked on the Mueller cases.
–
In one court case, against Concord Management for its alleged support for the social media conspiracy prosecutors told a judge in January there’s still a related “matter occurring before the grand jury.”
–
In other cases, including Manafort’s, the Mueller team has made heavy redactions to its recent public court filings, including to protect pending investigations and people who haven’t been charged with crimes.
Roseanne Barr calls AOC ‘bug-eyed Farrakhan loving b***h’ in expletive laden YouTube rant (VIDEO)
Scandal-prone former sitcom star Roseanne Barr let loose against leftist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her ‘green new deal’ with a torrent of obscenities that would impress Gordon Ramsay.
In a video uploaded last weekend entitled “Bug eyed b***hes”, the actress showcased her signature no-holds barred approach to politics. The 2-minute video is a dizzying jaunt between a variety of hot button issues including the environment, immigration and Israel.
While unable to recall Ocasio-Cortez’s name, Barr had a lot of opinions to share about the “Farrakhan loving b***h” who “looks like a realtor” and her “green new deal” in particular.
In between insults and vulgarity, Roseanne criticized the freshman congresswoman’s plan to counter climate change, claiming it would put hundreds of people out of work and “decimate communities.”
Barr then declared that such an outcome was a natural result of “socialism,” calling the economic system a “fake f***ing con” and “ponzi scheme.” Ocasio-Cortez is a proponent of ‘democratic socialism’ like presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.
Roseanne also offered her outlook on immigration, claiming Democrats were motivated to bring in foreigners because “no Americans are going to vote for their ass anymore.”
The star’s indelicate mode of expression has backfired several times throughout her career. Barr even had a reboot of her signature sitcom pulled by ABC after she posted a racist tweet about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
FLASHBACK: BERNIE SANDERS CALLS FOOD LINES A “GOOD THING”
Socialist candidate praises food rationing
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Footage of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling food lines a “good thing” has resurfaced after he announced his run for president in 2020.
The footage allegedly takes place in the 1980s and shows Sanders answering a question about bread lines in Nicaragua due to the food shortages triggered by a local socialist party called Sandinistas.
“You know, it’s funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food,” he said. “That’s a good thing.”
“In other countries, people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”
The resurfaced footage of Sanders praising an iconic symptom of a failed state comes on the heels of President Trump pinning Venezuela’s collapse to its socialist policies.
“…But the American people will reject an agenda of sky-high rates, government-run health care and coddling dictators like those in Venezuela,” reads a Trump statement. “Only President Trump will keep America free, prosperous and safe.”
Interestingly, Sanders likend his 2020 campaign to a revolution in an email he sent to his supporters that also also called Trump the most dangerous president in modern American history.
“Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution,” said Sanders. “Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.”
Bernie Sanders Slams Howard Schultz For Third Party Bid. There’s Just One Problem.
by Ashe Schow
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is running for president again, in case anyone is surprised. The man who calls himself an Independent or a Socialist, but who caucuses with the Democrats, is now unhappy with third-party candidates.
Sanders announced his presidential run Tuesday morning. He then appeared on “CBS This Morning” to discuss, according to Real Clear Politics. Sanders was asked about former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s third-party bid, a question that clearly irritated the Vermont senator. He claimed the media was only covering Schultz because “he’s a billionaire.”
“There are a lot of people I know personally who work hard for a living and make 40 or 50,000 dollars a year who know a lot more about politics, than with all due respect does Mr. Schultz. But because we have a corrupt system, anybody who is a billionaire and can throw a lot of TV ads around on television suddenly becomes very, very credible,” Sanders aid.
As if Sanders knows what Schultz knows about politics.
“So, Mr. Schultz, what is he blackmailing the Democratic Party? If you don’t nominate Bernie Sanders, he’s not going to run? Well, I don’t think we should succumb to that kind of blackmail,” Sanders added.
Logan Dobson, who will soon be the managing director for Targeted Victory and a political reporter for the Huffington Post, had a very poignant question for Sanders after his response to the Schultz questions.
“idk Bernie, were you blackmailing the Democratic Party when you ran as a third-party independent in 1972, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1986, 1988… ?” Dobson tweeted.
Indeed, Sanders has run as a third-party candidate for decades. He began his foray into elected politics by running as a member of the Liberty Union Party. He ran as a third-party candidate for U.S. senate and the Vermont governorship in 1972. He ran again as a Liberty Union candidate for the U.S. senate in 1974, and again for governor in 1976, according to Roll Call. Sanders ran against the incumbent Democrat mayor of Burlington, VT, and won, serving as mayor for eight years. In 1986, he ran as an Independent candidate for Vermont governor. In 1988, he ran as an Independent for the U.S. House of Representatives. He won in 1990 and served in the House until 2007. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006.
He only started running for the Democrat nomination during his 2016 presidential bid and now for his 2020 bid because he has a better chance of getting the nomination (unless the Democrat National Committee rigs the primaries again for their preferred candidate) and winning the presidency than he would if he ran as a third-party candidate.
Perhaps Sanders only thinks third-party candidates are bad when they run for president (a press inquiry to the Sanders campaign did not receive an immediate response). There is definitely a fear on the Left that Schultz could undermine an attempt to overthrow Trump as a third-party candidate that could become another Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
As a reminder, President Donald Trump ran as a third-party candidate in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party.
Tom's Blog 