OCASIO-CORTEZ: REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ‘SCARED’ OF US ‘BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW POWERFUL’ WE ARE

Ocasio-Cortez: Republican Party Is ‘Scared’ of Us ‘Because They Know How Powerful’ We Are

“They know how powerful we are more than sometimes our own – frankly I think – our own party does.”

Breitbart – SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

The far-left members of the “Squad” – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) – participated in an NAACP forum Wednesday evening and declared that members of the Republican Party are “scared” of them “because they know how powerful” they are.

Ocasio-Cortez talked about her background as a waitress and told the moderator, Angela Rye, that she does not “shy away” from her background of working in restaurants because it prepared her for her current job as a congresswoman.

“Nothing will give you the ferocity of advocacy like having that kind of experience,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“No one can tell me about things like sexual harassment. No one can tell me things like working for tips on a wage that is less than the minimum wage. No one can tell me about taking the subway at 3 o’clock in the morning home from a night shift,” she said, claiming that “no one else has those experiences on the other side of the aisle.”

“Very few people have those experiences, and by the way, when they do, like John Boehner, they’re lauded for it. They’re like, ‘That’s a guy I could have a beer with,’ but with me, it’s like, so–” she continued with a gesture.

The freshman lawmaker added that the Republican Party is “scared” of the “Squad.”

“It’s because they’re scared because sometimes I think that the Republican Party recognizes our power more than we do sometimes,” she said.

Read more

Climate Endgame: ‘Curb Population Growth’ to Save the Beach Houses Bernie: America Should Do More to Export Abortion

Screen Shot 2019-09-05 at 10.58.41 AM

by Hannah Bleau

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNN’s climate change town hall attendees Wednesday night that he is willing to talk about population control, suggesting that abortion is key to addressing the climate crisis.

“Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years,” an attendee told Sanders, adding that the planet cannot sustain such growth.

“I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians but it’s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact,” the attendee continued.

“Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?” she asked.

“The answer is yes,” Sanders said, arguing that population control – in the form of abortion and birth control, specifically – is something he “very, very strongly” supports.

“The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions,” Sanders said.

“And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are – that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control is totally absurd,” he continued.

“So I think especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity to birth control to control the number of kids they have is something I very, very strongly support,” he added.

 

(GLOBALIST AT WORK) – Mitt Romney: Putin, Kim Deserve ‘Censure,’ Not ‘Flattery’

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 14: Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) walks through the U.S. Capitol prior to the Senate voting to overturn the President's national emergency border declaration, at the U.S. Capitol on March 14, 2019 in Washington, DC. 12 Republicans joined Democrats in voting against President Trumps emergency declaration. (Photo …

By Joshua Caplan

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) on Monday took a veiled swipe at President Donald Trump’s diplomatic approach to Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, arguing they “deserve a censure rather than flattery,” reports the Salt Lake Tribune.

Romney, an outspoken critic of the administration, jabbed the president without naming him in a prepared speech at an event held by the Sutherland Institute, a right-of-center think tank based in Salt Lake City.

“I think demonstrating personal character is one of the most important responsibilities of a leader of the land,” the Utah Republican continued. In an attempt to denuclearize a belligerent North Korea, President Trump has participated in two summits with Kim and exchanged several letters. The president also met with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, in a bid to repair ties left in tatters by the Obama administration.

Romney, who was soundly defeated by President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, has heavily criticized President Trump — most notably during the 2016 election, describing him as a  “con man,” and a “fake.” However, in a show of unity, president-elect Trump put aside Romney’s criticism and interviewed him for the position of Secretary of State, a job which ultimately went to former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

During the 2018 midterm election, President Trump endorsed Romney, which the then-senate candidate gladly accepted. Just when the pair’s relationship appeared to be on the mend, Romney once again attacked President Trump with a Washington Post opinion-editorial published two days before he was sworn into office. The Utah Republican recently slammed President Trump for suggesting he may be open to receiving opposition research on his political opponents from foreign governments, calling the idea “unthinkable.” Days later, the president rejected the hypothetical scenario, saying he would alert federal authorities if his campaign was approached.

Later in his speech before the think tank, Romney criticized far-left proposals such as the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All,” advocated by several 2020 White House hopefuls.

At one point, Romney also conceded his “slice of Republican Party these days is about that big,” placing his hands closely together, before claiming he is not “100 percent sold on everything my current party’s establishment is doing.”

“I am aligned with the Republican conservative philosophy and believe that our Democratic friends are taking us in a very different direction, which would be most unfortunate to our future,” said the lawmaker.

 

Meat tax will take food off poor people’s tables so that wealthy eco-socialists can feel virtuous

This is how you impose an unpopular and ineffective environmentalist policy that will hit the poorest citizens hardest, is bound to create a host of unintended consequences, and is founded on speculative science to begin with.

You are a centrist government in a democratic Western country. You want to be seen to be taking action on the environment, but you believe in consumer capitalism, and therefore wouldn’t dare to dismantle the profit-making machinery that actually contributes most of the CO2 within your economy. You praise the ideals of the Green New Deal, only because you know it will never become reality.

Your target must be insignificant economically, yet high-profile in its symbolic value. Meat works perfectly. Eating it already has an aura of hedonistic licentiousness, and restricting consumption covers several bases – animal cruelty, public health, and most importantly, climate change resulting from intensive livestock farming. You will get years of headlines, just as when you banned plastic bags or forced people to pay deposits on plastic bottles.

Screen Shot 2019-08-20 at 10.50.34 AM

From brat to wurst? Germany proposes beefing up meat tax to battle climate change

But you can’t just ban meat. Or ration it to 200 grams a week for every citizen. Because that would be considered an authoritarian intrusion that fundamentally violates your people’s freedom.

You try to turn it into a just cause. Activist organizations have been lobbying for this longer than you have been in power, and PETA will have the factory farming pictures. Scientists will supply the studies (take only the ones that support your view). You leverage entirely hypothetical but impressive sounding research such as the 2016 Oxford University one that claimed that going vegetarian would save 8 million lives and $1.5 trillion, or one that alleges that meat “kills” 2.4 million people a year around the world, or the one that says that the US going vegetarian would be the same as taking 60 million cars off the road.

Yet, even after the publicity campaign, you still can’t ban meat. This is the time for the moment of genius, the clever solution that squares the circle between a free populace and their paternalistic-minded rulers.

You put a tax on it. Not a declared one, but a stealth tax. Perhaps merely drop the VAT rebate that it enjoys, as was proposed in Germany, which currently taxes meat at 7 percent VAT, but is contemplating moving the levy to 19. You can have more meat – as much as you want – but you will pay more for the luxury, and there is a fairness to it too – the more schnitzel you consume the more dosh you dish out. Does the money go into environmental causes? Probably not – there is currently no way to separate meat VAT from others – but at least people will be nudged into the correct behaviors.

The fruits of your labors will be evident within months.

Being a wealthy lawmaker you will eat as much or as little meat as before, as food makes up a small proportion of your monthly budget. Your constituents – that is a different matter. Perhaps some will get the message, and eat more vegetables instead. Or perhaps, instead of buying organic, cruelty-free, carbon-neutral meat, they will now buy more factory-farmed meat. Or perhaps they will spend the money on a decent steak but will not be able to afford to repair their car, or take that holiday to the Balearics. Though I guess that could be a result in itself – after all, as a rule, the poorer someone is in the West, the less CO2 they emit. Some might be so deprived, however, that they will eat no meat at all. Their remaining money will now go to other, cheaper and more harmful high-calorie processed foods, like cakes or oven-fried chips. While your farmers will simply find it more profitable to export the food abroad, over longer distances, increasing their emissions. Is this what you wanted?

Oh, sin taxes, they used to be so simple when you were targeting the universally agreed-upon harms, such as smoking, with the aim of their complete eradication. But this is getting more nuanced now. Meat has been eaten by the homo sapiens since its emergence, and played an important role in its evolution. It still remains a key source of protein for your population. Ethically too, eating it is a source of legitimate pleasure to the sensory organs of millions. Is it the job of the government to strip its citizens of their daily pleasures, to literally deny adults the full choice of food for their dinner? What’s the morally correct trade-off between seven-course feasts of imported ostrich and elk and government-mandated buckwheat three times a day?

Let them sail yachts: Why Greta Thunberg and the environmental elite hate you

You, the politicians, will complain that you are only using the tools at your disposal – that you can’t charge a poor person less at the meat counter, that you cannot ban a farmer from exporting his carcasses, or a supermarket from opting for cheaper transatlantic chicken over homegrown beef. But then is your clever solution any better than rationing books and Iron Curtain-style central planning?

You will say that at least it is better to be doing something.

And indeed you are right – it is the “something” that matters, not the specific results. After all if there is one thing that Greta Thunberg and Nigel Lawson can agree on is that creating a meat tax in Germany, Sweden and Denmark, the three countries that have shown the greatest appetite for this policy, will make almost no difference to global emissions. For example, even if every resident of the United States, the country with the highest consumption of meat per capita, stopped eating meat tomorrow, that would only slice 2.6 percent off its emissions. Meanwhile, a Chinese person now eats five times as much meat as they did in the 1980s, and still only half as much as Americans – so he wants more. And the world population will likely double by the end of the century. Germans eating two fewer sausages a week was never going to be more than a gesture, and everyone knows it.

Though bearing in mind other environmental policy perversities – like banning nuclear to rely on dirty coal, or incentivizing biofuels and, in the process, rainforest destruction – perhaps “negligible” is the best effect we can all hope for. And you get to enjoy your steak guilt-free.

By Igor Ogorodnev

Warren, de Blasio: I Would Abolish Private Health Insurance

MIAMI, FLORIDA - JUNE 26: (L-R) Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, former housing secretary Julian Castro and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) shake hands after the first night of the Democratic presidential debate on June 26, 2019 in Miami, Florida. A field of 20 Democratic …

By Alana Mastrangelo

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio admitted they would abolish private health insurance during the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary debate on Wednesday evening.

“Many people watching at home have health insurance coverage through their employer,” asked NBC’s Lester Holt, “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan? Just a show of hands.”

Sen. Warren and Mayor de Blasio raised their hands in response to Holt’s question, admitting that they would abolish private health insurance in favor of cradle to grave, government-run healthcare.

Warren and de Blasio, however, are likely not the only candidates on stage who agree with abolishing private health insurance, but rather, the only candidates bold enough to actually admit it.

The Green New Deal, for example, would ban private health insurance, including employer-provided insurance plans. The Green New Deal was endorsed by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Representative Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX), two presidential candidates who shared the debate stage with Warren and de Blasio on Wednesday night.

Moreover, over 100 Democrats have endorsed “Medicare for All,” a proposal that would also effectively do away with private health insurance.

Another Democratic Presidential candidate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) — although not present on Wednesday night — has also admitted to wanting to eliminate private health insurance to replace it with a single-payer, government-run “Medicare for All” program.

Less than 24 hours later, however, Harris seemed to have thought better of her statement, quickly walking back her call to abolish private health insurance, and later insisting that “Medicare for All” would not eliminate the entire private health insurance industry.

While it is apparent that not every 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate may be comfortable with confessing their views on private health insurance just yet, the fact that some are willing to openly endorse socialist policies is a cause for concern, and a testimony to the radical shift the Democratic Party has taken over recent years.

 

Pope Francis Urges Carbon Penalties to Avert Climate ‘Catastrophe’

VATICAN CITY, VATICAN - DECEMBER 25: Pope Francis delivers his Christmas Urbi Et Orbi blessing from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on December 25, 2017 in Vatican City, Vatican. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images)

By Thomas D. Williams, PHD.D.

ROME — Pope Francis warned of disastrous consequences if humanity does not immediately react to the threat of climate change, since the world has reached a “critical moment” and there is no time to waste.

“Dear friends, time is running out!” the pope told a group of participants in a Vatican-sponsored conference on energy transition Friday. “We cannot afford the luxury of waiting for others to come forward or of prioritizing short-term economic benefits. The climate crisis requires decisive action from us, here and now.”

Despite the pontiff’s frequent denunciation of a “politics of fear,” he seemed determined to paint as frightening a picture as possible of an impending climate apocalypse in order to incite people to action.

This conference “takes place at a critical moment,” Francis said. “Today’s ecological crisis, especially climate change, threatens the very future of the human family, and this is not an exaggeration. For too long we have collectively ignored the fruits of scientific analysis, and catastrophic predictions can no longer be viewed with contempt and irony.”

The pope’s words Friday went beyond sounding a general alarm and scorning climate-change skeptics. They also urged specific political action, most notably regarding penalties for carbon usage such as a carbon tax.

“A carbon pricing policy is essential if humanity wants to use the resources of creation wisely,” he said. “The failure to manage carbon emissions has produced a huge debt that will now have to be repaid with interest from those who come after us.”

The cost of carbon usage must be paid here and now by those who use it, and not deferred for future generations to cover, he proposed.

“Our use of common environmental resources can be considered ethical only when the social and economic costs of their use are recognized in a transparent manner and are fully sustained by those who use them, rather than by other populations or future generations,” he said.

The pope reiterated the popular belief that “the effects on the climate will be catastrophic if we exceed the 1.5ºC threshold outlined in the Paris Agreement goals,” for which we have “only a little over a decade.”

“In the face of a climatic emergency, we must take appropriate measures, in order to avoid committing a grave injustice towards the poor and future generations. We must act responsibly well considering the impact of our actions in the short and long term,” he said.

“Future generations are soon to inherit a very ruined world,” the pontiff stressed. “Our children and grandchildren should not have to pay the cost of the irresponsibility of our generation.”

Appearing to take a page from AOC’s Green New Deal, Francis expressed his conviction that an energy transition from fossil fuels to a low-carbon society “can generate new employment opportunities, reduce inequality, and increase the quality of life for those affected by climate change.”

Today “a radical energy transition is needed to save our common home,” he warned. “There is still hope and the time remains to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, provided that there is prompt and resolute action.”

2020 Watch: De Blasio Announces Candidacy, Trump Weighs In

The New York City entered the race, and came out swinging against President Donald J. Trump.

By 

The never-ending list of Democratic Party candidates for president got a little bit longer Thursday, when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his candidacy.

“Even before his announcement, de Blasio already qualified to participate in the Democratic primary debates, according to a poll from Reuters and Ipsos,” Axios said. “The mayor intends to leverage his record of New York achievements such as universal pre-kindergarten and raising the minimum hourly wage. Following the announcement, he will go on a 4-day campaign tour to Iowa and South Carolina, per NBC.”

President Donald J. Trump weighed in on de Blasio’s candidacy on Twitter.

“The Dems are getting another beauty to join their group. Bill de Blasio of NYC, considered the worst mayor in the U.S., will supposedly be making an announcement for president today. He is a JOKE, but if you like high taxes & crime, he’s your man. NYC HATES HIM!” he said.

CAP

“There’s plenty of money in this world. There’s plenty of money in this country. It’s just in the wrong hands,” de Blasio said in a campaign announcement video.

He spent the first half of his announcement video describing his far-left platform, which includes universal healthcare, a $15 minimum wage, and “free” Pre-Kindergarten education for all. He spent the second half of the announcement video attacking Trump, calling him a “bully.”

De Blasio is squarely in the progressive corner. He was widely ridiculed for last month for proposing a skyscraper ban in New York City to fight climate change.

Big League Politics reported:

The mayor of America’s most populous city has a new plan to fight “global warming,” and it involves doing away with the landscape of the city over which he presides.

“We’re going to introduce legislation to ban the glass and steel skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said. “They have no place in our city or our Earth anymore.”

The mayor did not offer much in the way of specifics regarding his plan. Will existing skyscrapers be demolished, or will the city ban new ones from being erected? Many such buildings are apartments and condos. Will the people who live in them be forced to move? Also, what happened to “climate change?” This reporter was under the impression that “global warming” was an outdated term.

According to Spectrum News 1 in New York City, de Blasio’s proposal would prevent developers from “using all glass facades unless they meet strict new energy guidelines,” which he called “the city’s version of the Green new Deal.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑