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!

February 20, 2019 0

FLASHBACK: BERNIE SANDERS CALLS FOOD LINES A “GOOD THING”

Flashback: Bernie Sanders Calls Food Lines a âGood Thingâ

Socialist candidate praises food rationing

Ben Warren | Infowars.com – 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.”

February 20, 2019 0

AOC’s Green New Deal Proposal Is Way Too Modest. I’ve Got A Better Plan.

By Matt Walsh

Lawmaker and visionary Alexandria Ocasio Cortez unveiled her Green New Deal today. It aims to reshape the American economy and usher in an era of peace and prosperity. The goal is admirable. The plan to achieve it, sad to say, is far too modest. It seems that Cortez was so focused on practicality that she lost sight of the dream.

blob:https://www.dailywire.com/0fd199ca-c7e3-4071-bf51-292aacbfc53d

Cortez demands, among other things, a railroad across the ocean, a living wage for all Americans (including those unwilling to work), paid vacation for everyone, healthcare for everyone, the replacement or upgrade of every building in the country, and the banishment of all flatulent cows. These are certainly worthwhile and eminently feasible ideas, but they don’t go far enough.

See the source image

If I may, I would like to suggest a few additions. This is my New Green New Deal or Green New New Deal:

1. A free ice cream machine for every American (vegan ice cream, of course, because Cortez is killing all the milk cows).

2. Every sidewalk in America converted to a moving walkway.

3. Every staircase converted to an escalator.

4. Every escalator converted to an elevator.

5. A big bridge connecting North Carolina to Morocco, with, like, refreshment stands and stuff along the way. Also, like, there should be probably little cabins or something for people to sleep in.

6. A free blimp for every man, woman, and child.

7. A dog for every person.

8. A foot bath for every dog.

9. Essential oils for every foot bath.

10. No diseases (will cutdown on healthcare costs).

11. Universal joy.

12. A constantly refreshed selection of cereal in every pantry.

13. A lion that can tell me stories and grant wishes.

14. Immortality.

15. A computer type thing like from The Matrix where you plug in and learn how to do karate in five minutes.

16. Bananas that never rot.

17. No more loneliness.

18. Free consensual pony rides.

19. A kind of like robot thing that, like, lifts you out of the bed in the morning and puts on your pants for you and brushes your teeth.

20. All remaining student debt converted into tacos (one dollar of debt equals one taco).

According to my estimates, this plan is extremely affordable so long as we tax everyone at a moderate rate of 6,000 percent. We’d also need to consult with a team of highly-trained genies. I assume Cortez has already assembled that team if she’s planning to provide a livable income and paid vacations to every single person in the country.

And here’s the good news: most Americans will die anyway after Cortez tears down all of our homes and kills our livestock. This will thin the herd (pardon the pun) and make it much easier to provide for the small band of survivors who remain.

February 7, 2019 0

Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Confiscation Tax Would “Redistribute” 2.75 Trillion Dollars Over 10 Years

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Elizabeth Warren is making it exceedingly clear that she is a socialist, and that is quite frightening considering the fact that she could potentially become our next president.

Unless some really big name unexpectedly enters the race, there is a decent chance that Elizabeth Warren could win the Democratic nomination in 2020. And if she ultimately won the general election, the Democrats would likely have control of both the House and the Senate during her first two years in the White House as well. So that means that the proposal that you are about to read about could actually become law in the not too distant future.

After AOC’s proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent received so much favorable attention, it was just a matter of time before Democratic presidential candidates started jumping on the “soak the rich” bandwagon, and the first one to strike was Elizabeth Warren.

When she announced her new proposal on Twitter, she dubbed it the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax”…

We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand new – an annual tax on the wealth of the richest Americans. I’m calling it the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax” & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50M.

It would be bad enough if this was just a one-time tax on wealth.

But it isn’t.

Please note the use of the word “annual” in Warren’s tweet. That means that the rich would keep getting hit with this tax year after year after year.

Those with more than 50 million dollars in assets would pay a 2 percent tax each year, and those with more than a billion dollars in assets would pay 3 percent each year…

The Post reported that Warren has been advised by Saez and Gabriel Zucman, left-leaning economists affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, on a deal that would levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with $50 million-plus in assets. For Americans with assets above $1 billion, that tax rate would increase to 3 percent.

The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the plan, reported that Warren’s plan would try to counter tax evasion by boosting funding for the IRS, and by levying a one-time tax penalty on people with more than $50 million who try to renounce their U.S. citizenship. It would also require that a certain number of people who pay the wealth tax be subject to annual audits, the Post reported.

3 percent may not sound like a lot to many of you. But over the course of a couple of decades many families could have their fortunes almost completely wiped out by this wealth confiscation tax.

According to economist Emmanuel Saez, this new tax would be imposed upon approximately 75,000 families and would raise 2.75 trillion dollars over 10 years.

Clearly this is a move by Warren to appeal to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I really like how Zero Hedge made this point…

Elizabeth Warren has never been a friend to the wealthy. But in the age of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, merely advocating for “holding the rich accountable” simply doesn’t penetrate like it did back in 2008. And that’s because, on the left flank of the Democratic Party, you’re not really a progressive unless you believe that the existence of billionaires is a policy error.

And surprisingly, there is actually a lot of public support for such a proposal. In fact, a recent Fox News poll found that Americans overwhelmingly support soaking the rich…

Voters support tax increases on families making over $10 million annually by a 46-point margin (70 percent favor-24 percent oppose), and support a hike on those making over $1 million by 36 points (65-29 percent).

There is less support for a broader tax increase: 44 percent favor raising rates on those with income over $250,000, and a small minority, 13 percent, approves of an increase on all Americans.

Of course so much depends on how a survey is worded. For example, I would be willing to bet that a survey would show that well over 50 percent of all Americans would back my proposal to abolish the income tax completely.

Over the coming months, Democratic presidential contenders are going to be continuously trying to one up each other with their promises to tax the rich and give out free stuff. By the end, someone out there may even be promising to give free rides to the Moon to everyone.

But if Elizabeth Warren really wants to be considered a serious contender, she needs to eliminate the ridiculous gaffes that have plagued her in the past. For instance, she recently claimed that we have “two co-equal branches of government”…

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., already has declared that the government has “three chambers of Congress,” the House, the Senate and the presidency.

Now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has claimed on Twitter that the government has “two co-equal branches of government, the president of the United States and Congress.”

“The Notorious RBG (Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg) is gonna be ticked off that she’s been forgotten again,” said a post on the Twitter news-aggregating site Twitchy.

And there is certainly no excuse for such a gaffe, because she used to be a law professor.

In the end, it is difficult to understand why so many Americans seem to want to march down the road toward socialism. Because as President Trump has noted, Venezuela has shown us where that road leads…

“We’re looking at Venezuela, it’s a very sad situation,” Trump told reporters. “That was the richest state in all of that area, that’s a big beautiful area, and by far the richest — and now it’s one of the poorest places in the world. That’s what socialism gets you, when they want to raise your taxes to 70 percent.”

He added: “You know, it’s interesting, I’ve been watching our opponents — our future opponents talk about 70 percent. No. 1, they can’t do it for 70 percent, it’s got to be probably twice that number. But, maybe more importantly what happens is you really have to study what’s happened to Venezuela. It’s a very, very sad situation.”

Unfortunately, political proposals don’t have to actually make sense, and right now Elizabeth Warren is doing all that she can to win the progressive vote.

January 25, 2019 0

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Set To Party With Hollywood At Sundance… Medicare, free tuition for all! And she’s just getting started…

See the source image

(Bloomberg Businessweek) — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might not have seen eye to eye with Joseph Overton, the late free-market advocate. But she has a firm grasp of the concept for which he is best known: the Overton Window. The term refers to the range of ideas that are at any given time considered worthy of public discussion. Thanks largely to her, the Overton Window on tax rates has just been moved significantly to the left.

Ocasio-Cortez, the mediagenic 29-year-old from the Bronx, N.Y., is the youngest woman ever elected to the House of Representatives. In an appearance on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper that aired on Jan. 6, she was talking up the Green New Deal, a plan to move the U.S. to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. Cooper challenged her by saying the program would require raising taxes. “There’s an element, yeah, where people are going to have to start paying their fair share,” she replied. Asked for specifics, she said, “Once you get to the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”

Seventy percent! For perspective, the top rate under the tax law that passed in December 2017 is 37 percent. And now, suddenly, a number so extreme that no one in polite society dared utter it became a focal point of debate. Ocasio-Cortez’s fans—she has 2.4 million followers on Twitter alone—loved it. Some pundits dug up economic research defending rates in the 70 percent range. Others pointed out that Ocasio-Cortez was actually lowballing the historical comparison: Top rates were 90 percent or higher as recently as the 1960s. Defenders of low tax rates heaped abuse on her, which backfired on them by inflaming her supporters.

See the source image

cap

What Ocasio-Cortez understands is that getting an idea talked about, even unfavorably, is a necessary, if insufficient, step on the path to adoption. (President Trump also gets this.) “It’s the easiest thing to say, ‘No, we can’t change anything,’ ” says Eric Foner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who recently retired from Columbia University. “Most of the big ideas in American history started among radical groups who were told, ‘No, you’re never going to be able to achieve that.’ ” Foner sees parallels between the strategies of today’s left-leaning Democrats and the radical Republicans who fought slavery before the Civil War, “which was put out an agenda, be aware that you can’t just accomplish it all at once, obviously, but change the political discourse by pushing your agenda and then work with those who are willing to do some of it.”

Ocasio-Cortez was actually less radical than she could have been on 60 Minutes. She passed up the opportunity to move the Overton Window on another of her pet issues: budget deficits. She adheres to a doctrine called Modern Monetary Theory that’s catching on among young, left-leaning politicians and older policymakers alike.

Its counterintuitive core idea is that deficits don’t matter if you borrow in your own currency, just as long as they don’t cause inflation. Unless the economy is at risk of overheating, MMTers say, paying for a new government program doesn’t require cutting another or raising taxes.

Ocasio-Cortez could have said, “No, Anderson, we wouldn’t need to raise taxes to pay for the Green New Deal. But I want to raise taxes anyway, because I believe in redistributing money from the rich to the poor.” That really would have lit up the internet. Randall Wray, an MMT theorist who’s a senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, wrote in an email that he was “a bit disappointed” that Ocasio-Cortez connected tax hikes to the Green New Deal. Stephanie Kelton, another MMT theorist and Bernie Sanders’s economic adviser during his race for the Democratic nomination in 2016, says she thinks reducing inequality is the real reason Ocasio-Cortez favors higher rates on the rich: “It’s kind of a recognition that levels of income and wealth inequality parallel those of the 1920s.”

cap

Whatever the particulars, Ocasio-Cortez wants to raise tax rates—by a lot. Since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, Democrats have been almost as allergic as Republicans to raising taxes. Hillary Clinton didn’t advocate increasing rates on top incomes at all during her 2016 presidential campaign. Even Sanders, that wild socialist from Vermont, dared propose a top rate of only 52 percent when he ran for president.

But with Ocasio-Cortez, antitax conservatives immediately sensed that a taboo was being broken, that a crack has opened up in the dam they’d spent decades building and reinforcing. Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, who in 1986 devised the famous Taxpayer Protection Pledge that commits signers to vote against any net increases in taxes, on Twitter likened her proposal to slavery. “Slavery is when your owner takes 100% of your production. Democrat congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez wants 70% (according to CNN) What is the word for 70% expropriation?” he tweeted.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is the Darling of the Left, Nightmare of the Right

Norquist now says he remains confident that tax rates won’t rise to 70 percent, because “it’s such a bad idea.” In fact, he says he thinks Democrats are hurting only themselves by entertaining it. Ocasio-Cortez, he says, is a “pied piper” leading her party to its demise. It’s not at all clear, though, that higher taxes on the rich are a losing issue for Democrats. A Hill-HarrisX poll conducted on Jan. 12 and Jan. 13 found that 59 percent of registered voters supported the idea of raising the top rate to 70 percent. That included 45 percent of Republican voters. Thanks perhaps to the presidential campaign of Sanders, who like Ocasio-Cortez calls himself a democratic socialist, even “socialism” is no longer a dirty word: Gallup reported in August that 57 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democratic had a positive view of socialism, while only 47 percent had a positive view of capitalism.

What would a 70 percent top tax rate do to the U.S. economy and businesses? The rap on high rates is that they discourage work and promote wasteful tax-sheltering. Even many economists who think the rich pay too little say the better solution is to eliminate loopholes—subjecting more income to taxation rather than taxing a narrow base at a high rate.

Norquist argues that a 70 percent top rate would trigger an exodus of high-earning individuals from the U.S., saying that the last time U.S. rates were that high, they were also high in other nations, reducing the incentive to move. The Tax Foundation, a right-of-center think tank, said on Jan. 14 that a 70 percent top rate on ordinary income (not capital gains) exceeding $10 million “would not raise much revenue.” “Not much revenue” in this case means an estimated $189 billion in total over 10 years—or $292 billion before accounting for the likelihood that people in that tax bracket would work less and invest less in their noncorporate businesses.

On the other hand, economists supportive of Ocasio-Cortez were quick to point out that Denmark has among the world’s highest living standards despite a 56.5 percent tax rate on incomes above about $80,000 a year, a far lower threshold than her $10 million. A 2011 paper by Nobel laureate Peter Diamond of MIT and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley advocated top total tax rates (federal plus state) for the richest Americans of 73 percent on ordinary income (again, not capital gains). They assumed that an extra dollar of income for someone in that bracket has very little value in comparison to a dollar received by a lower-income person. Critics of their research have said Diamond and Saez treat the rich as sheep to be shorn and underestimate how much high tax rates would discourage people from getting advanced degrees or starting businesses. Diamond rejects the criticism, cites the need for more public investment, and says, “I’m perfectly comfortable” with Ocasio-Cortez’s 70 percent rate.

One thing that most people don’t know about Ocasio-Cortez is that she was a science nerd in high school in Westchester County, N.Y. In 2007, out of almost 1,500 students from 46 countries competing in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, she was one of four second-place winners in the microbiology category. (Her research was on the effect of antioxidants on roundworms.) It’s a biographical detail that adds another dimension to the story of a young woman born in the Bronx to parents of Puerto Rican descent who became the first in her family to attend college. While she was away at school her father died, pushing the family to the brink of financial ruin. “When you come from a working-class background, it often feels like you’re just one disaster away from everything falling apart,” she said in an Instagram video about a year ago.

cap

Like former President Barack Obama, Ocasio-Cortez became a community organizer after graduating from college, in 2011, and supported herself as a waitress and bartender. She worked for Sanders’s campaign in 2016. After that, things happened fast. She ran for the Democratic nomination in her Bronx-Queens congressional district and upset Joe Crowley. Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Crowley had been seen as a candidate to succeed Nancy Pelosi of California as speaker. He outspent Ocasio-Cortez 18 to 1 and had endorsements from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and both New York senators. She won huge.

No one shifts the Overton Window on any subject without strong communications skills, and Ocasio-Cortez is ninja-level in that department. She thrills supporters by going after critics hard on social media, which she uses the way an older generation used street rallies. “I’m a firm believer that organizing never stops,” she told Cooper in the 60 Minutes interview. One of her first acts after her election was to visit the office of Pelosi—not to seek her blessing but to support climate change activists who were occupying the soon-to-be speaker’s office. Now Ocasio-Cortez works two doors away from Pelosi—but not for her. She’s floated the idea of creating a progressive caucus among the Democrats, modeling it on the powerful Freedom Caucus on the right. Among her allies are new members Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the first Somali-American elected to Congress; New Mexico’s Deb Haaland, one of the first American Indian women elected to Congress; and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first Palestinian-American in Congress.

“This is a movement; this is not me,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an Instagram video last year.

Both Ocasio-Cortez and Trump are social media virtuosos. They excel at turning back attacks on their credibility. Attempts to challenge them on facts come across to their supporters as mean-spirited and unfair—the knee-jerk reaction of an establishment trying to suppress outside voices. So it was when Ocasio-Cortez mistakenly said on social media last year that the Pentagon had lost track of $21 trillion in funds, a figure that was about 30 times the Department of Defense’s annual budget. Unlike Trump, she corrects her mistakes. “The thing that’s hard is that you’re supposed to be perfect all the time on every issue and every thing,” she said on Instagram last year.

annotation 2019-01-17 160721

Implicit in that statement: Ocasio-Cortez has plenty more Overton Windows to shift and no intention of slowing down for the critics. Aside from the Green New Deal and higher taxes on the rich, she favors Medicare for all, a federal guarantee of a job, abolition of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau, and tuition-free college or trade school. She also wants to slash military spending, ban assault weapons, and bring back Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banks.

That may all sound like tail risk to American businesses, which have been enjoying deregulation under Trump. Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, says, “This is the kind of plan where you can’t go to Wall Street executives first to try to get them to buy into it. You gotta show ’em.”

cap

The question is whether she’ll be able to show them, or anyone. A week after Ocasio-Cortez came to Washington, fellow Democrats complained that she was disruptive and not a team player. Chief among her sins: threatening to back the primary opponents of members of Congress who aren’t liberal enough for her. “I’m sure Ms. Cortez means well, but there’s almost an outstanding rule: Don’t attack your own people,” Representative Emanuel Cleaver II, a Missouri Democrat, told Politico. “We just don’t need sniping in our Democratic Caucus.”

To pass any of their initiatives, Ocasio-Cortez and her allies will have to defeat the proven Republican strategy of using budget deficits as a justification for opposing new spending. That’s where Modern Monetary Theory comes in. It says a government can spend money without raising taxes—indeed, without even borrowing from the public via bonds. The government simply creates new money to pay its bills. The only constraint on spending under MMT is that the government could use up too much of the nation’s productive capacity, which would result in high inflation. As long as inflation remains low, as it is now, deficits are no problem. The usual reply from other economists is that even a nation that owes debt in its own currency can suffer a crisis if investors lose faith in its ability to service the debt without resorting to the printing press.

One precinct where deficits still matter, and MMT most certainly does not, is the office of House Speaker Pelosi. On Jan. 3, under Pelosi’s direction, the House passed a set of rules including pay-as-you-go, which requires legislation that would increase the deficit to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. PAYGO, as it’s known, is contrary to the spirit of MMT and hamstrings liberal Democrats by making most of their spending initiatives impossible. Ocasio-Cortez was one of only three Democrats to oppose the provision, along with Ro Khanna of California and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

Ocasio-Cortez had another setback when she was passed over for a coveted seat on the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. But she recovered nicely by getting a seat along with other progressives on the powerful House Financial Services Committee, headed by Maxine Waters of California. Carolyn Maloney, a fellow New York Democrat, says, “I was once that young woman who others tried to rein in. I certainly don’t believe in doing that to anyone else. Representative Ocasio-Cortez is bringing new energy and a new approach, and we should all embrace that.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s disregard for political niceties is both her strongest quality as an activist and potentially her Achilles’ heel as a representative. She shows no sign of dialing back. One way or another, says Kelton, the economic adviser, “the conversation is shifting. The space is opening up.” —With Allison McCartney

January 17, 2019 0

Half Of Young Americans Believe U.S. Is Not ‘Greatest’ Country, Think U.S. Is Racist, Sexist, Survey Finds

By Joseph Curl

To hear former president Barack Obama tell it, America isn’t that exceptional (“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” he said shortly after moving into the White House).

And to Obama, America is pretty racist (just this month Obama said “we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism, mommy issues.”) What’s more, the mainstream media has been painting President Trump as an avowed racist since before he took office.

So it should come as no surprise that the young people of today don’t think America is the “greatest” country, but they do think the nation is racist.

In a survey of 1,078 Americans, conducted by polling firm YouGov and sponsored by the Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness (FLAG), finds that younger Americans (under 38 years old – Gen Z and Millennials), also think America is sexist. Some 46% of those polled don’t agree that “America is the greatest country in the world,” half (50%) think the U.S. is sexist, 49% say the country is racist and 47% say America’s future should be driven by socialism over capitalism.

Among the survey’s other findings:

– 38% of younger Americans do not agree that “America has a history that we should be proud of”

– One in eight (14%) of millennials agree that “America was never a great country and it never will be”

– 46% of younger Americans agree that “America is more racist than other countries”

– 84% of Americans do not know the specific rights enumerated in the First Amendment

– 19% of millennials believe that the American flag is “a sign of intolerance and hatred”

– 44% of younger Americans believe Barack Obama had a “bigger impact” on America than George Washington

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 4.39.43 PM

“We suspected that we would find decreasing numbers of Americans well-versed in our nation’s most important principles and young people less patriotic than the generations that came before, but we were totally unprepared for what our national survey reveals: an epidemic of anti-Americanism. said Nick Adams, Founder of FLAG.

“That half of millennials and Gen Z believe that the country in which they live is both ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ shows that we have a major fraction of an entire generation that has been indoctrinated by teachers starting in grade school that America is what’s wrong with the world,” Adams said.

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 4.41.43 PM