Mainstream media swooning over socialist Democrat's crazy "Green New Deal"

One of the many cunning strategies used by wannabe-dictators to seize power is to harness the energy and anger of people who are a) idealistic; b) not well educated and c) convinced that it's impossible for them to live "well" under the current system.

In other words, young people.  And by "not well educated" I include college students and grads who majored in "--studies" or any non-technical field, since with vanishingly few exceptions they are both innumerate and essentially scientifically ignorant.

The latest effort by Dem strategists to harness the anger, fear or discontent of the young was just revealed last Friday.  They call it the "Green New Deal," and radical Dem congresswacko Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (known in college as Sandy Ocasio, but hey...) emailed the significant points to her allies at National Public Radio, and posted 'em on her official website.

And promptly pulled 'em off, after critics noted that among the many insane proposals was one to give every American (all ages) a government check even if they were able-bodied but unwilling to work.

Say what?

See, Sandy and her advisors felt this idea was so totes normal and unobjectionable that no one could possibly object to it.  And yet...  So they took it down and then her Cornell-law-professor advisor appeared on Tucker Carlson's show to claim that was NOT in the proposal.  No way!  They never proposed it!

Um...really?  But apparently Sandy's advisor forgot to tell her friends at NPR to take down the email AOC herself sent to 'em, so NPR kept the thing up for another 48 hours--giving everyone who knew about it a chance to see what it said.  And...well, absolutely unbelievably, sure enough the "government check to everyone" was in there.

Ooooh.  But didn't her law-prof advisor absolutely INSIST that they never said that?

Why yes, yes he did.  So there followed a marvelous kabuki-dance of "The eeeevil Repubs hacked us and change the document!"  "Oh, I thought you were talking about some OTHER document."  "This was just a draft, only posted by accident!"  "We never intended for this to be, like, definitive or binding or anything."

Another amusing scramble was about banning all carbon-based fuels, like oil and gas, to get "zero greenhouse gases."  And eliminating all air travel.  Seriously.  So let's see some of the other points in AOC’s Green New Deal:

[W]e are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases…we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy.

The law-prof advisor later said "We never said that.  We wanted to get to net-zero growth in CO2."  Really?  But just above it says "full transition off fossil fuels" and "zero greenhouse gases."  Don't law professors at Cornell have to read nowadays?  And he denied they wanted to get rid of air travel.  But keep reading...

Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast...

Okay, there's "net-zero," but earlier it was "zero greenhouse gases" and "full transition off fossil fuels."  So which is it?  And above is that goal of getting rid of airplanes that the advisor said also wasn't part of the proposal.  Oh, and cows.  Gee, wonder what that'll do to the price of beef?  Or milk?  And the brilliant Dems might not know that if you kill all the cows, you also lose cheese.  Which means pizza would be...different.

So if they ban the use of all fossil fuels, that means electric cars.  (Or maybe they'll ban privately-owned cars regardless of power source?)  Of course electric cars require...wait for it...electricity.  And most of the electricity we use is generated by...wait for it...burning coal or natural gas.  So I guess they're gonna push good ol' nuclear power?  Uh...not only no, but they wanna scrap all existing nuke plants within ten years!  But at least they're candid enough to not be sure they'll be able to do that...

...but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero… It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

The whole document is worth reading, partly for its almost-unhinged quality of boundless enthusiasm and complete lack of consideration of any physical and financial realities.  And yet the Dems are so solidly behind this that every Dem contender for the party's 2020 presidential nomination has already signed on as a co-sponsor.

To give you a taste of the document’s flavor, here are some of the more wild-eyed quotes.

Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities.

Don't worry if you've never heard the term "frontline communities," citizen.  It's a buzzword term for the Left/progressives/communists, and they'll explain it to you when they think it's time for you to know.  Sorta like Nanny Pelosi's infamous quote "We have to pass [the Affordable Care Act] so ywe can see what's in it."

Yes, she actually said that.  And that same insane, babbling idiot is now running one of the two chambers of congress.  Think about that for a minute.

Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle

Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems

Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, and nature to all

As crazy as many of those points sound, I think it’s a mistake to dismiss the GND as an unworkable total disaster.  Young people view these goals as both possible and highly desirable, and don't have enough education to see a single flaw in any of them.  Thus they believe they're all do-able, if only we have the will and dedication to do them.  

 

And of course, fearless Democrat/"progressive" leaders to direct us on the right path.

 The Green New Deal manifesto may sound ridiculous to most tech-fluent people at the moment, but it appeals to the idealism of the young or stupid.  And of course this was predictable, since virtually all highschools and universities are totally dominated by the Left.  If you haven't spent any time on college campuses--especially on the coasts--you have no idea how totally leftist they are.

Let's be very clear here:  Even if we could pay for these nutty ideas, how do you think life in the U.S. would change?  And would the radical change have a detectable benefit for the alleged "global warming" "climate change"?   

 

Consider this:  after other nations saw how the changes devastated the U.S. economy and quality of life, do you really think other nations would be willing to send their economies and quality of life down the tubes?  Yeah, no.

 

So the question of how AOC and her Cornell-law-professor advisor plan to pay for all this is only marginally relevant.  But let's ask it anyway:  

 

Not surprisingly, the document is, shall we say...a bit vague on this point.  Here's their plan:

“The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit."

Gee, why didn't we think of that?  I mean, now that she's explained it, it's so obvious!  But AOC and her advisors don't rest on that gem of incisive reasoning.  Instead she (or someone) writes

“the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.”

It’s almost humorous--like a child’s fantasy.  But the radical Dems behind this masterpiece are totally serious about what they want.  And as all Americans should have learned by now, demands that sound absurd today can become the law or policy in a frighteningly short amount of time.  (Did anyone imagine a federal judge would not only ORDER our military not only to accept transgender troops, but would rule that the military (thus taxpayers) would have to PAY for their sex-change operations?  Yeah, didn't think so.)
 One of the reasons Democrat congress-creeps are pushing this radical, economy-destroying proposal is that young Americans have been primed to believe that a) the planet is warming to an extent that's both unprecedented and dangerous; b) that the greatest part of this dangerous, unprecedented warming is caused by carbon dioxide; c) that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant (it's not; plants must have it to grow); d) that virtually all CO2 is generated by human activity; and e) that because the U.S. uses more carbon fuels than any other nation, if we stop, the problem will be solved.

Young Americans--including college students and grads--find the above points persuasive and attractive.  And they don't have enough education to fret about whether the plan will kill the economy, let alone the feasibility of the Dems' proposed way to pay for it all.  Cuz the Democrats behind this tell 'em we can pay for it "just like we paid for WW2, or the interstate highway system."  And the young believe it. 

It’s a political version of John Lennon’s “Imagine.”  Difference is, Lennon couldn't drag us down that path.  But given 3 senate seats and the presidence and the Dems can start us down that disastrous path.


I was discussing the GND with a liberal Democrat friend of mine.  He's a PhD with a science background, so I thought there was a chance he'd agree that the GND was an insane proposal.  Instead his reaction was to try to change the subject to bitching about how stupid Republicans were for wanting a wall--which he absolutely assured me couldn't possibly help, because "You can always climb over it." 

Wow, that's why PhD's get paid the big bucks, eh?  Cuz that never occurred to anyone else!  And it certainly totally demolishes the logic behind thinking a wall would be a significant deterrent.

The guy steadfastly refused to say a single critical word about the huge number of insane proposals in the Dem paper.  I couldn't even get him to agree that ANY of the specific proposals were crazy.  Instead he ignored the points in the proposal and just fulminated about what a horrible job Trump was doing.

And this, friends, is how 99 percent of academics think.  Whatever logic they ever used goes right out the window if they can blame Trump's administration for every woe both here and abroad.  Great economy, with record-low unemployment for blacks and hispanics?  Ignored, dismissed.

Record oil production, such that the U.S. is now a net exporter of energy--something Obama and the every one of the so-called "elites" unequivocally dismissed as absurd and impossible?  Ignored or dismissed as insignificant.

Fact that North Korea hasn't tested a single atom bomb or test-fired a single missile since Trump made it clear to Kim that the U.S. would no longer tolerate that behavior?  Ignored.

"We couldn't manage to roll out our own Green New Deal without lying about what it contained, and claiming Republicans hacked our website, but, like, you can totally trust us to make all the right decisions to run a $21 trillion economy and healthcare for 330 million people."

Sincerely, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and every Democrat presidential contender