What’s Up with the Great Reset?

Stacey Rudin – January 6, 2021 

At any anti-lockdown protest, you will see signs that say “Stop the Great Reset.” The New York Times calls this phrase “a baseless conspiracy theory.” Here is the problem. None of this is secret. There are books you can read about it and detailed websites describing it. Time Magazine even did a cover story. It’s the title of World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab’s book on the lockdowns and the future. It was published July 9, 2020, and now has nearly 900 reviews on Amazon. 

Proponents of “The Great Reset” argue that the pandemic proves our former society “doesn’t work,” so we need a tech-focused, “sustainable” future to reduce emissions and thereby “save the planet.” The Great Reset is a rebranded, tightened-up version of the UN’s decades-old “Sustainable Development” agenda (“Agenda 21”). The same policies and ideas are contained in “The Green New Deal,” which was defeated in 2019 in the US Congress. 

It bears repeating: six months before “SARS-CoV-2” was discovered by China, the UN and the WEF signed a “Strategic Partnership” specifically to advance the “Sustainable Development” agenda, now known as “The Great Reset.” You can read all about this partnership online.

Schwab has been openly “fighting” (to use his own word) against Milton Friedman-style economics for decades, ever since Friedman published his famous 1970 essay: “The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Schwab now predicts that the “COVID19 pandemic” — which he says will last at least until 2022 — will mark the final death-knell of “neo-liberalism,” which he defines as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favoring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over social welfare.”...........To Read More....

What a 'Green New Deal' Will Look Like

And what it will mean for the everyday lives of Americans. 

Fri Jan 1, 2021 Discover The Networks

In light of the strong probability that a Biden administration will soon take office in the White House, Americans must prepare for the cold reality that one of Joe Biden’s foremost objectives will be to fulfill his party’s pledge to “decarbonize the power sector” by implementing “all zero-carbon technologies.” Toward that end, the Democrats will seek to enact a “Green New Deal,” the highly prized centerpiece of their environmental agenda. What, exactly, will that mean for the everyday lives of Americans.

The origins of the term “Green New Deal” — an idea founded on the premise that the greenhouse gas emissions (especially carbon dioxide) associated with human industrial activity are responsible for potentially catastrophic “climate change” — can be traced back to Richard Murphy, a British tax scholar and political economy professor, who in 2007 collaborated with a number of newspaper editors, economists, and environmentalists to form a “Green New Deal Group.”

This group proposed massive public expenditures to

1. the development of a zero-carbon-emission transportation infrastructure wholly reliant on renewable (wind, water, and solar) energy sources
2. the wide-scale insulation of homes to make them more energy-efficient; and
3. the establishment of training programs to develop a national corps of workers to carry out these objectives. 

To raise the money required in order to enact this initiative, Murphy advocated a combination of tax hikes on wealthy people and corporations, “straightforward deficit spending,” and the implementation of quantitative easing – a strategy whereby the government would establish a green infrastructure bank that would issue bonds which the government, in turn, could buy back. On July 21, 2008, Murphy’s “Green New Deal Group” published a report detailing its specific recommendations.

In a similar spirit, on October 22, 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme’s executive director, Achim Steiner, unveiled a “Global Green New Deal” initiative designed to simultaneously strengthen the world economy and curb climate change by creating jobs in a wide array of “green” industries. The following year, the United Nations drafted a report explicitly calling for a “Global Green New Deal” to promote government stimulus spending on renewable energy projects.

In 2008 as well, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama added a Green New Deal to his campaign platform. Obama’s ally, the self-identified revolutionary communist Van Jones — who in 2009 would become President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” — made clear his desire to incrementally socialize, by stealth, the U.S. economy: “Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we’re not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether … until [the green economy] becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

In 2012 and again in 2016, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein revived the idea by making a Green New Deal a central part of her campaigns. Moreover, the Green New Deal became part of the Green Party’s official platform.

In an October 2018 campaign appearance, Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made reference to a “Green New Deal” that would aim to make the U.S. 100 percent reliant on renewable energy sources (wind, water, solar) by the year 2035. “There’s no debate as to whether we should continue producing fossil fuels,” she said. “There’s no debate. We should not. Every single scientific consensus points to that.” In another campaign speech that same month, Ocasio-Cortez likened the fight against climate change to America’s battle against Nazi Germany. She also said that “the Green New Deal we are proposing will be similar in scale to the mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan,” and would thus “require the investment of trillions of dollars.”

Employing yet another metaphor, Ocasio-Cortez said at a December 2018 climate-change town hall meeting that the Green New Deal “is going to be the Great Society, the moonshot, the civil rights movement of our generation.”

Operationally, the Green New Deal, as originally described by Ocasio-Cortez, would eliminate all fossil fuels from the U.S. electric grid by 2030, thereby forcing Americans to use much more expensive and much less reliable energy sources such as wind and solar. The plan would also mandate trillions of dollars in public expenditures on government-approved “upgrades” and “retrofits” of all existing homes and businesses in the United States — e.g., installing insulation, weather stripping, thermal windows, and storm doors to make the buildings more “energy efficient” — and implementing zero-carbon standards for all new building construction.

It is noteworthy that although Ocasio-Cortez and some other Democrats began promoting a “Green New Deal” during the 2018 campaign season in the United States, it was not until December 2018 – well after Election Day – that their plan was actually fleshed out in the form of a tangible document. Remarkably, their Green New Deal was drafted during a single December weekend by young millennial staffers employed by Ocasio-Cortez and three like-minded progressive organizations – the Sunrise Movement, Justice Democrats, and the New Consensus. According to Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff: “We spent the weekend learning how to put laws together. We looked up how to write resolutions.” 

Within a matter of weeks, more than 100 congressional Democrats had officially signed on as co-sponsors of the Green New Deal.

In a January 2019 analysis of the Green New Deal’s call for the elimination of fossil fuels, the Heartland Institute points out that “when there is more carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, plants generally grow faster, which means there’s more food available to feed the world’s growing population of people and animals.” Aside from that, adds the Institute, “regardless of what we do in the United States, the rest of the world is going to continue increasing its fossil fuel use, more than offsetting any CO2 reductions we might make. Even if we were to commit economic suicide and pass the radical Green New Deal, total global CO2 emissions would still increase by billions of tons by 2030.” In short, any carbon-cutting measures taken by the United States would be doomed to irrelevance.

In addition to doing away with fossil fuels, the Green New Deal would seek to raise the living standards of low-income people by guaranteeing that they could be trained and hired for federal “green jobs” paying them at least $15-per-hour to implement the aforementioned upgrades, retrofits, and construction projects, thereby helping those people make a “just transition” from their previous occupations to the new “green economy.” The premise underlying these training/hiring policies is that some form of economic reparations or wealth transfer should be put in place to counteract America’s historical discrimination against “low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, [and] the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution, and other environmental harm.”

And the Green New Deal’s redistributionist measures would not stop there. Scholar Tim Huelskamp, who describes the plan as “the most radical socialist proposal in modern congressional history,” explains that its provisions extend far beyond matters that are even remotely associated with energy efficiency, the environment, and climate. That is, the Green New Deal seeks to remake the entire American economy:

“[T]heir real desire is to accomplish the Left’s longtime goal of moving the United States toward full adoption of socialism. This isn’t just a theory. Significant provisions of the Green New Deal reveal its true purpose of imposing socialism on an unprecedented scale. The plan would create a ‘basic income program’ and federal jobs guarantee providing a ‘living wage’ to everybody who says they want one. It would impose a federal-government-run, single-payer health care system with bureaucrats and liberal politicians in Washington, D.C. in charge of every American’s health care. It would encourage the Federal Reserve to unleash inflation and create a system of government-owned banks to ‘create’ tens of trillions of dollars needed to fund these immense programs. None of these proposals has anything at all to do with climate change.”

On February 5, 2019 — two days prior to formally unveiling her Green New Deal Resolution — Ocasio-Cortez released a backgrounder that laid out all the major provisions of the Resolution. It included a subtle but enormously consequential change from previous descriptions of the Green New Deal. Instead of seeking to entirely eliminate fossil-fuel use in America by 2030, the goal would now be to develop a “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” economy by that point in time. As the climate activist website Generation Yes explains, this means “reducing the volume of greenhouse gas emissions that human activity releases into the atmosphere until our total output is no greater than the emissions we remove, through activities like planting carbon forests, reducing deforestation and using technologies like carbon capture and storage.” “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years,” said Ocasio-Cortez’s backgrounder, “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The long-term objective, however, was to “transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s Resolution was replete with additional ambitious goals, as the backgrounder made plain:

• “Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs” in the so-called green energy sector, funded by public money;
• “Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure” at a cost of “$4.6 trillion at minimum”;
• “Upgrade or replace every building in [the] U.S. for state-of-the-art energy efficiency”;
• “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, [and] create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle”; and
• “Plant lots of trees” in order to reduce deforestation.

In addition to environmental and energy matters, the Green New Deal would “build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing” a number of major benefits:

• “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”;
• “a [federal] job with a family-sustaining wage” for those who are in fact able and willing to work; 
• “family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security” for all workers;
• “high-quality education, including higher education and trade schools,” with all tuition costs covered by the government;
• “access to nature”;
• “healthy food”;
• “high-quality health care”; and
• “safe, affordable, adequate housing.”

In a Washington Post interview in July 2019, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief-of-staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, acknowledged that the Green New Deal had not been devised to protect the environment, but rather to implement socialism. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys [reporters] think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

And so, in an unguarded moment of honesty, a key figure in the Green New Deal’s creation let the proverbial cat out of the bag. It isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about implementing socialism in a stealth, deceptive manner, on the fraudulent pretext of “saving the planet.”

 

Biden’s rejection of Green New Deal and other progressive policies in debate, irks radical left

Lisa Kashinsky, Boston Herald | Oct 1, 2020 | Fresh Ink | 9

Joe Biden broke with his party’s left wing on several key issues in his first debate against President Trump, frustrating some progressives whose votes he needs to win the White House as the president works to sow discord among Democrats.

“When you’re doubling down and saying ‘I’m not supporting the issues’ that have created a surge of new Democratic voters in the last four years, that is an affront,” Boston-based Democratic strategist Wilnelia Rivera said. “What Biden needs to do is speak from a place that drives all of us out.”

Biden disavowed the Green New Deal in Tuesday’s debate and rejected “Medicare for All.” He refused to answer when moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News asked if he would support some Democrats’ calls to end the Senate filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.

The former vice president then doubled down on his lack of support for Medicare for All and touted his own climate change proposal, the “Biden Green Deal,” while speaking to reporters Wednesday in Alliance, Ohio...........To Read More.....

My Take - The reality of Biden is he has no idea what he believes because he believes in nothing. He's a perfect representation of a leftist. Leftism has no moral foundation except the insane craving for power. 

Leftists will adopt the latest philosophical flavor of the day even if that position is diametrically opposed to the position they held the day before, and will embrace the new position with the same passion they demonstrated for their former position, and condemn those in opposition, even if they were allies to their previously held position as corrupt, mean spirited, cruel, greedy, etc.  The party of racism, the Democrat party, is now the party that condemns the party that actually ended slavery\ and  passed the Voting Rights Act which Democrats opposed.  That's history and that history is incontestable. 

Having said that, he neither believes in, or disbelieves i the New Green Deal, so if he were to become President, and the Congress would become Democrat, he would happily deliver it to the left, and destroy the country. 

There is one more fundamental foundation of leftism. Insanity.

The Green New Deal means monumental disruption

Not just for energy, but for every aspect of our lives, living standards, culture and freedoms

David Wojick and Paul Driessen

Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan. Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question.

The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden's so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from. Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s then chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:

“The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added]

World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks. They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice and disruption are irrelevant.

Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream.

$100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was. To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this, because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out.

But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture.

If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this what it should cost.” It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.”

People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do. So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example – not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II.

Gasoline, meat and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose. Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II]

No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without inflicting severe disruption on people’s lives.

The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not. The minor to modest temperature, climate and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world  outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon.

In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is. The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll.

Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming. Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change!

Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them.

And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt hour (11.4¢ or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany. Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest.

It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy. They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places.

The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices. And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal.

These are stupendous, outrageous costs and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years. And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant.

The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes.

They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) – resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heat waves. They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power.

And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture.

Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell ... and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions.

The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have Covid and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters and arsonists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families.

The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

Is COVID-19 A Test Run For The Power-Hungry Democrats’ Green New Deal?

By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives--April 19, 2020

The plague that has shut down the entire world by keeping people hostage in their own homes is,  as President Donald Trump calls it, an “Invisible Enemy”.  “Invisible” in the respect that all of those who count on gaining from it, are no longer visible anywhere in the flesh, but waiting it out from the safe distance of the virtual world where they can be only be seen digitally.

Having hoarded ice cream and plenty of chocolate, they wait out in lavish comfort for November 3, 2020, in an election that Barack and Michelle Obama promise to make a total mail-in vote for two-term former Vice President Joe Biden.

Not having to clock in for work, elected officials don’t have to wait on the mail for their guaranteed but vastly unearned pay checks. Only President Trump, surrounded by a sea of medical experts, led by two Obama holdovers,  who count on ‘mitigation’ against the spread of the pandemic, is working.

Knowing at heart that he will be blamed for every tragic death in a seeming runaway pandemic of many names, he is attacked daily by the ‘journalists’ in the White House Press Corps.  You can see it daily on television, where because there is no work outside the home, you now have nothing better to do.  But the one name you will NEVER hear attached to COVID-19 is the Green New Deal, an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed package of United States legislation that aims to address climate change and economic inequality.  One that every elected Democrat—still pretending that it’s “only” a draft—is fully backing.

Is COVID-19, which has brought the entire world to a sudden halt, a test run for the power-hungry Democrats’ Green New Deal? “According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be (Wikipedia):.......To Read More....



Feel the Bern? Venezuela is a Socialist Hell.

By Rich Kozlovich

On December 23, 2019 Monica Showalter posted the article, Animated graphic shows Venezuela's year-by-year descent to rock bottom, with this powerful race to the bottom short graphic.  This moves quickly so remember the blue line represents Venezuela.  

Venezuela is a socialist induced hell filled with squalor, suffering, starvation, disease, unfettered crime, tyranny and early death.  Showalter goes on to quote Issues & Insight's John Merline saying:

Of course, Venezuela is just the latest example of socialism’s failure. Despite the lure of "fairness" and "economic security" and "taking on the rich" — sound familiar? — every socialist country ends up in the same desperate ditch.  

Venezuela is such a painfully obvious example of the disgusting imperfection socialists impose on humanity.  All the while unendingly demanding perfection from capitalists.

Venezuela is a "hell hole", one they brought on themselves. The country has tuned into a huge criminal enterprise, with the government as the primary criminal. How to fix it? If they overthrew this corrupt band of thieves today, it would take decades and hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars to bring their economy back, feed their population, repair their infrastructure, and just reasonably restore the health care system. But it will take decades to overcome the impact starvation will have had on the children.

These are their formative years physically and mentally, and impairment of their development caused by starvation is incalculable. And the impact of those impairments will last for the rest of their lives. That will impact the nation's efforts to heal itself, if they ever get the chance.

(Editor's Note: Please review my Venezuela files.RK)

Can Bernie explain that? This is what he would love it impose on America, along with the rest of the leftist lunatics running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

Biden want to put policies into place that will destroy hundreds of thousand of jobs imposing the New Green Deal on America.

Bernie wants to create ex post facto laws in order to "criminally prosecute the fossil fuel executives who destroyed the planet."

What's an ex post facto law?

It's a law that criminalizes behavior before that behavior became illegal.  To do so would directly violate the Constitution, which contains "two clauses in the constitution prohibit ex post facto. Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: 'No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed,' which follows the rational thinking that if there's no law, there's no crime.

To change that is to give carte blanche to radicals to put anyone in jail for anything, whenever it pleases them. It's really called tyranny, and one of the factors triggering the American Revolution.

Bernie and his crowd of would be tyrants want to directly violate the Constitution which prevent ex post facto laws.

 Make no mistake about this:  The only time socialists love the Constitution is when they can use it against conservatives.  The rest of the time they hate it and want to destroy it by using our own values against us. Horowitz is completely right when he says:

Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

 By the way, this is so profound you would think it would be published everywhere.  Try to find that article by Googling it. If I hadn't already seen it and knew where to look it wouldn't have been able to find it as it never appeared on any of the three search engines I use.

Then there's Elizabeth Warren who believes trillions of dollars in tax hikes is good for America.  Not to mention her fifty trillion plus cost for universal health care.  I would like for her to name one country in the history of the world where such an action proved economically positive.

(Editor's Note: You may wish to view my files on Taxes, and Warren figures prominently in those files. RK)

In Dan Mitchell's article, The Real Motive for Class-Warfare Taxation he states:

In addition to being a contest over expanding the burden of government spending, the Democratic primary also is a contest to see who wants the biggest tax increases. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have made class-warfare taxation an integral part of their campaigns, but even some of the supposedly reasonable Democrats are pushing big increases in tax rates.

Taxes are about control, not about economic growth or freedom.  We really do need to get that, and these are the top three loons running for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States. The rest are even loonier.

So what's their goal? Make America Venezuela!

Maybe they should get some ball caps with MAV on them for their campaigns. MAGA worked for Trump, maybe MAV will work for the Democrats?

Nah, I wouldn't make book on that.

The Green 'New' Deal is the Old Agenda 21

October 9, 2019 By Daniel John Sobieski

Greta Thunberg became the poster child for climate hysteria and fraud by sailing across the Atlantic in a supposedly “zero-carbon” yacht, the Malizia II, which in fact was made out of petroleum products from stem to stern, as pointed out by CFACT:..........

........Agenda 21, as Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) noted in a June 7, 2012 editorial, was a fundamental assault on the rights our Founding Fathers fought for, the basis for the freedoms and democracy that we enjoy. It is all for surrendering those rights on the altar of “social justice” and planetary salvation:

One of those is property rights. "Land... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market," Agenda 21 says. "Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes."............

Something wicked this way comes and it is called the Green New Deal. The direct descendant of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, it will, if fully implemented, complete President Obama’s promised fundamental transformation of America from the land of the free to the home of the impoverished and enslaved..............To Read More.....

“Medicare for All” Would Copy the Bad Features of the U.K.’s Government-Run System

April 5, 2019 by Dan Mitchell  @ International Liberty

The so-called Green New Deal is only tangentially related to climate issues.

It’s best to think of it as the left’s wish list, and it includes a paid leave entitlement, government jobs, infrastructure boondoggles, and an expansion of the already bankrupt Social Security system.

But the most expensive item on the list is “Medicare for All,” which is a scheme concocted by Bernie Sanders to have the government pay for everything.

Would this be a good idea? In a column for Forbes, Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute explains that government-run healthcare in the United Kingdom has some very unfriendly features.

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more. …Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. …Wait times for cancer treatment — where timeliness can be a matter of life and death — are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn’t start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. …And keep in mind that “on time” for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

If this sounds like the VA health care system, you’re right.

Both are government run. Both make people wait.

And both produce bad outcomes. Here’s some of the data from the British system.

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.

Just like I told Simon Hobbs on CNBC many years ago.

The best part of Sally’s column is that she explains how the flaws in the U.K. system are being copied by Bernie Sanders and other supporters.

Great Britain’s health crisis is the inevitable outcome of a system where government edicts, not supply and demand, determine where scarce resources are allocated. Yet some lawmakers are gunning to implement precisely such a system in the United States. The bulk of the Democratic Party’s field of presidential candidates — including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren — co-sponsored Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2017 “Medicare for All” bill. That plan would abolish private insurance and put all Americans on a single government-run plan… Britons face long waits for poor care under their country’s single-payer system. That’s not the sort of healthcare model the American people are looking for.

The bottom line is that Medicare for All would further exacerbate the third-party payer problem that already plagues the health care system.

And that means ever-escalating demand, rising costs, and inefficiencies.

There are only two ways of dealing with the cost spiral. One option is huge tax increases, which would result in a massive, European-style tax burden on the lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.

Taxpayers in the U.K. endure higher burdens than their counterparts in America, But they also suffer from the second option for dealing with the cost spiral, which is rationing.

Some of the data was in Ms. Pipes’ column.

If you want more examples (and some horrifying examples), you can click stories from 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012.