Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Justice Democrats: Orchestrators of The Green New Deal-socialist agenda veiled as environmentalism

Frontpagemagazine ^ | February 19, 2019 | Discover The Networks 

The Green New Deal is the linchpin of a broad socialist agenda veiled as “environmentalism".
In light of the massive attention currently being directed toward the Democrats' so-called “Green New Deal,” it is worth examining one particular organization that has played a vital role in promoting not only that Deal, but its staunchest advocates as well. That organization is Justice Democrats (JD), a federal political action committee which was launched in Los Angeles on January 23, 2017. The group was co-founded by several individuals who had been either supporters or staffers of Senator Bernie Sanders’ failed presidential campaign of 2016. These included: Cenk Uygur of the online news program The Young Turks; longtime Democrat operative Zack Exley, who has had close ties to MoveOn.org and George Soros's Open Society Foundations; Saikat Chakrabarti, who later went on to become the campaign manager and chief-of-staff to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Alexandra Rojas (national digital field director of Sanders’ campaign); Corbin Trent (founder of “Tennessee for Bernie Sanders”); and Kyle Kulinski, the host and producer of the YouTube show Secular Talk. All except Kulinski had also been co-founders (in 2016) of the pro-Democrat organization Brand New Congress (BNC).
In contrast to BNC’s unusually ambitious goal of replacing all 435 U.S. House Members with political novices, JD deemed it wiser to support some incumbent Democrats and to direct its efforts chiefly toward unseating: (a) only those Democrats whose politics were unacceptably centrist, and (b) as many Republicans as possible. Over time, JD reasoned, this approach would help “change the Democratic Party from the inside out” by moving it ever farther to the political left. Boasting a membership of some 200,000 people, JD formally established an alliance with BNC in March 2017.

JD condemns the “racism and xenophobia [that] have always been part of our country’s history,” throughout which “African Americans and Latinos in particular, and people of color generally, have been targets in our nation’s continued assault against their rights, liberties, and humanity.” To address these injustices, the organization calls for the creation of “a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the generational harms caused by slavery and Jim Crow and [to] propose remedies.”

In the 2018 election season, JD endorsed 67 Democratic congressional candidates, 23 of whom won their party primary races, and 7 of whom were ultimately elected to the U.S House. Those were: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, Raul Grijalva, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida TlaibIlhan Omar, and Pramila Jayapal. Among the more noteworthy candidates who received JD’s support but failed to win their respective elections were Ben Jealous and Abdul El-Sayed.

To secure JD’s endorsement and support, candidates are required to pledge that they will not accept any money from corporate PACs or corporate lobbyists, and to openly embrace the organization’s political platform. Key planks of that platform include the following:

  • Enact a Green New Deal, environmental legislation whose mission is to rapidly eliminate all fossil-fuel use from the U.S. economy; create a basic income program and a federal jobs guarantee that would provide a “living wage” to every person who wants one; implement a government-run, single-payer health care system called “Medicare For All”; and replace free-market capitalism with a socialist framework.
  • Invest “trillions” of dollars in “rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports, etc.”
  • “Mak[e] the top 1% [of earners] and multinational corporations pay their fair share” of taxes.
  • Provide free education for everyone attending public colleges and trade schools.
  • Increase expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which already consume, in aggregate, 62% of the federal budget.
  • Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, family leave, and childcare services for all American workers.
  • “Protect women’s rights” by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act, repealing the Hyde Amendment (which bars the use of public money to fund abortions), and “oppos[ing] Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood.”
  • Enact “sweeping and comprehensive policy changes” to a criminal-justice system that “currently targets Black and Brown people” with “inappropriate policing practices” and “unjust mass incarceration.”
  • “Invest more in jobs and education, less in jails and incarceration.”
  • End “the racist War on Drugs” that “has torn families apart all across our country” and disproportionately harms the black community.
  • Abolish capital punishment, an “indefensible” practice that too often “puts innocent people to death.
  • Place “a ban on assault weapons” (semi-automatic weapons) and “high-capacity magazines.”
  • Secure the “voting rights” of “every American citizen” by eliminating Voter ID laws allegedly designed “to disenfranchise [poor and nonwhite] voting blocks who have traditionally supported Democrats.”
  • Abolish the federal Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which “has turned into a state-funded terror group that regularly violates basic human rights.”
  • Implement “comprehensive immigration reform” that ensures a “path to citizenship” for millions of illegal aliens.
  • “Support the movement to provide statehood for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico” – places whose residents overwhelmingly support Democrats over Republicans – “in order to bring balance to the increasingly skewed Senate.”
  • “Support public financing of elections and the removal of the corrupting influence of corporate and big money in our democracy.”
In 2018, JD played a key role in promoting the congressional campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By February 2018, Ocasio-Cortez had become a member of of JD’s board of directors. JD's socialist, open-borders, transformative agenda is hers as well.

Married brother!


Not easy being green!


They Didn't




Not Good






Fake Outrage


For the soul


Monday, February 18, 2019

Trump’s emergency declaration: ‘Democrats will lose’ on merits of case

The National Sentinel ^ | 2/17. 19 | Jon Dougherty 

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional expert, explained the difference on Friday between President Barack Obama’s legal case involving lawsuits against Obamacare and President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.
“They’re using the case where I represented the House of Representatives against Obamacare. And we won. But this is not the same case,” Turley said on “Fox & Friends.
“What President Obama did was order the Treasury essentially to be opened up and to pay insurance companies. That’s a different type of funding.”
“What Trump is going to do is he’s going to use money that was appropriated by Congress. It just doesn’t have these tight conditions on them. That’s Congress’ decision to make. They can appropriate money and not put many conditions on.
“So it’s going to be a different fight,” Turley continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...

It's not easy


It is NOT...




Good & Bad


What is collusion?


Sunday, February 17, 2019

"Progressive" Attacks on Capitalism Were Key to Hitler's Success

Mises Institute ^ | 02/07/19 | Ludwig von Mises 

The following, written in 1940, is excerpted from Interventionism, An Economic Analysis, which was originally part of Nationaloekonomie, the German predecessor to Human Action.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini constantly proclaim that they are chosen by destiny to bring salvation to this world. They claim they are the leaders of the creative youth who fight against their outlived elders. They bring from the East the new culture which is to replace the dying Western civilization. They want to give the coup de grace to liberalism and capitalism; they want to overcome immoral egoism by altruism; they plan to replace the anarchic democracy by order and organization, the society of “classes” by the total state, the market economy by socialism. Their war is not a war for territorial expansion, for loot and hegemony like the imperialistic wars of the past, but a holy crusade for a better world to live in. And they feel certain of their victory because they are convinced that they are borne by “the wave of the future.”
It is a law of nature, they say, that great historic changes cannot take place peacefully or without conflict. It would be petty and stupid, they contend, to overlook the creative quality of their work because of some unpleasantness which the great world revolution must necessarily bring with it. They maintain one should not overlook the glory of the new gospel because of ill-placed pity for Jews and Masons, Poles and Czechs, Finns and Greeks, the decadent English aristocracy and the corrupt French bourgeoisie. Such softness and such blindness for the new standards of morality prove only the decadence of the dying capitalistic pseudo-culture. The whining and crying of impotent old men, they say, is futile; it will not stop the victorious advance of youth. No one can stop the wheel of history, or turn back the clock of time.
The success of this propaganda is overwhelming. People do not consider the content of alleged new gospel; they merely understand that it is new and believe to see in this fact its justification. As women welcome a new style in clothes just to have a change, so the supposedly new style in politics and economics is welcomed. People hasten to exchange their “old” ideas for “new” ones, because they fear to appear old-fashioned and reactionary. They join the chorus decrying the shortcomings of the capitalistic civilization and speak in elated enthusiasm of the achievements of the autocrats. Nothing is today more fashionable than slandering Western civilization.
This mentality has made it easy for Hitler to gain his victories. The Czechs and the Danes capitulated without a fight. Norwegian officers handed over large sections of their country to Hitler’s army. The Dutch and the Belgians gave in after only a short resistance. The French had the audacity to celebrate the destruction of their independence as a “national revival.” It took Hitler five years to effect the Anschluss of Austria; two-and-one-half years later he was master of the European continent.
Hitler does not have a new secret weapon at his disposal. He does not owe his victory to an excellent intelligence service which informs him of the plans of his opponents. Even the much-talked-of “fifth column” was not decisive. He won because the supposed opponents were already quite sympathetic to the ideas for which he stood.
Only those who unconditionally and unrestrictedly consider the market economy as the only workable form of social cooperation are opponents of the totalitarian systems and are capable of fighting them successfully. Those who want socialism intend to bring to their country the system which Russia and Germany enjoy. To favor interventionism means to enter a road which inevitably leads to socialism.
An ideological struggle cannot be fought successfully with constant concessions to the principles of the enemy. Those who refute capitalism because it supposedly is inimical to the interest of the masses, those who proclaim “as a matter of course” that after the victory over Hitler the market economy will have to be replaced by a better system and, therefore, everything should be done now to make the government control of business as complete as possible, are actually fighting for totalitarianism. The “progressives” who today masquerade as “liberals” may rant against “fascism”; yet it is their policy that paves the way for Hitlerism.
Nothing could have been more helpful to the success of the National-Socialist (Nazi) movement than the methods used by the “progressives,” denouncing Nazism as a party serving the interests of “capital.” The German workers knew this tactic too well to be deceived by it again.
Was it not true that, since the seventies of the last century, the ostensibly pro-labor Social-Democrats had fought all the pro-labor measures of the German government vigorously, calling them “bourgeois” and injurious to the interests of the working class?
The Social-Democrats had consistently voted against the nationalization of the railroads, the municipalization of the public utilities, labor legislation, and compulsory accident, sickness, and old-age insurance, the German social security system which was adopted later throughout the world. Then after the war [World War l] the Communists branded the German Social-Democratic party and the Social-Democratic unions as “traitors to their class.” So the German workers realized that every party wooing them called the competing parties “willing servants of capitalism,” and their allegiance to Nazism would not be shattered by such phrases.
Unless we are utterly oblivious to the facts, we must realize that the German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer). Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.
The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.
What pernicious effects may be produced by believing that the German workers are opposed to Hitler was proved by the English tactics during the first year of the war. The government of Neville Chamberlain firmly believed that the war would be brought to an end by a revolution of the German workers. Instead of concentrating on vigorous arming and fighting, they had their planes drop leaflets over Germany telling the German workers that England was not fighting this war against them, but against their oppressor, Hitler. The English government knew very well, they said, that the German people, particularly labor, were against war and were only forced into it by their self-imposed dictator.
The workers in the Anglo-Saxon countries, too, knew that the socialist parties competing for their favor usually accused each other of favoring capitalism. Communists of all shades advance this accusation against socialists. And within the Communist groups the Trotskyites used this same argument against Stalin and his men. And vice versa. The fact that the “progressives” bring the same accusation against Nazism and Fascism will not prevent labor some day from following another gang wearing shirts of a different color.
What is wrong with Western civilization is the accepted habit of judging political parties merely by asking whether they seem new and radical enough, not by analyzing whether they are wise or unwise, or whether they are apt to achieve their aims. Not everything that exists today is reasonable; but this does not mean that everything that does not exist is sensible.
The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is “left” and what is “right”? Why should Hitler be “right” and Stalin, his temporary friend, be “left”? Who is “reactionary” and who is “progressive”? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. “Orthodoxy” is not an evil if the doctrine on which the “orthodox” stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is “nationalist,” those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?
What would have happened to Western civilization if its peoples had always shown such liking for the “new”? Suppose they had welcomed as “the wave of the future” Attila and his Huns, the creed of Mohammed, or the Tartars? They, too, were totalitarian and had military successes to their credit which made the weak hesitate and ready to capitulate. What mankind needs today is liberation from the rule of nonsensical slogans and a return to sound reasoning.

Saturday, February 16, 2019


Powerline ^ | 15 Feb 2019 | John Hinderaker 

The two hottest commodities in the Democratic Party are Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Earlier this week, Omar exhibited stunning ignorance in her hostile questioning of Elliott Adams Abrams. Similarly, Ocasio-Cortez has often displayed a surprising lack of knowledge for someone who apparently is a college graduate. Don’t get me started on the “Green New Socialism.” But she outdid herself yesterday.

The context was Amazon’s announcement that it would not, after all, build a second corporate headquarters in Long Island City, which I understand is close to, but not within, Ocasio-Cortez’s district. The project reportedly would have entailed 25,000 new jobs–normally considered a good thing by Congressmen. But Ocasio-Cortez thought it was wonderful that her constituents would not have the option to compete for those jobs:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.

I suppose if AOC’s constituents thought they would be “exploited” by Amazon they wouldn’t have to apply for jobs there. Now, they don’t have the choice.

Whether New York should have given Amazon incentives necessary to cement the Long Island City deal is debatable. As a conservative, I might say No. So, putting aside the idiotic Marxist rhetoric, there is nothing wrong with saying adios to Amazon. This is where Ocasio-Cortez went off the rails and took a deep dive into stupidity:

You know, I think it’s really important that we understand that we need to invest in our economy, but we need to invest in our people, and to give away $3 billion to a company that has a history of worker exploitation that’s paying below what the cost of New York City is not acceptable for us.

Of course, New York wasn’t going to “give” Amazon anything, let alone $3 billion. The $3 billion is an estimate of foregone tax revenues. In other words, money that Amazon won’t pay New York, not money that New York will pay Amazon. This is childishly simple, but apparently too much for AOC:

What’s great is that our economy, our local economy, is already growing. So I firmly believe that if we want to take that $3 billion dollars that we were willing to give to Amazon and invest it in our local community, we can do that. We can make those jobs. We can make 25,000 jobs. But we don’t have to give away and allow our subway system to crumble so that Amazon essentially owns a part of New York City. We can create 25,000 jobs with Mom-and-Pops; we can create 25,000 jobs with companies that are willing to come to the table, but we should not be giving away our infrastructure, our subway system, our schools, our teachers’ salaries, our firefighters’ budgets, to a company that has not shown good faith to New Yorke

This is almost unbelievably stupid. Obviously, there is no “$3 billion dollars that we were willing to give to Amazon.” No one ever proposed to give money to Amazon. Those were dollars that “we” hypothetically would have refrained from collecting from Amazon. Those dollars do not exist. They are not in the possession of New York State or any other public entity. They cannot be “invest[ed] in our local community.” The absence of those funds will not “allow our subway system to crumble.” No one has ever proposed “giving away our infrastructure, our schools, our teachers’ salaries, our firefighters’ budgets,” to Amazon or anyone else.

This isn’t complicated stuff. If Ocasio-Cortez is really this stupid, she shouldn’t have graduated from high school. She certainly shouldn’t be representing many thousands of constituents, who must assume that she is of at least average intelligence, in Congress.

Justice Democrats: Orchestrators of The Green New Deal-socialist agenda veiled as environmentalism

Frontpagemagazine ^   | February 19, 2019 | Discover The Networks  The Green New Deal is the linchpin of a broad socialist agenda veiled a...