MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’

Erie Times E-Edition Article – Kamala Harris part of leftist Trojan horse operation

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

If Harris really were a moderate, progressives would be up in arms over her choice. But they are not.

The left sees Biden as their Trojan horse. They want voters to look at his inoffensive, moderate, bipartisan exterior, and decide it is safe to let him inside the White House gates. But as soon as they do, an army of socialists will rush out — led by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — to impose a radical progressive agenda on America.

This coming from WaPo! I am surprised it is permitted.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1700df0f9

Kamala Harris a moderate? Not even close. Welcome to the leftist Trojan horse operation.

In case you haven’t noticed, there is a not-sosubtle campaign afoot to paint Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as a centrist — an effort that exposes the left’s strategy to fool the American people into giving them political power in November.

After presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced Harris as his running mate, the New York Times immediately declared her a ‘pragmatic moderate,’ the Los Angeles Times called her a ‘centrist’ and ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos told his viewers ‘Kamala Harris comes from the middle of the road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party.’

No, she doesn’t. Harris was the ‘most liberal compared to all senators’ in 2019 according to Gov-Track, the nonpartisan government transparency watchdog — to the left of even her democraticsocialist colleague, Sen.

Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Harris wasn’t ‘pragmatic’ either. GovTrack found she ‘joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats.’

According to Manhattan Institute budget expert Brian Riedl, Harris has proposed a mind-numbing $46 trillion in new spending over the next decade.

She supports the economically ruinous Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all and free taxpayer funded health care for undocumented immigrants. She is also an abortion zealot who has suggested that a faithful Catholic who belongs to the Knights of Columbus is unfit to serve as a federal judge. She opposes deportation of those who illegally enter the United States and once compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the Ku Klux Klan.

If Harris really were a moderate, progressives would be up in arms over her choice. But they are not. Leftists understand that to win in November, they must be able to peel away reluctant Trump voters in key swing states who are uncomfortable with the leftward lurch of today’s Democratic Party. These voters need to believe that a Biden-Harris administration will be centrist and reasonable, so they can give themselves permission to defect and vote Democrats into power. So progressives and their allies in the mainstream media have tried to portray Biden’s choice of Harris as another example of how he has kept the left at arm’s length.

Progressives know it is a lie. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep.

Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., recently said the left need not worry about Biden’s moderate veneer because ‘he is movable.’ As she told ‘The Daily Show’ host Trevor Noah, ‘As soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.’

The left sees Biden as their Trojan horse. They want voters to look at his inoffensive, moderate, bipartisan exterior, and decide it is safe to let him inside the White House gates. But as soon as they do, an army of socialists will rush out — led by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — to impose a radical progressive agenda on America.

They have every reason to believe that will happen, because Biden has already given in to their demands. For more than 40 years, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for abortions, even writing a constituent to say, ‘Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.’ When he reiterated his support for the Hyde Amendment last year during the presidential primaries, he was chastised by none other than Harris, who declared, ‘No woman’s access to reproductive health care should be based on how much money she has. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.’

Biden quickly surrendered to Harris and the party’s pro-abortion radicals.

If Biden will capitulate to his party’s left wing on a fundamental moral question like abortion, what makes anyone think he won’t do the same when it comes to Medicare-for-all or the Green New Deal?

Most candidates tack to the center after securing their party’s nomination, but Biden has already gone to the left, forging a ‘unity platform’ with Sanders.

The platform was a wink and a nod to democratic socialists — embracing a number of their demands and promising to ‘study’ others once Biden is in the White House.

The left got the message: Once the election is over, Biden will move even further in their direction.

Besides, progressives in Congress believe that they will be setting the agenda anyway, and Biden’s job will be to autopen whatever they pass and put on his desk. What is he going to do, stand with Republicans and veto their legislation?

Progressives are more than comfortable spreading the myth of moderation, while they hide inside the belly of the Democratic ticket waiting for voters to open the White House gates.

Marc A. Thiessen is a Washington Post columnist. Contact him on Twitter, @marcthiessen.

Marc Thiessen

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kamala Harris Is Basically Obama-Clinton 2.0, but Worse | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2020

On foreign policy, for instance, Harris is not significantly different from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Joseph Biden, or other high-ranking US officials who have been happy to perpetuate endless wars across the globe in recent decades. According to her official campaign site, no region of the globe is off-limits to US intervention so long as the US intervenes multilaterally. It’s just the Clinton-Obama doctrine yet again. In usual Washington doublespeak fashion, she says she is in favor of ending the war in Afghanistan but insists that the US must maintain a presence there to prop up the Afghani regime. She has advocated continued military intervention in Syria. 

Harris is very much an advocate of the conspiracy theory that Russians “hacked” the 2016 election and remain a major threat to US security.

On the environment, she supports a “Green New Deal,” which we would today expect from any Democrat running for the White House. This means immense amounts of new subsidies for “green energy,” paid for with new taxes and a host of new regulations on private businesses. It means global management of carbon emissions in line with international agreements like the Paris accords.

On economic policy, it’s the usual interventionist slate of policies. She wants to “empower” labor unions, more heavily regulate employers, and aggressively prosecute businesses for a variety of “crimes” that run afoul of the intricate labyrinth of federal laws managing the financial sector. Fiscal policy is sure to be what we’ve come to expect from both Republicans and Democrats: endless deficit spending.

Harris has lauded federally imposed mandates like “forced busing,” in which federal courts dictate public schools’ enrollment policies in the name of racially desegregating schools.

https://mises.org/power-market/kamala-harris-basically-obama-clinton-20-worse?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=dd0d73cb0f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-dd0d73cb0f-228343965

Ryan McMaken

Listen to the Radio Rothbard version of this article.

Presidential candidate and former vice president Joseph Biden announced Kamala Harris as his running mate today. Harris is currently a US senator from California and the former attorney general for the state. Biden’s choice brings her back to the fore of the 2020 race after having dropped out as a presidential candidate in early December.

In many ways, Harris dropped out because she had trouble setting herself apart from other candidates such as Biden, representing the mainstream of the Democratic Party. While Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders represented in many respects the far left of the Democratic coalition, Harris was just one of several establishment Democrats in the race, and competed for many of the same fundraising dollars as Biden and Amy Klobuchar.

By picking Harris, Biden—or whoever is making these decisions for Biden—will likely placate the Obama-Clinton power brokers in the party who privately oppose lawmakers like Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are viewed by establishment Democrats as candidates who often alienate middle-class Middle American voters. At the same time, Harris is likely to satisfy—or at least silence—critics on the party’s left wing, who have long called for a black woman on the presidential ticket.

In 2020, the choice of a vice-presidential candidate is especially high-stakes, because many believe Biden will be either unwilling or unable to run for president in 2024. This sets Harris up as the heir-apparent leader of the party. Because Biden will be the oldest man to ever enter the presidency, and because he is clearly not in excellent health, it is known that Harris has a good chance of succeeding him directly in case he dies or becomes seriously ill.

But although Harris is “demographically correct” for the party’s left wing, she remains basically a social climber who is very well ensconced in the mainstream of the party—although the party’s mainstream has itself moved considerably to the left in recent years.

On foreign policy, for instance, Harris is not significantly different from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Joseph Biden, or other high-ranking US officials who have been happy to perpetuate endless wars across the globe in recent decades. According to her official campaign site, no region of the globe is off-limits to US intervention so long as the US intervenes multilaterally. It’s just the Clinton-Obama doctrine yet again. In usual Washington doublespeak fashion, she says she is in favor of ending the war in Afghanistan but insists that the US must maintain a presence there to prop up the Afghani regime. She has advocated continued military intervention in Syria.

Harris is very much an advocate of the conspiracy theory that Russians “hacked” the 2016 election and remain a major threat to US security.

On the environment, she supports a “Green New Deal,” which we would today expect from any Democrat running for the White House. This means immense amounts of new subsidies for “green energy,” paid for with new taxes and a host of new regulations on private businesses. It means global management of carbon emissions in line with international agreements like the Paris accords.

On economic policy, it’s the usual interventionist slate of policies. She wants to “empower” labor unions, more heavily regulate employers, and aggressively prosecute businesses for a variety of “crimes” that run afoul of the intricate labyrinth of federal laws managing the financial sector. Fiscal policy is sure to be what we’ve come to expect from both Republicans and Democrats: endless deficit spending.

Harris has lauded federally imposed mandates like “forced busing,” in which federal courts dictate public schools’ enrollment policies in the name of racially desegregating schools.

In all of this, we don’t find very much at all that differs from the eight years of the Obama administration. It’s the usual center-left policy agenda we’ve seen since at least the 2008 election.

What is especially dangerous now, however, is that the political context has changed considerably. Both major US parties have adopted far more interventionist stances in terms of fiscal policy, monetary policy, and in terms of domestic police power. What’s more, the presidency has slowly been moving toward a rule-by-decree model for decades, in which the president essentially rules through executive orders and Congress only intervenes on occasion. The Trump administration has only accelerated this trend.

This is likely music to Kamala Harris’s ears. Harris, after all, as a former prosecutor and as a presidential candidate has never shied away from aggressive use of executive power.

As Tyler Curtis has noted:

Over the course of her campaign, she has repeatedly promised to bypass Congress and take unilateral action on a whole host of intensely divisive issues. On immigration, she has vowed to issue an executive order granting citizenship to “Dreamers” (migrants brought to America illegally by their parents). On the environment, she says she will declare a “state of water emergency” and force the country to re-join the Paris Climate agreement. She also wants to ban the use of fracking.

Many observers have noted how dictatorial these statements sound, and rightly so. To follow through on any one of these proposals would be deeply suspect, but the sheer number of them, coupled with Harris’ brazenly peremptory attitude, must leave no doubt as to her authoritarian ambitions.

For Harris, Congress is at best merely an advisory body. As a kindly gesture, the President may ask Congress for permission to do something, but he or she does not really require their assent.

Harris has even said she would do an end run around Congress on gun control:

upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. And specifically what I’ll do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns.

These are the words of a politician who views the role of the president as an elected dictator. Many presidents, of course—including Donald Trump—have likely viewed things this way, but it’s now easier than ever for a president to carry out these “promises” in which presidents don’t wait for Congress to pass duly enacted laws. That’s the old way of doing things. The new way is to follow Barack Obama’s strategy of using “a pen and a phone” to issue diktats without the inconvenience of involving an elected legislature.

No doubt, many of Harris’s detractors will call her radical or a tool of the far left. The reality is actually far more alarming. Radicals have a tendency to lose political battles, because they often stand on principle. Harris is unlikely to have that problem. She is very much a savvy player who fits in well within the party’s mainstream and who will carry on the center-left political program as we’ve come to expect it from the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. There’s not much here that’s new. What has changed, however, is that we live in a country where presidents are ever more rapidly becoming unrestrained in taking unilateral action to do what they want. In ages past it might have been reasonable to assume the Congress might effectively intervene to restrain a president’s less popular and more radical proposals. That vision of the US regime is looking more unrealistic than ever.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Are We on the Cusp of a New Progressive Era? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 18, 2020

The results of the Progressive Era were not pretty, and this leads to ominous predictions for the 2020s. Corrupt politicians will always use recessions, crises, and changing political landscapes as justifications for special interest policies that provide benefits to their benefactors and constituents at the expense of society overall.

https://mises.org/wire/are-we-cusp-new-progressive-era?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=08ac95970a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-08ac95970a-228343965

The 2020s started off horrendously. Thanks to an exaggerated coronavirus pandemic, government lockdowns sunk the economy into the most serious recession since the Great Depression. From February to April 2020, industrial production collapsed by 15.2 percent and official unemployment figures skyrocketed from 3.5 percent to 14.7 percent. To put these numbers in perspective, during the Great Recession industrial production fell by a similar amount (17.3 percent) from December 2007 to June 2009 and unemployment “only” peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. In other words, the current recession is breaking all of the wrong records.1

In order to prevent the economy from completely imploding, the US government engaged in massive expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. From February to April the Federal Reserve exploded its assets by $2.5 trillion and pumped up the money supply (M2) by 14.6 percent.2 On the fiscal side, in late March Congress passed a belt-busting $2 trillion stimulus bill,3 and in mid-May the House passed another stimulus bill of $3 trillion. Then in early June Fed chairman Jerome Powell declared that low interest rates were here to stay indefinitely.4

If current political and economic trends continue, the 2020s will usher in a new period of drastically increased government activity and regulation of the economy. Despite justification on the grounds of public interest and cutting-edge modern “science,” these interventions promise to be thoroughly crony: they will enrich favored businesses, politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, and labor groups at the expense of the overall public. In short, the 2020 recession will usher in a new “Progressive Era” of the early 1900s, or, more accurately, another “Regressive Era.”

Murray Rothbard brilliantly showed that during the Progressive Era, which mainstream academics and other proponents of intervention laud as the nation’s first step into modernity, big business, big government, big intellectuals, and big labor succeeded in securing cronyism that made it easier for corporations and trade associations to cartelize, for politicians to increase their power, for technocrats to exert influence over planning the economy, and for unions to exclude cheaper immigrant workers. These groups had failed to achieve their goals until the Panic of 1893 allowed William Jennings Bryan’s Populist Democrats to supplant Grover Cleveland’s laissez-faire Democrats, which ushered in political dominance by the moderate corporatist Republican Party. It unfortunately seems far too likely that the federal government will now pass similar legislation in the 2020s, such as corporate and safety regulation, environmental laws, welfare and other entitlements, and more taxation.5

In the name of weakening the trusts, eliminating “unsafe” products, and cleaning up “subpar” working conditions, the Progressives passed a flurry of business regulations that restricted entry, reduced production, and raised prices. Notable examples include the rejuvenation of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903 (split into two departments in 1913), the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug Acts of 1906, and establishment of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914. These new crony laws and agencies blocked hostile socialist legislation and also stymied free market pressures by raising compliance costs on newer, usually smaller, businesses and crippling price and product competition.6

The 2020s will most likely see similar business regulations. Even before the crisis, big tech welcomed new federal red tape over the internet in order to consolidate their market positions and stave off hostile antitrust suits from radical socialists and competing businesses. The current recession has already ushered in calls for formal coronavirus safety regulations in the workplace—a new “modern” age of federal, state, and local intrusiveness in the employer-employee relationship and how businesses cater to consumer desires. All of these laws, far from encouraging competition or protecting consumers, will just cartelize industries and raise relative compliance costs on smaller businesses that cannot afford to retool their facilities to meet new technology and safety restrictions.7

The Progressive Era also witnessed the enactment of conservationist laws and agencies. These interventions, such as the Reclamation Act of 1902 and the Public Lands and Inland Waterways Commissions (established in 1903 and 1907, respectively), funneled taxpayer funds into the research and development of certain methods of resource production, particularly irrigation, while restricting the use of various raw materials, such as timber. Although environmentalists advocated for these laws in order to preserve nature and encourage “ecofriendly” production processes, the legislation raised the prices of restricted lumber (benefitting the land speculators and railroads that owned competing reserves) and encouraged the uneconomic development of irrigation in the West.8

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has led the modern environmentalist movement for a Green New Deal that would totally overhaul American society and enormously reduce well-being. This economic program—estimated by some to potentially cost a truly earth-shattering $93 trillion over the next decade—would “save the planet” by drastically restricting the usage of fossil fuels (which most of the world relies upon to maintain modern living standards) and encourage the production of ecofriendly energy sources that will supposedly make up the shortfall. After the recent crisis, supporters have argued that the population is already numb to drastic changes in living standards and will correspondingly be more receptive to the Green New Deal. If such a program is enacted, the government will pick winners and losers in the energy market like never before and open up a Pandora’s box of widespread cronyism and special interest subsidies.9

In the early 1900s, the wise stewards of the government did not stop at corporate and conservationist cronyism—they also looked out for the labor interests. In the 1910s the Progressives enacted compulsory workmen’s compensation laws on the state level that forced businesses and taxpayers to cough up funds for worker welfare. The federal government followed this up with the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of 1916 (also known as the Kern-McGillicuddy Act), which provided workmen’s compensation to federal employees. Taxpayer funds socialized the costs of disability insurance, and the regulations raised compliance costs on businesses. The enactment of workmen’s compensation laws served as the opening wedge to the infamous Social Security Act of 1935.10

Andrew Yang gained notoriety during the presidential Democratic primary by advocating a “universal basic income” (UBI) of $1000 each month. Fortunately for Yang, the crisis has already led to a UBI of sorts through stimulus checks and generous unemployment benefits given to displaced workers. Now advocates are arguing for $2000 a month until the government decides that the coronavirus crisis is over. The results of these policies are already disastrous for the labor market’s recovery: a significant portion of the workforce is dependent on the US government (i.e., the taxpayer) and many smaller businesses cannot rehire workers, because they would actually take a pay cut. A new age of welfare and artificially high labor costs has dawned upon the nation.11

To pay for the cronyism of the Progressive Era—legislation diligently administered by job-seeking bureaucrats, scientists, and technocrats—the Progressives “reformed” government revenue with the Sixteenth Amendment of 1913, which legalized the income tax. The federal government could now extract from taxpayers funds far greater than what was possible with tariffs and excise taxes. Initially, the income tax applied only to the contemporary “1 percent,” but World War I extended the government’s depredations to the rest of the public. This ensured that the cost of government was shifted to up-and-coming entrepreneurs and the middle class.12

A similar situation could appear during the present recession or later in the decade. The cost of the current stimulus programs and projected future legislation simply cannot be financed under the current revenue system. One “solution” is to monetize the deficits, a disastrous option that would lead to runaway inflation. Another option is to embark upon wealth taxes—the siren song for advocates of redistribution—on the wealthiest members of society. Although advocates argue that they will only apply to the most “privileged” strata, the government net will inevitably extend to the rest of the population. This is because big businesses will use their political influence to spread the burden upon the less wealthy (Social Security, after all, is still a regressive tax) and governments will use the newfound source of revenue to spend beyond their initial estimates and will subsequently clamor for more money. The result of widespread wealth taxes will be a harsh disincentive to work, save, and innovate, all to the detriment of society.13

The results of the Progressive Era were not pretty, and this leads to ominous predictions for the 2020s. Corrupt politicians will always use recessions, crises, and changing political landscapes as justifications for special interest policies that provide benefits to their benefactors and constituents at the expense of society overall. The year 2020 has already provided all three excuses, which means we may be headed for another Regressive Era—a disaster for the economic recovery and Americans’ freedoms.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Green New Deal, Healthcare for Illegals: Soros-Funded Groups Push Dems to Use Virus to Achieve Progressive Wish List

Posted by M. C. on May 6, 2020

George Soros

Disease Has A Face

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/05/green-new-deal-healthcare-for-illegals-soros-funded-groups-push-dems-to-use-virus-to-achieve-progressive-wish-list/

by Aaron Klein

A coalition of progressive groups, many funded by billionaire George Soros, is sponsoring a “People’s Bailout” community organizing outfit nudging Congress to use the next stimulus package during the coronavirus crisis to enact reforms that would fundamentally transform American society by achieving longtime progressive aims.

In the spirit of the repurposed progressive anthem of never letting a crisis go to waste, the suddenly created People’s Bailout group is demanding that the next stimulus package adhere to “five principles” the group says are endorsed by “nearly 1,000 organizations, unions, and community leaders, and nearly 100 members of Congress.”

Those “principals” encompass such far-left wish list items as government healthcare for illegal immigrants, required $15 per hour minimum wage, enhanced union collective bargaining and government regulation of the board of directors of private companies to ensure “worker representation.”

Also within the “five principles” list are “direct sizable cash payments to every person” and the use of stimulus legislation to push what would amount to a massive “green” new deal.

The “green” section calls for public funds to (below are direct quotes):

  • expand wind and solar power
  • build clean and affordable public transit
  • weatherize our buildings
  • manufacture more clean energy goods
  • expand public services that support climate resilience,
  • [reduce] climate emissions and toxic pollution.

Using progressive key words, the group exclaims that a “people’s bailout should be rooted in justice” and “we demand the bailout provide a just recovery.”

The group is pushing the #PeoplesBailout hashtag and has gone so far as to provide activists with wording to use in social media posts directed at lawmakers.  The group’s website also provides exact scripting for people to read when calling their lawmakers to demand the “five principles” be incorporated in stimulus legislation.

The People’s Bailout held an online May Day rally and now wants activists to get further involved by displaying banners and forming car caravans.

The website promotes a “helpful slideshow and handout on key tactics to use” to push promote the transformative agenda.

The “helpful slideshow” and “tactics” linked on the site are from the Ruckus Society, which specializes in the disruption tactic of so-called direct action.

Ruckus provided training and resources to the Occupy movement. It’s been funded by the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.

Ruckus leaders infamously helped to spark the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle that turned violent.

The Occupy-Ruckus link is instructive. Besides Ruckus, Occupy was also backed by groups like MoveOn.org and the Working Families Party.

The Soros-funded MoveOn.org and the Working Families Party are two of 13 listed “sponsors” of the People’s Bailout group.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, one People’s Bailout sponsor is the Sunrise Movement which helped craft the socialist utopian Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Sunrise was in part inspired by the activism of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and the radical immigration group United We Dream.

Another sponsor is the Indivisible Project, which has partnered with Organizing for Action, the activist group that morphed from Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign.  Breitbart News extensively reported that Indivisible leaders are openly associated with groups financed by Soros.

Indivisible yesterday endorsed Joe Biden for president. The group’s leaders say they are engaged with Biden’s campaign on such policies as universal voting by mail.

The other 13 sponsors of the People’s Bailout include the Center for Popular Democracy, Climate Justice Alliance, Greenpeace and the Soros-funded Sierra Club.

The People’s Bailout also boasts over 1,000 “signatories” which reads like a who’s who of far-left activist groups, including a large number of groups funded by Soros as well as the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.

The People’s Bailout is not alone. Many of the same far-left, Big Government proposals are also being peddled by other influential progressive organizations for Democrats to include in the next round of emergency stimulus funding, which the groups say should be at least as large as the $2.2 trillion CARES Act.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), which functions as an idea factory for the Democratic Party, compiled its own wish list for the next round of recovery legislation.

Like the People’s Bailout, CAP wants those defined as essential workers to get paid minimum wages of at least $15 dollars and they must have the ability to join a union.

Progressives have long pushed minimum wage hikes despite warnings that such proposals could lead to disastrous economic consequences.

The federal minimum wage hike is a progressive plan that in the past was marketed as a “living wage.” The living wage scheme, deployed in the past locally, has a history of hurting small businesses, negatively impacting local economies and decreasing employment opportunities for low income workers. Indeed, the living wage has monumentally failed during numerous high profile trials.

Increased abortion funding, stimulus checks for illegals, permanent housing guarantees, mail-in voting for elections and more union access also make their way into the CAP proposals.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Delingpole : Michael Moore Is Now the Green New Deal’s Worst Enemy

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2020

Michael Moore see red about green.

Green energy is so bad even Moore has to admit it.

“How can men destroy what’s left of nature to enrich themselves?” Gibbs asks of the crony-capitalist renewables industry which has made a fortune for rent-seekers like Al Gore. He answers: “That’s why they’re billionaires and you’re not.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/23/delingpole-michael-moore-is-now-the-green-new-deals-worst-enemy/

Left-wing documentary filmmaker Michael Moore is promoting a new documentary he executive produced about the environment — Planet of the Humans — and many of his usual supporters are going nuts.

What can the veteran left-wing activist possibly have done to earn such disapproval?

Simple. Moore has backed the most powerful, brutally honest and important documentary of his career. It’s also by far his bravest because it not only confronts the modern left’s greatest shibboleth — “clean” energy — but it does indeed offer a great deal of succour to Moore’s avowed enemy President Donald Trump.

It might even help Trump clinch the next presidential election for it undermines the entire basis of the Green New Deal being pushed in one form or another by his opponents. Renewable energy, the documentary makes abundantly clear, is not the solution to the problem — but an even bigger problem than the one it is supposedly solving.

The documentary was directed by Jeff Gibbs, who, like Moore, is very much a man of the left. Gibbs was a producer and composer on Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. In his youth, he was the kind of committed, long-haired eco activist who sabotages diggers by putting sugar in their gas tanks.

And it’s this left-wing, activist background of Gibbs and Moore which makes the movie’s message so much more compelling.

Renewable energy, it tells us, is not clean energy but dirty energy because it does tremendous damage to the environment. The people who make money out of it are the worst kind of crony-capitalists. Anyone who claims to believe otherwise is either an idiotic dupe or a wicked liar.

Though I’ve written about this myself in countless Breitbart columns, I’m a conservative writer largely preaching to the choir. Coming from two ardent leftists, on the other hand, and aimed at least in part at a leftist audience, the message of Planet of the Humans is dynamite.

“I’m in a strange position,” the soft-spoken Gibbs tells us at the beginning of the movie. “I’m against our addiction to fossil fuels and have long been a fan of green energy. But everywhere I encountered green energy, it wasn’t what it seemed.”

And so we watch the scales begin to fall from Gibbs’s eyes.

We visit a zoo — powered, according to a local news story, by “renewable” elephant dung — which turns out on inspection not even to produce enough elephant dung power to heat the elephant barn.

We visit a “solar powered” music festival where we discover that behind the scenes it is largely powered by diesel generators.

We visit an ethanol plant — whose wood has to be harvested using fossil-fuel powered equipment and depends for its operational effectiveness on coal.

We visit a lovely old wood beloved by hikers and nature lovers in rural Vermont being trashed to build a wind farm.

We see 500-year old yuccas in the Mojave desert being torn up and shredded by diggers to make way for a “clean” energy solar plant.

“It was enough to make my head explode,” Gibbs confesses at one point. “Green energy is not going to save us.”

No indeed. But it’s going to make a few ugly and cynical crony capitalists very, very rich.

Gibbs follows the money trail and discovers — quelle surprise! — that the people and organizations most assiduously stoking the war on fossil fuels and most aggressively promoting “renewables” as an alternative are invariably the ones who stand to benefit most financially.

Among the Hall of Shame: Canadian activist Bill McKibben; Al Gore; Van Jones; Robert F Kennedy Jr; Jeremy Grantham; Michael Bloomberg; Richard Branson.

These are revealed to have an unhealthily cozy relationship with green NGOs like the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy, which mouth the usual environmental pieties while yet quietly promoting energy which is every bit as environmentally destructive as fossil fuels.

The worst of these, the documentary suggests, are biofuels and biomass. We visit one biomass plant on the shores of Lake Superior — awarded a $11.5 million government grant because it qualifies as “renewable” energy — which encourages its green wood chips to burn with the help of tire fragments and creosote (causing the snow to turn black).

Time and again — because Gibbs hangs out among his own kind: liberal-leaning environmental activists; lefty academics; etc — we witness the shock in these people’s eyes. They consider themselves to be green; they want desperately to save the planet; yet here are these monstrosities being erected across the U.S. in the name of the environment which wipe out native forests, pollute the air, and ravage the landscape with wind towers and solar panels which are left to rot once their useful life (less than 20 years, often) is over.

This is maybe the most important thing of all about this very important movie: it will drive a wedge into the heart of the green movement and force its adherents to take sides.

Will they choose to go with the evidence: which clearly shows that renewable energy is damaging to the landscape and to wildlife and does NOT reduce the use of fossil fuels (which must be kept as back up for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine)?

Or will they continue to promote the fake news narrative that renewables are an eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels?

Renewable energy may well be the biggest scam in the gross, corrupt and, mendacious history of crony capitalism. It’s a scam so far-reaching that even the U.S. Navy has been persuaded to power its fleet in part with renewables.

It’s a scam so brazen that an environmental fund — Green Century Funds — promoted by Bill McKibben’s 350.org turns out on examination to have less than 1 percent of its holdings in the solar and wind industry; the other 99 percent comprises oil and gas infrastructure (including tar sands); biofuels; logging companies, and banks.

It’s a scam so hypocritical that last year’s Earth Day festival was sponsored by companies including car manufacturer Toyota and Caterpillar.

“How can men destroy what’s left of nature to enrich themselves?” Gibbs asks of the crony-capitalist renewables industry which has made a fortune for rent-seekers like Al Gore. He answers: “That’s why they’re billionaires and you’re not.”

Though I can’t say I share many of Michael Moore’s and Jeff Gibbs’s political assumptions — certainly not the Malthusian belief underpinning the movie that overpopulation is killing our planet — I’m full of gratitude and admiration that they should have made this bold, brave documentary.

What has always motivated me above all in my climate scepticism is my utter horror at what is being done to the planet in the name of saving it. Renewable energy is – and always has been – a monstrous, dirty, ugly scam, orchestrated by a cynical few at the expense of the many. It’s a horror against which we should all unite, left and right.

Now if only Michael Moore would stand up on a stage and say that, maybe at President Trump’s next campaign rally…

Be seeing you

 

See how the cast of 'Leave It to Beaver' changed over the ...

Green New Dealer

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Secession Fever in Today’s America: What Would Lincoln Think? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2020

In addition to closing newspapers and deporting deplorables a Lincloln of today would no doubt institute an internet gatekeeper.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/thomas-dilorenzo/secession-fever-in-todays-america-what-would-lincoln-think/

By

A February 19 article in The Washington Times announced that “Secession Fever Spikes” in five states where “conservatives” are attempting to escape neo-Stalinist policies of the Democrat Party majority there, now that the mask is finally off and the Democrats are the proud party of socialism and omnipotent government.  Long gone are the days when they hid their true beliefs by calling themselves “liberals” and their brand of fascism “The New Deal.”  They are now the party of the Green New Deal, the crazed, Soviet-style government plan to totalitarianize all of American society under the dishonest guise of “saving the planet.”  In other words, they are all card-carrying “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside.

As soon as they took control of the Virginia state government, helped along with mega-donations by billionaire fellow totalitarians Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, among others, they immediately waged political war on the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.  Their governor, Ralph Northam, is on record in a publicly-recorded video as supporting infanticide in cases where babies survive abortions.  That’s just for starters in the first month of their rule.

Virginia politics is now dominated by the heavily-populated D.C. suburbs composed of hundreds of thousands of deep state bureaucrats, government contractors, and Third World immigrants promised the riches of the American welfare state by the Democrats.  Most of the rest of the counties in the state have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries.  Most strikingly, there is a “Vexit” movement whose goal is for those counties to secede from Virginia and become a part of more Constitution-friendly West Virginia.  The governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, joined with Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr. in a press conference at which they invited the more conservative Virginia counties to secede.  The West Virginia legislature is on board.

In Illinois – “Land of Lincoln” – a similar movement is shaping up.  State Representative Brad Halbrook has proposed allowing the rest of the state to escape the political crutches of the hyper-Leftist Chicago political machine.  Mr. Halbrook has issued a resolution to kick Chicago out of Illinois and make it the 51st state.  His attitude is apparently “If you want to become a communist society go right ahead; just leave the rest of us out of it.”  He is frustrated that people like himself are “forced into a democracy that’s concentrated power into a small geographical area,” i.e. Chicago.

This is a recurring theme in today’s “secession fever”:  People seem to have tolerated the Democrat political machine control of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit (and now all of Virginia) for the past seventy years or so as long as they could escape to the suburbs and rural areas and be largely left alone.  Those days are now over, with the out-of-control crime of the cities permeating all other areas; the ever-escalating tax increases to pay for their hopelessly-failed government programs and pie-in-the-sky pensions for retired bureaucrats of all sorts.  Then there’s the aggressive drive to effectively abolish the First and Second Amendments.

Thousands of New Yorkers are similarly disgusted by the far-left, self-described “communist” mayor of New York City and the just-as-far-to-the-left governor, Cuomo the Elder.  Consequently, there is a movement whose goal is to create three politically-autonomous regions in New York state, each with its own governing body, but still a part of New York state.  De facto secession, in other words.  Then there’s the “Calexit” movement that wants California to secede altogether and become an independent country.

Oregonians outside of the leftist-dominated northwest part of the state are petitioning to move the Idaho border westward to include them, for almost identical reasons given by the Virginia Vexit proponents.

All of these movements are in the spirit of American federalism, the core idea of the U.S. Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson considered the Tenth Amendment to be the most important principle of the Constitution because it said that although the citizens of the free and independent states (as he called them in the Declaration of Independence) had delegated eighteen or so powers to the federal government (Article 1, Section 8), so that it could act as their agent and for their mutual benefit, all others are reserved to the people and the states respectively.  And of course it was also Jefferson who famously wrote in the Declaration that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  And, whenever governments become destructive of the citizens’ rights to life, liberty and property it is their “duty” to abolish that government and create a new one if they wish.  Isn’t that exactly what the people of Virginia, Illinois, Oregon, California, and New York who are part of the new secession movements are all about?

The founders were aware that the European city states of antiquity assured themselves of a much higher degree of freedom and prosperity because government was so decentralized.  If one city state became annoyingly tyrannical with excessive taxes, corruption, and other such ingredients of all governments, citizens could vote with their feet and move to another city state.  This form of competition between city states worked to moderate the tyrannical impulses of Europe’s political class.  (And is why that political class worked mightily for generations to destroy the city states and create systems of consolidated, monopolistic government).  This history is part of the reason why the American founders, like the Swiss founders, created a highly decentralized system of government known to us now by the word federalism.  The original constitution, the Articles of Confederation, did not even give the central government taxing powers.  (Like the European princes and potentates, the Hamiltonian wing of the founding generation got the ball rolling to centralized, monopolistic government by scrapping the Articles of Confederation –after promising to only “revise” it– and created a much more centralized form of government with taxing powers).

With all of this talk of secession, one naturally wonders what Abraham Lincoln would think of it.  There is of course a very clear record of his thoughts on the subject; one only needs to read parts of his first inaugural address to glean them.  (See my forthcoming book, The Problem with Lincoln, for a fuller dissection of Lincoln’s first inaugural address).  There he proclaimed that the then-existing structure of the American union was “perpetual” and written in stone, even though the previous generation had seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, as it was officially called, and did not repeat the word “perpetual” in the Constitution of 1789.  That the existing configuration of the union of the states was perpetual was “not expressed” in the text of the Constitution, Lincoln stated, but is “implied,” in a good example of the usual leftist tactic of proclaiming the Constitution to be a “living” document to be altered not by the formal amendment process but by the twisting or words by clever, weaselly politicians.

Lincoln claimed that if there was any change at all in the configuration of the existing American union, then it would mean the “termination” of the federal government.  A dumber theory was never put forth by an American politician.  After the Southern states seceded the federal government proceeded to explode in size, create one of the largest and best-armed armies in world history up to that point, and wage total war on the South for four years.  Hardly a disappearing act.

If any state or part of a state seceded, said the man or orchestrated the illegal and unconstitutional secession of West Virginia from Virginia, then such states will “make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them . . . .  [W]hy may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?”  Counties may secede from states, and cities from counties, he was effectively warning.  This of course sounds exactly like what freedom-loving Virginians, Illinoians, Oregonians, New Yorkers, and Californians are proposing to do.  But to Lincoln such acts are nothing less than “the essence of anarchy” and a guarantor of “despotism” (his exact words).

In other words, Lincoln defined the whole classical liberal history and theory of the virtues of voluntary government, decentralization, consent of the governed, and federalism as recipes for despotism and anarchy, exactly the opposite of that which all the great students of liberty, from Lord Acton to Ludwig von Mises and beyond, believed.  As Lord Acton wrote in his famous November 4, 1866 letter to General Robert E. Lee, “”I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . .  I deemed that you were fighting for the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo” (emphasis added).

Mises wrote in Omnipotent Government (pages 3-4) of how, with the growth of government in the U.S. and in Switzerland during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, “New powers accrued not to the member states but to the federal government” in each country.  “Every step toward more government interference and toward more planning means . . . an expansion of the jurisdiction of the central government . . . .  It is a very significant fact that he adversaries of the trend toward more government control describe their opposition as a fight against Washington and against Berne, i.e., against centralization.  It is conceived as a contest of states’ rights versus the central power.”

Lincoln repudiated the philosophy of freedom and championed the philosophy of centralized, monopolistic governmental tyranny instead.  He even threw in one last straw-man argument by claiming that the advocates of secession were claiming that in the seceded states there would be a “perfect identity of interests among the States,” which he then ridiculed, demonstrating that he was clueless about the meaning of federalism and constitutionalism (unless he did and was simply lying for political effect).

This is why Frank Meyer, a conservative literary icon of the last generation, wrote in an August 24, 1965 article in National Review that Lincoln’s “pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius of freedom of our country” with his “repressive policies” of abolishing civil liberties in the North, waging total war on civilians in the South, and how he “moved at every point . . . to consolidate central power and render nugatory the autonomy of the states . . .”

In an essay entitled “Federalism in America” historian Forrest McDonald wrote that “Political scientists and historians are in agreement that federalism is the greatest contribution of the Founding Fathers to the science of government.  It is also the only feature of the Constitution that has been successfully exported, that can be employed to protect liberty elsewhere in the world.  Yet what we invented, and others imitate, no longer exists on its native shores (emphasis added).  No one is more responsible for this than Lincoln, which is why the answer to the question of “what would Lincoln think” of the new “secession fever” in

America is so obvious.

Be seeing you

F-Secure Internet Gatekeeper | VirusLogic.com

Hillary’s server

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Elizabeth Warren Has a Bad Plan for Everything – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 1, 2020

Rest assured someone has to pay for all this “Free Stuff”.

Even the Leftist UK party figured this out when they trounced Corbyn.

Independents and moderates will be highly unlikely to support Marxist nutcases.

Count the times you read “tax”.

As George Will is fond of saying-Corporations are tax collectors, not tax payers. Taxes like most government mandates (minimum wage) are costs of business that get passed on.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/mike-mish-shedlock/elizabeth-warren-has-a-bad-plan-for-everything/

By

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

Elizabeth Warren wants to steer the US to the Left, radical Left.

If you are looking for ideas, Elizabeth Warren has a ton of them. All of them are bad. Please consider Elizabeth Warren’s Plan.

  1. Wealth tax: Tax net worth over $50 million at 2% a year, and 6% above $1 billion. To prevent the rich from yachting off, add a 40% “exit tax” on assets over $50 million upon renouncing U.S. citizenship. Estimated revenue: $3.75 trillion over a decade from 75,000 households. Most economists, including many Democrats, call that number a fantasy. Courts might also find the tax unconstitutional.
  2. Medicare for All tax: Mandate government coverage for everyone, including for illegal immigrants, with no copays or deductibles. Phase out the private plans of 170 million Americans. She says this would cost $20.5 trillion over a decade, which most economists say is $10 trillion short of reality. Keep the growth of health spending below 4% a year with tools like “population-based budgets” and “automatic rate reductions.” Pay doctors at “Medicare rates” and hospitals at 110% of that. Charge companies with at least 50 workers an “Employer Medicare Contribution,” equal to 98% of their recent outlays on health care, while adjusting for inflation and changes in staff size. These varying fees “would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally.”
  3. Global corporate tax: Raise the top business rate to 35%. Apply this as a world-wide minimum on overseas earnings by U.S. companies. Businesses would “pay the difference between the minimum tax and the rate in the countries where they book their profits.” Apply a similar minimum tax to foreign companies, prorated by the share of their sales made in the U.S. Estimated revenue: $1.65 trillion over a decade.
  4. Corporate surtax: Tax profit over $100 million at a new 7% rate, without exemptions. This would go atop the regular corporate rate. Estimated revenue: $1 trillion over a decade from 1,200 public companies.
  5. Slower expensing: “Our current tax system lets companies deduct the cost of certain investments they make in assets faster than those assets actually lose value.” Closing this “loophole,” she says, would raise $1.25 trillion over a decade.
  6. Higher capital gains taxes: Tax the investment gains of the wealthiest 1% as ordinary income, meaning rates near 40% instead of today’s 23.8%. Apply the tax annually on gains via a “mark to market” system, even if the asset hasn’t been sold. Estimated revenue: $2 trillion over a decade.
  7. Finance taxes: Tax the sale of bonds, stocks and so forth at 0.1%. Estimated revenue: $800 billion over a decade. Charge big banks a systemic risk fee, raising $100 billion more.
  8. Individual tax increases: There’s no detailed proposal, but Ms. Warren’s clean-energy plan is “paid for by reversing Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and giant corporations.” She’s budgeted $1 trillion.
  9. Social Security: Increase benefits by $2,400 a year across the board. Raise them further “for lower-income families, women, people with disabilities, public-sector workers, and people of color” by changing “outdated” rules that Ms. Warren says disadvantage them.
  10. Lobbying tax: Tax “excessive lobbying” over $500,000 a year at rates up to 75%. Ms. Warren says this would have raised $10 billion over the past decade, although it probably runs headlong into the First Amendment’s right to petition the government. Use the revenue for “a surge of resources to Congress and federal agencies.”
  11. Green New Deal: Spend $3 trillion, including $1.5 trillion on industrial mobilization, $400 billion on research, and $100 billion on a Marshall Plan. By 2030 hit 100% carbon-neutral power and 100% zero-emission new cars. Retrofit “4% of houses and buildings every year.” For “environmental justice,” put a third of the funds into “the most vulnerable communities.”
  12. An end to fossil fuels: Ban fracking. Halt new drilling leases on federal land. “Prohibit future fossil fuel exports.” Kill the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. “Subject each new infrastructure project to a climate test.” Give “workers transitioning into new industries” a “guaranteed wage and benefit parity” and “promised pensions and early retirement benefits.”
  13. K-12 education: Add $450 billion to Title I, $200 billion for students with disabilities, $100 billion for “excellence grants,” and $50 billion for school upgrades. “End federal funding for the expansion of charter schools.”
  14. A “right” to child care: Build a federal network of local providers, subject to national standards. Give free care to the “millions of children” whose households are under 200% of poverty, or $51,500 for a family of four. For everyone else, cap child-care spending at 7% of income. Estimated cost: $700 billion.
  15. Free college: “Give every American the opportunity to attend a two-year or four-year public college without paying a dime in tuition or fees.” Add $100 billion to Pell Grants and $50 billion for historically black colleges, tribal schools and more. Estimated cost: $610 billion.
  16. Student-debt forgiveness: Write off $50,000 for households with incomes under $100,000. This would phase out as income rises toward $250,000. Estimated cost: $640 billion.
  17. Housing: Spend $500 billion “to build, preserve, and rehab” millions of affordable-housing units. Condition such funding “on repealing state laws that prohibit local rent control.” Paid for by lowering the death-tax exemption to $7 million from $22 million per couple. At the same time, “raise the tax rates above that threshold.”
  18. Unions: Overturn “so-called ‘right to work’ laws” in 27 states. Guarantee public employees an ability to “bargain collectively in every state.” Amend labor law to aid “sectoral bargaining.” Give the National Labor Relations Board “much stronger” powers, such as “to impose compensatory and punitive damages.”
  19. Corporate governance: Make companies with revenue over $1 billion obtain a new federal charter—separate from the current state charter system—that requires them to “consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders.” Give workers 40% of board seats, and put CEOs under “a new criminal negligence standard.”
  20. Industrial policy: Manage the dollar’s value “more actively” to “promote exports and domestic manufacturing.” Create a Department of Economic Development, and have it write a National Jobs Strategy. Expand the Export-Import Bank. Impose a “border carbon adjustment” fee—that is, new tariffs—on imports from countries that don’t align with U.S. climate policies.
  21. Antitrust: Break up AmazonFacebook and Google. “Unwind” their mergers with Whole Foods, Instagram, DoubleClick and more. Regulate as a “platform utility” any online marketplace with global revenue of $25 billion. Reverse agriculture consolidation, “including the recent Bayer-Monsanto merger,” and create a “supply management program” to “guarantee farmers a price at their cost of production.”
  22. Banking: Pass “a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that breaks up the big banks.” Let the U.S. Postal Service “partner with local community banks” to provide “basic banking services like checking and savings accounts.”
  23. Gun control: Create a “federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition.” Raise taxes to 30% on guns and 50% on ammo. Ban sales of “assault weapons,” and make current owners “register them under the National Firearms Act.” Pass a law to let shooting victims “hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable.”
  24. Centralized elections: Use federal money to “replace every voting machine in the country.” For federal elections, mandate early voting and same-day registration. If state elections follow the same rules, they can be “fully funded by the federal government,” with “a bonus for achieving high voter turnout.” Estimated cost: $20 billion, paid by “closing loopholes” in the death tax.
  25. Miscellaneous: Spend $100 billion “to end the opioid crisis,” $85 billion “to massively expand broadband access,” $25 billion on “health professional shortage areas,” and $7 billion “to close the gap in startup capital for entrepreneurs of color.” Double the foreign service and the Peace Corps.

Warren’s Marxist Manifesto Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Socialism and the Green New Deal: Choose One | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 14, 2019

A socialist government would determine where and how you lived, the type of work and employment opportunities you had, the education that you and your children would be allowed, the types and quantities of goods to which you would have access, as well as the political, cultural and philosophical ideas you would be permitted to read and learn about and discuss.

Nothing would be outside of the restricting reach of the socialist state of the future.

The American experiment has lasted much longer than socialist experiments (maybe all added together).

Will new socialism seal America’s fate?

https://mises.org/wire/socialism-and-green-new-deal-choose-one-0?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=7388ec870d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-7388ec870d-228343965

The Spanish philosopher, George Santayana (1863–1952) is usually credited with the phrase, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Nowhere is this truer than with the renewed idea and demand for the establishment of a socialist economic system.

A noticeable number of intellectuals inside and outside the ivy tower of academia, as well as a vocal segment of those on the “progressive” side of American politics are insisting on the desirability and necessity for ending the “neo-liberal” capitalist system and replacing it with a “democratic” socialism dedicated to “social justice,” “identity politics,” and relatively comprehensive centralized planning of economic and social affairs.

Listening to and reading the arguments of these proponents of the “new” socialism, you would think that nothing had happened over the last one hundred years that in any way, shape, or form had anything to do with the case for and likely consequences from introducing socialism into twenty-first-century society.

In their minds, what have been considered to be “socialist” regimes in the twentieth century were either “false” forms of socialism not representing what a “real” socialism could and would look like; or they were socialisms that went wrong because the “wrong people” were in political power in socialist countries around the world; or the full possibilities and potentials of those socialist experiments were undermined and weakened due to American imperialist interference trying to make them “fail;” or the “new” socialists just try to ignore the history of socialism over the last one hundred years, sending it all down an Orwellian “memory hole.”

Early Anti-Socialists Warned of Tyranny and Plunder

Their naïve optimism and confidence might have been understandable and even excusable before the First World War. Before then, socialism was still primarily a political ideal and dream of those wanting to make over society so mankind could have a beautiful and more just and prosperous future. But even then, in the nineteenth century, critics of the socialist promise warned in often amazingly prescient ways, given all that has happened over the last one hundred years, what socialism-in-practice would really mean.

Those earlier critics of socialism warned that a triumphant socialism would mean a terrible tyranny. Socialism would mean comprehensive government ownership and control over all the means of production. Such total control by those in political power and directing the central planning of all economic activities in the society would hold the destiny of everyone in their hands.

A socialist government would determine where and how you lived, the type of work and employment opportunities you had, the education that you and your children would be allowed, the types and quantities of goods to which you would have access, as well as the political, cultural and philosophical ideas you would be permitted to read and learn about and discuss.

Nothing would be outside of the restricting reach of the socialist state of the future. Each person would be nothing more than a cog in the collectivist machine, commanded, controlled and, when necessary, coerced to serve and be sacrificed for the wider and more important socialist good.

In spite of all the rhetoric and promise of the “liberation” of man under the socialism-to-come, the actual individual human being would be lost in the collective mass of “the people” as a whole, for which all that the socialist state implemented was the rationale and justification.

The critics of socialism also warned that “human nature” was not a moldable putty to be remade into a new “altruistic man” unconcerned with personal self-interest once common ownership had replaced private ownership over the means of production; and once a new generation had arisen that was sufficiently “reeducated” by the state to have been freed from “bourgeois” thinking, attitudes, and proclivities of focusing on the self rather than the group.

All that would have changed was the institutional setting within which human nature manifested and played itself out. Such extensive and monopolized economic power, as would exist under socialism, would merely mean the motives and incentives would be shifted to gaining political control over the state to use its power to benefit oneself and others important to oneself, at the expense of everyone else. (See my article, “John Stuart Mill and the Dangers of Unrestrained Government.”)

Early Criticisms of Economic Planning

Finally, a number of these critics of socialism pointed out the inherent unworkability of a socialist central planning system once private property, competition, and market-based prices had been abolished through the nationalization of the means of production by the government. How would producers know what to produce if competitive supply and demand did not generate the market prices to tell producers what it was that consumers wanted and the relative value they placed on those goods? Indeed, how could supply and demand be brought into coordinated balance if market-based and changing prices did not constantly and continuously adjust the two sides of the market?

How would competent directors of production be selected with the end of private enterprise, absent entrepreneurs to direct those enterprises who had proven their worth through winning profits and avoiding losses? How would labor be efficiently and effectively directed in their employments for assisting in the manufacture of the goods that consumers wanted, if in the name of “social justice” wages were determined by the socialist redistributors of income rather than by market-guiding wage incentives?

Every one of these worries and warnings turned out to be true in every instance in which fairly comprehensive socialist central planning was imposed and implemented anywhere and everywhere around the world over the last one hundred years. To enumerate them would be too gratuitous for anyone who possesses even a limited knowledge of the reality of socialism-in-practice. (See my articles, “Paul Leroy-Beaulieu: A Warning Voice About the Socialist Tragedy to Come,” “Socialism: Marking a Century of Death and Destruction” and “The Human Cost of Socialism in Power.”)

World War I Ushers in Government Central Planning

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch: Inventor of Green New Deal Renounces Eco-Lunacy, Goes Nuclear

Posted by M. C. on October 10, 2019

The first you’re all familiar with: unreliable electricity means you always have to have fossil fuel power plants backing up when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.

But this is the kind of info I have been waiting to see…

It takes 150 times more land to get the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as from a nuclear plant; 17 times more materials are required for solar than for nuclear; and if you just total up all the used solar panel waste compared with nuclear, solar actually creates 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/10/environmentalist-shellenberger-go-nuclear-save-the-planet/

by James Delingpole

Before we go to the main event and meet the only Greenie talking sense on climate change and the environment, let’s first catch up with the latest in Climate Stupid…

Extinction Rebellion protestors in Germany have been caught green-handed powering their camp with a ‘planet-destroying’ diesel generator – which they tried to hide with wooden pallets.

The BBC has been caught lying again about climate change, this time with a cock and bull story about rising sea levels displacing families in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. (The real reason is soil subsidence: but that doesn’t suit the climate change narrative, obviously)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been caught data-tampering again to make ‘global warming’ look more ‘real’ and scary than it actually is.

Disgraced climate ‘scientist’, fake Nobel prizewinner and failed litigant Michael Mann has been caught trying to erase from history the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP) using ‘dubious, revisionist temperature data.’ Why are Mann and his co-conspirator Katharine Hayhoe so keen to ditch the MWP? Because between 900 AD and 1200 AD, the world was at least as warm – if not warmer – than it is today. Yet there were no 4 x 4s or planes or factories ‘pumping out CO2’ to make this happen – so gosh, what might this tell us about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?

The BBC’s only politically unbiased interviewer Andrew Neil has totally owned an Extinction Rebellion activist called Zion Lights. (He/she was presumably named after some kind of super potent indica/sativa hybrid you buy on the dark web). Having been Andrew Neiled myself, I do have a tiny smidgen of sympathy for Zion Lights. Except then again I totally don’t because I’m right on the No Deal Brexit thing whereas Zion Lights is totally wrong on her/his/its entire belief system.

Extinction Rebellion crusties are currently trying to close down London City Airport. If you listened to Nick Robinson’s questions on the Today programme this morning — my wife forced me to listen as I drove her to work because she hates me and because she wanted me to see just how much worse the BBC has got since I stopped listening to its drivel a year ago — you would have got the impression that this is perfectly legit and that London City’s Airport’s management really should be in the business of having to justify their core business (viz being an airport, where aeroplanes take off and land, with business people and holidaymakers inside) to tone deaf, left-biased BBC reporters.

The police have made some arrests, including of some whiny harpie who screeched ‘You’re hurting me’ as she was dragged off. “Not enough,” I imagine one or two air passengers are muttering this morning…

What does all this tell us about climate change? Nothing that we didn’t know already: that it’s a bogus cause, invented by dodgy, activist scientists, propped up by mainstream media lies and hysteria and promoted by soap-dodging loons who are not only naive and ill-informed but outrageously hypocritical in the way that they want to end Western Civilisation but still somehow keep their mobile phones powered…

This is why I was so pleased to meet just about the world’s only sensible Greenie, Mike Shellenberger. Shellenberger used to be a deep green activist – pushing heavily for renewables – but then saw the light.

He still cares about nature very much. But he thinks greenies like Extinction Rebellion are doing more harm than good.

I asked him what the red-pill moment was that made him see the light.

“So in the early 2000s I was the co-founder of our original Green New Deal. We called it the New Apollo Project. It was for a $300 billion investment in renewables. And we succeeded. We got President Obama, he did about $150 billion in renewables between 2007 and 2015 but right away we started running into big problems.

The first you’re all familiar with: unreliable electricity means you always have to have fossil fuel power plants backing up when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. But the other issue, which had a bigger impact on my heart, is the environmental impact of all those solar and wind farms.

So you started having local conservationists raising concerns about the impacts of wind farms on bird and bat species; about the impact of solar farms on our desert tortoise. So you started having environmental consequences of renewables. I started running the numbers. It takes 150 times more land to get the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as from a nuclear plant; 17 times more materials are required for solar than for nuclear; and if you just total up all the used solar panel waste compared with nuclear, solar actually creates 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear.

For me it was like, if I care about the environment, why are we not doing more nuclear power? Even if you don’t care about climate change. Nuclear has the smallest environmental footprint because it has the highest energy density. So for me my red pill moment was realising that energy density determines environmental impact. A single coke can of uranium provides enough energy for my entire life. Whereas it would require many train cars full of coal, oil or gas; many more of renewables. So that for me was what made me change my mind.”

I was very impressed by Shellenberger (who, incidentally, may soon be running for Governor of California). You can hear more from him on my Delingpod podcast and vidcast next Thursday (details here).

Be seeing you

truth-goes-to-die

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch: AOC Dumbfounded as Town Hall Attendee Says We Must ‘Eat the Babies’ to Save Planet

Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2019

Another chapter in the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” story.

Insignificant yet amusing.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/03/aoc-dumbfounded-town-hall-must-eat-babies-save-planet/

by

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to a woman at her town hall who proclaimed that we must “eat the babies” to save the world from climate change, and she urged everyone to “treat the situation compassionately.”

A clip emerged Thursday evening of Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall at the Queens Public Library, featuring a flustered woman who proclaimed that we need to “eat the babies” in order to save the planet from climate change.

“We are not going to be here for much longer because of the climate crisis,” the woman said. “We only have a few months left!”

The woman told the socialist “Squad” member that she loves her support for the Green New Deal but lamented that it is “not getting rid of fossil fuel; it’s not going to solve the problem fast enough.”

“A Swedish professor [said] we can eat dead people, but that’s not fast enough. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this: ‘We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! There is too much CO2,” the woman proclaimed.

“All of you … you are a pollutant, too much CO2,” she continued. “We have to start now, please, you are so great.”

“I’m so happy that you really are supporting New Green Deal, but it’s not enough, you know. Even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people,” she added. “Too much pollution, so we have to get rid of the babies! That’s a big problem. We need to eat the babies!”

“We need to treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it does present,” Ocasio-Cortez told the distressed woman.

“Luckily we have more than a few months. We do need to hit net zero in several years,” she added.

Ocasio-Cortez also responded to the clip on Twitter, reprimanding right-wing individuals for “mocking” the woman. She also used the incident to plug Medicare for All.

“We had a fabulous town hall tonight & I’ll be highlighting some moments from it,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis & want to ensure we treat the situation compassionately.”

“Let’s not mock or make a spectacle. &let’s work on Medicare for All!” she plugged.

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “Be a decent human being and knock it off”:

It remains unclear if the woman was a genuine Ocasio-Cortez supporter or someone spoofing the socialist lawmaker.

President Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. reacted to the clip on Twitter:

Be seeing you

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is a bird ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »