Almost a year ago to the date, I wrote about how the Green New Deal, the extremely insane, costly and ridiculous communist power-grab supported by communists in and out of Congress would not do anything to combat climate change even if it worked entirely as advertised.
 
Of course, that is a situation far from reality for economic and environmental reasons. However, a recent study has pointed out that, were the GND to be made law of the land, it would be an absolute environmental DISASTER to try and implement in full.
 
Paul Driessen wrote a fairly short study titled: “How the Green New Deal’s Renewable Energy Mining Would Harm Humans and the Environment,” clearly not pulling any punches here and getting straight to the point.
 
The Left is practically in love with “renewable” energies such as wind and solar power, and hate gas, coal and oil, as well as nuclear power because they believe them to be dirty and unsafe.
 
However, what the Left fails to realize is that, in order to create these wind and solar plants, one must gather the resources to build them. In order to do so, natural resources such as copper, cobalt, lithium, iron, aluminum and other rare earth elements (REE)s must also be gathered and in order to do so, mining must be done in the places where they are available.
 
I can only assume you know where I am going with this: the Left can’t have it both ways. In order to get the GND to work (speaking strictly about gathering the materials for wind and solar plants), mining must be expanded. But the Left hates the amount of mining already being done because of the environmental harm the operations are causing to their local areas.
 
According to the study: “[E]xpanding mining on the scale needed to meet the renewable energy requirements contained in the Green New Deal and other proposed renewable energy mandates would cause unimaginable harm to the environment, wildlife, and humans.”
 
The paper goes over six particular topics:
 
     1.  The Green New Deal’s Need for Metals and Minerals
     
     2.  Ruinous Rare Earth Elements 
     
     3.  Lethal Lithium 
     
     4.  Killer Cobalt 

     5.  Copper Complexities 

     6.  And Green New Deal Mining Hypocrisies 

Let’s briefly go over each of these points. First, the Green New Deal’s need for metals and minerals. According to the study: “The solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries needed to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy over a 10-year period to produce the 8.2 billion megawatt hours of power for America’s annual electricity-equivalent needs under the GND would require an unprecedented increase in mining for raw materials.”
 
“To replace all energy generated by [fossil fuels] with power from solar panels – which now generate just 1.5 percent of the country’s electricity – plus a week’s worth of backup power, would require nearly 19 billion solar panels, blanketing an area the size of New York and Vermont. A 2018 study by Harvard University scientists who believe in a human-caused global warming crisis shows that to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand, wind turbine projects would need to cover one-third of the continental United States. Transforming motor vehicles to run on electric batteries would require even more land.”
 
In other words, in order to even just replicate the output this country can generate, A TON of land would have to be used up. That means destroying entire habitats and ecosystems to fit these plants, not to mention the destruction of rocks around the mining operations that also destroy their local environments.
 
Ruinous Rare Earth Elements. According to the study, “more than 70 percent of… rare earth minerals are mined in China or by companies under Chinese control, with much of China’s production coming from areas north of Baotou, Inner Mongolia, though there are substantial reserves in other parts of the world.”
 
“Not long ago, the Inner Mongolia region included massive tracts of fertile farmland. However, it has become a vast toxic wasteland, where virtually nothing grows and few wildlife or humans can live.”
 
So not only do these mining operations already cause great environmental harm to their local communities (a point which the Left will agree with), but they also would mean reliance on foreign powers, namely China. And we have seen, especially in recent time, how bad of an idea such reliance would be.
 
Trump has already talked about the supply chain that currently exists and how if one part of the chain breaks, the entire chain becomes compromised. In this instance, the supply chain would be about building and maintaining energy production, which would be a sight worse than a supply chain of cars or phones being disrupted.
 
What’s more, according to the study, “Producing one ton of REEs releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and one ton of radioactive waste” in just that particular region of China. Not only is there far more environmental damage being caused in other mining operation areas, but the damages would be exacerbated to meet the demand of so many solar panels, wind turbines and lithium batteries.
 
Speaking of lithium, we move on to “Lethal Lithium.” According to the environmental group “Friends of the Earth”, so clearly a Leftist organization, “lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination.” Lithium is most often found and mined in the South American countries of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile.
 
According to the study, “in Argentina’s Salar de Hombre Muerto (‘salty basin of the dead man’), locals say lithium operations have contaminated streams used for human drinking, livestock, and crop irrigation water.”
 
University of Chile lithium battery expert Guillermo Gonzalez said “Like any mining process, [lithium mining] is invasive, it scars the landscape, it destroys the water table, and it pollutes the earth and the local wells. This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.’”
 
The actual wind turbines and solar panels also require lithium, not only the batteries, so lithium mining would have to exponentially increase to meet the demand.
 
“Killer Cobalt”. Since this is getting to be a bit of a long article already, I will summarize this as largely being the same sort of thing as having to mine for other minerals and rare earth metals. More than 66% of the world’s annual output of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where, unsurprisingly, health and safety standards, as well as labor laws, are pretty lax.
 
“Entire families – fathers, mothers, and children – work for extremely low wages in mines, from sunrise to sundown, six or seven days a week, to meet the constantly growing demand for this critically important metal.”
 
“More than 40,000 Congolese children, as young as four-years-old, work alongside their parents, often in mine tunnels too narrow for adults, say UNICEF, Amnesty International, and other investigators… The risk of cave-ins and mud slides is ever-present. Depending on the weather, they work in dust or muck, exposing themselves constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water, and air. Dangerous levels of cobalt, lead, uranium, and other heavy metals build up steadily in their body tissues, blood, and organs. Many have died as a result of their work under these horrible conditions.”
 
“Gloves, facemasks, protective clothing, and showers to wash the toxic dirt off their bodies at the end of the day are typically not available. Broken bones, suffocation, blood and respiratory diseases, birth defects, cancer, and paralysis are commonplace.”
 
“Copper Complexities”. The study explains that as much as three times more copper is required in electric vehicles than in gas-power engines, and “renewable energy systems consume approximately five times more copper than conventional power generation systems.”
 
In 2019 alone, a total of around 20,000 tons of copper was mined, with the world reserves standing at 870,000. It doesn’t take much to believe it would take a lot more than that, and a lot greater output, to meet the demand for these “renewable” energy options.
 
For this point, the focus is specifically in entire ecosystems, as ore contains just 0.8 percent copper, so 125,000 tons of ore have to be mined to get just 1,000 tons of finished copper, according to the study. In order to extract this copper, surrounding rocks would have to be removed and/or crushed. An increase in copper extraction would mean more and more land having to be destroyed.
 
The final point is the hypocrisies of the GND advocates. Namely in that they want the GND to be fully implemented but also do not want any more mining to be done. They already are angry at the amount of mining being done as it stands, so mining even more would be unacceptable. However, you can’t have one without the other. Even assuming GND was affordable, with the understanding that no mining would be done within the U.S. (as there are laws in Western states and Alaska against such mining), we would have to depend on other countries to do the mining and do a lot more of it just for the individual parts.
 
Land is destroyed as a result, animals die, humans get sick and die and the damage done to the environment is more than if there is no GND at all.
 
The GND’s technology goals are supposed to be “clean, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly and ethical.”
 
However, actually putting in place this sort of policy would not accomplish any one of those things, let alone all of them.
 
Speaking specifically about the ethical part, in 2019, California law-makers voted down Assembly Bill 735. This bill would require that “zero emission” electric vehicles sold in the state must be free of any materials or components associated with child labor.
 
In other words, California legislators prioritized “zero emission” vehicles over human rights because they cannot have such vehicles without such child labor.
 
The goals of the GND as listed above are not achievable with the actual GND. It’s like saying that your goal is to lose 30 pounds but you go about it by eating McDonald’s every meal.
 
The GND is not only unaffordable, and not only would it not actually achieve its supposed goals of fighting climate change (as I noted in the article I mentioned in the beginning), but it would actually be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the idea of protecting the planet.
 
It would require an exponential increase in the sorts of mining that everyone agrees is a detriment to the local environments and the people having to work and live under these conditions, not to mention the animals and livestock that get sick and die.
 
The more we find out about the Green New Deal, the more insane and unrealistic it becomes. More so than it already was, surprisingly.
 
Proverbs 14:18
“The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.”

Earlier this week, I wrote an article talking about the contradictions of the climate cult with regard to climate change causing both low and high water levels in the Great Lakes and trees simultaneously worsening and solving climate change. This time, however, let’s point out a different contradiction altogether (that doesn’t really have much to do with climate change… sort of): the contradiction in the Left’s belief that the billionaire class should pay for every government program listed and not-yet listed in massive communist takeover plans like the Green New Deal, while also believing that billionaires should not exist whatsoever.
 
Recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on ABC’s “The View”. On the segment, one of the show’s co-hosts, Sunny Hostin, asked AOC: “Congresswoman, Mike Bloomberg has spent over $300 million of his own money on his campaign, and the DNC changed the rules about donor threshold to give Mike Bloomberg a space on the debate stage tonight. I personally don’t have a problem with Mike Bloomberg using his own money. I have more of a problem with his positions on – ever-changing positions on stop and frisk and redlining. Do you think he’s trying to buy his way into the presidency?”
 
AOC replied by saying: “Yes, I do. I also think that the power of his money is not disconnected from his stances on stop and frisk because when you have that much money, and you purchase elections, you no longer have that sense of accountability to the people who voted for you.”
 
In general, most people in Congress don’t have that sense of accountability. They believe that, once they get elected into some sort of office, they now rank higher than the general populace and the people work for them, as opposed to the other way around (at least, they think this internally, but would never dream say this out loud. Even the Chicoms say that China is “the people’s republic” when it is not the people’s nor a republic). I can guarantee people like Mitt Romney, who is from Michigan, was elected to be Massachusetts’ governor and recently elected to be one of Utah’s senators, does not care one wit about the people who voted for him in any place. He used them to obtain political power for various reasons and does not feel like he owes anyone anything.
 
But regardless of that little tangent to rave about how much of a farce many who hold government office are, let’s continue with AOC’s reply:
 
“And here’s the thing… if the amount of money that you have can force the DNC to change their rules, but the DNC would not change their rules for Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, that is an actualization of power.”
 
Wouldn’t that be more of a knock on the Democrat Party than anything else? It goes to show just how corrupt the DNC is in allowing someone to pay a substantial “in-kind contribution”, if you will, in order to change the primary rules to accommodate for that “donor”. I don’t know how that is much different from accepting a bribe, but we all know that the DNC won’t see much of a punishment here outside of the ballot box come November.
 
But here’s the real kicker of AOC’s reply: “And we all know how I feel about billionaires. I don’t think in a place where 60 percent of Americans can’t even, you know, make more than $40,000 a year that the presence of a billionaire who largely makes their money off of businesses underpaying their workers like Walmart, like Amazon, like so on, should exist.”
 
Obviously, I have a few things to say about this. First of all, people can make more than $40,000 a year. It’s just about the way you go about achieving that. Plenty of people can get a job that earns them $100,000 or more, provided they are willing to work for it. The people that can’t make more than $40,000 a year tend to be those who work in lower-earning jobs. Now, before you say “no duh, Sherlock”, what I’m trying to say is that if you work in a low-earning job, you will make low-earning wages. Minimum wage was never supposed to be for people to have a career. It was never supposed to be for people to live out of. It’s a sad reality that people think it should be because it highlights the low expectations some people have for themselves that they think they can’t make more money otherwise.
 
Secondly, while I don’t know much about how Amazon pays its workers, I know that the type of work usually found in Walmart is around the level of minimum wage – jobs like being a cashier, or restocking supplies and a number of other jobs – in general, things that aren’t bound to make much money for people because of the laws of supply and demand.  By which I mean that you don't need a degree to do these jobs, so virtually anyone could do them. Not everyone can be a CEO of a business, but virtually anyone can get a job to stand behind a register.
 
This is a concept that is foreign to socialists like AOC, who naively believe it takes no effort at all to be the CEO of a company. Now, I will be the first to say that, since I am not a CEO, I do not know exactly what it does take to hold such a position and how hard it is to do that job. However, the same can be said of socialists like AOC and other regular people who also believe it’s super easy while never actually having held that job, so it balances out. My point is that pretty much anyone can have a regular job at Walmart. So easy it is, in fact, that teenagers in high school often take those kinds of jobs during the summer or part-time. However, give those same teenagers the job of a CEO, and they won’t be able to do it, at least well.
 
The workers of Walmart are not “underpaid”. They are given the wages according to the value of their jobs and according to the value of the work they accomplish (and according to the minimum wage established by the government, which is ridiculous communist b.s.).
 
But third and my final point, it is ridiculous that people like AOC, who demand billionaires pay for the crappy government programs they want to install, also think billionaires shouldn’t exist.
 
I’ve said this time and time again, but billionaires alone cannot possibly afford portions of the Green New Deal, let alone the entire thing. However, there are ignoramuses out there who do believe they can afford it and are just too cheap to “pay their fair share” (which wouldn’t be fair at all anyway).
 
For the sake of the following argument, let’s say that billionaires could actually afford every government program the Left is clamoring for. Let’s say (God forbid) Democrats win it all in November, winning the presidency with any of the socialists on the Democrat Party becoming the POTUS, winning the Senate and holding a decent majority, and retain the House, maybe even grow their majority. And let’s say the Green New Deal gets passed on day 1 of the new regime and all billionaires have to give up all their money, possessions, etc. as a collective to be able to afford it.
 
Now, there are no more billionaires… what happens to the GND and the entire country? Billionaires are the ones that have to pay for all of this, but what happens when there are no more billionaires? The GND isn’t a one-time cost. Everything in it demands constant inflow of cash to pay for it. But now, there are no more billionaires. They gave up all their fortune – all their possessions – to pay for the GND. It would hypothetically last for a bit, but again, a constant inflow of cash is required. After some time, the billionaire’s money will have been totally spent and the bill remains the same: the amount of money the billionaires had to pay originally.
 
What happens then? It goes down to the next people on the list: the millionaires. However, there is a massive difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars. When you have one million dollars, you have one million dollars. When you have one billion dollars, you have a thousand million dollars. If it took the billionaires to pay for it, it’s going to take more than the millionaires to continue the upkeep cost.
 
So we go down the next people on the list: upper-middle class. And so on and so forth we go.
 
Margaret Thatcher is famous for a number of reasons, but particularly for saying: “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” That is precisely what would happen with the GND no matter what.
 
Billionaires cannot afford to pay for the GND of their own merit, but even if they could, why would you want them to cease to exist? That would only destroy the GND and the other government plans, at least as they are being sold to people.
 
Now, I’m not fooled by this nonsense. The GND isn’t supposed to do what it tells people it will do. It’s just supposed to be a communist takeover of the capitalist economic system in America. All the programs within it would be installed, but none of them would work right, not even a little. You see this happen everywhere you see socialism/communism.
 
However, if you’re going to sell people on the idea of GND, and attached to that idea is the belief that billionaires should pay for it, it makes zero sense whatsoever to also believe that billionaires should not exist. They are the only people who (in their minds) can pay for all this stuff, so eliminating the billionaire class would be like biting the hand that feeds you at that point.
 
The Green New Deal is a massive failure, even if the Left gets everything they want out of it. And they are just ignorant enough to try and antagonize the very people whom they think can afford it.
 
Now, I should specify that I am not strictly talking about the elected Left. I am talking about the Leftist base as well, because they are the ones that believe they can have it both ways. The DNC benefits from the existence of billionaires and won’t do much to jeopardize that relationship. The DNC’s base, however, does not outright benefit from billionaires in the same way and openly and legitimately hate billionaires and the concept of the existence of billionaires. But they are just ignorant enough to believe you can have all this free crap from the government, force those dastardly billionaires to pay for it, and simultaneously have billionaires no longer exist.
 
Everything about the Left is the height of irrationality, no matter how you look at it.
 
Proverbs 10:14
“The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.”

Ever since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Venezuela) first revealed that she believed the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change, she has been on the receiving end of merciless mockery. Considering just how idiotic such a rhetoric is, and considering it’s already been used time after time by moronic Leftists decrying that climate change was going to kill us (a practice dating back to the 60s… the 1860s, that is), I’d say the mockery is rather justified.
 
But I think AOC had enough of the mockery and has decided to backtrack on that apocalyptic claim altogether. On Sunday, she tweeted: “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it. Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.”
 
I absolutely love this tweet right here. Despite the fact that she first delivered this warning back in January to a crowd who applauded, not laughed, and the context surrounding it was very serious, she is trying to call it “dry humor” mixed with “sarcasm”.
 
That’s like saying something seriously messed up and then backtracking by saying “it was just a joke”. It’s a really funny copout.
 
Just FYI, AOC delivered that warning alongside the idea that climate change was “our World War II”, insisting that we fight climate change like we would a world war. That, too, received some mockery, but not as much as the doomsday warning.
 
She said: “I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are [we] going to pay for it? – and like this is the war, this is our World War II.”
 
Now, had she said it was just a joke (or even just an exaggeration) soon after the mockery ensued, that would’ve been fine and understandable. Granted, charging that the world was going to end in 12 years is a little different from exaggerating about how much time something else would take to occur, but it would’ve been a little bit better. Her problem, however, is the fact that she doubled-down time after time with that specific number of years.
 
Just last month, she created a video (which was also mocked) charging that the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change. She even captioned the video (which was shared on Twitter) with: “Climate change is here + we’ve got a deadline: 12 years left to cut emissions in half…”
 
The video itself shares that same deadline of specifically twelve years to act on climate change.
 
Last month, she held an Instagram live-stream where one of her viewers mocked her doomsday clock, which triggered the lunatic socialist and replied: “We have twelve years left to cut emissions by at least 50 percent if not more. For everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh but your grandkids will not, so understand that the internet documents everything.”
 
A little ironic considering she is now claiming she was joking about that, and she’s certainly right: the internet does document everything, especially the words of a moron like her.
 
But what is perhaps the funniest thing about this entire situation is the fact that those who applauded her for her doomsday warning back in January and continued to applaud it as it was relentlessly mocked very clearly took it literally. They honestly were brought to the belief that the world would end in only twelve years. After all, it prompted a bunch of children to try to scold Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-China) about climate change and the deadline of 12 years.
 
So the people that she mostly insults here are not Republicans or conservatives who took her literally (because she was being literal up until now, I suppose), but rather, her own constituents, who were convinced the world would end by the 2030s if we didn’t implement the Red… erm, I mean, Green New Deal, totally uprooting our entire economic system over the heavily misguided belief that we are killing our own planet due to our capitalism (honestly, I don’t understand how one comes to believe such a dumb rhetoric).
 
It’s her own constituents, some of which were in that January MLK forum in New York City, that came to believe her and apparently have the intellect of a sea sponge (which I think is insulting to SpongeBob SquarePants considering even he understands the value of employment and considering he has something many socialist Millennials don’t: his own house). They are the ones who took the doomsday warning very literally and very seriously (as she intended), so are they the ones who have the intellectual capabilities of an aquatic sponge? AOC seems to think so.
 
And that’s the beautiful irony of this entire situation. While pretty much everyone took her warning literally, only those who actually believe we are killing our planet took it seriously. And they are the ones who are actually targeted, if inadvertently, by AOC’s insult.
 
Those of us who understand ACTUAL science understand that the climate, while changing, is not even close to being heavily affected by humans. Matter of fact, according to a recent study, the Tropical Atlantic was 7.5° C WARMER 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels hovered around 220 ppm (roughly half of what they are now).
 
“Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.”
 
What’s funny is that in simply looking up what “ppm” means, I came across multiple articles talking about how CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, hitting 415 ppm, and talking about how bad that is. As we just demonstrated, CO2 levels mean absolutely nothing to the overall climate of the planet, but these people are convinced (by people like AOC) that we are killing our planet with CO2 and if CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, that is a terrible thing.
 
The Left are the ones who promulgate the belief that we are killing our planet, as evidenced by the literal climate hysteria the Left seems to cycle through themselves. So it stands to reason that those who lean more towards the Left will take AOC’s climate doomsday warning of 12 years, max, to be quite literal, serious and alarming. The whole POINT of such a doomsday clock is to get people scared and riled up about climate change so that they would vote into office those who would pass and apply socialist policies like the Green New Deal which would effectively kill the United States economy almost immediately and legitimately ruin millions of people’s very way of life if they even come to survive at all.
 
Food shortages would be very, very common with the outlawing of fossil fuels as farming equipment largely, if not exclusively, rely on fossil fuels. The Green New Deal would effectively kill the country, not just economically, but very literally for millions of people, but you’re not supposed to know that. “It’s all to fight climate change”, is what they say. And considering how much of an emphasis climate change is for these people to go so far as to compare it with a WORLD WAR, you’re supposed to back up any “solution” offered by the Left even if it literally kills people (and considering the Left’s efforts to dehumanize people and some college professors’ insistence that the planet would be far better off without humans living in it, I’d say their efforts to devalue human life are well on their way for this sort of action to take place and be viewed as something acceptable).
 
Although we’ll have to see where things go from here now that AOC has backtracked with her doomsday warning. I’d say that “twelve years before we die” rhetoric was much of the driving force behind the GND. Ironically, she might flip-flop once again in the near future to say we only have a certain amount of time before we all die, once again leading people to be scared enough to pass the cyanide pill of a legislation that is the GND.
 
But as it stands, I will laugh merrily at the fact that AOC was largely calling her own constituents idiots more so than conservatives, even if she did not mean to.
 
Romans 1:22
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

This is something anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, but it is always good to have a study backing up such thoughts. Common sense and logic dictate that the Green New Deal, even if it worked as advertised, would do nothing to combat climate change considering it would only apply to the U.S. and there are other countries that pollute even more than we do.
 
But a study from the American Enterprise Institute looked into this sort of thing and found the same results: the GND, even if it worked exactly as advertised, doing everything it did financially effectively, would do next to nothing to combat climate change.
 
The study, written by Benjamin Zycher, begins by saying that the GND’s central goal is to implement policies that would “reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to ‘net zero’, by 2050 in some formulations,” and that the way it would go about it is by “reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy-producing and energy-consuming capital stock,” which the proposal claims would “increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity.”
 
To Zycher, that is a “’broken windows’ argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.”
 
Zycher then notes that “the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173° by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter… Under the assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083° by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.”
 
In other words, the impact of the GND on climate change would be pretty much unnoticeable even in 80 years. And considering we only have 12 years to live, according to the brilliant AOC, I’d say that’s not a good thing.
 
But Zycher does not simply end there. He also recognizes what the GND’s TRUE purpose is. It is not about fighting climate change, despite what the people supporting it will claim. It’s such a ridiculous and not-at-all well-thought-out proposal that one glance is all anyone needs to tell this wouldn’t work.
 
Replacing every single building in the country? Eliminating cow farts? Those two things alone are pretty darn impossible to pull off, let alone all the other junk in it.
 
No, its true purpose is to fundamentally change the United States into the definition of a socialist country: a country where the government owns the means of production. As Zycher puts it, the GND’s “real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.”
 
It is policy meant to give all the power to those in government while utterly decimating everyone else. Especially considering the GND’s electricity mandate, which would cost tax payers around $490.5 billion a year, and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, or $3,845 per household. According to Zycher, this “impact would vary considerably across the states if the GND were financed through electricity rates rather than the federal budget. Under such a ratepayer finance assumption, the lowest household cost of $222 per year would be observed in Vermont. The highest would be observed in Wyoming: $17,103 per household per year.”
 
And just like that, Wyoming would lose pretty much all of its population. And considering they only have about 577,000 people in that entire state (I was honestly stunned at that number. There are more people in the city of Portland, Oregon than in all of Wyoming?), I’d say that state is particularly screwed by the GND.
 
But do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of that is? Not only would people be utterly financially screwed with an added tax to pay for this GND on top of everything else they need to pay, but this mandate alone would actually HARM the environment more than it would help it.
 
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a ‘100 percent renewable system’ and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas-fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas-fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.”
 
In other words, because wind and solar are so unreliable when it comes to the energy they produce, the backup generators would actually heavily increase greenhouse emissions (you know, that naughty word?). It would actually be WORSE for the environment to switch to wind and/or solar, not to mention they also do not produce anywhere near the same amount of energy that fossil fuel does, so blackouts would be frequent almost regardless of conditions (depending on where you live).
 
So the GND literally cannot even TRY to work as advertised, that is, it cannot do anything favorable to fight climate change, as the electricity mandate alone would work against that goal, even if we could actually somehow afford it, which we definitely cannot.
 
The GND should be considered a complete and total joke, top to bottom, but there are some really stupid people out there who think this is a good idea. Well, once their homes stop having working electricity (and God knows the U.S. can’t literally replace all of its buildings even within a century), their supermarkets are emptied because the farming equipment we currently have would be outlawed so food production would severely decline, and you overall have massive famines and riots, then maybe people will stop thinking the GND is so great.
 
Seriously, the GND is national suicide. It would almost immediately destroy the country in every aspect. And all to perhaps help decrease global temperatures by virtually zero in 80 years.
 
What a great plan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

In a recent House Oversight Committee, socialist lunatic and less-popular-than-Trump-in-her-own-state Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel if inaction or even delayed action on climate change could cost American lives, which both said “yes” to, which AOC agreed with.
 
Ignoring the fact that this is basically like asking your mom if you really are a “handsome boy” (of course she's going to say you are. SHE'S YOUR MOM), what all of these people are saying is flatly untrue.
 
In my previous article about climate change, specifically man-made climate change, I talked about how our CO2 emissions are completely unnoticeable in our climate and taking everyone out of the planet would not make any difference whatsoever in how warm or cold the planet would get for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that God is the one in control of the planet, not us.
 
So from that alone, we can see the falsehoods of AOC’s, John Kerry’s and Chuck Hagel’s statement and assumptions. There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We have no control over it, so no resolution will do anything to “remedy” the false problem.
 
And certainly, not acting on it or “delaying” action on it is not going to cost lives whatsoever. Climate change has not killed anyone ever. People can die from being too cold or too hot, no doubt, but the long-term change of the climate is not responsible for any deaths. It’d be like claiming that water slowly kills people because we all drink it and eventually die. People certainly do die, eventually, but water or the changing climate is not the culprit (unless someone drowns, of course).
 
However, I know of something that will 100% cause American deaths if applied: the Green New Deal.
 
While I’ve already talked extensively about it, I felt it necessary to mention this considering AOC’s chosen words of climate change inaction or delay-of-action would cost American lives.
 
We already are fairly familiar with the concept that the GND would cost nearly $100 TRILLION on American taxpayers, but one little article from RealClear Politics and one table in that article really helps put that massive number into perspective.
 
The article I am talking about is titled: “Why the Green New Deal is Financially Lethal”. Now, that is as obvious a statement to make as if one where to write an article saying: “Why Michael Jordan is a Basketball Legend.” Of course MJ is a basketball legend and of course the Green New Deal is financially lethal. The only difference here is that there are really stupid people out there (namely children who choose to skip school to yell at old ladies that they need to implement the GND) who think the GND is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring nothing but good things like a saved planet, unicorns, free money for everyone and not ever having to worry about anything ever.
 
So the writer of the article mentions in great detail just why the GND would be so disastrous for Americans.
 
The article says that “the top 50% of all earners account for about $8 trillion - $9 trillion in Americans’ income and produce somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in tax receipts (excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes). The top 10% account for only half of this income but 70% of the taxes. The lower half contribute a mere 2.7% of income taxes.”
 
In other words, not even the richest of the rich have the money to pay for even 10% of the estimated cost of the Green New Deal, even if you were to literally take all of their money. Which, of course, means that everyone else will be forced to contribute, so the GND is not only a “tax on the rich”. It’s a tax on everyone, which means those already at the bottom will suffer the most.
 
The article also shows a table that I will detail to you. The table is split into three categories: the “goal” or the planned portion of the GND, the estimated cost of that plan and the estimated cost per household, all for the first ten years of the GND were it to be applied starting in 2020.
 
The table reads as follows:
 
Goal: Low-Carbon Electricity Grid; Estimated cost: $5.4 trillion; Estimated cost per household: $39,000.
 
In other words, each household will be forced to pay an extra $39,000. Now, I don’t think this is per year, but a total cost, but keep in mind that that’s just for ONE aspect of the Green New Deal. Let’s keep going, shall we?
 
Goal: Net Zero Emissions Transport System; Estimated cost: $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion; estimated cost per household: $9,000 to $20,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Jobs; Estimated cost: $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion; cost per household: $49,000 to $322,000.
 
Goal: Universal Health Care; Estimated cost: $36 trillion; cost per household: $260,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Green Housing; Estimated cost: $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion; cost per household: $4,000 to $12,000.
 
Goal: Food Security; Estimated cost: $1.5 billion; cost per household: $10.
 
I also want you to keep in mind that this table is just for the first roughly 10 years of the Green New Deal (and this table also doesn’t include things like eliminating air travel and implementing a train system in its place, etc.). All of these costs are for the first 10 years of the resolution. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can make at least $361,000 every ten years (and that’s using the low estimate costs) to pay in taxes AND STILL PAY THINGS LIKE RENT, WATER, FOOD AND TAXES OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL!
 
The average family income per year in the U.S. is around $56,000. Times ten, that’s $560,000, but that’s before tax. Those who make that much money per year are charged a 12% tax rate UNDER TRUMP’S TAX RATE WHICH THE LEFT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY JACK UP!
 
And that’s just income tax. With only that, people making the average for a household will be left with only $50,000 after income tax alone (roughly). So there is even less money to take from the pool to pay for any one of these items included in the Green New Deal, let alone all of it. My point here is that people simply can’t possibly afford paying the taxes from the Green New Deal AND afford to live even remotely comfortably.
 
And like I’ve said multiple times: socialism doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Those at the top are made poorer under socialism (unless they are in the government) and those who already were poor are made poorer still. Just look at Venezuela. They used to be one of, if not the richest nation in Latin America, but after years of socialism, the government is rationing ELECTRICITY!
 
And by the way, don’t think that just because we are not them that we can’t end up like them. Universal healthcare, which is supposed to be free, is notorious for having to ration its supplies. In Great Britain, for example, the elderly are forced to go blind because of rationing in their healthcare system. They can’t get surgeries to correct or even save their eyesight, so they go blind.
 
And in Venezuela, hospitals barely have the supplies to treat their patients, so you bet there’s a lot of rationing going around.
 
So those who really need healthcare, those at the bottom, are made to suffer the most. They are the most likely to get sick and/or hurt and are the most likely to need healthcare that is now made to serve the “greater good”, resulting in rationing and a lower standard of healthcare.
 
Proposals like the Green New Deal are truly what would bring about American deaths.
 
“But it’s supposed to help the environment,” I hear you say. Yeah, well, a whole lot of good that’s gonna do if we are the only ones stupid enough to do this. The GND, even if it could actually do what is advertised of it: save the planet, is still only an American proposal. The biggest carbon gas emitters in the world are India and China and you don’t see them give a single flying you-know-what about the environment. They are not going to implement something as stupid as the GND BECAUSE THEY DON’T NEED TO! India is already socialist enough. China is literally communist. They already have all the power they could want (of course, people always want more, but still).
 
The REAL point of the Green New Deal is to force America to make a hard turn towards socialism, where the government regulates everything (and I do mean everything, if California has considered text taxes and “drinking water” taxes). The REAL point of the GND is to fundamentally change America into an unrecognizable socialist monster, something it was never meant to be.
 
The REAL point of the GND is to give people like AOC as much control over you as they can get. As a result, not only are the people left without any freedom whatsoever, but they are left to never experience the benefits that were promised.
 
People are promised that the GND would “solve” climate change. It can’t for the reasons I stated in the beginning. People are promised that the GND would provide people with healthcare. Yeah, Venezuelan-style healthcare. People are promised that the GND would provide guaranteed jobs for everyone. It would literally terminate the vast majority of jobs today.
 
And it’s the same song and dance as it’s ever been. Lenin promised the people of Russia power. He gave himself all the power. All dictators promise people the world if they help them get into power. It always ends the same way: with the dictators living with all the power and the people left to be their worthless subjects.
 
Like the devil, the Left promises people the whole world, but it’s always one massive lie. Satan promised Eve she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But that came at the cost of her and Adam being kicked out of literal paradise. The Left promises safety from a fictitious man-made change in climate, but at the cost of individual freedom.
 
Adam and Eve did not even become like God by eating of the forbidden fruit. The first thing they did upon eating the fruit is acknowledge their nakedness – not their sin against God, but their shameful nakedness. What knowledge of good and evil did they receive, then? Certainly not one akin to God’s.
 
Likewise, the American people would not receive the advertised benefits of this proposal. All they would receive is being kicked out of capitalist paradise.
 
These are promises that are meant to ensnare people, but will never actually come to fruition. Only Satan benefited from tricking Eve and only the government benefits from socialism.
 
But certainly, both Satan and socialists are eventually punished by God.
 
The Green New Deal, with its high-cost plans, is the only thing that would actually cost Americans their lives. It is financial suicide that could lead to actual suicide for many. One can only hope nothing close to the Green New Deal is ever made into law, for that would mark the official end of the United States of America.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

I always find amusing when one environmentalist wacko is attacked by another environmentalist wacko (although Patrick Moore, the man I am talking about here, seems to have strayed from the extremist environmentalism of Greenpeace for some time now, so I should call him an ex-environmentalist wacko).
 
And recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore once again shredded Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her “Green New Deal” and, more specifically, her hypocrisy over using air travel, something she adamantly wants to eliminate according to her proposal.
 
I say he once again shredded AOC because he’s apparently destroyed her multiple times and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.
 
Before I get ahead of myself, let me tell you of the most recent attack from Moore to AOC. Ocasio-Cortez, according to the New York Post, adamantly uses air and car travel, both of which are supposed no-no’s for these wackos.
 
So Ocasio-Cortez, not believing she is a hypocrite because no hypocrite ever believes that’s what they are, mocked the NY Post article by tweeting: “I also fly & use A/C. Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future. The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy.”
 
I myself could destroy her argument, as I have with other hypocrites like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, but Patrick Moore does a pretty good job in my stead: “The ‘world as it is’ has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. Option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know.”
 
And like I said previously, this is not the first time he’s obliterated her arguments.
 
Back when AOC tweeted about her being in charge and the rest of us “just shouting from the cheap seats”, he really laid into her: “Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”
 
That is a fantastic argument that I did not bring up in my article calling her out over this tweet (largely because that article focused on her corruption and belief she is everyone’s boss now instead of a public SERVANT, but still).
 
And indeed it is something that should be considered. Ban fossil fuel and the overwhelming majority of the world comes to a screeching halt. All fossil-fueled cars would be banned and all electric and hybrid cars would be made irrelevant because the vast majority of them require fossil fuels to charge them up from power grids.
 
As a result, most people are faced with a challenge in going to work, getting their kids to school (no school buses either), getting groceries, stores receiving groceries in the first place, farming equipment no longer being able to farm as much food, hospitals receiving new supplies, businesses failing to receive new inventory to sell… the entire structure of the modern world would come to a halt and forced to regress by CENTURIES, but with the added challenge of trying to feed nearly 8 billion people.
 
At least back when manual labor and primitive farming tools were more widely used, populations were far smaller. Part of the population booms we’ve had in recent time is due to the ability to afford to have such booms in terms of food production (and you should already know I don’t subscribe to the lunatic Malthusian theory).
 
But as Moore suggests, humanity wouldn’t stand for such a grinding halt in progress. It would try to replace the productivity of fossil fuels with something else, namely trees, causing mass deforestations as a NECESSITY.
 
You can’t ban fossil fuels without first having a good alternative that is JUST AS GOOD AND EFFICIENT as fossil fuels, and nothing comes remotely close right now.
 
But returning to Moore, he also attacked her for comparing climate change to World War II.
 
Responding to another user who also complained about AOC saying the world is going to end if we don’t do the Green New Deal (which sounds to me like the tell-tale signs of a huge scam, like a Nigerian prince promising you millions of dollars if you send them your social security number and other private information), Moore replied: “Isn’t AOC a bit young to talk about WW2? It was Hell & more than 60 million died. It’s her GND that would be worse than WW2. Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.”
 
Moore also attacked the Paris Climate Accord, calling it a “total sham”, wherein countries like China, India and Russia, which comprise 40% of the global population and are some of the most egregious polluters of the climate (which is why I would argue the GND wouldn’t even make a dent in what it supposedly seeks to do, even if we could afford it and there were no economic repercussions at all). The U.S.’s carbon dioxide emissions back in 2017 sat at around 5 billion metric tons. Asia Pacific, which includes China, India, and a few other countries reached north of 16 billion metric tons and is “responsible for nearly 50% of global dioxide emissions,” according to Forbes.
 
China also contributes, by a massive margin, the most ocean pollution, with 8.80 million metric tons of plastic waste per YEAR according to a Statista graph that was generated in 2010 (most recent I could find, so it’s probably a bit different now, but no doubt with China still ahead. They have no qualms with pollution).
 
According to the graph, the second leading ocean polluter is Indonesia at 3.20 million metric tons a year. It also makes sense that the top 5 leading ocean polluters in the world are from the Asia Pacific region, with the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, respectively, being the world leaders in this. By comparison, the U.S. isn’t even in the top 10, with just 0.30 million metric tons of ocean pollution (though I’m sure the wackos in California have saved us all by banning plastic straws, the heroes).
 
So the Green New Deal, even if it were actually possible to implement without causing a massive market and economic collapse the likes we’ve never seen before, wouldn’t actually accomplish anywhere close to what it supposedly wants to accomplish. It would hardly help the environment because the U.S. hardly harms it.
 
In any case, it is always good to see someone who used to be blind to reality seeing the light. Patrick Moore, who has a PhD in Ecology, co-founded Greenpeace and eventually walked away from it (even making a video about it for PragerU) knows that whatever climate change is occurring is 1) not caused by us and 2) cannot be fixed by us.
 
It is also always good to see someone the Left would greatly accredit (he does have a PhD in Ecology, after all) utterly destroying them and their arguments using facts and logic, as always tends to happen.
 
Not that they’ll learn a darn little thing from all of this. After all, the point of the climate change movement isn’t to actually “save” the planet (well, maybe not for AOC, who adamantly believes in the crap the Left has been selling for decades). The point is to amass as much power as possible for the Democrats under the guise of “fighting” something.
 
This much is clear in China, who are just as Leftist, if not more Leftist, than the American Left but couldn’t care one wit about climate change or their own CO2 emissions and ocean pollution. They already have the power they want and were not elected with the promise of doing something about climate change (not that the Left does much of that in America anyway, given that CO2 emissions were pretty high in America under Obama).
 
But again, it is always good to see people who were in the dark coming to the light. Regardless of topic, it is always good to see people recognizing the error of their ways and finding out the truth. Of course, I also hope that apart from the ecological truth, Moore has also found the Truth of the Gospel, but this is definitely a good start.
 
Not to mention that knowing the Truth of the Gospel can be key to knowing just how little power man has, especially in comparison to God. We have absolutely no power by comparison, so there is not much we can do to ourselves if God does not permit it.
 
Colossians 1:16
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

I can’t really say that I am surprised that a socialist member of our government has a complex that makes her think she is people’s boss because she is in the government, but I do find it dangerous nonetheless that anyone in the government would so readily and quickly come to admit that they think they are the boss of the American people and not the other way around.
 
Both on Twitter and during an event called “Girls Who Code” in New York City, socialist nut Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed people her superiority complex.
 
Let’s begin with her tweet, in which she replied to someone about how she is the only one who has actually come up with a proposal to combat climate change (the GND is not a proposal at all, but a socialist wish-list. It talks about what it wants to do but not how to actually do it, because it’s impossible to do those things).
 
Here’s what she tweeted:
 
“Yup. If you don’t like the Green New Deal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge – and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”
 
And during the “Girls Who Code” event, AOC said, in a very unprofessional and “hip” manner of speaking: “Like, I just introduced the Green New Deal two weeks ago, and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried. Because no one else has even tried. So people are like, ‘Oh it’s unrealistic. Oh it’s vague. Oh it doesn’t address this little minute thing.’ And I’m like, ‘You try. You do it. Cuz you’re not. Cuz you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss’. How bout that?”
 
Okay, I have an awful lot of things to say about these things.
 
First, like I said, the GND is not a proposal. It’s not a plan of action at all. She’s just throwing a wish-list of what she would want done with no actual way of doing it. If she worked in the private sector and showed this sort of “plan” that is actually impossible to accomplish to her boss, she’d be fired for incompetence.
 
Second, she’s been in office for only two months and she already thinks herself more important than anyone else. She’s already tasted SOME power and she’s drunk off of it.
 
Need I remind her that just three months ago, she herself was “shouting from the cheap seats” about what she wants? This is her first government position after working as a bartender in New York. How insulting is that to people who do not get elected to power? And this is the mentality I’m talking about. The mentality that the American people are worthless scum of the earth and the people in the government are gods in comparison.
 
Third, yeah, we’re saying it’s unrealistic, vague and doesn’t address “this little minute thing” (which, in this case, is the insignificant little matter of how exactly we’re going to pay for all of this without bankrupting the country, obliterating our economy and having the nation and its people descend into destitution. You know, the “minute” details).
 
The Green New Deal, as I thoroughly explained in my article covering it, is flat out impossible in a world that is not perfect. And in a world that is perfect, the Green New Deal is unnecessary. Socialism only works in two places: Hell, where they already have it and Heaven, where they don’t need it.
 
So of course we’re saying those things about the GND. Because THEY’RE TRUE!
 
Finally, as James Woods made known to her on Twitter: We the People are HER bosses, not the other way around.
 
In case you missed it, James Woods replied to her narcissistic tweet by saying: “So, you may have missed this, but the way it works in America is YOU work for US. The last time somebody told Americans to sit down and shut up was 1776. If you ever learn to read, look it up. You are not only an idiot, you’re an arrogant idiot, and there is nothing more dangerous.”
 
And it’s that last part of his tweet that leads me to the overall point of my article: power corrupts people, particularly people like AOC.
 
Like Woods said, she’s not just an idiot, but an arrogant one at that. This much was made known to everyone when she ran on the socialist policies she ran with and even tried to challenge Nancy Pelosi. Regardless of what you may think about socialism (which is not only stupid, but it’s the worst, most evil idea any human has ever come up with), one can’t help but recognize how stupid it is for an incoming DEMOCRAT FRESHMAN to try and challenge Nancy Pelosi in any way. Not to glorify Pelosi too much, but she’s a veteran politician here who knows how to survive D.C. AOC challenging her would be like me challenging George Foreman (in his prime) to a boxing match. It’d be very stupid.
 
So having an arrogant idiot in government is very dangerous. Again, she’s only had this position for two months and she already thinks herself a superior being to the worthless maggots that dare challenge her authority and intellect.
 
Could you imagine if she were POTUS? She’d be far worse than Obama. Obama at least wasn’t an idiot. He knew what to push and what not to push. He knew who to challenge and who not to challenge. And whatever he may have thought of himself, and I fully believe he thought himself king of America with the way he ran the country, he at least had the common sense not to broadcast it to everyone.
 
AOC, on the other hand, thinks herself so glorious and superior that anyone challenging her in any way is a moron or an inferior race of human and is not shy about showing people what she thinks. Two months in Congress and she’s already this corrupt. The good news is she’s not exactly all that popular with some people in the Democrat leadership so she may be out of a job in 2020, particularly after costing New York, and more importantly, the Democrat Party nearly $30 billion from Amazon.
 
Still, whatever may happen with her in the eyes of the Democrat Party, she is proving to everyone that she is an ignorant little child who is boasting about daddy buying her a new toy (getting elected into Congress being the toy in this situation).
 
But like I said in the beginning of the article, I am not surprised that she thinks this way about herself and the American people. I’m just surprised that she’d be so open about this and at how quickly she’s come to think this way.
 
But this is what happens when you’re a socialist. What happens when you replace God with the government. If the government can essentially replace God, then it stands to reason that those within the government think themselves a superior being to the plebeians that are not in the government.
 
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. AOC has nowhere near absolute power and she’s already this corrupt.
 
This is the mark of the devil in her heart. Satan lives well in hers.
 
Too bad for both AOC and Satan that God is the one with absolute power, authority, etc. They both want to replace God and certainly have the mentality that they believe they can, but both fall painfully short of Him.
 
Colossians 1:16
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

With all the articles I’ve written surrounding college students and their beliefs, many of which are Left-leaning, it’s kind of surprising to see that title at all.
 
Not to offend any college students, but given what the Left has been pushing and that most college students would either consider themselves socialists or at least liberal, what I am about to share with you is pretty fantastic, all things considered.
 
And if anything, what I am about to share with you proves at least two points that I often make: 1) it is important to educate and inform people and 2) the Left lives in their own little bubble where they think most people will go with whatever they want.
 
Of course, that second point should come with a little asterisk. Many people do say they like the Green New Deal, as all of these college students will be shown saying, but the first point of informing people lets us know that, once people have correct information, they will change their tune about some things.
 
Without further ado, let’s talk about the most recent Campus Reform video (below), where Cabot Phillips went to the University of Miami to ask what the students thought about AOC’s Green New Deal.
 
Unsurprisingly, all of them had positive things to say about it.
 
One said: “I like that it’s progressive, that it’s gonna push the world forward.” Another said: “Just from knowing who’s endorsing it and some other little things, it sounds great.”
 
One student, fully buying into the crap that we’re slowly killing ourselves with climate change, said: “If we didn’t do that, we’re going to be killing ourselves.”
 
Every student interviewed initially said that they approved of the Green New Deal.
 
And then, Cabot told them what’s actually in it.
 
He begins by saying that the plan includes eliminating all carbon emissions (coal, oil, natural gas) within 10 years.
 
Right off the bat, the first person he told that to said “I don’t agree with that. To be honest with you, I think we need those things to live.” Another realized that, while it might be a worthwhile endeavor (it’s not), she noted that “I do not think it is feasible in ten years… I don’t think that would be something that would be able to be done in such a short amount of time.”
 
So while she does seem to agree with the concept of eliminating those things, she at least recognizes that 10 years is not enough time to actually manage that, which is more than I can say for AOC.
 
Another student took a similar approach, believing 10 years to be too little time to manage doing that, but also looked into it in an economical perspective, recognizing that there’s a huge global market and economy based around these things that would definitely be severely affected by such a task.
 
The next item on the list that Phillips noted was the part where people who are unwilling to work would still be economically compensated, and this is where things made a right-turn… as in, they sounded more conservative.
 
Or, in other words, they sounded like they had common sense and did not want freeloaders.
 
One said: “If you’re not willing to contribute to society, I don’t think the people who are contributing should pay for you.”
 
THANK YOU! What is fair about people who are willing to work paying for those unwilling to work? Furthermore, while this is something they don’t actually cover in the video because it’s only 5 minutes long, but how could society possibly sustain itself if we have a safety net where those UNWILLING to work get money for not working? How would that work and how would that be sustainable?
 
Young people are definitely worried about things being sustainable (while being lied to that things are not currently sustainable), so they ought to worry about economic sustainability just as much as they do about environmental sustainability.
 
In any case, these students really impressed me by their stance on that issue in particular, with comments such as the one made by that guy, or things like: “I feel like it kind of sends a poor message of ‘you can just get away with not doing anything’… it’s kind of stupid.”
 
Again, thank you. It is insanely stupid, not just trying to think of the consequences of this, but also the actual concept behind it all. People should not be getting free stuff for being UNWILLING to do anything. It’s one thing to not actually be able to do anything. A safety net for such people is acceptable and moral, but for those UNWILLING to do anything, that goes against logic and common sense. Not to mention it goes against God. God wants us to work, not sit on our behinds doing nothing all day. People need to work to survive, and it’s actual madness to demand that working people pay for those who are unwilling to lift a finger to contribute to society and/or the economy.
 
The final item on the list of looney tunes plans to “save the planet” in the Green New Deal (and having recently watched Space Jam for the hundredth time, you are more likely to stretch out your arm like Jordan did against the Monstars than you are of paying for all of these things in the GND and have a functioning, let alone thriving, economy) is the plan to replace all air travel with high-speed rails going across the country (which really leaves Hawaii and Alaska in the dust, when you think about it).
 
As with the first item Phillips brought up, many went back to the impossibility of doing that within 10 years. Although, one did say that he doesn’t think air travel “should be eliminated altogether… it can be an option… The more options we have, the better.”
 
Cabot even raised the issue of who would pay for the multi-trillion dollar cost of the entire plan (which easily surpasses $100 trillion, given medicare-for-all on its own is almost half that) to one female student. She herself did not know who would be able to pay or how they would be able to pay for all of this, showing that it’s still a worthwhile question to ask people.
 
Finally, Cabot asked them, after learning of some of the details of the plan, if they changed their perception of the GND at all. They all changed their tune.
 
One said: “Sometimes you need to take extreme measures to save the environment, but I think that’s too extreme.”
 
I would disagree with the notion that we need to take extreme measures to “save” (save it from what?) the environment, but agree with her overall perception that such a plan is too extreme. Given that the U.S. is currently reducing its CO2 emissions and the other countries, most notably the ones in the Paris Climate accord, are actually increasing their CO2 emissions, I would just say the only measures we need to take are the ones the Trump administration’s EPA is currently taking.
 
But in any case, I am glad to see that these college students do have some common sense. And again, I raise the point that it’s uniquely important to give people correct information.
 
Before knowing anything about it, these kids supported the Green New Deal (precisely BECAUSE they didn’t know anything about it). Given who was supporting it, as one student noted, they liked it. They think AOC is cool because she’s young, attractive and a socialist and she truly wants to change things up in Washington, which is something people on both sides seem to want.
 
Of course, we disagree as to how to go about it, but that’s something many people want. The problem comes when people actually come to understand just what is being proposed by the Left. The Green New Deal, as I made sure to talk about in length in my previous article, is bad satire that the Left wants to make reality.
 
But given the response by COLLEGE STUDENTS, upon learning just what is actually in the plan, they came to disapprove or at least hesitate about the plan. The idea of trying to fight climate change might be a noble one to these kids, but at the very least they understand how ludicrous these proposals are, particularly given the timetable to do those things being so short.
 
Again, this is why it is so important to inform people. I’ve said this many times, but I’ll say it again: the only people that want socialism are those who don’t know what it is (ignorant or uninformed), those who are given information as to what it is but don’t think too much about it or can’t understand why it’s bad (stupid people) or those who know what it is and couldn’t care less because they are running for an office in the government (evil people).
 
I find that, for the most part, people are ignorant. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way at all. Being ignorant and being stupid are two different things, as I’ve said in the past. You can’t cure stupid, but you can cure ignorance with knowledge, facts, etc.
 
These kids were ignorant about the Green New Deal. They would be stupid if, after learning these things, they still agreed with it 100%. However, they proved to me and to those of you who are willing to watch the video that they are not stupid. They do not lack common sense. They just lack information, which can be easily fixed.
 
Of course, there is also the issue of being misinformed, but given the clown show that the AOC camp is giving us with their handling of the Green New Deal and what it contains, I don’t think there’s much chance that people will be easily misinformed about this.
 
Of course, the MSM will try, because that is all they ever seek to do, but this one should be fairly easy to counteract.
 
But returning to these kids, I thank God that people still have some sort of common sense. Enough that, when faced with these ridiculous proposals, they show everyone that the Left lives in a bubble of their own, where they think everyone agrees with them all the time and want what they want.
 
This tells me otherwise.
 
Proverbs 2:10
“For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Last week, socialist nut-job Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), released the outline for what the Green New Deal will try to achieve in the next ten years.
 
And boy, oh boy, does it read worse than the worst essay I’ve ever written for school.
 
Since this was released last week, I imagine many of you know some of the details of the proposed Green New Deal, but allow me to go over some of them just in case you haven’t desired risking IQ points reading through it.
 
The beginning really just talks about how we’re destroying our climate (no evidence to point to, of course) and we need to do make severe changes (note how it’s only because of us that the climate is being destroyed. We’re reducing CO2 emissions, while France, China and other socialist countries increase theirs, but WE’RE the problem).
 
The first objective of the Green New Deal is “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”
 
Okay, a few things. First, it’s pretty much impossible to do that (a recurring theme you will see as I go through this laughable-if-people-weren’t-so-serious-about-it proposition) without nuclear power. And the Green New Deal is adamant about MOVING AWAY from nuclear power, so the chances of managing to do that in the next 50 years, let alone 10, are zero.
 
Second, what exactly does it mean by “fair” and “just”? Definitely not what we think as fair and just. The plan, of course, is to have the government pay for all of this. The government gets paid by We the People. Sure, the rich pay the vast majority of it, but, as I’ve said in multiple articles, the threshold for what is considered rich always gets lowered when you take away rich people’s money. So how is it fair (under the assumption this is even doable) to have upper middle-class, and then middle-class and then lower middle-class and then lower-class people pay for it? (Side note: the country would collapse way before they get to the lower class, but they are still made to suffer the most by massive nation-wide layoffs before they are stuck with the bill).
 
Let’s move on to what immediately follows that idiotic proposal: “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
 
Again, a couple of things. First, we’re already managing to do the first part with the Trump economy, which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is “resisting”. Second, what she proposes would do literally the opposite of that. Third, economic prosperity and security should not be a guarantee. No one is entitled to living well. People have to earn it. When people feel entitled to it, they get bitter and will refuse to work (and we’ll get to that in a moment). The Declaration of Independence grants certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. No one is entitled to happiness, but they are entitled the right to pursue it (which would be taken away by the implementation of this pile of dog-crap).
 
Skipping some other items, we get to some more “guarantees”: “to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come – clean air and water; climate and community resiliency (what does that even mean?); healthy food; access to nature (apparently, people can’t go outside); and a sustainable environment; and to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’)…”
 
Okay, that was a whole lot of stupid to compile into one paragraph and a whole lot of things to cover. Now, I don’t want to make this article too long (the Green New Deal is more than 10 pages long), so I will get to the most important bits (although the whole thing is a compilation of socialist lunacy and a saddening lack of any kind of intelligence).
 
Of course, the Green New Deal just has to include reparations not just for black people, but all people who have been “oppressed” historically. Because you see, the mere fact that there was slavery at all is disqualifying of the entire country. Never mind that every other country in existence, with few exceptions, have also allowed slavery (some still allow for slavery to this very day) and heavily benefited from slavery. No, it’s just the U.S. that’s bad.
 
Let me remind you just who it was that FOUGHT for slavery. America is the only country in the world that actually had to go to war to end slavery. On one side, you had the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to abolish slavery. On the other, you had the Democrat South, led by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who wanted to keep their “right” to keep slaves.
 
Let me remind you that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a hot-button issue for the Democrat Party, with about half voting for it and the other half voting against it, while the Republican Party was almost entirely unified in their support of the bill.
 
The only people that continually oppress people is the Left. How do we go about abolishing them?
 
In any case, let’s move on. The Green New Deal also proposes “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
 
Again, a few things to talk about. First, there are about 127 million residential buildings in the country. That doesn’t include commercial buildings (good luck trying to literally rebuild all of Manhattan), industrial buildings, hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc. I don’t see this happening in the next 100 years, let alone 10.
 
Second, what do you mean doing this “including through electrification”? Powering them up? Makes sense. But how exactly would that be accomplished? The power grid relies almost entirely on fossil fuels (the GND also proposes upgrading the power grid, of course, just doesn’t mention exactly how). Batteries, even if they could actually power up whole buildings (which they can’t), need to be recharged BY FOSSIL FUELS.
 
The GND also proposes building high-speed rails across the country to make air travel obsolete (and even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had issues with that, given it would really screw Hawaii over).
 
It also proposes “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” That, on top of guaranteeing a free college education, as well as ensuring there are “high-quality union jobs” and guaranteeing everyone “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”, “build charging stations everywhere” (yes, everywhere), “replace every combustion-engine vehicle”, and try to “get rid of farting cows” (not a joke, that part was included verbatum) and other emitters of pollution is a recipe for economic disaster.
 
Let me ask these nut-jobs a question: if people are guaranteed economic security, even if they refuse to work, then who in the world is going to build those cross-country railroads? Who is going to renovate and rebuild literally every single building in the country to be environmentally friendly? Who is going to build charging stations “everywhere”? Who is going to produce the necessary materials to even try to do all that? And who is going to be qualified to do all of that and willing to do it as well?
 
Who is going to run the electrical plants (that are somehow free of gas emissions) to power up anything?
 
And most importantly, where is the money to do all of this going to come from?
 
When people are GUARANTEED free stuff, such as money, they will largely be unwilling to do work that helps everyone. I’ve made this argument before, but it’s just as relevant as ever: no one is going to do manual labor if they are guaranteed an income and economic security. The only jobs that people will do are things relating to the arts. Only works of passion will be done. But then again, who is going to run the cameras for shows? Who is going to put the make-up on the actors? Who is going to do anything that has nothing to do with a passionate job?
 
If everyone is guaranteed an income, who is going to tear down the buildings to renovate them in the first place? And if the money is only guaranteed after either the buildings are torn down (which in itself would take ages) or when the new buildings are up (which would take far longer) how are the workers going to live? They won’t be getting that guaranteed money everyone else is getting, so why would they bother to do anything?
 
This ENTIRE proposal is lacking in so much common sense, I think I would’ve come up with something better while I was in preschool. Even back then, I understood the concept of money. If something couldn’t be paid for, I understood the concept of doing something else.
 
One of my earliest memories is hearing the news that the Argentine government was confiscating people’s money in their bank accounts, causing millions of Argentines to go below the poverty line overnight (and don’t think that can’t happen here, particularly with what these lunatics are proposing).
 
I remember because my family was also affected by this (thankfully, my parents, or at least my mother, had a good job so we’d be okay, but not many people were so lucky) and it got me to realize some basic truths in life: money is limited.
 
Of course, as I grew up, I understood the concept of printing money (which is probably how these whackos will try and pay for all of this, because it WILL have to be paid somehow and the rich don’t have enough money to pay for it) and the concept of inflation created by doing such a thing.
 
It’s basic economics, basic supply and demand, that should tell these idiots that you can’t just print unlimited money and pay for everything. The more there is of an item, i.e. money, the less valuable it is. So that multi-trillion dollar price-tag for even ONE of these items gets increased exponentially.
 
Now, the reason I say that this is bad satire, is because I could hardly believe anyone would be stupid enough to suggest these things and anyone would be stupid enough to back these things. Kamala Harris supports it, but I don’t think she read it. I might be giving her too much credit, but I don’t think she’s all that dumb.
 
Nancy Pelosi, being that she’s actually politically smart (even if she says dumb partisan things like the GOP tax cuts will cause the apocalypse) actively avoids this Green New Deal. She doesn’t flat-out reject it, but she is not taking it seriously and likely doesn’t want to put this piece that might as well have been written in crayon on the House floor.
 
This entire proposal highlights what the Left wants to do: replace capitalism with socialism. In the name of fighting climate change, of course.
 
I would laugh at this proposal if people weren’t so serious about this. They legitimately think these things can be done. They completely ignore reality – the reality that even trying to implement ONE of these things would destroy us economically and everyone would be living in abject poverty as the rest of the world did before capitalism became a thing. The reality that the U.S. is lowering its CO2 levels while China cares nothing for the climate. And why would they? The communists already have total power. They didn’t need to run on fighting climate change. They were helped by the Soviets to establish a communist state.
 
The good news about this is that it’s become very easy to counter all of these points. The bad news is that people might just be getting dumber and dumber. The fact that this proposal, alongside AOC and Markey, aren’t being laughed out of Washington speaks volumes.
 
Just 5 to 10 years ago, these proposals, as they are written, would’ve caused laughing fits. Of course, the actual proposals are nothing new. The Left has been trying to accomplish these things, such as eliminating combustion engines and air travel for decades now. But the language of it all is very blunt. It spells out exactly what they want, which is something they previously had to hide.
 
The problem then is that this is not being met by mock and ridicule, but applause and cheers. People in California will read this and think it’s a brilliant masterpiece, as if written by the great Karl Marx himself. They won’t stop to think “this is ludicrous and actually impossible to accomplish in the next century, let alone decade”. They see the goals and don’t care about how to accomplish them as long as they just try.
 
This is the culmination of the participation trophy generation. As long as we try, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if millions are starving to death, are homeless and there is absolutely no hope for anyone to live better lives (and we all know Christianity would be rejected and persecuted), as long as we tried, that’s all that matters.
 
It’s not just sickening and idiotic, it’s actually insanely dangerous. This is the sort of mindset that will set humanity back thousands of years. Nothing good can come of even trying to implement all of this (and that’s all there is: trying. There is no accomplishing any of this because it’s uniquely impossible to do any of this, especially in just a decade).
 
I just hope that God will spare us of this mess and Rapture comes before these people attempt to implement these things.
 
Titus 3:5
“He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!