Connect with us

Opinions

GOP working to put America on the path toward the Green New Deal

Published

on

GOP working to put America on the path toward the Green New Deal

Global warming, or to be more specific, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, was in the news over the weekend courtesy of a Washington Post op-ed penned by two self-identified “moderates” — aka unibrow progressives — in the U.S. Senate.

In a call for the U.S. to begin pursuing “pragmatic [environmental] policies” — which according to the definition of the word “pragmatic” would be policies based on “facts or actual occurrences” and not “theory or dogma” — Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) wrote that America has an opportunity to lead the world in developing new technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pledged their support for such efforts.

“On the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we agree it is time to act. And that is why we will work to find responsible solutions worthy of West Virginians, Alaskans, and all Americans.

“This is often portrayed as an issue with just two sides — those who support drastic, unattainable measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and those who want to do nothing. We believe the time for sensationalism is over. And we are seeking ideas that will bring people together, rather than drive them apart.”

* We will now join hands and sing “Kumbaya” as liberty dies a bipartisan death.

What we are witnessing is the Washington establishment’s latest Obamacare-inspired approach to fundamentally transforming America.

Democrats never wanted Obamacare; they wanted a government-run single-payer healthcare system. But even the Far-Left knew that moving healthcare from a free-market system to a socialized system in one jump was too extreme, so they passed Obamacare as an interim step to move America in the direction of their ultimate goal. Considering that every major candidate running for the Democrat nomination in 2020 has made Medicare for all (single payer) a major part of their campaigns, I’d say the Obamacare approach worked as planned.

What single-payer is to healthcare, the Green New Deal is to “earth care.” And just as it was with single-payer healthcare, making the jump from a free market economy to the socialist economy necessary to implement the Green New Deal is too extreme to do all at once. Still, putting it out there makes room for “moderates” to pass “responsible solutions” that point us in the direction of the ultimate goal.

By the way, Murkowski is not a “moderate” when it comes to the global warming issue. In a speech she gave at an energy summit one year ago, she called global warming caused by human activity “a fact” and warned the energy industry to take the issue seriously before it’s too late.

Doesn’t sound very “pragmatic,” does she?

Murkowski is a little late to the global warming/Green New Deal party. Back in February, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the ranking member of the House Environment and Climate Change subcommittee, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote an op-ed condemning the Green New Deal while promoting a Republican alternative. After declaring so-called climate change “real,” they made an appeal for “sensible, realistic, and effective policies to tackle climate change.”

So, how might Trump be involved in advancing the Green New Deal?

Trump and the Democrats — but I repeat myself — have already agreed the government needs to spend $1 trillion or more on infrastructure improvements. Immediately after the Democrats’ landslide in the midterms, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi informed Trump that any infrastructure plan needed to include financing to begin America’s transition to becoming a “green energy economy” — the stated objective of the Green New Deal.

With Trump’s shaky re-election at stake, and with every Democrat he’s likely to face in 2020 already onboard with the Green New Deal, what do you think the odds are that Ivanka — Trump’s defacto climate czar and an Al Gore devotee — will manage to include parts of the radical plan in Trump’s infrastructure proposal? Based on her ability to get Daddy and the GOP to advance paid family leave and other parts of Hillary’s socialist agenda, I think the odds are pretty good that she’ll get it done.

While Trump, the GOP, and so-called conservatives in media are busy fearmongering about the Green New Deal in an effort to make it a 2020 campaign issue — vote Republican because #notSocialist — they are all working behind the scenes to create a “pragmatic” or “sensible” alternative that still delivers the Green New Deal, just not all at once.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report editors use ExpressVPN

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

First they came for the gun owners….

Published

on

By

First they came for the gun owners

…but I didn’t say anything because I didn’t own a gun.

One of the more infuriating aspects of the Left’s game of denying reality with their little ‘That wasn’t really socialism’ is that there are distinct parallels between their agenda and that of other socialist nations, past and present. They all have a similar process of imposing socialistic slavery with a specific national agenda. A key part being the deprivation of the means of self-defense to their citizens and those who posses these means.

Denying the right of self-defense is a fundamental aspect of socialism

It is a fact of history that gun confiscation is an integral part of implementing of a socialist national agenda. The USSR required the people to turn in their guns, as did the German national socialist worker’s party. As was Fidel Castro’s response in the question of whether the people should have guns as or the United Socialist Party of Venezuela confiscating guns from the people for their own safety, of course.

These have all taken place at the onset of socialistic slavery, but somehow the new version isn’t the same because reasons. Leftists aren’t really trying to set up a governmental monopoly on the use of force, they are just trying to protect the children* [ *unborn and under 9 months old excluded ]. Even though it has been proven time and again that their repression of Liberty does not work as advertised.

The liberty grabber left is now celebrating the destruction of basic civil liberties

Where this subject not so deadly serious, it would be comical to still witness leftists parroting the ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or a variant thereof. Meanwhile they can scarcely contain themselves in the glee over New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seizing on their ‘serious crisis’ to confiscate guns with tweets looking to replicate the destruction of a basic human right in the states.

It is more than a coincidence that the tempo of the drum beat for liberty control has increased while the ideological fraud of socialism is being forced on the people. After a long winded piece gloating about leftist victories over liberty, an opinion piece in Bloomberg has even suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts seize on the serious crisis in New Zealand, using it to destroy this basic civil liberty.

Citizens turned into subjects with a change in the relationship between the people and the government

The genius of the founding fathers is that they recognized that down through history, people have had varying relationships with government. In most cases it was one of the government having a monopoly on the use of force. On occasion the people would challenge this monopoly and change the government, but only after an ensuing orgy of carnage and death.

The founders set forth a new paradigm, that of government by the consent of the people with a semblance of parity via a distributed ability to use force. The nation’s Socialist-Left would like to change or ‘reform’ that paradigm back to the old-fashioned version of the government being the sole purveyor of force. Please note that we are dispensing with the tired old line of the left that this is not what they want. They have made this quite clear over the past few years to the point that anyone that is informed of the issue recognizes that this is just another lie on their part.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” – Thomas Paine

Relegating gun owners to 2nd class citizenship

Those of us who haven’t traded, sold or lost all of our guns in a boating accident are a persecuted class these days. The situation is much akin to a baseball pitching machine throwing fastballs over and over again without let-up. With all kinds of new laws being proposed at state and federal levels that range from invasive Intergalactic Background Checks, liability insurance requirements, gun registration and of course, gun confiscation SWATing legislation.

The destruction of basic civil liberties will only begin with gun owners

Every citizen of the nation is protected with basic Constitutional principles and civil rights including due process, the presumption of innocence and the right to face one’s accuser.

The gun owner has been excluded from these basic civil liberties in some states, and if the liberty grabbers had their way, such would be the case nationwide. With just the flimsiest insinuation of being ‘dangerous’ a gun owner [or those who are merely accused of being a gun owner] will be subjected to gun confiscation raid from the authorities.

This will be just the beginning of the ordeal – if they survive the SWAT team coming at 5:00 AM without warning. Our 2nd class citizen will have to prove they aren’t ‘dangerous’ after they have effectively found guilty in a star chamber. It will only be after spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that they may get their property back in less than stellar condition. The trend is to set gun owners below the legal status of accused criminals in the eyes of the justice system.

We’re just starting on the slippery slope

Fresh from their moves against the basic human right of self-preservation, the chief censor of the government of New Zealand has arbitrarily decided that certain ideas are beyond the pale, sparking a debate over free speech as reported by the Associated Press. This of course is another ongoing controversy in the states over the issue of political correctness and ‘Hate speech’. This shows that isn’t just about ‘military style assault weapons’ or whatever is the phrase at the moment, this is a question of liberty, something the people who use a similar sounding label used to pretend to support.

Make no mistake, the legislative mechanisms and regulations used to deprive gun owners of their commonsense human and civil rights will be used on others if they are allowed to stand. A civil liberties group in California made the point that one doesn’t have to be a gun owner to be subjected to gun confiscation SWATing. If they can go after the property of a gun owner in one instance, because they don’t like their attitude, what’s to stop them from going after a journalist or other type of activist? These orders only have to allege someone is dangerous with little evidence, much less proof that they own a gun. What’s to stop them from deciding free-speech is dangerous or ‘offensive’ necessitating that their computers or cell phones should be seized – at gunpoint no less?

The Takeaway

The whole point of the ‘first they came for’ series is that authoritarians rarely go after everyone at once. They are very careful in picking their targets for their oppression with the tactic of divide and conquer. Today it’s the people who own guns, tomorrow it will be those who don’t conform to the precepts of ‘political correctness’.

This is why President John F. Kennedy stated that: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This is why everyone should be concerned at the headlong rush to denigrate the right of self-defense. And why everyone should be horrified that the government could even consider jettisoning the basic civil liberty of due process and the presumption of innocence. The loss of basic civil rights for some will mean the loss for everyone.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats hang all hope on a public release and a bad interpretation of Mueller report

Published

on

Democrats hang all hope on a public release and a bad interpretation of Mueller report

Republicans are dancing in the virtual streets of social media today after Attorney General William Barr released a letter summarizing the report he received from special counsel Robert Mueller on his 2-year Russian election interference investigation.

Despite the President’s Tweet, Democrats are pointing out a single line in the document. While there was no collusion, Mueller’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.

But, as House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows pointed out, exoneration is not the responsibility of the investigator.

Now, Democrats are ramping up their calls to release the entire report to the public. Their hope is that Barr’s letter does not properly characterize what the Mueller investigation found. If it has enough evidence to point to collusion or obstruction of justice in the eyes of the general public, that would be nearly as good as actual indictments.

Their two roadblocks, of course, would be the public release of the government, which the President has called for, and evidence that can be pinpointed and spun in a way that makes it appear as if Mueller was either close to having enough evidence or chose to ignore the evidence in his decision to not recommend indictments.

It’s unclear whether the report will actually be released despite the Democrats’ calls and the President’s Tweet. It’s up to Barr, which most assume means it’s up to the President himself. If there’s evidence in there that can paint him in a negative light, it’s very possible the Attorney General will hold back on releasing it.

A third option, which has already been floated, is for Democrats to subpoena Mueller to testify about the investigation before Congress. This would given him an opportunity to describe the evidence they found in the investigation without the report itself being released. It would be one of the most well-watched testimonies in history, even bigger than Michael Cohen’s testimony last month, because most people have never heard Mueller say anything. He has been very reticent throughout the investigation and has condemned the handful of leaks that hit the press from his team.

For now, the Trump administration and his supporters can breath a sigh of relief. How long that lasts will depend on what’s in the report itself. If there’s not enough to publicly demonize the President or those close to him, then we’ll likely see a release. If there’s more fodder for controversy and ammunition that can be used in the 2020 election, Barr’s summary may be all we ever see.

Democrats are latching onto anything they can in order to justify their loud accusations and false conclusions they made before the report deflated them. Watching mainstream media and Hollywood cry may be the most enjoyable part of all this.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

Published

on

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

What does an ancient human skull found in a cave in Israel tell us about the past? It all depends on which perspective you take and whether you want to follow sound scientific practices or manipulated conclusions from circular reasoning.

Modern science can give us a tremendous view of the past. With nearly every discovery, we can see God’s work at play in molding the planets and the stars, the oceans and the lands, the people and the other wonderful creatures. Unfortunately, scientists often distort the findings to fit in with their secular worldview. A clear case of this comes to us from a study published four years ago in the scientific journal, Nature, titled Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans, that is still being erroneously taught today.

First, watch the way that it is being reported. Then, let’s discuss the conclusions.

This is an important discovery, one that clearly points to a Biblical worldview of the roots of man from the garden of Eden working its way from what is now Africa into what is now the Middle East. It jibes with the story of the great flood, stories from the life of Adam through Joshua, and a centralized end point of ancient man in the region along the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa up through modern day Turkey.

Of course, that’s not what the scientists doing the research concluded.

“The is the first evidence that shows that, indeed, there was a large wave of African migrants coming out of East Africa and inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region,” said Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University.

One of the biggest problems with modern science is that our society blindly accepts their conclusions. They know, right?

Proper scientific method that we all learn in high school tells us the conclusions of the research are completely unscientific. We know a few things that are truly observable:

  • Humans very likely started in Africa and Neanderthals were in the Middle East.
  • Humans and Neanderthals interbred to form the basis for Europeans. Today, everyone other than purely African people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA.
  • A human skull fragment was found in Israel.

Given this information, it is obtuse to draw the conclusion that this represents a large wave of African migrants inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region. One skull fragment does not tell us that there was a large migration. One skull fragment does not tell us that it was a migration at all. Modern science must establish hypotheses based upon observable facts, but it almost always extrapolates too much.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if it extrapolated based upon the Bible. We are told the general story of everything that happened from creation through the rise of the Greeks within the Old Testament. Every scientific and archaeological discovery in the region supports this general story, but a culture that utilizes far more distant time frames to explain the discoveries has generated the faulty conclusions that scientists present to us today.

The evidence tells two different stories depending on the observer’s worldview. It’s unfortunate that most have pushed aside the obvious and verifiable conclusions in order to perpetuate the paradigm of secularism.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report