I was taken back by the most recent legislative proposal, the Green New Deal. It is being offered by our newest (and youngest) progressive congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and at first glance, it sounds like an admirable pledge. Who doesn’t like green? Now don’t confuse it with the color green or un-ripened fruit, or even one’s untested experiences in life, which may best describe our new congresswomen. The green label on this piece of legislation refers to things environmentally friendly.
So far, it sounds like a winner, even for a slightly right of center blogger.
Green is everywhere today! It is immediately recognizable, and becoming a very large part of our lives. It is in everything we say and do. And in the big scheme of us, it is a good thing! But, as with any large politically motivated movement, it can take on a life of its own, complete with a faithful zealous following…almost religious in nature (no pun).
However, what concerns me is that it is one thing to promote a worthy cause, especially when its purpose and intention is to benefit society as a whole, but it is another thing to advance it through ignorance and deception. One where the benefit is not the real objective but shrouded in untested, nonsensical, and and worrisome, ulterior motives.
This is where I have an issue.
H.Res. 109…The Green New Deal
The official name of the resolution is H.Res. 109 “Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” Right off the bat, its title foreshadows danger. Where and when has it ever been the “duty of the federal government” to run our lives? Its pompous approach makes one ill to think that we have congressional members who truly believe that it is the duty of our government to create anything. Or for that matter run anything. Is this not counter to our constitutional ideas and laws? As our constitutional preamble exemplifies, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….”
There was no mistake by our founding fathers to be very careful with words, specifically, action verbs…like establish, insure, provide, secure, and to my main point, promote. It was all about limited government. A very narrow field of directive responsibilities to ensure checked federal power and rule. If the Green New Deal was to align with any of the responsibilities, it would be “promote the general welfare.” And the word promote, by intention, means to aid or encourage, not direct!
So, here we are…this resolution doesn’t even make it past the litmus test of our Constitution’s preamble.
Some More Issues With the resolution
Here is a quote from the legislation’s author, Cortez (btw, you can bet she didn’t write it and is merely the puppet presenting it…more on that later), “…building high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Replacing air travel? As much as I agree with a high-speed rail resurgence, it is hard to high-speed rail across our vast oceans? Maybe an ocean crossing chunnel? Now, that wouldn’t cost much? Further, and more alarming, is the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” to accomplish the goals.
It’s taken over 100 years to get aviation to the point it is today. How will we replace it with a high-speed rail alternative within 10 years? Assuming costs can be met, not to mention the infrastructure required to meet similar capacity demands in travel? Also, one would assume that the U.S. will stop air travel coming into our country from foreign carriers? It would be consistent with the Green New Deal and a responsible thing to do…right? And anyway, who wants foreigners dirtying up our air?
Currently, U.S. passenger and cargo carriers employ more than 700,000 people worldwide and help drive more than 10 million American jobs. In the U.S. alone it generates over 1.5 trillion dollars into the economy or 5 cents of every dollar of U.S. GDP. Not bad when aircraft account for a very small proportion of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions (GHG are gases that trap heat in our atmosphere and warm our planet).
What? Wait a minute…
The Green New Deal authors decided that aircraft emissions are the main GHG culprit, to the point that these promoters suggest we get rid of all aircraft and replace with high-speed rail? According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, aircraft represent just 9% of transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, whereas vehicles represent 83% of GHG emissions? Is this how we prioritize a full WWII mobilization effort? What about applying this same draconian change to the vehicle industry?
Further, and looking at some unaccountable orders of effect, even though the resolution mentions “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing,” what it doesn’t address is the infrastructure that supports our road system…concrete and asphalt! Cement is responsible for 7% of global man-made greenhouse emissions, making it the world’s second largest industrial source of carbon dioxide, according to the International Energy Agency.
By the same token, the amount of concrete in our American road systems is enough to pave six streets to the moon. Asphalt contains numerous carcinogens and toxic compounds (i.e. (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) that affect our water tables, rivers, and lakes.
Now, add this little tidbit to another one of the legislation’s requirements, “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States,” and we will not just warm the planet we will cook it.
Pointing Out the Obvious
What I am highlighting here is the Green New Deal’s poor concept and construction. Ill-conceived, ill-prepared, and ill-applied remedies to questionable problems. It reeks of misinformation, redirection, sounding good with little basis, and outright deception. For example, if we are going to single out a portion of the transportation industry then let’s give it a fair shake.
Whether we like it or not, air travel connects us farther, faster and more efficient than trains or boats…it is the reality. With respect to our economic viability, taking out air travel is like pulling the seam stitch in our economic dress, it will eventually come apart. So, before we step back into the transportation stone age, I would recommend a full mobilization and effort to put rigor into this proposition. Until we can truly determine its effect, which the authors have apparently not accomplished, then and only then can we assess the total cost!
In other words, and I repeat, what are we trying to fix that is so desperately broken?
Time to Get Controversial
The Green New Deal is illogical. It’s deceptive. It’s misleading. And it’s unclear. And the main problem is that it’s the very basis or argumentative authority is flawed! Climate change is still unclear. Yes, you heard me correctly, Climate change is still unsettled. Ok, I’m sure you’re asking right now why would I establish such a controversial position?
Here’s the reason…and it’s a good one!
The whole premise of the resolution and its draconian courses of action assume two things, the planet is warming and that it is human induced. This belief has been drilled into us so often and with such vigor that human activity is synonymous with Climate Change. As a matter of fact, the essence of the resolution rides on this very assertion. Without it, the Green New Deal is irrelevant.
Are still with me?
I want to emphasize that I would not make such a statement when our governments and media worldwide have literally blessed Climate Change’s existence and cause. How could I possibly question it…it’s as real as the melting ice caps and the claims of Al Gore’s doomsday movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Its cataclysmic nature is so bad that our new climate change expert and Green New Deal author, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, stated in an interview, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address Climate Change.”
Now that sounds serious! No wonder we need a WII mobilization effort to confront such an apocalyptic event. Or do we? Are Climate Change and its rise to truthful preeminence accurate? Or is it, as the timeless adage says, “Say it enough times it becomes truth?”
The Religion of Climate Change
I would highly recommend at this point to read one my older blog posts titled, “The Religion of Climate Change.” It will help you better understand where I am coming from and why. It is an enlightening examination to the folly of Climate Change, its rationale, corruptible science, and more importantly, its analogous religious pretension.
However, if not interested in reading my climate change blog, here’s a quick synopsis that may help.
One of our greatest inventions is something you cannot see, hear, taste or for that matter, touch. It has resolutionions of followers and has solved some of our greatest challenges. But it has also spawned unending conflict and cast misery among many. Yet this invention has taken us to the moon and is arguably the most profound creation that has ever blessed and cursed our planet.
This invention is an idea…and what makes it so compelling is humankind’s unwavering belief in it. An Aristotelian (Aristotle) creation that has powered humankind forward at light speed. For instance, take mathematics. Math is an idea. It came out of someone’s head but since its inception, it has propelled humankind to the moon. Without it, we would still be in the stone age. Math too is devoutly followed and any unbelievers are cast aside. Imagine saying 1+1 does not equal 2, it would be heresy. Math today is as real as the ice caps melting.
Yet, what has really propelled humankind forward is not necessarily any one idea but that we continually question it. The essence of truth-testing or science…definition, axiom, proposition, and proof…continually repeated. If we fail in this hypothesis and stop questioning the obvious then when the obvious becomes uncertain, our outcomes end in disappointment or worse, repeated wrongful paths. As Albert Einstein exclaimed, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, but expecting different results.”
Even math requires question. For example, we are finding out that the deeper we dive into quantum mechanics, the more that 1+1 may not necessarily equal 2. To put it succinctly, science never stops asking questions because the next question may be more important than the answer…no different for Climate Change.
How Religion Enters the Battle
Let’s take the idea of climate change. The idea that the planet is warming and that it is human induced. Claim the idea to be true (a belief in anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming or AGW), personify it (Al Gore or Neil deGrasse Tyson), say it enough times but mostly establish it as unchallengeable (a self-evident and irrefutable truth…97% of scientists endorse it), propose it (write infallible books or create doomsday movies), and finally provide proof (ice caps melting, sea levels rising, uncontrollable El Nino’s, or irrefutable data), and you have yourself a religion. And even though one argues that science could not possibly be thought of in any religious context, the fact is that any idea, to include science, can (and is) followed by a faithful lot.
And Climate Change is no exception.
To put this to a test, the evidence of this idea, its existence, and more importantly, its truth is scientifically documented…indisputable facts that conclude its reality. How could it not exist when great institutions like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), NASA, and the leading authority on climate change, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (who by the way, is considered the “only” authority behind the climate change science), repeatedly reaffirms, “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
And impress upon its rock star status, we have celebrities like former President Barrack Obama, comedian, now popular climate change spokesperson resolution Nix, and science’s iconic Neil Degrasse Tyson of Cosmos fame state unequivocally that humans are the culprit behind the rising temperatures on our planet. And to put the nail in the coffin of doubters, science disproportionality supports it! As a matter of fact, 97% of climate scientists agree with the consensus on Climate Change or AGW. With everyone in such agreement, how could one question its infallibility? It is no longer an idea, it is conclusive evidence that makes it an undeniable truth…Aristotelian science at its finest…right?
Don’t Stop Asking Questions…Let’s Talk About the Human Side to Science
What’s really behind these Climate Change studies? What one element of the science could possibly question this almost religious precept? Easy, the corruption of it. What? Science is corrupt? Nonsense, it’s objective, not subjective and susceptible to the flaws of human motivation. But wait, is it not humans who derive scientific fact? And as such, could science be subject to ulterior motives and our most innate ethical flaws?
With respect to Climate Change, the answer is yes!
As an illustration, the popular and well-touted claim that 97% of scientists believe in AGW, which was derived out of 12,000 scientific climate papers used to determine AGW, only 33% of the articles endorsed it! Yes, only 33%. But if you want to sell something or to make it stick, fudge the numbers. Out of the 33% who agreed with the AGW consensus, 97% endorsed it…and voila you have yourself all the proof you need to seal its religious zeal. To reiterate, cook the numbers and you get the outcomes you want…even science is susceptible to corruption, as described by climate expert and UN Climate Panel contributor, Patrick Michaels, “It is the scientists, not the science that is determining how much it [our climate] is going to warm…the climate models are parameterized or fudged to get the desired outcome.”
Ok, we have laboriously described an idea and how it can become truth but we have also unearthed the corruption of proving truth or science. But why go to all this trouble to debunk climate change?
The answer to this is also the answer to the Green New Deal!
Money, Control, and Change
Not just a little money but global-level money. Not just a little control but complete authority, and not just simple change but a redistribution of power and wealth like never seen before. To put it succinctly, right the social ship of inequity. And if there are any non-believers then quickly demonize them, name call, and cast them into the bin-heap of deplorables. What we have here is a direct challenge to western civilization and its standards, conditions, and norms, packaged and sold under the charade of Climate Change. To put it another way, this legislation has been corrupted. Created, devised, and promoted under a false pretense. America, you’ve been duped!
What’s really going on?
An economic and social reorder. Climate Change is just a cover. It is really about the diminishment of western civilization’s influence and the rebirth a new world order. One more equitable and inclusive. One that bridges the socioeconomic gap.
And what better way to accomplish it than to create a disaster. One on an epic scale. An apocalyptic scenario that requires immediate attention to avoid irreversible conditions. And to make it work, it must be infallible, irrefutable, and believed…almost religious in nature. Set in stone by an almost God-like reverence supported by the most reputable of organizations and science and you have yourself the means to mask an ulterior motive.
The result is the birth of a new arrangement and it is cloaked in green, the reshaping of America. A massive redistribution of power and wealth that will change us forever. America is too big, western civilization is too patriarchal, and American life is inequitable. The religious chants are already starting, and it’s called the Green New Deal!
Is this the sole work of our progressive Congress or is this coming from somewhere else?
The Green New Deal seems to be a politically motivated hodgepodge of social issues somehow tied to being Green? It is disjointed with misaligned actions to its core tenant, which is being environmentally friendly. For example, it wanders through such issues as climate change, guaranteeing a job, discrimination, health care for all, affordable housing, affordable food, promoting justice, paid vacations, and not to be remised, guaranteed access to nature. Its randomness and muddled issues make one wonder where this all came from. Why would the newest and youngest member of Congress risk political exclusion and criticism presenting one of the most controversial (and confusing) resolution’s put forward in decades?
What’s driving this and more importantly who or what is influencing these congressional progressives?
The answer shouldn’t surprise you.
Democratic Socialist of America
You need to look no further than the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which, The Green New Deal’s primary author Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and co-author, Rashida Tlaib, are some of DSA’s devout members.
Who are these Democratic Socialists of America? And how are they influencing (co-authoring) one of our nation’s most disruptive pieces of legislation? No need to worry, it’s all in their beliefs. Here’s a quick look at what DSA endorses (btw, I’ve taken the liberty to add some color commentary to each DSA inspired goal…just for analytical or comedic value):
- Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages (and it’s not $15.20/hr but for a single parent home with three kids it is $44.22/hr…what’s wrong with this social picture…maybe a negative incentive?)
- Economic security for those unable or unwilling to work (you think unemployment was bad in the late 70s, just wait…and all paid for by you)
- State-controlled steel production (not sure the government could lead the boy scouts to the outhouse let alone run our steel sector)
- Progressive taxes (tax the rich…unfortunately there are not enough of them to pay for the Green New Deal so eventually they will have to tax the middle class…that is a guarantee)
- Corporations run through cooperatives and consumers (would love to see the decision-making process here…sounds like communal living. This will really spur entrepreneurship)
- Democratic planning to shape energy, mass transit, and housing (another word for government-run or heavily regulated industries…that’s worked out well so far)
- Elimination of private corporations (not sure if this means Corporation, LLPs, LLC, or S-Corp…where do they draw the line with small-business that supports 50% of the workforce and 64% of the new jobs since 1995…and remember, all big businesses were at one time a small business)
- A unionized workforce with right-to-strike (even as a card-carrying union member, I can tell you that if I owned a business the last thing I would want is to have a unionized workforce…inefficient, breeds division inside the company, bad for small businesses, and little personal incentive to produce a product…how’s that working in Europe where public works are often halted due to strikes?)
- Support only enjoyable labor and distribute undesirable labor across the masses (Uhmmm? Wonder who decides what’s enjoyable labor or not? Or how to distribute the bad jobs? Government?)
- Employers job is to make work desirable (Probably determined by climate surveys? Katy bar the door!)
- Single payer health care run by the government and funded by progressive taxes (free health care paid for by the rich…and eventually you)
- Abolish private health insurance (who needs quality health care and no lines)
- Low-cost housing (how’d that work with subprime mortgages…a great recession!)
- High-speed rail system as an alternative to automobiles (it’s not just aircraft, vehicles are next!)
- Provide job training and education to all (free vo-tech and college on your dime)
- The rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people (why not free stuff for non-citizens? What a recruiting tool, brings the best into America…socialist democrat voter-base recruiting?)
- Support major U.S. role to control climate change (guess who’s going to foot the resolution for the world…while the real polluters get a free pass)
- End dependence on fossil fuels (great in theory but requires a graduated well thought out transition, not a WWII mobilization that will destroy our economy)
- Public ownership and worker control of existing corporate farms (Forty acres and a mule? How’d we do implementing that?)
Does this all sound familiar? I could have sworn I just read this in the Green New Deal?
Here’s the Real Author
People, this is about Socialism, not some admiral attempt (poorly thought out) to get us off fossil fuels. The Green New Deal is an end-around of our current governmental and economic processes. It is the beginning of the alteration to our constitutional grounding. If you think that turning green is the only capitalistic free market republic crushing legislation they will propose, then you are hiding under a rock. As you may have noticed above, these are just a few of the socialist gems…check out the Green New Deal FAQ. This is where the new progressive Congress is going.
It is the socialist reordering of America…and there’s more to come!
Wrapping it Up in a New-deal Bow
The Green New Deal is flawed from the start. It lacks a coherent legitimate baseline problem or argument. Put differently, what are we trying to fix that’s broken? Climate Change is still unclear. The reality is scientists cannot agree as a whole if humans are causing the planet to warm, contrary to popular opinion. And it is this popular opinion that has taken over the discourse with an almost religious flare. The Green New Deal predicates its entire argument on Climate Change as if opinion only rules, not uncorrupted facts. As Aristotle feared. “opinion is the criteria for truth.” Further, its catastrophic tale has been told, written, filmed, and now legislated with such urgency that for some invalidated reason immediate action is required.
It is being falsely and irresponsibly portrayed as a survival-dependent movement.
Hidden beneath this unreliable catastrophic climate message is another motive. A motive that has even escaped its critics. One that makes even the economic disaster of the resolution seem tame. Within the disjointed, at times incoherent, unrelated, and outright bizarre proposal lies the real agenda. One authored not by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or any other progressive congressional member but by a discreet but growing American organization (or movement), the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Cross-referencing the legislative actions with those of the DSA’s goals and you can start to see its unmistakable influence in actions and the puppeteering of these congressional members.
Climate Change is about change. But not the type of change this legislation is promoting, but a far greater revision. An epic-level transformation on the order of magnitude similar to our own original revolution. The only difference is that our founding fathers are rolling in their graves at the type of change being touted…an unrecognizable republic.
The fact is the Green New Deal is about realigning economic models, redistributing wealth, controlling distribution and production, and directing equitable social outcomes, not opportunities. If the authors (and influencers) have their way, socialism and its disastrous ways will eek into American life, under the pretense of Climate Change. And once the order is re-established in America, the next step is a global realignment. Just check out the similarities between the DSA goals and the UNIPCC, UNFCC or Paris Climate Agreement.
Don’t be fooled that it won’t happen. When claiming the high ground for humanity or better creating a climatic disaster on an epic scale by alternating fact with fiction, then anything is possible. Utopia is right around the corner. Redistribution of wealth, diminishment of patriarchal power, and the alteration of social order will not just be expected but directed. And if legislated, everyone will have to jump on board and ride it no matter whether you agree with it or not…even if it takes us into the deep abyss. It’s like a good wingman flying in formation two feet away from his flight lead completely fixated on his position, and unknowingly, but faithfully, following him into the ground.
If America embraces this Green New Deal then western civilization along with its capitalist economy, free markets, traditions, philosophies, and success will be lost in the dustheap of socialist history.