Thursday, February 14, 2019

This Is Sad News For America!

Shocker: Majority of Americans Support AOC’s Insane ‘Green New Deal’

Shocker: Majority of Americans Support AOC’s Insane ‘Green New Deal’
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made the quite the name for herself during her short time in office, recently releasing her “Green New Deal” plan to combat climate change and perceived social injustices.
Most of the points of the Green New Deal elicit an eye roll. For instance, the plan calls for rebuilding or refurbishing every single U.S. building to make sure they are energy efficient, building trains across the oceans to eliminate as much air travel as possible, and banning nuclear energy within the next decade if possible — it isn’t.
But according to a new INSIDER poll, the wild-eyed freshman Congresswoman’s even wilder ideas seem to be taking off with a surprisingly large chunk of Americans. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal pairs aggressive environmental priorities to combat climate change with investments in infrastructure, jobs and transportation that also would transform the entire U.S. economy.
President Donald Trump referred to the plan as “socialist,” and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the head of Ocasio-Cortez’s own party, dismissively called it the “green dream.”
Nevertheless, the “poll found a plurality of respondents support the Green New Deal and large majorities support the bulk of the resolution’s broad policy goals.”

Here’s what Americans support in the Green New Deal

To start with, INSIDER’s poll found that a solid majority of Americans agree with scientific consensus around climate change.
Nearly 62% of those polled said the Earth is warming as a result of human activities, including burning fossil fuels. 26% said global warming is a result of natural patterns in the Earth’s environment, and just 11.7% said there’s no solid evidence the Earth is getting warmer.
Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal House resolution broadly calls for the US to address climate change through a 10-year mobilization to make the US economy carbon-neutral by moving to 100% renewable energy, while simultaneously guaranteeing a job to every American who wants one.
A plurality of respondents —43.7% — agreed with the “Green New Deal” proposal as a whole. 16.3% strongly agreed, 13.9% agreed, and 13.5% somewhat agreed. Meanwhile, just 14.7% disagreed with it, and about 24.3% said they didn’t know enough to say.
Next, we polled seven individual ideas or components of the deal that would be linked to policy priorities, all of which are quite vague. Given the loose nature of the proposals, we asked respondents how important it was to implement these policy proposals, on a scale with five options running from “not at all important” to “extremely important.”
  • The poll found that 87.6% of respondents think it is either somewhat, very, or extremely important that the federal government invest in infrastructure designed to build resilience against climate change-related disasters.
  • 87.2% of poll respondents said it’s somewhat, very, or extremely important that the US meet 100% of its power demands through renewable or zero-emission energy sources. 12.7% said this goal is either not so important or not at all important.
  • 86% of those polled said it’s important that the federal government enact policies that aim to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (which would mean no added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).
  • Support for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings was particularly high at 89%.
  • And 87.5% of respondents said it’s important that both manufacturing and agricultural businesses and industries be required to be as emission-free as technologically feasible.
  • The resolution’s call for major investment in energy-efficient transportation was also popular. 87.6% of those polled said it’s important that the government invest directly in a high-speed rail system, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and clean public transit.
And big majorities of respondents supported a broad call for a much stronger social safety net. 78% said a federal jobs guarantee is important. And 69.8% somewhat approved, approved, or strongly approved of the government providing all Americans with high-quality healthcare, affordable housing, economic security, healthy and affordable food, and a clean environment.
While our polling shows significant public support for the general concept of a Green New Deal and most of the plan’s key proposals, it’s not clear to what extent voters will prioritize the issue when compared with other policy priorities.
The survey’s findings also reflect a general shift in US public opinion on climate change in recent years.
recent survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University found that 73% of Americans said they understood that global warming is occurring — an increase of 10 percentage points from three years ago. 72% of those polled said climate change was important to them.

But do they support the whole bundle?

While individually these policies may be broadly popular — sure, a high-speed rail may sound like a good idea, even to people who don’t think the government should guarantee jobs — the proposals are bundled for a reason.
While responding to climate change is important to many, it’s not typically policy issue number one for large groups of Americans. In many ways, that’s the key innovation of the Green New Deal.
According to the Pew Research Center, Americans from across the political spectrum prioritize policies that address the economy, transportation and jobs. Further, “the economy” and “jobs” regularly appear at or near the top of the list for Americans’ policy goals for the federal government.
So it should come as no surprise that the plan links a jobs and economic stimulus package with environmental priorities. Proponents of the Green New Deal hope the popularity of the economic goals will rub off on that of the climate-related priorities.
A reasonable concern would be that one or more of those priorities could be a poison pill for the package as a whole. But, based on INSIDER’s survey, there is not a ton of evidence to support those concerns.
Of the seven separate planks we surveyed, 30% said all seven were extremely or very important, 17% said six of the seven were important and 12% said five of the seven were important. For comparison, 15% think that none of the seven polled policies are very or extremely important.
And adding in those who think the priorities are at least somewhat important, 66% of respondents went seven-for-seven, saying that each and every component of the plan was somewhat, very, or extremely important. That seems to back the notion of bundling these policy proposals.
All told, 21% of respondents identified as very or somewhat conservative, 31% identified as very or somewhat liberal, with 48% identifying as slightly liberal or slightly conservative, neither, or they declined to say. Support for a Green New Deal and its proposals was strongly linked to whether the respondent said they believed the earth was getting warmer due to human activity, with the exception of one policy.

The weakest part of the Deal

Just 13% of respondents said they approve of the federal government directly investing and maintaining ownership stakes in businesses working to meet the policy goals of the Green New Deal. About 42% of respondents said they either disapprove or strongly disapprove of such action.
The public’s opinion on this issue might be informed by Barack Obama’s largely unsuccessful efforts to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs with the $90 billion set aside in the 2009 stimulus package for clean-energy development.
The program’s shortcomings were highlighted in the government’s relationship with Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturing company that went under after the administration gave the company a $535 million government-guaranteed loan.
The company ultimately filed for bankruptcy after market conditions and unwise managerial decisions caused its revenue to plummet.
Obama’s auto bailouts in the midst of Great Recession are another recent example of government getting involved with private companies. Faced with estimates of more than one million lost jobs if GM and Chrysler folded in 2009, Obama gave billions in loan guarantees to both car manufacturers. At the time, the move was deeply unpopular.
Both companies were saved by their “controlled bankruptcies” and rebounded during Obama’s years, repaying the bulk of their loans. By 2012, public support for the bailout rose to 56%, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

Want To Starve? Endorse The Green New Deal!

ANALYSIS: HOW AOC’S GREEN NEW DEAL WOULD UNLEASH A CATASTROPHIC FOOD COLLAPSE AND VENEZUELA-STYLE MASS STARVATION ACROSS AMERICA

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to be either economically illiterate or intending to unleash mass starvation and suffering across the nation

The widely-touted “Green New Deal,” aggressively pushed by AOC and radical left-wing Democrats, demands ending reliance on fossil fuels in ten years.
All combustion engines must go, the plan insists, and “clean” energy sources such as wind and solar must replace them in order to save the planet from total destruction that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims will take place in 12 years (unless we surrender to the climate change cultists).
In pushing this plan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to be either economically illiterate or intending to unleash mass starvation and suffering across the nation. Does she not realize there is no such thing as wind-powered farm tractors or solar-powered long haul big rig trucks? There are no battery-powered commercial jet airliners, either, and the entire infrastructure for agriculture depends almost entirely on heavy equipment that runs on combustion engines.
The simple, undeniable truth of the matter is that batteries simply don’t come anywhere close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Large agriculture tractors run on diesel fuel because diesel packs an astonishing amount of work energy into a small amount of volume and weight of fuel. Airplanes run on jet fuel for the same reason. Long haul transport trucks run on diesel because the portability of the liquid fuel provides torque and range, allowing trucks to drive many hundreds of miles between fuel stops, even when hauling tens of thousands of pounds of consumable products.
In fact, a 100 horsepower tractor — a common size for a farm tractor — would need to be outfitted with nearly 5000 square feet of solar panels to equal the power of a single 100 h.p. diesel engine. That’s a solar array of roughly 70′ x 70′, mounted to a tractor.
Here’s the math: 1 horsepower = 746 watts, so 100 h.p. is 74,600 watts. Each square foot of solar panels produces roughly 15 watts of power, so you would need 4,973 square feet of solar panels, which comes to an array of about 70′ x 70′.
Such a tractor would be impossible to maneuver and would stop operating when the sun isn’t shining. It would fall over at the slightest incline, and would be blown away by the slightest wind. The 70′ square solar array would make the tractor impossible to transport on a truck, park in a barn or even moved into a repair shop. The very idea is sheer insanity.
It is upon these insane, ludicrous dreamworld concepts that AOC’s Green New Deal is ultimately based. Anyone who’s going to insist that all combustion engines be eliminated in ten years might as well also say that Leprechauns will deliver pots of gold at the end of every rainbow, or that new batteries will run on magic. This is what the Democrats have come to: Sheer insanity disguised as policy.

SHUTTING DOWN FOSSIL FUELS WOULD COLLAPSE THE U.S. FOOD SUPPLY AND LEAD TO MASS STARVATION

Natural News has conducted a straightforward analysis of the agricultural use of fossil fuels and how the food production industry would be impacted by ending the use of fossil fuels in the next decade. A detailed infographic, shown below, summarizes these important findings.
What we’ve found should be alarming for anyone paying attention to reality. Here are the main points:
  • The agricultural industry depends heavily on fossil fuels for farming, harvesting, milling, manufacturing, transport and even for fertilizers. (See statistics in the infographic, below.)
  • Food imports depend almost entirely on fossil fuel-powered ships, shipping port transport equipment (such as cranes and forklifts), long haul rigs and other heavy equipment that run almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
  • There are no “green energy” replacements capable of powering most of the heavy equipment used in food production, manufacturing and transportation, aside from small, battery-powered forklifts that must be recharged for many hours between uses. (There are no battery-powered ocean freighter ships that can cross the Pacific Ocean on battery power, for example. They simply do not exist.)
  • Ending fossil fuels and combustion engines would result in a catastrophic collapseof national food production.
  • Our rough estimate is that food supplies would collapse by 80% within the first 12 months after fossil fuels are outlawed.
  • The result would be mass starvation, social chaos, uncontrolled outbreaks of infectious disease, a collapse of government, widespread mayhem and lawlessness.
  • Under the scenario, the GDP of the United State of America would plummet by an estimated 70% as the national economy grinds to a halt.
  • America would cease to exist as a nation and would be especially vulnerable to invasions by foreign forces such as China, Russia or even migrant waves of military-aged men from Central and South America. (Is this what Ocasio-Cortez wants to see happen?)
In summary, the “Green New Deal” appears to be a planned, engineered economic apocalypse plot to destroy America from within. No wonder so many Democrats have signed onto the plan, for it is exactly what they want to see happen: the complete economic destruction of the United States of America.
The Green New Deal might be more accurately called “the 1700s” because it would thrust America back to the age before engines and machines, forcing the nation to live in an era utterly lacking in modern machines that produce and transport the food supply.

SEE THE FULL INFOGRAPHIC HERE… AND SHARE EVERYWHERE

You can also view a larger version of the following infographic at this link:

FINAL THOUGHT: COMBUSTION ENGINES ACTUALLY RELEASE THE CO2 NEEDED BY FOOD CROPS

It’s also worth noting in all this that combustion engines release carbon dioxide, the very “miracle molecule” needed by plants to grow and produce food. CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, and by burning fossil fuels, heavy machines actually release carbon that has been sequestered in the Earth. Higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere accelerate food crop production and even allow arid regions of the world to produce more food. This is why greenhouses frequently buy and operate CO2 generators to increase the CO2 in the greenhouse air, accelerating plant growth.
Thus, the very fossil fuel-powered machines that harvest the food also release food-producing nutrients as they are operated. This is an indisputable scientific fact. There’s even a non-profit group called the CO2 Coalition that publishes white papers talking about the simple science behind CO2. (The group is probably funded by the energy industry, but that doesn’t mean their information is wrong.)
Carbon dioxide is such an important molecule for all life on Earth that I’m now calling it the “God molecule.” Yet climate change cultists call CO2 a “pollutant,” completely oblivious to the crucial role this molecule plays in all plant life on our planet (and nearly all food webs that support animals and humans).
Although combustion engines can release particulate pollutants, that is almost entirely eliminated through emissions controls. Newer diesel engines even use ammonia solutions to produce near-zero emissions, and all the agricultural, construction and transportation equipment sold today must adhere to these stringent emissions controls. I know this because I own modern John Deere equipment, and the emissions are so clean that you can now literally stand right behind the exhaust of a diesel-powered machine and breathe normally. It’s not like the old ways when diesel engines spewed dark clouds of toxic pollutants.
Solar power and wind power have their place and can be very effective at powering homes and businesses that are connected to the grid, but “green” energy sources are incredibly bad at powering machines which are not connected to the grid. That’s why the Green New Deal is a pipe dream authored by some of the most incredibly stupid, scientifically illiterate people on the planet.
Watch my video on carbon dioxide to learn more, via Brighteon.com:
Also see more details on fossil fuels consumption by the agriculture sector at:

Hopefully The Democratic Candidate Will Be A Progressive!

Trump Can't Win in 2020, But Democrats Could Lose

Scott Rasmussen
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2019 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Trump Can't Win in 2020, But Democrats Could Lose
  
If the 2020 election were simply a question of whether voters want President Donald Trump to serve another term, he would lose. His job approval ratings have consistently been in the low- to mid-40s nationwide, and it's no better in potential battleground states. ScottRasmussen.com polling shows the president getting positive reviews from just 44 percent of Ohio voters and 43 percent of Florida voters.
But it's important to remember that if the question in 2016 had been whether voters wanted Trump to be president in the first place, the answer for most would have been no. In fact, 10 percent of all voters cast their ballot for him despite believing he was unqualified for the job. The current president was elected simply because the Democrats nominated someone many voters considered even less appealing. It's stunningly sad that both major parties nominated candidates disliked by most Americans on Election Day.
Could it happen again? Yes.
This time, the danger for Democrats is about policy rather than personality. A center-left candidate with Midwestern appeal would be a heavy favorite against President Trump. But many of the party's most enthusiastic voters dream of a progressive candidate who would want to make the country more like California. Such a candidate could once again convince many swing voters that President Trump is the lesser of two evils.
Shortly after announcing her entry into the race, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) provided an early example of the dangers facing the Democratic Party on the topic of health care. Polling shows that voters like the aspirational ideas of "Medicare-for-all" and a single-payer health insurance plan. There is a strong belief that in a nation as affluent as ours, every American should have access to quality medical care.
But there is a big difference between the slogan and the policy. To implement such a health care plan, Harris wants to ban private health insurance companies. Many progressive politicians share that view, but it's a nonstarter with voters. Voters want more choices, not fewer. Only 17 percent want to get rid of private health insurance companies.
The same dynamic can be found on other issues as well. On immigration, ScottRasmussen.com polling shows that 79 percent of all voters believe illegal immigration is bad for the nation. Yet 59 percent of Democrats say they'd be likely to vote for a candidate advocating open borders.
On abortion, most Americans support a woman's right to choose. But only 15 percent believe abortions should be allowed at any point during a pregnancy. Yet that's precisely the position that leading Democrats have been advocating.
Perhaps the biggest danger for Democrats comes from the Green New Deal. Led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this progressive dream would give the federal government the power to transform the entire U.S. economy. Most Democratic presidential hopefuls have signed on to the plan, but voters have not. Just 18 percent believe the threat of climate change makes it necessary to give the federal government sweeping new powers to control the economy.
The more that the Democratic nominee embraces these fringe policies of progressive politics, the more likely that nominee is to turn off the swing voters who are looking for somebody new.
Put it all together and it's quite possible the Democrats could nominate another candidate who'd lose to Trump.
Scott Rasmussen is the publisher of ScottRasmussen.com. He is the author of "The Sun Is Still Rising: Politics Has Failed But America Will Not."

Elder Nails It!

The Virginia Blackface Follies

Larry Elder
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2019 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
The Virginia Blackface Follies
Source: AP Photo/Steve Helber
  
The "blackface scandal" proved beneficial for two things. It displaced the frenzy over Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's support for a law lifting many restrictions on late-term abortion. It also took away headlines and news print space from the commonwealth's Democratic lieutenant governor, who faces two sexual assault allegations.
But the blackface controversy has legs.
Northam's 1984 medical school yearbook page depicted a photograph of someone in blackface and someone in a KKK outfit, both apparently holding cans of beer. At first, Northam apologized for the pictures, arguing that they do not accurately reflect his character. The next day he said that, upon review, he is neither the person posing in blackface nor the one in the KKK outfit. Nor did he know how the photos ended up on his yearbook page. He admits that he once learned the moonwalk and applied black shoe polish to his cheeks to appear as Michael Jackson for a dance contest. When a reporter asked Northam if he could still do the moonwalk, Northam's wife stepped in, calling the request "inappropriate." Maybe she had seen him do it and was not impressed.
A page designer of that yearbook explained the process. Each student, he said, submitted the pictures to appear on the student's page. This means, whether or not Northam is the person in blackface or in the KKK outfit, he nevertheless selected the photographs. The page designer doubts the pictures somehow got mixed up. Still, Northam insists he will not resign. "I have thought about resigning," he said, "but I've also thought about what Virginia needs right now. And I really think that I'm in a position where I can take Virginia to the next level, and it will be very positive."
But there's more. Turns out there are two Virginia blackface scandals.
Democratic Virginia Attorney General Matt Herring admits that he, too, wore blackface to a party to imitate "rappers we listened to ... like Kurtis Blow." Herring was 19. In his statement of apology, he said, "the shame of that moment has haunted me for decades." The "shame" of wearing blackface on one occasion to a party to impersonate a rapper Herring listened to "haunted" him "for decades"?
Virginia Democratic lawmakers demand Northam's resignation, as have many Republican members of the Virginia legislature. Hillary Clinton tweeted: "This has gone on too long. There is nothing to debate. He must resign." Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tweeted, "The governor of Virginia should step aside so the public can heal and move forward together."
But wait. Blacks, the group presumably the most offended by blackface pictures, want the governor to stay in office. A new Washington Post-Schar School poll asked, "Considering everything, do you think that Northam should step down as a governor of Virginia or not?" While Virginians as a whole are split evenly on whether Northam "should step down," 58 percent of black Virginians want him to stay, with 37 percent disagreeing, a 21-point margin in favor of the governor. Apparently, blacks in Virginia have resisted the call to hop up and salute the flag of victimhood.
Critics of President Donald Trump accuse him of coarsening "race relations," of creating an atmosphere through the use of "racist dog whistles" to "normalize" racism. But according to Gallup polls since 2001, non-Hispanic whites' ratings of "relations between whites and blacks" as "very good" or "somewhat" good peaked at 75 percent in 2007, during the George W. Bush administration. It declined steeply during the presidency of Barack Obama, reaching a low of 45 percent in 2015. For blacks, ratings of "very good" or "somewhat good" race relations also peaked during the Bush administration, at 70 percent in 2001. As recently as 2013, the number for blacks stood strong at 66 percent, but by 2016, it had dropped to 49 percent. The drop in those perceiving "race relations" as "very good" or "somewhat good" occurred well before Trump descended the elevator at Trump Towers to announce his candidacy for president.
Get out the magic wand, wave it over America and remove the racism, along with any blackface makeup.
Nearly 70 percent of black kids are born to unwed mothers. The dropout rate in some urban high schools approaches 50 percent. Of those who do graduate, many cannot read or do math at a 12th-grade level.
The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, such as car accidents. The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young black men is homicide, almost always committed by other young black men. In Chicago, a city approximately one-third white, one-third black and one-third Hispanic, blacks accounted for nearly 80 percent of homicide victims in 2018, and most of these cases remain unsolved. According to a 2017 report by the Centers for Disease Control, a black child is almost 10 times more likely to be a victim of a gun-related homicide than a white child.
But let's talk about 35-year-old blackface pictures.
Larry Elder is a best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @LarryElder.