Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

Steve Cortes

March 21, 2019

News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies.  The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”

Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all.  No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.”

My colleagues seem prepared to dispute our own network’s correct contemporaneous reporting and the very clear transcripts of the now-infamous Trump Tower presser on the tragic events of Charlottesville.  Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” 

As a man charged with publicly explaining Donald Trump’s often meandering and colloquial vernacular in highly adversarial TV settings, I appreciate more than most the sometimes-murky nature of his off-script commentaries.  But these Charlottesville statements leave little room for interpretation.  For any honest person, therefore, to conclude that the president somehow praised the very people he actually derided, reveals a blatant and blinding level of bias.

Nonetheless, countless so-called journalists have furthered this damnable lie.  For example, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace responded that Trump had “given safe harbor to Nazis, to white supremacists.”  Her NBC colleague Chuck Todd claimed Trump “gave me the wrong kind of chills. Honestly, I’m a bit shaken from what I just heard.” Not to be outdone, print also got in on the act, with the New York Times spewing the blatantly propagandist headline: “Trump Gives White Supremacists Unequivocal Boost.” How could the Times possibly reconcile that Trump, who admonished that the supremacists should be “condemned totally” somehow also delivered an “unequivocal boost” to those very same miscreants?

But like many fake news narratives, repetition has helped cement this one into a reasonably plausible storyline for all but the most skeptical consumers of news.  In fact, over the weekend, Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on why Trump has not given a speech “condemning … white supremacist bigotry.”  Well, Chris, he has, and more than once.  The most powerful version was from the White House following Charlottesville and the heartbreaking death of Heather Heyer.  President Trump’s succinct and direct words:

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Despite the clear evidence of Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville, major media figures insist on spreading the calumny that Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people.”  The only explanation for such a repeated falsehood is abject laziness or willful deception.  Either way, the duplicity on this topic perhaps encapsulates the depressingly low trust most Americans place in major media, with 77 percent stating in a Monmouth University 2018 poll that traditional TV and newspapers report fake news.  In addition, such lies as the Charlottesville Hoax needlessly further divide our already-polarized society.

Instead of hyper-partisan, distorted narratives, as American citizens we should demand adherence to truth — and adherence to the common values that bind us regardless of politics. In the words of our president: “No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.”

March 24, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html

Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries

March 14, 2019

Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described “radical political party” in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

Sanders’ past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.

Aspects of Sanders’ plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, but the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archived at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller portrait of Sanders’ views on state and public-controlled industry at the time.

In a statement to CNN, Sanders campaign spokesman Josh Orton said, “Throughout his career, Bernie has fought on the side of working people and against the influence of both the powerful ultra-rich and giant corporations who seek only to further their own greed. The record shows that from the very beginning, Bernie anticipated and worked to combat the rise of a billionaire ruling class and the exploding power of Wall Street and multinational corporations. Whether fighting to lower energy prices or expand access to capital for local development, Bernie’s first priority has always been — and will always be — defending the interests of working people across the country.”

After moving to Vermont in 1968 several years after graduating college, Sanders became an active member of the left-wing Liberty Union Party. Under the Liberty Union banner, Sanders, then in his early 30s, ran for governor of Vermont in 1972 and 1976 and as a candidate for US Senate in 1972 and 1974. Sanders, also served as chairman of the party from 1973-1975. During this time, Sanders and Liberty Union argued for nationalization of the energy industry, public ownership of banks, telephone, electric, and drug companies and of the major means of production such as factories and capital, as well as other proposals such as a 100% income tax on the highest income earners in America. Sanders also rejected political violence and criticized the anti-democratic nature of communist states such as the Soviet Union.

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.

In his career as a US Senator, Sanders has backed away from such ardent calls for nationalization, but maintained similar rhetoric on wealth inequality.

In one 2015 speech, he said he didn’t want the government to take over private business or “own the means of production.” But his early views are notable because they are far to the left of the current Democratic party and most candidates running for office.

Sanders left the Liberty Union Party in 1977, over what he said was the party’s lack of activity between elections. Sanders said in his farewell that workers would need to take control for the country to be sustained.

“The function of a radical political party is very simple,” he said. “It is to create a situation in which the ordinary working people take what rightfully belongs to them. Nobody can predict the future of the workers’ movement in this country or the state of Vermont. It is my opinion, however, that if workers do not take power in a reasonably short time this country will not have a future.”

The energy industry

In 1973, during his time as chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Sanders took to a Vermont paper to oppose Richard Nixon’s energy policy and oil industry profits, calling for the entire energy industry to be nationalized. Consumers at the time had been facing steep price increases and heavy shortages as a result of the OPEC oil embargo.

“I would also urge you to give serious thought about the eventual nationalization of these gigantic companies,” Sanders wrote in a December 1973 open letter to Vermont Sen. Robert Stafford that ran in the Vermont Freeman. “It is extremely clear that these companies, owned by a handful of billionaires, have far too much power over the lives of Americans to be left in private hands. The oil industry, and the entire energy industry, should be owned by the public and used for the public good — not for additional profits for billionaires.”

Electric and telephone utilities

Efforts to push for public ownership of Vermont’s utilities like telephone and electric companies played prominently in Sanders’ political career in the 1970s. Sanders ran for Senate in a January 1972 in the special election and governor in that year’s November election, registering in the low single digits in both races.

When he launched his first campaign for the Senate in 1971, Sanders said state utilities needed to be run by the state of Vermont on a nonprofit basis and that if revenues exceed expenditures they could be used to fund government programs and lower property taxes. In 1976, Sanders went even further: calling for the state to seize ownership of Vermont’s private electric companies without compensation to investors. He defended his proposals routinely by pointing out that municipally owned utilities, not uncommon throughout the country, often had lower consumer prices.

Utilities like the Green Mountain Power company and the New England Telephone company had been steadily pushing, successful and unsuccessful at times, for approval from state regulators for rate increases. Sanders was particularly incensed by a proposed 27% rate hike by the New England Telephone company, and it became a rallying cry for his political campaigns.

In 1973, as chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Sanders had organized boycotts to stop proposed rate increases from New England Telephone company. Sanders’ efforts through the “The Vermont Telephone Boycott Committee” — a committee he coordinated that year — proved successful in blocking NET rate increases. Newspapers commended Sanders for efforts when the rate increases were blocked by the state’s utility regulators.
Sanders would declare for the Senate again the following June in 1974 and for governor in 1976, and Vermont’s utilities would remain a major focus point of his campaigns and Liberty Union Party. Sanders’ rhetoric was strongest during his 1976 campaign for governor of Vermont, his last before he left the Liberty Union Party.

In a press release on his policy positions, Sanders campaigned on the public ownership of the state’s electric companies, without compensating the banks and stockholders.

“I will be campaigning in support of the Liberty Union utility proposal which calls for the public ownership of Vermont’s private electric companies without compensation to the banks and wealthy stockholders who own the vast majority of stock in these companies,” he said in a July 1976 press release. “I will also be calling for public ownership of the telephone company — which is probably the single greatest rip-off company in America.”
Sanders argued utility companies engaged in “economic blackmail,” saying the state gave the companies the right to charge “outrageous” rates for utilities or have consumers suffer from poor service.

Sanders’ comments went beyond the Liberty Union’s proposal for public takeover of state utilities, which said investors and bondholders with more than 100 shares would have to convert their holding to non-voting stock and income bonds which carry no fixed claim to dividends or interest payments.

Public ownership of banks, corporations and the major industries

Sanders’ policy proposals that year also included an ambitious plan to deal with companies attempting to leave towns.

“We have got to begin to deal with the fact that corporations do not have the god-given right to disrupt the lives of their workers or the economic foundation of their towns simply because they wish to move elsewhere to earn a higher rate of profit,” Sanders said in a press release in August 1976.
Sanders’ plan would require large businesses attempting to leave cities to get permission from the towns and the workers in them. If the company did not get that approval they would be required by law to pay a guaranteed two years of severance for workers and 10 years of taxes for the town.
Nationally, Sanders said, legislation corporations leaving cities would have to be dealt with by turning the means of production over to the workers.
“In the long run, the problem of the fleeing corporations must be dealt with on the national level by legislation which will bring about the public ownership of the major means of production and their conversion into worker-controlled enterprises,” he said.

Campaign literature that year from Sanders, including a 1976 brochure for the party, said, “I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves.”

Public control of the economy would become the key issue in his race. Speaking at one forum, Sanders called for workers to control of capital, factories, banks and corporations.

“There is a handful of people sitting at the head of the main banks controlling the destiny of underprivileged nations, the country as well as Vermont’s economy,” Sanders said. “That is not tolerable. That control cannot be held by them. We need public control over capital; and the capital must be put to use for public need not for the advancement of those who made the investments.”

In an interview with the Burlington Free Press, Sanders argued the richest two or three percent should not control capital.

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries. In Vermont we have some $2 billion of deposits in our banks,” Sanders told the paper. “In Vermont, as well as nationally, it is not tolerable to me that the control of capital would remain in the hands of the richest two or three percent of the population to do with it as they like.”

Sanders called that year in a policy paper for Vermont’s banking laws to be “radically” revised, so that the public and the state “determine in what manner our savings are invested so as to make Vermont a better place to live.”

Socialized medicine and public ownership of drug companies

Asked about healthcare, Sanders said there would need to be publicly-controlled drug companies.

“I believe in socialized medicine, public ownership of the drug companies and placing doctors on salaries. The idea that millionaires can make money by selling poor people drugs that they desperately need for highly inflated prices disgusts me,” he said.

Taxing assets at 100%

Heavy taxation of wealthy people played prominently into Sanders’ plans to pay for expanding government services.

In February 1976, Liberty Union put out a state tax proposal calling for a radical revamping of the system, including the removal of all taxes of sales, beverages, cigarettes, polls, and the use of telephones, railroads or electric energy. Tax rates for those earning more than $100,00 would be 33.47%, $50,000-$99,999 would be 19%, $25,000-$49,000 would be 13.56%, and $10,000-$14,999 would be 4%. Anyone earning less than $10,000 would pay no state income tax.

But Sanders’ rhetoric at times went much further.

During his 1974 Senate run, Sanders said one plan to expand government included making it illegal to gain more wealth than person could spend in a lifetime and have a 100% tax on incomes above this level. (Sanders defined this as $1 million dollars annually).

“Nobody should earn more than a million dollars,” Sanders said.

March 16, 2019. Tags: , , , , . Communism. Leave a comment.

Conservative, black teenage girl reads some of the racist, hateful, and profanity-laden messages that Democrats have sent her

The person in this video is a conservative, black teenage girl. She reads some of the racist, hateful, and profanity-laden messages that Democrats have sent her.

This video contains profanity and racial slurs. It’s definitely not something to play if you are at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF9pV3mPTQw

March 13, 2019. Tags: , , , . Racism. Leave a comment.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she doesn’t recycle her plastic bags because her city’s recycling program is too “tough” for her to understand

On February 24, 2019, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a live video on her Instagram account where she was talking about different political issues while peeling and cutting sweet potatoes.

A guy named Gob Abierto posted several different excerpts from that video in a string of tweets at this link, which has since been deleted. I watched a bunch of those excerpts before the tweet string was deleted. The internet archive has a copy of the same tweet string at this link, but it doesn’t include the videos.

One thing that I remember from watching the excerpts is that Ocasio-Cortez tosses her plastic grocery bags and her sweet potato peelings into the same garbage can, which means that she didn’t recycle the plastic bags, and she didn’t compost the sweet potato peelings.

She also complained that they give her 10 plastic bags every time she goes to the grocery store.

She also said of plastic bags:

“I wish they didn’t exist.”

But no one forced Ocasio-Cortez to accept those plastic bags at the grocery store.

Millions of other Americas use reusable grocery bags that are made of materials other than plastic.

I’d be curios to hear Ocasio-Cortez explain why – if she hates plastic bags so much that she “wishes they didn’t exist” – she brings home 10 additional plastic bags every time she goes to the grocery store, instead of using the reusable, non-plastic bags that millions of other Americans use.

Here is a different video where Ocasio-Cortez says a similar thing. She states: (skip to 0:20)

“I can be upset that I get 10 plastic bags at the grocery store, and then have to toss out my plastic bags because the recycling program in the area is tough.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1EybnxYzKk

I think it’s incredibly hilarious and extremely hypocritical that someone who wants to hugely inconvenience everyone else by having the government embark on endeavors as gargantuan as banning fossil fuels, banning nuclear power, getting rid or airplanes, stopping cows from farting, and retrofitting every building in the country, is herself too lazy to do something as small and easy as buying reusable non-plastic bags, or to recycle the plastic bags that she does use.

For the record, I myself happen to believe that government mandated recycling of post-consumer garbage actually wastes more resources than it saves. My evidence for this belief is this New York Times article, which is called “Recycling Is Garbage.” It’s a great article, and I recommend that everyone read it.

March 9, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 2 comments.

WATCH: Linda Sarsour gives orders to CAIR thugs who then block reporter from questioning Rep. Rashida Tlaib

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/watch-linda-sarsour-gives-orders-to-cair-thugs-who-then-block-reporter-from-questioning-rep-rashida-tlaib/

WATCH: Linda Sarsour gives orders to CAIR thugs who then block reporter from questioning Rep. Rashida Tlaib

March 7, 2019

Video has surfaced showing Islamic supremacist, anti-Semitic activist Linda Sarsour ordering associates to block a reporter from entering the office of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.

Asra Nomani, a journalist and leader in the Muslim Reform Movement, documented her attempt to enter Rep. Tlaib’s office along with others and how she was physically blocked from entering.

https://twitter.com/AsraNomani/status/1103498928488697856

In the video, Sarsour is accompanied by Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist outfit that was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood to support the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Awad, who has previously announced his support for Hamas, was accompanied in the video by at least one other senior CAIR official who is an avowed Hamas supporter.

Sarsour, speaking Arabic, then orders people in her entourage to block Nomani from entering Rep. Tlaib’s office.

https://twitter.com/ConfessionsExMu/status/1103529736846733313

Tlaib is very cozy with the Islamist organization. She is a regular at CAIR fundraising events across the country.

That same day, Sarsour was pictured in front of anti-Semitic Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s office. In the photo, taken by the radical-left, anti-Israel Jewish Voice for Peace group, she is flanked by the Hamas-supporting CAIR officials, Jinan Shbat and Nihad Awad.

https://twitter.com/jvplive/status/1103538535779319809

CAIR’s intimidation tactics in the halls of Congress, which is a public space, comes a day after the same tactic was employed to block a different reporter from asking Sarsour whether she recognizes Israel’s right to exist

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1103428900799934464

March 8, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Islamization. Leave a comment.

Washington Post gives Hillary Clinton four Pinocchios for saying “… in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin…”

Hillary Clinton is not a stupid person.

However, much of the audience that she targets is stupid, which is why she recently, knowingly said the following lie:

“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference. And it doesn’t just make a difference in Alabama and Georgia; it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 [thousand] and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”

The Washington Post gave her four Pinocchios – its worst possible rating – for her statement.

Who would be stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous lie?

The same people who were stupid enough to believe that Jussie Smollett (or anyone, for that matter) would leave a noose around his neck for 45 minutes.

What Clinton, Smollett. and the many, many, many people who commit fake hate crimes (you can see a whole bunch of fake hate crimes documented here) are showing to the rest of the country is that the demand for racism, homophobia, etc., in the United States greatly exceeds the supply.

And that demand is not coming from Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians.

Instead, this massive demand for racism, homophobia, etc., is coming from liberals, progressives, social justice warriors, and others on the political left.

To normal people, it’s considered a good thing when people are happy and get along with each other.

But not to the social justice warriors.

To the social justice warriors, the worst possible thing that could ever happen is for people to be happy and get along with each other.

Which is why the social justice warriors are constantly making up so many fake hate crimes.

March 7, 2019. Tags: , , , , . Racism. 3 comments.

Kat Timpf recently gave a great explanation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Here’s the video and a transcript.

In this recent video, Kat Timpf gives a great explanation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-hUGN_keWM

Here’s a transcript of what she said:

I just think AOC has completely lost her marbles.

I think she’s living in Bananaland.

Earlier this week, she called herself “the boss” for coming up with the Green New Deal.

How are you “the boss” for coming up with a plan that doesn’t work?

Are you sure that the Green New Deal is not like what you’re putting in your pipe and smoking every day?

I don’t understand.

I can come up with plenty of plans that don’t work.

How about we fly around on unicorns instead of airplanes?

How about instead of gasoline we use fairy dust we get from Tinker Bell?

How about we get Harry Potter to come over and wizard away all the emissions from the cow farts she’s so concerned about?

See, I just came up with three plans that don’t work.

Does that make me “the triple boss”?

Does she want us to just completely do away with all modern technology?

I don’t want to live like Laura Ingalls Wilder.

I don’t want to do my laundry in a basin.

I don’t want to only eat lettuce and carrots like some kind of [censored] bunny.

I don’t want to relive the Donner Party in the modern day because I had to take a horse and buggy to see my grandparents instead of a plane.

I don’t want to eat people, and I don’t want people to eat me.

AOC, do you want people to eat you?

No?

Then stop proposing [censored].

March 7, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

The Atlantic: Is This the End of Recycling?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/

Is This the End of Recycling?

Americans are consuming more and more stuff. Now that other countries won’t take our papers and plastics, they’re ending up in the trash.

March 5, 2019

After decades of earnest public-information campaigns, Americans are finally recycling. Airports, malls, schools, and office buildings across the country have bins for plastic bottles and aluminum cans and newspapers. In some cities, you can be fined if inspectors discover that you haven’t recycled appropriately.

But now much of that carefully sorted recycling is ending up in the trash.

For decades, we were sending the bulk of our recycling to China – tons and tons of it, sent over on ships to be made into goods such as shoes and bags and new plastic products. But last year, the country restricted imports of certain recyclables, including mixed paper—magazines, office paper, junk mail—and most plastics. Waste-management companies across the country are telling towns, cities, and counties that there is no longer a market for their recycling. These municipalities have two choices: pay much higher rates to get rid of recycling, or throw it all away.

Most are choosing the latter. “We are doing our best to be environmentally responsible, but we can’t afford it,” said Judie Milner, the city manager of Franklin, New Hampshire. Since 2010, Franklin has offered curbside recycling and encouraged residents to put paper, metal, and plastic in their green bins. When the program launched, Franklin could break even on recycling by selling it for $6 a ton. Now, Milner told me, the transfer station is charging the town $125 a ton to recycle, or $68 a ton to incinerate. One-fifth of Franklin’s residents live below the poverty line, and the city government didn’t want to ask them to pay more to recycle, so all those carefully sorted bottles and cans are being burned. Milner hates knowing that Franklin is releasing toxins into the environment, but there’s not much she can do. “Plastic is just not one of the things we have a market for,” she said.

The same thing is happening across the country. Broadway, Virginia, had a recycling program for 22 years, but recently suspended it after Waste Management told the town that prices would increase by 63 percent, and then stopped offering recycling pickup as a service. “It almost feels illegal, to throw plastic bottles away,” the town manager, Kyle O’Brien, told me.

Without a market for mixed paper, bales of the stuff started to pile up in Blaine County, Idaho; the county eventually stopped collecting it and took the 35 bales it had hoped to recycle to a landfill. The town of Fort Edward, New York, suspended its recycling program in July and admitted it had actually been taking recycling to an incinerator for months. Determined to hold out until the market turns around, the nonprofit Keep Northern Illinois Beautiful has collected 400,000 tons of plastic. But for now, it is piling the bales behind the facility where it collects plastic.

This end of recycling comes at a time when the United States is creating more waste than ever. In 2015, the most recent year for which national data are available, America generated 262.4 million tons of waste, up 4.5 percent from 2010 and 60 percent from 1985. That amounts to nearly five pounds per person a day. New York City collected 934 tons of metal, plastic, and glass a day from residents last year, a 33 percent increase from 2013.

For a long time, Americans have had little incentive to consume less. It’s inexpensive to buy products, and it’s even cheaper to throw them away at the end of their short lives. But the costs of all this garbage are growing, especially now that bottles and papers that were once recycled are now ending up in the trash.

One of those costs is environmental: When organic waste sits in a landfill, it decomposes, emitting methane, which is bad for the climate—landfills are the third-largest source of methane emissions in the country. Burning plastic may create some energy, but it also produces carbon emissions. And while many incineration facilities bill themselves as “waste to energy” plants, studies have found that they release more harmful chemicals, such as mercury and lead, into the air per unit of energy than do coal plants.

And as cities are now learning, the other cost is financial. The United States still has a fair amount of landfill space left, but it’s getting expensive to ship waste hundreds of miles to those landfills. Some dumps are raising costs to deal with all this extra waste; according to one estimate, along the West Coast, landfill fees increased by $8 a ton from 2017 to 2018. Some of these costs are already being passed on to consumers, but most haven’t—yet.

Americans are going to have to come to terms with a new reality: All those toothpaste tubes and shopping bags and water bottles that didn’t exist 50 years ago need to go somewhere, and creating this much waste has a price we haven’t had to pay so far. “We’ve had an ostrich-in-the-sand approach to the entire system,” said Jeremy O’Brien, director of applied research at the Solid Waste Association of North America, a trade association. “We’re producing a lot of waste ourselves, and we should take care of it ourselves.”

As the trash piles up, American cities are scrambling to figure out what to do with everything they had previously sent to China. But few businesses want it domestically, for one very big reason: Despite all those advertising campaigns, Americans are terrible at recycling.

About 25 percent of what ends up in the blue bins is contaminated, according to the National Waste & Recycling Association. For decades, we’ve been throwing just about whatever we wanted—wire hangers and pizza boxes and ketchup bottles and yogurt containers—into the bin and sending it to China, where low-paid workers sorted through it and cleaned it up. That’s no longer an option. And in the United States, at least, it rarely makes sense to employ people to sort through our recycling so that it can be made into new material, because virgin plastics and paper are still cheaper in comparison.

Even in San Francisco, often lauded for its environmentalism, waste-management companies struggle to keep recycling uncontaminated. I visited a state-of-the-art facility operated by San Francisco’s recycling provider, Recology, where million-dollar machines separate aluminum from paper from plastic from garbage. But as the Recology spokesman Robert Reed walked me through the plant, he kept pointing out nonrecyclables gumming up the works. Workers wearing masks and helmets grabbed laundry baskets off a fast-moving conveyor belt of cardboard as some non-cardboard items escaped their gloved hands. Recology has to stop another machine twice a day so a technician can pry plastic bags from where they’ve clogged up the gear.

Cleaning up recycling means employing people to slowly go through materials, which is expensive. Jacob Greenberg, a commissioner in Blaine County, Idaho, told me that the county’s mixed-paper recycling was about 90 percent clean. But its paper broker said the mixed paper needed to be 99 percent clean for anyone to buy it, and elected officials didn’t want to hike fees to get there. “At what point do you feel like you’re spending more money than what it takes for people to feel good about recycling?” he said.

Then there’s the challenge of educating people about what can and can’t be recycled, even as the number of items they touch on a daily basis grows. Americans tend to be “aspirational” about their recycling, tossing an item in the blue bin because it makes them feel less guilty about consuming it and throwing it away. Even in San Francisco, Reed kept pointing out items that aren’t easily recyclable but that keep showing up at the Recology plant: soy-sauce packets and pizza boxes, candy-bar wrappers and dry-cleaner bags, the lids of to-go coffee cups and plastic take-out containers.

If we can somehow figure out how to better sort recycling, some U.S. markets for plastics and paper may emerge. But selling it domestically will still be harder than it would be in a place such as China, where a booming manufacturing sector has constant demand for materials. The viability of recycling varies tremendously by locale; San Francisco can recycle its glass back into bottles in six weeks, according to Recology, while many other cities are finding that glass is so heavy and breaks so easily that it is nearly impossible to truck it to a place that will recycle it. Akron, Ohio, is just one of many cities that have ended glass recycling since the China policy changes.

For now, it’s still often cheaper for companies to manufacture using new materials than recycled ones. Michael Rohwer, a director at Business for Social Responsibility, works with companies that try to be more environmentally friendly. He told me that recycled plastic costs pennies more than new plastic, and those pennies add up when you’re manufacturing millions of items. Items made of different types of plastic nearly always end up in the trash, because recyclers can’t separate the plastics from one another—Reed equates it with trying to get the sugar and eggs out of a cake after you’ve baked it. But because companies don’t bear the costs of disposal, they have no incentive to manufacture products out of material that will be easier to recycle.

The best way to fix recycling is probably persuading people to buy less stuff, which would also have the benefit of reducing some of the upstream waste created when products are made. But that’s a hard sell in the United States, where consumer spending accounts for 68 percent of the GDP. The strong economy means more people have more spending money, too, and often the things they buy, such as new phones, and the places they shop, such as Amazon, are designed to sell them even more things. The average American spent 7 percent more on food and 8 percent more on personal-care products and services in 2017 than in 2016, according to government data.

Some places are still trying to get people to buy less. The city of San Francisco, for instance, is trying to get residents to think of a fourth r beyond “reduce, reuse, and recycle”—“refuse.” It wants people to be smarter about what they purchase, avoiding plastic bottles and straws and other disposable goods. But it’s been tough in a place centered on acquiring the newest technology. “This is our big challenge: How do you take a culture like San Francisco and get people excited about less?” Debbie Raphael, the director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment, told me. The city passed an ordinance that required that 10 percent of beverages sold be available in reusable containers, and it is trying to make reuse “hip” through an online campaign and dedicated website, Raphael said. San Francisco and other Bay Area cities have banned plastic bags and plastic straws, but that option isn’t available in many other parts of the country, where recently passed state laws prevent cities from banning products.

But even in San Francisco, the most careful consumers still generate a lot of waste. Plastic clamshell containers are difficult to recycle because the material they’re made of is so flimsy—but it’s hard to find berries not sold in those containers, even at most farmers’ markets. Go into a Best Buy or Target in San Francisco to buy headphones or a charger, and you’ll still end up with plastic packaging to throw away. Amazon has tried to reduce waste by sending products in white and blue plastic envelopes, but when I visited the Recology plant, they littered the floor because they’re very hard to recycle. Even at Recology, an employee-owned company that benefits when people recycle well, the hurdles to getting rid of plastics were evident. Reed chided me for eating my daily Chobani yogurt out of small, five-ounce containers rather than out of big, 32-ounce tubs, but I saw a five-ounce Yoplait container in a trash can of the control room of the Recology plant. While there, Reed handed me a pair of small orange earplugs meant to protect my ears from the noise of the plant. They were wrapped in a type of flimsy plastic that is nearly impossible to recycle. When I left the plant, I kept the earplugs and the plastic in my bag, not sure what to do with them. Eventually, I threw them in the trash.

March 6, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Trash marked for recycling is going to landfills instead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKr1Z6pDBU

March 6, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Ocasio-Cortez’s mom moved to Florida to escape NYC’s property taxes

https://nypost.com/2019/03/04/ocasio-cortezs-mom-moved-to-florida-to-escape-nycs-property-taxes/

Ocasio-Cortez’s mom moved to Florida to escape NYC’s property taxes

March 4, 2019

The mother of soak-the-rich Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she was forced to flee the Big Apple and move to Florida because the property taxes were so high.

“I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m paying $600 a year in Florida. It’s stress-free down here,” Blanca Ocasio-Cortez told the Daily Mail from her home in Eustis, a town of less than 20,000 in central Florida north of Orlando.

The mother of two — who calls herself BOC — said she picked Eustis because a relative already lived there, and right before Christmas 2016, she paid $87,000 for an 860-square-foot home on a quiet street that dead-ends at a cemetery.

Her daughter raised eyebrows with her pitch to hike the top marginal tax rate on income earned above $10 million to 70 percent.

She has also gotten behind the so-called Green New Deal, which would see a massive and costly government effort to address climate change the way Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the New Deal to rescue the US economy during the Depression.

March 5, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 4 comments.

Where did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get her sweet potatoes?

http://tennesseestar.com/2019/02/27/commentary-where-did-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-get-her-sweet-potatoes/

Where did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get her sweet potatoes?

by Jeffrey A. Tucker

February 27, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SUDG7FIFK8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-haN_2oztvw

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was trying to explain to me that the world is going to melt, we are all doing to die, and probably we shouldn’t be having any more children, but I was distracted by the dinner she was preparing on camera. She was carefully cutting sweet potatoes before putting them in the oven.

She put salt and pepper on them. Salt was once so rare that it was regarded as money. Ever try to go a day with zero salt? Nothing tastes right. That was the history of humanity for about 150,000 years. Then we figured out how to produce and distribute salt to every table in the world. Now we throw around salt like it is nothing, and even complain that everything is too salty. Nice problem.

Sweet potatoes are not easy to cut, so she was using a large steel knife, made of a substance that only became commercially viable in the late 19th century. It took generations of metallurgists to figure out how to make steel reliably and affordably. Before steel, there were bodies of water you could not cross without a boat because no one knew how to make an iron bridge that wouldn’t sink.

As for the oven in her apartment, it was either gas-powered or electric. In either case, she didn’t have to chop down trees and build a fire, like 99.99 percent of humanity had to until relatively recently. She merely pushed a button and it came on, a luxury experienced by most American households only after World War II. Now we all think it is normal.

I also presume that her house is warm in the dead of winter and that this is due to indoor thermostatically controlled heat. There are still people alive today who regard this invention as the greatest in the whole course of their lives. They no longer had to work two days to heat a house for one day. Again, one only needs to push a button and, like magic, the warmth comes to you.

The more interesting question is where she obtained those sweet potatoes. The store, I know. No one grows sweet potatoes in Washington, D.C. But where did the store get them? For many thousands of years, the sweet potato was trapped in distant places in South America; it somehow made its way on boat travels to the Polynesian islands, and finally landed in Japan by the late 15th century.

Only once boating technology and capital expenditure for exploration grew to reveal the first signs of prosperity for the masses of people did the sweet potato make it to Europe via an expedition led by Christopher Columbus. Finally, it came to the U.S.

But this took many thousands of years of development — capitalistic development — unless you want to see this root vegetable as the ultimate fruit of colonialism and thus to be eschewed by any truly enlightened social justice warrior.

Even early in the 20th century, sweet potatoes were not reliably available for anyone to chop up and bake, especially not in the dead of winter. Today Americans eat sweet potatoes grown mostly in the American South but also imported from China, which today serves 67 percent of the global sweet potato market.

How do we obtain them? They are flown on planes, shipped on gas-powered ocean liners, and brought to the store via shipping trucks that also run on fossil fuels. If you are playing with the idea of abolishing all those things by legislative fiat, as she certainly is, it is not likely that you are going to obtain a sweet potato on the fly.

I admit the following. It drives me crazy to see people so fully enjoying the benefits from private property, trade, technology, and capitalistic endeavor even as they blithely propose to truncate dramatically the very rights that bring them such material joy, without a thought as to how their ideology might dramatically affect the future of mass availability of wealth that these ideologues so casually take for granted.

To me, it’s like watching a person on IV denounce modern medicine — or a person using a smartphone to broadcast to the world an urgent message calling for an end to economic development. It doesn’t refute their point, but the performative contradiction is too acute not to note, at least in passing.

Now to this question about whether there should or should not be a new generation of human beings. After all, she points out, no one can afford them anymore because young people are starting careers tens of thousands of dollars in debt from student loans. She says there is also the moral issue that we need to take care of the kids who are already here rather than having more.

Truth is, she doesn’t really explain well why she is toying with the idea that it is a bad idea that people have kids. Let me suggest that it is possible that she is drifting toward the path of countless environmentalists before her and finally saying outright what many people believe in their hearts: humankind is the enemy. Either we live and nature dies, or nature lives and we die. There must be some dramatic upheaval in the way we structure society to find a new way. It’s the application of the Marxian conflict fable to another area of life.

Maybe.

In any case, those are big thoughts — too big, really, for a delightful cooking session after which a fancy meal beckons. We’ll get back to what AOC calls the “universal sense of urgency” following dessert.

March 4, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Economics, Environmentalism, Food. Leave a comment.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would cause people in cities to starve to death

Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace.

He just made this tweet regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal: (original, archive)

The text states:

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.

I think Moore’s comment would have been more effective without those first three words.

I do agree with everything else that he said.

March 4, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 3 comments.

Rashida Tlaib’s campaign paid her $17,500 in salary after Election Day, in possible violation of FEC rules: report

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rashida-tlaib-faces-questions-after-data-shows-campaign-paid-her-17500-salary-in-two-weeks-after-election-day

Rashida Tlaib’s campaign paid her $17,500 in salary after Election Day, in possible violation of FEC rules: report

March 2, 2019

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is facing questions after campaign records revealed she paid herself $17,500 as a salary after the midterm elections, in what appeared to be a violation of campaign finance rules, a report said.

Tlaib, a firebrand freshman Democrat from Detroit, has been facing scrutiny over her connections to radical anti-Israel activists and a profane call to impeach President Trump.

She caused uproar on Capitol Hill earlier this week by insinuating that Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C. — her colleague on the House Oversight and Reform Committee — had used Trump family friend Lynne Patton, an African-American, as a racist “prop” during former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s appearance before the panel. (Later, Tlaib and Meadows were seen sharing an embrace on the House floor, after apparently resolving their differences.)

Yet the latest filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) may land the radical congresswoman into hot water with questions on whether her campaign broke the rules after making salary payments to Tlaib after Election Day last year.

Tlaib’s campaign began paying her a salary of about $4,000 every month since May 2018 up until the general election Nov. 6 – a perfectly legal practice if the campaign chose to do so. But according to the filings, as first spotted by the Washington Free Beacon, Tlaib also paid herself $2,000 on Nov. 16 and a whopping $15,500 on Dec. 1 – weeks after the election was over, in an apparent violation of FEC statutes.

The FEC rules state that a general election candidate is allowed to dip into campaign coffers to give himself or herself a salary only up to the election date. The candidate can no longer draw a salary after the election date, or because of other reasons that ended the campaign.

“If the candidate loses the primary, withdraws from the race, or otherwise ceases to be a candidate, no salary payments may be paid beyond the date he or she is no longer a candidate,” the rules state.

A Tlaib ally, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., grabbed headlines last year after saying that due to the rules that prohibit the use of campaign funds to pay a salary after the election date, she would have trouble finding an apartment in Washington, D.C. until she began receiving a paycheck for her work in Congress.

“I have three months without a salary before I’m a member of Congress. So, how do I get an apartment? Those little things are very real,” Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times at the time.

Tlaib’s office didn’t respond to Fox News’ request for a comment and clarification of the nature of the salary payment.

An FEC spokesperson told the Washinton Free Beacon that candidates are allowed to make payments to themselves after the election — but only for activities that happened during the election period.

An election law and government ethics lawyer also told the outlet that Tlaib may have deflated her monthly payments during the campaign for political purposes while “knowing full well that she would make up any difference at the end by giving herself a lump sum payment.”

“That would let her skirt negative publicity, of the sort that Alan Keyes generated when he paid himself a sizable salary. An after-the-fact, lump-sum payment cuts against the purpose of the rule, which is to help the candidate pay for daily living expenses while campaigning,” the lawyer added.

March 3, 2019. Tags: , , , . Politics. Leave a comment.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Dem Proposals: ‘Numbers Sometimes Don’t Add Up, Emotional Appeal Trump Actual Analysis’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlsXrCpGh9s

March 1, 2019. Tags: , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Politics. Leave a comment.

Diamond and Silk Deliver Explosive Speech at CPAC 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9MXGUGwIp4

March 1, 2019. Tags: , . Politics. Leave a comment.

AOC Green New Deal indoctrinates kids – but these doomsday scares are nothing new

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZuBWeaQmlk

February 27, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 1 comment.

Jussie Smollett: The Lifetime Movie – Between the Scenes | The Daily Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEpZzvSzYfI

February 23, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Fake hate crimes, Humor, LGBT, Racism. Leave a comment.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate — and that’s a danger to America

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-an-economic-illiterate–and-thats-a-danger-to-america/2019/02/21/ee8c58d8-35f1-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate — and that’s a danger to America

By Marc A. Thiessen

February 21, 2019

The left complains that conservatives are “obsessing” over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today’s Democratic Party — and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazon promised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon’s departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses — restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts — that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon’s withdrawal. (Amazon’s founder and chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, also owns The Post.)

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. “We were subsidizing those jobs,” she said. “Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to.”

No, you can’t. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon’s money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue.

As New York Mayor Bill de Blasio explained, the Amazon deal would have produced “$27 billion in new tax revenue to fuel priorities from transit to affordable housing — a nine-fold return on the taxes the city and state were prepared to forgo to win the headquarters.” Unlike Ocasio-Cortez’s imaginary $3 billion slush fund, that is real money that actually could have been used to hire teachers, fix subways and put people to work. With Amazon leaving New York, that $27 billion leaves with it. Genius.

Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to understand that by helping to drive Amazon away, she did not save New York $3 billion; she cost New York $27 billion. There is a difference between having bad ideas and not grasping basic facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether New York should have offered Amazon $3 billion in tax incentives — or anything at all — to build its headquarters in the city. But that is different from not understanding that New York is not writing a $3 billion check to Amazon.

Sadly, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t learn from her mistakes. She made the same kind of error in December when she tweeted, “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” But, as Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood told The Post, “DoD hasn’t received $21 trillion in (nominal) appropriated funding across the entirety of American history.” Once again, Ocasio-Cortez did not grasp that the Pentagon did not have a magic pile of $21 trillion in cash sitting in a vault somewhere.

Her economic illiteracy matters because she is the principal author of the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by most of the leading Democratic candidates for president. From this unschooled mind has sprung the most ambitious plan for government intervention in the economy since Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s train pulled into Petrograd’s Finland Station.

If Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t understand how tax subsidies work, how can she be trusted to plan the federal takeover of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of our economy? Think she and her allies have any idea how to, as her now infamous talking points put it, upgrade or replace “every building in America” . . . or replace “every combustible-engine vehicle” . . . or connect every corner of America with high-speed rail . . . or replace all fossil-fuel energy with alternative energy sources — all in 10 years’ time? Apparently, they think we just have to find all the magic pots of cash the government is hiding.

When this kind of ignorance is driving policymaking in Washington, America is in profound danger. Amazon left New York because Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow democratic socialists created a hostile environment in the city. And if Ocasio-Cortez has her way, Democrats are going to do to the rest of America what they just did to New York.

February 23, 2019. Tags: , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Economics. 1 comment.

Gay Black Veteran Calls Out Jussie Smollet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL_2BY375M8

February 23, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Fake hate crimes, LGBT, Racism. Leave a comment.

I’ll take the Green New Deal seriously as soon as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes a tweet in favor of prosecuting Barack Obama for his illegal actions in the Solyndra scandal

I’ll take the Green New Deal seriously as soon as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes a tweet in favor of prosecuting Barack Obama for his illegal actions in the Solyndra scandal.

First, here’s some background information.

In 2009 the Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles. For example, according to the company’s security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production. In 2010, Obama visited the Solyndra factory and cited it as a role model for his “stimulus” program, saying “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” The Washington Post wrote of this, “Administration officials and outside advisers warned that President Obama should consider dropping plans to visit a solar startup company in 2010 because its mounting financial problems might ultimately embarrass the White House.”

Solyndra was a private company, but had been planning to use its government loans as a means of going public. So when Obama knowingly overstated the company’s condition in order to help his friends at Solyndra, he broke the same law that Martha Stewart had been sent to prison for breaking.

In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company’s CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company’s founder, to examine computer files and documents.  Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama’s plan to support clean energy technologies.

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company’s business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying “There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company.” Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that “It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten… We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable.”

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, “After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right… Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.”

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department’s actions. In addition, an Energy Department “stimulus” adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife’s law firm had done work for the company.

In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, “That really makes me sad… Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that.”

Solyndra was not the only “green energy” company involved in this type of fraud.

After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes.

After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy.

After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy.

In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California. In May 2014, it was reported that the building in Longmont, Colorado that had been abandoned by Abound Solar in 2012 was still contaminated with cadmium, a toxic metal which can cause cancer.

Although Obama stated that all of the “green energy” companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion. By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s “stimulus.” Although an “independent” review said that Obama had not done anything wrong, it was later reported that Herbert M. Allison Jr., the person who had conducted this “independent” review, donated $52,500 to Obama’s campaign.

So that’s the background information.

And the political party that gave the taxpayers’ money to these corrupt private companies has shown zero concern for the taxpayers whose money they wasted.

So when I hear about Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, I think of Solyndra, and multiply it by a really big number.

The politicians who supported Solyndra never showed any concern for the taxpayers whose money they wasted.

And now that same political party is making the same kinds of promises for its Green New Deal, except the number of proposed jobs is magnitudes larger.

Given that these politicians don’t show any concern over the failure of Solyndra and those other companies to create the green jobs that they had promised, I certainly don’t trust them regarding their promises for the Green New Deal.

Therefore, here is my promise regarding the Green New Deal: I’ll take the Green New Deal seriously as soon as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes a tweet in favor of prosecuting Barack Obama for his illegal actions in the Solyndra scandal.

February 22, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Barack Obama, Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

I’m publicly asking the Washington Post to please either confirm or debunk PJ Media’s “evidence” that Ilhan Omar married her brother in order to commit immigration fraud

PJ Media is a right wing website. It’s not considered to be part of the mainstream media, and you certainly can’t cite it as a source when adding content to wikipedia.

That being said, I am a long term reader of PJ Media, and I tend to view most of what it publishes as being credible. I certainly don’t have anything against the website.

PJ Media has published what it claims are photographs, school records, and other documents which, when taken together, “prove” that Ilhan Omar married her brother in order to commit immigration fraud.

You can read these PJ Media articles and look at their “evidence” here, here, here, here, and here.

I don’t know if these alleged photographs, school records, and other documents are real or fake.

If they are real, then the public deserves to know.

If hey are fake, then whoever created them deserves to be sued for defamation.

As far as I know, Omar has not filed any defamation lawsuits regarding these alleged photographs, school records, and other documents.

I am publicly asking the Washington Post to please investigate these alleged photographs, school records, and other documents, and either confirm or debunk the claim that Omar married her brother in order to commit immigration fraud.

So far, the only thing the mainstream media has been willing to report is that Omar says she never married her brother.

But I don’t care what Omar says.

Instead, I want to know if this “evidence” is real or fake.

February 18, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Politics. Leave a comment.

Crybaby Trump is against free speech and doesn’t have a sense of humor!

Here’s a skit from the most recent episode of Saturday Night Live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vQlhWBvAwY

 

And here’s a tweet that Trump made in response: (original, archive)

 

 

The text states:

“Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!”

So Trump wants “retribution,” against people who were peacefully and lawfully exercising their first amendment right to free speech. He also wants them to be “looked into.”

Trump took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. He ought to be ashamed of himself for thinking that the people at Saturday Night Live are somehow exempt from the first amendment’s right to free speech.

February 18, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Humor, Television. Leave a comment.

Here is proof of two different instances where Ilhan Omar supported terrorists

When Ilhan Omar was in the Minnesota state legislature, she voted in favor of letting the families of terrorists who die in terrorist attacks collect life insurance.

This isn’t the first time that Omar has defended terrorists. When she was in the Minnesota state legislature, she asked a judge to give “compassion” to nine men in Minnesota who had planned to join ISIS.

Now Omar is a member of the U.S. Congress.

 

February 17, 2019. Tags: , , . Islamic terrorism. Leave a comment.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says amazon’s salaries of $150,000 a year for 25,000 new jobs in New York City constitute “scraps” and are not “dignified.” Meanwhile, she only pays her own interns $15 an hour.

In November 2018, CNBC reported:

Amazon will pay HQ2 employees an average of $150,000

On February 16, 2019, explaining why she opposed amazon creating 25,000 new jobs in New York City, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said:

“We need to create dignified jobs in New York City”

and

“We do not have to settle for scraps in the greatest city in the world”

I wonder how high those amazon salaries would have to be in order for Ocasio-Cortez to think they were “dignified” and not “scraps.”

Meanwhile, in December 2018, NPR reported:

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez takes office next month, representing New York’s 14th District, she will be a part of the “blue wave” of new Democrats in the House. But the 29-year-old may end up being a part of a different kind of wave, too: a bipartisan effort for members of Congress to pay the interns they employ.

“Time to walk the walk,” she tweeted on Tuesday. “Very few members of Congress actually pay their interns. We will be one of them.” And she pledged more than just a stipend: Her interns will make $15 an hour.

In other words, when it comes to paying wages that are “dignified” and not “scraps,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a hypocrite.

February 17, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 5 comments.

I hope the Washington Post will investigate and either confirm or debunk the claim that Saikat Chakrabarti, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, is a supporter of Subhas Chandra Bose, who was a friend and supporter of Adolf Hitler

Below is a meme. I don’t know who created it.

The meme claims that Saikat Chakrabarti, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, is a supporter of Subhas Chandra Bose, who was a friend and supporter of Adolf Hitler.

I don’t know if that claim is true of false.

I hope the Washington Post will investigate the claim and either confirm it or debunk it.

February 16, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 2 comments.

« Previous PageNext Page »