In this episode I address the stunning comments by GOP congressman Devin Nunes regarding the plot to take down the Trump team. I also address the suspicious connections between Hillary’s opposition researchers and the CIA. I address the Media Matters attack on Tucker Carlson and how the head of Media Matters has his own bigotry issues. Finally, I address AOC’s latest trouble with the facts.
CPAC 2019 wrapped up on Saturday – and along with the conference came a chorus of smug, talentless know-nothings incapable of independent thought. I’m speaking of the liberal journalists in attendance, of course.
Throughout the many speeches at CPAC, various liberal bloggers attempted to fact check the speakers, mainly by quoting a (true) statement by them and then mocking it. The vast majority of these alleged rebuttals to various CPAC speakers consists of commentary amounting to nothing more than a snide “can you believe these people” comment.
While many of the readers of my column thank me for my research, you can skip doing so for this one, as an entire 35 seconds of Google searches were enough to write this (OK – maybe a little longer).
Sexual Assault at the Border
The party of “believe all women” is making exceptions once again. Former ESPN commenter Jemele Hill (who has since transitioned from having terrible opinions about sports to terrible opinions about politics) mocked Trump’s claim that many women are raped while attempting to illegally immigrate into America. “If you’re the type of person who believes this, you are dumb and awful,” she wrote.
I had my roommate time me – and it did take me less time to type “percent of women raped at border” into Google than it did to type out Hill’s comment. It’s a shame she didn’t do the same, because among the results would’ve been the following from the Huffington Post:
According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report.
Similarly, the Washington Post published an article arguing that Amnesty International’s 60% figure isn’t correct because it’s actually “only 31.4%.” When Trump has cited statistics for sexual abuse at the border, he’s picked the lower “1 in 3” estimate. The Washington Compost has formally rated Trump’s “1 in 3” stat false because 1 in 3 is 33%, and their abuse estimate is 31.4%. You can’t make this up. The Post also claimed that many of those women are technically sexually assaulted and not raped – as if they’d care for the difference if it were their daughters.
Some people in the comments took issue not with rape at the border, but the fact that Trump incorrectly characterized how birth control is taken (once a day as opposed to “massive amounts”). I have two points to make in regard to that argument;
1) Trump could’ve meant “massive” as in “many women are taking them.” And;
2) Who cares?
I look forward to the day that Trump comes out and says that the sky is blue just so I can see these same journalists claim that’s false because the sky is sometimes cloudy.
Sara Carter Ridiculed For Reporting Widely Reported Fact
Journalist Sara Carter found herself under fire for being a journalist. Vox’s Aaron Rupar (who isn’t a real journalist, he just plays one on Twitter) posted an excerpt of her speech claiming that the opioid crisis has worsened to the point where she’s seen morgues that were “so overflowing with bodies that they had to rent freezer trailers to put the children in the freezer trailers outside of the mortuary.”
Sara Carter claims that the opioid crisis is so bad that when she traveled to Ohio she saw morgues that were “so overflowing with bodies that they had to rent freezer trailers to put the children in the freezer trailers outside of the mortuary.” pic.twitter.com/1z8IJShAtA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 1, 2019
Where oh where could Mrs. Carter have gotten such a crazy idea from? Here are a few theories….
I guess if CNN is reporting it, maybe it is a case of fake news after all (just kidding).
Clueless Cortez: Memory Loss Edition
And as a bonus, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who was obviously not in attendance) decided to chime in when Ted Cruz criticized her Green New Deal. She accused Cruz of spreading “ridiculous nonsense” for essentially quoting a document she and her team put to gether.
She may have taken down the hilarious “Green New Deal FAQ” document after three days following widespread ridicule, but surely she must be aware that the internet is forever. She may not have explicitly called for killing all cows, but she did indicate that doing so would be desirable.
Expect More of the Same in the Future
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt documents in his book “The Righteous Mind” that once people realize they’re being confronted with information that contradicts their political ideology, their brain essentially shuts off to tune out contradictory information.
Something tells me these journalists’ brains have turned off for good.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has finally released a resolution to “recognize the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal,” which was released alongside an outline/FAQ of the “Green New Deal” that reads more like a bad high school policy paper than an attempt at serious policy analysis.
Overall, Cortez’s New Deal aims to “mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since WWII to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all.” Cortez thinks it can all be done in less than 10 years, and if that doesn’t sound ambitious enough, Cortez tells us it’ll create “millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs,” provide economic security to all, and even “ensure justice and equity,” because why not.
Not only does this Green New Deal look like it was conceived by a high schooler – it appears to have been proofread by a bartender. Read the passage below and see if you can figure out where exactly Neil Armstrong stepped foot on.
That was immediately followed up with a bullet point in which AOC ponders that perhaps because people questioned how they’d fund a $500 billion interstate highway system (which we were able to afford), that somehow that means we can afford her $40 trillion+ New Deal.
Cortez seems to be under the impression that because people laughed at past ideas that turned out fine, therefore hers must too be on “the ride side of history.”
To paraphrase Carl Sagan – just because someone laughs at you doesn’t mean you’re correct. People may have laughed at Galileo and Newton – but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Cortez also thinks that it was investing half of our GDP in a world war was what created America’s greatest period of middle-class prosperity – not the fact that most of our international competition was literally destroyed.
Cortez would like an end to nuclear energy, even though nuclear gives off fewer greenhouse emissions than solar panels, and is the safest energy source.
Vermont is one example of a state that saw a rise in emissions when they closed their Vermont Yankee nuclear-power plant despite a commitment to renewables.
And as nuclear goes out the door, Cortez wants to retrofit every single building in the entire U.S. to make them Green New Deal-compliant.
As one person estimated, we’d “only” have to retrofit 39,179 buildings every single day for 10 years for this to be viable. An analysis of what it would require to fully convert the U.S. to renewable, zero-emission energy sources, includes “335,000 onshore wind turbines; 154,000 offshore wind turbines; 75 million residential photovoltaic systems; 2.75 million commercial photovoltaic systems; 46,000 utility-scale photovoltaic facilities; 3,600 concentrated solar power facilities with onsite heat storage; and an extensive array of underground thermal storage facilities.” Price tag: $7 trillion.
These logistical challenges would be quite the task for government – but if you ask AOC, the New Deal either will or will not require a massive role for government (depending on what part of the day you ask). Within a 12 hour period, she went from blasting Republicans who mischaracterized her plan as a “massive government takeover” to saying that her plan requires “massive government intervention” the following morning.
Knowing she’ll need revenue sources besides the uber-rich, AOC came up with a brilliant idea every banana republic has also thought they invented: simply printing a ton of money. She did at least give it some financial lingo (quantitative easing), which you have to admit, does sound more sophisticated than “print a ton of money out of thin air and pray there are no consequences.”
World War II and FDR’s New Deal were funded with massive hikes in the income tax and establishing new payroll taxes for Social Security and unemployment insurance at the expense of the middle class. A middle-class family in 1939 could earn up to $60,000 (in 2018 dollars) before paying a cent of income tax. By 1945, that was only $8,000. By contrast, the 2008 bank bailouts were repaid almost entirely by the banks that were bailed out.
The call for money-printing does illustrate that despite some of her rhetoric, Cortez is aware that there simply is no possible way her vision can be funded by taxes due to the exorbitant cost.
Perhaps AOC knows taxes won’t be enough to fund her dream, because nobody would be working if it were a reality. She calls for guaranteeing “jobs with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security,” but also raises the question of how many people would bother to work in the first place under her system. Just look at that final bullet point below:
Key word: unwilling.
Oh – And By The Way, None of This Fights Climate Change
While the goal of the Green New Deal is reduce carbon emissions to zero, as economist Nicolas Loris notes, even that wouldn’t make a difference in global warming.
Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century.
When the reward is 0.137 degrees, it’s hard to imagine a less efficient way to blow through $40 trillion.
Admittedly, I have doubts that climate change is even the end goal of this “green new deal” – I think the climate is just the trojan horse being used to justify a radical reorganization of society. While there’s plenty of talk about climate in AOC’s paper, there are numerous other references to the minimum wages, the alleged gender wage gap, the wealth gap between whites and African-Americans, indigenous rights, healthcare, affordable housing, racial justice issues, and more. It’s for that reason one climate scientist calls this brand of progressives “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside.
Luckily, we don’t have much to worry about. A recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans wouldn’t pay even $10 a month extra to fight climate change (most drew the line at $1). If the American public won’t pony up a few bucks, they won’t pony up trillions either.
In the meantime, AOC has removed the Green New Deal FAQ documented quoted liberally in this article from her website. She must’ve realized that her document is a better advertisement for the Republican Party than her own.