The Green New Deal: A Carbon Tax For Socialists

Ocasio-Cortez has stated that mankind will be vanquished in 12 years.  Her New Green Deal has a time frame of 10 years to implement assuming it starts – today.   In the EU, they continue to establish time frames reaching emission goals extending to 2050 – 31 years in the future.   China really doesn’t give a rat’s arse, they just agree to whatever proposal is put forth, sign on the dotted line, and then refuse to actually comply.   What makes the Green New Deal so ridiculous is that it only applies to the US.   So the rest of the world will keep producing their climate change pollution, push out their goals 31 years in the future, and we’ll all be Socially broke or dead.

The Green New Deal states that the US will be the major exporter of Green technology, expertise, products, and services.  But according to her calculations, there would be no one left to export to because they missed the train and did nothing – so they would be dead.

Who wrote the Green New Deal?

The Media would have us believe that Ocasio-Cortez was the author.  However, her acumen would beg to differ.  In fact, Ed Markay, who is listed as ‘co-author’, is likely the frontrunner.  However, given the world of politics, I imagine they both had the help of some powerful prompters who hired the best writers to create this monstrosity.

What is not so headlined is the fact that the Green Deal calls for the implementation of the “social cost of carbon”, which is essentially a tax first introduced by Obama.   It is basically the same ‘tax’ that disproportionally affects low income workers and resulted in the Yellow Vest Movement in France.  Not working too well.

The basic concept of a carbon tax is that the increased cost will incentivize industries to find ways to pollute less, and incentivize citizens to stay home more and conserve.  A number of economists feel this tax will lower emissions while creating more jobs.  But there is absolutely no correlative proof that a carbon tax creates jobs…and despite its implementation in France and Germany, they have failed again to reach their stated goals pushing the date ever further.  What it does provide is revenue for governments to offset deficit spending or divert elsewhere.

Today, the Federal and state governments impose excise taxes on gasoline.  The federal tax is 18.4cents per gallon, while state taxes vary but range roughly in the 31cent range.   We are already being taxed around 50cents per gallon.   Why isn’t this money spent on ‘green stuff’?

Where did this tax originate?

The Revenue Act of 1932 incorporated the first oil tax at 1cent per gallon.   The purpose?  To help balance the budget deficit.   Over 86 years the tax has increased by 5000%.  That’s called government spending.

According to a report by Science Direct in 2016, $28 billion in carbon revenues are collected each year from 40 different countries.  Of that total, 27% is used to subsidize green spending in energy efficiency, the balance is allocated to a general fund and to corporate and individual taxpayers through tax cuts and rebates.   In fact, Sweden, the UK, British Columbia, Mexico, Finland and Iceland spend -0-% on Green Funding.   Australia spends 15%.  Germany and Canada are not mentioned.

The point is simplistic. The Socialist Agenda is always ‘how funds should be spent’, rather than ‘how funds are spent’.

Which companies reap the reward of the Green Funding?

According to a report issued by Friends of Science,;

“Since 1991, the Energy Foundation has been the main instrument that a network of influential U.S. foundations has used to define a portfolio of policy options, political strategies, and energy technologies to address global warming. It was set up by way of large block grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and MacArthur Foundation, and supported in later years by the Hewlett Foundation, Packard Foundation, and other funders. The Energy Foundation’s principal function is to “leverage money in a highly concentrated pattern on behalf of policies that shift markets, industry, and consumers in the direction of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency practices.

It should come as no surprise that the aforementioned foundations are ALL Liberal, Democrat affiliates.

Of course no Green Funding Dark Money scam is complete without highlighting Al Gore.  Between 1999 and 2019, Al Gore managed to amass a personal wealth rivaling Mitt Romney, pegged at over $300 million.  In 1999, his wealth was calculated at roughly $1.5 million all of which was inherited from his family.  His entire fortune was amassed through companies he started that mooched off the global warming scam.

And the Paris Climate Accord funds?  Those funds are predominantly shifted to spending in Africa whose carbon footprint is -0-.  If in fact Green Funding was Green, it would be spent on those countries whose footprint is the greatest – not the least…

When in doubt… follow der money.

And lastly, the media cites FDR’s New Deal as a compliment to the Green New Deal.  But FDR’s deal was the impetus that spiraled this country in a forever greater debt, a forever greater welfare, and a forever greater depletion of the middle class.  It is also noteworthy that the New Deal was implemented via Executive Order, because it would never have passed Congress.

Elections: Toxic Masculinity or Liberal Fear

Phraseology flying, the slogan, ‘Toxic Masculinity’ has been thrown around like a sucker punch used to berate and escalate – well toxic attitudes.  Because that’s exactly what it does – it creates another division, another form of hypocritical hate speech, driven predominantly by left leaning women and – sigh, men.  Of course men say it as though they are mind deployed aliens whose brains have been harvested, much like the radical ‘White Men’ slander punches.

While the word was first used in 2004 in a book discussing different types of men and their masculine tendencies, also called hegemonic masculinity, it didn’t become a  popular demonizing phrase until 2013 when it was defined in Geek Feminism Wiki as ‘one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men’.

Since then it has been liberally dribbled about by Hollywood and the MSM to socially demean certain men, and sometimes men in general, much like the ‘white men’ phenomena.  We hear Robert DeNiro spew spittle and profanity about our President, calling on people to harm him and anyone associated with him because of Trump’s ‘toxic masculinity’.  Of course DeNIro completely misses the carnival mirror depicting himself that makes most of us nonHollywooders cringe with creepiness as he is most obviously ‘toxic masculinity’ in it’s full frontal explosion.

I read it in obscure places like Mike Frost’s blog, a Reverend and academic at a school in Australia. Of course, in his small opinion, it would seem fodder to make commentary about – Trump.  I commented on one of Mr. Frost’s blog posts – once – only for him to grandiosely attempt to ridicule me and denounce me personally.  Why?  Because I offered a ‘different opinion’ regarding his claims.  In other words, Mr. Frost was exhibiting ‘toxic masculinity’.

I have been the victim of it on even the most bizarre of platforms – dating sites.  Where instead of acceptance and conversation, I became the brunt of attack and hatred.  Toxic masculinity.  But not from Trump, not from conservatives, in fact it seems to be most oppressively used by Liberal minded men and women in a clearly hypocritical, log in the eye fashion.

It comes on the flames of liberals claiming they are about peace, love and inclusion while finding all kinds of people they feel shouldn’t be included in the inclusion:  white men, conservative women, conservative men, conservative black men, masculine men, feminine women, stay at home moms, anyone wearing a hat that states Make America Great, any animal owned by anyone conservative… because we are the hate mongers.

Since 2015, there have been well over 170 protests (based on days not cities) against Donald Trump. Most of them are not about anything except – we don’t like you.  That would be over a period of roughly 3 years, or roughly five each month.

During Obama’s entire two term administration there were… 8.  We didn’t much care for him.  We didn’t like his policies.  We didn’t like his agenda.  We simply turned him – off.

The peaceful vs the peaceful…

Conservatives don’t attend protests often.   Rallies? Yes, they are positive events, they signal support and victory and hurrah.  But Protests and riots are about demonizing, threatening, violence and destruction.  If we have an issue, it is best served in a written content.

These are both men who were elected by The People.

Hitler advocated for violence.  Soros advocates for violence.  Eric Holder, Maxine, Cher, Handler, Kathy  whatshername, Behar, Robert deNiro, and a multitude of Hollywood Liberals advocate for assault and violence.  It is an obvious linkage.  And yet, still, conservatives do not protest.  We attend rallies to support someone, but most often the masks, the violence, is perpetrated in the name of – peaceful Democrat/Socialists.

The left is advocating Revolution.  Why?  Because they didn’t get their way…  They are superior, and thus feel that they should have their way.   It is an infantile behavior.  In the name – of peace, tolerance and hugs for all.

In essence it is born of fear.  A fear of losing their ‘toxic Hollywoodism’.  Their feelings of superiority and fear of the truth that will ultimately be revealed that is far more devastating than just the couch fame protocol which we have all been guilty of accepting, breeds – fear.

I imagine the Hollywood Executives, the one’s whose hands are bloodied in money, are going nuts as their profits plummet amid the childish antics of their $$$$ pool of actors as they make public fools of themselves and derail 50% of the viewer base.  Not exactly a ‘business’ move, but then they are after all – ‘entertainers’.  Nothing more.    And in that – protests are simply another means of entertaining – themselves.

The Kinks coined it quite well in a phrase in which they depicted Hollywood as ‘celluloid heroes’, in other words, fake, transparent, not real.

It is the conservatives in Hollywood who hide.  They are the ones who fear blacklisting, rapprochement, and hate from the ‘pacifist liberals’.

Oddly, all of this multiple decades long globalism, fascism and toxicity, is blamed on Trump.  Find a person to horde all the blame for every wrong doing during the history of mankind, is the mantra.  I doubt there is any person, any couple, in the history of mankind who has been tasked with rising above the acrimonial amount of blame and hysteria and rancid comments as Donald and Melania Trump.

Q?  A radical supporter of Truth.

Conservatives.  A hodge podge of Americans wanting to know the Truth.   Feeling energized.  Feeling confident.  And weary of decades of subservience.

This is the moment of Truth.  Do you stand for your self?  Or do you stand with dignity, honor and God?   This is NOT toxic masculinity – it is Toxic Hollywoodarity, and they are masks, fake faces, celluloid, speaking scripts, and wishing they were something more than a lowly actor.

Because, in the end, they will be – left behind.