Precocious Tween Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Puts Her Indoctrination, Ignorance, and Narcissism on Full Display

Lauren Boebert Attacks AOC And Biden In House Floor Speech

In a House floor speech last night, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) compared Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Harvey Weinstein to President Biden in being "give money away," a ding against Biden as 25 states reject enhanced unemployment benefits.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presents her ideas, I am often reminded of oral book reports in junior high when it is clear your classmate never read the book. Perhaps you can recall the launch of her Green New Deal proposal. It was so amateurish and gave away the plot to such an extent that her staff removed the Frequently Asked Questions from the internet. Unfortunately, her team of youngsters didn’t understand that the internet is forever.

Then there was the flub from her former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti. In a meeting with former Democratic presidential candidate Jay Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, Chakrabarti said:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

That’s called saying the quiet part out loud.

As if the fact that this is all just a massive wealth redistribution scheme wasn’t always obvious. Now, Ocasio-Cortez is unveiling her latest plan for a guaranteed government union jobs plan and more government intervention in the economy. She and Senator Ed Markey (D – Mass.) have introduced a bill to create a Civilian Climate Corps. This plan is reminiscent of the establishment of organizations such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) under President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Related: AOC Introduces a New and Improved Green New Deal

The TVA was supposed to provide jobs after the Great Depression and function as a federally owned electric utility and regional economic development agency. It still exists today and remains a weird anomaly that is neither government-owned nor subject to the laws and regulations of a private company, even though it receives government subsidies. In 2009 the Cato Institute noted:

It [the TVA] was heralded as a program to build dams that would control floods, facilitate navigation, lift people out of poverty, and help America recover from the Great Depression. Yet the reality is that the TVA probably flooded more land than it protected; much of the navigation it has facilitated involves barges of coal for coal‐​fired power plants; people receiving TVA‐​subsidized electricity have increasingly lagged behind neighbors who did not; and the TVA’s impact on the Great Depression was negligible. The TVA morphed into America’s biggest monopoly, dominating an 80,000 square mile region with 8.8 million people—for all practical purposes, it is a bureaucratic kingdom subject to neither public nor private controls.

As Milton Friedman once said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” The TVA should have been privatized decades ago but remains in limbo. Now Ocasio-Cortez and Markey want to create another jobs program, and she invokes the unemployment rate.

The economic impact of the pandemic was solely due to government-mandated shutdowns. In states that did not close, the unemployment rate is under 3%. Of the states that reopened early and cut the enhanced unemployment, most are in the 4% range. Nationally, it is 5.8%. In the month President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, it was 7.7%. Unemployment is not a national crisis.

There are reportedly 9 million jobs that employers can’t fill while Democrats pay people to stay home. Enhanced unemployment insurance is still paid and the new welfare payment of $250-$300 per child is also in play. Ocasio-Cortez talks about people moving into permanent unemployment as if they do not have options. It is quite the opposite. Many are choosing to stay home.

Related: Friday’s Jobs Report May Blow Up Biden’s Presidency

During the discussion, she makes some claims that are so absurd it took me a while to stop laughing. She actually looked serious discussing the “generational dynamic,” saying she would be remiss if she didn’t discuss it. Millennials really have a heightened sense of their own victimhood.

Hilariously, Ocasio-Cortez says the last time they saw a booming economy was in the 1990s. Weird, because her generation had record real wage growth and record rates of new home purchases. It also experienced the lowest unemployment across every demographic in decades during the run-up to January 2020. She has to know she is just lying.

Then she listed the many ways millennials have had it unusually rough. There was the pretty short-lived dot-com bubble, all things considered. Then she invoked 9/11, followed by a decade of war. And, of course, the looming climate crisis. Except it is not a crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that by 2100 the world will lose a small percentage of GDP. However, by then GDP will be much larger, minimizing the impact. Displacement of people is also able to be reduced through appropriate mitigation steps.

Baby boomers lived through Vietnam and the social upheaval of the 1960s. No one drafted a millennial to go to wars. Boomers also fixed smog with the advent of the catalytic converter. Gen X voters lived through global warming, global cooling, global food shortages, the coming ice age, acid rain, the disappearing ozone layer, and killer bees, to name a few.

The biggest crisis was the directive to stop using aerosol hairspray and find a new coolant for refrigerators and air conditioning units. At least one ended up being positive, as the big hair of the 1980s went away. The world was supposed to have reached the point of no return at least three times before I turned 40. It didn’t, and for genuine problems, we innovated our way out of them. Even Gen Z is too cynical to buy into most of this. The only people she’s scaring are her indoctrinated peers.

Recommended: Biden BLM Nominee ‘Collaborated With Eco-Terrorists’ in the 1990s

She invokes $250,000 student loan debt. A tiny fraction of the population racks up such debt. If she did, maybe she should have stuck with the sciences. She reportedly won awards for science projects in high school. Instead, she dove headlong into a degree that yields a significant share of baristas. Now she sits in Washington, eager to spend your tax dollars on a program we don’t need and that won’t address whatever environmental problems we may have. The latter will require skilled scientists and engineers, not a bunch of unionized government employees planting trees.

Ocasio-Cortez’s bright idea is to shove two early 20th century ideas, unions and government jobs programs, on a 21st-century economy. But, one could ask, what is at all “progressive” about that?

LISTEN to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s insanity yourself:

Biden’S BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nominee ‘Collaborated With Eco-Terrorists’

Biden BLM Nominee 'Collaborated With Eco-Terrorists' in the 1990s

MT nominee for national BLM director faces tough questions from GOP senators



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Tracy Stone-Manning, Joe Biden’s nominee to serve as head of the Bureau of Land Management, should fit right in with the rest of the crazies on Biden’s environmental team.

Stone-Manning was caught participating in a plot to “spike” spruce trees in Idaho. She gave testimony at the trial of one of her fellow eco-terrorists and was granted immunity.

Spiking trees is a favorite tactic of radical eco-terrorists and has been known to severely injure several loggers who had the misfortune of cutting into a tree that had been spiked.

Biden’s proposed head of the BLM would be responsible for administering federal lands. Its purpose is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” Stone-Manning apparently doesn’t believe that we need trees for anything except homes for squirrels.

What sets eco-terrorists apart is that they swear they don’t want to hurt anyone.

New York Post:

In 1993, Biden’s nominee to head up BLM, Tracy Stone-Manning, was granted legal immunity for her testimony that she retyped and sent an anonymous letter to the U.S. Forest Service on behalf of John P. Blount, her former roommate and friend, those documents reveal.

The letter told the Forest Service that 500 pounds of “spikes measuring 8 to 10 inches in length” had been jammed into the trees of an Idaho forest.

“The sales were marked so that no workers would be injured and so that you a–holes know that they are spiked,” read the letter obtained by Fox News. “The majority of the trees were spiked within the first ten feet, but many, many others were spiked as high as a hundred and fifty feet.”

“P.S., You bastards go in there anyway and a lot of people could get hurt,” the note concluded.

As I said, she fits right in with the other mafiosos in the Biden administration.

Related: Biden’s Nominee for the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights May Be His Most Radical Yet

The man who actually wrote the letter, John Blount, ended up being convicted and spent 17 months in prison. Not only is Stone-Manning a terrorist, but she’s also a snitch who turned states’ evidence to save her own skin.

All in all, a lovely human being. The White House sure thinks so.

“Thirty years ago, Tracy testified against someone who had attempted to cause harm by spiking trees,” the source said. “She had been approached by a man with a warning letter, which she sent to the U.S. Forest Service because she did not want anyone to get hurt,” an administration source told Fox News.

“She has always been honest and transparent about this matter, which has been covered by the media for decades, and ultimately testified against the responsible individual, who was convicted,” they continued. “She has spent her adult life and career achieving cooperative solutions to western land and water challenges, and has never condoned any action that could lead to injury to anyone.”

She wasn’t “approached by a man” — the man was her ex-roommate. And she sent the letter to the forest service not out of any altruistic motives but as a clear threat. So much for honesty and transparency.

It’s a small point, but shouldn’t the head of the Bureau of Land Management actually, like, manage the lands for everyone, including loggers? Not if you’re a radical green terrorist bent on protecting every tree from the woodsman’s ax.


Biden Ended Use of Defense Funds for Border Wall. Here’s Where The Money’s Going Instead.

Biden Halts Use of Defense Funds for Border Wall. Here’s Where the Money Is Going Instead



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The fate of America’s border wall is uncertain as the Biden administration pursues a markedly different course on immigration than that of former president Donald Trump.

Biden is reportedly giving back more than $2 billion that had been redirected from Defense Department projects in order to fund the border wall long sought by President Trump. Furthermore, the Biden White House is asking Congress to cancel other remaining border wall funds.

On the campaign trail, Biden vowed not to build “another foot” of the wall along the southern U.S. border. One of the president’s first actions in the Oval Office was to pause the wall’s construction. He also called for a plan for use of the wall funds to be submitted within 60 days, a deadline that lapsed in March.

“Building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border and costs American taxpayers billions of dollars is not a serious policy solution or responsible use of Federal funds,” read a release from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Department of Defense (DoD) has already started ending border wall construction projects that used diverted funds. The Biden administration has said they are halting expansion of the wall wherever legally possible.

The monies that had been allocated for the wall will now go to 66 different defense projects, including for military housing, on-base schools, and training facilities.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reviewing land that was acquired by eminent domain over the past year for the border wall. If DHS deems tracts of land not to be needed, it “will work to return the land to its prior owners.”

Yet the administration is required to use an estimated $1.9 billion in funds on border barriers because they were directed to do so by Congress. For this reason, the White House is “reiterating its call for Congress to cancel funds it previously appropriated for border barrier projects so that these resources can instead be used for modern, effective border management measures to improve safety and security.”

The Biden DHS seeks to use those funds to prioritize “urgent life, safety, and environmental issues resulting from the previous Administration’s wall construction,” as well as for clean-up of DoD-funded construction sites.

Earlier this year, the Biden administration said it would resume construction of a flood wall in the Rio Grande Valley area of south Texas and address soil erosion on the U.S. border along San Diego, California.

Under President Trump, the federal government built 52 miles of new slatted structures where no barrier had previously existed and added hundreds of miles of replacement fencing. 

Supporters of the wall argue that using defense funds for the wall is not “diverting” at all because a border barrier that repels foreign invasion is a core national defense activity.

In the absence of presidential initiative on border security, some Republicans are seeking to stop illegal immigration at the state level.

Texas Governor Greg Abbot, a Republican, has announced that he will build a wall along the southern border.

“Long term, only Congress and the president can fix our broken border,” Abbott said in Del Rio. “But in the meantime, Texas is going to do everything possible, including beginning to make arrests, to keep our community safe, to keep the cartels and smugglers out, and to keep your community safe.”

Earlier this month, Abbot moved to close more than 50 shelters in Texas that house approximately 4,000 migrant children, arguing that the federal government cannot legally force the state to continue issuing licenses in reaction to a federal problem. The Biden administration has threatened to sue unless that order is rescinded.

Even Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency whose purpose it is to enforce federal immigration law, has taken a softer approach under Biden. The agency has terminated a Trump-era office that focused on victims of crimes linked to illegal immigration.

Notably, Texas Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, Biden’s pick to lead ICE, opposed ICE raids to deport illegal aliens during the Trump administration.

“I do not support #ICERaids that threaten to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom do not represent a threat to the U.S.,” Gonzalez tweeted in July of 2019. “The focus should always be on clear & immediate safety threats. Not others who are not threats.”

Feds Caught Deleting Data to Make It Appear That “Climate Change” Causes Wildfires

Feds Caught Deleting Data to Make It Appear That “Climate Change” Causes Wildfires



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A federal agency has been caught tampering with historical wildfire data in an obvious effort to make wildfire prevalence and severity appear to be correlated with alleged global warming.

Created in 1965, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) maintains statistics on annual wildfire counts and the number of acres burned in those fires. Until recently, the NIFC posted on its website wildfire statistics for every year since 1926, as evidenced by this Internet Archive screen capture. However, the agency now only posts statistics from 1983 to the present. Why?

“The answer,” asserts climate realist Anthony Watts, “is simple; data prior to 1983 shows that U.S. wildfires were far worse both in frequency and total acreage burned. By disappearing all data prior to 1983, which just happens to be the lowest point in the dataset, now all of the sudden we get a positive slope of worsening wildfire aligning with increased global temperature, which is perfect for claiming ‘climate change is making wildfire[s] worse.

To prove his point, Watts created graphs from both the original data and the now-scrubbed data. The graph of the complete dataset shows that from the 1920s to the early 1980s, there were far more wildfires covering far more acreage than there have been since. The graph of the current NIFC dataset, on the other hand, suggests an increase in both statistics over time.

Another graph generated by Watts sheds further light on the complete dataset. The worst of the wildfires occurred during the 1930–1941 “Dust Bowl” era and again during the 1976–1978 drought in the West. Meanwhile, 1982–1983 saw a “super El Nino” that soaked the western states, causing 1983 to have the fewest and least-destructive wildfires on record. After that, wildfire and acreage counts naturally increased, but thus far they have seldom approached most of the pre-1983 counts and have been far below the counts from the peak years of that era.

Watts traces the history of the NIFC’s public statements on the pre-1983 data and finds a curious pattern: Since Watts’ publicization of the data’s death blow to the claim that “global warming” causes wildfires, the NIFC has cast increasing doubt on the reliability of the older data to the point that it now claims said data is so bad it cannot be posted publicly.

When the NIFC, in 2011, initially posted the wildfire data on its website, it added this relatively benign caveat: “Figures prior to 1983 may be revised as NICC [National Interagency Coordination Center] verifies historical data.”

In December 2017, Watts republished an article citing the NIFC data as part of its justification for doubting that “climate change” was the cause of wildfires in California.

By the following March, NIFC had become considerably less confident that its pre-1983 data was accurate, replacing the previous caveat with:

The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

Today, the NIFC only posts data from 1983 and later, saying, “Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.”

Watts isn’t buying it. The deleted data, he observes, “has been trusted for decades in almost every news story about any wildfire that ever occurred in the U.S.”

“NIFC … is essentially labeling every firefighter, every fire captain, every forester, and every smoke jumper who has fought wildfires for decades as being untrustworthy in their assessment and measurement of this critical, yet very simple fire data,” he declares.

Why would the agency do this? Watts’ conclusion is fairly inescapable: “It seems to me that NIFC very likely caved to pressure from climate activists to disappear this inconvenient data. By erasing the past data, NIFC has become untrustworthy. This erasure is not just unscientific, it’s dishonest and possibly fraudulent.”


Biden Kills Thousands of Jobs, Hurts Environment, and Harms Relations With a Close Ally on His First Day in Office



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden used an executive order to kill the Keystone XL pipeline permit on his first day as president. The move, which was expected because Biden said he would do it, drew sharp criticism from Texas, where the pipeline would have ended in the Houston area.

The “working class party” is just fine with killing thousands of union jobs.

Anything to appease the radical left and their pseudo-environmentalism.

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) January 19, 2021

Michelle Michot Foss, a Ph.D. fellow in energy, minerals, and materials at Rice University’s Baker Institute said the extension would have benefitted the Houston region.

“This project is one of those great security blankets. We have that delivery of crude from Canada. It comes right into the refining complex here, which provides roughly 30 to 40% of U.S. fuel supply and would help to keep prices affordable as everybody engages in economic recovery,” said Foss.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) also inveighed against the move. Unions and most Democrats — about 62% — opposed the cancelation. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also weighed in against the move. Canada is now said to be considering some type of sanction against the United States. Biden’s move affects workers in both countries; it kills about 12,000 jobs in the United States and another 2,000 in Canada as both countries are still reeling from the COVID pandemic’s destruction of jobs.

It’s how a Democrat president treats not only an ally, but American workers as well.

Canceling the Keystone XL also hurts the environment. The pipeline would have moved between 800,000 and 830,000 barrels of oil per day safely, off our roads and rails, from where it’s produced to where it can be refined. That was to be Texas, which leads the world in the clean and safe refining of oil into products the modern economy depends on every single day. So some of the jobs lost were in Texas, about which Biden will not care, as Texas did not vote for him.

With the pipeline canceled, Canada will find other customers for its oil. That’s likely to be China and India, two of the world’s fastest-growing and most energy-hungry economies. Instead of being transported safely via the Keystone XL pipeline, the oil will be transported by trucks and ships — both of which emit far more gunk into the atmosphere than pipelines, and both of which are far more prone to accidents and spills. It’s likely to be refined outside the United States, where standards do not match U.S. EPA standards.

Joe Biden killed thousands of jobs, hurt relations with a close ally, and hurt the environment on his first day in the job, while also violating his promise to put science first.

The Biggest Dangers from a Biden Presidency




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The Biden-Harris ticket could spell the end of the Second Amendment if elected. IMG NRA-ILA

United States – -( While there are still recounts and likely litigation to take place in several close states, there is a very real possibility that Joe Biden will get the necessary 270 electoral votes to take the Oval Office. With two Senate races in Georgia going to January runoffs, there is a chance for a pro-Second Amendment majority, but even then, there will be threats to our rights.

Judicial Nominations

Biden will work to nominate anti-Second Amendment extremists to the federal bench, which means that at the Supreme Court, we will likely see 6-3 in favor of the Second Amendment as the best case option (pray for the health of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito). Then of course, should the Senate fall, there is the very real threat of packing the Supreme Court with anti-Second Amendment extremists. The threat to the landmark Heller and McDonald cases is very real, and it is very imminent.

A Weaponized IRS Attacks Pro-Second Amendment Groups

You think it was just about Trump, right? Wrong. A Biden Administration means that anti-Second Amendment extremists will be seeking to silence their opposition. Remember, one of Elizabeth Warren’s campaign promises was to sic the IRS on the National Rifle Association. Don’t think that other pro-Second Amendment groups will be safe, either. Whether you prefer the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, or the Firearms Policy Coalition, a Biden Administration will sic the IRS on them, too.

ATF Regulations

That AR-15 pistol with a brace? That just became a short-barreled rifle, subject to the National Firearms Act. That will likely just be the first of many regulations. They won’t just be to put some firearms out of meaningful reach, though. You can bet other regulations will be used to drive up the cost for FFLs to do business, and still others will be aimed at making it harder to exercise our Second Amendment rights.

Environmental Regulations

Hunters and other participants in the shooting sports have long been among those who most want to protect this country’s natural beauty and help wildlife. But they will actually be among those facing the worst in the name of the environment. The biggie? Forget the traditional ammo. That will be targeted. In addition, you can bet that the Biden Administration’s ideas for public lands do not involve access to them for hunters and others who take part in the shooting sports. And of course, the less access to hunting, the less hunters there are, and fewer people who (in the mind of Biden and others) have a justifiable “need” to own guns.

The Bully Pulpit

One of the big risks with Joe Biden as President is that he often “sells” his push for infringements on our Second Amendment rights with a somewhat effective outreach to hunters and others. This will be magnified by a media that will turn the Briefing Room into a steno pool. You can bet we will find our efforts to protect ourselves from being punished for crimes and acts of madness that we didn’t commit will have us be characterized as accessories before the fact to the next mass shooting. Worse, this bully pulpit will be used to coordinate corporate gun control, which is far more resistant to grassroots pressure.

Control of the Justice Department

Under President Trump, Second Amendment supporters and pro-Second Amendment groups had an ally in the upcoming legal battles, like the Duncan case, which could head to the Supreme Court. Should Biden hold on, now the Justice Department will be arguing in favor of anti-Second Amendment laws. While this may not make a big difference with the current court, what happens if the court is packed?

The fact is a Biden presidency is very dangerous for the Second Amendment. Second Amendment supporters will need to be ready for a very desperate fight for the next two to four years, and we will not come out unscathed.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

Harold Hutchison