AOC Aide Admits the Green New Deal Isn’t About Climate
RUSH: I want to go back a number of years to the very outset of this program when we began discussing — stick with me on this because I know when I start mentioning these two words some people say, “Not again.” Climate change. This is important, folks. Stick with me here.
When this program began, climate change was a big bugaboo of mine even before this program began. When I was hosting this program, but only in Sacramento, it was a primary subject and major topic because it’s been a hoax from the get-go. It’s been something that has been a trick from the get-go.
And this is something that I have often pointed out. That climate change is not really about climate change. Feminism is not really about feminism. And all the other left-wing issues are not really about that. They are merely cover to make it look like the party is diverse when they have really one objective, and that is to basically eliminate the Constitution of this country and transform this country into something it was not founded to be.
It has been to advance liberalism, to advance the size of government, to advance the power of government, to punish people, to punish successful people, to punish people who don’t sign on and accept and believe what the left is demanding that you believe.
All the issues are is camouflage. They are constructed to make you think the Democrat Party is diverse, has a lot of issues and has a lot of compassion and concern about people and about the environment and about any number of things. They have one objective. And that objective is to transform this country into a socialist mecca and to essentially rid this country of any vestige of its founding and the Constitution. That has been, as I say, the number one objective.
Now, saying this is one thing. Getting people to believe it is another. The Democrats are good. They have the power of the media with them. And the climate change issue, for example, has totally, totally persuaded — I don’t know what percentage of Millennials and younger people, but it is gigantic. A gigantic percentage of young people believe everything they’ve heard about it, to the point that they literally live scared to death that this planet will not be able to support human life by the time they hit retirement age. They really do believe this. That’s how successful this campaign has been.
And in creating this campaign, they created blame, told the American people you’re responsible for it, your lifestyle, your waste, your pollution, your choice of automobile, but then they offer redemption. And the redemption is, you can save the planet. Too many people’s lives have no meaning in their own minds they think they have no meaning, that if you hit them with the idea that they can save the world, why, you’re gonna really attract them because that’s something to be part of.
“I want to save the world!” So you start buying cars you otherwise would never buy, you start believing things that defy common sense. Well, pointing out all of this out is one thing, and I have been. But the left has always been able to refute it by denying it. It turns out that the other day none other than the campaign manager of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has admitted it!
RUSH: From TheDailyCaller.com today: “Democrat New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change,” according to her top aide.
“Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May.” Inslee is running for president, running for the nomination. He’s a nut. He’s a leftist wacko. He’s the governor of Washington, former governor of Washington, and his whole campaign is climate change.
A Washington Post reporter accompanied Ocasio-Cortez chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, to the meeting for a magazine profile. And this guy, her campaign coordinator, was quoted as saying: “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,”
Bingo! They were overheard by a reporter who has made the mistake of repeating it. They were having a private conversation so that Inslee understood. They didn’t want Inslee incorporating this thing and running off and promoting it, not understanding what their objectives were. It’s nothing more than a way to transform the U.S. economy, which means to transform the country. And they’re using climate change as a phony, seductive technique using everything else they’ve already used about it.
“You can save the planet. You can give your life meaning. You can help ward off the destruction of our climate by signing onto our issue.” And all it is, as they have now admitted, is a plan to transfer the vast majority of control over the U.S. economy to the U.S. government. That’s all it is. Now, I don’t expect anywhere in the mainstream media this to be ballyhooed or reported or even talked about. But I wanted to pass it on to you because it is proof positive these people are just using all these issues for one thing.
RUSH: Now, one more climate change thing and then we’re off and running onto other things. I’m doing this early to get it over with ’cause this is one of these issues I would hate for the program to go by and not get this stuff in so I put it at the top of the Stack today.
As you know, it’s one of my pet peeve issues. I think this country has been lied to and fooled and tricked into believing so many things that are not true, which could have a very damaging effect on our future, very damaging effect on our economy.
You know, the more I read, the more I read straight journalism, I don’t care if it’s the tech blogs or anywhere, the more I read things written by people in their thirties and twenties, the more scared I get. I made this observation to somebody yesterday.
I read a tech blog review of Trump’s social media summit yesterday. It’s just sheer stupidity that is presented with arrogant conceit. It is shocking how stupid. And it’s shocking how much hatred — I’m 68, and I was saying to this person I was sharing my thoughts with here, “Thirty years ago it might not have bothered me.” You know, age, maturity, experience, if you’re open to it, has a lot of impact on you. It creates a lot of change.
A lot of people are afraid of change. People want to maintain the status quo for the sake of normalcy because it’s comfortable. And change is difficult. Any change, any change is really tough. And I understand that. But I’m open to it for a host of reasons simply because I’m excited about the future. Like I admitted the other day, I have a naivete born of optimism. And I read some of this stuff — it’s not just tech blogs and it’s not just about Trump. It’s just any standard, ordinary, everyday journalism today is just stupid! Uneducated, ignorant, whatever. But it is presented with this cock-certain arrogance and condescension that has me worried.
This is the stuff that’s being written that is informing people, stuff that they’re gonna end up believing, attitudes they may end up adopting, and modern-day journalism today as practiced by Millennials — not all, of course, but some younger — is creating a climate of hate, a climate of rage, a climate of anger, and more importantly, a reservoir of stupidity and abject ignorance that’s gonna be difficult to overcome.
And I think the evidence of how successful this has been is this issue of climate change. There is not any evidence of man-made change in the weather or the climate. I make a statement as simple and factual as that, and they get hold of it over at the BBC and they play a clip of me saying something like this, and they act like this is the greatest outrage that they’ve ever heard. And they think I’m the one that’s stupid, think I’m the one that’s idiot.
They literally think they can change the weather. They literally think that we are changing the weather, that we’re changing the climate. Now, how stupid is that, when you get right down to brass tacks, how stupid is it?
State of Louisiana. We’ve been told for two days that they’re about to be wiped out. A strange phenomenon, a low-pressure area occurred in the lower Midwest. It somehow moved its way south to the Gulf of Mexico, where it has become a tropical storm.
Now, most tropical storms originate over water. This one had its origins over land. It’s not gonna hit in extreme intensity for about 20 hours. Why don’t we stop it, then? Why don’t we do something to make it not rain as much? The news is filled with the coming disaster, particularly in New Orleans, which is already flooding, there are already people beginning to leave. They’re afraid the levees aren’t gonna hold, that the ground is already too waterlogged to take much more rain, 25 more inches coming.
Why don’t we just stop it? If these people really believe that we can change the climate, that means they think we can change the weather, then why aren’t we? If we are causing this to happen, which they want people to believe, if we are causing this upcoming disaster, that we’re all waiting to hit, 20 hours from now, New Orleans, why don’t we stop it? If we caused it, why can’t we stop it?
This is nothing more than common sense. We can’t stop it because we didn’t create it. There has yet to be a weather system man created. There has yet to be a climate change man created. We don’t have the power. There isn’t any evidence it happens anyway. Yet look at how many people believe it. Then when you come up and hit them with straight common sense like I’m doing right now, they can’t handle it. They lash out in rage and anger, start calling you names.
So this massive infusion of stupidity — as I say, 30 years ago it wouldn’t have bothered me. I would have probably laughed at it. But I’m 68. When you’re 38 you’re not as concerned about the longtime future because you don’t think of it. When you’re 38, 30, 35, 20, you’re not thinking about the end of things. You haven’t even really gotten started yet. You’re still on your upward climb. You’re still trying to find your place in life.
When you get to 68, 69 – it’s a different age for different people — but your perspective changes. You start worrying about the future of the country when you’re not gonna be around, particularly if you’ve had a role like I have in trying to shape it when you are around. And it’s a frightening thing, a frightening thing for me to think about the possible deterioration of this country born of sheer stupidity, couched in arrogance and conceit in modern-day journalism. So, yeah, this is why it bothers me, and it’s why I spend so much time on it.
So yesterday there was a hearing in Congress. Mo Brooks, Congressman Mo Brooks issued a press release yesterday. “Bipartisan Panel of Scientists Confirms Humans Not Responsible for the Past 20,000 Years of Global Warming.” This is not a spoof. This is not a joke. It’s brilliant. It is one of the best attempts at knocking sense into people I have ever heard. It is one of the best attempts at persuasion I have seen.
“In a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years.”
Why the past 20,000 years? Because that is when the Earth’s last glacial maximum occurred. The point is — well, the points are these. “Average global temperatures were roughly 11 degrees Fahrenheit colder than they are today. Stated differently, global temperatures have risen, on average, roughly 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century over the past 20,000 years.
Sea levels were roughly 410 feet lower 20,000 years ago than they are today.”
This is according to the United States Geological Survey, which the global warming crowd loves and cites often. Stating this a different way, “sea levels have risen, on average, roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years (roughly double the global warming enthusiasts’ claimed average sea level rise rate of one foot per century since 1993). Almost all of Canada, Northern Europe, and America (north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, east to New York City) was under glacial ice and uninhabitable,” 20,000 years ago.
“The gist of the experts’ opinions is that the earth was too lightly populated by humans to make humanity responsible for the Earth’s global warming that began 20,000 years ago.”
This is one of the most brilliant ways of nuking this entire silly notion that man is destroying the planet that I have ever seen. It points out the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, New York City, most of America north of the Missouri and Ohio rivers was uninhabitable because it was under ice. For 20,000 years we have been warming. Sea levels have been rising. Parts of the world that were uninhabitable have become habitable. They have become filled with vegetation and agriculture. Areas that were useless are now feeding entire populations.
This warming has been going on 20,000 years and there hasn’t been any enough activity by man to be responsible for it at all. There weren’t enough human beings on the planet 20,000 years ago to effect any kind of change according to current theories, which are bogus, such as industrialization, output of CO2s, the driving of SUVs and everything else they claim that we’re doing now that destroys the planet.
If the earth has been in a warming trend — and it’s obviously been in one, if we had the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago and we’re not under ice now, we’ve obviously been dealing with a lot of warming, 20,000 years. That’s a long time. People can’t comprehend it because a life span’s 85.
But the fact of the matter is the earth has been warming for 20,000 years. Man’s had nothing to do with it. Now all of a sudden, the warming continues as it has been, and here come a bunch of left-wing, liberal Democrat partisans and charlatans who want to now claim that all of this is the result of man-made activity going back to the industrial age. It’s bogus.
I love this way that Mo Brooks did this to illustrate this. Now, this is a press release. It got picked up on a couple of websites, but it’s not gonna go mainstream because it nukes the entire political premise of climate change. So of course it’s not gonna be widely distributed or broadcast. It’s going to be shelved and ignored. But I want you to know about it because we’re always looking at ways to persuade people here, always looking at ways to cut through the stupidity, to cut through this ignorance. It’s a dangerous thing.
Education’s been corrupted to the point that people aren’t being taught anything anymore. They’re being indoctrinated. They’re being taught to hate. You know, this stupidity and ignorance that I find all over modern-day American journalism also is shrouded in hate. It is a hate-filled and a hate-spread ignorance and stupidity. And the fact that it corrupts the minds of not just the young, but everybody exposed to it, is undeniable. And it’s a troubling thing.
At its root level, it’s probably one of the greatest troubling things, because it spans generations. It spans current political issues and climates. No pun intended.
RUSH: Talking about stupidity and ignorance earlier, here’s a manifestation. And I don’t mean to be mean. Folks, I’m not doing this to be mean. I’m trying to be accurate. And, yeah, if I wanted to I could sit here and laugh at it and make a joke about it. And who knows, I might.
“Miley Cyrus Says She Won’t Have Kids Because ‘The Earth is Angry.’” Okay. The earth is angry. How is this determined? Is the earth a living organism with a brain and a brainstem and a functioning intelligence organism? Is that what the earth is? Because if it is, it is letting us do more harm to it in its world than we could possibly imagine, and it’s not fighting back, other than maybe secretly destroying us by causing the climate to get so hot.
“Pop star Miley Cyrus said in a new interview that she won’t have kids due to environmental concerns, saying ‘the earth is angry.’” Cyrus spoke with that paragon of intelligence in modern journalism, Elle magazine, “in an interview published Friday, telling the publication that she refuses to have children “until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water.’”
Let me read to you this quote again in case this zoomed past you. Miley Cyrus told Elle magazine she refuses to have children, quote, “until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water.”
She wasn’t finished. Miley Cyrus said that nature is female, and when she’s angry, don’t John Kerry with her, as in don’t F-bomb with her. “That’s the way that I feel women are like right now. The earth is angry.” Women are angry. And when we and the earth are angry, then don’t mess with us.
“The singer said she isn’t alone in her generation, saying that millennials don’t want to reproduce ‘because we know that the earth can’t handle it. We’ve been doing the same thing to the earth that we do to women. We just take and take and expect it to keep producing. And it’s exhausted. It can’t produce,” Cyrus said. “We’re getting handed a piece-of-shit planet, and I refuse to hand that down to my child. Until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water, I’m not bringing in another person to deal with that.”
She wasn’t through. “Why are we trained that love means putting yourself second and those you love first? If you love yourself, then what? You come first,” she added. The comments about the environment come after she and her husband, actor Liam Hemsworth, lost their Malibu home in California’s Woolsey wildfire last November. ‘With natural disasters, you don’t get a choice. You surrender.’”
So the fire was because the earth is mad, the earth is not gonna take this crap anymore, the earth is fighting back, the earth is saying I’m not gonna be exploited, I’m not gonna be used, and I’m not gonna be screwed anymore.
I think many of you were laughing already without any added comment from me. This is embarrassing. This is exactly what I was talking about.
RUSH: Okay. Back to the phones now and Grand Rapids, Michigan. This is Dan. Glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Hey, thanks so much for being one of the few sources of truth in the media today.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Just to explain my experience, I went to high school in the eighties, in the Navy for six years and college in the nineties. And what I’m gonna bring up today I didn’t see, but my statement is, the American educational community, grade school through college, is now and has been for some time a petri dish for the radical left in their curriculum. So my question is, why do you think teachers so despise America and the way they reinforce topics that divide us like climate change, racism, and abortion, and beat down on patriotism, capitalism, and religion?
RUSH: Well, I don’t believe that it starts with people who want to be teachers who then become what you just described. I think the left reaches out to people through the normal course of the way the left operates, through media, in school, and I think they reach a bunch of people who become activists and then decide to become teachers. These are not people whose lifelong goal was to become a teacher, then they become left-wing radicals. They’re left-wing radicals, and then they become teachers. They become energized over left-wing radical politics.
Some of them choose journalism. Some of them choose middle school. Some choose higher education, academe, some choose to take to various tech jobs and corporate communities. The left is mobilizing an army of activists that then choose where they want to go. It’s not just education that they’ve infiltrated. They own pretty much the serious, powerful depots of pop culture. They own the media.
The real question is when you take it to, you know, like higher education, the American university system, and the reason for this is that it has long been determined by people they admire — Karl Marx and others — that this is a system where people do have to be propagandized. People do have to be sold into this. They have to be radicalized, propagandized, and basically programmed. And so that happens in school.
And it was taught and it was said that the quickest way to radicalize a population and to get it to convert from freedom to a system without freedom is to take over the education system. That’s one of the 10 planks the Communist Manifesto. It used to be very uncool to say this. “Oh, come on, Rush. You can’t say there’s a communist behind every rock.”
Well, it turns out there was. And this is where they are. And this is why and how they have been implementing their philosophy of trying to persuade or propagandize or program people. That would be, in the limited time I’ve had here, the quickest answer I could give you.