Thursday, June 4, 2026

ANALYSIS: Green Energy Advocates’ Carbon Dioxide Tax Requires Huge Gov’t Entitlement Program

‘A carbon tax increases the power, cost and intrusiveness of the government in our lives…’

Oil Industry And Left-Wing Enviros Find Common Cause In A Carbon Tax
Photo by JeepersMedia (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In Orwellian fashion, the left-wing green-energy lobby has continued to torque its messaging on Obama’s failed cap-and-trade initiatives—but the numbers don’t lie, according to Americans for Tax Reform.

The idea of raising rates on carbon-dioxide-emitting energy sources, to deter consumption and promote innovation in clean-energy alternatives, has now taken several iterations, including the simply put “carbon (dioxide) tax,” and the newly prettified “carbon (dioxide) dividends,” noted the conservative economic-freedom advocates.

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill titled the Energy Innovation and Carbon (Dioxide) Dividend Act of 2019, which is cosponsored by 44 Democratic congressmen as well as Florida Republican Francis Rooney.

While Rooney’s support has earned him considerable criticism from energy advocates, others, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a member of the Freedom Caucus, also have broken rank recently to endorse climate-change initiatives.

And ATR reported that Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was “looking at” a parallel bill in the upper chamber that was being pitched by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.

In fact, one group of notoriously centrist right-wing dignitaries penned what they called “The Conservative Case for Carbon (Dioxide) Dividends” in February 2017, in which returns from the carbon dioxide upcharges would go back into Americans’ retirement accounts, overseen by the Social Security Administration.

“We the People deserve to be compensated when others impose climate risks and emit heat-trapping gases into our shared atmosphere,” said the plan, with names like former White House Cabinet secretaries James Baker, Henry Paulson and George Shultz attached, as well as Walmart board chair Rob Walton and a slew of other academics and economic advisers.

“The new ground rules make intuitive sense: the more one pollutes, the more one pays; the less one pollutes, the more one comes out ahead,” they said.

However, warned Americans for Tax Reform, “It would also create a large new entitlement spending program and give the government more power over your life.”

Just as the existing Social Security fund is riddled with bureaucratic waste that offsets its public benefit, so, too, would any massive increases in its scope prove to be as cataclysmic, financially speaking, as any climate disaster Al Gore can concoct.

ATR was among 75 groups that recently submitted a letter to Congress voicing their opposition to carbon dioxide dividends in a brief paragraph, which noted that Americans would pay more in untold ways for the diminishing returns.

“A carbon (dioxide) tax raises the cost of heating your home in the winter and cooling your home in the summer. It raises the cost of filling your car,” they wrote. “A carbon (dioxide) tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay. A carbon (dioxide) tax increases the power, cost and intrusiveness of the government in our lives.”

With 295 million monthly payments to disperse—or 3.5 billion payments a year—based on current figures and discounting population shifts, even if the moneys earmarked for rebates were not dipped into to cover socialist special-interest pet projects like the Green New Deal, some would surely be siphoned along the way.

“Energy and environment reporters dutifully note each new corporate honcho or Nobel economist who endorses a carbon-(dioxide)-tax-and-dividend framework,” said ATR. “Yet these same reporters have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity as to the real life ramifications of such a complex redistribution regime.”

In a recent report, the group broke down the numbers to reveal just how much government bloat the carbon dioxide plan would entail.

Ironically, for a proposal pitching itself as environmentally conscious, it would require massive reductions to the tree population while adding reams of red tape (and more than a few pads of carbon paper) into the ecosystem.

“[T]he carbon (dioxide) tax scheme will task some agency or agencies with a significant bureaucratic undertaking: Enrollment, eligibility determination, fraud prevention, case workers—to resolve lost, missing, or inaccurate payments, custody and divorce issues (kids get the payments too) and bank account number updates—software development, IT staffing, human resources management, legal staffing, and dozens of other logistical undertakings,” said ATR.

“Congressional offices will spend some quantity of time on carbon (dioxide) tax problem calls, letters, and related casework,” it added.

Moreover, the so-called dividends would then be taxable, meaning the IRS would also be involved.

“This will require coordination across the federal government and trigger an enormous quantity of paperwork for the government, employers, and households,” said ATR.

Anti-ICE Sheriff Told to RESIGN After Releasing Violent Illegal to Public

‘Sheriff McFadden was charged with protecting the safety of our citizens, but instead he put them at risk in favor of his radical liberal agenda…’

NC Lawmaker Offends Jihad Media with Term 'Jihad Media'
Dan Bishop/YouTube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The Republican candidate in North Carolina‘s closely watched 9th Congressional District race piled criticism on Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden for playing politics while twice allowing a dangerous criminal back on the streets.

State Sen. Dan Bishop, whose district includes much of the county that surrounds the Charlotte metropolitan area, said McFadden should step down for his “reckless policies” and called on his opponent in the U.S. congressional race, Dan McCready to denounce them as well, The Charlotte Observer reported.

“Sheriff McFadden was charged with protecting the safety of our citizens, but instead he put them at risk in favor of his radical liberal agenda,” Bishop said in a statement. “He needs to resign, and other sanctuary sheriffs like him must be stopped.”

Bishop also included a petition on his campaign website for citizens to demand McFadden’s resignation.

McFadden—a former homicide detective and reality television star—ran last year on a platform of withdrawing from agreements with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to honor detainer requests for undocumented criminals.

The refusal to work with federal agencies on the arrest and detention of illegal immigrants effectively confers “sanctuary” status on the Charlotte/Mecklenburg region, although no laws have been passed at the state or municipal level to designate it such.

But McFadden’s policy came under fire last month when Luis Pineda–Ancheta, a 37-year-old Honduran national with a history of domestic abuse, was arrested after a nine-hour standoff at a Charlotte apartment complex, during which a SWAT unit was called.

Even though it was the second time Pineda–Ancheta had been arrested in a short span for domestic violence against a female acquaintance who had a restraining order on him, McFadden again released the criminal.

Despite having issued detainer requests for Pineda–Ancheta, ICE fugitive operations then had to re-arrest him.

In addition to facing criticism from ICE and local media, McFadden also received a complaint from at least one federal prosecutor.

Andrew Murray, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, said he recorded his formal objection after Pineda–Ancheta’s second release in order to avoid yet another recurrence.

“It’s unfortunate because that mean[s], really, I’m intervening in significant felony charges,” Murray said, according to WBTV. “Basically, I didn’t want a three-peat. I didn’t want him out again, given the allegations against him, to be a threat to the community or to the victim.”

On Wednesday, the N.C. Senate Judiciary Committee—of which Bishop is a member—scheduled debate over a proposed bill that would address the issue of sheriffs refusing to cooperate with ICE, reported WSOCTV.

The bill, which would require the sheriffs in all 100 counties to honor the detainer agreements, passed the state House of Representatives in April.

Following Bishop’s denunciation, McFadden yet again deflected criticism, claiming it was state and federal authorities who were playing politics with the issue while he was simply fulfilling his constituents’ mandate.

Urban Areas Nix ICE Partnerships for Criminal Aliens, As Rural Areas Join Up
Charlotte Sheriff Gary McFadden/IMAGE: Garry Mcfadden 4Sherrif via Youtube

“I appreciate the fact that Sen. Bishop must appeal to the politically conservative base in all of District 9,” McFadden said in a statement.

However, he said, “[I] was elected by the people of Mecklenburg County to represent all of Mecklenburg County, and only Mecklenburg County.”

McFadden added that the detainer agreements and another, the 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to work on behalf of ICE, created a sense of mistrust and fear within the community, according to the Observer.

“Sen. Bishop has never worked in law enforcement and has no personal experience grappling with the monumental task facing law enforcement every day in our attempts to build trust between our agencies and all segments of a large and fast-growing community,” McFadden said.

“[I]f people do not trust law enforcement, those people will not engage with law enforcement, and crimes will continue to go unsolved,” he said.

McCready—the Democratic opponent running against Bishop in the 9th District race—also responded to Bishop’s statement with one of his own on the controversy.

Without elaborating on what sort of policies he would endorse, McCready called for a “comprehensive” immigration plan that would fix the existing loopholes in the broken immigration system.

“Until we see a comprehensive and bipartisan immigration reform that secures our border, respects our laws and protects our American values, these awful incidents will keep happening,” he said.

The rhetoric mirrored recent statements from ICE and President Donald Trump, while not specifically condemning McFadden or other sheriffs whose refusals undermined federal immigration policies and jeopardized the safety of their communities.

However, many Democrats in Congress have taken a far more radical approach of calling for ICE to be abolished.

The special election for the 9th District seat will be held on Sept. 10 after the state elections board earlier refused to certify the previous Republican victor, Mark Harris, amid accusations of ballot harvesting.

After a monthslong investigation, Harris dramatically withdrew himself during a hearing, citing health concerns.

A recent poll showed Bishop leading in the race by roughly four percentage points, although McCready—who also ran against Harris last November and received substantial outside contributions—enjoyed a sizeable cash advantage.

Liberty Headlines reached out to Bishop for additional comment and will update with any response.

Democrat Candidates’ Town Halls Boost Fox News’ Image w/ Viewers

‘I’m just not going to help Fox News executives raise money off my name…’

Fox News Pays $10 Million to Settle Discrimination Lawsuits
IMAGE: Madison Stephens/YouTube)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Whether Fox News‘s recent town halls actively sought to shed the network’s image among Democrats as a pro-Trump mouthpiece or simply reflected a commitment to the sort of evenhanded journalism its news wing has always pursued, it seems to be working.

survey of 600 viewers released on Tuesday by Morning Consult revealed a 6-point net positive gain in perception of the network as a direct result of its 2020 primary coverage featuring town halls with Democratic candidates.

That included 19 percent who viewed the network more positively versus 13 percent who viewed it more negatively.

Scott McDonald, CEO and president of the Advertising Research Foundation, said the viewers gave the network credit for “for letting in some other voices.”

However, he added, “I wouldn’t call it a trend until you actually can watch it over a period of time and see whether it builds.”

The town halls conducted by CNN and MSNBC both produced smaller net gains in perception that fell within the survey’s margins of error.

The findings came on the same day that NBC revealed the slate of moderators for its late-June debates.

The two-night event, broadcast from Miami on June 26 and 27 will feature Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz–Balart.

The Democratic National Committee previously announced its plans to blacklist Fox News from the debates, claiming right-wing bias.

Several of those selected for the NBC debates, however, have come under fire for their own far-left biases.

In particular, Maddow is known as an extreme-left pundit whose Fox counterpart is conservative host Sean Hannity.

Todd, although he bears the title as NBC News political director, has drawn considerable criticism for suppressing reasonable debate on topics like climate-change in his capacity as host of “Meet the Press.”

Only Cuban–American Telemundo anchor José Diaz–Balart, whose brother is a Republican congressman in south Florida, seems likely to press the field of candidates on any topics outside of the fringe-left agenda.

By contrast, the Fox News town halls have largely proved positive for a few centrist-posturing candidates who wish to reach across the aisle to disaffected conservative voters, with some reaching an untapped audience more than the two rival networks combined.

Among those who have participated are Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY; former Housing Secretary Julian Castro; and South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who previously had harsh rhetoric about Fox, was said to have been begging its parent company, News Corp, to grant him a town hall as he struggled to gain traction in the polls and to meet cutoff thresholds for the primary debates.

However, other candidates, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have thus far refused to participate, with Warren notably attacking Fox and alleging that it espouses hate and racism.

Warren also claimed the town halls were a cynical ploy to cultivate new sponsors and increase revenue. “I’m just not going to help Fox News executives raise money off my name,” she said on “The View.”

In May, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott said the network was on track to post its highest revenues ever this fiscal year.

Even so, McDonald doubted that the town halls would translate into a broad new source of income for the network, which periodically draws left-wing activists to threaten boycotts of its sponsors.

“I wouldn’t expect there to be a bunch of advertisers popping up that haven’t already been doing business with Fox,” he said.

UC Study: Women in Congress Help to Change the ‘Flow’ of Discussions

‘When we introduce a woman onto this committee, we might see that there is going to be a difference in how the discussion flows, and the types of ideas…’

House Democrats Change the Rules, Make It Much Easier to Increase Taxes
Nancy Pelosi/IMAGE: CNN via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A recent study from the University of California, San Diego suggested that the influx of women in Congress would likely increase the amount of productivity, civility and cooperation—although evidence has indicated quite the opposite.

Following last November’s elections, nearly a quarter of all members of Congress are women—counting both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In an interview last month on the podcast “P.S. You’re Interesting,” UCSD political science professor Pamela Ban claimed that the unprecedented groundswell of estrogen would help boost female group dynamics, according to CQ/Roll Call.

“We find that when you increase the number of women, when you increase the proportion of women on a committee, that helps to increase the amount of times that women will speak up,” Ban said, citing a recent study she had conducted analyzing Congressional Quarterly committee hearing transcripts from 1995 to 2017.

Ban said increasing the number of women on a committee positively affects the participation of majority-party women and women in senior positions.

It also impacts “instances such as number of interruptions made,” Ban said.

Women are more likely to stick to topics introduced by other women, while men are more likely to change the subject, she said.

“When we introduce a woman onto this committee, we might see that there is going to be a difference in how the discussion flows, and the types of ideas,” Ban said.

State of the Union compromise greatness 3
Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib / IMAGE: Screenshot via Yahoo News

In reality, though, the recent class of freshman Democratic congresswomen such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan have driven Congress to unprecedented levels of divisiveness.

As their own party bickers over matters like impeachment and anti-Semitism, leading to one embarrassing public episode after another, even the most routine committees have become wretchedly inefficient.

During a hearing with the heads of several major banks, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., chair of the House Financial Services Committee, struggled with maintaining order and allowed committee members to grandstand well past normal business hours, leading Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to say he had an important foreign dignitary waiting in his office.

In the same committee, during testimony from Housing Secretary Ben Carson, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., rudely and scornfully interrupted Carson, while Omar issued a disrespectful tweet afterward (or perhaps during the hearing) suggesting he wasn’t fully awake.

Ocasio–Cortez—famously known for penning the Green New Deal, estimated to cost $93 trillion—has also been known to be less-than-attentive to the substance of meetings and more concerned with critiquing her fellow congress members, without evidence, on their lack of preparation.

Of course, Tlaib’s declaration on the first day of Congress, with respect to President Donald Trump, that she intended to “impeach the motherf***er” set the tone that many of the freshman Democrats have continued to abide by.

Leading them in their efforts is Machiavellian House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose claims that the president was engaged in a cover-up brought infrastructure talks to an untimely end, and who most recently declared that she hoped to see Trump in prison.

While Ban’s analysis may be accurate in concluding that the women currently in power have been emboldened to speak, to change the flow of discussion and types of ideas, the overall result may not be one that many women elsewhere wish to claim ownership of.

GEORGE WILL: I Would Support Any Democrat in 2020 if GOP Holds Senate

‘It’s become a cult because of an absence of ideas…’

George Will / IMAGE: MSNBC via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) George Will, the formerly conservative Washington Post columnist turned rabidly NeverTrump commentator, cast no doubt in a recent MSNBC appearance that his animus for the current president has caused him to toss the baby with the bathwater.

Since Will left the Republican Party in 2016 over its Trump support, many have speculated on what the true, underlying reasons were for his opposition.

Some have found the answer in a personal vendetta, and others in the threat that Trump represents of upending the elitist D.C. power structure with which Will has long identified.

“It’s become a cult—it’s become a cult because of an absence of ideas,” claimed the ex-right-wing thought-leader on Wednesday, according to the Huffington Post.

Will said he would support any of the Democratic candidates in 2020 provided the GOP maintains Senate control to thwart a potentially radical socialist agenda.

“A Republican Senate would virtually block legislative change,” he said. “And it would take the Republican Party away from its current identification with someone who is in temperament and in most policies not conservative.”

While Will has long attempted to channel the inverse of Ronald Reagan’s famous quip—“I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me”—he has struggled to find genuine examples to support his thesis.

The liberal HuffPo, which dotingly characterized the 78-year-old Will as a “conservative icon,” said that in his MSNBC appearance he was able only to cite free trade as a core conservative principle that had been abandoned by his former party.

“For years, decades, all the 20th century almost, conservatives said, ‘We’re for free trade.’ Trump said, ‘By the way, you’re not anymore.’ And they said, ‘OK, we’re not for free trade anymore,’ or they pretend to be.”

But while so-called free-trade agreements may have favored individual corporations, Trump has asserted that many international trade deals—particularly those hatched in the post-World-War-II era to encourage the modernization of developing economies—resulted in substantial imbalances leveraged against U.S. industries and needed updating.

China, which has rapidly developed into the greatest economic and geopolitical competitor of the United States, has exploited loopholes in America’s open governance to do everything from spreading propaganda to committing acts of corporate espionage.

Likewise, it has capitalized on open-trade disparities to drive down the value of American goods and services with its own cheap and exploitative labor.

Mexico—against which Trump recently threatened to impose a punitive tariff—also has gamed the system, using the customary openness of the U.S. to make bad-faith arrangements on immigration and trade.

Will left open the possibility that he may one day return to the ranks of Republicanism, should it purge itself of the Trump influences.

“Conservatism has an enormously long and distinguished pedigree of ideas. It has a momentum into the future given by these ideas,” Will said. “And they did not go away, and they have not been refuted by the 45th president.”

NRA Exposes Gillibrand’s Hypocrisy After Her Attacks on Gun Group

‘I appreciate the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights and I look forward to working with you for many years in Congress…’

Gillibrand Says Democratic Party Should Purge Itself of Pro-Lifers
Kirsten Gillibrand/Photo by Phil Roeder (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Second-Amendment advocates are calling out the hypocrisy of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, after a 2008 letter resurfaced undermining her recent attacks on the National Rifle Association.

Gillibrand is as notorious for her flip–flops on significant policy issues as former Vice President Joe Biden is for his friskiness or Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for her cultural appropriation.

In fact, her turn to the Left has been so hard that Gillibrand even declared her own positions only a decade ago were “racist” on issues such as opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

So it comes as no surprise that her extreme rhetoric on gun control during Sunday’s Fox News town hall event belied a past history to which most Tea Party patriots would have given a 21-gun salute.

Gillibrand unloaded on the NRA at the town hall, calling it the “worst organization in this country” and scapegoating it for the country’s epidemic of violence.

She claimed that the U.S. was being “ripped apart again and again [because the NRA cares] more about profits than the American people.”

In response, the NRA published a fawning letter Gillibrand wrote to then-Executive Director Chris Cox in September 2008, while she was still a member of the House of Representatives. (She would replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate that year when the latter was appointed secretary of State.)

Representing the 20th congressional district—a gerrymandered stretch of the state’s eastern border that wrapped around Albany and regularly alternated between blue and red—Gillibrand appeared to embrace every gun-rights position imaginable—and then some.

“I want to be very clear that I always have and always will believe that the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it applies to an individual’s right to carry guns,” she said.

Gillibrand closed the letter by saying, “I appreciate the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights and I look forward to working with you for many years in Congress.”

Gillibrand’s about-face led Fox News’s Brit Hume to quip that Gillibrand was one of “the most flexible politicians” he’s ever seen.

DEBUNKED: Even PolitiFact Won’t Lay Cover for Obama’s Recent Gun-Control Whopper

‘Anybody can buy any weapon, any time without much, if any, regulation…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) It is not the least bit uncommon for former President Barack Obama to fudge the facts when it comes to the self-aggrandizement of his mediocre legacy or the downplaying of his administration‘s deep-seated corruption issues.

It is newsworthy, however, when a whopper is so big that an established left-wing fact-checking site like PolitiFact has to call him on it.

On Tuesday, the Poynter Institute-based (read: Soros-funded) fact-checking operation debunked a torqued-up bit of anti-gun-rights rhetoric from Obama from a recent summit in Brazil.

The erstwhile community organizer claimed that, in the U.S., “Anybody can buy any weapon, any time without much, if any, regulation.”

PolitiFact added Obama’s two subsequent statements to its fact check: that guns can be purchased over the internet, and that it was legally possible to buy machine guns.

The catalyst for the fact-check, it noted, was the outraged reaction from conservative media outlets such as Townhall and The Blaze, even eliciting a response from National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch via Twitter:

While PolitiFact’s prestidigitators were able to work their magic to soften the blow on Obama’s gun claim, qualifying it as merely “mostly false” instead of an outright mistruth, they did pick apart several nuances.

“The assertion that anybody can buy a weapon flies in the face of the many types of people, from felons to drug abusers to spouse abusers, who may not buy weapons,” it said.

Although it noted that online sales were legal, as Obama said—allowing them to give him points for a partial truth—“they take place under the same rules that govern other gun sales,” said the PolitiFact analysis.

“As for machine guns, they are strictly illegal, with the exception under legal controls of models from 1986 and earlier,” it added.

In its article criticizing the claim, The Blaze observed that the middle part of Obama’s claim, regarding online sales, also was brazenly misleading in context since he was speaking specifically about his experiences following the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

“[T]he Sandy Hook shooter actually was prevented from purchasing a weapon, by our laws and regulations in this country,” wrote The Blaze’s Caleb Howe.

“In fact, that evil murderer had to steal a weapon to commit his heinous acts,” Howe said. “Stole them from his own mother, whom he murdered first.”

Rather than let their own fact-checking stand on its merits, PolitiFact later allowed an Obama official to continue to spin the comments with an addendum at the bottom of their analysis, somewhat defeating the purpose of an ‘impartial’ and ‘independent’ fact-check.

“Initially, we did not hear from Obama’s office, but after publication, Obama spokesman Eric Schultz sent us links to articles, including one from PolitiFact, that described how people circumvent gun laws,” the site posted in an update.

“But a plain reading of Obama’s words, by us and the firearms legal specialists we reached, is that he was describing current laws, not whether people were breaking them,” it said, deciding to maintain its “mostly false” rating.

PolitiFact was founded in 2007, meaning it was around for the entirety of Obama’s White House tenure, and it won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on his 2008 race against the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Of the 600 times it had fact-checked Obama as of June 2019, only 151, or 25 percent, were deemed below the halfway mark on truthfulness. Only 1 percent (9 claims) received its lowest rating of “Pants on Fire.”

By comparison, with President Donald Trump’s first term slightly past its halfway point, the site already has launched 679 fact-checking queries against him, of which it deemed 479 (70 percent) below the median mark of truthfulness.

It designated 15 percent of Trump’s statements as “Pants on Fire” and only 5 percent of its fact-checks against him as entirely truthful statements (Obama’s fully truthful rating was 20 percent).

Monorail, Monorail, Monorail: Biden Borrows from ‘Simpsons’ Conman in Campaign Strategy

‘Voters will see through it…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Fans of “The Simpsons” may delight in recalling a classic episode (itself a “Music Man” parody) in which a con-artist whips the fictional town of Springfield into a frenzy with promises of a monorail.

Now, the long-running cartoon, which famously anticipated the election of President Donald Trump, may once again prove prescient.

Democratic front-runner Joe Biden unveiled a recent proposal on his website that he said broadly addressed his climate policy, with its centerpiece being an end-to-end high-speed-rail system funded by repealing Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

In addition to the roll-back, the plan also would entail a tax-hike $1.7 trillion, said a release from Americans for Tax Reform.

The plan is structured on that originally proposed by the Green New Deal, according to the website. That plan—which organizers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez, D-NY, were unable to put a specific price tag on—was estimated to total around $93 trillion.

Among the plans Biden specifically outlined were halving the travel time between New York and Washington—a boon for liberal coastal elites who have a regular need for commuting between the two.

Biden also promised to “make progress” toward completing California’s high-speed-rail boondoggle, a plan that Trump recently threatened to defund after Gov. Gavin Newsom backpedaled on the scope and deadlines of the project that was slated originally to connect San Francisco with Los Angeles.

While many Southerners already feel, at best, ambivalent about the encroachment of the northeast corridor expanding upon their “fast growing” region, Biden promised to do more of precisely that.

And “[a]cross the Midwest and the Great West, he will begin the construction of an end-to-end high speed rail system that will connect the coasts, unlocking new, affordable access for every American,” said the plan, which also outlined additional spending for green-friendly freight rail.

In an op-ed for The Hill, Adam Sabes, a communications associate at Americans for Tax Reform, noted that the lofty spending promises may seem like a good idea now, but they ultimately would not win over the majority of Americans who prefer to keep their money in their pockets.

“Running on a repeal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may be convenient for Biden during a Democratic primary where he can gain a lot of support for the idea,” Sabes said. “But this is not a winning strategy in the general election and he could more than likely attempt to backtrack. Voters will see through it.”

Noting the tremendous damage that the Biden plan would have on the booming economy, Sabes likened the former Obama vice president to Walter Mondale, the Jimmy Carter administration veep who attempted unsuccessfully to oust the incumbent Ronald Reagan in 1984.

“Joe Biden opened his much hyped 2020 presidential campaign last month by proclaiming the ‘first thing’ he would do if elected is to repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means the middle class would see a tax increase,” Sabes said.

“Does that sound eerily familiar?,” he continued. “It is because Walter Mondale made a similar promise when he ran for president against Ronald Reagan.”

The group also compiled a video of Biden’s calls to repeal the Trump tax cuts in order to underscore its centrality to his message.

Like the conman in “The Simpsons,” Biden has misleadingly attempted to miscast himself as an empathic everyman with a deep concern for the needs of blue-collar middle America.

But as his policies reveal, he remains a swindler at heart.

Struggling de Blasio Begs Fox News for Town Hall after Accusing it of Hate

‘There is no Donald Trump without News Corp, I firmly believe that…’

NYCity to Guarantee Health Care for All, Including Illegals
Bill de Blasio/Photo by Todd Crusham (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A mere 10 months ago, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio stood astride his soapbox on CNN‘s “Reliable Sources” and accused Fox News of single-handedly ushering in the decline of America through racism and hate.

“They put race front and center, and they try and stir the most negative impulses in this country,” he told host Brian Stelter on the Aug. 12, 2018 broadcast.

“Today you have one outlet and one outlet only that is constantly sowing division,” he said, while absurdly claiming CNN harbored no such political agenda.

But now, the struggling 2020 hopeful, who consistently finds himself near the bottom of most people’s lists of Democratic primary prospects, is begging the top-rated Fox News to bail him out.

The New York Post reported that de Blasio had approached the right-leaning cable network for a town hall, following in the footsteps of five other prospective Trump-challenging Democrats.

“We want to talk to all voters about why the mayor is the best candidate for working people—regardless of what news channel they watch,” his campaign spokeswoman, Olivia Lapeyrolerie, told The Post.

Ironically, de Blasio’s previous remarks also targeted The Post and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which is parent company to both media outlets.

“There is no Donald Trump without News Corp, I firmly believe that,” he told Stelter.

Candidates who already have gone on the Fox News town halls—Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York; and Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro—have benefited from the broader exposure, with an audience reach often greater than that of CNN and MSNBC combined.

Several of those have entrenched themselves on the party’s clear Left fringes—along with others like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was criticized after viciously refusing to appear on Fox News.

Some candidates, however, like Klobuchar and Buttigieg have sought to pitch themselves (albeit dubiously) as moderate liberals whose ideas might appeal to the network’s normal conservative viewers should they become disaffected enough by the Trump presidency.

De Blasio has hinted in his past rhetoric that he would attempt to win Trump voters, but he would have much to answer for in his liberal track record—notably his recent proposal to provide free healthcare for all New Yorkers, including illegal immigrants.

His stance on the state’s recent passage of a partial-birth abortion bill is also sure to be a hot-button issue for conservative audiences.

And de Blasio’s biggest shot at a conservative-friendly accomplishment—his pro-business bid to bring Amazon‘s headquarters to the city with a sweeping tax incentives deal—failed miserably, instead prompting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, to court other New York tech and financial companies to leave the tax- and regulation-oppressive state.

Meanwhile, even de Blasio loyalists express little confidence in his leadership.

Many have criticized him for putting his campaign-centered nonprofit ahead of his management of the city, and of unethically co-mingling the business and politics by personally requesting nonprofit donations from private developers seeking city contracts.

According to The Post, which cited a Quinnipiac University poll taken in early May, de Blasio had the highest negative ratings among every candidate in the Democratic field.

According to the poll, only 8 percent of voters liked de Blasio while 45 percent had an active dislike of him.

“He’s been hammered by the late-night talk shows and I don’t think you can underestimate those shows as far as the impact they have on the how people feel about politicians,” Quinnipiac analyst Tim Malloy told The Post.

That article noted that by polling above 1 percent de Blasio had met the primary threshold for participating in the first Democratic debate, which will air on NBC over two days at the end of June.

However, he was still concerned over a second threshold—donations from at least 65,000 individuals—in case too many other candidates are eligible for the first threshold.

Big Labor Cronyism Sinks Hooks into Federal Credit-Union Regulations

‘This is the opposite of what federal bank regulators are doing with capital…’

National Credit Union Association / NCUAchannel via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Banks and other credit unions are crying foul over federal regulators’ questionable decision to greenlight a capital campaign for a financially teetering Big Labor credit union—while at the same time blocking similar requests by its better managed and capitalized competitors.

By rubber-stamping a request by Orange, Calif.-based Union Yes Federal Credit Union to raise $4 million in subordinated debt, at fixed and variable rates of 4 to 4.5 percent interest over five- to seven-year terms, the National Credit Union Administration gave the financial institution an unfair edge over competitors, say critics.

An industry insider told Liberty Headlines that the union-boss-run credit union has turned in financial performance numbers that would normally prompt a federal shutdown mandate, not new approvals.

The recent capital issuance approval—which would more than double the credit union’s current capital and raise debt totaling 6 percent of its current asset holdings ($63.4 million)—also means that the tax subsidy granted to Union Yes as a member-operated collective would theoretically benefit its investors instead of its members, said blogger Keith Leggett, a retired economist with the American Banker’s Association, on his Credit Union Watch.

Leggett told the subscription-based trade publication American Banker that agencies overseeing the non-subsidized banking industry, such as the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, would never allow such a sweetheart deal to fly with so much of an organization’s capital coming from short-term, temporary sources.

“This is the opposite of what federal bank regulators are doing with capital,” he said.

The NCUA contends that Union Yes FCU’s low-income designation allows it to bend the rules imposed on other, larger institutions.

But viewed from another angle, it seems more like a case of political cronyism at its worst.

According to the Union Yes website, the credit union’s mission since 1981 has been “to serve only union workers and their families” in Southern California.

Meanwhile, some comparable rural credit unions that have been denied approval for capital issuance have raised questions with the NCUA’s ombudsman, Joy Lee, regarding the arbitrary standards applied.

They note that in the agency’s own 2016 “Secondary Capital Best Practices Guide” (which were abruptly removed in recent days from the NCUA’s official website, under “poor practices,” it lists several standards that all would seem to apply, on some level to Union Yes FCU:

  • Poor due diligence, inaccurate cost benefit analysis and weak strategic planning in connection programs funded by secondary capital
  • Premature and excessively ambitious concentrations of uninsured secondary capital to support unproven or poorly performing programs
  • Failure to realistically assess and timely curtail programs that, in the face of mounting losses, are not meeting expectations
  • Use of secondary capital solely to delay Prompt Corrective Action
  • Insufficient liquidity to repay secondary capital at maturity

A look at the bank’s records indicates that the capital campaign may even be an effort to skirt the imposition of corrective action over recent negative returns—creating a potentially toxic brew for investors who hope to get their money back in a timely fashion.

So indefensible was the NCUA’s approval of the near-failing credit union’s capital raise that one insider floated the possibility of corrupt motives by the NCUA bureaucrats involved in the decision.

Union Yes CEO William Byerly, however, painted a rosier picture in the credit union’s March 13 prospectus.

“Over the past few years,” he said, the credit union “has been experiencing extraordinary growth and needs to raise additional capital to fund new membership growth.”

Union Yes says its goal is to become a $100 million financial institution.