AOC's Chief of Staff Admits 'Green New Deal' Was All About Socialism, Not Climate Change
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, seems to enjoy being the center of attention.
While still in the midst of a feud between House leadership and a band of radical freshmen progressives, Chakrabarti said that the controversial Green New Deal was about breaking America’s capitalistic economy and replacing it with a new system, according to The Washington Post.
That’s right, it essentially has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with injecting excessive government overreach into this country.
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said. “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.”
The eye-popping admission from Chakrabarti came during a meeting with Climate Director Sam Ricketts, who’s aiding Jay Inslee in his run for president.
Just like the immigration issue was the backbone of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, climate change is the central issue behind Inslee’s run — except, unlike Trump, Inslee’s average poll numbers have hovered at less than one percent, according to RealClearPolitics.
In May, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out her support for Inslee’s climate proposal, claiming it’s “the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis.”
.@JayInslee’s climate plan is the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.
It meets key marks:
✅ Big enough
✅ Fast enough
✅ Economically stimulating for working people
✅ Acknowledges injustice + w/ an eye to make communities whole https://t.co/C7nyEsdUxk
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 18, 2019
However, Chakrabarti believes Inslee’s plan is too small, saying in his meeting with Ricketts, “I’ll be honest, my view is I still think you guys aren’t going big enough.”
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Inslee’s climate strategy plans to end all subsidies to fossil fuel companies, proposes moving to 100 percent clean energy, and designates “environmental and economic justice” as a top priority for federal government action.
At least radical leftists are coming clean about their scheme to upend the greatest system of government in world history.
They see the manufactured climate crisis — which they worked to bolster in the past few decades — as a way to bankrupt the government, tear down the building blocks of society and destroy America’s constitutional republic.
Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal would effectively cripple this great nation, as it’s projected to cost a whopping $94 trillion and would still mean “no change” in the climate, according to the Free Beacon.
“On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill,” Sen. John Barrasso said, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
“The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That’s no deal.”
However, 2020 hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders backed Ocasio-Cortez’s climate deal, saying, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake.”
There’s only one thing in the way of these individuals achieving their goal: American voters.
The extreme agenda put forth by climate activists can be nipped in the bud with overwhelming support for conservatives and constitutionalists in the voting booth come November 2020.
It seems silly that one of the most important reasons to get to the ballot box is to make sure we defeat climate change proponents — but it’s more important now than ever, in order to prevent radical progressive climate policy from bombing the American economy.
The bottom line is to make sure that we vote against anyone who wants to “defeat” climate change, because they’re likely not telling you the dark and shady real reason they’re pushing it.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.