The mayor of America’s most populous city has a new plan to fight “global warming,” and it involves doing away with the landscape of the city over which he presides.
“We’re going to introduce legislation to ban the glass and steel skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said. “They have no place in our city or our Earth anymore.”
The mayor did not offer much in the way of specifics regarding his plan. Will existing skyscrapers be demolished, or will the city ban new ones from being erected? Many such buildings are apartments and condos. Will the people who live in them be forced to move? Also, what happened to “climate change?” This reporter was under the impression that “global warming” was an outdated term.
According to Spectrum News 1 in New York City, de Blasio’s proposal would prevent developers from “using all glass facades unless they meet strict new energy guidelines,” which he called “the city’s version of the Green new Deal.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduced her signature Green New Deal legislation in Congress, which was a disaster. Not a single Senate Democrat voted in favor of the proposed legislation last month.
Big League Politics reported:
Not a single U.S. Senator – including the Democrats – voted in favor moving the ball forward freshman New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Tuesday.
The first vote, called by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would have opened up the floor for debate on a non-binding resolution. For that, the Senate only needs 60 votes. It received none.
“No senator voted to begin debate on the legislation, while 57 lawmakers voted against breaking the filibuster,” according to Fox News. “Democratic Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona joined 53 Republicans in voting ‘no.’ Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted no.’”
Forty-two Senate Democrats voted “present.”
McConnell called the vote largely to see where Democrats stood on the measure. None are biting, especially not presidential candidates Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) or Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The legislation represents a giant swerve to the left, even for the already-radicalized among the party.
Follow Peter D’Abrosca on Twitter: @pdabrosca
Like Peter D’Abrosca on Facebook: facebook.com/peterdabrosca
Preorder Peter D’Abrosca’s Book: “Enemies: The Press vs. The American People”
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?
Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?
Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.
Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.
The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.
In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.
One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.
The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”
The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”
Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”
Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.
His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”
Sanders responded, “Yes.”
Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.
All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.
Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.
News3 days ago
Bernie Sanders 2020 ‘Win’ in NH Netted a LOSS OF 80,000 VOTES from 2016
News3 days ago
Virginia State Police are Silent About Door-to-Door Enforcement of Suppressor Ban
Violent Left2 days ago
New Mexico Bureaucrat Arrested for Vandalizing State GOP Headquarters
Tech3 days ago
More Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far
Violent Left3 days ago
New Hampshire Thug Arrested After Assaulting ‘MAGA’ Hat-Wearing 15-Year Old at Polling Site
Deep State3 days ago
Bill Barr Pushes Back Against Trump, Criticizes President’s Comments on Stone, Drops Case Against McCabe
News2 days ago
MS-13 Thug Gets Life Sentence in Virginia for Rape and Abduction
Violent Left4 days ago
Wife of ‘Proud Boys’ Member Imprisoned for Self-Defense Pleads for Help for Their Three Children
Culture2 days ago
How Vulture Capitalists Use Their Ill-Gotten Gains to Push Transgenderism Onto Children
The Swamp2 days ago
SWAMP: FBI Press Officer Accepted Baseball Tickets From CNN Reporter
News3 days ago
GUILTY: Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Convicted in Extortion Trial
Politics3 days ago
MIT Warns That Voting App Used in Several States is Vulnerable for Hackers to ‘Alter, Stop or Expose’ Votes