Trump wants to pull plug on Obama-Era Fuel Standards

Legal Insurrection

"In response, California politicians to impose tighter standards as Michigan’s leaders plan for new auto plants."

 

"President Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency to shelve aggressive vehicle fuel economy targets that have been a foundation for promoting climate change alarmism policies that have hurt the American automotive industry.

Trump revealed his plans during a speech at an automotive testing center near Detroit after discussing the issue during a round-table meeting at the American Center for Mobility with auto company executives and workers.

“This is going to be a new era for American jobs and job creation,” Trump said at the meeting.

The EPA under Obama had promulgated a rule for cars and trucks requiring a fleet-wide average of 36 mpg in real-world driving by 2025.

Trump’s decision, while having no immediate effect, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to determine no later than April 2018 whether the 2022-2025 standards established are appropriate. If the EPA determines they are not appropriate, the agency will submit a new proposal next year.

"I suspect that the new EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, will find there was quite a bit that was inappropriate about the jacked-up fuel economy rules, finalized in the waning days of Obama’s presidency." . . .

"Team Trump is already kicking butt at the United Nations"

NY Post

Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley

. . . "As US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley pointed out Monday, only one country is subjected to regular scrutiny and condemnation in each of the three annual sessions of the 47-member Geneva-based human rights body.

"Guess which one.

“ 'It’s not Syria, where the regime has systematically slaughtered and tortured its own people,” Haley said.

“ 'It’s not Iran, where public hangings are a regular occurrence. It’s not North Korea, where the regime uses forced labor camps to crush its people into submission.

“ 'It’s Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.”

"The council was established in 2006 to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission. It was widely hailed by UN supporters as major “reform,” but it turned out that this rose by another name smelled just as rotten.

"The George W. Bush administration didn’t buy it and refused to join in.

"Then President Barack Obama’s State Department, while admitting the council was still obsessed with Israel, argued that by joining, America could effect change from the inside.

"Team Obama forced the adoption of resolutions about North Korea, Syria and other areas of concern. But the fundamental nature of the council remained.

"According to the group UN Watch, in the decade since its inception, the council condemned Israel 68 times, compared to 67 condemnations of all other countries combined.

"No wonder Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote recently to UN supporters that unless the council in Geneva ends its bias — and stops admitting serious human rights violators as members — the United States will walk.

"And guess what: In other UN corners, such pressure is already showing results." . . .

The Meals On Wheels Lie Keeps Rolling Along

IBD

"Budget: Let's start with a basic fact. Contrary to news reports last week, President Trump is not eliminating funding for Meals on Wheels. He's not even cutting it.  (Emphasis mine, TD)

"How do we know this? Meals on Wheels says so. A statement issued by Meals on Wheels America on Thursday notes that 35% of the revenues at the 5,000 or so local Meals on Wheels programs come via the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program.

"Trump's budget outline says nothing about this program whatsoever.

"What Trump's budget does propose is cutting is the corruption-prone Community Development Block Grant program, run out of Housing and Urban Development. Some, but not all, state and local governments use a tiny portion of that grant money, at their own discretion, to "augment funding for Meals on Wheels," according to the statement.

"Nevertheless, when the New York Times reported on Trump's budget last Wednesday, they dispensed with such details, and simply said that CDBG "funds popular programs like Meals on Wheels, housing assistance and other community assistance efforts."

"This misleading shorthand quickly turned into "Trump wants to kill Meals on Wheels.' " . . .

On the Trump budget

"President Trump submitted his first budget to Congress Tuesday and titled it America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again. It adds fifty-four billion dollars for defense and it cuts funding for PBS. Today’s episode of Sesame Street is brought to you by the letters W,T and F."  Comedian Argus Hamilton

Rich Terrell

US military operations; Trump lets his generals lead; Obama micromanaged

Did he not have a clue about LBJ in Vietnam? A lesson unlearned.

Althouse  "According to the NYT, which recognizes Trump's return to what is the better approach. 

The change is at the heart of a re-engineering of the National Security Council’s role under its new leader, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, and reflects Mr. Trump’s belief that the N.S.C. should focus less on military operations and tactics and more on strategic issues. A guiding precept for the president and his team is that the balance of power in the world has shifted against American interests, and that General McMaster should focus on developing foreign and economic policy options in concert with the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies to respond to that challenge....

“In defense of the Obama administration, every single time we went to the president and asked for something more, we eventually got it, though we often had to jump through a lot of hoops,” said Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger who held a senior position at the Defense Department under Mr. Obama. “The episode that took the cake was toward the end of the administration, when we literally had cabinet secretaries debating the movement of three helicopters from Iraq to Syria.”

. . .

 

The Last Sunday Morning

Mike Adams   
"Author’s Note: This is a continuation of my last column “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.”"

. . . "I did not know it at the time but my father had gotten irritated with me in 2013 when I published my last book. In that book, I mentioned that an atheist father and a fundamentalist mother had raised me. Apparently, Dad objected to the reference strongly enough to approach my mother and say, “Mike called me an atheist. I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic!” In retrospect, it appears that a crack had emerged in the armor of the man who in 1975 refused my mother’s request to attend my baptism with the emphatic declaration, “There is no God!” 

"Apparently, the crack in the armor had also grown with time. In fact, just days before I arrived in Houston to have my last conversation with dad, mom had seen evidence of his change of heart. It was revealed in what would be her last conversation with him. In that conversation, she was telling my dad that she wanted the poem, “When I Must Leave You,” to be read at her funeral. Then she read the poem to him, which ends with this line: 

     And never, never be afraid to die.

      For I am waiting for you in the sky. 

"Upon hearing it, my father turned to my mother and said, “I know that I’m dying, Marilyn.” He paused and then he added, “I’ll wait for you.” Those were the last words he ever spoke to his wife of 62 years." . . .

Let’s Make Russia Our Sister Country!

"Historically, liberals show their manliness by demanding war with our friends and allies, while methodically undermining America's ability to fight the wars it's already in."

Ann Coulter  "The more hysterical liberals become about Russia, the more your antennae should go up. 

"Their selective misgivings with Russia are just like their selective alarm with (our ally) Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the nationalist Chinese government, and (our ally) Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam.

"As explained in lavish detail in Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, liberals instinctively lunge toward treason.

"They say Putin is a "thug" and a "bully" who kills journalists. Liberals never used to mind Russian leaders killing journalists. Nor millions of scientists, writers, Christians, Jews, kulaks, Ukrainians and the entire 1980 Soviet Olympic hockey team.

"Have you guys heard of the Evil Empire? Now Democrats are hypersensitive to a Russian leader's flaws?

"Liberals were cool with the show trials, the alliance with Hitler, the gulags, the forced starvations, the shooting down of American planes and goose-stepping through Eastern Europe.

"But that was when the Russian leader was Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev -- not the beast Putin!

"Back then, liberals were spying for Stalin (Julius Rosenberg's code name: "Liberal"), the U.S. president was calling the bloodthirsty dictator "Uncle Joe," and The New York Times was covering up Stalin's infamous crimes. In the storied history of fake news, the Times'
Walter Duranty  won a Pulitzer Prize for his false reports denying the Ukrainian famine, in which more than 7 million people were deliberately starved to death." . . .

"As far as the Times is concerned, those were Russia's halcyon days!

"Back when Russia was actually threatening America with nuclear annihilation, Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their "inordinate fear of communism." Sting sang that "the Russians love their children, too.”

"But now liberals are hopping mad with Putin. They could never forgive Russia for giving up communism. " . . .

Wonderful Opening Statement Of Neil Gorsuch contrasts with the conduct of Democrats

Weasel Zippers  "This was why he was chosen, obviously a man of intelligence and grace."

In contrast, here is what Democrats do:

Former Female Student, Jennifer Sisk, Making Allegations Against Gorsuch Has Ties to Obama, Democrats
. . . "Will Hauptman, a current law student at the University of Colorado who says he was in the same class as Sisk, also claims Sisk is misrepresenting the account. According to his LinkedIn profile, Hauptman has clerked for Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican.

“ 'Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of the topics mentioned in the letter, he did not do so in the manner described,” Hauptman wrote.

“ 'The judge was very matter-of-fact in that we would face difficult decisions; he himself recalled working late nights when he had a young child with whom he wished to share more time,” Hauptman continued. “The seriousness with which the judge asked us to consider these realities reflected his desire to make us aware of them, not any animus against a career or group.' ” . . .

In the end, politicians such as Schumer are the best reminder that we need more judges like Gorsuch.

"Schumer's chosen role as demagogue stands in stark contrast to what is demanded of judges and can be expected of Gorsuch."

Iraq then and now: Bush was right, and Obama was wrong

comicallyincorrect.com

Silvio Canto, Jr.  "We recall this week the 13th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War II.  It's a moment to reflect on a decision that still looks correct to me a decade later.

The first question we should ask is, what if President George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq?   

"The problem is that we always know what did happen as a result of a war, but we will never know what didn't happen.

"What if President Bush had not made the decision?  Let me suggest this scenario:   

1. Saddam Hussein would have become a bigger threat to the region and the U.S.  Saddam Hussein had clearly come to the conclusion that the West would not stop him and was acting as such. 

2. Iraq would have continued shooting at U.S. and U.K. planes enforcing U.N. resolutions.  How many times do you allow someone to fire missiles at your aircraft without interpreting it as an act of war?

3. What about Israel?  Saddam was not a friend of Israel.  What would the Middle East look like with Iraq and Iran threatening Israel?  Maybe Iran and Iraq would have gone to war again.  Or maybe they would have attacked Israel.  We do know today that Iraq won't be attacking Israel, nor does it have WMDs to threaten its neighbors.  We can thank President Bush for that.

"Yes, Bush's critics need to answer one simple question: what if Bush had not invaded Iraq?

"So far, I have not heard anyone explain to me how the region would have been better if we had left Saddam in power.  All I hear is that we lost 4,400 men and lots of treasure.  Yes, that's a serious cost, especially since one of my fellow ushers at church lost a son in Iraq.    

"Or they say "knowing what we know now," a silly question at best.  Leaders don't make decisions that way.  They have to make a call based on what we knew then.  What we knew in September 2001 is that the Twin Towers had been brought down, Saddam Hussein was behaving very badly, and no one wanted a nuclear 9/11.

"It's very easy to say that nothing would have had happened.  We knew Saddam's intentions to push his weight around the region.  If Americans have learned anything since 9/11, it is that when people say they intend to kill you, please take them seriously.

"The second question is, what if President Obama had left a force in Iraq in 2011 to protect our gains?  This is a more relevant question, and the Middle East is Exhibit A of what our retreat accomplished.

"For the moment, President Bush gets all of the criticism about Iraq, and President Obama gets a free pass from friendly media.  Over time, it will change, and President Bush will get credit for leadership, and President Obama will be blamed for retreating and forcing his successor to have to go back in." 

Oops! CNN accidentally confirms story that Brit intell passed along Trump communications to Obama admin

Thomas Lifson  "Lawyers are trained never to ask a question of a witness if they don’t already know the answer. But it is quite different in journalism – at least in principle, if the principle is getting at the truth. But alas, in these days of fake news and fanatical dead-ender opposition to President Trump, those MSM TV networks committed to driving Trump from office might want to consider retraining for their talking heads. Make them more like lawyers and avoid embarrassnents like that suffered by CNN’s Brian Stelter.

"Courtesy of Grabien, here is a disastrous interview in which the guest, Larry Johnson, confirmed the story that Judge Andrew Napolitano told on-air about British intelligence passing along surveillance data involving the Trump administration." . . .

"Here is the rush transcript:

STELTER: “Let me ask you about this thing.”
JOHNSON: “Sure.”
STELTER: “So my sense is that on Monday, Napolitano says this on TV, he says he has Intel sources who believe this is true. You’re saying you were one of those sources, but you didn’t know Napolitano was going to use you like that?”
JOHNSON: “What happened was I communicated, when Donald Trump tweeted what he did Saturday two weeks ago, the next day I was interviewed on Russia today. I had known about the fact that the British, through ghcq were information back channel, this was not at the behest of Barack Obama, let’s be clear about that. But it was done with the full knowledge of people like John Brennan and Jake clapper. Two people I flow within the intelligence community in January, they were very concerned about this because they saw it as an unfair meddling in the politics, but it was a way to get around the issue of American intelligence agencies not collecting.”
STELTER: “To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn’t get this information directly, you’re hearing from others.
JOHNSON: “I’m hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that’s correct.”

Trump’s Wiretap Allegation Was a Self-Inflicted Wound

The White House is quickly discovering that the rest of the government won’t back up any old accusation the president levels.

National Review  "Can a bombshell be completely expected? Testifying in front of Congress this morning, FBI Director James Comey said he has seen no evidence to support President Trump’s accusation, first leveled weeks ago on Twitter, that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 general election: “We don’t have any information that supports those tweets,” he declared flatly. 

"By refusing, over and over again, to back down from Trump’s original, farfetched charge, his administration has inflicted a lot of completely unnecessary damage upon itself, and even upon the so-called special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. This is what happens when the White House prioritizes winning the daily news cycle above all else. This is the natural result of an amazingly shortsighted approach to governing. 

"Recall that all this began, as so many Trump controversies do, with an early morning tweet:" . . .

Was Chelsea Clinton's new book, She Persisted, inspired by Paula Jones?

Ed Straker  "Chelsea Clinton has written (or at least someone has written) a new book calledShe Persisted about great people in history who didn't give up – as long as they weren't men.  You have to wonder what the inspiration for this book was (besides money).

Some thoughts:

1) Do you think Chelsea was moved by the story of Paula Jones?  Ms. Jones accused Chelsea's dad, Bill Clinton, of sexually assaulting her.  Mr. and Mrs. Clinton assaulted Jones's character, but she sued and settled for $850,000 from the Clintons.  She persisted!2) If Chelsea had written a biographical account of her father's sexual conquests, do you think instead of "She Persisted" it would have been entitled "She Resisted"?  If she did write the book about President Clinton, do you think it would have been most appropriately done as a pop-up book for kids?3) If Chelsea had written the book about her mother, do you think it might have been entitled "She Persisted (but not in Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin)"?4) Do you think Chelsea will have read the book's contents before it is published?5) Below is what is allegedly a photo of Chelsea as well as a photo of a young Princess Leia from Rogue One.  Can you guess which photo is computer-generated (CGI)?

6) If you put the photo of Chelsea in front of a brick wall and come back two hours later, will the brick wall have two holes bored through it?7) Can we ever expect Chelsea to write a book that will have men in it?8) How many of the female "she persisted" stories do you think will feature Muslim women?9) I noticed that Hillary Clinton is not featured in the book, which is about "13 women who changed the world."  Do you think Mrs. Clinton could have been in the book if it had been about "13 women who almost changed the world"?

Endquote.