Connect with us

Politics

Good news: Dems admit ethanol mandate failed – Bad news: Trump promised to save it

Published

on

During the 2016 GOP presidential primaries, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took a political gamble leading up to the Iowa caucus when he called for major changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, including a call to end ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, Donald Trump praised ethanol and called for raising the standard in an attempt to curry enough political favor in the Big Corn state to beat Cruz. Despite the reality that most of the corn used in ethanol production came from Iowa, Cruz beat Trump.

Created as a means to combat so-called climate change, the RFS required that ever-increasing amounts of ethanol be blended into gasoline. And despite documented evidence of ethanol’s damage to consumers and the environment, the RFS became little more than another taxpayer-subsidized, crony-capitalist, corporate-welfare program where the federal government picks the winners (Big Corn) and the losers (everyone else).

In a sort of good news/bad news announcement last week, key Democrats behind the biofuel push contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 announced that they had “made a mistake” with the ethanol mandate, and they introduced new legislation to fix it.

“The law hasn’t worked out as we intended,” said former California Congressman and Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman. Following a joint call with reporters, Waxman joined current members of Congress, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Sen Tom Udall (D-NM), to introduce legislation that will phase out corn-based ethanol. Speaking for the group, Welch said:

“We’ve now had more than a decade of experience with it, and it had the best of intentions. But it has turned out to be a well-intended flop.

“It actually doesn’t cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, it expands them. It’s had a significant impact on overplanting in fragile areas of the corn belt. It has had significant impacts on small engines. And it’s also had a significant impact on feed prices … and there is a lot of evidence it has increased the cost of food.”

So, that’s the good news. The bad news is that Trump promised to protect corn-based ethanol and he, along with a host of ethanol-loving Republicans from red state producers of corn, wants the RFS to stay.

It was just a few months ago that Trump caved to Big Corn when he overruled an effort by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to make major modifications to the RFS following heavy resistance from a gang of Midwestern Senators led by Chuck Grassley. And with his reelection campaign officially launched, Trump will be in campaign mode for the rest of his first term as he prepares for Iowa in 2020.

Trump promised in 2016 to protect ethanol mandates, a promise that he’s already bragged about keeping. And even though he’s demonstrated a propensity to break his promises when politically convenient, it’s very likely that Trump will continue to keep his ethanol promise to Iowa.

Not because it’s good for America, but because it’s good for his campaign.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement
5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Matthew Frihart

    March 12, 2018 at 9:44 am

    I gotta say on this one, trump is wrong. Hopefully he’ll get more info and come around.

  2. Dogood

    March 12, 2018 at 10:12 am

    This is one promise I hope Trump doesn’t keep, but I’m afraid he will. Yet he’s deregulating as much as he can via executive actions.

  3. Larry Folds

    March 12, 2018 at 11:10 am

    Trump is only a little better than a democrat president. He has totally blown up the gun rights people in favor of gun control, not common sense control, just plain gun control. He has signaled the anti-gun lobby to go after the NRA and us, the gun owners. He told Feinstein to put her dream list of guns to ban and Marco Rubio is helping her. Cornyn is showing his anti-gun colors by depriving 18-21 year olds of their rights, may as well take their voting rights away if we can’t trust them to carry a gun even to go hunting. Roberts of KS is showing his anti-gun colors and on and on it goes all because Trump call them the cover to do it. FL and IL has already banned whole groups from purchasing weapons to defend themselves. Trump is a traitor and I will not support him in the future. Yeah, he made nice with the NRA but his dog whistle has already blown and now he tries to distance himself so he can have his cake and eat it too.

  4. Steve in Missouri

    March 12, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    The corn or grain alcohol mandate not likely to be overcome. Going by these enormous ethanol factories in corn growing areas on roads and highways, they are enormous buildings and grain storage bins on the plains. I had gone by them in Kansas, but they are all over in the corn growing areas, they have turned farm communities into factory, industrial centers. I’m sure it will be enormously difficult to change now that it’s been instituted on a widespread scale.
    Definitely politics, and electoral college politics are involved. Thousands, if not millions of jobs are involved.
    International fuel alcohol programs are widespread as well. I think Brazil has an enormous sugar cane industry, nearly 600 million tons of sugar cane, much of it converted to ethanol to supply vehicle fuel, while biomass is used to produce electricity.
    Even with that, due to sugar being produced from the sugar cane and being more cost effective than alcohol, Brazil has at times imported ethanol for vehicle fuel from the US.

    • Charlie Peters

      April 9, 2018 at 1:24 pm

      Ethanol Waiver for Clean Air & Clean Water

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kamala Harris pushes fraudulent ‘petition’ to build her 2020 fundraising spam list

Published

on

The worlds of marketing and political campaigning have many things in common. Their intention is to persuade people. They’re both selling something. They employ tested colors, designs, and buzzwords to get people excited. One of the keys to their success is something called “list-building.”

With ballots from the 2018 elections still being counted, Senator Kamala Harris is wasting no time building her 2020 list. To do it, she’s employing a deceptive technique, promoting an online “petition” that’s really nothing more than a way to get people to willingly give her campaign their contact information. These people will be targeted with campaign fundraisers later.

No official announcement has been made about her 2020 presidential run, but it’s hard to believe she’s not running after purchasing 1,100 Facebook ads to promote these “petitions.” A Facebook ad doesn’t have a set cost, but we can assume big money is being put into these list-building ads because of the sheer volume. To put it into perspective, Beto O’Rourke spent around $5 million on Facebook ads for his Senate campaign. Presidential campaigns can easily spend 25 times as much as an expensive Senate campaign.

Unlike a valid petition people often sign to get a candidate or proposition on a ballot, these list-building petitions don’t actually do anything. People are told they’re demanding this action or that, but in the end they’re just giving over information. Some go so far as to ask for everything, including name, address, phone numbers, email, and occasionally even income. These lists grow much more slowly because of the depth of the information requested.

A more common technique is to ask for minimal data to encourage people to fill it out. At the end of the day, all a campaign really needs is an email address they can later use in fundraising campaigns. Here’s an example of an ad Senator Harris’ campaign recently put out:

Kamala Harris Petition

The meta data reveals the page was titled, “Acquisition: 180822 Mueller FB.”

“FB” means it was a Facebook campaign. “Mueller” was the topic. “180822” is the tracking number for A/B testing. “Acquisition” is the goal. Anyone who signed this “petition” has just had their contact information acquired. Mission accomplished. They will soon be receiving emails asking them to donate to the Kamala Harris 2020 presidential election fund.

As for the results of the “petition,” they will go nowhere. There won’t be a Congressional action that is enabled by the thousands of people who “signed” it. You won’t see Kamala Harris standing in front of the White House reading off the names of the people who participated in the “petition.” She couldn’t do that even if she wanted to because the “petition” only asks for a first name. Are there really people out there who believe signing a petition only requires a first name?

Senator Harris is promoting fraudulent petitions with the sole purpose if building her 2020 fundraising spam list. Anyone who “signs” it believing they’re demanding protection for Robert Mueller is a sucker. That’s exactly who she wants to target.

Continue Reading

News

Florida update: Rick Scott almost certain to win

Published

on

Florida update Rick Scott almost certain to win

By now, Rick Scott should be transitioning into the Senate and Bill Nelson should be looking for a new job. Instead, we’re having to wait a few more days until it all gets sorted out in the election-challenged state of Florida.

The good news for Scott, the current Republican governor, is that when the dust settles, he will be declared the winner.

Over 4,000 ballots are in bad-signature limbo, meaning they are currently being rejected over signatures that do not match what’s on record in 45 Florida county election offices. No word on how many ballots were rejected in the 22 other Florida counties.

Currently, Nelson trails Scott by around 12,500 votes.

With half a dozen lawsuits crossing the state over every voting issue imaginable right now, there will be legal proceedings that go well beyond the election’s final results. As it stands now, we won’t get those final results until a manual recount. The state’s threshold following a machine recount is .25%. Scott’s lead is currently at .14%.

My Take

It’s better to get elections results right than to get them swiftly. Both sides have used legal maneuvers to promote their causes, and while this can be an annoyance to voters while forcing the rest of the nation to collectively scratch our heads, it’s imperative that they see this all the way through to the end.

Republicans are wrong to be in a hurry to certify results because in such a close race, we as Americans should hope every valid vote is counted and every invalid vote is rejected. They’re in a hurry because there’s nothing to gain for the party by prolonging a race they’ve won. It’s understandable, but misguided.

Democrats are wrong on multiple levels. First, it’s becoming more and more clear that someone, whether it be election officials like Brenda Snipes, secret groups with ballot access trying to cheat, or a combination of the two, is trying to tip the scales in favor of Democrats. Second, some of their delay techniques and legal maneuvers won’t do anything to change the election results but are intended to taint the GOP wins. Third, their attacks through the media on Republicans, including Scott and governor-elect Ron DeSantis, have been unnecessarily brutal.

While it’s very likely Rick Scott will be declared the winner… someday… this latest series of incidents highlights two things: Florida’s election incompetence and forces working on behalf of Democrats to steal elections any way they can.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report