Connect with us

Opinions

Trump makes another bribery payment to corn country ahead of Iowa caucuses

Published

on

Trump makes another bribery payment to corn country ahead of Iowa caucuses

When Democrats passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, they succeeded in setting mandatory Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) that required ever-increasing amounts of ethanol be blended into gasoline.

Despite documented evidence of ethanol’s damage to consumers and the environment, RFS grew into a taxpayer-subsidized, crony-capitalist, corporate welfare program where the government picked energy winners (Big Corn) and losers (everyone else).

Even though RFS was a key piece of the radical environmentalists’ puzzle, key Democrats involved in the push for biofuels admitted last year they had made a mistake with the ethanol mandate and introduced legislation to phase out corn-based ethanol.

“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, how did Trump respond to this admission of failure? Since it was the 2018 election season, he did what he always does when an election is at stake — use bribery to steal votes and support. Trump promised to take care of Republicans and producers of corn by protecting and expanding ethanol production.

Leveraging the ethanol issue for political gain isn’t new for the New York Liberal.

Leading up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses, Trump unsuccessfully tried to beat Ted Cruz — who opposed RFS — by promising to increase ethanol production. And in October 2017, Trump bribed King Corn by overruling former EPA head, Scott Pruitt’s effort to rein in RFS after Iowa Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst and a handful of other RINOs representing corn-producing states lobbied Trump to do so.

I predicted during the 2018 midterms that once they were over and Trump moved into 2020 campaign mode that he would most likely go all-in on corn-based ethanol in preparation for Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential nominating contest.

Yesterday, Trump confirmed my prediction when new EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler released a possibly illegal rule lifting the summer ban on higher-ethanol blends of gasoline (E15).

“Consistent with President Trump’s direction, EPA is working to propose and finalize these changes by the summer driving season. We will be holding a public hearing at the end of this month to gather important feedback.”

Summertime bans on E15 were imposed years ago over concerns that it made smog worse. And according to the American Petroleum Institute, this rule change could cause consumers to lose the warranty on their vehicle.

Renewable Fuel Standards cost a fortune, fail to reduce pollution, and destroy automobiles, but Trump will do what he thinks best … not for America, but for his 2020 campaign.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is 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

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Healthcare

San Francisco demonstrates pure hypocrisy by wanting to boot Juul

Published

on

San Francisco demonstrates pure hypocrisy by wanting to boot Juul

Some believe vape products are a wonderful way to stop cigarette smoking, both for those who are currently smokers as well for future smokers. Others see it as a gateway through which kids can become addicted to nicotine and eventually start smoking real cigarettes. That’s a debate that should be happening through education and public awareness. Unfortunately, San Francisco doesn’t believe in people being able to think for themselves properly, so they’ve decided to consider another measure that will protect the people from their own stupidity.

At the center of this measure is Juul, the fast-growing vape company that happens to be based in San Francisco. Lawmakers have been out in force proclaiming the company is evil and how they don’t want them anywhere near San Francisco. They don’t want e-cigarettes sold in the city. They don’t want the people to be able to have them shipped to the city. They don’t want them used in the city.

Let’s keep in mind that this is a city with more drug addicts than public school students, a rampant homelessness problem, and so many regulations that people need a herd of lawyers just to navigate the process of trying to do business there. They’ve elevated the cost of living to be so prohibitive, only the truly wealthy can live there comfortably, yet it’s a city that proclaims to be caring of their fellow men. In reality, they’ve crafted an authoritarian society within the boundaries of the United States that has been empowered to subvert rights at a grand scale.

Here’s their grand plan:

One bill that Herrera and Walton introduced at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting would ban the sale and shipment of e-cigarettes to San Francisco stores and customer addresses until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration begins a vetting process known as a pre-market review, in which manufacturers must prove their products are appropriate for public health before selling them on the market.

The city already bans youth-friendly flavors like candy and fruit in tobacco products through Proposition E, which voters passed in 2018. Physical stores are barred from selling them. The bill would ban all e-cigarettes regardless of flavor so long as they contain nicotine, and it would also ban the shipment of such items to private residences in San Francisco.

The second bill would ban companies that sell, manufacture and distribute tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, from city property. San Francisco already prohibits tobacco companies from doing business on city property, and this measure would explicitly add e-cigarettes to the existing ban. The proposed bill would not be applied retroactively, so it would not kick Juul out of its current space at Pier 70, but it would prevent e-cigarette companies from leasing city property in the future.

Juul is not producing an illegal substance. It has not been accused of breaking other laws in the way it operates its business. Studies have been done with mixed results about whether or not Juul is a gateway for nicotine use by children, which is why the city voted to ban fruity and other kid-friendly flavors. But rather than address the actual problems within their dysfunctional city, they’d rather draw attention to the evils of vaping.

It’s a wonder how any Libertarians or liberty-loving conservatives can continue living there. It’s the nanny state of nanny states.

San Francisco has become a punchline of a city. They don’t believe in individual rights. They do believe that government can and should try to solve everything. If any American city needs an infusion of conservatism, it’s San Francisco.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report