Author

C. DOUGLAS GOLDEN

Browsing

In a 2012 interview, top-flight Canadian Scrabble player Robin Pollock Daniel let a bit of light in on what the game is really all about: “Words are involved but, to me at least, it’s more about math,” she told The Star. “You don’t have to know what the word means, but you do have to know that it’s an acceptable configuration.”

Daniel’s interview was cited two years later by The Guardian’s Stephen Moss in an article about playing Scrabble at the highest levels.

“Scrabble is not for people who love words and language; it’s for people who like patterns. The secret is not to make an inspiring word — LAMBENT, LAGOON and LISSOM (what a waste of the S) won’t get you very far in Scrabble,” he wrote. “Ridiculous little words used in combination on high-scoring squares will.

“As Daniel says, it’s a spatial game more than a semantic one, which explains why many of the world’s top players hail from Thailand. They concentrate on structures rather than meanings. Indeed, it has been argued that speaking English is a disadvantage in top-flight Scrabble, where the true champion relies on a battery of memorized pseudo-words.”

All of this explains why, at those lofty levels, the game still contains racial, ethnic and sexual slurs. Now, they’re slated to be gone — even as some players who the slurs are aimed at don’t necessarily think they should be expurgated.

According to a Tuesday piece by David Waldstein in The New York Times, the North American Scrabble Players Association will ban 226 words that many would find offensive. The words had been axed from the regular players’ dictionary back in 1994.

However, at the highest levels, where words are little more than building blocks, they’re still in there. In fact, competitive players of all stripes had lobbied to keep them the dictionary at the time, which led to the compromise that meant the competitive Scrabble community would be able to keep the old dictionary.

Perhaps not anymore. On Tuesday, Hasbro — the toy-making giant which owns the rights to Scrabble in North America — says the NASPA has “agreed to remove all slurs from their word list for Scrabble tournament play, which is managed solely by NASPA and available only to members.”

“Technically, Hasbro has no control over the 192,111 playable words on the word list used by the players’ association, but it does license the organization to use the name Scrabble, and it is not eager to see slurs associated with its brand. It said it was committed to ‘providing an experience that is inclusive and enjoyable for all,’” The Times reported.

“We may be split quite evenly as a community about what we should do, but that is because we have insulated ourselves from the rest of the world, clinging to the notion that our use of words is privileged,” NASPA CEO John Chew said in a statement. “The world has moved on past us, and as more than 90% of our outside poll respondents told us, it is time for us to catch up or be left behind.

“As has been reported in the media, during our meeting with Hasbro, I personally agreed with them that all the slurs should come out of our lexicon. It’s the right thing to do, and I will make sure that it happens. I have asked the Advisory Board to vote their consciences, because I think this is an important moment in the history of our association. Everyone should know how their board represented them on this weighty issue.”

Now, let’s be clear: These aren’t just a few questionable words. In fact, there are very few I can write here without censoring them.

“Baldie” and “fatso” are two of them. So are “abortuary” and “comsymp” (an “abortuary” is defined by the Scrabble-meisters at Merriam-Webster as “a place where abortions are performed — used as a term of contempt by opponents of abortion” and a comsymp is a communist sympathizer, so I think we can tell where everyone’s sympathies lay here. For the record, I’m down with both and plan to work them into conversation this week.)

However, a goodly portion of the words are unusable in everyday conversation. Some of them clearly aren’t workplace friendly and some of them are a good bit worse.

There are anti-Semitic slurs, racial slurs, ethnic slurs, national slurs. And yes, even that word is there — that contemptible six-letter anti-black slur and all of its offshoots. (A complete list is here, with the words scrambled. If you want to put them in a word de-scrambler, you can find out what the words are — although I warn you, this is graphic language. Reader discretion is advised.)

This is, in other contexts, vile stuff.

The problem is decontextualizing the decontextualization of these words. In Scrabble, they’re not linguistic constructs. They’re ways to score points. and there are plenty of people within the Scrabble community — including those who the slurs are aimed at — who want to keep them.

Steven Alexander, a white, Jewish man who argued to keep the words back in the 1990s, says he’s now willing to get rid of some of the more obvious offenders.

“The one word that has actually been used to rally mobs into terrorism is the N-word,” he said. “It’s a word of conspiracy, a tool of oppression. If Black people demand something, a white person like me shouldn’t necessarily put their views first.”

And there are black players who oppose removing any of the words.

“If I’m going to lose the game playing a different word, then I’m going to use that word,” said Noel Livermore, a black player from Florida. “I need to score points and on that board, they don’t have any meaning.”

He called Scrabble “a numbers game disguised as a word game.”

The best quote in the piece belongs to Columbia University linguistics professor John McWhorter.

His take was that it should be the black players deciding on the words — because if it wasn’t, it was basically white people “testifying to their goodness as anti-racists.” He also came up with a reasonable compromise involving using asterisk tiles so that people didn’t have to stare at a slur on the board.

For those of you who can stomach the Notorious NYT, I encourage you to read Waldstein’s piece, which is probably the best explication of the issue I’ve seen out there.

It manages to come close-ish to the heart of the issue without judging the players who want to keep the words in. It still neglects the key objection to removing these words right now, however.

In one sense, they’re words. They may not be words we like, but they’re words. For the last quarter-century, the game of hardcore Scrabble has continued to develop with these words in the equation.

The NASPA has decided, with no small degree of felicitousness, that this is the time to take them out. However, in another sense, they’ve been entirely decontextualized here.

And McWhorter is right; this isn’t much more than people “testifying to their goodness as anti-racists.” The dictionary doesn’t change much and the words carry the weight they always have, at least in a modern context.

All that’s changed is the moment. Even then, this accomplishes very little, forcing competitive Scrabble players to learn which words they can’t use.

If that’s progress, it’s certainly a very odd version of it.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: Words Now Being Axed by Scrabble Association To Avoid Offending Anyone

Does Joe Biden really want to co-sign the World Health Organization’s lies?

The answer is “yes,” judging by the messaging coming out of the Biden campaign, at least now that big news of the week is bound to be President Donald Trump’s administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization.

A report from Fox News on Tuesday confirmed that the administration had informed the United Nations of its decision to withdraw from the global health organization, in July of 2021.

The move wasn’t exactly a surprise; the administration had, for weeks, been attacking the group for its handling of the pandemic and a perceived pro-China bias.

In fact, Trump had more or less already announced the dissolution of America’s bonds with the organization:

“Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms, we will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving, urgent global public health needs,” Trump told reporters during a May 29 event at the White House, according to a White House transcript.

“We have detailed the reforms that it must make and engaged with them directly, but they have refused to act,” Trump said.

However, the administration’s decision to notify Congress and the U.N. was an opportunity for Democrats to be outraged anew:

That’s New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decrying President Trump’s decision to leave the WHO as an act that “leaves Americans sick & America alone” and “is crippling the international effort to defeat the virus.”

One expects that kind of rhetoric from the speaker and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. They’re both from safe seats and don’t particularly need to hedge their speech to play for votes. (Menendez won re-election in deep-blue New Jersey in 2018 even after a mistrial on seamy corruption charges that were originally brought by federal prosecutors during the Obama administration.)

Former Vice President Joe Biden? As a man trying to convince Americans to elect him to the White House in November, he might want to be more careful. He wasn’t.

Notice that Biden doesn’t even bother to defend the WHO here. Instead, he merely says that we’re “safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health.” The assumption that undergirds all of this — I would argue falsely — is the idea that the WHO as currently constituted can strengthen global health and that the United States is better off cooperating with a flawed organization than going it on our own.

Now, to be fair, most of what can be done on the first day of a presidency is only limited by the amount of messaging you can cram into a busy news cycle via executive orders. It’s supposed to set the tone for the next four years to come. The rest is saved for the symbolic first 100 days.

For instance, on Trump’s first day in office, he signed executive orders freezing new government regulations and ordering federal agencies to roll back Obamacare provisions. Both made good on major campaign promises.

Former President Obama, meanwhile, signed orders aimed at prohibiting administration advisers from exiting directly from government to lobbying and freezing the salaries of White House employees. The former was a major campaign promise, the latter a symbolic move amid the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

If he gets a “first day as President,” Joe Biden has signaled he’ll sign us back on with an organization that published this Twitter post in January:

While COVID-related executive orders would no doubt be among Biden’s first-day priorities if he’s elected, signing back on with the WHO — an organization that praised China effusively and avouched for its word during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic — is indicative of what Biden’s priorities are.

China lied about how early it knew about the novel coronavirus and the extent of it, silenced doctors and others who talked about it, attempted to control it with draconian measures and lied about its numbers.

And, at every stage of the process, the WHO played right along. They weren’t ignorant, either. The Associated Press reported last month that “WHO officials were lauding China in public because they wanted to coax more information out of the government” but that “[p]rivately, they complained in meetings the week of Jan. 6 that China was not sharing enough data to assess how effectively the virus spread between people or what risk it posed to the rest of the world, costing valuable time “

One of Joe Biden’s very first priorities would be to rejoin this august group — a group which we provide exactly one-fifth of every dollar — 10 times more than China provides, according to Fox New. Yet WHO is curiously deferential to Beijing.

One of Joe Biden’s very first priorities would be to rejoin this august group — a group which we provide exactly one-fifth of every dollar — 10 times more than China provides, according to Fox New. Yet WHO is curiously deferential to Beijing.

Do voters share Biden’s priorities? It depends on which metric you look at — and what President Trump does about it.

In terms of leaving the WHO, to the extent voters have an opinion, at least one poll indicated they opposed it. An internet-based survey of 1,500 respondents conducted between May 29 and June 2 by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 4 and conducted between May 31 and June 2, found that 46 percent somewhat or strongly disagreed with the decision, compared with 33 percent who somewhat or strongly agreed with it. (The poll’s 3.2 percent margin of error wouldn’t significantly affect the conclusion that idea is more unpopular than not.)

Perhaps most importantly, however, 22 percent weren’t sure.

However, that’s apparently because most Americans trust the WHO as an organization. A week later, a Pew Research Center released a poll that showed 51 percent of U.S. adults felt the WHO’s response to the coronavirus was only fair or poor, compared with 46 percent who said it was good or excellent. (Again, the margin of error of 1.4 percent doesn’t significantly change the outcome.)

The poll, conducted via a web-based survey of 10,957 U.S. adults, unsurprisingly found that response was drawn along partisan lines, with 70 percent of Republicans disapproving compared with 62 percent of Democrats who approved.

The major takeaway from Wednesday’s decision to put the World Health Organization on notice is that Trump plans to make it an issue going forward in the campaign — and this scanty body of polling will fill itself out nicely before November, probably not to the advantage of Joe Biden. All President Trump has to do is go back to the WHO’s messaging on the coronavirus, which has been an effective tactic in the past.

On Wednesday, according to the AP, the State Department said it would continue to work with the WHO in order to reform the body. However, it pointed reporters toward this quote by President Trump: “I’m not reconsidering, unless they get their act together, and I’m not sure they can at this point.”

Between now and the first Tuesday in November, the Trump campaign is going to be contrasting that statement with Biden’s tweet. It’s also going to make plenty of hay regarding the WHO’s dismal record when it comes to the coronavirus.

If Joe Biden thinks this is something that’s worth doing on the first day in office, wait until voters hear about those priorities.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: Biden Makes Stupidest ‘First Day in Office’ Promise Ever

There was a bit of video that caught my eye from President Donald Trump’s visit to Mount Rushmore, courtesy of CNN.

“This is our country at its very best,” Trump is seen saying at the beginning of the clip, looking up misty-eyed at the monument, a bit awed. “What an incredible achievement.”

“Visiting Mount Rushmore today, President Trump taking in the majesty of the moment,” the CNN voice-over says, the narrator sounding himself a bit awed. “This monument to four great American presidents.”

“Just the accomplishment and the beauty, it really does make one very proud to be an American,” the president says in the video.

“Trump has his own mountain to climb,” the narrator says, referring to the election. He sounds a bit hopeful, though.

I’m sorry, I got that all wrong.

That was actually a 2016 clip involving Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders visiting the South Dakota monument during a swing out West during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Just replace every reference to Trump in the above transcript with Sanders’ name and it’s accurate, though.

Want to guess how Trump’s visit to Mount Rushmore got covered on CNN four years later?

“President Trump will be at Mount Rushmore, where he’ll be standing in front of a monument of two slave owners and on land wrestled away from Native Americans,” CNN correspondent Leyla Santiago said Friday. “I’m told that, uh, he’ll be focusing on the effort to ‘tear down our country’s history.’”

I’m told that, uh, he wasn’t inaccurate.

After all, four years ago, Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were still slaveowners. This wasn’t information recently unearthed from musty books in dimly lit library reading rooms. (The other two presidents featured on the face of the mountain haven’t fared too well, either, in the face of the statue-toppling mob.)

It wasn’t just CNN spreading this message in the run-up to the Independence Day weekend, which I needn’t tell you. The New York Times — which called Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore “dark and divisive” when it was anything but — used the occasion to run an article titled, “How Mount Rushmore Became Mount Rushmore.” Spoiler alert: American malfeasance.

“Native Americans have long criticized the sculpture, in part because it was built on what had been Indigenous land. And more recently, amid a nationwide movement against racism that has toppled statues commemorating Confederate generals and other historical figures, some activists have called for Mount Rushmore to close,” The Times reported Wednesday.

The article cast a very specific light on how the original sculptor for the project, Gutzon Borglum, carved the bas relief sculpture of Confederate figures at Stone Mountain in Georgia and had links to the Ku Klux Klan.

Then there was the original sin of stealing the land from the Lakota Tribe, which considers it sacred ground. Then there were the various sins of the presidents on Mount Rushmore — who, for whatever reason, weren’t as enlightened as today’s college students.

“Visitors look upon the faces of those presidents and extol the virtues that they believe make America the country it is today,” Harold Frazier, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, said in a statement, adding that the monument was a “brand on our flesh” that must be done away with.

“Lakota see the faces of the men who lied, cheated and murdered innocent people whose only crime was living on the land they wanted to steal,” he said.

It’s more difficult to watch the goalposts shift when you’re talking about reading pieces in The New York Times than when you’re watching the same scene four years apart. It’s much more obvious when you look at the CNN clip and realize how it treated the same monument when it’s four years apart and a different political ideology is involved.

The renewed context is supposed to be that we’re reassessing monuments in the wake of the protests. But I thought the media was supposed to be enlightened about this sort of thing. Why are we reassessing them now when CNN has always had the answers?

The reason is obvious: It’s an election year and Donald Trump is on the ballot.

George Floyd and the protests his death in police custody touched off are only a pretext.

If Trump had visited South Dakota right after the election, while Barack Obama was still the president, I could conceivably see CNN urging the former president to order an airstrike on the monument.

Thankfully, Bernie Sanders got to see Mount Rushmore in all its “majesty” before it got canceled.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: CNN Demonized Trump’s Visit to Rushmore, 4 Years Earlier Celebrated ‘Majesty’ of Bernie’s Trip

Strange (and sometimes fake) Craigslist ads regarding President Donald Trump’s rallies are nothing particularly new.

When they encourage people with COVID-19 to show up at a rally and spread the disease, however, that’s when things have turned very toxic.

A post since flagged for removal on the Tulsa, Oklahoma, Craigslist site — but viewable via archive.is — purportedly looked to recruit people infected with the novel coronavirus to attend Trump’s planned rally Saturday at Tulsa’s Bank of Oklahoma Center. It’s the first Trump campaign rally since the coronavirus pandemic shutdown mass gatherings across the country.

“If you have been diagnosed as having the Covid virus and really want to make a difference, we are hiring 20 of you to work in a large scale test on transmission of the virus,” the ad stated.

“Please assemble outside the BOK convention center on Saturday night wearing all black or if arriving in a group of 4, please dress in the following manner:

One dressed in all white

One dressed in all black

One dressed in coveralls

One barefoot or wearing flip flops.

This will make it easy to identify you.

“Singers, or people with a bad cough preferred.”

Trump’s rally has been controversial in the mainstream media due to the possibility of COVID-19 transmission, something that’s interesting coming from a media that has collectively covered one of the largest clusters of mass protests since the 1960s with barely a mention of contagion.

There’s a difference, however, between worries about coronavirus transmission and an actor actively seeking coronavirus transmission. Which raises the question: Who posted the ad?

As I mentioned right off the top, this would hardly be the first hoax Craigslist ad that has to do with Trump’s rallies.

In fact, this wouldn’t even be the first hoax ad associated with the Trump rally in Tulsa, assuming it is a fake.

PolitiFact reported on a previous post that advertised for “[e]xcited and enthusiastic MINORITY actors and actresses needed to hold signs at event in Tulsa.”

“Send headshot/resume for early consideration. *This may be applied towards community service if necessary (in lieu of payment).”

The ad, which has since been removed, was unsurprisingly found to be a fake by PolitiFact.

However, there’s a huge difference between a fake ad designed to make the Trump campaign look racist and one that actively endangers the lives of those attending the rally on Saturday.

This is likely someone involved in a sick hoax, an internet troll desperate for attention. The strange language of the ad — particularly the odd dress requirements — make this seem like a prank that seemed like a good idea at 4 a.m. in a college dorm room somewhere after more than a few intoxicating beverages.

The problem is that someone might actually take this call to action seriously, given that there are more enough people who have become convinced Trump is the nexus of evil in this world and that the supporters who show up to his rallies are nothing less than Satan’s minions.

How many of these people have COVID-19 is another matter entirely. As of Tuesday, there had been 1,729 confirmed cases in Tulsa County, according to the Tulsa Health Department.

Finding someone infected with both the coronavirus and with a case of Trump Derangement Syndrome serious enough to try to spread infection at a Trump rally may be difficult, but certainly not impossible — and that’s what’s so dangerous about this ad. It’s essentially looking to place a human biological weapon inside a crowded event simply because of the political affiliation of those attending.

If this is a Trump supporter looking to make the other side look bad, that’s even worse. One would hope no one would be so stupid as to do something like that, but someone was either dull or evil enough to post this ad in the first place, so that can’t be excluded.

Whatever the case, one hopes the Secret Service is investigating this.

We don’t know the intent behind the ad, but we can sure guess the potential effect. This could potentially end up killing people.

The responsibility for this should lie solely on whoever posted it, but we ought to consider the toxic environment in which this could even be considered possible. It’s wildly implausible that this would have happened during any prior presidency. But the country has been been whipped up to the extent that an ad like this, sadly, feels almost inevitable.

There are lessons about Trump Derangement Syndrome be learned from this. Will we learn them? That’s hoping too much.

The extent of our hope in this case is that the person or persons involved in this are tracked down and dealt with accordingly. Given that this is nothing less than a call to use oneself as a silent, deadly weapon, the possibility of criminal charges should definitely be on the table.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: Craigslist Ad Sought People Infected with COVID To Attend Trump Rally

It’s a number that informed so many of our public policy decisions regarding COVID-19: 3.4 percent.

On March 3, in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus made a remark during a media briefing that guided how we viewed the threat posed by the novel coronavirus.

“While many people globally have built up immunity to seasonal flu strains, COVID-19 is a new virus to which no one has immunity. That means more people are susceptible to infection, and some will suffer severe disease,” Tedros said during the briefing.

“Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected.”

Now, was this based on incomplete information? Of course.

At some level, it’s difficult to blame individuals working from a very limited data set.

On the other hand, that limited data set influenced how we approached the disease — and it turns out that, if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current “best estimate” of the COVID-19 death rate is accurate, it’s 13 times lower than the initial WHO claim.

According to statistics “based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020,” the death rate from COVID-19 could be as low as 0.26 percent.

The numbers are based on the newest of “five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios that are designed to help inform decisions by modelers and public health officials who utilize mathematical modeling,” the CDC said.

“Each scenario is based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19. These values — called parameter values — can be used to estimate the possible effects of COVID-19 in U.S. states and localities. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19.”

Scenario 5 — the operative scenario at the moment, at least given the data that we have — has some interesting data regarding the death rates for the novel coronavirus.

According to the CDC’s data, the symptomatic case fatality percentage is 0.4 percent.

Reading further into the data reveals it’s even lower than that.

Scenario 5 includes data on “[p]ercent of infections that are asymptomatic.” That, according to the CDC, is 35 percent.

So, do the math: It turns out that means the death rate is only 0.26 percent, according to the CDC’s own numbers.

Now, does this mean the death rate is truly 0.26 percent? Of course not. Even now, we’re in the early days in terms of statistics for the novel coronavirus. However, what’s clear is that, when all is said and done, we’re going to be nowhere close to the 3.4 percent originally predicted by the World Health Organization.

This was predicted by plenty of people at the beginning — including President Donald Trump, who was criticized when he said March 4 that 3.4 percent was “really a false number” and the actual death rate would be “under 1 percent.”

Now, does this mean that the president or any of the others who predicted this are doctors or epidemiologists? No. However, they had a basic understanding of how statistics work. They knew that, in the early days of the virus, with limited testing and limited data, the numbers were going to seem a lot higher than they actually were.

And yet, Tedros wasn’t the only one who thought the death rate for the coronavirus was an order of magnitude higher than current data says it is. In February, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said it was 2 percent.

“If you look at the cases that have come to the attention of the medical authorities, in China, and you just do the math — the math is about 2 percent. If you look at certain age groups, certain risk groups, the fatality is much higher,” Fauci told Congress, according to CNBC.

There’s a reason this matters.

If there’s a disease that spreads rapidly and has a death rate of 2 or 3 percent, yes, locking down the populace is a reasonable reaction.

If we’re talking about something closer to 0.26 percent, putting the world into a new Great Depression seems a bit of an overreaction.

We don’t know the final death rate for the novel coronavirus yet. One thing’s for sure, though — it’s not 3.4 percent or anything close to that. It might not be 13 times lower, but it’s a lot closer to that than anything predicted at the beginning.

That has a lot of implications going forward, including when we start second-guessing what we did to our society and economy in order to arrest the spread of the disease.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: CDC’s Latest ‘Best Estimate’ of COVID Death Rate Is 13 Times Lower Than Initial WHO Claim

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear she’s going to work very hard to pin the coronavirus pandemic on President Donald Trump.

Just don’t ask her to find out where the pandemic actually started.

Pelosi, as you may have heard, has put together a committee to oversee the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis. In a “Dear Colleague” letter, she assured everyone this was about ensuring the relief money was spent the way it was supposed to.

“We must make sure that the historic investment of taxpayer dollars made in the CARES Act is being used wisely and efficiently to help those in need, not be exploited by profiteers and price-gougers,” Pelosi wrote in the letter late last month, according to Politico.

However, you can probably tell where this whole thing is headed when you consider that each of the seven members she appointed to the committee were Democrats. The chairman, meanwhile, will be House Majority Whip James Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat best known as the man who pretty much saved Joe Biden’s campaign by endorsing him before the South Carolina primary in February. No conflict of interest there whatsoever.

Just don’t ask Pelosi to join an investigation of the origins of the novel coronavirus.

According to GOP Rep. Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania, his attempts to investigate a New York firm that sent money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — potentially the source of the virus, according to some sources — have been stymied by Pelosi and House Democrats.

During an appearance on “Breitbart News Saturday” this weekend, Reschenthaler talked about a letter he sent to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper regarding a Pentagon grant that went to EcoHealth Alliance, which has given money to the Wuhan institute on a number of occasions. (It’s unclear whether the Pentagon grant went directly to the Wuhan institute.)

Another grant he talked about involved the National Institutes of Health (in particular the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, run by Dr. Anthony Fauci) giving money to the EcoHealth Alliance — which, in turn, gave some of that money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to research coronaviruses in bats.

Just don’t expect much to come of any of this from Congress.

“We should have an investigative body looking at these grants, but Nancy Pelosi is not going to do that,” Reschenthaler said. “So you have myself and House Republicans. I can tell you I’m going to continue to look into these grants. I’m going to continue to look into the Department of Homeland Security as well to see what grants are going from there to China. I’m also looking at defunding the World Health Organization and we can talk about that as well.

“But the bottom line of the Democrats’ behavior is this: They hate this president so badly that they would rather side with the Chinese Communist Party than defend Americans and defend our spending and spend wisely and just be honest. That is their hatred for President Trump and disdain for President Trump’s supporters.”

Reschenthaler said he is trying to determine if money from the Pentagon grant went to the Wuhan lab.

“The [Department of Defense] also gave EcoHealth Alliance $6.5 million in a grant, and like you said, that grant was to understand bat-borne zoonotic disease in context with weapons of mass destruction, what I’m trying to find out is whether or not the DOD funding that went to EcoHealth also went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said.

“We know that the NIH funding did, and we also know that all money is fungible, but I want to see if we can trace that money to Wuhan to see how much and to what extent the DOD and American taxpayers actually funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

His ability to investigate these grants has been blocked specifically because the Democrats are in control of the House of Representatives and have no intention of conducting such an investigation.

They already have a committee to deal with the coronavirus, after all, and they’re going to investigate pretty much nothing else but Trump.

“It’s imperative that we as House Republicans take back the House in this next election because Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrats are thwarting everything we do,” Reschenthaler said. “I do have to say I cringe when the media says ‘Nancy Pelosi and the squad’ because that minimizes how far left this party has gone. It’s just not ‘the squad.’ It’s not just Nancy Pelosi. It’s most of their members.

“Look at the Green New Deal. When that was floated, half of their co-sponsors were on the Green New Deal. Most of these Democrats vote 90 plus percent of the time with [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez],” he continued.

“This party has moved drastically to the left to the point of siding with the CCP over Americans. They don’t want to get to the bottom of these grants and they also don’t want my resolution run on the floor about defunding the World Health Organization or at least getting Dr. Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the WHO] to resign and getting an international organization to investigate how the World Health Organization was either grossly negligent in dealing with the Wuhan virus or how they worked hand-in-glove with the Chinese Communist Party in trying to cover up the virus early on. But that’s the extent of their hatred, again, of this president and his supporters where they will not run these bills and they will not do these investigations because, again, they would rather side with the CCP than do the right thing.”

Unless Republicans take back control of the House in November, the body isn’t going to be doing much when it comes to investigating how much money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much less whether the institute was at all responsible for the accidental release of the coronavirus — something that the American intelligence community hasn’t ruled out and that the president and others in the administration say they’ve seen evidence of, according to NBC News.

“But I think whether or not this disease came from a bat through a wet market or it came from a lab, we’ve got to see where it originated and we’ve got to see what we can do to make sure we stop these pandemics in the future,” Reschenthaler said.

“That could be something like encouraging other nations to stop interactions at wet markets, which should be happening anyhow. If it originated in a lab and somehow leaked from the lab, we shouldn’t be funding labs that study virology and weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological weapons. We shouldn’t fund these labs unless they have procedures in place where the disease won’t leak out and kill 60,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands around the world. This is a very responsible thing to do as good stewards of taxpayer money.”

And, as Reschenthaler pointed out, we don’t know how much data on coronaviruses we got from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

We know that we certainly didn’t get any investigators inside of China after the coronavirus went worldwide. We still haven’t gotten investigators on the ground in Hubei province — and we won’t.

But what we will get is Clyburn’s committee, which features firebrands like Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Nydia Velazquez of New York, among others.

This will certainly be a way for Democrats to go after the Trump administration, at least until the election and possibly beyond. It could even be, as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called it, “another impeachment committee.

But the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Don’t expect that to be investigated anytime soon — not until the Democrats are out of power in the House.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: GOP Rep: Pelosi Blocking Wuhan Investigation in Favor of Pinning Pandemic on Trump

So you’re a buzzing node in the liberal media complex. It’s Friday.

You’re huddled at your MacBook in your $4,500-a-month Tribeca studio. A doppio helping of Keurig-made espresso sits in front of you, gathering coldness. This would have been so much better in the little hipster coffee shop where you would usually be creating content. At least the coffee shop is alive because it got a business loan … a loan made possible because of congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Trump.

Republicans. Trump. Those words just stick in your mind like embers of hatred burning up your last neurons of sanity. And as you sit in front of your curved flatscreen, watching the media source you work for, you stew in anger because the politics coverage isn’t just 24 hours of treating those two entities like the Scylla and Charybdis of hatred, loathing, regression and evil anymore. No. You have two more words scorching your gray matter: Tara Reade.

“And today, because we’re forced to report on it, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and beacon of all that is good and holy, Joe Biden, a man clearly not undergoing cognitive diminishing returns, has been accused of sexual assault by a former aide,” the generic reporter with generic emo glasses on the generic news source you work for would theoretically be saying.

“I think her name is Tara Reade. OK, got that? Good, that’s enough time spent on that. Now, stunning news out of Washington as some Republican actually stood up to them when one of our reporters confronted them. We warn you, some of you might find this footage offensive…”

Tara Reade. How could she? She’s supposed to be liberal, right? Didn’t she know this way more important than whatever she says might have happened to her? Well, at least we’ve got Trump on this one — when he condemns Biden, we can bring up the fact that women accused him of sexual assault! I mean, sure, no one can name one of them that’s not E. Jean Carroll now, and none of them decided to pursue their claims — but that’s unimportant. It’s just a trap — we just have to wait for him to speak and the snare goes off, catching him by the leg …

And the generic newsman comes back. And he says President Trump has been asked about the Reade allegation. This is it. A hush — even more palpable than usual, given the lack of activity in the streets below — descends over your apartment.

“I would just say to Joe Biden, ‘Just go out and fight it,’” Trump said.

“He’s going to have to make his own decision, I’m not going to be telling him what to do,” he continued. “Biden is going to have to go out and fight his own battles.”

He freaking evaded the trap! He evaded it! There’s another word burning in your mind right now. It’s usually bleeped on your network.

That Trump quote is real, by the way. “Just go out and fight it.”

The rest is obviously my febrile imagination, what members of the media establishment will no doubt identify as my perfervid desire to be one of them.

However, there is a certain brilliance to what Trump said. During the Friday interview with conservative radio host Dan Bongino, Trump said that Reade’s allegation was “credible” but didn’t particularly condemn Biden, according to CNBC.

However, he said the best way to deal with allegations like hers was “to get in front of it and I just deny it.”

In short, no, he didn’t condemn Biden. He didn’t take any position on it. He urged the former vice president to fight and that was it. End of story.

There’s nothing to comment on. No hot takes. No takes at all. Nothing like that.

Want to put this kind of paragraph in the story, like The New York Times did when they reported on Reade’s allegation 19 days after it was made?: “President Trump has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by more than a dozen women, who have described a pattern of behavior that went far beyond the accusations against Mr. Biden. The president also directed illegal payments, including $130,000 to a pornographic film actress, Stormy Daniels, before the 2016 election to silence women about alleged affairs with Mr. Trump, according to federal prosecutors.”

Well, then you have to acknowledge that Trump wants Biden to fight the allegations, too. He doesn’t believe that one should automatically believe all women. You also have to acknowledge that the corroborating evidence for the allegations against Trump was thin at best — and that’s putting it very mildly.

The whole thing with the sexual assault allegations against Biden is that we have to examine the sexual assault allegations against Trump — even though, as I said, try to name one person who made them. This is the brilliance of Trump’s move. This is, to use the shopworn Trump cliché, playing chess while his opponents are playing checkers.

What, if you’re the poor media sap who’s our subject, do you do? Do you agree with the president? Well, then you agree Trump ought to have fought the sexual assault allegations — as he did, and was roundly criticized for it. You also have to admit that there’s just as much corroboration for the Biden allegations as there is for the Trump allegations. You also have to admit that if Biden fights the allegations Reade made, he too should be criticized.

In other words, with just five words of advice to Biden — “go out and fight it” — Trump has is forcing the media to consider taking a course that could destroy the liberals’ current best hope to take on Trump.

Or do you oppose those who fight the allegations? If you do that, you implicate Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — and Biden. There’s no consistent application of facts that doesn’t implicate everyone involved — or give the benefit of the doubt to everyone involved.

For Trump’s enemies, it’s a horrible, no-win situation, and Trump has maneuvered the media right into it.

Or what you can say — and what I guarantee our generic media node will say — is that Biden and Trump are different. You can’t consistently apply logic to the two cases. They’re divergent, because … one is Donald Trump and as for the other, as Nancy Pelosi put it in a masterpiece of logic: “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.”

There you go.

That’s your consistency. Your excuse is set, God’s in his heaven and all is right with the world. Suddenly that cold K-cup coffee tastes a little better. You’re not sure whether or not your spirits are lifted because of the caffeine or the fact you have your angle, but hitting those keys feels easier …

No, there’s no more truth emanating from your fingers. You realize, subconsciously, that Donald Trump has won this round. but he’s won so many of them that you’re numb and indifferent. It’ll be one of those days.

And of course, you subconsciously realize Joe Biden is in deep trouble. The media is paying attention to this, much to their discontent. And Donald Trump is smiling. You aren’t. You’re happier than you were before, but you still make another doppio from the Keurig. Yeah, using two K-cups is expensive, but so’s your apartment and it’s going to be a long day — and a long week. If this persists, it might be a long year, too.

Oh, the pain of being a buzzing media node.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: Trump Masterfully Maneuvers Libs into Horrible, No-Win Situation by Advising Biden To Fight Allegations

No, really, reader of The Western Journal. I swear I’ve learned my lesson this time: Don’t give Democratic governors the benefit of the doubt.

I thought I’d learned it the first time. When New York’s Andrew Cuomo looked like he was showing strong leadership in the opening week or two of the coronavirus crisis, I thought maybe we could put aside our petty differences and praise a politician from the other side. In fact, I did just that. And then it all ended in tears.

It wasn’t the rambling, empurpled news conferences that made the much-criticized presidential media briefings look like relative models of restraint. No, for me the moment I made a clean break was when I learned the much-hailed hand sanitizer production program Cuomo was fond of touting consisted of little more than inmates rebottling an outside product inside the Empire State’s prisons in order to make the governor look good.

I figured that’d disabuse me from the practice for a while. But then began my flirtation with Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. And no, not the kind of flirtation that involves having a job for Newsom while being his alcohol-clouded mistress of and married to his best friend.

Instead, I’m talking about the kind of flirtation that involves praise for his work in combating COVID-19 in his state. Unlike Cuomo, who presides over the biggest coronavirus hotspot in the world, Newsom has done an admirable job of keeping his state’s two major metropolises under control in that respect.

In fact, despite being America’s most populous state by a rather wide margin, California has slightly more than 5 percent of America’s coronavirus cases, and despite having 2.2 times the population of Los Angeles, New York City has 22 times the coronavirus deaths LA does. No. I didn’t misplace a decimal point.

I also didn’t misplace a decimal point when California announced a $1,000,000,000 outlay to purchase N95 respirator masks. And then, alas, reality set in.

How harsh? Consider the fact that conservative Newsmax and the liberal Los Angeles Times both hit him for what he did.

According to the Times, the problem wasn’t the cost of the masks — or where the money was going to, although that was equally problematic — but the lack of any details regarding the deal.

“The governor’s advisors have so far declined requests for information about the agreement with BYD, the Chinese electric car manufacturer hired to produce the masks, though the state has already wired the company the first installment of $495 million,” the Times reported.

“Newsom, who has been praised for his efforts to slow the spread of the disease, bristled on Saturday at suggestions that his administration has been too slow to explain a deal that will cost California taxpayers 30% more than his January budget would spend on infectious disease prevention for an entire fiscal year.”

Furthermore, he hasn’t bothered to brief the California Legislature on what, exactly, he agreed to.

“I must emphasize, that’s a big deal,” GOP state Sen. Jim Nielsen said during a legislative oversight hearing Tuesday. “And what is in the contract that ensures the deliverability — timely — is going to be really, really important. At the least, we cannot be just throwing out a false hope to people.”

The details sound impressive. Newsom’s office says it can buy 200 million N95 masks at an impressive price from BYD, heretofore known for its electric vehicles, using its state buying power. This may, in fact, be an accurate appraisal of how the deal would work — assuming, that is, BYD can convert its plants into N95-producing powerhouses.

“Exactly how BYD has converted some of its manufacturing efforts in China to begin producing protective masks is unclear,” the Times reported.

“On March 13, it touted the creation of ‘the world’s largest mass-produced face masks plant’ in a news release posted on the company’s website. The company announced that it would make 5 million masks a day — far surpassing the 100 million masks a month promised by 3M, the company best known for producing N95 masks, used to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

“A spokesman for BYD referred all questions about negotiations over the purchase of masks to Newsom’s office.”

Given that Newsom’s office appears entirely unwilling to share these details with legislators, you may perhaps begin to see the problem here. You may perhaps see a bigger problem when you consider Newsom’s Office of Emergency Services has delayed any response until May 4. But don’t worry, this is all totes legit.

Well, don’t worry. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown gave BYD a massive contract to build electric buses in Southern California and there were no issues with that.

“But there were criticisms of BYD’s work in California,” the Times reported. “Problems with some of the company’s electric buses were chronicled in a Times investigation in 2018. The former chief counsel of a competing company said in a 2013 letter to Long Beach officials that BYD had ‘a history of overpromising and underdelivering.’

“Workplace conditions have also come under scrutiny. California safety officials investigated the BYD facility four times between the summer of 2014 and last spring, according to records reviewed by The Times, alleging 20 different workplace violations.

“Among the violations alleged at the Lancaster electric car plant last year were errors in the proper use of respirators — safety masks — for its employees.

“A company spokesman declined to comment on any of the workplace citations because of pending legal action.

“In the years since it set up shop in California, BYD has quietly but steadily ramped up its governmental and political presence. The company has spent more than $1 million lobbying state officials since 2014 and made a $50,000 contribution to the 2018 ballot measure campaign to keep in place California’s new taxes on gas and diesel sales.

“In 2015, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development awarded BYD a $3-million tax credit to expand its manufacturing in California to other kinds of electric vehicles. But the company forfeited more than $1 million of the incentive.”

But other than that, how was the electric bus factory tour, Mrs. Lincoln?

BYD, in case you were wondering, stands for “Build Your Dreams,” which may well stand for the contracts it’s put together with the state of California as opposed to its vehicles.

And let’s not forget that at a time when we’re trying to diversify our supply chains for surgical and N95 masks away from China, Newsom apparently decided that it was time to put $1 billion of eggs into one very problematic Chinese company.

This is exactly why we realized critical manufacturing industries either can’t be moved out of the United States or need to have diversified supply lines. This is like “A Coronavirus Carol” and the governor is being visited by the Ghost of Don’t-You-Ever-Learn.

So alas, I’ve learned my lesson for real this time.

Yes, Gavin Newsom has done a reasonably good job of ensuring his state wasn’t overrun by coronavirus cases, but he’s still the same old Gavin Newsom who gives taxpayer money to illegal aliens and aims to use the coronavirus as the catalyst for a “new progressive era.”

This is a pitiful job of refusing to learn a critical lesson almost all public officials should have had drilled into them the moment they were unable to obtain personal protective equipment for their state.

This would almost be hilarious were it not — quite literally — deadly serious.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: Betrayal? California Gov. Newsom Helps Chinese Get $1 Billion in COVID Aid

In New York’s Suffolk County, officials now have 251,200 protective masks for their stockpile — 51,200 more than were promised to the Long Island jurisdiction by President Donald Trump.

The delivery comes after GOP New York Rep. Lee Zeldin and Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone looked for “urgent” assistance from the federal government in what’s quickly becoming one of the New York City-area hotspots for coronavirus infections, Patch.com reported.

The county’s stockpile was out of a lot of quite a bit of personal protective equipment, including surgical masks, N95 masks, face shields, gowns and body bags.

Zeldin, head of the Congressional Coronavirus Task Force, had already secured 150,000 surgical masks that were delivered Saturday.

“Rep. Zeldin quickly received multiple direct offers to help, including one within minutes of his plea from Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner,” Zeldin said in a Sunday news release.

“Mr. Kushner informed Congressman Zeldin he was interested in helping Suffolk County secure all PPE needs for the next 30 days.

“Working with Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone and his office, Rep. Zeldin sent details of all needed PPE directly to Mr. Kushner last night, and also communicated the details of Suffolk County’s situation directly to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.”

That included a promise of 200,000 masks for Suffolk County. The Trump administration delivered with a bit of extra.

“The President promised Sunday he’d immediately deliver Suffolk County 200,000 N95 masks,” Zeldin tweeted Tuesday.

“The even better news…251,200 N95 masks have arrived to Suffolk PLUS another 100,000 N95 masks for @NorthwellHealth west of Suffolk!”

As of Thursday, according to data from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, Suffolk County had 17,008 confirmed cases of coronavirus and 323 deaths.

In an appearance on MSNBC, Bellone called the impact the virus had on his county and Long Island — which has seen over 1,000 deaths — “extraordinary.”

“To think back a month ago, we didn’t have a single confirmed case,” the Suffolk County executive said, according to Newsday.

“Now we have more confirmed cases than every other state in this country except for New York and New Jersey,” Bellone said.

He said the early lack of testing was the problem in tackling it at the beginning.

“We didn’t know about those cases because testing wasn’t available,” Bellone said. “Now the tens of thousands of tests done have revealed the truth: This virus has spread everywhere.”

And even with the masks and the 136 ventilators Suffolk County received, he said, “staffing is really the toughest challenge right now.”

“We have hundreds of health care workers who have contracted the virus,” Bellone said.

“It really brings it home the dangers they are facing,” he added, saying that medical staff are in “the medical equivalent of a war zone.”

On Saturday, Zeldin had put out a call for help.

Well, Trump underpromised, overdelivered and got it there with great response time. Not a bad job.

In his statement on Sunday, Zeldin emphasized the importance of PPE for those on the front lines of the coronavirus crisis.

“We must do everything in our power to ensure our medical professionals, first responders, law enforcement and other essential workers are able to do their jobs while being able to protect their own health, and the health of others, including their precious family members, and I thank President Trump and Jared Kushner for stepping up to the plate for Suffolk County,” Zeldin said.

“We are all in this fight together, and I am encouraged by the Administration’s swift, effective and immediate response to Suffolk County’s urgent need of PPE. I look forward to continuing to work with every level of government from Suffolk County Executive Bellone to the President to continue to deliver for Suffolk County.”

Suffolk, like many places in New York, seems to be flattening the curve. According to RiverheadLOCAL, there were 68 hospitalizations on Wednesday with 130 people discharged from the hospital.

“We will get through this,” Bellone said. And hopefully sooner rather than later.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: NY County Finds Trump Delivered Not Only 200k Masks He Promised but 50k Extra in Just 2 Days

It’s rare that Barack Obama tweets a direct criticism at the Trump administration.

However, on Tuesday, the former president laid into a decision from Trump’s Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency to roll back Obama-era federal vehicle fuel efficiency standards, comparing it — sigh — to coronavirus.

“We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic,” Obama tweeted after the new standards were announced on Tuesday.

“We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.”

It’s good to see the former president is staying limber with his attacks. In under 280 characters, he managed to not only trash Trump on coronavirus but also fuel efficiency standards as well. Yes he can.

However, it’s probably worth looking at the rule in question — which, if you were paying attention, actually deals with fuel economy and not emissions, although the two are closely related.

According to Fox News, the new regulations, which will be effective from model years 2021 through 2026, will only require automakers to increase their fleet fuel efficiency by 1.5 percent a year.

Under previous regulations, in effect from 2012, automakers needed to improve their fuel economy by 5 percent each year.

That was “unrealistic,” officials said.

“This strikes the right balance between environmental considerations, health considerations and economic considerations,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told reporters during a call.

“This rule reflects the Department’s No. 1 priority — safety — by making newer, safer, cleaner vehicles more accessible for Americans who are, on average, driving 12-year-old cars. By making newer, safer, and cleaner vehicles more accessible for American families, more lives will be saved and more jobs will be created,” Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said.

The old regulations would have meant that fleet fuel economy — defined as the average in fuel economy across all vehicles an automaker sells — would have been 55 miles per gallon in 2026. The new regulations will mean the fleet fuel economy will only have to be slightly above 40 miles per gallon by 2026.

According to The Hill, that’s a number the manufacturers think they can meet. In fact, they already estimate they can make a 2.4 percent yearly fuel economy increase without regulation.

You can guess the advantages here: cheaper cars, more flexibility for automakers and more room for innovation.

But what about the costs? After all, you’ll be spending more at the pump, to say nothing of the externalities affecting the environment.

David Friedman, vice president for advocacy with Consumer Reports, probably synthesized the argument against rolling back the standards as well as anyone: “Unemployment claims skyrocketed to more than 3 million last week, so millions of Americans are now going without a paycheck, and our nation is at risk of a recession because of the COVID crisis,” he told reporters.

“So it’s absolutely stunning the administration would finalize a plan that will cost drivers more money at the pump for years to come. Consumers, workers, small business owners are the engine of America’s economy. And the last thing they need is to get stuck spending more on gas.”

However, what that discounts is the fact that the average car on the road now is older than it’s ever been: 12 years. And there’s a reason for that.

“The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more — out of reach for many American families, the agencies said,” IndustryWeek reported in 2018.

“Compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.”

That, Chao says, represents an opportunity to get consumers into newer cars — ones that are more environmentally friendly as well as safer.

“It will make newer vehicles more affordable to consumers, safer for passengers and cleaner for the environment,” Chao said. “It’s a win-win-win solution.”

Furthermore, there’s nothing to say car buyers don’t value fuel economy.

From a 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics: “By seeing how price differences across high and low mileage vehicles of different fuel economies change in response to shocks to the price of gasoline, we estimate the relationship between vehicle prices and future fuel costs. Our data suggest that used automobile prices move one for one with changes in present discounted future fuel costs, which implies that consumers fully value fuel economy.”

The rule will be subject to court challenges, especially given tougher regulations that were drafted by California and enacted by a number of other states.

It’ll also be subject to rhetoric like the former president’s. He’s not alone, either. California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris also somehow found a way to incorporate coronavirus-related politicking into her response.

“Hospitals are in desperate need of ventilators for people with respiratory illnesses, millions have applied for unemployment, and families across the nation are struggling to make ends meet,” she said in a statement. “This administration’s own analysis has shown this is a bad deal for Americans. During this time of crisis, we should have every federal policy — including bold clean car standards — in place to make our air clean, create jobs, and save consumers money.”

Aside from Obamacare, this is one of the most prominent vestiges of the Obama years — and one that doesn’t take legislation to ditch.

At the point where we don’t get new cars out on the road, we don’t actually get any benefit from increased fuel economy standards.

The Trump administration has estimated that there’ll be an estimated savings of $1,400 per vehicle and 2.7 million new cars out on the road.

Whether that materializes is another question entirely, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist — or auto engineer, for that matter — to see that this will get newer cars out on the streets.

It may not be making news, but it’s undoubtedly a big step in the right direction.

Author: C. Douglas Golden

Source: Western Journal: Trump Cuts Through More Obama Red Tape, Rolls Back Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Regulations

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!