NYT: President Trump to Drop Climate Change from Federal Infrastructure Planning

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to NYT, President Trump has moved to modify a 50 year old rule which requires Federal Agencies to consider the “cumulative consequences” of new infrastructure, to prevent courts from interpreting this as a requirement to consider climate change.

Trump Rule Would Exclude Climate Change in Infrastructure Planning

By Lisa Friedman
Jan. 3, 2020

WASHINGTON — Federal agencies would no longer have to take climate change into account when they assess the environmental impacts of highways, pipelines and other major infrastructure projects, according to a Trump administration plan that would weaken the nation’s benchmark environmental law.

The proposed changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act could sharply reduce obstacles to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been stymied when courts ruled that the Trump administration did not properly consider climate change when analyzing the environmental effects of the projects.

According to one government official who has seen the proposed regulation but was not authorized to speak about it publicly, the administration will also narrow the range of projects that require environmental review. That could make it likely that more projects will sail through the approval process without having to disclose plans to do things like discharge waste, cut trees or increase air pollution.

The new rule would no longer require agencies to consider the “cumulative” consequences of new infrastructure. In recent years courts have interpreted that requirement as a mandate to study the effects of allowing more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It also has meant understanding the impacts of rising sea levels and other results of climate change on a given project.

President Trump’s latest effort to eliminate regulations on industry appears also to be a play to win over construction trade unions that have long complained that the National Environmental Policy Act has tied up energy and transit projects that create jobs.

But Michael Bridges, president of the Longview-Kelso Building and Construction Trades Council in Washington State, said he was eager to see the law revised. He said groups opposed to fossil fuels were using the environmental policy act to tie up a major coal export terminal in the state.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html

I love this about your President – in the middle of the Washington circus and all the current geopolitical distractions, he still finds time to do his job, to identify and remove silly bureaucratic impediments to US economic progress.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 4, 2020 10:14 pm

2020 just gets better and better.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 5, 2020 3:05 am

Yes, on 31st January Britain will finally get free of the useless and corrupt European Union. At last we will have our own Independence Day!
Hopefully Boris Johnson will eventually understand the climate scam just as Donald Trump does.

Reply to  Chris Wright
January 5, 2020 3:24 am

VE Day2 – The Sequel.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Wright
January 5, 2020 4:33 am

“At last we will have our own Independence Day!”

The People have spoken! 🙂

Letting foreign bureaucrats run your lives was a bad idea from the start but now it has been corrected.

Trump will be along soon to make a Great Big Beautiful Trade Deal with our friends in the UK.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 7:14 am

Hopefully they are already working on such a deal. It can’t go into effect until after 1/31, but there’s no reason why it can’t be prepared beforehand.

Michael Burcke
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 2:40 pm

Yep…a free trade agreement between the U.S. and U.K with minimal obstructions will make the Brits wonder why they waited so long to free themselves from the un-elected tyranny of faceless EU bureaucrats, living large in Brussels. I can’t wait to see the U.K. bloom again!

Patrick Healy
Reply to  Chris Wright
January 5, 2020 12:00 pm

Yes kudos to Mr Trump.
Chris Wright, dream on – sadly our Blundering Boris is a high priest of the global warming religion.
If you want to understand anyone’s policies just look at who they sleep with.
Just like that idiot Canadian Carney – Boris is told what to think by his piece of fluff in bed.
Hopefully he will meet a scientific realist soon.

Reply to  Patrick Healy
January 5, 2020 12:06 pm

re: ” sadly our Blundering Boris is a high priest of the global warming religion.”

What gets Yanks like me is, we have seen in this thread from two of you blokes TWO completely different ‘takes’ on where Boris stands on climate change, leading some of to think you are all ‘confused as hell’ …

Reply to  _Jim
January 5, 2020 4:00 pm

Actually, one is his take on climate change and the other is his take on his “piece of fluff in bed”. Different topics.

On a higher note, I for one am excited that we can get back our “special relationship” with Great Britain. It has been sad watching our best buds drift away into the European mud wallow. The US and Great Britain are the leaders of the Free World, not Europe, not the German Chancellor, certainly not anyone that listens to Greta. Once GB is free again can we hope for Canada and Oz???

Reply to  BobM
January 5, 2020 5:08 pm

re: “Actually, one is his …”

Not the way I read it. Maybe you read it the way you want to?

GB re: Boris still looks SNAFU, and ppl are confused as hell.

Then again, maybe ‘ambiguousness’ is being used as a shield by the several authors of the several pieces on Boris in this thread? Cowards in that case … call it or ‘free up the john’.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 5, 2020 6:15 am

Indeed. Hopefully US forces’ departure from Iraq will soon follow. Iraqi parliament is voting at the moment to eject US from Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi recommends ending the American presence in Iraq:

”It is in the interest of both Baghdad and Washington to end the foreign presence in Iraq.”

Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 7:19 am

Within 20 years, the US will have to go back in to clean up the sewer.

Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2020 7:38 am

Thanks to the corruption of the previous Administration in enabling and helping Iran.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 10:56 am

Yes, Obama pretty much handed Iraq over to Iran.

The U.S. can just move their troops from Iraq to Kuwait and await Iran’s next stupid move.

The Iraqi Parliament may get some push-back from the people of Iraq. I understant the Iraqis, most of them anyway, don’t like being ordered around by Tehran, even if bribed Iraqi politicians do.

The Mad Mullahs are going to make a mistake and give Trump the opportunity to take out the Mad Mullah’s nuclear and rocket programs and nobody can stop him. The sooner the better, as far as I’m concerned. And it will be sooner. The Mad Mullahs are so predictable. They think violence is the solution to their predicament. They are going to learn a hard lesson real soon.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 12:05 pm

“I understant the Iraqis, most of them anyway, don’t like being ordered around by Tehran, even if bribed Iraqi politicians do.”

What they like less is the US assassinating an Iraqi military leader who was with Suleimani. I don’t think Trump could have done anything to unite Iraqis and Iranians together more than this pointless act of violence. What did it accomplish? Suleimani is more powerful now in death than he ever was in life.

Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 12:18 pm

Watching CNN again? One of the other majors?

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 1:51 pm

The guy was in Iraq as a diplomatic envoy at the personal request of the Iraqi PM after Trump requested Iraq’s help in cooling tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Iraqi PM Adil Abdul-Mahdi: ”Hadj Soleimani was in Baghdad at my invitation. He was scheduled to visit me and carried a letter with him from the Iranian leadership on how to de-escalate tensions with Saudi Arabia.”


Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 2:14 pm

re: “The guy was in Iraq as a diplomatic envoy at the personal request of the Iraqi PM …”

Sic semper tyrannis. He was a tyrant and a murderer.

Sic Semper Tyrannis is the motto for Virginia. The Virginia State Motto, adopted in 1776, appears on the State Seal, symbolizing victory over tyranny. Virginia’s motto is Sic semper Tyrannis, meaning Thus ever unto tyrants. This is the original motto recommended for the Seal of Virginia by George Mason to the Virginia Convention in 1776.

Dave Fair
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 5:12 pm

icisil, I hope you are being sarcastic. What you posted is so far from the facts that I’d give you the Baghdad Bob award if you are serious.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 2:13 pm

“What they like less is the US assassinating an Iraqi military leader who was with Suleimani.”

I saw pictures of Iraqi crowds celebrating the death of Suleimani in Iraq. Don’t know how big the crowds were. There was very little coverage of that angle of the story. The news media wanted to focus on the protests against Trump, as they usually do.

If the Iraqi people want to commit suicide and tie their wagon to the Mad Mullahs of Iran then that’s up to them. The U.S. troops will leave if asked nicely, unlike the Mad Mullah’s troops.

The U.S. doesn’t need Iraq. Iraq, those there who love freedom anyway, need the U.S. They won’t get freedom from the Mad Mullahs.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 5:16 pm

It was not an Iraqi military leader, Tom. It was an extra-legal Shiite Militia leader sponsored by Iran.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 3:20 pm

Those crowds were a few dozens in size. Check out this crowd at the guy’s funeral in one city. He was extremely popular in Iran. Now he’s a legend. “Trump has no idea what he has done.” If he’s smart he’ll scapegoat and fire Pompeo and the others who most likely led him astray.



Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 3:47 pm

re: “Check out this crowd at the guy’s funeral in one city.”

Two words: “Forced turnout.”

(Meaning, if your neighbor doesn’t attend, turn him/her in for a monetary reward!)

Dave Fair
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 5:23 pm

icisil, get a grip. It does not matter how many Iranian people turn out for a terrorist leader’s funeral. It matters how hard President Trump whacks the war-mongering Iranian Islamist’s dicks. You seem to believe that the average Iranian wants war with the U.S.

President Trump’s economic sanctions are already causing significant social disruption in Iran.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 4:32 pm

icisil is one of those people who will believe anything, so long as it makes the US out as the bad guy.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 4:35 pm

It’s amazing how much you know what 20 miles of Iranians think.


Dave Fair
Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 5:25 pm

And I should care … Why? A U.S. carrier strike group stretches out about that length.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 5:34 pm

“It was not an Iraqi military leader, Tom. It was an extra-legal Shiite Militia leader sponsored by Iran.”

He was the senior commander of Iraqi PMU which is an official part of the Iraqi military.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 5:40 pm

“icisil is one of those people who will believe anything, so long as it makes the US out as the bad guy.”

I’m pro-US and opposed to the lying war mongers who have nothing but hurt the country. Have you ever read Trump’s tweets in 2013 opposing the very thing he’s doing now? He’s contradicting everything he said he stood for. I hope he snaps out of it before it’s too late.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 5, 2020 6:15 pm

What’s amazing is that you think anything written by the NYT is accurate, or that any poll taken of Iranians could possibly be accurate.

Once again, any information that matches your biases is taken in uncritically.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hunterson7
January 6, 2020 2:43 am

“It was not an Iraqi military leader, Tom.”

That was icisil’s characterization, Dave, not mine.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hunterson7
January 6, 2020 3:02 am

“Have you ever read Trump’s tweets in 2013 opposing the very thing he’s doing now? He’s contradicting everything he said he stood for”

You are conflating two different things. Trump doesn’t want to get involved in unnecessary wars, but he will get involved in necessary wars. If the Mad Mullahs continue their attacks on the United States, then Trump is obligated to defend the U.S. and that means killing those who are the threat.

A president would tie his own hands if he failed to kill an enemy because he feared a greater war as a consequence. That is the Democrats favorite excuse for doing nothing. Democrats will not defend the U.S. They are a danger to the U.S. with their delusional thinking.

If Trump ends up fighting a war with the Mad Mullahs, it won’t be a protracted war that takes years, it will be short and quick. The U.S. will just bomb and rocket the hell out of the whole country and then go home. The U.S. has the power to take the Iranian military right down to the ground.

I’m looking forward to Trump bombing the hell out of the Mad Mullah’s nuclear and rocket production programs, and to the Obama people and the rest of the clueless, dangerous Democrats screaming and crying about it.

Btw, the president has full legal authority to do what he is doing. The U.S. Constitution gives him the authority, and even the War Powers Act, which Congress passed in 1973, in an effort to restrict presidential power, gives Trump the authority to do what he has done, and on top of that the “War Powers Act” has never been challenged in court and would probably be found to be an unconstitional restriction of presidential authority.

If the Democrat dont like what Trump is doing, and they don’t, since they are just about all appeasers and defeatist who have no idea how to deal with murderous dictators, then they should pass a bill in the House that prevents Trump from protecting Americans. See how far that bill goes.

The Democrats are out lying again about everything Trump, but they can’t stop him from retaliating against the Mad Mullahs if the Mad Mullahs make the mistake of attacking Americans again.

Reply to  hunterson7
January 6, 2020 5:02 am

DF, where will your hubris be if Trump attacks Iran, and they in turn completely destroy the Persian Gulf oil complex that provides 20% of the planet’s oil, which causes the world economy to collapse, which causes your 401K and retirement to go to hell? The gulf states are already in Washington begging Trump to not escalate because they know what’s headed their way if Iran is pushed into a corner.

Reply to  icisil
January 6, 2020 5:50 am

re: “which causes your 401K and retirement to go to hell? The gulf states are already in Washington begging Trump to not escalate ”

Russian agitprop (has that term been used in this thread yet?) is not like the agitprop of yesteryear; it’s almost like we have American expat’s in the employ of The “Evil Empire”.

What’s the Kremlin’s pay structure for such work, icisil?

Evil Empire speech

Reply to  hunterson7
January 6, 2020 9:36 am

lol Russia. Someone needs to come up with a name for this new version of Godwin’s Law

Reply to  hunterson7
January 6, 2020 10:22 am

“Have you ever read Trump’s tweets in 2013 opposing the very thing he’s doing now? He’s contradicting everything he said he stood for”

“When the facts change, I change my mind.”
I can’t remember who the quote is from.

John Endicott
Reply to  hunterson7
January 6, 2020 12:05 pm

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” or alternately “What do you do, madam” has been attributed to various people, most notably John Maynard Keynes and Winston Churchill. It’s one of those quotes that nobody seems able to definitively pin-down as to who said it.

Reply to  icisil
January 5, 2020 11:03 am

It’s non binding just like Trump getting impeached

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Hellpig
January 6, 2020 3:29 am

Yes, it was a non-binding vote.

Now Trump is threatening to make Iraq pay the U.S. back for the money the U.S. spent in Iraq, like that giant air force base the U.S. built over there, if the Iraqi politicians force the U.S. out. If the Iraqis don’t pay up, Trump says he might just hit them with economics sanctions like they have never seen before.

A word to the wise: If you mess with Trump expect to get blowback from him. That’s just the way he is. And right now, Trump can produce plenty of blowback.

And I just heard a real good idea proposed by Senator Rubio to establish an Independent Kurdistan. The Kurds need their own nation and they have been supremely loyal to the U.S., and they did not vote to oust U.S. troops in the Iraqi parliament vote yesterday.

If the Iraqi politicians listen to their Iranian handlers and vote to oust the U.S., then the U.S. will certainly be welcomed in the new independent nation of Kurdistan, and an American presence there would assure their freedom.

I like it, Marco!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 12, 2020 8:09 pm

Turkey would be in there the next day trying to take back what they consider to be a part of Turkey. The Kurds would then appeal to the US for military assistance.

Not that it’s a bad idea–the Kurds are more friendly to us than Turkey under Erdogan. But it not as simple — or as bloodless — as you or Marco thinks.

Reply to  Hellpig
January 6, 2020 4:55 am

It’s non-binding because it’s a non-parliamentary matter. The law that allowed US military presence in Iraq expired in 2011 (I think I have the right year). They are there now on the basis of yearly executive-to-executive agreements, which the Iraqi PM can simply refuse to renew. The parliamentary vote was just for political cover.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 5, 2020 12:10 pm

KAGA 2020! My vote is in the bank

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 5, 2020 2:45 pm

Really? Another war for Israel’s interests will certainly put a damper on 2020.


Reply to  Wally
January 5, 2020 3:36 pm

Get an education, and lose the bigotry.

Reply to  Wally
January 5, 2020 4:33 pm

Why is it that some people are so eager to believe that Jews run everything?

Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2020 5:11 pm

re: “Why is it that some people are so eager to believe that Jews run everything?”

To quote Vic LaRocka K5KNH (RIP): “Conspiracy theories are the favored tools of the weak-minded.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Wally
January 5, 2020 5:06 pm

Wally, you anti-Jewish POS. I’m an atheist, but I can recognize a religious POS when I see one.

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 5, 2020 6:16 pm

What makes you think he’s in any way religious?

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 6, 2020 2:24 am

Thoughts from ne year ago:

I travelled to East Germany many times, once thorough Checkpoint Charlie four months before the Berlin Wall fell and more times thereafter. Later I ran an energy project in Kazakstan, subsequently sold to the Chinese for US$4.2 billion. I also ran a company in Egypt, now worth several billion dollars, and spent time in Tunisia during Arab Spring. I co-financed the discovery of a mine at 14,000 feet elevation in South America, and also did business in Europe and Australia. In all, I conducted major business on six of the world’s seven continents.

Some observations about societies and governments, based a strong education and many decades of global experience:

The workers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) had a saying:
“We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”

After the reunification of Germany, there was a cultural clash between the West Germans, who have a strong work ethic, and the “Osties”, who do a great job of pretending to work, while doing little.

The fatal flaw of leftist governments is the excessive concentration of power at the top, and the tendency for sociopaths to seize leadership. “Progressives” fail to see this flaw, and despite the many horrific leftist holocausts of the 20th Century, somehow believe “It will be different this time”. It won’t.

Leftist governments quickly become phony-left dictatorships, often family-run cabals like North Korea, Cuba (and Canada?). A few people at the top benefit, and the majority soon become poor peasants, serving their masters. The leaders of these “bully societies” typically become brutal, top-down dictators, and that bully mentality then pervades the entire society (boss shouts at worker, worker shouts at wife, wife shouts at kid, kid kicks dog).

Another of my observations, not limited to the FSU but observed in many “bully societies”:
In bully societies, people don’t tell you the truth,, especially when there is a problem – everyone makes up a different story that sheds blame away from them. The result is informational dysfunction of the organization, whether it be a business, a government body, or whatever. That disinformation, along with centralized planning, is why leftist societies function so poorly.

Children in bully societies quickly learn that they will be hit if they tell the truth, so they become adept at lying at an early age. It is not surprising that polygraphs (lie detectors), which measure stress, only work in a handful of societies in the world – and it is also not surprising that these are the most prosperous societies on the planet.

I expect the left will take great offense at the above thoughts – I certainly hope they will – they are Lenin’s “useful idiots”. Dunning-Kruger-imbeciles, too stupid to know they are being manipulated by sociopaths.

The USA dodged a bullet when voters rejected Hillary and elected Trump. Canada and most other democracies got hit by that bullet, and are now declining rapidly under the weight of incompetent and destructive leftist kleptocracies.

January 6, 2020 6:58 am

Thoughts from one year ago:

January 4, 2020 10:23 pm

… but wait until some liberal judge issues his own mandate against this …

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 4, 2020 11:01 pm

The judge from Hawaii… he say no!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 5, 2020 4:42 am

Trump has appointed so many conservative judges to the Federal Bench over the last three years that there is a good chance any lawsuit will be heard by a conservative, and if not, then there is a very good chance that conservatives on an appeals court will overturn the liberal judge.

The Federal Ninth Circuit, which used to be the most liberal Circuit Court in the nation, and the one all the liberals file their cases with, has been drastically changed by Trump’s judicial appointments to the point that the Ninth Cricuit only has a three-person liberal majority now.

Obama screwed up by leaving so many judicial appointments unfilled. No doubt, he thought Hillary would complete this job and appoint lots of liberal judges, but then reality intervened and now Trump is completing this job by appointing lots of conservative judges. How sweet it is!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 6:31 am

re: “Obama screwed up by leaving so many judicial appointments unfilled. No doubt, he thought Hillary would complete this job ”

The “Law of Unintended Consequences” writ large.

Also testimony on how strongly they believed she (Shrillary!) would win.

Reply to  _Jim
January 5, 2020 7:17 am

The Republican senate played a role here as well. Slow walking all nominations as the election got closer.
Before our liberals can get all bent out of shape. Nothing unusual about this, it’s been going on as long as there has been a judiciary. If the party holding the Senate is not the same as the President’s, nominations slow to a crawl prior to elections.

Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2020 7:41 am

re: “The Republican senate played a role here as well. Slow walking all nominations as the election got closer.”

Yet, the ONLY real ‘press’ was given to the senate holdout on Obama’s SC nominee Merrick Garland .. didn’t hear boo from the press on the slow-walking of other judicial nominees.

Maybe you didn’t recognize that the senate was a believer, too, in Hillary! winning? The senate holding-out on Garland was remarkable, when all signs from the ‘press’ pointed to a Hillary! win. The senate (and house) could have swung too, in the event of a Hillary! win and any coattail effect she might have had … reality was a completely different event, as we found out late into that November 2016 election evening.

Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2020 9:58 am

If the Senate believed that Hillary was a shoo in, there would be no need to slow walk appointees.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2020 12:23 pm

Indeed. Cocaine Mitch had played the judicial appointments like a maestro. Slow walking them under Obama and fast-tracking them under Trump. And the Garland hold up was brilliant on his part. If Hillary won, nothing was lost but if Hillary failed to win, that seat would go to a more conservative nominee – a big win. Haven’t always agreed with Mitch’s actions (or too often lack there of) over the years, but have absolutely no complains on his handling of judicial nominations.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 1:40 pm

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid screwed-up in his biggest political blunder EVER in 2013 when he and the Democrats eliminated the filibuster (a procedural process requiring 60 votes for a nomination or legislation to proceed to a floor vote) for lower court judges and executive branch appointees. They eliminated the filibuster-cloture rule because they arrogantly thought there would never again be a Republican President, so convinced of their own lies to the public that they forgot they were lies. They knew they were likely to lose the Senate to the GOP in the 2014 mid-term elections. But they didn’t anticipate losing the 2016 Presidential election.

Now since 2015 the Republicans have controlled the Senate, and with a Republican President it only takes a simply majority to get the President’s judicial nominations through the Senate confirmation. Liberal pundits seem to claim this is an unprecedented abuse of political power by Mitch McConnell, but in reality it was the obvious outcome of a change made by Democrats that was their own undoing.
So arrogant in their claims of moral righteousness and elitism, the Democrats have no concept of “unintended consequences.”

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 6, 2020 12:26 pm

And Mitch warned them if they went that route in 2013 they’d one day regret it.

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.” – Mitch McConnel.

And boy was he right.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 5, 2020 7:07 am

One little known item is that there were about 150+ judicial opening at the circuit & district court level when Obama left office. They just assumed Hillary would win and fill them with more leftists but ….

Add in another 20+ that have retired since and you get the picture. Trump has already filled all the openings and appointed 25% of sitting judges so far. All young and conservative


I love the punchline at the end of the article: “This is not going well for the resistance”. LMAO

Jim Breeding
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 5, 2020 9:21 am

When the GOP retakes the House, their first action should be to start impeaching those judges who have been impeding Trump’s actions without any constitutional justification. Right after they censure Schiff and Nadler.

Reply to  Jim Breeding
January 5, 2020 3:41 pm

While they are at it, maybe they could impeach some Reps who are openly supporting an enemy of the US.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 5, 2020 11:12 am

Trump SHOULD NOT wait until some lefty liberal Democrat partisan judge issues a mandate against “Excluding Climate Change from Infrastructure Planning” ….. but should post haste have one of his conservative judges to issue a mandate stating Trump’s actions are Constitutionally legal.

January 4, 2020 10:27 pm

Would expect nothing less! Is he not the best? I know sounds a little overboard but common sense is a little hard to find these days!

Eugene Lynx
January 4, 2020 10:31 pm

Giddy up cowboys and girls. Trump is doing his job. In the midst of all the horse manure that the Left has thrown at him, he still has the stamina, clarity and focus to do what he said he would do.

Reply to  Eugene Lynx
January 4, 2020 11:20 pm

Some day Pelosi will argue “impeachment” simply means the process of turning one of nature’s most delectable fruits into a delicious pie!

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 5, 2020 7:30 am


And then she will claim that the ‘fruitcakes’ are being marginalized by peach cobbler.

January 4, 2020 10:43 pm

CC consultants just got Trumped.
One less parasitic vocation.
Great start to 2020!

Reply to  Warren
January 5, 2020 9:43 am

On Point!

If no studies are required, the leftists lose their jobs, lower their income and can no longer support their leftist politicians through campaign contributions, breaking the quid pro quo cycle. Solyndra anyone?

In Las Vegas the feds require a desert tortoise survey in the valley before any construction project can begin. This is due to desert tortoise being “endangered”. Look at Google earth, the LV valley is surrounded by dozens of similar valleys throughout the Mojave desert that are primarily undeveloped. There was no need for this waste of time and money except to employ the leftist “scientists” that performed the “studies”.

This is still going on, examples of OUR money still going to unneeded “studies”:


The second link is for a company created by “envirmental professionals”. The first link allows people with a batchlor’s degree in ecology. Please feds, eliminate ecology from allowed degrees for these and other , require biology, animal husbandry, forestry, geology or mining, etc. End the employment of enviromentalist loons. That would help end those environmental programs at “institutions of higher learning”.

Actual scientific studies showed that the biggest harm to desert tortiose populations were power poles and fence posts in the desert. Ravens would sit on the posts and be easily able to spot young turtles to catch and eat. This was verified by the number of shells at the base of the posts at prime locations.

All the money wasted on the Las Vegas studies COULD have been used to relocate power lines underground if the enviros really wanted to help. The Las Vegas valley has more Tortioses that we can adopt out.


Joel O'Bryan
January 4, 2020 10:43 pm

While the national media circus focuses on Impeachment and their own derangement-driven meltdowns on Iran etc, Trump’s appointees are quietly dismantling the climate scam that Al Gore and Obama worked so hard to inculcate into the Federal bureaucracy.
It is one big reason why Trump has been so effective at dismantling Obama’s legacy… the media lapdogs of the Democrats have resided in their deranged bubble on meaningless side-issues.


January 4, 2020 10:47 pm

I predict unprecedented levels of TDS. (You’ve just go to get the word “unprecedented” in there)

J Mac
January 4, 2020 10:59 pm

Beautiful! Just…… Beautiful!

Reply to  J Mac
January 4, 2020 11:59 pm

Perfect even.

January 4, 2020 11:30 pm

It is pretty hard to argue with results, and this administration has been able to set the economy on steroids the last 3+ years with positive returns and growth and it sure isn’t because of any insane policies that Obama tried to implement, mostly by Executive Order. In fact, many of Obama’s EO’s have been reversed which is part of why the reason the economy is going so well. Even middle of the road Democrats should see that USA will have a much healthier economy under Donald J Trump, than some socialist democrat trying to drive the country into the dirt with the curse of socialistic theft from those who produce the wealth and giving it to the parasites that waste it and create chaos on top. Climate Change polices fit the description of socialist theft.

Reply to  Earthling2
January 5, 2020 2:44 am

In spite of this, Canada recently elected a leftist, who masquerades as a liberal, for a 2nd term. And their unemployment rate, which is almost double that of the US, clearly reflects this decision.

What has happened to Canada?

Reply to  Klem
January 5, 2020 3:33 am


Canada will come around when the US and the UK start seeing the economic success we have been denied for so long under the likes of Obama (not exclusively) and the EU.

The Germans will be watching events very closely, the French yellow vest’s have already sent a signal, the Italians have been rumbling for a long time about the state of their economy thanks to the EU, and the former Eastern Bloc members of the EU have their own alliance to combat the EU’s stranglehold on their economies.

I love it when a plan comes together. 🙂

Reply to  HotScot
January 5, 2020 7:49 am

I suspect that economic prosperity can be graphed against cost of energy. America’s economy is helped in no small part by very low energy prices, a fact that seems to be missed by our politicians as well as by that gang of misfits, the EU

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Klem
January 5, 2020 4:51 am

“And their unemployment rate, which is almost double that of the US”

Well, depending on who you ask, there are between 1.7 million and 7 million jobs in the United States that are currently unfilled. Unemployed Canadians need to get themselves a Green Card and “Come on Down!” and get a job. 🙂

Reply to  Earthling2
January 5, 2020 5:22 am

“Economy on steroids”???

You Trumpsters just slay me!

1.9% growth third quarter … consensus forecast by both govt and private economists for 2020 is 1.8% growth. You do realize that is much less growth than under Obama. Under Obama the stock market grew more than twice as fast than under Trump. And that Obama cut unemployment rate drastically more than the paltry reductions under Trump.

Facts… facts

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 5:38 am

Can you spend GDP growth? Will it make my mortgage payment, or put food on my neighbor’s table? No, but having a job with a paycheck will. Unemployment at a 50 year low will.

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 6:14 am

Black unemployment is up; is this a bad thing, in your mind, Duane?

Do you want to see America fail?

Are you failing in life, Duane?

Why would want those around you to fail too? That serves the best interests of no one …

Reply to  _Jim
January 5, 2020 6:34 am

Oops, meant to say: “Black employment is up.”

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 6:34 am

It’s true that most of the positive trends we see today began during Obama’s first term. Ballooning debt is a negative trend that also continues that someday will cause problems.

Real wage growth, however, is something that wasn’t seen under Obama and hopefully the tax cuts and removal of regulatory burdens will help this newly positive trend to continue.

The whole of the U.S. was headed down the rat hole of government dependency under Obama, such as is observed in its major cities. Ultimately, this would have led to the subjugation of the country. Temporarily at least, globalism and totalitarian society is being resisted, thanks to Trump. A continuation of Obama’s policies would have led us further down the path to tyranny.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
January 5, 2020 11:21 am

“It’s true that most of the positive trends we see today began during Obama’s first term.”

This would have happened no matter who was president.

The U.S. had just gone through a deep recession when Obama took Office and the economic rebound is what would be expected after the economic downturn. The U.S. economy is going to grow at a certain amount no matter who is president and it’s going to add jobs when it is growing no matter who is president. That’s what happened during the Obama administration.

A president has only a few things that he can do to stimulate the economy. The president can cut taxes and the president can reduce regulations/impediments to businesses, and the president can negotiate favorable deals for the U.S. with other nations, and maybe talk the Fed into not making stupid moves.

Obama did none of those things. In fact, he did just the opposite. Every move he made put the brakes on the American economy. It would have done even better without Obama’s “leadership”.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 11:33 am

Don’t forget about the effects Quantitative Easing had during those years too …

Quantitative Easing- for those not-so-much in the know: An unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to increase the money supply and encourage lending and investment

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 4:36 pm

Given the depths of the recession, the Obama “recovery” was the weakest recovery ever recorded.

Reply to  Scissor
January 5, 2020 3:54 pm

Don’t stress about the debt. You have to look at it relative to GDP; basically, debt to income. The more income you have the more debt in dollars you can handle.

In 1946, the debt hit 121.7% of GDP. In 2018 it was 106.2%. But this does not give government a fee rein to spend needlessly.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jtom
January 6, 2020 3:52 am

I think if Trump is reelected and gets a majority Republican House and Senate there is a good chance he will introduce some measure to reduce the U.S. debt, like the “Penny Plan” which cuts one percent per year out of the federal budget. Each federal agency would have to do with a one-percent smaller budget. Of course, some federal programs like Defense might not see a reduction. This kind of plan would supposedly reduce the debt in a fairly rapid time period.

The U.S. is currently paying around $600 billion per year in interest payments on this debt. And it’s only going to go higher unless we do something.

Of course, this would not be possible if Democrats controlled either House of Congress. Cutting spending is anathema to Democrats.

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 7:23 am

Facts in context are even better.

The only reason why Obama cut the unemployment rate is because so many people gave up looking.
The number of people not working reached record highs during Obama’s mal-administration.

Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2020 10:32 am

That’s a good point.

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 8:14 am

How could we have been so blind? Thank you, Duane, for setting us straight and for again demonstrating President Obama’s incredible economic acumen!

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 10:09 am

Bull. The stock market grew 27% LAST YEAR. And joblessness continued to drop. As for the GDP numbers so what? It goes up and down. The economy cycles (just like climate).

During Obama the number of new jobs added never exceeded the number of new job seekers (i.e. young people/graduates). So the older jobless were sol in Obama’s ‘new normal” (reprise of Carter’s “malaise).

You lefties are all ridiculous and mostly stupid.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN in Alabama
January 5, 2020 4:37 pm

The way GDP is calculated has been changed so many times, I don’t know if anyone knows what it is truly measuring any more.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN in Alabama
January 5, 2020 6:21 pm

“The stock market grew 27% LAST YEAR”.

Too modest. The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index find (VTSAX) grew 30.9% in 2019.

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 11:32 am

comment image

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 1:57 pm

Good point, Duane. A year ago Democrats were predicting recession by end of year. They called it right: we are in a recession – Trump-style. Not negative growth, but merely reduced growth from the previous levels that Obama and his economists said were impossible to achieve.

However, I have to disagree with your statement “You do realize that is much less growth than under Obama.” Obama’s last year GDP was 1.6%. Yes, he had better years, but even coming out of the Great Recession started under the leadership of another liberal RINO (Bush), Obama couldn’t get numbers as good as Trump’s first two years.

Obama was satisfied with Black, Hispanic, and female unemployment rates when he left office. Under Trump, those numbers have shrunk mightily – and we still have between 1.7 – 7 million job openings. Those openings are putting upward pressure on incomes – a good thing.

Facts… facts

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 2:26 pm

Duane, 1.9% growth at near full employment without any serious inflation is really as about as good as you good wish for. Some of that is the low interest rate policy of the Fed, demanded by Trump and some of it is major deficit spending the last 12 years which started in the financial meltdown in 2007/08 under the GW Bush administration. But the Trump administration is bringing back millions of jobs to the USA, and the undoing of onerous regulation only adds to the profitability of the deployment of capital. Under Trump’s policies, America is leading the world in oil and gas production, because of the reduction in red tape et al, plus of course the technical shale fracking revolution. If Democrats win the 2020 election, do you think this success story will continue?

I don’t know what your problem is Duane, but I sometimes wish this site would ban trolls like you since you are almost always just accenting any negativity possible and distorting ‘facts’ as you like to see them. The stock market crashed in the 2007/08 financial meltdown and by the time Bush 2 enacted the bailout that carried on under the Obama administration, of course the stock market corrected back to where it had been and kept growing which is where you try and convince us that was due to Obama’s leadership. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Under Trump, the Dow has gained at least 10,000 points based upon genuine organic market conditions, and not the infusion of a trillion dollar bailout that the Obama growth came from. You lie and distort statistics to try and make a point that somehow Obama was a much more successful President than Trump, but as noted, you lie by omission and your manipulation of statistics. Your kind of lies are the worst, since you do so with malice towards an effective administration and your personal hatred of President Trump. Grow Up!

Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2020 8:29 pm

The stock market gains under Obama came after the crash. The market was severely undervalued and “dead-cat bounced” back up. Obama never achieved a 3% annual growth rate, which Trump had done repeatedly until just recently. I think Obama’s avg. growth rate for the 8 years was about 2%. And that was with Quantitative easing and zero % interest rates (essentially free money).

Changes in labor force participation made Obama’s unemployment stats look better than actual, and the same changes in reverse make Trump’s look worse than actual. The economy barely stayed afloat under Obama, and everybody who lived through it knows that.


Joe B
January 4, 2020 11:47 pm

Not if, but when, the Keysone XL is finally built, it will be a HUGE boost to US fuel security as the heavy Canadian oil is precisely the type of feedstock that US Gulf refineries are currently importing.
The benefits to the Alberta oil industry cannot be overstated, as well.

Possible, interesting corollary may be the impact on the nascent Wexit movement in Alberta.
Should the rumors be true that the Trudeau government is about to embark upon a hard turn towards a fossil free future, the pressures upon the Canadian political status quo will become intense.

January 4, 2020 11:48 pm

cumulative consequences
Cumulative effects to the environment are the result of multiple activities whose individual direct impacts may be relatively minor but in combination with others result are significant environmental effects.

I can’t see how such a wise doctrine could possibly be misused. /sarc

The intent is clear and not even all that subtle. It makes it possible to block any project.

Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2020 8:20 pm

commieBob–Block, not so much, but impede? Definitely.

One of the ironies of Nixon’s presidency was his hopeless hope to gain acceptance with the main stream of media then (NYT, WAPO, TV news, etc) by accepting some of the left’s approach to the environment in the late 1960s. I guess Nixon still felt the animus of their permanent enmity from his defeat of Helen Gahagan Douglas, a glamorous leftist candidate for Congress in 1950, as suggested by Frank Gannon at https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2008/10/helen-gahagan-douglas-redux/ [I cannot yet get a more sophisticated text linkage to work here].

Nixon apparently acquiesced in signing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when he was assured by his assistants and by Congressional staffers that the act was bureaucratic in nature. He was told, accurately, that proposed actions would not be stopped by the requirements of this act. Perhaps he should have expected that court cases would abound regarding what were “adequate” or “appropriate” or “sufficient” environmental assessments or impact statements. But who would have told him about that?

Proposed actions cannot be stopped by NEPA, but the legal niceties can be more onerous than the proposer wishes to pursue. Action dropped? NEPA wins by “government oversight,” and the environment is not profited even a little. NGOs and professors? Maybe yes.

I worked on the edges of NEPA compliance in the Department of Energy for some years, and I found that what Nixon was told about NEPA is generally correct, and very expensive.

Public environmental assessments might be useful. The current elaborate dance of NEPA compliance is basically a political skit. NEPA should be sent into the sunset.

Clarky of Oz
January 5, 2020 12:39 am

Please exempt wind farm projects from these new rules and make them go through all the regulatory hoops and more? I am thinking zero CO2 emissions throughout their design, planning, manufacture, installation, operational and decommissioning phases.

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
January 5, 2020 4:06 pm

Just remove the exemption they have for killing protected bird species. That would drive them into bankruptcy and some execs into prison. If that exemption is not mandated by legislation, Trump could end it tomorrow.

Reply to  jtom
January 12, 2020 8:52 pm

jtom, You don’t know that half of it. Thousands of eagles are killed each year and you are not allowed to see any of that information:


from that article:

“The reality of this dire situation is that we are witnessing a government wildlife agency that was created to protect highly important species now laying out a red carpet so a devastating industry can kill many more thousands of eagles. The FWS might as well be sending an invitation to anyone in the Lower 48 to kill these iconic birds.

A Deceptive History

While the FWS is currently busy selling its eagle slaughter plan to the public, it is also blatantly ignoring what has taken place for years at the “Denver eagle repository.”

Through 2015, this location has secretly received  over 33,000 eagle carcasses  since 1997!

This gruesome number has been growing at the rate of 2500-3000 every year, thanks in large part to the wind industry. Today the majority of these eagle carcasses are bald eagles.

The American public has no clue that this secret Denver facility has become the wind industry’s mortuary for eagle carcasses.  But in contrast to other mortuaries, this one never provides autopsy or other information pertaining to the origin and death of these eagles.

Those wanting this eagle mortality information will find that the industry is 17 years ahead of you because this information is now protected by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Obtaining any of this eagle carcass information as it relates to the wind industry ended late in the Clinton administration, when a new FOIA law was enacted on December 1, 1999. Unbelievably, and thanks to the connivance of Clinton officials and members of Congress with the wind industry, the hidden, deceptive slaughter of bald and golden eagles is now treated as a  trade secret!”

So unfortunately, it is indeed a law, that allows thousands of bald and golden eagles to be killed each year by windmills, and the public is not allowed to see any of the data or statistics–it’s a trade secret.

More from the article:

“Years before the Clinton Era, even though protections were put into place for this one industry, information regarding the National Eagle repository (1974-1997) and Denver Eagle repository (1997 to present) was still disclosed by FWS agents. They could speak freely without fear of retribution. What these agents said is very important because it was provided from an era before major wind energy developments across the United States.

One thing that is very clear from reading early FWS statements  is that this agency used to be very serious about protecting eagles and knew exactly what was killing America’s eagles.

In November 1997, when California still had most of America’s installed wind energy and yet still had a healthy golden eagle population, the FWS made an alarming disclosure about the wind industry. It listed wind turbines as a brand new primary cause of death for the repository’s eagles. That year the Repository received just over 1,000 bald and golden eagle carcasses.”

Less than a month later the law had been changed to make the data unavailable and give carte blanche to the wind “industry.”

Matthew K
January 5, 2020 12:44 am

I hope Trump is re-elected this year, so he can deliver the final blow to all this madness! I can’t imagine the sort of havoc America would delve into if one of dumb o crats won, as the Americans will not stand for their policies and there will most likely be resistance.

Alasdair Fairbairn
January 5, 2020 12:59 am

Good to see that swamp levels are falling in Washington. Just hope that Boris, here in the U.K. gets the message and puts his beady eye on our Climate Change Act (2008).

January 5, 2020 1:20 am

The US should take note of what is happening in Australia at the moment. Please learn from other peoples’ mistakes.

Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2020 2:44 am

I hope everyone learns the lessons from Australia Simon.

That crazy green policies, kill many people, destroy crops, animals and habitat at an unprecedented rate.

I do hope that identified green people feel remorse about the deaths they are involved with, no matter how tenuous the connection is. But the leaders of the greens do have blood on their hands. In Australia and other countries that have burning seasons.

Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2020 3:53 am

Yes, USA should make sure massive fuel loads do not build up in their forests.

It a great lesson that the Australian wildfires have taught to every country.

Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2020 4:19 am

Passive aggressive gibberish Simon. Grow up.

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 5, 2020 7:28 am

Simon can’t help it. He’s paid to emote, not think.

Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2020 8:30 am

I’ll go through the math(s) with him if he cares to. Not for his benefit, but for the benefit of any readers that want to understand the quantification of the phony problem.

Not expecting a yes from Simon.

Does anyone want to be a pretend Simon and we’ll go through it as if Simple Simon was doing it. MarkW ??

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2020 5:11 am

We are taking note, Simon. It’s a terrible, natural tragedy exaserbated by mistakes made by politicians in the way they handle their fire-prone land. We had the same type of problem over here in the USA with terrible, natural wildfires in California earlier this year.

I imagine both California and Australia will take measures in the future to reduce the overgrowth of vegetation which fuels such fires, after having learned the hard lesson that allowing the vegetation to grow unchecked results in massive fires.

Humans learn one mistake at a time.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 7:30 am

The problem is that once we learn from a mistake and change things so that the problem becomes manageable, we quickly forget the lessons, and start making the old mistakes all over again.

TG McCoy
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2020 8:26 am

Tom. Abbot you are correct . as a retired Aerial firefighter I saw the mess in California
Coming 28years ago….
management is the key-always has been…

Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2020 5:26 am

re: “The US should take note of what is happening in Australia”

Through what channels? The nooze media outlets here continually engage in ‘navel gazing’ and only cover events outside the US when events turn catastrophic …

Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2020 7:27 am

The “mistakes” that Australia made were to not properly manage their forests.
The US is learning from that mistake, and as fast as we can get the green loons out of the way, we are fixing it.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2020 12:33 pm

Except for California, they’ve been making the same mistakes for decades and still refuse to learn from them. opting instead to go without electricity for days/weeks at a time.

Matthew K
January 5, 2020 1:45 am

Some more good news relating to the subject; our German friends over at No Tricks Zone have announced that a proposed green new deal was unanimously defeated yesterday following major opposition! Germany is in full resistance mode and its only a matter of time before other nations join them! Already resistance movements are growing in France and the Netherlands! 2020 will be our turn to rise!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew K
January 5, 2020 5:18 am

“a proposed green new deal was unanimously defeated yesterday following major opposition!”

That is good news!

I wonder if we will hear anything about it in the Mainstream Media? I doubt it. It doesn’t fit the leftwing narrative. They don’t report anything that doesn’t fit their narrative. Partisan, Political Censors they are.

Non Nomen
January 5, 2020 2:12 am

Good start for 2020 and a booster for the economy.

January 5, 2020 4:22 am

How much you want to bet the democratic mental greentards in the house vote to impeach DJT for this as well?

January 5, 2020 5:26 am

Presidents can’t rewrite laws … only Congress can do that.

Despite the gushing by the trained seals who constitute Trump’s supporters, America is not a dictatorship and Trump is not Der Fuhrer.

Prepare to shed millions of gallons of tears when reality bites on November 2.

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 6:10 am

What ‘boards’ do you frequent, Duane? Democrat Underground? HuffPo? Daily Cos? /pol on Reddit?

What ‘media’ to you consume – CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC? NYT, WashCompost?

Do you look up to that Russian propaganda hoaxster Rachel ‘Pat’ Maddow? She’s degree’d, you know …

Are you a Keith Olbermann fan? WOW has he fallen from even the ‘grace’ of the media this last decade ..

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 7:13 am

Well, at least we know you aren’t Rose McGown. But there is a large segment of the left that disagrees with you. Also, conservatives tend to be emotionally stable and can handle disappointment. Videos of Hillary supporters taken on November 8, 2016 show that it is the left who are the cry babies.

I don’t know who will win with certainty, but as the election nears I may invest in Kimberly Clark.


Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 7:32 am

President’s can’t rewrite laws, no matter how frequently your boy Barry tried to do that.
President’s can overturn previous presidential directives.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 11:18 am

Duane, regulations promulgated by U.S. Federal Executive (Presidential) agencies are not law. And regulatory abuses by unelected Deep State Federal and State bureaucracies are legion.

Congress must reign in the bureaucrats that are unduly influenced by unaccountable NGOs and the government-friendly cultures of Washington D.C. and State capitols. Simply drafting clearer, more comprehensive laws would help. It is heartening in that the courts seem to be reversing their deference to regulatory agencies when deciding between the agencies and legal protesters in interpreting ambiguities in Federal law.

Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 12:26 pm

re: “Presidents can’t rewrite laws … only Congress can do that.”

Look up the “Administrative Procedures Act”.

John Dilks
Reply to  Duane
January 5, 2020 4:59 pm

“Presidents can’t rewrite laws … only Congress can do that.”
That statement is correct.
Unfortunately for you, “Regulations” are not “Laws”. Regulations are created by the Executive Branch and can be deleted by the Executive Branch.

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Dilks
January 5, 2020 5:27 pm

Unless politicized courts invalidate such reversals, John.

Shawn Marshall
January 5, 2020 5:48 am

I was wrong about Trump – thought he was a DemoncRat running as a Republican. I supported Cruz.
Trump is the best President of my lifetime( I recall Ike’s term).
Trump has an attribute sadly lacking in all our other Presidents – he has rock hard common sense – probably developed by dealing with crooked pols, unions, permit apparatchiks and banks during his building escapades.
He knows we need USA jobs and a strong domestic production industry.
He is the only guy to take on the Red Chinese since the Nixon/Kissinger gambit has failed.
He listens to Will Happer.
He has a finely tuned, highly sensitive detector for Bovine Scat.
And, very important to me, he is the most pro-life President we have ever been blessed with.
Wanna see something mystical? Do a search for the Hermit of Loreto story.

Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 5, 2020 6:02 am

In all practicality, just WHO didja think was going to win against (the shrew) Hillary! ?

Cruz would have wound-up as ‘road tar’ in that face off … and he is my state’s senator. I haven’t confessed this anywhere else, but, in the primary I picked Trump over Cruz …

John Endicott
Reply to  _Jim
January 6, 2020 12:12 pm

In all practicality, just WHO didja think was going to win against (the shrew) Hillary! ?

Pretty much anybody. She was the absolute worst candidate ever. Failing a Mark Rich/Vince Foster/Jeffery Epstein experience happening to the opposing candidate, most any of them could have beaten Hillary, even low energy Jeb, as long as they put in the effort. Cruz would definitely have put in the effort (nor so sure Jeb would have. Like Hillary he saw it too much as an entitlement because of his last name and not enough like something he needed to put effort into winning).

Reply to  John Endicott
January 6, 2020 1:41 pm

re: “Pretty much anybody.”

Severely out-of-touch. Or, you’re purposely re-writing history (in your own mind.)

Either way, wrong … (you have NO grasp on how politics work, more specifically, WHAT it takes to ‘motivate a base’ to get them to turn out for you on election day. Cruz didn’t have that mojo, Jebby didn’t either. TRUMP did. NO ONE else could do what he did.)

John Endicott
Reply to  _Jim
January 7, 2020 6:44 am

It’s your post that is severely out-of-touch and attempting to re-write history _Jim. Hillary was not well liked. Half the country hates (not just dislikes, out right hates, her). I agree that Jebby would have a harder time beating her precisely because, in many ways, he was the Republican Hillary – felt self-entitled and thus not likely to put in the needed effort (Trump called it with the “low energy” nickname) and hated by a large portion of the electorate (due more to his family name than to himself, but hated nonetheless).

You forget how absolutely terrible a candidate Hillary was. She couldn’t motivate her own base (more people voted for her motivated by hatred of Trump than voted for her as a result of being motivated by her). Ted Cruz definitely could do a better job of motivating his base than Hillary did of motivating her own (he could hardly do a worse job of it) and just as importantly he wouldn’t have motivated *her* base as much as Trump did.

While Trump generates a lot of “love” from his base, he also generates a lot of “hate” from the opposing base (more so than any other candidate in history, not even Bush was as hated by the Democrat base as Trump). Hate is as much of a motivator as love, sometimes even more so.

And too, don’t forget, how absolutely hated Hillary was by the Republican base as well. The election was, for many people about who do you hate more: Trump or Hillary. Cruz doesn’t generate the level of hate that Trump or Hillary does. I’m sorry but he simply doesn’t. So he’d still get the “never Hillary” vote, whereas a large portion of Hillary’s vote was “never Trump”, with Cruz, there is no comparable “never Cruz” voting block.

But ultimately, the election would be decided not by the respective bases (the deep red states would go for Cruz just as they did for Trump, and the deep blue would still be in Hillary’s pocket) but by the swing voters in the purples states. For all the reasons above regarding how terrible a candidate and not well liked outside her base that Hillary was, Cruz would have a very good shot at picking up those swing voters. It might have been a tighter race in the electoral college, but the edge would still be on Cruz’s side IMO.

Pretty much anyone could have beaten Hillary if they tried hard enough (some would have had to try harder than others), that’s how terrible a candidate she was (if it wasn’t for all the “never Trump” voters going to Hillary by default, it wouldn’t have even been as close as it was). and Pretty much anyone could have done better against Trump than Hillary did (though they still likely would have lost), that’s how terrible a candidate she was.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 7, 2020 7:42 am

re: “It’s your post that is severely out-of-touch ”

You’re bordering on full-out idiocy now.

John Endicott
Reply to  _Jim
January 7, 2020 11:37 am

And you’ve shown you have nothing but insults now, thanks for admitting you have nothing else.

John Endicott
Reply to  _Jim
January 7, 2020 6:52 am

_Jim, if Cruz had won the Primary, would you have picked Hillary in the General? Somehow I doubt it, and you wouldn’t be alone in not picking Hillary. “the shrew” (your words) was not well liked, in fact she was absolutely despised by many. Those voters would still have voted for whomever was “not Hillary”, just as there was a contingent that voted who were “never Trump”. There just isn’t a comparable “not/never Cruz” voting block.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 7, 2020 7:38 am

re: “would you have picked Hillary”

Moron – LOOK at the cross-over DEMOCRATS that picked TRUMP because they like a FIGHTER.

The BLUE STATES in the MIDWEST have been TRADITIONAL DEMOCRAT STRONGHOLDS, these areas WENT FOR TRUMP (AREWAS Hillary! did NOT campaign in, because, they were COUNTED ON as already being ‘in the bag’ for Hillary!). Those areas would NOT have gone for CRUZ.

Cruz DOES NOT have the ‘pull’ that a TRUMP has, to CONVERT traditional DEMOCRAT voters to pull the lever for a REPUBLICAN*.

Cruz just BARELY won over BETO in a senatorial race held in the last couple years.

*You’re JUST not getting that fact.

John Endicott
Reply to  _Jim
January 7, 2020 11:34 am


Thank you for admitting you have no valid, civilized argument to make. Resorting to insults only shows the weakness of your own position.

Cruz DOES NOT have the ‘pull’ that a TRUMP has, to CONVERT traditional DEMOCRAT voters to pull the lever for a REPUBLICAN*.

Cruz would have run a different strategy to Trump, to be sure. But there’s more than one way to 270 EC votes. If you knew anything about politics in the USA you’d know that.

Hillary was a lousy candidate. period. you are just not getting that fact. And a lot of her “support” came from those who were voting against Trump rather than for Hillary. Similarly Trump benefited from a lot of voters who were voting against Hillary instead of for Trump. For many voters, particularly in the middle, it really was a matter of voting for whomever they saw as the lesser of two evils.

Cruz isn’t Trump, that would be both a minus (he won’t draw some of the voters Trump drew) and a plus (He won’t repel many of the voters Trump repelled). You have blinded yourself into only seeing the minus, and thus showing how “severely out-of-touch” (to use your own turn of phrase) you are.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 7, 2020 12:51 pm

re: “Thank you for admitting you have no valid, civilized argument”

When I realize I’ve got a bona fide idiot involved in a discussion, “You betcha” to quote Palin!


John Endicott
Reply to  _Jim
January 8, 2020 5:18 am

Talking to yourself again. You know you’ve lost the argument when all you’ve got is insults. I graciously accept your admission of defeat.

Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 5, 2020 4:14 pm

As I said when voting for Trump in the primaries, “Trump isn’t a politician. He’s a pragmatist. He’ll figure out ways to get things done.” I haven’t been disappointed.

Mow I tell others, “if you like having a job, you can keep your job, just support Trump.”

Martin A
January 5, 2020 5:55 am

Chris Wright
January 5, 2020 at 3:05 am
Hopefully Boris Johnson will eventually understand the climate scam just as Donald Trump does.

I think it’s possible he already does. When he mentioned the forthcoming 2020 climate change conference in Glasgow, I noiticed he said something like “we need to look after the environment” rather than something about “the need to fight climate catastrophe”.

William Astley
Reply to  Martin A
January 5, 2020 2:31 pm

I think he understands more than he lets on…

His government has $28 billion in new road construct to eliminate grid lock which will create jobs and get votes…

The UK of course has committed to being carbon neutral by 2050 with is the Left mantra which is physically impossible and economic suicide.

Collister Johnson
January 5, 2020 7:11 am

I believe the high water mark of climate alarmism occurred when a 16 year old child, who knows nothing about chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, etc., stood in front of adults at the UN and lectured them about how they are ruining the planet and need to heed her word on how to conduct their lives in the future. The tide is turning , thanks to President Trump, and for once a politician is keeping the promises he made. He is a fearless warrior who stands for common sense and reality when it comes to the climate debate. Yellow vests in France, brexits in England, elimination or phase out of tax credits for cars, solar, and wind in the US, and now infrastructure. The alarmists have run out of ammo, hence the switch from “climate change” to “climate emergency”. Four more years of Trump are clearly needed.

January 5, 2020 7:12 am

Whoa. Hold on there buddy. We need to know how are bridges will handle ice loads due to “climate cooling, warming, change”. This is important stuff. What? Engineers already do that calculation? Oh, “Never Mind” (homage to Gilda Radner).

So many things to take into account when building infrastructure. Just the seasonal changes from the heat of summer to the cold of winter are massive +/- 30C swings in a lot of North America. But some people want to know how we will deal with a potential +/-1.5C change? LOL. Don’t worry folks, we got ya covered.

Dennis G. Sandberg
January 5, 2020 9:44 am

Can you imagine where the USA economy would be if we would have had free market, limited government, America first presidents throughout that past 60 years? Beginning with a conservative in 1960 instead of Kennedy=Johnson and their Vietnam “war”.

Rudolf Huber
January 5, 2020 2:12 pm

Just common sense, unproven theories should not be the foundation for throwing taxpayers money out of the window. The biggest threat the developed world is facing today is not China, its not Iran, it’s itself. Not in the way that most do understand that though. It looks like that countries start to ossify when they have been living the good life for too long. Some of us take this for granted. It’s not. There are systems and people that keep this thing we call civilization running. Trump seems to be serious to break the bullshit concrete that has overgrown our lives. I did not think this would ever happen but it does. The US is on its way to deal with the deadliest problem we have. It’s rejuvenating. When you are done in the US, I would sure appreciate if you could lend us some of your time to do the same to my home country.

%d bloggers like this: