PowerLine -> Not blasé about de Blasio – Clearing up Acosta’s confusion

Warren Wilhelm aka Bill de Blasio at HoaxAndChange.com

Comrade Warren Wilhelm Jr. AKA – New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, trek to the HomeLand, looking for Nazi to team up with?

Warren Wilhelm aka Bill de Blasio at HoaxAndChange.com

Warren Wilhelm aka Bill de Blasio at HoaxAndChange.com


PowerLine -> Not blasé about de Blasio – Clearing up Acosta’s confusion

 

Daily Digest


  • Europe Moves to Ban Internal Combustion
  • Today in the Annals of the Loser Left
  • Emmanuel Macron: The boy who cried “wolf”
  • Not blasé about de Blasio (3)
  • Clearing up Acosta’s confusion
Europe Moves to Ban Internal Combustion

Posted: 09 Jul 2017 04:18 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

The Independent reports that France will ban gasoline-powered vehicles by 2040. The Independent is foolish enough to think that this is good news:

France plans to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, the country’s new environment minister has announced.

Nicolas Hulot made the announcement as he unveiled a series of measures as part of newly elected President Emmanuel Macron’s plan to make the country carbon neutral by 2050.

A lot of electric cars will have to be built, but French automakers stand ready to accept government handouts:

Mr Hulot said he recognised the target would put pressure on France’s car manufacturers, but he said they currently had projects which “can fulfil that promise”.

As part of the plan, poorer households will receive a premium so they can swap their polluting vehicles for clean alternatives.

Of course, they will. It isn’t only France, either:

France is not the only country which aims to ban combustion-powered cars. The Netherlands and Norway previously said they wanted to get rid of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2025 and Germany and India announced similar plans ahead of 2030.

Getting rid of conventional automobiles in the next eight years will be quite a trick, but auto manufacturers are happy to adapt in order to make a profit:

The announcement comes after Volvo said on Wednesday it planned to built only electric and hybrid vehicles from 2019.

It is hard for market forces to compete with government mandates. But where will the electricity to run all those electric vehicles come from? Most electricity in France comes from nuclear power, which produces no carbon dioxide. But France wants to cut down on nuclear power, too:

France has also pledged to reduce nuclear energy from 75 per cent to 50 per cent of the country’s energy mix by 2025.

But France doesn’t want to use coal, either:

Speaking at a press conference, Mr Hulot told reporters France would stop using coal to produce electricity by 2022 and that up to €4bn of investments will help to boost energy efficiency.

I hope they are planning on importing a lot of natural gas for power plants. Otherwise, what? Solar and wind? Good luck running your cars on that.

One is tempted to say that this is mostly just government bullying. We are going to order changes in the way people live just because it is fun to push them around.

Reacting to the news, ClientEarth CEO James Thornton said: … “Coming hot on the heels of Volvo’s announcement yesterday, the outlook for the internal combustion engine is bleak. This is now clearly the direction of travel, and industry players who are not on board will find themselves struggling before long.”

Nice auto company you have here. Shame if anything should happen to it!

The Europeans have always done fascism better than we do. I am pretty sure manufacturers of gasoline-powered cars will have a market here in the U.S. for many years to come.

  

Today in the Annals of the Loser Left

Posted: 09 Jul 2017 10:45 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

I thought Wonder Woman was overrated, chiefly because I have very little enthusiasm for the whole comic book superhero film adaptations, which all seem unmemorable in as little as 30 minutes after leaving the theater. And they all have the same climax: the hero is losing to the villain, until some magical point when the hero summons up a reserve of hidden strength, or discovers a new dimension of power, and turns the tables on the bad guy. Big surprise: Thor beats Loki—again. Make a closing speech about love or something. Roll credits. Be sure to toss out your empty popcorn bag.

But one great bonus of Wonder Woman is how it has summoned forth some examples of the cultural left in full clown mode. Like Jonathan Cook, who actually wrote this:

Wonder Woman is a hero only the military-industrial complex could create

. . . My argument is that this much-praised Gal Gadot vehicle–seemingly about a peace-loving superhero, Wonder Woman, from the DC Comics stable–is actually carefully purposed propaganda designed to force-feed aggressive western military intervention, dressed up as humanitarianism, to unsuspecting audiences.

In short, this is straight-up propaganda for the military-industrial complex. It would have looked and sounded identical had it been scripted by a joint team from the Pentagon and the Israel Defense Forces. . .

The complete piece is quite long, and most of it has little to do with Wonder Woman. But then the main subtext emerges late in the piece:

There has been plenty of guffawing at Middle East countries, including Lebanon, for seeking to ban Wonder Woman because it stars Gal Gadot, an Israeli beauty queen turned actress who plays the title role.

In fact, it is understandable that the Lebanese might object to a film heavily promoting Gadot as the world’s savior, given that she served in the Israeli army, one that brutally occupied parts of their country for two decades until 2000 and continues to maintain a belligerent occupation of the Palestinians.

I imagine if Jonathan Cook had been around in the 1970s for Lynda Carter’s Wonder Woman, he’d have simply swapped out Vietnamese for Palestinians. Unlike comic book superheroes, leftists don’t have to summon up any extra powers to achieve their comic book results.

  

Emmanuel Macron: The boy who cried “wolf”

Posted: 09 Jul 2017 09:18 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

Emmanuel Macron, the 39-year-old president of France who has been in office for a few months, declared yesterday that “our world has never been so divided.” At the end of the G-20 summit, Macron intoned: “Centrifugal forces have never been so powerful; our common goods have never been so threatened.”

I don’t know what Macron’s 64-year-old wife taught him when she was his high school teacher, but I hope it wasn’t History. Maybe Macron was off rehearsing Kundera’s “Jacques and his Master” the day they taught World War I, World War II, and the Cold War at his school.

Macron was elected president of France because the adult candidate, Francois Fillon, was caught up in a scandal not long before the first-round of the election. In the second round, Macron had the good fortune of facing an extremist opponent saddled with the baggage of her even more extremist father.

But Macron is now France’s president, and this job has long carried with it the duty to bloviate about world affairs and to hawk France’s most prized product — diplomacy.

It’s a matter of national pride. The French find it hard to accept that the U.S., as befits the world’s strongest power, dominates world diplomacy. So its leaders are always on the lookout for gaps in our diplomacy which they can attempt to fill. Traditionally, the French expect this behavior from their leaders, upstarts or not, though I wonder how relevant the model is today to the general population.

The main “gap” in U.S. diplomacy that Macron wants to exploit is our withdrawal from the Paris Accord. Presumably with this in mind, Macron announced that there would be another climate summit in Paris in December to mark the two-year anniversary of the climate accord. Exactly what will be accomplished at the anniversary gala is unclear, other than to allow Macron to pose as a consequential figure and take indirect (probably) shots at the U.S.

The French elites will eat it up. Whether the event will distract the wider French population from the country’s deep social and economic ailments is another matter.

Regardless, to pretend that America’s non-participation in a climate agreement, one that offers no realistic hope of combating climate change, marks an unprecedented threat to “our common goods” is preposterous. If Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord is a “centrifugal force,” that’s mainly because Macron and Angela Merkel find it in their interest to treat it as such.

Macron’s pronouncement notwithstanding, as a centrifugal force, the withdrawal quite doesn’t measure up to Fascism (as the French should know) or Communism.

Is there anything else that backs up Macron’s degree of supposed alarm? He can’t plausibly harp on Trump’s alleged indifference to NATO any longer. Trump said the magic Article 5 words during his Poland speech.

But this didn’t stop Macron from puffing:

I will not concede anything in the direction of those who are pushing against multilateralism. We need better coordination, more coordination. We need those organizations that were created out of the Second World War. Otherwise, we will be moving back toward narrow-minded nationalism.”

Here, his quarrel is or should be, with the citizens of European countries like Britain who are tired of being dictated to by elitists like Macron. What the young president of France doesn’t grasp is that the unwillingness of people like him to “concede anything” in this regard is the reason why the multilateral organizations he touts are failing.

It is the main cause of the “centrifugal” force Macron rails against.

Trump came to G-20 meeting disliked, if not hated, by the likes of Macron and Angela Merkel. He leaves disliked, if not hated, by them.

It wasn’t Trump’s goal to placate them — something he could only have accomplished by reversing course on the Paris agreement, coupled with a personality transplant. But from all that appears, Trump did nothing new to offend Western European sensibilities. He backed Article 5, criticized Russia, and reached some minor agreements about trade.

Trump said nice things about various leaders, calling Merkel “incredible.” He even praised World Bank leader, and former Dartmouth president, Jim Kim (I will be hard-pressed to forgive him for that).

If this sounds to you like a world divided as it never has been before, you must be a French politician.

  

Not blasé about de Blasio (3)

Posted: 09 Jul 2017 08:54 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

The New York Post remains unrelenting in its campaign to call its lunatic left-wing mayor to account. First, the Post alerts us to the news inside with this irate cover.

Then the Post reports:

Mayor de Blasio flew all the way to Hamburg, Germany, to praise that city’s police in a speech — while cops back home continued to mourn, without him, the assassination of one of their own in The Bronx.

“Our right to protest is directly related to the fact that our police protect us,” Hizzoner told a crowd of thousands at the outdoor Hamburg Shows Attitude rally protesting the G-20 summit Saturday. “So help me by joining in applause and thanks for the police,” he said as the crowd cheered.

“There have also been great acts of bravery and restraint,” he said. “Remember, our police are working men and women, too.”

But Hamburg police weren’t feeling the love, despite the praises of “Burgermeister de Blasio.” By Saturday night — after two days of rioting — more than 200 Hamburg cops had been injured by a rowdy minority of bottle- and firebomb-tossing protesters, according to CNN.

And back home, the mayor missed an evening vigil honoring slain NYPD Officer Miosotis ­Familia at the 46th Precinct station house where she worked in The Bronx.

The talkative de Blasio declined to take questions from the Post in Hamburg when asked: “for a response to the criticism he has received — from police, political opponents, and New Yorkers — for leaving the city just one day after Familia’s assassination to grandstand on a global stage.” Returning to New York later today, he may have to take a question or two that should help the Post keep the era of good feelings going.

  

Clearing up Acosta’s confusion

Posted: 09 Jul 2017 07:07 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)On Thursday evening CNN’s Jim Sciutto tried to clear up the confusion of his colleague Jim Acosta about the number of intelligence agencies that collaborated on the assessment of Russian meddling in the election. The assessment derived from the report released on January 6 that is posted online here.

The report expressly states that the analytic assessment was “drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.” Clapper’s testified to the same effect before a Senate committee on May 8 (video here).

Yet Acosta charged President Trump with disseminating “fake news” at what he called Trump’s “fake news conference” last week in Warsaw. Acosta poignantly asked Fredo Cuomo (as Rush calls him) and Poppy Harlow on one of CNN’s morning shows: “Where does this three or four number come from?” They were all stumped.

Following up on Trump’s “fake news,” Sciutto queried Clapper. Sciutto asked Clapper about the total number of American intelligence agencies and how many of them contributed to the assessment. The answer to the question must have come as a shock to Acosta et al.

“On the number of components of the intelligence community, yes, there are 17. Sixteen components by law plus the Office of Director of National Intelligence,” Clapper said. But he added that not all 17 were involved in the Russia assessment. “When President-elect Trump was briefed on this on the 6th of January, there were four of us, meaning the directors of NSA, FBI, CIA, and myself. That’s all,” he said.

“How the narrative got out there about 17 components being involved, I don’t know,” he said.

That’s one question Acosta might be in a good position to answer.

I have a footnote for certain Power Line commenters who are subject to their own confusion. The merits of the January 6 report are not my subject here or in related posts. They raise a separate question. I cite the report only for its refutation of the “17 intelligence agencies” shtick.

Via Charles Fain Lehman/Washington Free Beacon.

  

Leave a Reply