RUTHFULLY YOURS

This just in:

A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved. The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold. The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.

The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030. Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.

The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.

Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.

President Obama added new funding in his FY 2017 budget to try to save Alaska from the effects of climate change.

That includes $150 million for planning and design to fast-track “a new polar-class icebreaker” to begin production by 2020. “The new, heavy icebreaker will assure year-round accessibility to the Arctic region for Coast Guard missions including protection of Alaska’s maritime environment and resources,” the White House said in a fact sheet on the initiatives this morning.

Under the plan, Alaska would get about $400 million of a $2 billion Coastal Climate Resilience program — including “relocation expenses for Alaska Native villages threatened by rising seas, coastal erosion, and storm surges.”

“This program would be paid for by redirecting roughly half of the savings achieved by repealing unnecessary and costly offshore oil and gas revenue sharing payments that are set to be paid to a handful of states under current law,” the White House said.

An additional $5 million would be added to the previous year’s budget for the federal Denali Commission “to coordinate Federal, State, and Tribal assistance to communities to develop and implement solutions to address the impacts of climate change.”

Late on February 9, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow, albeit temporary, to President Barack Obama’s anti-global warming initiative that was intended to be a hallmark of his second term. In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled to put Environmental Protection Agency regulations on whole so that an appeals court can hear arguments from the more than two dozen states opposed to the initiative. The EPA regulations were intended to control greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Climate change skeptic and journalist Marc Morano said of the ruling, “This is a major victory for U.S. sovereignty, energy freedom, climate science and a blow to economic central planning.” Likewise, energy advocates and other climate change skeptics argue that the rules would represent a major and costly shift in the economy by requiring energy companies and consumers to plug into alternative sources such as wind and solar power and away from cheap fossil fuels. Most of the electric power generated in the U.S. comes from coal, oil or natural gas.

“This wasn’t a rule so much as it was a reimagining of the entire electricity system of the United States,” said Michael McKenna, a GOP energy strategist. It’s “the most far-reaching and burdensome rule EPA has ever forced onto the states,” 26 states led by West Virginia and Texas argued in court papers.

The delay will continue until June, when it may go before an appeals court. If the states and energy advocates lose in that court, the hold on the regulations would last until they sought Supreme Court review. So far, the EPA will not be able to enforce the Sept. 6 deadline for states to either submit their emission reduction plans or request a two-year extension. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, whose coal-mining state was one of those arguing against the plan. In a statement, Morrisey said, “We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues.”

.We just learned that over 600,000 driver licenses were issued to illegal immigrants in California

The law known as AB60 took effect on January 2, 2015. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the law in October 2013 to give a legal document to the 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in California alone — most from Latin America and particularly neighboring Mexico.

California officials believe the program — which does not give license holders any US federal benefits — does make roads in the most populous US state safer, several state sources said.

It does not allow license holders, for example, the right to fly on airplanes inside the United States, nor does it give anyone legal residency status, the right to work or to seek a US passport.

But among the upsides are that California drivers with the document can drive legally across the entire vast United States, without being fined or facing fear of having their vehicle impounded.

Jane Kahn and Michael Bien, two activists with the anti-Israel New Israel Fund, had a complaint about San Francisco’s Jewish Community Federation. They were unhappy that JCF wouldn’t fund Hamas.

Or more specifically, they whined that “we were unable to make donations through our JCF donor-advised philanthropic fund to certain organizations that we support”. One of those organizations was the American Friends Service Committee because the JCF narrow-mindedly refuses to help fund groups that “endorse or promote anti-Semitism” or promote BDS.

The American Friends Service Committee does these things and more. It promotes BDS as if that were its religion right down to a “BDS Summer Institute”. And it has a long and troubled history with anti-Semitism from urging Jews to “tolerate some anti-Semitic remarks” to throwing a shindig for Iranian madman Ahmadinejad.

But, more importantly, the AFSC has urged the United States to deal with Hamas despite its call for the eradication of the Jewish people. It has a history of supporting Hamas front “charities” and its website defends Hamas and describes its murderous terror attacks against Israeli civilians as “the use of violence in resisting Israel’s occupation”. It tells supporters “U.S. government policy officially supports Israel’s continued siege on Gaza and the Isolation of Hamas. This is a situation that must end.” It urges supporters to demand a, “complete end to Israel’s siege on Gaza and engagement with Hamas.”

AFSC Palestine-Israel program director Mike Merryman-Lotze justifies anti-Semitic terrorism by arguing that, “Violence is the inevitable response.” AFSC figures advocate the destruction of Israel in various forms. AFSC coordinates with other extreme anti-Israel groups, including JVP. This isn’t a new development for the AFSC which has an ugly history of defending politically correct genocide.