Years ago, when learning how Hitler, Lenin, etc., seized power, it was easy to see the path and to identify the players who were so dangerous. In the excellent article by Larry Arnn, the President of Hillsdale College, we see another path taken by those who can destroy our liberties with (giving them the benefit of the doubt) the best of intentions. Do they fully realize the cost of their actions? Certainly, there seems to be no cost to them personally for the damage they cause, but then, it was all with the best of intentions.

After reading the article, you may believe it is the writing of a paranoia, yet it comes together oh so smoothly. A short cut here, a “necessary” action there and soon you have an entirely new set of rules by which your life is governed. If you disagree with the new rules, to whom do you turn? Who will hear your views? Your local representative? They are the ones who have helped to create the “solutions” by relying on the “experts,” so who are you to complain?

The greatest injustices in human history have been committed by those who act “with the best of intentions.”  Think back; has any dictator or tyrant ever announced his deadly policies in terms other than solving injustices?

There are solutions, but they require brave individuals who will stand for their traditional values and guidelines, as two examples are noted in the article. Those who have taken brave stands are not “experts,” but as Winston Churchill once said, they know that “what hurts is a safer guide (in their lives) than any vigorous direction of a specialized character.”

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Imprimis_Nov_11-21_8pgWEB.pdf

Sometime in our history, Congress decided to hand the reins of power to the bureaucracy, also known as the administrative state. Now Congress did not take a cut in pay when they did this; no, they continue to make a nice salary, have excellent benefits and a great retirement program. By allowing the bureaucrats to develop an administrative state, they have managed to avoid most of the heavy work of the laws they do pass. It is relatively easy to pass a law, but the demanding work is creating the rules and regulations which enforce the laws, and the bureaucracy has been given what seems to be a free hand in creating rules that can go far beyond the intention and meaning of the laws.

The recent EPA mileage standards are a prime example of how bureaucrats can change society without ever having to face the public and how our representative’s pawn off details which could endanger their time in power if their names were on the regulations.

The link below will direct you to an article that shows exactly how unelected bureaucrats can dictate rules which impact the auto industry which is over 3% of our economy, the cost of energy, increase taxes and override the capitalist system transforming our nation into a society run by central planning. The serious facts and questions raised in the article are not answered by anyone at the EPA; there is no public debate, no discussion of scientific opinions, only the rule of government agencies. We are in danger of being ruled not by laws created by our elected representatives, but rather by ideologues and a faceless administrative state.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-mileage-standards-are-a-stealth-electric-vehicle-mandate-auto-industry-cars-regulation-11640726730?page=1

Talk about great timing! If you caught yesterday’s posting (Fifty Years of Crying Wolf), you would think that I had inside information regarding the column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Walter Russell Mead (see link below). The recent global environmental conference, attended by 30,000 world “leaders”, national beggars, press, etc. ended with the usual false promises (they have a wonderful record of not achieving promised goals), demands for hundreds of billions of dollars for dubious projects, silence on why they have not been able to achieve any of their previous promises, etc.

How long will we who pay the bills for these gabfests have to put up with being told how we have to cut back on our standard of living while we fail to see any of the attendees lead by example? Private jets, limos, umpteen course dinners served in the finest locations, etc. are the norm for the “elite,” and the “best and the brightest” who seem to believe that the average citizen has no memory about past failed conferences.

Isn’t it time we demanded real accountability from those who live off the public trough?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-the-global-age-of-shams-cop26-glasgow-agreements-crisis-emissions-globalism-11637010052?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

For fifty years we have heard Presidents, scientists, spoiled children, professors, etc. telling us that we have only ten years to save the planet. Fifty years of hand wringing, spending trillions of dollars on wind and solar power, creating carbon credits, etc. have apparently not been successful as the claims of pending disaster continue unabated. Let us look at some of the predictions over the past half century:

• 1972: “We have ten years to stop the catastrophe” said UN “environment protection boss.
• 1982: The opening of the second UN conference as reported by the NY Times was not a happy meeting. Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the UN environmental program stated at if action were not taken, in 2000 we would face, “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.”

Similar warnings were issued in 1998, 1989 and 1990; always disaster within the next ten years. Massive crop failures, even “nations wiped off the face of the Earth” were predicted. The year 2000 came and went and we survived. In 2004 it was reported that the Pentagon told President Bush that climate change would “destroy us”. Among the disasters was Siberian winters in Britain, major European cities sinking beneath rising seas, etc.

The world, and the United States in particular has done much to protect our environment. Yet, the nature of mankind is to move forward, and we often find that our own laws and regulations which are designed to protect our environment hinder our natural desire to grown. How do we balance protection vs. growth? The link below provides some examples of the imbalance that can occur with the best of intentions. It should not take years, often up to a decade, tens of thousands of pages and many lawsuits to achieve balance. Unfettered grown can be a blight for all of us, but laws which increase the costs of progress many times delay growth and can lead to even greater environmental problems. Congress, even a split Congress should be able to act to solve the problems, but those who oppose change, including the Federal bureaucracy itself must be challenged. Obstruction is not free and the ones who ultimately pay are the taxpayers themselves who receive smaller benefits at a greater cost.

https://www.city-journal.org/when-environmental-regulations-backfire

As Bjorn Lomborg states in his article, Africa produces more energy from renewables than anywhere else in the world, but they also have 700,000 deaths from indoor pollution caused by renewable energy. It is a tragic figure yet it is all but ignored by those who lead the charge towards renewable energy.

Equally as disturbing is the fact that by now, world leaders realize that there is no way to reach their green energy goals in 2030, 2040, or 2050. In short, now is not the time to sell your old energy technology stocks as there is not enough time, money nor technology to rid the world of fossil fuels.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lockdown-climate-fossil-fuels-electricity-energy-production-africa-carbon-emission-11632943155

“The best laid schemes of mice and men can still go wrong” and so it is with the plans of the nations and their egos. Mankind has always tried to move forward but history has shown us that there is a natural progression to our progress. We cannot force an issue and all the fabricated rules and laws written to support a policy fail when faced with reality. As much as we use technology, it only works when it is developed reasonably and naturally. Any rush to implementation by mankind always runs up against reality.

There is no doubt that in many parts of the country, the term “starter house” means entering a bidding war where the starting point in California is $440,000 and the median cost is about $800,000. Could it be due to, in California, a Code of Regulations on housing is over 21,000,000 words in length, or because all new houses must have solar panels which add about $8,000 or more to each new house? Of course not, as the government, both State and Federal are there to “solve” the housing problem. We might very well have a housing problem because of the State and Federal regulations which aim at taking away local control of housing and centralizing all decisions by bureaucrats far from those who lives they attempt too “better.”

For years, the Europeans have poured billions of Euros into Green Energy projects with the promise of dependable, cheap, and renewable energy. At least that is what the leaders have promised; unfortunately, the result has been spiraling energy costs and a damper on the European economies. Energy costs in Europe are 2-3 times higher than in the U.S. (although with the new Biden Administration that competitive edge is being lost) and as a result, numerous European companies have moved manufacturing jobs to the U.S.

This short editorial tells a sad tale of a Europe now searching for traditional means of energy and having to pay higher prices. Plus, Russia is in an excellent position to not only gain political concessions from the E.U. but can also strike a very favorable balance of trade thanks to the now completed pipeline which had been blocked by the Trump Administration. It looks like it may be a very frigid winter for Europe.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-climate-lesson-for-america-energy-prices-fuel-wind-11631655375?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

There is no doubt that the recent flooding by Hurricane Ida was terrible for millions of Americans. Everyone was concerned initially about the possible impact on New Orleans and instead for a week we watched a single storm march across the nation like Sherman’s March to the Sea; unstoppable and truly frightening. We saw in no uncertain terms, the might of mother nature. In my mind, anyone who believes that we can have a decisive impact on nature in terms of stopping or controlling such power must have a self-image that defies all reason.