It has taken more time than it should have, but corporations are finally waking up that dealing with Communist China is a poor deal with the devil. 

Recent security laws issued by the Communist Party totally ignore international legal standards of lawyer-client privilege and opens the door to a complete breakdown of trust between the attorneys and their clients.  The action by Denton is a bold move and should make every individual or corporation which does business in China seriously question their legal counsel.  If that counsel does not provide a solid, positive answer, change your counsel.  It is the only answer to give to the Communist government which disregards international norms.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/law-firm-dentons-splits-with-chinas-dacheng-counter-espionage-law-takes-hold-2023-08-08/

During the Obama administration, there were voices who claimed that the United States was on the verge of having a two-tiered system of justice.  A claim of this sort was nothing new as it has always been acknowledged that an individual’s ability to hire the best mouthpiece (lawyer) for the money impacted the justice system.  Our nation has had a long litany of unequal justice, but they have been addressed and attempts have been made to correct the errors within the system.

The claims of a two-tiered justice system during the Obama administration were different, for the abuses were not the actions of a local sheriff or a misguided judge but were rather abuses from the very top of the law enforcement system.  The beginnings of the politization of Federal agencies, such as the IRS, the office of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the FBI and others stuck at the very foundations of the Republic. That politization of the DOJ and FBI, carried through into the Trump administration as officials within those departments turned their powers against the duly elected President.

Today, we see a lengthening record of a two-tiered system of justice, and it is more open, more repugnant than ever before.  The linked article by Victor Davis Hanson outlines only the most grievous examples as our system of justice is being warped for political ends.  It is unfortunate that despite the best of intentions, our justice system has never reached perfection, but have we gone so far down the other path that we can still regain our sense of dignity and some sense of idealism?  I hope not.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/hanson-two-sets-of-laws-for-two-americas

I remember when President Reagan was newly elected,  he started on a path to defeat the Soviet Union. It was a scary time as it seemed as if the march of the Soviet Union was unstoppable; they were on the move around the globe and the U.S. was still suffering from the fall of Viet Nam. Our military seemed to be in disarray, the economy was struggling to bounce back from the Carter administration and the national psyche was at a low point.

President Reagan believed that the U.S. could defeat the Soviet Union thanks to our powerful economy, but it takes time to rebuild a military which can fight on a worldwide scale. Could we rebuild our military fast enough or would the Soviet Union act in a key area such as Western Europe? We now know that it indeed was a dangerous time because after the fall of the Soviet Union, warehouses of victory banners and medals, Cyrillic Street signs destined for Paris, Bonn and the rest of Western Europe were found in Soviet military warehouses. Despite all the nay sayers, Reagan’s dream of victory was achieved. Unfortunately, there were no Nuremberg trials for those in the Soviet system who had enslaved and murdered millions during their time in power.

Today, we face another adversary, one which is more dangerous, that being Communist China. It is more dangerous not only because it has an economy that the old Soviet Union could only dream of, but also more dangerous because of it’s willingness to pay, with its citizens lives and those of any advisory, to attain its ultimate goal; to become the number one superpower in the world. 

Years ago, I read Unrestricted Warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui in which they argue that both financial and political forces can be used to defeat a technologically superior force such as the United States. Since then, there is no doubt that China’s military technology has grown enormously (thanks in part to their excellent efforts in stealing Western secrets), and their economic power has also shown amazing growth. Yet the attached link points to another aspect of Chinese military thought, that of the willingness to used biological warfare on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.

Chinese military writings, strictly controlled by the Party, openly writes of exterminating an enemy using biological weapons. At the same time, in the United States, we find the Chinese government purchasing thousands of acres of prime farmland, often near key U.S. military bases, and constructing biological research labs across the U.S. Given that the Chinese government paid no price for their part in the release of Covid-19 which has led to the death worldwide of nearly seven million, it is easy to understand why China believes that it can unleash new horrors on the world.

The attached article should be a wake-up call to those who believe we may be entering into a new Cold War with China. We may very well be at war against a timetable which we ignore at our own peril.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19858/prestige-biotech-china

The classic definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Western Europe has for decades put proof to this idea.  Massive social spending, increased government regulations, the pursuit of inefficient green policies, a plunging birth rate and a focus on working less and playing more has led to decreased competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world. 

The attached pod cast presents a very scary group of facts regarding the future of Western Europe, and this is without bringing up the elephant in the room, immigration, and the lack of assimilation by individuals who view the liberal values of Western Europe as nothing short of blasphemy.   Expanding welfare rolls (up to 400,000 new claimants in France alone each year) of individuals with neither the education nor skills to contribute only makes the calls for new EU immigration rules even more urgent.

There are lessons to be learn for the U.S. from Europe, but they unfortunately shall be ignored by those on the radical/Marxist/anarchist Left who inhabit the deep administrative state and who put ideology above science and common sense.  Listen to the podcast and then plan your visit to Western Europe while you still may and enjoy those golden days.

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/google-news-update/europe-poorer-us-richer-as-wage-gap-widens/746b1896-2001-405b-9bee-79815842bf26?page=1

A short book, well written that breaks into three parts: 1) how the people of Rome managed to conqueror and incorporate many of the separate peoples of the Italian peninsula prior to 90 BC, 2) why those people rose in revolt against Rome and Rome’s triumph and 3) the war between Generals Marius and Sulla.  Woven into the history is a tale of governmental corruption on a vast scale by the Senators and Equity class which led to the revolt, the civil war, and the destruction of the Republic. The masses were bought off with entertainment and lost their old virtues.

Marius is painted in a most unflattering light, and to be fair, more should have been said of this General who won so many battles for Rome. The description of Sulla is excellent; pleasure loving but bound to duty, a harsh rule who never forgave a slight and who perfected proscriptions in Rome. The author unfortunately does not mention Sulla’s inscription above his tomb: “I have never had a friend or an enemy I have not repaid in full.”

In the end, it is a book about how a great Republic turned to dictatorship and later, rule by Emperors and finally by bribery.  At the heart of the degeneration is the decline of the populace which ceased to take an interest in their military and who succumbed to lives of entertainment and the public dole.  It is a lesson that should be taught to every child of every nation who wishes to survive.

As I write this, much of the United States is suffering under a heat wave and accordingly, the usual suspects are on television reminding us that if we do not follow their wonderful directions and stop flying to our vacation destination the temperature will continue to rise until we are all reduced to cinders.  After their forecast of doom, they nobly get on their private jet and hurry off to a luxury location where they are joined by fellow travelers who then congratulate themselves on their noble and brave appearances on television.

Certainly, if you were a member of the baby boom generation, you might take the news that we are all doomed unless we begin to cook using electric stoves with just a bit of skepticism.  Why?  Because we have heard it all before; in fact, we have heard the tales of doom multiple times.  Remember the fact that we were headed to a new ice age?  Or, that billions of people were going to starve due to a shortage of food?  How could we forget that the world would run out of oil sometime in the 1990’s, or that all the polar bears were going to die due to the disappearance of the ice caps?  Strange isn’t it that all of those and other forecasts were wrong and yet we are expected to blindly believe and follow the new messiahs as they want us to march bravely backward into the fourteenth century.

Yet, there may be some degree of truth in their dire forecasts, and if there is, individuals such as Bjorn Lomborg will help us all to put them into the proper perspective.  In the article linked below, Lomborg points out that people are not stupid, and that the history of mankind has been a lesson on how humanity lives with and adapts to the natural world. For example, the number of deaths from climate in the last century is down by over 95%.  How is that possible if the earth is going through a major climate change?  Perhaps it is because we have adapted to the world around us and by taking steps to shape our environment. Or, what about those “super storms” who are bearing down on us?  Actually, the number of hurricanes that have made landfall since 1900 is down slightly.

The article helps to put climate change in perspective, in terms of costs, impact, and realistic options.  It is a bit of fresh air that can help you judge better those talking heads and messiahs who somehow fail to lead by example; they continue to purchase huge houses by the shore, travel in private jets and leave behind the largest of carbon footprints. 

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Imprimis_Apr_8pg_5-23WEB.pdf

The link below to the video by Christopher Rufo outlines how the transgender empire is powered by big money, political ideology, and medical experimentation (often on the poorest in the minority community).

WARNING: YOU MAY BE DISGUSTED BY THE INFORMATION PROVIDED

https://manhattan.institute/multimedia/how-the-trans-movement-conquered-american-life-the-transgender-empire

Due to recent Supreme Court decisions, we have had the pleasure of hearing from numerous modern versions of chicken little (politicians and public pundits) that the sky is falling. OK, not exactly the sky but according to these modern purveyors of doom, we are about to lose our freedom of speech, our voting rights are about to be lost, some minorities are doomed to never attend a university and more.

We are told that we as a nation, has a problem, and that problem is the Supreme Court which is woefully out of touch with the American people. We are offered various solutions such as packing the court with judges who understand the American mind. Other suggestions include term limits (this from career politicians who spend their entire lives in the sacred halls of the Capitol), enforcing Justices to testify before Congress every time they make a decision that right-thinking politicians disagree with, etc.

Yet those very same politicians seem to live in a bubble where they believe the volumes of silliness they spew forth during daily diatribes. A recent SCOTUS poll of 2,209 Americans by research from the University of Texas, Stanford University and Harvard (NYT, 7/2/23, pp18-19) points to a quite different conclusion. It is the foaming at the mouth politicians who are woefully out of touch with the American public, not the majority of the judges on the Court. Let us look at the result of the poll.

I used to believe that child sacrifice went out of style, at least in the West, thousands of years ago, yet today we see child sacrifice in the name of a new religion, transgenderism.  How is it that after being disgusted by the crimes of a doctor named Mengele, less than one-hundred years later we are seeing blatant experimentation on the youngest and most innocent of our population, mere children.

What has happened that children who cannot vote, sign a contract, who are considered incapable of making common ordinary everyday decisions due to their inexperience in the world, are suddenly capable of taking unproven and dangerous drugs and approving irreversible surgery which they will carry only with the help of more drugs for the rest of their lives? And who are those who are going along with the mutilation of children?  They are those whom we consider the best and brightest of us, those who have taken an oath to do no harm, doctors.  Since when has the medical profession become an adjunct arm of a political or social fad? The attached article gives a glimpse into the freighting world that is existence today, where life-changing actions are taken very often with little or no consultation or support of medical science.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/transgender-ideology-and-the-corruption-of-medicine

Originally published 06.01/2023 on Fox News.com by Alex Epstein

The “green energy” movement claims that it wants cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, plentiful—just without fossil fuels’ pollution or GHG emissions. But this is contradicted by its hostility toward clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydro—the most proven alternatives to fossil fuels.

You might expect the “green-energy” movement to be the Number 1 supporter of clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydroelectric energy, but instead, it is the Number 1 opponent. “Green” groups have opposed nuclear for decades (leading to crippling costs) and worked to shut down hydroelectric dams. 

Why does the “Green” movement oppose nuclear and hydro?

It is because “green” solar and wind are just so cost-effective and so “green”?

No. Solar and wind have not proven to be cost-effective at all, and in many ways, they are the least “green” form of energy.

“Green energy” isn’t really energy

Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.

Despite claims that solar and wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide less than 5% of world energy—only electricity, one-fifth of energy—and, crucially, even that small percentage depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants. 

Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.

Solar and wind’s basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near zero at any time. Thus, they don’t replace reliable power, they parasitize it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar and wind without huge parasitism on reliable neighbors.  

The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $600 trillion, about six times global GDP!  

“Green” solar and wind may someday become a part of real energy solutions—if generators using solar and wind are willing to guarantee reliability, instead of generating unreliable power and forcing everyone else to clean up their mess. But today’s “green energy” is not real energy. If solar and wind ever become truly cost-effective, you can be certain of one thing: the “green energy” movement will oppose them as insufficiently “green” given their huge “environmental impacts.” 

“Green energy” isn’t really green

If solar and wind became cost-effective and deployed on a large scale, they would have a level of “environmental impact” from mining and land use that would make the “green movement” oppose them. In fact, this is already happening. “Green” means minimal or nonexistent “environmental impact.”

Because sunlight and wind are dilute sources of energy—they take up more space and use more of many materials than fossil fuels or nuclear. This massive “environmental impact” is not at all “green.”  

Consider the land use requirements of solar. The world uses over 165,000 TWh of energy per year, which requires ~19 billion kW of power on average. An optimistic, real-world power density for solar projects is 10 Watts per square meter. To power the world, you’d need ~1.8 million square kilometers of solar PV projects.  

If 1.8 million square kilometers of solar panels doesn’t seem like much, note that it is more than all cities, towns, villages, and human infrastructure combined (~1.5 million square kilometers).  

And this excludes the huge footprints of solar and battery mining, manufacturing, and transmission. Consider the mining requirements of solar, wind, and batteries. An International Energy Agency projection for a “net zero” scenario shows an increase in mining and processing of minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, and rare earths by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900%, and 700% by 2040. 

Because “green energy” has so much enviromenatal impact even on today’s small scale it faces huge “green” opposition to its land use, mining, and transmission-line-building requirements. For example, the Biden administration recently shut down a prime “green energy” mining site in Minnesota.  

If “green” solar and wind aren’t really energy, and if they have so much environmental impact that the “green” movement opposes them in practice, then why does the green movement so enthusiastically support them rhetorically? To hide its real goal: radically reducing energy use.

“Green”—”minimal human impact”—is a fundamentally anti-energy idea. Energy is “the capacity to do work,” which means transforming—impacting—our environment. The more energy we use, the more we transform Earth, the more impact we have. If you don’t want us to impact Earth you ultimately must oppose every form of energy.

The fundamental hostility of the “green” movement to energy explains why throughout its history it has never supported current, cost-effective sources of energyand only “supported” imaginary sources of energy that might exist in the future.

“Green” leaders supported nuclear—until it became cost-effective, at which point they demonized and criminalized it. “Green” leaders supported natural gas—until it became cost-effective on a global scale thanks to shale energy tech, at which point they demonized it as “fracking.”

Because the “green” movement is anti-energy any enthusiasm its leaders express for fusion is phony; while they may claim to want clean, cheap, abundant energy before it exists, they will not like the impact it has once it exists. And in the past, green leaders admitted this.  

Amory Lovins, the leader of the modern “green energy” movement, said in the 1970s: “If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we would do with it.”  

The world needs to reject the “green” movement and instead embrace a “human flourishing” movement that embraces intelligent human impact on Earth as a good thing. It’s one that both embraces today’s most cost-effective energy sources—including fossil fuels—and is eager to improve on them.

Alex Epstein is the author of “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas,” and the creator of Energy Talking Points on Substack a source of powerful, concise, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.