The link below will take you to an article that points out the pros and cons, the errors, and positives of both sides in the environmental question. Fanatics on either side only hurt their own cause and are a major source of confusion and misinformation which can lead to greater than necessary expenses and be counterproductive.

People are beginning to see and question the cost of ill-prepared actions in facing questions on the environment. Rational individuals realize that moving boldly into the fourteenth century by pushing wind power will never be able to replace petroleum in powering airplanes, ships, trucks, cars, etc. They are also able to see the failure of solar in northern climates and the huge cost of going against nature, as in Germany and other nations which are not blessed with enough clear and sunny days. At the same time, there are technologies, mostly in the infant stage which can help to ease the dependence on fossil fuels, but development will take years and a huge investment.

Recently, the boogieman of nuclear power has begun to be faced by a few countries who simply are more inclined to face reality in this area than others. For a balanced and informative discussion of options for the future in facing whatever climate change we face, click on the link below.

https://quillette.com/2022/01/27/why-environmentalists-pose-a-bigger-obstacle-to-effective-climate-policy-than-denialists/

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

There were fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Of those fifty-six:

• Five were captured by the British, tortured and died in captivity
• Twelve had their houses ransacked and burned
• Two lost a son who was serving in the Revolutionary Army
• Nine fought in the war and died of wounds or hardships of the War

Those men knew the dangers they faced as they were all considered traitors to the Crown, yet they stood up for what they believed. Fortunately, we today seldom must be as brave as those men as they sacrificed for us, and other generations were willing to lay their lives and fortunes on the line for the principles outlined by those fifty-six men.

Yet, there are times when individuals today are faced with decisions based on principles. The link below is an example of an individual who has taken a stand on principle (and a rejection of propaganda) and who has paid the price.

Hopefully, you will never be put into a similar situation, but keep in mind that there are forces in this world which will not hesitate to test the limits of your personal courage.

https://www.city-journal.org/black-lives-matter-thomson-reuters-and-the-price-of-dissent

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

Recently, the Vice President of the U.S. said that if the voting rights bill stalled in Congress does not pass, the U.S. will be “off the map as a role model” for elections; it is too bad she is so uneducated regarding who is setting the map for more secure and accurate elections. The bill as written, may very well be un-Constitutional as it seems to circumvent Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution. The idea that the U.S. is a role model for elections is open to debate however, as the link to the article by John R. Lott, Jr. points out.

Of forty-seven countries in Europe, forty-six of them require a government issued ID to vote. During the last major election in India, over six hundred million Indian citizens voted, each with a government issued ID, while Mexico has not only a government issued ID but also biometrics for elections (with the result that more people are voting due to greater confidence in election honesty). Yet somehow, one party in the U.S. opposes a government issued ID as it will place too much of a burden on some individuals; perhaps that party is correct, there is systemic racism in the U.S., but it is practiced by the party which claims to be in the forefront of stopping it.

The need for election reform goes beyond voter ID however, for the European models also have procedures designed to ensure the integrity of elections. The fact that most Federal and many state elections since 2000 have been challenged (mostly by the party which opposes voter ID), should indicate that reforms are needed, but reforms which are designed to provide greater confidence in the electoral process.

How is it that the nation which held the line and won the Cold War just thirty-two years ago, stands challenged by China, Russia, and Tehran? How did we go from being what some called, a hyper-power to a power that left Afghanistan in a humiliating manner? How is it that our allies have fallen from our side and have sold their collective security for a supply of heating fuel after realizing that the great Green Dream is nothing more than a mirage?

While we debate CRT and look the other way at broken educational and judicial systems in our largest cities, our foes surge ahead, planning new geographical conquests and our economic demise. Our political leaderships response to international threats are proposals for more domestic debt aimed not at our revitalization, but at previously unknown definitions of infrastructure.  At the same time, our military spending is increased at about twenty percent of actual inflation. Linked to a new definition of “its free,” we seem to have lost our ability to deal with the real world and act in an adult manner regarding our finances.

The linked article by noted British author and historian, Andrew Roberts ends by asking if we as a nation can regain our moral health, marital vigor and turn aside from the acceptance of eclipse. I fear that with our current national leadership, the answer is not what we would wish.

https://quillette.com/2021/12/04/the-decline-of-american-empire-a-kubler-ross-cycle-analysis/

Some simple questions:

1. How is it possible that after a hundred years of free public education forty-three million adults are illiterate?
2. The Los Angeles Unified School District managed to graduate 78.1% of its students in 2019 despite:
   1. Only 32% of fourth graders could read to their grade level
   1. Only 10% of blacks and 19% of Hispanics in eighth grade could read at their level
3. What are taxpayers getting when they spend $20,000/student (California) and over $25,000/student (New York).

Remember, we are talking about human lives; those children who graduate and who are not able to adequately read, write, or do math are going to lead disappointing and bleak lives. They are condemned to a life that is more difficult and less rewarding, a life with fewer options and opportunities.

There are three groups of people. There are the rich who are never satisfied because their wealth is never enough for them-these citizens are totally useless for the city. Then there are the poor who, because their daily bread is never enough, are dangerous because they are deceived by the tongues of crooked politicians and by their own envy and so they aim the arrows of their hatred towards the rich. And the, between these two, there is a third. This one is between them. It’s there to keep the order, it’s there to keep the city safe.”-Euripides in Suppliants

In theory, the beauty of science is objectivity. The search for the truth, for the correct answer. We live in a world, unfortunately, where objectivity in science is the greatest threat since the false science under Stalin and Trofim Lysenko.

In the two articles listed below, there is evidence that applicants at major universities in the field of science must provide proof of their fealty to “Explicit evidence of commitment to diversity and of advancing understanding and outcomes for underrepresented groups.”  Additionally, applicants should “mention your (their) willingness to contribute to pre-existing (DEI) programs….”  Like the political commissars of the old Soviet Union, ideological purity is key.

The two articles referenced below should make each of us ask: “Can you name a nation governed by the left which has more freedom than before they turned left?”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-step-glenn-youngkin-to-stop-leftist-tyranny-diversity-dei-statements-11636302471?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

https://quillette.com/2021/11/02/tales-from-the-gulag/

Mark Carney has worked hard to get the major banks of the world to support the Green Movement. A former head of central banks in Canada and the U.K. has been knocking on bankers’ doors, trying to raise some of the trillions needed to cut carbon emissions and transform the way we produce and use energy. He is not asking bankers to pledge their personal wealth to his cause, but to pledge the assets of their banks.

His pitch to the financial community is aimed at getting them to part with some of the estimated one-hundred fifty trillion dollars ($150,000,000,000,000) over the next thirty years as the entire global power infrastructure must be revamped. To achieve this, he follows the fourteen-page protocol created by the U.N. which outlines how companies are to be rewarded or punished through lending, regulations, etc. if they adhere to or resist the dictates of the protocol.  There has been resistance from the banks as concerns over law suits due to failure to fulfill pledges or meeting targets.