URGENT: World Health Organization About to Give Itself Unlimited Power

By Robert Williams

Written by Robert Williams

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

Dr.’ Tedros Will Decide How You Must Live

The World Health Organization (WHO) might finally be getting just what it wanted: Unlimited power and control.

The deadline to opt out of the International Health Regulations is July 19 – less than two months from now. It is time to notify your lawmakers to take immediate action in their parliaments and say NO to these regulations. So far, no country has opted out, and due to lack of media coverage most people appear completely unaware that a problem even exists.

On June 1, 2024, the WHO’s 194 member states agreed to sweeping amendments of the WHO International Health Regulations that give the organization’s Director-General — currently “Dr.” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is not a medical doctor and to all appearances is in China’s pocket — overwhelming authority to declare not only actual international public health emergencies, but also potential ones.

“Agreed” is hardly accurate: member states did not even vote on them, but “agreed” on them through what is known as a consensus process. If no country objected by the end of a deadline, the amendments were to be considered approved. The process may not even have been legal. The final text was apparently not circulated with sufficient advance notice, while the negotiations were largely held behind closed doors, meaning that there was no transparency. Did parliamentarians in WHO member states even know what their governments “agreed” to?

In addition to the International Health Regulations, the WHO member states, all 194 of them, agreed on a historic draft Pandemic Treaty in April 2025 and on May 20 they adopted the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the 78th session of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland. It will have to be ratified by at least 60 states, however, before it can come into effect, which means that it is up to citizens to prevent that from happening. In addition, there are still outstanding “details” such as the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) to facilitate the sharing of genetic data on potential pandemic pathogens that the treaty introduces, on which there is still a lack of consensus. With it, the WHO handed itself sweeping powers over how countries respond to future health emergencies.

Frank Gaffney, President of the Institute for the American Future, wrote on X shortly before the adoption of the treaty:

“In less than a month, world government will be imposed on us indirectly, if not directly, thanks to a new pandemic treaty the World Health Organization finalized yesterday and plans to adopt and make legally binding in mid-May – with profound implications for public health, personal freedoms and national sovereignty.

“If you liked how the COVID-19 crisis was handled – in large measure thanks to the incompetence and malfeasance of the WHO and the insidious influence of the perpetrator, the Chinese Communist Party, and the principal beneficiary, Big Pharma – you’re going to love this new world order.

“Among its consequences will be: universal health IDs, vaccine mandates, obligatory censorship, technology transfers, open-ended financial costs and the proliferation of viruses with the potential to cause pandemics – all ‘managed’ by greatly empowered and unaccountable international bureaucrats.”

Congratulating himself on the adoption of the treaty, “Dr.” Tedros declared in a monstrously untruthful statement:

“The agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.”

Following the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty, US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted the following statement to X, urging countries to exit the WHO:

“Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international power politics. While the United States has provided the lion’s share of the organization’s funding historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public. Global cooperation on health is still critically important to POTUS and myself, but it isn’t working very well under the WHO as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate. I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organization as a wake-up call.”

No one on this planet voted for this treaty and, worse, no one will be allowed to criticize any of this in the future, if the UN has its way: The original Pandemic Treaty draft contained language against “misinformation” and “infodemics.” The text agreed upon, after pushback, toned down the speech restrictions to “just” requiring member states to promote “timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information” to counter “misleading narratives” during pandemics. There is, however, another, newly acquired, instrument in the UN’s toolbox, the “Digital Global Compact” (DGC) that seeks to make it impossible to criticize this new UN/WHO reign of terror.

The DGC is a new totalitarian tool of censorship meant to silence anyone who disagrees with the globalist agenda. Buried near the end of the DGC, in paragraph 30, is the only thing you need to know about it:

“We must urgently counter and address . . . all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation . . . We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures . . . We commit by, 2030 to: (a) . . . Develop, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, effective methodologies to measure, monitor and counter all forms of violence and abuse in the digital space . . . call on social media platforms to establish safe, secure and accessible reporting mechanisms for users and their advocates to report potential policy violations.”

The WHO is a specialized UN agency, the purpose of which is purportedly “to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable.” WHO receives a large amount of its funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is jointly controlled by activist billionaire, climate crusader and globalist Bill Gates, and his ex-wife Melinda. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has in some years been the second-largest donor to the WHO, after the United States — before President Donald J. Trump, on his first day in office in 2025, mercifully withdrew the US from the organization.

“If a private foundation were to become WHO’s highest donor, it would be transformational,” Lawrence Gostin, faculty director for the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University and director of WHO’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, said in 2020, adding that the idea that a private foundation could have such influence, “would have been unimaginable” at the time when the WHO was founded as an intergovernmental institution. “It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda,” Gostin said, referring to Gates.

Apparently, however, anything is possible, including not only letting Gates and the pharmaceutical industry put the WHO with its member states into their pockets, but also giving them unlimited power.

Christine Anderson, a German Member of the European Parliament from the Alternative für Deutschland party, said this month:

“They realized something during COVID: as much as they wanted to impose even harsher restrictions, they were limited—because in a democracy, if a politician goes too far, they risk not being re-elected. So the workaround? Shift the authority to an unelected body like the WHO. That way, when harsh measures are imposed—lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or whatever else—they can say, ‘Hey, it wasn’t us. Our hands are tied. The WHO made the call.’”

The amended health regulations give the WHO such unprecedented power that former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman has warned:

“[T]he WHO’s proposed amendments to its international health regulations and its forthcoming pandemic treaty present the most serious threat to national sovereignty in a generation.

“Buried within these legal frameworks are proposals that would allow unelected WHO officials to declare public health emergencies and issue recommendations – including on lockdowns, border closures and vaccine requirements.”

These demands include digital vaccine passports; the amended regulations encourage the use of digital tools for health documentation. Digital vaccine passports, not yet compulsory, could be made a requirement. Earlier drafts of the amendments, which were discarded after pushback, also had included proposals for mandatory digital health documents and provisions for approving vaccination certificates during emergencies, and even for vaccines in research phases.

It is disastrous that national governments have agreed for this power to be given to the unaccountable WHO. Sadly, it made itself into a fully disgraced and corrupt body, so deeply in the pockets not only of Gates and the pharmaceutical industry, but also of Communist China.

During Covid-19, the WHO and “Dr.” Tedros actually praised China for its “extraordinary” handling of the pandemic. To this day, nothing has been done about the duplicitous role WHO played during Covid, when the organization parroted Chinese Communist Party propaganda about the virus. China, too, has never suffered a single negative consequence — not only for having unleashed the virus on the world, but for having deliberately lied about the virus’s human-to-human transmissibility.

The WHO itself admits that approximately 15 million people died from the Covid virus — which it refused to try to stop before it grew into a pandemic. Apparently, we are all now supposed to pretend that all of that never happened, and look to the WHO for instruction and guidance in even potential pandemics. The European Union in June 2024 praised the amended health regulations as “historic.” Yes, they are “historic” — but for the wrong reason.

Should the unelected and corrupt WHO, then, be allowed to determine when a pandemic is declared and, if so, how to deal with it? Should the WHO be able to recommend restrictions, lock you down, keep your children home from school, and dictate whether or not you should take a vaccine? Would you like “Dr.” Tedros to decide how you must live?

The most obvious downside, based on past performance, is that WHO will weaponize its powers under the disguise of “public health” to pursue strictly political agendas. According to Braverman:

“The WHO insists these measures are necessary to ensure global preparedness. But the question is preparedness for what – and on whose terms? It is not difficult to imagine a future crisis – real or perceived – where political interests masquerade as public health, especially in an age where digital censorship and ideological capture are increasingly normalized.”

Sadly, Braverman’s scenario of political interests masquerading as public health is even not far-fetched. In May 2024, the WHO declared:

“In a resounding call to action, the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly has recognized climate change as an imminent threat to global health, passing a resolution which underscores the urgent need for decisive measures to confront the profound health risks posed by climate change.

“The resolution, supported overwhelmingly by Member States, presents an overview of the existential threat that climate change poses to human health. The Health Assembly asserts that radical action is imperative to safeguard the health of the planet, underscoring the interdependence of environmental sustainability and public health.”

What does it mean? That public health, according to the WHO and its member states (your governments), is now intertwined with “climate change.” If climate warrior Bill Gates and his WHO cohorts feel like it, they can declare a “climate pandemic,” pronounce lockdowns and a rollout of whatever measures they might see fit “to save the planet.” In fact, ever since Covid-19, the WHO’s corrupt Tedros has continued to fearmonger, making dire-sounding “predictions” that a new pandemic is “inevitable.”

There is a perfect reason for that: Without an ever-present, imminent and terrible-sounding “pandemic” there would be no legitimacy for WHO to seize all this power and gain access to so much control. This arrogation of power to itself could reasonably turn into runaway totalitarianism unless lawmakers step up immediately and demand that their governments object to the amendments to the International Health Regulations — and opt out of them.

Welcome to George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.” Lawmakers around the world urgently need to act on behalf of the people they were elected to represent. No governments here seem to have the interests of their citizens at heart. Time is running out – fast.

*****

This article was published by The Gatestone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Weekend Read: Harvard Commencement Speaker Worked For Org Tied To China’s Military thumbnail

Weekend Read: Harvard Commencement Speaker Worked For Org Tied To China’s Military

By Philip Lenczycki

Written by Philip Lenczycki

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Harvard’s 2025 commencement speaker, “Luanna” Yurong Jiang, worked for a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) entity with extensive ties to Beijing’s military and intelligence networks, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation discovered.

Jiang, who graduated from the Kennedy School on May 29 and appeared to take a swipe at the Trump administration during her speech, was a volunteer for the International Department of the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) prior to attending Harvard between at least 2018 and 2022, according to a DCNF translation of Chinese state media. The organization is controlled by the CCP and has signed a cooperative agreement with a Chinese military arm, according to CBCGDF announcements.

Furthermore, CBCGDF also hosts a branch of a Chinese influence and intelligence service called the United Front Work Department (UFWD), to which many of its leaders belong, including its secretary-general who reportedly wrote a recommendation letter for Jiang to Harvard, according to a DCNF translation of Chinese state media.

“Harvard is one of the world’s greatest institutions, but we will have no choice but to end its existence if it continues to allow itself to be used by those seeking the destruction of our country,” Gordon Chang, author and China expert, told the DCNF.

Harvard and CBCGDF did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. Luanna Jiang could not be reached for comment.

‘The Fate Of Students From Abroad’

“Humanity rises and falls as one,” said Luanna Jiang, the first Chinese woman to deliver Harvard’s commencement speech. “But today, that promise of a connected world is giving way to division, fear and conflict.”

“If we still believe in a shared future let us not forget those who we label as enemies, they too are human,” Jiang continued. “In the end, we do not rise by proving each other wrong, we rise by refusing to let one another go.”

The Harvard Crimson characterized Jiang’s speech as a “full-throated defense of the importance of international diversity as the Trump administration threatens the fate of students from abroad at Harvard.”

Harvard’s suspected ties to the Chinese government have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. In December 2021, Charles Lieber, a former Harvard University chemistry professor, was convicted of crimes related to concealing his participation in a Chinese government technology transfer program from U.S. government agencies funding his research.

The House Select Committee sent a letter to Harvard on May 19 alleging it had “repeatedly hosted and trained members of a CCP paramilitary organization” implementing “the CCP’s genocide against the Uyghurs.” Citing this and other examples, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard’s right to host foreign students on May 22, claiming the university has been facilitating and engaging “in coordinated activity with the CCP.”

However, a federal judge has blocked the ban prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students.

“If Harvard insists on posing a threat to America, then the Trump administration must find a way to revoke its charter. Other schools can then take over its assets and functions,” Chang said. “A revocation is constitutional in a national emergency, such as the one we are now in.”

‘Proxies For CCP Interests’

Although the website for CBCGDF claims the organization is a “nationwide nonprofit public foundation and a social legal entity dedicated to biodiversity conservation and green development,” a DCNF review of its website and announcements found that CBCGDF is actually controlled by the CCP and Chinese government agencies, and has deep ties to China’s military and intelligence networks.

CBCGDF’s website states the organization was founded in 1985 by Lu Zhengcao, who was a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) general, according to Chinese state media. Lu also served as the deputy chairman of a Chinese influence arm called the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), according to CBCGDF.

CPPCC “delegates attend a high-profile annual meeting to receive direction from the CCP regarding the ways its policies should be characterized” and “serve as proxies for CCP interests,” according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC).

The China Association For Science And Technology (CAST), which is part of the CPPCC, and one of the two “most important” organizations involved in China’s technology transfer efforts, according to the USCC, supervises CBCGDF, its website states.

The CBCGDF organizational diagram likewise reveals the group is under the control of its internal CCP committee, which was established in April 2017, according to CBCGDF. Xie Boyang, CBCGDF’s current chairman, is a counselor committee member to China’s State Council, according to the Chinese government.

The organization also works closely with the UFWD, which is a Chinese influence and intelligence service, according to the USCC.

The 4th chairman of CBCGDF, Hu Deping, previously served as the UFWD’s deputy director before joining the group and held CPPCC and other UFWD roles while leading CBCGDF, a review of the organization’s announcements found. Hu was still active within CBCGDF until at least 2024, CBCGDF announcements show.

A roster of CBCGDF directors from 2018 lists other UFWD personnel, and the group has sent staff to attend UFWD training camps, such as in September 2023, when staff members participated in a “UFWD theoretical research class” to study CCP ideology, according to CBCGDF.

Moreover, CBCGDF also announced in May 2024 that it had established an internal branch of the All-China Federation Of Returned Overseas Chinese (ACFROC), which is a UFWD agency, according to the Department of Justice.

‘The Call Of Chairman Xi Jinping’

CBCGDF’s secretary-general, Zhou Jinfeng, wrote a recommendation letter for Luanna Jiang to attend Harvard, and has extensive ties to the Chinese government, according to Chinese government and state media reports.

Jiang volunteered with CBCGDF for at least four years, Chinese state media reported, and went with the group to participate in the London High-Level Meeting on Combating Illicit Wildlife Trade in October 2018. During the event, CBCGDF stated it wished to protect pangolins, according to the British government. The nonprofit’s researchers were later sent to study pangolins in Taiwan with the stated goal of promoting the nation’s “reunification with the motherland,” according to a CBCGDF staff member’s report given at a UFWD theoretical research class in 2023.

Zhou’s CBCGDF profile indicates that he has repeatedly served as a CPPCC delegate, and Chinese government sources identify him as having held several leadership positions within UFWD organizations.

Among others, Zhou is listed as the chairman of a U.S. branch of the Western Returned Scholars Association (WRSA), which is a UFWD subordinate, according to USCC. As with the aforementioned CAST that oversees CBCGDF, WRSA is the other “most important” organization involved in China’s technology transfer efforts, according to the commission. Zhou did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Zhou has also attended at least three events hosted by the Chinese People’s Association For Friendship With Foreign Countries (CPAFFC), which is a UFWD “affiliate,” according to the U.S. State Department. In November 2019, Chinese state media reported Zhou attended one such CPAFFC event in China’s Hebei province with the executive director of CBCGDF’s Green Future Science and Technology Development Special Fund, Jiang Zhiming, who is Luanna Jiang’s father, according to Sing Tao Daily.

Jiang Zhiming donated approximately $140,000 to establish CBCGDF’s special fund in 2015, according to the group. He could not be reached for comment.

Zhou has ties to Harvard and the Chinese military, according to multiple reports.

On May 23, 2018, Zhou met with Harvard Fairbanks Director Michael Szonyi to discuss the promotion of cultural exchanges, education and business between the U.S. and China, according to China Poly Group, which hosted the meeting at its headquarters in Beijing. China Poly Group is a state-owned Chinese defense contractor founded by the Central Military Commission and PLA, according to its archived website. The U.S. government sanctioned China Poly Group’s subsidiary Poly Technologies in 2013, 2022, and 2024, for missile proliferation and other activities.

Zhou and Szonyi did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. China Poly Group could not be reached for comment.

Chinese media outlet Sohu reported that during the 2018 meeting between Zhou, Szonyi, and China Poly Group’s chairman Xu Niansha, the parties also discussed the promotion of the Belt And Road Initiative, which is a Chinese government “infrastructure development and economic integration strategy” that China uses to gain intelligence and “political, military and economic leverage over participating countries through the accrual and manipulation of debt,” according to the U.S. State Department.

The year before Zhou’s meeting with Szonyi, CBCGDF’s secretary-general attended a January 2017 meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, during which CBCGDF signed a memorandum of understanding and cooperation with China Poly Group, Chinese state media reported.

“China Poly Group follows the call of Chairman Xi Jinping, adhering to the aim of ‘protecting the country and benefiting the people,’ in order to build a harmonious China and green development, work together and dedicate ourselves to our responsibilities,” China Poly Group’s chairman, Xu Niansha, said during a speech at the 2017 meeting, according to a DCNF translation.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: DCNF

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Collapse of the Once High-Flying Solar Stocks: Another Bankruptcy among our 8 Imploded Solar Stocks thumbnail

Collapse of the Once High-Flying Solar Stocks: Another Bankruptcy among our 8 Imploded Solar Stocks

By Wolf Richter

Written by Wolf Richter

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors’ Note: It is a strange business model when the price of producing the product goes down and the usage increases, but many companies providing the service go bust. What is going on? Likely usage was forced fed through both subsidies and propaganda, and costs went down because subsidies finally allowed the industry to reach scale. However, the model was unsustainable because it was force-fed by ideology and massive government subsidies. The subsidies hid the actual costs, and the removal of subsidies reveals the underlying weakness. When the government makes “choices”, these are not the voluntary choices of the marketplace. When the government creates subsidies to change the cost differential among alternatives, those are not “true” costs, but contrived price structures that don’t reflect reality. Costs for solar energy often omit the cost of backup generation (usually natural gas), which must be installed to supply the base load when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Moreover, the motivation for “alternative energy” is based on a myth that human-generated C02 is the primary cause of climate change from time to time. To borrow a phrase from the environmental movement, government interference in energy markets is UNSUSTAINABLE!

The stock market’s solar craziness gets cleaned out stock by stock, even as solar-power generation continues to soar

Sunnova Energy International, which booked huge losses every single year selling residential solar energy equipment and services – $1.61 billion in total losses since 2017 – said on Sunday that it and its subsidiaries Sunnova Energy Corporation and Sunnova Intermediate Holdings, LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Texas. Its subsidiary Sunnova TEP Developer had already filed for bankruptcy on June 1. In the filing, it said that it would continue operating as “debtor in possession” while trying to sell some of its assets under court supervision.

The marvel was of course its stock [NOVA] during the free-money pandemic. It went public in July 2019 at $12 a share and traded around $10 until the free money during the pandemic came along and caused the share price to spike five-fold to $55 by February 2021. That month, right at the peak, the Texas-based company acquired SunStreet from homebuilder Lennar, and Lennar washed its hands of it. Then the shares went to heck and were inducted into our pantheon of Imploded Stocks (minimum requirement: -70% from peak).

Shares last traded on Friday at 22 cents. The company said it expects to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and that holders of its shares “could experience a significant or complete loss on their investment, depending on the outcome of the Chapter 11 Cases” (data via YCharts).

During the years of losses, the company racked up $8.5 billion in debt, as per its last financial statement through December 31 – it failed to file its Q1 financials – amounting to over 10 times its 2024 revenues of $840 million.

In addition, the company had $2.1 billion in other liabilities, for total liabilities of $10.7 billion, as of its year-end financial statements.

Other solar stocks have collapsed as well. But solar power, in terms of electricity generation, keeps rocking higher.

Solar power generation surged 26.9% in 2024 to 303,167 GWh, utility scale and rooftop solar combined. This is not “capacity” but electricity generated and used. Solar’s share ballooned to nearly 7% of the total electricity generated in 2024, surpassing hydropower [my report with charts: US Power Generation by Source in 2024].

In addition, utility-scale batteries have become a profitable way of arbitraging the highly volatile electricity spot prices that can spike during high-demand hours and plunge during low-demand hours, often on the same day. In this arbitrage, batteries work well with big solar installations, buying electricity when the price is low, and selling it often just hours later when the price is high. And batteries work well with small-scale solar too. Some of the solar companies here are involved with both solar power and energy storage.

There are up-front costs with solar power, as there are with every power plant. When it comes to energy, there are no free lunches. But with solar, the “fuel” is free for the life of the installation, and the math has been getting better as the price of photovoltaic panels has come down over the decades.

Big utilities are all over solar power, as are big equipment providers, such as Tesla. But these eight Imploded Stocks here are specialized players, many of them with over 1,000 employees at the peak, and with hundreds of millions to several billion in annual revenues.

*****

To continue reading, click here, and go to WolfStreet.com

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Polar Sea Ice Increases

By Editors at the C02 Coalition

Written by Editors at the C02 Coalition

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Editors’ Note: You have to hand it to the environmental movement. They know how to play on human emotions. Integral to the theme that humans are destroying the Earth is the fiction that global warming is destroying the Arctic. Who has not seen forlorn polar bears, especially baby polar bears, with nowhere to go but drowning in the sea? Your lust for independence, to have a car that takes you where you want to go, when you want to go, unsupervised by the government, is what is killing these adorable baby bears! For the earth’s sake, move into a small downtown flat and take public transportation. Don’t have any children because people are killing the world and all its beautiful creatures. Besides playing on our heart strings, the environmental movement is perfectly willing to lie repeatedly, incessantly, and historically. Perhaps the biggest whopper has been the ice cap reduction and the destruction of the Arctic. The following shows that it is just another in a long series of lies they tell our children in school.

CO2 Coalition Science and Research Associate Vijay Jayaraj reports on recent revelations that both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are growing, not shrinking, as has been claimed by the “experts.” Below is a portion of his reporting.

Both the North and South Poles are defying expectations, piling on more ice despite, as reported in hyperbolic headlines, “record-breaking” global heat.

In the post-2010 era, the September minimum extent of Arctic sea ice occurred in 2012, which was also the lowest since satellite measurements began in 1980. But since 2012, ice has been increasing or oscillating well above that year’s mark.

As in the Arctic, Antarctic temperature and ice coverage are refusing to cooperate with predictions of doom by the climate bedwetters. Data from Vostok and Concordia stations in East Antarctica indicate extremely cold temperatures in early May, with minimums of minus 106.6 degrees Fahrenheit at Concordia on May 12.

As recently as 2023, Concordia station recorded one of its lowest temperatures for the current decade, a brutal minus 117.76 degrees. Similarly, at Western Antarctica’s Byrd Station, a likely all-time low of almost minus 50 degrees was recorded as recently as 2023. These numbers may be surprising, but they are in tune with the unpredictability of climate – and of nature in general.

Let’s just admit it. Things are not as “straightforward” as crisis-obsessed scientists are making it out to be. The climate system is complex, and the science is not settled. Our understanding of climatic dynamics is in its infancy. And to suggest that changes –whatever the direction – in polar ice presages a catastrophe is infantile.

*****

This article was produced by The C02 Coalition and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

SCOTUS Slows Judicial Overreach in Environmental Cases as Ire Grows over Universal Injunctions thumbnail

SCOTUS Slows Judicial Overreach in Environmental Cases as Ire Grows over Universal Injunctions

By Family Research Council

A recent decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court has curbed some judicial overreach and continued a thread previously taken up by the nation’s highest court regarding the relationship between judicial interpretations and the authority of government agencies. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, decided Thursday, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which had itself vacated a decision by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) that granted permission for construction of a railroad.

The case originated when Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the board for permission to build a railroad in 2020. STB compiled a staggering 3,600-page report on the possible environmental impacts of building the railroad and ultimately concluded “that the project’s transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts” and granting permission for the railroad to be constructed.

After lawsuits were filed, the circuit court vacated the STB’s decision, ruling that the board had not properly considered “the potential environmental effects of increased upstream oil drilling … and increased downstream refining of crude oil” in the area where the railroad was to be constructed, citing the provisions established in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, “The D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the” construction and operation of the railroad.

NEPA requires STB and similar agencies to consider the possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and suggest viable alternatives. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified, “Some federal courts reviewing NEPA cases have assumed an aggressive role in policing agency compliance with NEPA, and have not applied NEPA with the judicial deference demanded by the statutory text and the Court’s cases.” The ruling continued, “When, as here, a party argues that an agency action was arbitrary and capricious due to a deficiency in an EIS, the ‘only role for a court’ is to confirm that the agency has addressed environmental consequences and feasible alternatives as to the relevant project.”

The ruling, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by seven of his fellow justices, with Justice Neil Gorsuch recusing himself from the case, stipulated that legal questions are for courts to decide, while “factual determinations” are for the relevant agencies to decide. “Courts should defer to agencies’ discretionary decisions about where to draw the line when considering indirect environmental effects and whether to analyze effects from other projects separate in time or place,” the ruling affirmed.

Specifically, Kavanaugh cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, one of a pair of cases which the Supreme Court decided last summer, undoing what was known as the “Chevron doctrine.” In the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court instructed all courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute within the scope of its operation if that statute was considered “ambiguous.” The policy significantly bolstered the power of federal agencies to interpret statutes without judicial oversight. Last year, the Supreme Court determined that the Chevron doctrine was unconstitutional, conflicting with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the federal judiciary’s constitutional authority to interpret statutory texts and effectively permit executive agencies to usurp the role of the judiciary in interpreting statutes.

Citing Loper, the Supreme Court clarified that although NEPA requires environmental impact reports to be “detailed,” and “the meaning of ‘detailed’ is a legal question … what details need to be included in any given [report] is a factual determination for the agency.” Kavanaugh wrote, “NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand.” He added, “Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.”

The Supreme Court ruling comes as numerous federal courts have issued sweeping universal injunctions against President Donald Trump and his administration, highlighting calls for the highest court to curb judicial overreach. In comments to The Washington Stand, Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain stated, “The court’s decision Thursday was very obviously right — even the Democrats did not dissent. NEPA reviews do not have to be as onerous as the D.C. Circuit suggested.” He added, “The Supreme Court, however, needs to do more to curb the judicial sabotage by resentful lower court judges.”

Within his first 100 days back in the Oval Office, Trump and his administration were slapped with at least 25 universal injunctions by federal district courts, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs) have targeted many of the president’s actions, including carrying out mass deportations, withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities,” ending birthright citizenship, protecting children from harmful gender transition procedures, slashing wasteful agency spending, downsizing the federal workforce, bolstering election integrity, and reorganizing agencies like the Department of Education.

The Trump administration has repeatedly petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and curtail the lower courts’ use of nationwide injunctions. While the Supreme Court has handed the president mixed results — significant wins in some cases and temporary setbacks in others — it has not yet taken action against the increasing use of universal injunctions.

However, the Supreme Court did hear oral arguments in mid-May in a case in which the Trump administration has centered its attention on the rash of injunctions enjoining the president’s agenda. Some justices indicated during oral arguments an openness to curbing universal injunctions but appeared unsatisfied with the Trump administration’s suggestions on what measures to use in place of universal injunctions. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Quantum Physics: The Subatomic Spark of Life on Earth and Beyond thumbnail

Quantum Physics: The Subatomic Spark of Life on Earth and Beyond

By Amil Imani

Staring at a fern in my apartment, a wild thought strikes me: this plant might be pulling off quantum tricks to soak up sunlight. Quantum physics – the bizarre world of particles dancing as waves and entangled across space — isn’t just for labs or sci-fi flicks. It’s the hidden pulse of life on Earth and our guide to finding life among the stars. With rules like superposition (particles existing in multiple states) and entanglement (spooky links defying distance), quantum mechanics shapes everything from chloroplasts to cosmic chemistry. How does this subatomic weirdness drive life here and fuel our search for aliens? Let’s dive into the quantum threads weaving life on Earth and beyond.

I’m no physicist, but the idea that life relies on quantum mechanics is mind-boggling. Quantum biology, a field gaining momentum, shows how subatomic effects drive living systems. Take photosynthesis: plants don’t just capture sunlight; they harness quantum coherence. Excitons, or energy packets, explore all possible paths simultaneously to find the most efficient route to reaction centers, as Graham Engel’s 2007 study revealed. This occurs because plants suppress decoherence, where quantum states collapse due to environmental noise, keeping energy transfers nearly perfect, a feat governed by the Schrödinger equation’s wave mechanics.

Enzymes, the body’s chemical catalysts, perform another quantum feat: tunneling. Particles like protons slip through energy barriers without needing to climb over them, as Alán Aspuru-Guzik’s work suggests, accelerating reactions millions of times. Picture a ball passing through a hill instead of over it—nature’s cheat code for metabolism. Even more astonishing, birds like robins may navigate using quantum effects. Cryptochrome proteins in their eyes create entangled electron pairs, which are sensitive to Earth’s magnetic field through spin dynamics, serving as a quantum compass for migration. These discoveries demonstrate that life on Earth isn’t merely chemical—it’s quantum, refined over billions of years of evolution.

Now, let’s swing to the cosmos. I’ve always wondered if aliens exist, and quantum physics is our best bet for answers. In star-forming clouds, molecules like amino acids — life’s building blocks — form via quantum tunneling. As an astrochemist, Eric Herbst has shown, particles bypass energy barriers in cold, sparse environments, following the Schrödinger equation’s probabilistic rules. It’s like the universe is brewing life’s ingredients with quantum magic.

When hunting for alien worlds, quantum tech shines. Spectroscopy, rooted in quantum transitions of molecules, lets us read a planet’s atmospheric “fingerprint.” The James Webb Space Telescope, for instance, detects gases like oxygen at 760 nm, a potential biosignature, as Sara Seager’s research highlights. Could life on Mars or Europa use quantum tricks like Earth’s extremophiles? In harsh Earth environments, microbes exploit quantum effects to survive; alien life might do the same in high-radiation or icy conditions. Meanwhile, quantum computers boost the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) by processing vast radio signal datasets with algorithms like Grover’s, speeding up our hunt for an alien signal. Quantum physics is our cosmic detective, linking life’s origins to its potential elsewhere.

Here’s where I get geeked out. Quantum technologies are like a bridge from my fern to distant planets. Quantum sensors, exploiting superposition and entanglement, detect tiny signals with insane precision — gravitational waves on Earth or chemical traces on exoplanets. Imagine a sensor mapping Europa’s icy crust for signs of life. Quantum communication, using entangled particles, could enable secure, near-instant data transfer for Mars missions, sidestepping classical delays. It’s like texting across the galaxy with quantum encryption.

These tools hint at a universal quantum playbook for life. Whether it’s a leaf in my kitchen or a microbe on a distant moon, the same subatomic rules apply, tying Earth’s ecosystems to the cosmos in ways we’re just starting to grasp.

I’m still wrapping my mind around this, but quantum physics is life’s unsung hero. On Earth, coherence powers photosynthesis, tunneling drives enzymes, and entanglement guides birds. In space, it shapes life’s building blocks and fuels our search for biosignatures with tools like spectroscopy. From my fern to a potential Martian microbe, quantum mechanics, governed by principles like the Schrödinger equation, is the thread weaving life’s tapestry.

Researchers like Sara Seager are pushing quantum tech to uncover life’s cosmic reach, and it’s thrilling to think where this science will take us. Next time you water a plant or gaze at the stars, consider: the tiniest particles might hold the biggest clues about our place in the universe.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Thune Clears Way for Vote on Ending California’s EV Mandate thumbnail

Thune Clears Way for Vote on Ending California’s EV Mandate

By The Daily Signal

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has overcome Democrat opposition to proceeding to a vote this week on overturning California’s electric vehicle mandate.

In a 53-to-46 party-line vote, the Senate on Wednesday moved to proceed with a vote on revoking a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency exemption that enabled California to ban the sales of new gasoline-powered cars and trucks in the state in 2035. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., did not vote.

The House of Representatives has already voted to revoke the EPA exemption. The Senate vote—which is exempt from the filibuster due to coming under the purview of the Congressional Review Act—is likely to result in a successful overturning of the EPA regulation.

Thune’s move for a vote on reviewing the EPA exemption comes after significant procedural hurdles. The Government Accountability Office had controversially stated that the Senate could not revoke the Biden-era EPA regulation because it did not qualify as a “rule.” The GAO is an independent and ostensibly nonpartisan government agency that exists to provide support services for Congress.

Thune addressed the GAO ruling on the Senate floor.

“It’s an extraordinary deviation from precedent for an agency that should be defending Congress’ power instead of constraining it,” Thune declared, noting that “we [the Senate] need to act to ensure that this intrusion into the Congressional Review Act process doesn’t become a habit, and that the Senate doesn’t end up transferring its decision-making power on CRA resolutions to the Government Accountability Office.”

The Senate majority leader is also holding the vote against the recommendation of the Senate parliamentarian, who said the EPA exemption was not subject to the Congressional Review Act, but this is not the first time the parliamentarian has been ignored. Democrats overruled the Senate parliamentarian in 2011 on whether Republicans could add unrelated amendments to a bill about China currency.

Notably, the House parliamentarian did not rule that the CRA did not apply to the matter.

Thune addressed concerns that the Senate was violating norms by disregarding the parliamentarian. “We are not talking about doing anything to erode the institutional character of the Senate; in fact, we are talking about preserving the Senate’s prerogatives.”

The South Dakota Republican detailed the potentially massive economic consequences if the EV mandate were allowed to take effect.

“Under California’s electric vehicle mandate, automakers around the country would be forced to close down a substantial part of their traditional vehicle production, with serious consequences. Diminished economic output. Job losses. Declining tax revenues,” Thune said.

Thune also pointed out the many infrastructure challenges that an EV mandate would impose on the power grid.

“We are—to quote a Washington Post headline from last March—‘running out of power,’ as a surge in demand and the premature retirement of fossil fuel-fired power plants push us to the brink. Our electric grid is simply not in a position to absorb a huge surge in electric vehicles,” he said.

California’s ban has ramifications for the entire automobile market of the U.S. not only because of the state’s huge market share, but also because it has inspired about a dozen other states to follow California’s lead.

“It’s a really problematic policy, because it’s not just economically destructive, but it’s also because of [California’s] size. It influences things well beyond our borders,” Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacific Research Institute, told The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Jacob Adams

Jacob Adams is a journalism fellow at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jacob.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Leadership on Hill Gets Back to Work on Budget Resolution

Hill GOP Budget Leaders in ‘Lockstep,’ Treasury Chief Bessent Says

Bipartisan House Vote Blocks California’s 2035 Gas Car Ban

RELATED VIDEO: California Kicked Out of the Driver’s Seat

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The post Thune Clears Way for Vote on Ending California’s EV Mandate appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

PODCAST: Trading Earth Day for ‘People Day’ and Is the United States Facing a Constitutional Crisis? thumbnail

PODCAST: Trading Earth Day for ‘People Day’ and Is the United States Facing a Constitutional Crisis?

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

GUESTS AND TOPICS

PAUL DRIESSEN

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

TOPIC: Trading Earth Day for ‘People Day’

JUDGE PHIL GINN

Judge Phil Ginn was appointed president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in April 2021 after a distinguished career as both a lawyer and a judge. He holds a B.A. from Appalachian State University, a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Prior to his appointment as SES president, Judge Ginn served as SES Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

TOPIC: Is the United States Facing a Constitutional Crisis?

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Buying a New HVAC System thumbnail

Buying a New HVAC System

By John Droz, Jr.

Critically Thinking about a major homeowner expense. 

One of the reasons I was able to retire at age 34 — and to be able to enjoy a comfortable living since that time — is that I pay attention to expenditures. These range from groceries to income taxes. Today I’ll explain some ins-and-outs of buying a replacement HVAC system, which typically runs $10,000 to $20,000 — but (based on certain variables) can be much more. I’m of the vintage where such an expenditure is still a big deal.

HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) is a common electric system used to control the temperature, humidity, and air quality in a home. Most HVAC systems are two parts: 1) an outside compressor, and 2) an inside air handler. The air handler is connected to supply ductwork (typically one or more in each room), plus return ductwork (which brings air from 3± selected places in the home that need to be “conditioned”: warmed or cooled).

The basic principle of a HVAC system is that it extracts heat from the inside air in the Summer (providing cooling), and it extracts heat from the outside air in Winter, sending warm air throughout the house.

My example (below) is about: a) an electric replacement system [not the first HVAC for a property], b) a home [not a business], c) just one system [multi-story homes can have one system per floor], and d) installed in North Carolina [different geographical areas can have some variables].

Just like I would do on any larger purchase, I keep track of everything on my computer (NOT phone). I set up a “New 2025 HVAC” folder. In that I have subfolders for each local company providing me a quote. I also have subfolders for other related materials, like IRS HVAC tax credits.

I then put together an Excel spreadsheet (in this folder) to record the main details for multiple expected quotes. I then carefully select several apparently competent providers to get quotes from. On the form, I keep track of several important variables in columns: a) company name, b) website, c) location, d) phone, e) visit date, f) brand quoted, g) cost, h) plus several more.

Hint: below the table section of the spreadsheet, leave several lines for making notes — e.g., explaining what abbreviated column headings mean. Yes, it takes some time to put this together properly, but it is an ESSENTIAL step!

The first part of my making a purchase decision involves the interface with a local HVAC company. These included such things as: a) their website, b) the person answering the phone [vs an answering machine], c) the ease of setting up an appointment, d) the timeliness of the estimator person, e) the thoroughness of the estimator, f) how well the estimator answered my questions, g) did they have a business card, h) the quality of the quote I received, etc. I gave each company a grade on my Excel spreadsheet. This comes into play when deciding between two companies that have given me roughly equal quotes. After all I will be dealing with these people for 10+ years.

With each local company, ask for written quotes for at least two (2) options: a good system and a higher efficiency one. Have these emailed to your computer. The higher efficiency version should save you electricity costs over its lifetime (15± years). Another benefit of the higher efficiency unit is that it may qualify for IRS (and maybe State) credits. However, the higher efficiency (more expensive) unit is not necessarily more reliable…

Once you get written quotes, you will start encountering terminology and practices that you need to understand somewhat, or you may be taken advantage of. Here are some factors that will likely come up:

  1. A quoted system will be something like “3 Tons.” As explained here, that has nothing to do with weight, but rather the cooling capacity of the system. [In a replacement situation, estimators will likely quote you the same capacity you already have. Make sure the prior system did an acceptable job!]
  2. On colder days (well below freezing), there isn’t much heat in the air to be extracted, so the HVAC system provides auxiliary electric heat. Usually, an HVAC system will have something like 10 kW — but be sure to ask. This is like having an electric space heater, which is more expensive to operate.
  3. SEER2 ratings are the current measurement of how efficient an HVAC system is, the higher the better. Good systems are 14± while high efficiency systems are 18+.
  4. New HVAC circuit breaker box and wiring (aka Whip). The company will likely say that this is needed “per code,” which is rarely the case. This is another advantage of getting multiple written quotes — if only one bidder says it’s needed, it is almost certainly unnecessary.
  5. New platform for the outside compressor unit. Again, if what you have seems solid, this is likely an arbitrary option that you should decline. [One exception is if your NFIP flood zone rating has changed, the platform may have to be raised to conform with your current rating.]
  6. Ultraviolet air treatment. This is rarely quoted, but it is a proven way to minimize airborne bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that can cause health problems, etc. in your home. It also helps prevent the growth of mold and mildew in HVAC systems. Here is an article about this. This is a UV unit I bought to install, so use that as a reference for cost.
  7. Surge protector. This is also rarely quoted, but it is a wise idea to have one, as nearby lightning strikes, etc, can easily fry very expensive HVAC electronics. Here is one I bought and installed myself. Compare that cost to what you are quoted for someone else to purchase and install.
  8. Thermostat. If this is included, get the price if it is not itemized. With a Trane HVAC I was quoted, it included a fancy Trane thermostat for $460. You can get a high-end thermostat for under $200 (e.g., see here).
  9. Warranties are typically 1 year labor, 10-year limited warranty on parts. That said, carefully read the quotes for gotchas.
  10. Service costs. These are not usually on a quote, so you should ask: if I need service, what is your hourly rate? There can be big differences here. Also, some local companies will offer a special rate for new customers, or if you buy an annual service contract.
  11. Credit card fees. When you get a quote, ask if: a) there is a charge for using a credit card, and b) is there a discount for paying by check? In my case, one supplier offered a 3% discount for paying by check. That may seem small but on a $15,000 HVAC unit, that is $450.
  12. Tax Credits. If you play your cards right, you may qualify for an IRS $2000 credit (MUCH more valuable than a $2000 deduction!). See here for details… Some States have additional credits (see here for NC’s). Check out the conditions for those prior to buying. Also, ask the local company you are leaning toward for info. If you press them, they might even volunteer to do some of the paperwork!
  13. Baker’s Dozen Bonus. When there is a new HVAC system replacing a prior one, the party line is that they take the old one to the scrap heap. What if you have put in important parts (like the compressor) in the last year, and they work fine? That was my situation, so after I got written quotes from each potential supplier, I emailed them that question. The jury is still out if any will give me some credit for resaleable parts. In any case, I will keep some circuit boards and sell them on eBay…

Bottom Line —

I’m sharing this with you before I’ve made my selection. That said, the quotes so far range from $8,000 to $20,000 — a LARGE difference. Hopefully, you have found this semi-detailed overview of buying a replacement HVAC to be helpful. Questions or observations can be posted in the comments below.

©2025 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

For those using RSS feeds, use https://criticallythinking.substack.com/feed

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

The post Buying a New HVAC System appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Funeral For A Narrative

By Jeff Reynolds

Written by Jeff Reynolds

Editors’ note: As we think of the lies we have been told over recent years: Biden was competent, Trump was colluding with the Russians, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a video caused the attacks on the embassy in Benghazi, Covid came from animals, the vaccine worked and was safe, the grandaddy of all recent lies has been global warming is caused by CO2. This lie has to be the most significant and most persistent. Other lies were born from that: polar bears were dying out, Arctic ice was shrinking, and we must completely change our electrical grid to save the world. Even wars and conflicts have been attributed to “climate change.” While the climate constantly changes and has cycles, for over 20 years, man-made global warming has been taught in schools, despite its many deficiencies and contradictions. A former Vice President and divinity student became the most essential “scientist” in the world. We hope this Big Lie will soon be exposed and rejected as a source of public policy. 

The climate cultists can be heard singing “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” as the global warming arguments continue to unravel this week

The stories this week strike a plaintive tone, like a balladeer pouring out his soul on stage while playing a sad tune on piano. The laments come one after the other as tragic stories of loss and heartbreak emerge from those pushing the climate agenda. The classic Elton John song “Love Lies Bleeding” could easily have been about the tragic death of not just a relationship, but an entire movement:

The roses in the window box have tilted to one side

Everything about this house was born to grow and die

The narrative lies bleeding in their hands.

And really, we’ve seen this coming for a long time, those of us who consider ourselves rationalists, who reject hysteria. Everything about this house was born to grow and die, indeed. None of it ever held together with rational explanations, or science for that matter, which explains the need to propagandize and mandate. We clearly never had any intention of voting for this stuff, after all.

And for good reason. This week’s stories center around the theme of truths ever so inconvenient for the climate cult. We also have several stories that are downright weird, and a new scientific study that continues to erode the arguments in favor of the theory of manmade global warming.

In our Good News segment, we have more EV implosions, and NOAA retires its “billion-dollar disaster” boondoggle.

Let’s get to it.

Death of a Narrative: Antarctic Sea Ice Edition

The narrative states definitively that anthropogenic global warming has caused climate change that drives more weather extremes, causing more catastrophic storms, floods, fires, sea level rise, and melting polar ice caps and glaciers. Therefore, we need to extract trillions of dollars from capitalist countries and impose global communism.

The narrative’s baseline assumptions are dying, as the dogs of society howl. Take, for instance, Antarctica. The sea ice continues to refuse to shrink there. Four “key glacier basins” in East Antarctica showed ice growth from 2021 to 2023, according to a new study.

Death of a Narrative: Volcano Edition

The sudden spike in global temperatures in 2023 was nothing but a candle in the wind, it seems.

A massive underwater volcano in the South Pacific, Hunga-Tonga, erupted in 2022. It spewed massive amounts of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Many climate “skeptics”—or, rationalists, rather—have attributed the spike in global temperatures to that event. The satellite temperature record sure does seem to have validated that view. This is important because most climate zealots dismiss out of hand any natural causes of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase. Seems they haven’t given this one enough thought—or they’ve dismissed any inconvenient factors that invalidate their claims.

Death of a Narrative: Bees Edition

Enviros have tried to gin up panic about declining bee populations for decades now, with the catastrophic claims that no pollinators would lead to no food, causing mass starvation. Thanks a lot, climate change! When that turns out not to be true, so much, sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Somebody decided to count worldwide bee colonies. Turns out they’ve increased significantly since 1990. So you can stop worrying that global warming is going to cause mass starvation.

Resistance to Offshore Wind Goes International

It’s not just New Jersey and New York resisting the offshore wind movement. In Japan, residents of Hokkaido have pushed back hard on wind turbines that pose serious risks to threatened White-tailed Eagles.

New Study Demonstrates Urban Heat Island Effect

Global warming acolytes flatly reject the notion that an “urban heat island” effect exists or that it skews global temperature records. A new scientific study puts the lie to those claims, showing a strong correlation between population growth and warming trends at individual weather stations. The authors state definitively that about 22 percent of observed warming can be explained by the urban heat island effect, not any sort of global phenomenon. This is yet another variable for which climate scientists have failed to account when creating predictions of doom.

This Week In Weird Norwegian Ferry News

Hopefully this doesn’t become a weekly installment in this column. Apparently, Norway is doing weird things to its ferry system in the name of the climate.

The passenger ferry operator Norled announced the world’s first passenger ship powered by liquefied hydrogen in 2023, the MF Hydra. Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to use as a fuel for transportation, despite its great potential. The source of the liquefied gas has caused some controversy in the environmental press in Europe, leading to more questions than answers. A German chemical plant is trucking the hydrogen gas to Norway, but its hydrogen plant is not the source. Journalists believe it comes from a fossil fuel production source. A long report contains a lot of background information on the drive to produce hydrogen fuel in Europe, with many questions still unanswered.

The second Norwegian ferry story concerns the electric ferry Medstraum—the first of its kind in the world. Apparently it had so many mechanical issues and insufficient battery life it had to switch back to diesel for normal operations.

US Power Goes Non-Fossil, but There’s a Big BUT

“For the first time, fossil fuels provided less than half of U.S. electricity generation in a month (March 2025).” So goes the headline announcing a seemingly massive milestone proving that green energy has taken root in America.

BUT.

This info came from a leftist think tank called Ember, which included nuclear in their calculations. In addition, according to oilprice.com, “this is an estimate of total generation, including small scale systems that are not connected to the grid.”

Yeah, if you squint real hard and look at it cock-eyed and include every off-grid homestead’s solar panels and wind mills, sure, you come up with something that looks like a trend.

Coincidentally, energy expert David Blackmon reported this week on a study showing that large-scale wind and solar production farms face greatly extended interconnection delays getting them connected to the grid, so that doesn’t exactly look like progress for green energy.

Getting Astrological to Treat Climate Anxiety

Feeling anxious about the impending end of the world due to global warming? Try tarot:

A growing movement of artists is creating spaces for people to sit down and unpack their climate feelings. And no, it’s not talk therapy; it’s climate tarot reading.

When the deck’s stacked against you, and the living gets hard, oh it’s four walls of madness in this house of cards.

And now for this week’s Good News segment.

Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting EVs

The numbers are in, and the Trump agenda is in full effect. In April, sales of electric vehicles fell five percent. That contrasts with the auto market as a whole, which saw robust sales increases. April marks the third monthly decline of EV sales since 2021. And it wasn’t just Tesla due to the backlash against Elon Musk—the entire EV sector was down. Both manufacturers, due to the end of government subsidies, and consumers, sensitive to pricey options, have signaled broad declines in the industry that could extend into the future. Gas-powered vehicle sales increased 10 percent in the same month.

NOAA Retires Billion Dollar Disaster Boondoggle

Roger Pielke, Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former climate professor, has a Substack called The Honest Broker. There, Pielke writes about the absurdities of the climate hysteria movement. He published a peer-reviewed study in 2024 that demonstrated the lack of scientific integrity in NOAA’s “Billion Dollar Disaster” database. This database follows a climate hysteric invention of the increase in the number of natural disasters that caused over a billion dollars in damages. From the abstract of Pielke’s paper:

For more than two decades, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published a count of weather-related disasters in the United States that it estimates have exceeded one billion dollars (inflation adjusted) in each calendar year starting in 1980. The dataset is widely cited and applied in research, assessment and invoked to justify policy in federal agencies, Congress and by the U.S. President. This paper performs an evaluation of the dataset under criteria of procedure and substance defined under NOAA’s Information Quality and Scientific Integrity policies. The evaluation finds that the “billion dollar disaster” dataset falls short of meeting these criteria. Thus, public claims promoted by NOAA associated with the dataset and its significance are flawed and at times misleading. Specifically, NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA’s claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change. NOAA’s claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed. Given the importance and influence of the dataset in science and policy, NOAA should act quickly to address this scientific integrity shortfall.

This week at The Honest Broker, Pielke reports, “NOAA announced that the BDD tabulation would no longer be updated by the agency, explaining that it has been ‘retired.’”

Good riddance to bad assumptions.

And now that it’s all over

The birds can nest again

I’ll only snow when the sun comes out

I’ll shine only when it starts to rain

 

*****

This article was published by CFACT, The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Power Outage, Inner Power thumbnail

Power Outage, Inner Power

By Jordi Pigem

April 28th will be remembered as the largest blackout (so far) in European history. Power went down in the whole of continental Spain and Portugal, taking more than 20 hours to come back in some areas. It has been blamed on technical causes, although the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) has opened an investigation for possible cyberattack. Whatever the cause, however, we can see it as a symptom of something deeper and more far-reaching.

When I was growing up, at the end of Franco’s dictatorship, small blackouts were frequent. The only outcome used to be that you were left without TV (black and white) or that, at nightfall, you had to light candles (some were ready). Landlines kept working. We relied much less on electricity. The Internet didn’t even exist (except as a military project) and it would be decades before the word ‘cyberattack’ was coined. More than half a century later, blackouts are unusual. But when they happen, as with this “Great Blackout,” they create a helplessness that was previously unheard of.

One would have imagined that this was not the road to progress.

The more sophisticated a technology, the more fragile it tends to be. My grandfather drove a truck and knew how to repair most breakdowns. When our tools were simple, you knew how to mend them yourself. Today, tools are amazing, but only specialists know how to fix them.

Technological progress makes life easier, but it also makes us more vulnerable. Today we have more information and more power than ever before, but we seem to be more lost. Everything points to a technological progress that is more and more incredible, in the strict sense that it is becoming less and less credible.

The philosophers that have pondered about technology conclude that it is not a simple tool that we use. There comes a moment when technology escapes our control and takes hold of the wheel. From then on, alas, we are the ones being used by technology. Jacques Ellul wrote in The Technological Society:

“Everything happens as if the technical system grew by an internal, intrinsic force, and without any decisive human intervention.”

Reflecting on the growing imposition of mechanistic and dehumanizing visions, psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist writes in The Matter with Things that we are in the grip of something bigger than us that tells us that it has our interests at heart in order to better control us.

On the afternoon of the day after, April 29th, El País (the Spanish equivalent of the New York Times) ran an article with the title “Spain Returns from the Stupor of the Blackout and Abandons the Analog Age […].” The implication was that we had now entered, finally and irreversibly, into the Digital Age.

I have read widely in history, but I had never heard of an “Analog Age.” Dictionaries define analog as a way of conveying information (“analog thermometer” and “analog television” are two examples I found). However, is conveying information all that matters in life? Anyone with a soul knows that human life and history cannot be reduced to the transmission of information. If this piece you are reading is any good, it will be because it does much more than convey information.

Jaron Lanier calls cybernetic totalism the subtle totalitarianism that reduces “all of reality, including humans” to “one big information system.” When we integrate data in a coherent way, we have information. When we integrate different types of information and put them in context, we have knowledge. When we integrate different types of knowledge, we have wisdom. But wisdom is no longer spoken of today.

I type “Analog Age” in Google and I get this:

The “Analog Age” refers to a period characterized by physical representations of information and mechanical processes, contrasting with the digital age which uses electronic data and computers. This era was defined by technologies like vinyl records, printed books. . . 

According to the prevailing technolatry, vinyl records and printed books belong to the past (note the past tense: “was defined…”). Today, anyway, the vast majority of book readers prefer to read on paper (a few decades ago, it was vainly proclaimed that books were doomed). As for vinyl records, they are making a comeback (in the US their sales are growing more rapidly than those of other music formats) because they offer better sound quality than CDs and streaming music.

The talk about the “Analog Age” can only be done from an irrational faith in the total and lasting triumph of the “Digital Age.” From the belief that everything — including currencies, IDs, therapies — must be digitized. But during the Great Blackout, in most cases you couldn’t do your shopping or get a taxi ride if you didn’t pay in cash.

The so-called “digital transformation” entails an erosion of what have been the rules of the game of human existence since the beginning of time: it displaces the properly human ways of acting and being in the world, and replaces them with their robotic or technocratic counterparts. It covertly imposes a technocratic totalitarianism in which people are more controllable, more manipulable, more vulnerable, and less autonomous.

How come we are being forced to digitize everything, when blackouts cannot be ruled out? In a recent article in the Guardian, the head of the school of engineering at Cardiff University stated that blackouts “can happen anywhere,” anytime. And he added:

Despite today’s high standards of reliability, low-probability but high-impact blackout events can still happen. These networks are not designed to be completely blackout-free because achieving such a level of reliability would require investment far beyond what is economically feasible.

Isn’t there something quite peculiar about a world that relies more and more on electricity and yet cannot guarantee its supply? This does not look like a road to progress.

Incidentally, it is not impossible for human life to flourish without electricity. Plato and Aristotle, Bach and Mozart, Leonardo and Goethe, never in their lives saw a phone, a screen or a socket.

Nowadays, though, every new technology is uncritically embraced simply because it’s new. And if it has adverse effects, we dogmatically believe that they will be solved by technological progress itself.

Back in 1950, philosopher and theologian Romano Guardini wrote in The End of the Modern World (Das Ende der Neuzeit):

Modern man believes that every increase in power is simply “Progress,” advance in security, usefulness, welfare, life force. . . 

And concluded that

The bourgeois superstition of believing in the intrinsic reliability of Progress has been shattered.

By 1950, after the Second World War, when it became clear that technology could empower inhumanity, the idea of history as an irreversible path of progress had begun to shatter. Indeed, the idea of linear progress would have been incomprehensible to most human civilizations, including Ancient Greece and the Renaissance, which sought to return to the models of classical culture. After the mid-twentieth century, thinkers such as Arendt, Jaspers, Tolkien, Huxley, Heidegger, Horkheimer, Adorno, Guardini, Mumford, Schumacher, Ellul, and Illich, much as they disagreed on other issues, were all deeply concerned about the path the world was taking.

The modern world dreamed that it was sailing on the ocean of History, aboard the ship Progress, toward a shore of Prosperity and Liberty. There were storms, we lost our way, but in the long run, Progress would deliver. Now we are not so sure. We find ourselves in turbulent waters, as if we were in rapids. The dream seems to be turning into a nightmare. We are left with one main option: to wake up into a wider consciousness, to come to our senses, to rediscover the here and now, and to realize that the ocean, ship, and shore are such stuff as dreams are made on.

*****

This article was published by The Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Switch to Patriot Mobile

The Prickly Pear supports Patriot Mobile Cellular and its Four Pillars of Conservative Values: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Right to Life, and significant support for our Veterans and First Responders. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do you support these causes, but most customers will also save up to 50% on their monthly cellular phone bill. 

Here at The Prickly Pear, we know that switching to a new cellular service can be challenging at times. Let’s face it, no one wants the hassle.  But that hassle is necessary if Conservatives want to support those who support them.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE…

Without Energy Abundance, America Loses The AI Race

By David Holt

Written by David Holt

America stands at a historic energy crossroads that is arguably as critical to our future global leadership as was the completion of the Transcontinental Railway or the interstate highway system. The decisions we make today about our energy future will determine whether we lead or follow in the global AI revolution and whether we maintain our economic edge over China.

To understand the magnitude of what’s coming, we need to look at where we’ve been. From 1920-2021, America’s energy consumption grew fourfold – electricity consumption alone grew 100-fold – as we transformed from a developing industrial nation to the world’s leading economic superpower.

This massive expansion fueled unprecedented prosperity for American families, farmers, and businesses. It spurred incredible innovation, efficiency, and conservation in everything from transportation and distribution, medical care, the digital revolution, manufacturing, farming, textiles, milling, construction, appliances, plastics, and even personal leisure.

But something interesting happened in recent decades. After generations of steady growth, our energy consumption leveled off. Over the past 20 years, we actually saw a slight decline in total energy use – about 4% – despite continued economic and population growth. This plateau reflected improved efficiency and structural economic changes.

It also bred legislative and policy complacency, as evidenced by the fact that the North American Electricity Reliability Corp., responsible for ensuring a robust grid, has in recent years increasingly warned of greater imbalances to our power systems, leading to higher potential for blackouts and brownouts. In spite of these warnings, many political leaders have persisted in pursuing draconian energy mandates and excessive regulatory oversight that limit our ability to fully use all energy options.

The result is a once world-class power structure that has fallen behind, risking more expensive and less reliable energy for families and business all across the country.

Couple that bit of worrying news with the fact that we are now embarking on the single greatest change to our energy infrastructure in the past 100 years, with energy demand expected to increase dramatically in the coming years.

With the AI revolution upon us, energy forecasts now show we’re entering an era of explosive demand growth that will make the 20th century’s expansion look modest by comparison. Multiple analyses predict U.S. electricity demand will surge by 35-50% between now and 2040, with much of that growth concentrated in the next decade. We’re looking at annual growth rates approaching 3% – levels not seen since the 1980s.

This isn’t gradual change – it’s a fundamental shift that will stress our energy infrastructure beyond anything we’ve experienced. By some estimates, we’ll need to add 128 gigawatts of new electricity capacity in just the next five years. That’s like building power for 13 cities the size of New York, practically overnight.

What’s driving this unprecedented surge? In a word: data. The rise of artificial intelligence, advanced computing, and electrification are creating massive new power demands. Data centers alone could account for nearly half of new electricity demand by 2028. Companies like Meta are investing billions in facilities that stretch for miles and require dedicated power plants just to operate.

This brings us to the central challenge of our time: America cannot win the AI race without abundant, affordable, reliable energy. Full stop. America must win the AI race.

AI isn’t just energy-intensive – it is essentially energy transformed. Each ChatGPT query consumes roughly 10 times the energy of a standard Google search. The computing centers powering the AI revolution need enormous quantities of electricity that’s available 24/7 without interruption.

China understands this connection perfectly. They’re rapidly expanding their energy infrastructure – including coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables – to fuel their AI ambitions. They recognize that energy leadership and AI leadership are inseparable, and they’ve made both national priorities.

Meanwhile, we’ve spent years debating which energy sources should be allowed rather than focusing on the fundamental question of how to free the market to ensure we produce more of all types of energy at the lowest cost, most efficient, and reliable means possible. This policy failure in Washington and states such as California and New York over the past few years has produced predicable results: reliability problems, with power outages more than doubling since 2016, and electricity prices climbing to painful levels in states that restrict energy options.

By declaring a National Energy Emergency, President Trump’s administration has signaled a much-needed shift toward energy realism. By streamlining permitting, expanding domestic production across all energy sources, and establishing the National Energy Dominance Council, we’re finally aligning our energy policies with the massive challenges ahead.

That covers the big picture – but we need to move faster at the state and local levels to ensure we have policies right – policies which support expanded energy options and faster permitting approvals – all designed to hasten progress by advancing prudent, responsible energy choices.

The U.S. Energy Department estimates that data centers could account for 12% of our nation’s electricity demand by 2028 – triple their current load. If we can’t meet this demand with affordable, reliable energy, the economic consequences will be far-reaching and potentially severe.

Nations that succeed in the energy-AI nexus will dominate the global economy for generations. Those that fail will see their industries migrate to energy-abundant regions. The economic logic is inescapable – energy is foundational to prosperity, and prosperity follows energy abundance.

As AI becomes central to commerce, manufacturing, healthcare, defense, and everyday life, the pressure on our energy systems will intensify beyond anything in our history. Getting energy policy right is now more than just keeping the lights on – it’s about maintaining American leadership in the defining technological revolution of this era.

The path forward is clear: we need massive investment in new generation capacity across all energy sources. We need policies that facilitate energy abundance rather than artificially constraining supply. And we need to move with unprecedented speed.

The soaring demand projections we’re seeing aren’t just statistics – they’re a clarion call that America’s energy future must be built on pragmatism, not ideological preferences that take options off the table. Our families, farmers, small businesses, and national security depend on getting this right.

The energy decisions we make today will determine whether America leads the AI revolution or watches from the sidelines. Let’s choose leadership.

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Inside The Dysfunctional Process Driving Biden’s ‘Clean Energy’ Frenzy

By Michael Chamberlain

Written by Michael Chamberlain

We are now uncovering how Biden’s mad dash for ‘net-zero’ emissions meant cutting corners and ignoring norms

On Jan. 20, President Trump ordered a pause in federal leasing and permitting of offshore wind plants. In mid-April, he halted construction of the Empire Wind installation off the coast of Long Island, a relief to many in the local fishing and hospitality industries. He also ordered a leasing and permitting review of all 11 offshore wind projects approved during the Biden years.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said that Empire Wind’s approval “was rushed through by the prior administration without sufficient analysis or consultation among the relevant agencies as relates to the potential effects from the project.”

There was a lot of that going around. Offshore wind was a centerpiece of the Biden administration’s mad dash for “clean energy” and “net-zero” emissions. The administration acted as though it had this one shot — a limited window in which to throw up as many wind installations as it could. As it turns out, that was true enough. But in the meantime, there were toes to step on and corners to cut.

Just up the coast from Empire Wind is the South Fork Wind installation off Rhode Island. The Biden Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) folks didn’t exactly endear themselves to the locals. Protect the Public’s Trust obtained a letter sent to BOEM in November 2022 by a coalition of local townships, Indian tribes, historic preservation groups and others. “We have NEVER seen a more dysfunctional process,” it said.

As part of the permitting process, the Interior Department is required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, to assess the effects of federal projects on historic properties, including those of cultural significance to Native Americans. Ocean Energy Management officials told attorneys for the locals they “don’t have time to comply with National Historic Preservation Act.” An appeal to the federal advisory council tasked with oversight of compliance with that act got them nowhere. As the letter to BOEM said, the “permitting review has become a theater of the absurd.”

Biden’s Ocean Energy Management team even managed to anger the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a sister federal agency charged with assessing the significant impacts of offshore construction on sea life and habitat. The Fisheries Service complained that it had been given a construction and operation plan for a major wind project just four days before construction was scheduled to begin, calling it “an unreasonable timeline for review and comment.” But the Ocean Energy Management team was in a hurry and wasn’t about to let such niceties as allowing its federal colleagues time to do their jobs stand in the way.

A little further north, a few miles off Nantucket, the Vineyard Wind installation was getting an assist from Ocean Energy Management. Like other energy producers granted a lease by the federal government, Vineyard was required to “provide financial assurance for decommissioning costs before the installation of facilities on their lease” — a safeguard against taxpayers being left with the liability of closing down or remediating a lease site.

Vineyard Wind “requested to defer providing the full amount of its decommissioning financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations under its 20-year Power Purchase Agreements,” according to documents Protect the Public’s Trust obtained through FOIA. Ocean Energy Management obliged.

The Biden Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s reasoning for granting the deferral was that financial assurance was “unnecessarily burdensome for lessees because, at that point, they have not begun receiving project income,” that the project used “proven wind turbine technology,” and because of “guaranteed electricity sales prices that, coupled with the consistent supply of wind energy, ensure a predictable income over the life of the Project.”

Nantucket residents must have found those reasons a comfort when they learned of development companies backing out of wind leases elsewhere because the economic benefits weren’t there. And when dangerous debris from a defective Vineyard turbine forced them to close beaches and the entire installation sat dormant for six months of 2024.

Ironically, at the same time the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management was granting wind projects exemptions from financial assurance requirements, it was also changing these rules for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in ways destined to drive small, independent producers from the market. They were picking winners and losers in the energy industry.

Now we learn that it wasn’t just Vineyard Wind that was winning. In late spring 2024, the administration finalized rules to expand the project’s sweetheart deal to all offshore wind installations. It was just a few weeks later that one of Vineyard Wind’s turbine blades failed.

The Biden administration let little – certainly not rules, traditions, or norms – stand in the way of its climate frenzy. After only a few months on the job, Secretary Burgum is learning just how far his predecessors were willing to push to get what they wanted.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The First 100 Days of the Golden Age thumbnail

The First 100 Days of the Golden Age

By Dan McCarthy

Editors’ Note: Donald Trump gets little love from the ” established” Conservative movement and mostly hostility from Libertarians. National Review remains overtly hostile; we also think the Wall Street Journal and Commentary are as well. We found this article particularly insightful, and remarkably, it came from the editor of Modern Age, one of the oldest  Conservative academic journals, published by ISI, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Trump was never part of the established Conservative Movement before he got into politics, and that lack of connection may account for some of the hostility. However, we think that Trump’s departure from Conservative defeatism has also insulted many who have made a good living pontificating while losing out on most of the major political battles. This article notes that he has gotten more done for the movement than years of Conservative bloviating and fundraising. He has embarrassed them because he has effectively gotten things done and likely offended them by not posing as the bow tie equivalent of George Will. His style is offensive to them, even if he is effective; there seems to be a class element of superiority and haughtiness among some Conservatives. But Trump is reshaping American politics as few have and many Conservatives seem to resent him for showing up their own inadequacies and class distinctions. Trump has connected with working people and minorities like no other recent Conservative leader. He has pulled off the seemingly impossible. He is loved for being a blue-collar billionaire.

Trump’s second term is fundamentally reshaping American politics

The first sign of just how revolutionary President Trump’s second term would be actually came two years before his re-election. On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, delivering pro-life conservatives a victory decades in the making—but which, in the end, was only made possible by Donald Trump.

Before Trump’s first term, Republican presidents had displayed a remarkable knack for preserving a pro-Roe majority on the Court: George H.W. Bush more than offset the conservative jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas by appointing Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. And while both of George W. Bush’s appointees voted to reverse Roe, the younger Bush had tried hard to place a family crony, rather than a judicial conservative like Samuel Alito, on the bench.

Would Alberto Gonzales or Harriet Miers, Bush’s preferred choices, have overturned Roe? Would Chief Justice John Roberts have borne the burden of being the man who ended Roe if his had been the deciding vote, rather than just one of a 6-3 supermajority made possible by Trump’s three anti-Roe justices? Mitt Romney was a staunch supporter of Roe—and a financial contributor to Planned Parenthood—until he started running for the Republican presidential nomination. Would a Republican like Romney, or John McCain, or another Bush have dared do what Trump did?

Trump is the opposite of the Republicans who preceded him. They specialized in telling conservatives what they wanted to hear, but they were afraid to act—on Roe, on racial discrimination against whites and Asians, on immigration, on fulfilling Ronald Reagan’s pledge to dismantle the Department of Education, and on most other priorities for the American Right. The title of a book by Pat Buchanan that was published in 1975—Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories—accurately described the relationship between the Republican base and the leaders it typically put in office through 2015.

What President Trump has done in his first 100 days back in office is to implement as much of the Right’s agenda as he could in a little more than three months. He’s done more for conservative principles in that small span of time than the last two Republican presidents, the Bushes, did in their combined 12 years in the White House. The two Bushes did accomplish a great deal—but in the service of left-liberal aims.

These past 100 days provide a new perspective on the last 45 years of the American Right’s history.

Ronald Reagan was elected to do much of what Trump is now doing. Yet the Reagan era was in one sense not the triumph but the death knell of the post-World War II conservative movement. Before Reagan, it was usually a liability—even within Republican circles—to be identified as a conservative. After Reagan’s victory in 1980, however, centrist and liberal Republicans began to perceive an advantage in rebranding themselves as “conservatives.”

Voters liked what Reagan had offered, but perhaps political insiders who were accustomed to offering something else could retain their power by simply changing their labels and adjusting their language. They astutely recognized which themes in Reagan’s own rhetoric could be appropriated for their ends. His emphasis on America’s greatness and goodness, for example, could be—and soon would be—weaponized against anyone who called attention to the decline of the nation’s industrial workforce or who questioned whether Americanizing the planet through military force was either desirable or possible.

Voters put Reagan in office to do something radical, but many of the Republicans the president placed in his administration—beginning with his choice for vice president, George H.W. Bush—were not political conservatives but institutional conservatives, determined to preserve in Republican drag the institutions built by liberal Democrats.

The permanent “non-political” federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., which then as now was overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic in orientation, was also at cross purposes with President Reagan.

According to the Constitution, Reagan was the head of the executive branch. But according to progressive mythology, which even Republicans had internalized, “the government” was something permanent and “independent” of voters’ choices and the Constitution’s provisions. If Republicans wanted to lead the government rather than fight it, they would have to accept the administrative apparatus liberal Democrats had built, along with its attendant mythology of legitimacy—a mythology which necessarily de-legitimized the Constitution itself. It became unthinkable that Republicans would actually abolish the Department of Education or defund National Public Radio. And if the GOP was scared enough of Big Bird, what were the prospects the party would dare put an end to affirmative action or Roe?

Yet President Trump, who is not an ideological conservative, is doing all these things and more. He’s doing them despite the opposition he has faced, and continues to face, from the gatekeepers of ideological conservatism.

They attack him for his tariffs. They attack him for not wanting to prolong the war in Ukraine. They attack him for flouting the commands of judges, though they know the Constitution does not place the executive branch under the judiciary. They know it’s up to Congress to discipline the president with the power of the purse or impeachment. But the mythology of permanent bureaucracy, as opposed to the Constitution, makes it impossible to defund any part of government, even when the opposition party—which in this case is not the Democrats, but everyone who is anti-Trump—insists that the most sacred principles of the rule of law have been violated.

By reinvigorating the distinctions between the federal government’s branches, Trump in his first 100 days has been advancing the urgent task of reorienting the nation away from the progressive blueprint of a permanent, unitary, unelected government of bureaucrats and judges and back toward the Constitution’s design of separate branches that jealously guard their roles, with most powers vested in Congress and the president—not the courts and an executive bureaucracy “independent” of election results.

The hostility that Trump has faced from the elite gatekeepers of conservative or libertarian purity suggests something about what the function of “principle” was in the pre-Trump conservative movement: it was designed to arrest action. The useful thing about an all-or-nothing approach is it allows the self-righteous to believe they’re holding out for “all” when their actions consistently obtain “nothing.” It’s a way of turning the vice of fecklessness into the virtue of moral superiority. And it’s a way for hypocrites to defraud the innocent but gullible.

Even better, to the extent that “principle” excuses doing nothing that alters the status quo, it’s a way to feel righteous without having to live with the consequences of changing the world. As the example of Dobbs illustrates, sometimes the consequences of doing the right thing are disheartening—the country as a whole has not become pro-life simply because Roe has fallen, and many states have even liberalized their abortion laws or enshrined abortion rights in their constitutions. As long as “principle” remains out of practical reach, one can imagine its realization would lead to no downsides or disappointments. The danger of actually advancing principle in practice is that the idealist must face reality.

Donald Trump has always forced the American Right to stop daydreaming and confront reality—and the first 100 days of his second term have done that to a greater degree than ever before.

Procedural purists don’t like the reality of what cracking down on illegal immigration entails, though they should know full well that illegal immigration is, by definition, a violation of legal procedure in the first place.

The American Left has for decades succeeded in conning the Right into playing by a more restrictive set of rules than the Left itself follows. If there’s a “principle” that says immigrants may break the law by coming here, and once here they are under the protection of the laws they broke, why shouldn’t there be a “principle” that says judges can be ignored if that’s what it takes to send illegal immigrants away, with the corollary that once they’re no longer in our country, they’re no longer protected by our laws? Elite conservatives and libertarians who are socially and professionally comfortable in public and private institutions controlled by progressives have their reasons, of course, for accepting progressive lawbreaking while condemning any departure the Trump Administration makes from the norms established by liberal opinion.

These have been 100 days of conflict. Trump won’t win every battle, either in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. But he changes the political landscape just by engaging in the fight. He’s doing for every key issue what he did with abortion and Roe.

President Trump in 100 days has opened a frontier, one that the nation, and especially the Right, will be exploring for years to come, after long living on the progressives’ reservation. The frontier is dangerous and uncomfortable, but it’s free, and this frontier, unlike the one tamed by our ancestors, is only political—pending the acquisition of Greenland and Canada anyway. The men and women who will flourish in the America to come after some 1,360 more days like these first 100 will be those with a frontier spirit. Those without it, who have been well-fed and content in a liberal ideological cage, will merely continue to complain.

 is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Make the Switch to Patriot Mobile

The Prickly Pear supports Patriot Mobile Cellular and its Four Pillars of Conservative Values: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Right to Life, and significant support for our Veterans and First Responders. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do you support these causes, but most customers will also save up to 50% on their monthly cellular phone bill. 

Here at The Prickly Pear, we know that switching to a new cellular service can be challenging at times. Let’s face it, no one wants the hassle.  But that hassle is necessary if Conservatives want to support those who support them.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE…

Fool’s Gold’: New Book Cautions Against Spreading California Policies Across US

By Carrie Sheffield

Written by Carrie Sheffield

A new book exposes how California’s leftist political machine is unraveling the Golden State—and, sadly, how socialist policies could be exported nationwide if Americans aren’t vigilant.

The book is “Fool’s Gold: The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All,” co-authored by investigative journalists Susan Crabtree of RealClearPolitics and Jedd McFatter at the Government Accountability Institute.

“Violent crime is surging in California. Illegal drug use is off the charts, and it is subject to a daily invasion of illegal migrants crossing its southern border,” the authors write, mincing no words.

“Homeless addicts in once beautiful San Francisco shoot up, sleep, and defecate on its streets when they’re not stealing from what shops are still open in the city. Its economy is struggling. Tent cities block the sidewalks of Los Angeles as businesses leave the state’s crushing regulations, extortionate taxes, and unchecked property crime. Its police force is demoralized by negligent ‘Soros prosecutors’ who turn repeat criminals loose. Its universities, always a source of foment and dissent, have metastasized into playthings and espionage targets for America’s greatest adversary—the communist regime of China.”

“Fool’s Gold” is timely, given that polling shows two of the top five potential 2028 Democratic presidential primary contenders hail from California—former Vice President Kamala Harris (a former San Francisco district attorney and state attorney general) and former San Francisco Mayor and current California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Newsom is currently running an image-rehabilitation podcast after botching the fatal wildfires that ravaged his state earlier this year.

McFatter and Crabtree, a California resident and my former colleague at The Hill newspaper, also dig into Newsom’s alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party and his involvement in corruption. The book describes a nonprofit organization initiative started by Newsom called ChinaSF, which the authors report served as a gateway for Chinese Communist Party officials and Chinese criminals to exploit California.

“Fool’s Gold” is already having an impact, with Newsom publicly denying the book’s claim that he secretly funded a controversial City Hall bronze statue of his own bust.

The statue commemorates Newsom’s stint as mayor of San Francisco from 2004 to 2011. Newsom used what’s known as “behested payments” to fund the monument, with a reported three private organizations donating to the nonprofit designated for “Mayoral Bust at San Francisco City Hall.”

“Fool’s Gold” reports two of the three reported companies are companies owned by Newsom: Balboa Cafe Partners and PlumpJack Management Group donated a combined $10,000 to the $97,000 bust fund.

“We 100% stand by our Gavin Newsom bronze-bust vanity project story,” Crabtree replied on X in response to Newsom’s claim that the donations were not secret. “Team Newsom is afraid of the shocking revelations in FOOL’S GOLD—which is backed by more than forty-five pages of endnotes containing more than 1,000 open-source, reputable, and verifiable citations with zero anonymous sources—and that is why they are trying to smear this book.”

Crabtree also said “Newsom’s team has thus far refused to answer whether his companies got a tax break for funding this ‘charitable’ statue.”

“Fool’s Gold” also explains how Newsom’s horrific release of thousands of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic created a huge spike in crime throughout the state. Its impact is still felt today as residents and businesses continue to flee California for better-managed red states, such as Texas and Florida.

It’s no wonder, in light of a new report from the United Ways of California finding that 35% of households across the state—more than 3.8 million—are struggling to cover basic living expenses.

The Committee to Unleash Prosperity noted that a 2024 national survey found only 15% of respondents felt that California was a model for other states

The Public Policy Institute of California also found that only 1 in 3 Californians think the state is a good place to achieve the American dream.

McFatter and Crabtree pithily sum up the problem of exporting California’s policies nationwide: “If the fifty states are still America’s ‘laboratories of democracy,’ California is the Wuhan Institute.”

*****

This article was published by The Independent Women’s Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

India is China 2.0 thumbnail

India is China 2.0

By Spencer P Morrison

Written by Spencer P Morrison

Free trade with India isn’t a win for America—it’s déjà vu with China: cheap labor, ignored externalities, and another gut punch to U.S. industry dressed as opportunity

India is taking President Trump up on his offer for reciprocal free trade, proposing zero-for-zero tariffs on specific goods like pharmaceuticals, steel, and automobile components.

This has electrified President Trump’s base—the reciprocal tariffs are working! India’s coming to the table!

Sorry to burst your bubble: America will not benefit from free trade with India—or any other Third World country. Why? One word:

Externalities.

President Trump would be wise to remember that tariffs are not about moving factories from China to India—they’re about moving factories back to America.

Hunting Unicorns

Real international free trade—much like real communism—has never been tried. Why? It’s impossible.

The reality that economists & libertarians refuse to recognize is that different countries are different. And not just different in a nominal sense—different in real and practical ways that prevent economic integration.

First, America and India have different levels of economic development that cannot be reconciled without seriously rebalancing the factors of production.

The average annual wage in America is $63,000, while the average annual wage in India is just $2,500—the average American earns 25x more than the average Indian. Labor is often the largest input cost for making products, accounting for approximately 30–35% of the cost of American manufacturing—and it’s an even higher proportion in many service industries.

If America and India traded freely, India’s low wages would undercut America’s labor market—either Americans will need to accept lower wages domestically, or the factories will relocate to India to take advantage of dirt-cheap labor.

How do we know this will happen? The exact same thing happened after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.

In 2001, the average annual wage in America was $30,846, while the average annual wage in China was just $1,127—the average American earned 27x more than the average Chinese. What happened when American workers competed with Chinese workers? American factories moved to China, and wages stagnated.

In fact, the process has been going on even earlier than 2001. America has run global trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative value of these deficits is $25 trillion, after adjusting for inflation. This has decoupled wages for American workers from their productivity—even though workers produce more value, they aren’t paid for it. Why? Because the wages are suppressed by competition with cheap foreign labor.

Notice how the price differentials respecting America and China in 2001 and America and India today are almost identical. Why do we think the result will be different this time around?

From India With Love

In addition to obvious market asymmetries like the price of labor, the cost of doing business in India is lower because of externalities. Essentially, there are many costs of doing business in America that are baked into the final price of a product, such as the costs of environmental remediation, labor standards, and upholding higher quality control standards.

These costs are not baked into the price of Indian products. Instead, the costs of pollution or abusive labor standards are externalized to the environment or society at large.

But of course, we always pay the piper. Rather than pay 10 cents more per spatula, we live with plastic trash from India floating up on American beaches or mercury poisoning the fish we eat—we may not pay the price at the store, but we certainly pay it with our health and with our soul—all for the sake of “cheap” goods.

Often, foreign goods are not actually cheaper than American goods: they simply do not reflect the full cost of production. For this reason, America cannot produce goods as cheaply as China or India—not unless we are willing to destroy our standard of living—not unless we are willing to sacrifice our environment—not unless we are willing to outlaw morality in the name of business and sell our very soul for profit.

No. Reducing the cost of business to compete with India on price is simply not desirable. Nor is it possible.

Remember, even if America allowed manufacturers to externalize all costs, our economy is structurally distinct from India’s. In America, private corporations dominate the market. Although these corporations are large, and many are owned by the same few investment firms—like BlackRock—they remain private entities.

This is not the case in India, where the state is crafting a cohesive industrial policy designed to industrialize the country. Part of this policy appears to be to piggyback on America’s consumer market when it comes to strategic industries, like steel or pharmaceuticals—just like China.

Ultimately, the only way to protect America’s market from asymmetrical competition from countries like China or India is to price in these externalities by imposing protective tariffs. This is discussed in detail in my book Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home & Revive the American Dream.

The Shock and Awe of Reality

Different countries have different levels of economic development, legal systems, tax structures, histories, geographies, languages, cultural and business norms, and demographics. All of these differences can create market asymmetries that are simply not relevant domestically.

At best, free traders can reduce tariffs and other visible trade barriers, like taxes, transportation costs, and legal disharmonies. However, they cannot uproot the sort of cultural norms and political corruption that make doing business in India—or China, or Mexico, or Italy—different than doing business in America.

Ultimately, America’s interests are not served by moving industry from China to India. The industry needs to come home. Let’s not make the same mistake with India that we did with China—say no to free trade and raise the tariff walls.

*****

This article was first published on American Greatness, and is reproduced here with permission

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Montana Governor Tells Off Would-Be Banners thumbnail

Montana Governor Tells Off Would-Be Banners

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Had enough of bans and mandates?

Check out the masterful veto message Montana Governor Greg Gianforte sent the legislature when they tried to ban Styrofoam cups.

Read Governor Gianforte’s full veto message here.

“The free enterprise system works,” Gianforte wrote. “We should let it work, not have the heavy hand of big government unnecessarily meddle with it.”

Truer words never graced the printed page.

“Like many Montanans, I enjoy hot coffee in a Styrofoam cup, because it keeps it hot. And this bill is a hot mess,” Gianforte said in a video on X.

WATCH: Montana Governor Greg Gianforte Tells Off Would-Be Banners

America has reached peak regulation. Government is too complicated, controls too much, and has grown monstrously large.

The Trump/Musk DOGE effort to reduce government is a vitally needed reform, but it is also a case study in how difficult it is to weed out government waste after it has already taken root.

Better to do as Gianforte did and issue an unmistakable “no” at the outset.

“Ultimately, whether to use Styrofoam for take-out orders, packaging leftovers, or providing pre-packaged foods should be a matter for a restaurant or consumer to decide — not the state.”

Right you are, Governor.

Policymakers, confident in the righteousness of their superior wisdom, are ever eager to impose their judgment on the rest of us.

The people we elect should hold their fire and rarely place us under the control of the bureaucrats.

Millions of people making billions of voluntary choices in a free market is the most powerful economic force known to man.

Don’t mess with it.

AUTHOR

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C., Rucker is a frequent guest on radio talk shows, written extensively in numerous publications, and has appeared in such media outlets as Fox News, OANN, Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Hill, among many others. Rucker is also the co-producer of the award-winning film “Climate Hustle,” which was the #1 box-office film in America during its one night showing in 2016, as well as the acclaimed “Climate Hustle 2” staring Hollywood actor Kevin Sorbo released in 2020. As an accredited observer to the United Nations, Rucker has also led CFACT delegations to some 30 major UN conferences, including those in Copenhagen, Istanbul, Kyoto, Bonn, Marrakesh, Rio de Janeiro, and Warsaw, to name a few.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Montana Governor Tells Off Would-Be Banners appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

What America Can Learn from the Iberian Blackout thumbnail

What America Can Learn from the Iberian Blackout

By Center For Security Policy

America can learn from the Iberian Blackout the reality that green energy and one hundred percent renewable power are still subject to the laws of physics.

Not even a week after media reports hailed the fact that “Spain hit the first weekday of one hundred percent renewable power on the national grid” the Spanish government declared a national emergency following a complete collapse of that same grid. The unprecedented outage left tens of millions of its citizens, and those in neighboring Portugal, without power. And the blackout quickly cascaded into a shutdown of mass transit transportation, internet, cellular communications, and water/wastewater services.

Those two events occurring together are not a coincidence – and should serve as a cautionary tale for citizens and leaders in Europe and the Americas who have convinced themselves that “renewables equal resilience” when it comes to the electric grid.

They have convinced themselves that they must attach massive amounts of wind and solar systems to their existing bulk power grids in an effort to stave off “climate change” and to “go green.” Setting aside the arguments about climate change, a main concern should be whether the widespread adoption of grid-scale wind and solar systems makes the grid more resilient.

Unfortunately – it doesn’t – and Spain just proved it.

The Cause of Spain’s Blackout:

People have wondered whether Spain’s blackout could have been induced by or assisted by a malicious cyberattack. Such risks are very real and exacerbated when grids are heavily dependent on wind and solar power generation, which must rely on equipment sourced from a nation hostile to the West: Communist China. But most experts are laying the blame for Spain’s outage on a natural byproduct of an electric grid overly penetrated by wind and solar power generation systems – sub-synchronous oscillations (SSO).

The electric grids in America and Europe run on alternating current (A/C) electricity, which operates on synchronous frequency (fifty Hz in Europe and sixty Hz in America). Before the widespread introduction of wind and solar systems, the grid was powered by large power plants (such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear) which use big, heavy turbines that spin at a steady rate (again, at either fifty or sixty Hz.) These turbines build up inertia – momentum that resists sudden changes – and they all act a lot like shock absorbers, keeping the grid stable.

In contrast, wind turbines and solar panels connect to the grid through electronic devices called inverters, which don’t spin, don’t provide the same inertia and also inject energy into the grid in an intermittent fashion (such as when the wind is blowing and when the sun is shining). An overall increase in this intermittency and an overall decrease in inertia can cause the grid’s synchronous frequency to drop, causing sub-synchronous oscillation (SSO).

Compare the grid to a child swinging on a swing set in the schoolyard. When the child starts swinging at a steady rate and starts experiencing inertia, he or she moves rather effortlessly through the air in a synchronous fashion. Now imagine someone grabs and pulls and pushes one of the chains on that swing, distorting the child’s momentum. At that point, in order to prevent injury, the child is going to immediately stop swinging and get off the swing.

Similarly, when SSO happens on the grid, its operators, electronic management and protective safety systems will shut the grid down to try to prevent damage. SSO causes vibrations which can ruin equipment, such as turbines, if they shake too much. SSO also causes harmonics, which result in heat that can also destroy grid equipment. The more SSO happens to an electric grid, the faster its components wear out.

The Limits of Green Energy:

To reduce the chance of SSO, many grid operators try to preserve at least half or more of their generation sources from “baseload power” generators such as coal, gas, or nuclear to maintain that synchronous inertia. While some argue that expanding battery energy storage systems (BESS) – Spain maintains only sixty megawatts of battery storage compared to Texas’s 11,000 megawatts – could have helped stave off Spain’s grid collapse, other utility engineers who have reviewed data from Spain’s national electric utility aren’t so sure that it would have made a difference. Ultimately, any amount of grid-scale wind and solar generation complicates grid operations significantly.

Wind and solar have limited dispatchability, which means, unlike fossil fuel or nuclear plants, they cannot ramp up or down to match real-time grid needs, complicating load-balancing during peak demand or sudden disruptions. This means that grid operators must rely on advanced grid management systems and forecasting tools. In general, more complexity usually means less resilience.

Wind and solar power generation systems can play a role in enhancing resilience if they are domestically produced and employed properly – at the local level and focused on the types of electrical loads they can handle. Such micro-grid systems can operate either independently or as an augment to the larger electric grid, and can greatly improve resilience for individual households, facilities or even communities if the larger grid fails. For this reason, resilience-minded emergency managers have applied these systems to their facilities to make them “off-grid capable.”

Ultimately, American leaders who are interested in enhancing energy resilience are best served by focusing their efforts on relegating wind, solar, and battery systems to smaller localized microgrids while changing course on how they treat the bulk power system, as the Trump Administration has already begun through a series of executive orders. Re-embracing base-load power generators, declaring nuclear a renewable energy source by recycling spent nuclear fuel, and securing our electric grid from known hazards, will help keep the lights on in America.

AUTHOR

Tommy Waller

President & CEO.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post What America Can Learn from the Iberian Blackout appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Hawaiʻi Condemns Administration’s Illegal Attemp to Interfere with State Lawsuit Against Big Oil thumbnail

Hawaiʻi Condemns Administration’s Illegal Attemp to Interfere with State Lawsuit Against Big Oil

By Hawaii Free Press

Hawaiʻi Sues Fossil Fuel Interests for Climate Deception

(NOTE: Your beloved editor spent about 20 minutes debunking this news release.  See remarks in parenthesis.)

News Release 2025-59 from Office of Attorney General, May 1, 2025

HONOLULU — Attorney General Anne Lopez condemns the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi on April 30, 2025, seeking to preemptively halt a separate lawsuit against Big Oil companies for their deceptive conduct leading to the current climate crisis:

(REALITY: Deceptive hysterics by the environmental movement create the artificial sense of ‘crisis.’)

Attorney General Lopez said: “We have an obligation to the people of Hawaiʻi, to do everything in our power to fight deceptive practices from these fossil fuel companies that erode Hawaiʻi’s public health, natural resources and economy. The federal lawsuit filed by the Justice Department attempts to block Hawaiʻi from holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for deceptive conduct that caused climate change damage to Hawaiʻi.”

(REALITY: “Sher-Edling gives a lot of money to the national Democrats and we must reward them.”)

Governor Josh Green, M.D. states: “Hawaiʻi suffered a devastating climate-driven, wildfire-initiated disaster on Maui that resulted in the tragic loss of 102 lives and billions of dollars in damage. This climate-related wildfire was the deadliest in United States history in more than a century.”

(REALITY:  Anybody who identifies a specific weather event as evidence of global warming is a fraud.)

“The use of the United States Department of Justice to fight on behalf of the fossil fuel industry is deeply disturbing and is a direct attack on Hawaiʻi’s rights as a sovereign state,” added Attorney General Lopez. “The state of Hawaiʻi will not be deterred from moving forward with our climate deception lawsuit. My department will vigorously oppose this gross federal overreach.”

(TRANSLATION: We will proceed in Hawaii’s grotesquely politicized state courts until such time as the federal courts order us to cease and desist.)

Notwithstanding the federal lawsuit, Governor Josh Green M.D., and Attorney General Lopez today announced a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies for their deceptive conduct and failure to warn about their products’ climate change danger, now harming Hawaiʻi’s public health, infrastructure, natural resources and economy. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.

(See? Told you.)

“The climate crisis is here, and the costs of surviving it are rising every day,” said Governor Green. “Hawaiʻi taxpayers should not have to foot that bill. The burden should fall on those who deceived and failed to warn consumers about the climate dangers lurking in their products. This lawsuit is about holding those parties accountable, shifting the costs of surviving the climate crisis back where they belong, and protecting Hawaiʻi citizens into the future.”

(REALITY: If ‘big oil’ is made to pay Sher-Edling and Hawaii for ‘climate change,’ consumers’ fuel costs will go up.  This is an attempt to impose a judicially-mandated fuel tax.  Money comes out of your pocket and into the State treasury.)

The state’s lawsuit names seven groups of affiliated fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil and gas trade association in the United States. It alleges seven causes of action against all defendants, including violations of Hawaiʻi’s Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute, failure to warn, harm to public trust resources, public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence. The lawsuit also alleges civil aiding and abetting against the American Petroleum institute.

(REALITY: Parr Pacific, operator of Hawaii’s only oil refinery, is not named because this is a politically-motivated sham lawsuit designed to fleece only outsiders.)

“These defendants had a duty to warn people about the climate dangers associated with their products, or to mitigate those dangers. But they did neither of those things,” said Attorney General Lopez. “Instead, they put profits ahead of people and facilitated the increased use of their dangerous products through decades of deceptive conduct. They violated Hawaiʻi law, harmed all Hawaiʻi residents, and will now be held accountable in a Hawaiʻi court.”

(REALITY: The oil industry launched in 1859 with ‘Drake’s Well’ at Titusville, PA.  Big Oil’s first act was to save the whales.  Kerosene quickly replaced boiled whale blubber for home lighting.  Whales should counter sue Sher-Edling for genocide.)

The lawsuit filed today details the history of defendants’ deceptive conduct, and many of the resulting harms inflicted on the state of Hawaiʻi as a result of that conduct. Some key excerpts from the complaint filed today:

• “Climate change has already impacted and will continue to harm Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices including upland forest practices, traditional agriculture, and coastal and nearshore marine practices.” (para 274)

(REALITY:  Anybody who identifies a specific weather event as evidence of global warming is a fraud.)

• “As of 2021, 66 state-owned facilities have reported flooding from sea level rise and precipitation. These facilities include public housing complexes in Kāneʻohe, the Hulihe‘e Palace historic site, and the Kauaʻi and Oʻahu Community Correctional Centers.” (para 280)

(IQ Test: Did you notice how ‘precipitation’ is slipped into that sentence?  ‘Climate Change’ now makes it rain and causes 66 leaky roofs.)

• “Moreover, 70 percent of the state’s beaches have already experienced erosion, and 13 miles of beach have been lost across the islands. These impacts will continue to worsen as the sea level rises further. By 2050, NOAA predicts that more than 90 percent of the state’s beaches will be receding.” (para 280)

(REALITY:  All of Hawaii’s shorelines have been eroding since the moment they broke through the surface of the ocean.  This process starts with Kauai six million years ago.  Molokai used to be a lot larger, but the northern half fell off.  Anybody who cites shoreline erosion as evidence of sea-level rise is a fraud.  Per NOAA, the sea level rise measured at Honolulu is 1.54mm per year.  That is six inches in a century.)

• “Climate impacts threaten Hawaiʻi water resources. As rainfall levels decline, Hawaiʻi will have decreasing access to freshwater… By 2030, the state may suffer from a freshwater shortfall of 100 million gallons per day.” (para 292)

(KEY WORD: ‘May.’  REALITY:  Anybody who identifies a specific weather event as evidence of global warming is a fraud.)

• “Climate change increases the threat of wildfires for Hawaiʻi. The 2023 Maui wildfires were the deadliest in modern U.S. history and the worst natural disaster in the history of the state. More than 100 lives were lost, and more than 2,200 structures were destroyed, causing $5.5 billion of damage.” (para 294)

(REALITY:  Anybody who identifies a specific weather event as evidence of global warming is a fraud.  The Lahaina fire was caused by two of Hawaii’s most politically-connected old boy institutions: HECO and KSBE.  This lawsuit, and the Hawaii Legislative Resolution urging Lahaina insurers to subrogate by suing big oil, are just shams designed to protect entrenched local interests.)

• “Climate change has, and will continue to have, constant, widespread, and severe impacts to the physical health of Hawaiʻi residents. Rising temperatures and intense heat waves, extreme weather events, related disruptions to health and emergency services, and increased proliferation of vector-borne disease and pathogens will and has already taken its toll.” (para 311)

(CLUE: Environmentalism is a religion.  Just like some other religions, they’ve got plagues of disease and boils, water turning to blood, gnats, locusts and frogs.  The First Amendment says: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’)

The lawsuit requests a jury trial and seeks relief in the form of compensatory, punitive, and natural resource damages; civil penalties; disgorgement of profits; and an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in the unfair or deceptive acts or practices described in the lawsuit, among others.

(REALITY:  We’re in State Court because we can win anything against outsiders there.)

A copy of the complaint as filed can be found here.

BACKGROUND: 

2023: Rectenwald Worked With Environmental Group Tied To Oil Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

2025: Hawaii Democrats Talk a Big Game on the ‘Climate Crisis.’ They’re Also Shielding an Oil Company Whose Execs Backed Their Campaigns

2025: SCR198: Screwed out of Subrogation, Insurers Urged to Serve Legislature’s Agenda by Suing Big Oil

EDITORS NOTE: This Hawai’i Free Press column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Hawaiʻi Condemns Administration’s Illegal Attemp to Interfere with State Lawsuit Against Big Oil appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Green Energy Fixation Sends Spain Dark thumbnail

Green Energy Fixation Sends Spain Dark

By The Daily Signal

VALENCIA, Spain—Two modern ills converged in Europe on Monday, literally one of the darkest days in decades. An ideological obsession with climate fanaticism left countries without power for hours, while censorship of “disinformation,” often information the powerful don’t like, plunged the population in an informational blackout in subsequent days.

The electrical blackout brought planes, trains, and automobiles to a screeching halt throughout Spain, Portugal, and small parts of southern France. Electricity simply stopped flowing, and with it control towers, rail lines, and traffic lights.

Cellphones became quadrangular black boxes that did nothing and lost their “smartness.”

A political conference I was attending in this sunny Mediterranean port city suddenly became eerie when people started coming in and out and whispering to each other. One person in the seat in front finally turned and enlightened a friend and me: “The electricity is down. We’re cut off from the world.”

We then realized that, yes, sirens had been wailing outside, and it had been a while since we’d gotten emails or texts. A generator in the hotel kept our conference going, but nothing else worked; everyone had to take the stairs and use bathrooms in the dark—though water, too, stopped working.

It wasn’t quite dystopic, but our modern dependence on electricity and its creature comforts suddenly was brought home to us.

Many speculated that it was a cyberattack from Russia or China. Who else had the power to do this? Center-right politicians from across Europe were about to descend on Valencia the next day. Surely, an invitation for bad actors to do their thing.

Well, not so fast. Neither Russia’s Vladimir Putin nor China’s Xi Jinping is above carrying out this type of attack, and cybersecurity is a serious matter. But, to quote Vice President JD Vance at a February conference in Munich, Germany, the threat to worry about the most in Europe “is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor.”

“What I worry about,” went on Vance, “is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its fundamental values.”

Vance mentioned Europe’s need “to enjoy affordable energy,” and the fact that, as he put it, “free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” European officials are still fuming about how “rude” that young Vance was, but it looks like he was on the money.

It is increasingly clear that what caused the blackout was not a cyberattack. Reuters News agency reported that Spain’s grid operator Red Electrica on Tuesday ruled out external sabotage, and said instead that it had identified two “incidents of power generation loss, probably from solar plants,” in southwestern Spain.

That, said the Reuters report, “caused instability in the electric system and led to a breakdown of its connection with France. The electrical system collapsed, affecting both the Spanish and Portuguese systems.”

“There was not enough inertia, or redundancy, in the system to keep it going,” my colleague Diana Furchott-Roth emailed from Washington when I was able to receive communications from the outside world. “The last coal-fired plant was closed on April 12.”

Diana has been warning about this type of thing for decades, and Spain’s socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez is a poster boy for the things she has warned against. His government has not only closed coal-fired plants, but has been busily destroying nuclear plants as well.

“Net zero,” or zero CO2 emissions, is the name of this new mad delusion, and Spain’s infantile leftists have been posting on social media gleeful workers destroying nuclear power plants. The goal has been 100% “renewable” generation.

Well, they happened to have gotten very close to their holy grail on Monday at 12:30. The Iberian Peninsula’s power grid was getting a disproportionate amount of energy from the renewables loved by the Left: 80% from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind. Nuclear was at a measly 11%.

In a mere five minutes, solar photovoltaic generation plunged by 50%, from 18 gigawatts to eight, according to Reuters. Iberia and adjacent parts of France, including the tiny Pyrenean principality of Andorra, all of which depended on this grid, then descended into darkness at 12:35, from which it was not to recover till late at night.

The hapless Sanchez was still arguing late Tuesday that just because Red Electrica was discounting a cyberattack, it did not mean that one hadn’t happened.

Governments finding themselves in a corner will lie, or at least equivocate, and it’s the job of the opposition to keep asking for answers. “An energy policy that prioritizes the fight against climate change above the security of supply has provoked this general blackout,” said an analysis on the site of the think tank Disenso, which is linked to the opposition Vox Party (full disclosure, I sit on Disenso’s foreign advisory board).

But it is also the job of the media. Yet Spain’s state television stations, and even private ones, were still keeping the truth about the failure of the Left’s renewable dream from getting any airtime as late as Wednesday morning, when I left for the airport. That was left to radio and to some newspapers on the right.

An honest media would be not just informing voters about how a blackout that left at least five dead and stopped a modern economy in its tracks happened. It would also be debating whether such a modern society really does want to stop using comfort creatures and working toilets, all in the name of fighting climate change.

Originally published by the Washington Examiner.

AUTHOR

Mike Gonzalez

Mike is the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow in the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Mike on X: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Climate Activists Are Actually Harming the Environment

Turns Out Top Execs of Org Picked for Billions by Biden EPA Are Big-Time Democrat Donors

The End of an Era in Homer City

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rigths reserved. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The post Green Energy Fixation Sends Spain Dark appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.