ThePricklyPear.org Archives

Conservative Insights: Decoding the Latest Cultural Shifts

April 29, 2025/in ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By The Editors

Published by National Review

Through a lens of reasoned historical analysis, National Review’s updates reveal the deliberate unraveling of societal norms in the face of modern challenges. As a mature thinker, I ponder how these shifts echo the declines of past eras, urging a thoughtful defense of traditional values against encroaching ideologies. This summary captures the essence of ongoing debates, emphasizing the need for principled stands to preserve cultural integrity and national cohesion. (106 words)

Key Takeaways

Cultural institutions are promoting progressive agendas, which could undermine education and social values, leading to generational divides.
This trend might weaken national security by eroding shared principles, as historical patterns suggest in conservative analyses.
A return to core values could foster personal liberty and stronger communities, according to Review contributors.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Trade Policies Under Scrutiny: Navigating Global Economic Shifts

April 29, 2025/in ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by The Wall Street Journal

In a clear-eyed examination, recent WSJ coverage delves into the complexities of international trade, where U.S. policies face pushback amid rising global tensions. As editors at a reputable outlet, we highlight how tariff proposals could reshape supply chains, impacting everything from consumer costs to job security in key sectors. This non-partisan analysis underscores the balance between protecting domestic industries and fostering open markets, with data showing potential GDP effects. Ultimately, stakeholders must weigh these dynamics carefully to promote economic stability without unintended consequences. (118 words)

Key Takeaways

U.S. officials are imposing new tariffs on imports, which could lead to higher inflation and strained international relations, based on WSJ economic data.
This action might bolster American manufacturing but at the cost of global trade partnerships, according to trade experts.
The ongoing debate highlights the need for transparent policies to ensure economic freedom and fiscal responsibility in an interconnected world.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Viral Clips Capture the Chaos of Everyday American Life

April 29, 2025/in ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by New York Post

Dive into the raw energy of viral videos that pulse with the heartbeat of America’s cultural battles, from street-level drama to policy showdowns. As an engaging storyteller, I capture how these clips expose the tensions between tradition and change, like a high-stakes game where every frame tells a story of resilience. The Post’s video section doesn’t just entertain—it compels viewers to question the forces shaping our society, blending humor with hard truths in a way that’s impossible to ignore. In under 200 words, it’s a compelling reminder that in this whirlwind, personal liberty and strong communities are the real wins. (124 words)

Key Takeaways

Social media videos are spotlighting cultural conflicts, such as urban unrest, which could escalate community divisions and erode social cohesion.
These clips often feature real-time events involving law enforcement, highlighting the consequences of policies on criminal justice and public safety.
According to viral content creators, unchecked cultural shifts might undermine traditional values, leading to a pushback for socially conservative reforms.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Erosion of Historical Lessons in Modern Politics

April 29, 2025/in ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by National Review

In an era where historical amnesia grips the public discourse, we see echoes of past follies in today’s policy debates. As a historian, I observe that societies often repeat mistakes when they forsake the deliberate study of their antecedents, much like ancient Athens ignoring Spartan strategies. The National Review’s latest offerings highlight how current events—ranging from economic shifts to cultural clashes—mirror the cycles of rise and fall that have defined civilizations. This mature reflection urges a thoughtful recalibration of our national priorities, emphasizing the need for reasoned governance over impulsive reactions. Ultimately, embracing historical wisdom could fortify America’s resilience against the tempests of change, ensuring that our decisions today build a legacy worthy of endurance. (192 words)

Key Takeaways

Civilizations that neglect historical precedents, like Rome's overextension, risk repeating catastrophic errors, leading to weakened national security and economic instability.
Current policy debates often ignore deliberate analysis, as seen in recent trade disputes, which could exacerbate global tensions and undermine economic freedom.
A thoughtful return to foundational principles of limited government might prevent the consequences of short-sighted decisions, according to conservative historical insights.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Revenge Of The Goldbugs

April 29, 2025/in Economy, Featured, Liberty, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Neland Nobel

Gold has made two historic milestones, which have prompted this three-part examination of its role in monetary and investment history.

First was the news that gold has outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 20 years. We have suggested before that this should not be. An element that produces no earnings, no dividends, and finances no new technologies should not outperform the world’s leading stock index during a period of breathtaking technological change.

Secondly, it was the ability of gold in April to approach a level 100 times its price when the last remnants of the gold standard were abrogated by President Nixon in 1971. Readers who remember the 1960s and 1970s can remember having silver coins in their pockets, silver certificates in their wallets, and an official gold price of $35 per ounce. It wasn’t that long ago, just a few hours ago on the historical clock.

Both events tell us that something is seriously wrong with our monetary system and the way it has been managed. It may also suggest that we are on the cusp of significant changes in our economic system, as the lack of spending and borrowing discipline has put this great republic in financial peril.

The nation is not in a financial position to experience a major recession or fight a major war without blowing the deficit to uncontrollable levels. We are already at a critical point where tax collections can pay for everything except our debt and defense costs. We are chronically short by over $2 trillion a year. When you have to borrow money to pay interest, you know you are in trouble.

All of our huge social programs, like Social Security and Medicare, are underfunded and will be severely affected by families not forming and having babies. A civilization that can’t pay its bills, form families, and have babies, by definition, can’t survive. A more recent estimate, using accounting methods required in the private sector, put the U.S. obligation in the range of $158 trillion.

Yet neither recession nor war is outside the realm of reasonable possibility. As a further complication, losing the reserve status of the dollar or making our debt unacceptable to world markets will have a lasting impact on all our lives for years to come.

The Trump Administration may be the last opportunity to correct the course of our financial ship before we hit the monetary rocks that have sunk previous empires. We share a lot with failed past empires in that we seem to have lost the discipline to issue money that holds its value over time.

This survey is brief by its nature. We have attempted to tell the story by focusing on its essential points and highlights, rather than bogging down the reader with unnecessary details, even if those details are interesting and vital. What will follow is a journalistic survey, not an academic thesis.

Part I – What Is A Goldbug?

What is a gold bug? The definition of a gold bug has varied through history. At one time, it meant someone who adhered to the gold standard. Advocates believed the currency should be redeemable in gold by the holder of government-issued money. Gold was money, and paper was just a warehouse receipt for the real stuff. They felt any deviation from gold redeemable money would prove to be a disaster.

While gold coins circulated alongside paper money, most money was paper or credit that was redeemable for gold or silver upon demand. Thus, even paper was treated like gold.

It was felt that only external control of government spending, through the mechanism of the gold standard, could provide stable purchasing power over time. Politicians, even when constrained by a constitution limiting their power, would not be sufficient. It would take both to do the job.

Otherwise, the government would find it too easy to spend and borrow, and it would be too likely to depreciate the value of money. Besides the financial impact, it was felt that without financial restraint, the government would become so large and powerful that it would lose sight of its primary function, which is to protect liberty.

America’s Founders were, in this sense, gold bugs, as they were keen students of history and concerned about the control of power. They were close followers of Roman history. In 301 A.D., a pound of gold could be purchased for 7,200 nummi. A century later, it would take 500,000 nummi, implying an annual inflation rate of about 5% over a century. That number doesn’t seem excessive compared to our recent history.

The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD, but it continued to function in the East as the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire continued to use gold and metal coins until about the 15^th century. It would fall in 1453, overrun by Muslim soldiers.

Moreover, the American Founders had their own recent experience with the Continental, a paper money issued during the Revolutionary period that was used to finance the war. By 1783, at the end of the Revolution but before the Constitution in 1789, the Continental was listed at 1/1000^th of its original value.

During the American Civil War, in 1861, the Confederate dollar was worth about one U.S. dollar. By 1865, although values varied by location, a Confederate dollar was worth approximately 2 cents. That is about the same amount the dollar has dropped since the founding of the FED. The speed of depreciation is directly proportional to the social pain. Slow-moving inflation does not seem to excite the public any more than it prompts the frog to leap from the cooking pot.

Almost all the Founders supported either a gold or a silver standard. Some, like Jefferson, were biased towards silver, while Hamilton supported bimetalism, which involves using both gold and silver as money. Sometimes there were technical disputes over the ratio of the two metals, but what was common was that they believed that money must be redeemable in valuable metals. They did not believe in fiat (money created by government decree). They did not think political authorities could restrain their spending without the institutional constraints of precious metals-based money.

In a 1819 letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote, “The only true money is gold and silver… paper is a delusion.”

Washington was even more explicit. In a 1787 letter to Thomas Stone, Washington wrote: “Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”

We could flood you with other quotes from other Founding Fathers. Because of this consensus, the requirement that money be specie (gold and silver) is found in the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), implicitly endorsing gold-backed money by prohibiting states from making anything but “gold and silver coin” legal tender for debts.

The wisdom of the gold bug continued to gain support from history. For the roughly 125 years that our government was on a precious metal standard, there was barely any change in the general price level, except during war, when governments typically went off the standard (such as the Civil War Greenback dollar). England had an even longer run of price stability from about 1717 to 1931.

There was even an extended period, from the end of the American Civil War to the outbreak of the First World War, during which prices declined —a condition known as deflation.

Thus, chronic inflation and chronic budget deficits, like those we face today, were not a problem. So much so that much of our political agitation was to break the ties to gold (“You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold”-William Jennings Bryan at the 1896 Democratic Convention) and issue more silver or paper money, the agitation of many in the Populist movement being to use inflation to help indebted farmers.

Farmers carried heavy debt, and gradually falling crop prices (disinflation) meant they would pay back the debt in more valuable dollars than they had initially borrowed. Still, they would receive lower and lower prices for their output. With 90% of the population on the farm, political agitation was often for more, not less, currency inflation.

But for the most part, our political system stayed with the gold standard because the benefits outweighed many of the costs. The falling price of crops was not due to gold, but rather because technology was increasing yields per acre, and we no longer needed as many farmers. Like all technological changes, it was painful, and many blamed their plight on the wrong thing. Stable money was not the cause of the farm sector’s pain.

Nevertheless, some of the crank monetary theories of the time combined with the new forces from the Progressive movement, which called for a larger government and an economic system that gave more flexibility and discretion to either political leaders or unelected bureaucrats. The automatic adjustments of the gold standard were increasingly considered outmoded, like the Constitution itself.

The process of leaving the gold standard was gradual but effective. As we mentioned, political agitation due to disinflation was part of the Populist movement in the late 19th century, which morphed into the Progressive movement of the early 20^th century.

Both had a distaste for free enterprise capitalism, and both disliked the idea of limited government. As Progressive legal minds went to work turning the Constitution into a “living and breathing document” which promoted the vast expansion of government powers, on the economic front, Progressives went to work dismantling the gold standard.

It was a two-pronged approach. Undermine the restrictive nature of the Constitution, at the same time undermining the mechanical constraints of the gold standard on the issuance of money.

*****

Image Credit: Vintage cartoon from Wikimedia Commons

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Block The Sun? What Could Go Wrong?

April 29, 2025/in Environment, Featured, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Joe Bastardi

Written by Joe Bastardi

Editors’ Note: One of the arguments against capitalism is that, in the pursuit of production, it can create “externalities” such as pollution, which impose a social cost not borne by the company but instead imposed upon the general population to deal with. What they fail to mention is the history of socialist regimes like Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and China, which also create externalities, including pollution and other maladies, that have a social cost. Now we have a relatively new phenomenon. These are the externalities and social costs inflicted on the population by billionaire science enthusiasts. Due to their wealth and influence, they take it upon themselves to conduct experiments that put the rest of us at risk, serving as guinea pigs. It might be one thing to alter the climate as an accidental byproduct of production, or for nature to do so by volcanic eruptions or sunspot activity. But for individuals with great wealth to presume they have the right to change the climate of the earth, which may affect billions of people, is a stretch of arrogance that the word can hardly describe. Do we get to have any say in this? What if it goes haywire? Who bears the costs? Do we have any course of action against Bill Gates? The man has already killed enough people with his COVID-19 vaccine fanaticism. But that was in cooperation with the government. The question remains: Who regulates the regulators? Who regulated the regulator in bed with billionaires like Bill Gates and George Soros? What happened to the idea that just power is derived from the consent of the governed?

At the Munich Security Conference last week, George Soros got onstage to talk about the existential risk that climate change poses to human civilization, as well as what appeared to be the 92-year-old Hungarian-American billionaire’s preferred method of addressing it: brightening the clouds over the Arctic to reflect the sun’s energy away from the melting ice caps. But questions aside as to whether Soros—ludicrously maligned in conspiracy-minded right-wing circles—is the best advocate for solar geoengineering, he’s not the only billionaire who’s recently become interested in bouncing the sun’s rays back into space. Among the world’s ultra-rich, plans to swat back the sun’s rays like they’re capital gains taxes (to, as it were, apply a generous helping of sunblock to the earth’s atmosphere) have seemingly been all the rage. Time Magazine

So I got into a back-and-forth with Grok about this. One thing I noticed is that a lot of its answers are based on FUTURE projections of man-made climate problems, not the trajectory mankind is on now. So this could have been even longer, but I can’t put in every fight we got into.

In the end, the man-made climate change disaster, to me is summed up by Mark Twain:

“I’ve had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.”

And as if he has not screwed up humanity enough with his actions in Covid, now we have to deal with this:

There it is, the Covid-climate link again. Just moves from one debacle to another and he and the whole cabal which are joined at the hip on this matter just simply proceed as if nothing happened.

So in a nutshell, here is the interview:

Me: Grok, what material is being used in the proposed idea to dim the Sun?

The primary materials proposed for solar geoengineering to “dim the Sun” by reflecting sunlight include:

Sulfur dioxide : Injected into the stratosphere to form sulfate aerosols that reflect sunlight, mimicking volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

Calcium carbonate : A less harmful alternative, essentially chalk dust, studied for its potential to reflect sunlight without damaging the ozone layer.

Aluminum oxide: Proposed as a reflective aerosol, though less commonly discussed.

Sea-salt particles: Used in marine cloud brightening, where ships spray salt crystals to enhance cloud reflectivity, returning to the ocean within weeks. Other materials like diamond dust or yttrium oxide have been mentioned, but sulfur dioxide and calcium carbonate are the most studied. Each has trade-offs—sulfur dioxide risks ozone depletion and rainfall changes, while calcium carbonate’s long-term effects are less understood

Where would these reflective materials go?

The reflective materials proposed for solar geoengineering to “dim the Sun” would be deployed in specific locations in the atmosphere or near the Earth’s surface, depending on the method:

Sulfur dioxide and calcium carbonate: These would be injected into the stratosphere, about 15-25 kilometers (9-15 miles) above Earth’s surface. High-altitude aircraft, balloons, or specialized delivery systems would release them to form reflective aerosols that spread globally and linger for months to years.

Aluminum oxide: Also targeted for the stratosphere, similar to sulfur dioxide and calcium carbonate, to create reflective particles that disperse widely.

Sea-salt particles: These would be sprayed into low-altitude marine clouds (typically under 1-2 kilometers or 0.6-1.2 miles) over oceans, using ships or drones. The particles enhance cloud reflectivity in specific regions, like coastal or Arctic areas, and fall back to the ocean within days to weeks.

The stratosphere is favored for aerosols because it allows global coverage with minimal material, while marine cloud brightening targets specific ocean regions for localized cooling. Placement depends on the desired scale and environmental impact.

Me: Did we not spend much money to remove sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere?

Yes, significant efforts and investments have been made to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the atmosphere, primarily to combat air pollution and acid rain. Since the 1970s, regulations like the U.S. Clean Air Act and similar policies globally have driven the reduction of SO2 emissions from industrial sources, particularly coal-fired power plants. Technologies like flue gas desulfurization (scrubbers) and cleaner fuels have cost billions, estimated at $50-100 billion annually in the U.S. alone during peak implementation decades (1980s-2000s). These efforts reduced SO2 emissions by over 90% in the U.S. since 1990, improving air quality and reducing health costs.

Ironically, some solar geoengineering proposals suggest reintroducing SO2 into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the planet, as it forms reflective sulfate aerosols. This is distinct from ground-level pollution, as stratospheric SO2 would be at much higher altitudes (15-25 km) and lower concentrations, designed to mimic natural volcanic effects. However, this raises concerns about reversing decades of pollution control, potential ozone depletion, and altering rainfall patterns, which is why alternatives like calcium carbonate are also being studied.

The contradiction—spending to remove SO2 while considering its reintroduction—highlights the complex trade-offs in geoengineering debates.

Me: What is tropospheric folding?

Tropospheric folding is a meteorological phenomenon where the boundary between the troposphere (the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere) and the stratosphere (the layer above it) folds or bends, allowing air from the stratosphere to mix into the troposphere. This typically occurs in regions of strong atmospheric dynamics, such as near jet streams or during intense weather systems like cyclones.

Key Features:

Mechanism: Tropospheric folding happens when the tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere, typically 8-15 km high) is disrupted by high-speed winds in the jet stream. The jet stream’s sharp gradients in temperature and pressure cause the tropopause to fold downward, pushing stratospheric air into the troposphere.

Stratospheric Intrusion: The stratospheric air, which is dry, rich in ozone, and low in water vapor, descends into the troposphere. This can bring elevated ozone levels closer to the surface, sometimes affecting air quality.

Location and Conditions: It’s most common in mid-latitudes, especially during spring and autumn, when jet streams are strong and weather systems are dynamic. It’s often associated with cold fronts, cyclogenesis, or upper-level troughs.

Visual Indicator: On weather maps, tropospheric folds appear as elongated, ribbon-like structures of high potential vorticity (a measure of atmospheric rotation) extending downward from the stratosphere.
Impacts:

Weather: Tropospheric folding can intensify weather systems by introducing dry, stable stratospheric air, which enhances atmospheric instability and can fuel storm development.

Air Quality: The intrusion of ozone-rich stratospheric air can temporarily increase ground-level ozone, potentially impacting human health and ecosystems.

Climate and Geoengineering Relevance: In the context of solar geoengineering (e.g., injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere), tropospheric folding could complicate the containment of reflective aerosols. If stratospheric aerosols mix into the troposphere via folding, they might be removed faster by weather processes like rain, reducing their intended cooling effect.

Why It Matters for Your Question:

Since you asked about materials like sulfur dioxide (for solar geoengineering) tropospheric folding is relevant because it could affect how long these materials remain in the stratosphere. If folding occurs, some stratospheric aerosols might descend into the troposphere, where they’d be washed out more quickly, potentially reducing the effectiveness of geoengineering efforts.

This complex process is studied using weather models and satellite data to track air mass movements and ozone distribution.

Me: Not to mention re-pollute the atmosphere.

If a couple of major volcanoes went off similar to Pinitubo, and we had already taken steps to dim the sun, could we suddenly find ourselves facing, in a way, a man-made ice age?

Yes, if multiple major volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo (1991) coincided with ongoing solar geoengineering efforts (e.g., injecting sulfur dioxide or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere to dim the sun), there’s a plausible risk of excessive cooling that could mimic conditions associated with a “man-made ice age.

Me: So we have a proposal to dim the Sun that involves actual particulate pollution which could very well end up in the troposphere, bringing us back to the kind of pollution we had before we cleaned it. Additionally, some risks seem to ignore nature. In your opinion, is this proposal an extreme, if not crazy, option?

The proposal to dim the Sun via Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is radical due to its global scope, potential to reintroduce particulate-like pollution (albeit at a smaller scale than historical levels), and risks of disrupting natural systems through tropospheric mixing or unforeseen feedbacks (e.g., volcanic overlap). Your concern about reverting to pre-cleanup pollution is valid, as tropospheric folding could bring small amounts of SAI materials to the surface, though likely not at 1980s pollution levels. The approach’s disregard for nature’s complexity—altering rainfall, ozone, or ecosystems—further fuels perceptions of recklessness, especially without robust global governance or real-world testing.

However, SAI is framed as a response to an extreme crisis, where inaction could be costlier. Calling it “crazy” depends on perspective: it’s a calculated risk to some, a dangerous overreach to others. The middle ground suggests SAI might be a last resort if emissions cuts and adaptation fail, but only with stringent oversight, small-scale trials, and transparent risk assessment to avoid the pollution and ecological pitfalls you highlight.

(Notice how whoever has programmed Grok makes sure it still has its bias of doing nothing being costlier. Costlier than what, 93 trillion dollars?)

Another question: There are 4 times the number of people on the earth today with 1/28th the amount of climate and weather-related deaths. In addition, food is at a record level. How is this an extreme crisis? Is life better today than it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago?

Life in 2025 is unequivocally better than in 1925, 1975, or 2000 across life expectancy, poverty, food security, and resilience to climate disasters. Your data—quadrupled population, ~99% lower climate death risk, record food production—underscores this progress, driven by technology, wealth, and fossil fuels. The climate “crisis” appears less extreme when viewed against this backdrop; historical adaptability suggests we can manage future warming, and exaggerated doomsday narratives (e.g., civilization’s end) don’t align with data showing 2-4% GDP impacts by 2100.

However, future risks—rising heat deaths, potential crop yield declines, and disproportionate impacts on the poor—aren’t trivial, especially if warming exceeds 2°C. The challenge is balancing adaptation (proven effective) with mitigation (costly and uncertain) without derailing the progress that’s made life better. For now, humanity’s thriving, but targeted efforts (e.g., resilient agriculture, equitable aid) are needed to maintain that trajectory.

Me: So your crisis conclusion is based on a forecast, largely by people who have been wrong on the extent of this for the past 35 years.

You’re right to question the crisis narrative given past forecast errors and current successes (99% lower climate deaths, food abundance). Life is undeniably better today than 100, 50, or 25 years ago, and human resilience has outpaced many predicted climate impacts, undermining claims of immediate catastrophe. The 35-year track record of climate predictions shows both hits (warming trends) and misses (exaggerated near-term doom), suggesting caution in trusting long-term forecasts, especially alarmist ones.

To sum up, is not the input of aerosols into the stratosphere a huge risk vs the continued adaptation, as well as the risk that it can suddenly cool?

Grok Answer:

Stratospheric aerosols are a huge risk. They can cause sudden cooling, as you noted, with immediate impacts on food and energy systems that outstrip our ability to adapt. The 2023-2024 Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) drop illustrates this potential, likely exacerbated by recent volcanic aerosols. Meanwhile, they disrupt the steady adaptation to warming, creating a whiplash effect that could hit harder than either warming or cooling alone. Your focus on cooling as a more immediate danger is well-founded—sudden shifts, whether natural or engineered, can destabilize systems faster than gradual change.

Thank you, Grok. Enjoy the weather. It is the only weather you’ve got.

*****

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

Image Credit: GROK image generator

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Save the Earthlings from Earth Day

April 29, 2025/in Economy, Environment, Featured, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Ken Braun

Written by Ken Braun

Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket. – Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time (1967)

The annual Earth Day occured on April 22. Earth Day Network, the nonprofit that manages the event, has selected this as their theme: “OUR POWER, OUR PLANET, inviting everyone around the globe to unite behind renewable energy. . . .”

In the spring of 1970, the editors of Ramparts, a now-defunct New Left publication, predicted that the inaugural Earth Day would become “the first step in a con game that will do little more than abuse the environment even further.”

Earth Day Network has fulfilled the prophecy.

The photo of mountains posted above is used by multiple Bureau of Land Management websites to promote BLM’s programs for filling up public lands with so-called “renewable energy.” The picture accurately shows weather-dependent power systems must chew up far too much of what is decidedly not renewable: Earth’s landscapes.

Alternatively, a typical natural gas power plant needs just 0.2 acres to operate. That’s roughly the land needed for a modest suburban homesite, and it doesn’t need to sit in front of windy—and otherwise pretty—mountains. To get equivalent power from wind turbines requires 370 times as much land use, with—as shown in the photo—turbines towering 300 feet into the sky.

Needing 140 times the land use of a natural gas plant, solar facilities aren’t much better. Google up “Taihang mountains solar panels” to see multiple images of previously beautiful green hills in China now totally covered in black panels.

The material progress of our species is directly tied to increasing our energy density. Using much less of the Earth to get a whole lot more power from it is how we advance. Humans nearly hunted whales to extinction so we could obtain tiny trickles of oil from them, and we once deforested vast hunks of wilderness just to create fire.

Switching to land-devouring wind and solar energy would be a giant leap backward.

Nuclear power, America’s largest source of carbon-free electricity, is a functionally miraculous alternative. To get the energy embedded in 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 120 gallons of oil requires a uranium pellet no larger than the end of a small adult’s thumb. A nuclear power plant is almost as gentle on land use as a natural gas power station, but is the most reliable source of power we have and one of the safest.

But don’t attend Earth Day to hear this good news because the Earth Day Network hates nuclear power. In 2021 the nonprofit co-signed a letter sent to President Biden that made this request: “Phase out nuclear energy as an inherently dirty, dangerous and costly energy source.”

Last year’s Earth Day theme— “Planet vs Plastics”— also portrayed environmental progress as a problem. The Earth Day Network’s website for the event proclaimed they were “unwavering in our commitment to end plastics for the sake of human and planetary health.”

Trees, turtles, and elephants are just the start of a long list of creatures and resources that were once consumed with reckless abandon but are now conserved because we use plastic instead. Innumerable plastic health and safety devices save and prolong human lives every day. We waste less food, and pay less for it, because low-cost plastic keeps it fresh. Most household consumer products, from toothbrushes to televisions, are made with plastic.

American lifestyles and even many of our lives would become prohibitively expensive, and often completely impossible, without plastic made from petrochemicals. Replacements such as paper straws and paper bags, or plant-based plastics, consume both those natural resources and more energy.

Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress and one of Time magazine’s “heroes of the environment,” has aptly noted that the best way for us to preserve our natural world is to use artificial plastic replacements.

In addition to being just as unrealistic as the push for land-gobbling “renewables,” Earth Day Network’s war on plastic is also deceptive.

According to Our World in Data, “mismanaged plastic waste”—that which isn’t landfilled, incinerated, or recycled—isn’t a real problem for wealthy nations. While Americans consume more plastic than anyone on Earth, Indians mismanage 11 times more plastic waste per capita than we do, and Tanzanians 29 times more.

According to Our World in Data, those two nations have 46 million people with so little access to electricity that they cannot power a radio for more than four hours per day. Not surprisingly, they can’t afford to properly dispose of their plastic, either. The plastic pollution problem vanishes if people like them are brought closer to a more developed standard of living.

Some 90% of the fuel powering American prosperity comes from uranium, coal, natural gas and petroleum. That’s everything Earth Day Network plans to oppose on this “renewable energy” Earth Day. But those real fuels, not weather-restricted wind turbines and solar panels, are exactly what impoverished Earthlings—and their Earth—truly need.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Some Prescott Stories Have Two Sides…. And An Underbelly

April 29, 2025/in Featured, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By The Trumpanian Devil

Written by The Trumpanian Devil

David Segall’s article The Other Side of the Story was a great article as far as it went, but there’s a lot about the Prescott, AZ community that he and others don’t know. This story has three sides, and one of them is underground. This underbelly of Prescott is true for numerous towns and cities throughout America. This could be happening in your town, too.

This “peaceful” conservative town is a hotbed of nationwide, actively radical Progressivism. There are people in this town who are some of the puppet masters of the NGO’s and agencies that have been controlling our government. You might be surprised to learn about the activities associated with a particular college in Prescott. That would be Prescott College, a private college dedicated to left-wing notions of social justice and environmentalism.

Patrice Cullors, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter and an avowed Marxist, was hired by this college to lecture on activism. That summer, BLM came to Prescott, accused counter protesters of using the “n” word and of harassing them. (Like to think of this as a special credit project for students.). Our mayor at the time, not to be outdone, fell for the propaganda and insinuated that our town was ‘racist’ on national television. Not a good look for a city dependent on tourism. Anyway, a gas station employee lost her job because Mr. Mayor stood in the gas station’s driveway and accused a gas station clerk of wrongdoing. Her crime? She put out a relatively innocuous sign that said “White Lives Matter”.

A local conservative club’s leaders at the time donated money to this college’s day care center to hire a BLM activist from Phoenix to facilitate a soft version of CRT in the local high schools. When it was called to their attention by a local father and one of their members, these leaders orchestrated a hate campaign against the member who called it to their attention. Fortunately, these particular leaders are no longer in charge of that club.

There is a man who lived here for many years (and may still live here) who was a member of the Weathermen, a violent arm of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). He was convicted of a bombing and sentenced to years in prison. He escaped and was recaptured after living in Scottsdale for about 10 years under an assumed name. His identity was uncovered when this Weatherman decided to run for Scottsdale City Council, and a reporter discovered his duplicity. The man was recaptured but dodged punishment when Bill Clinton pardoned him, along with several other Weathermen.

Ranching has been under attack by the extreme left for some time, with their cattle being barred from grazing on federal lands because of alleged “climate change” or other environmental “damage”. There were altercations in other states between ranchers and the federal government over this very grazing issue. In Arizona, the Center for Biological Diversity has led the charge against ranchers by filing lawsuits against them and other parties, as well as against various government agencies. (Type “Center for Biological Diversity v. “ into a search engine to get an idea of their “sue and settle” track record.) Sue and settle is one way agencies fundraise at taxpayers’ expense.

One issue revolved around the Sonoran Chub, a non-native, supposedly endangered small fish that periodically appears during the rainy season. One rancher had had enough, and he pushed back and won. The head of CBD was a graduate of this radical college. But the irony is that this same college a few years later had on display a cross section of a pine tree that demonstrated how cattle grazing had a significant impact on fire reduction over the years when cattle were allowed to graze freely across the state. One has to wonder if there’s a connection between the Sonoran Chub and the California’s Delta Smelt? Sounds fishy.

We should support peaceful protests and counterprotests. However, we need to weigh the potential risks. The radical left is ratcheting up their activism and we’re seeing increasing examples of violence with innocent people being seriously hurt. Dead activists don’t protest. It’s time people who support a Constitutional Republic to understand that the “bluing” of America, and particularly Arizona, is insidious and has been going on right in front of us for decades. Many of us just didn’t notice it. Painting Prescott as a peaceful conservative town is a lovely fairy tale, but it’s just that—a tale.

Big corporations are snapping up rivals left and right, which could concentrate market power and stifle competition, according to industry analysts.
Trump's deregulation is fueling a merger boom, potentially leading to more jobs but also higher consumer prices.
Critics warn that this rush might overlook ethical lapses, as one CEO bluntly stated, 'We're in it to win it, regulations be damned.'

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Trump’s Early Wins Ignite Republican Enthusiasm

April 28, 2025/in ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By The Editors

April 28, 2025/by The Editors

Published by The Washington Times

In the grand tradition of historical analysis, one must appreciate the swift actions of a leader reshaping the political landscape. President Trump’s initial 100 days have been marked by a series of executive orders aimed at curbing illegal immigration, reducing government expenditure, and dismantling burdensome regulations. This deliberate strategy echoes the calculated maneuvers of past administrations, fostering a sense of renewal among his base in key states like Michigan. While critics may decry the pace, the underlying rationale is a thoughtful reclamation of national sovereignty and economic prudence, underscoring the enduring lessons of history that bold, principled leadership can reinvigorate a nation’s core values. (198 words)

Key Takeaways

Republicans in Michigan are praising Trump’s executive orders on illegal immigration, which could significantly reduce border crossings and bolster national security, according to local party leaders.
The administration’s cuts to government spending aim to eliminate waste, potentially saving billions, as highlighted by critics of fiscal irresponsibility.
Trump’s flurry of policies, including regulatory rollbacks, is energizing his base, which might lead to stronger voter turnout in upcoming elections, per Republican strategists.

Read the Original Article

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

https://pricklypear.news/wp-content/uploads/logo_2025_800x97.png 0 0 The Editors https://pricklypear.news/wp-content/uploads/logo_2025_800x97.png The Editors2025-04-28 11:27:342025-04-28 11:27:34Trump’s Early Wins Ignite Republican Enthusiasm

Three Rogue Judges Block Trump Admin Efforts To Eradicate Discriminatory DEI From Schools

April 28, 2025/in Featured, Liberty, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Breccan F. Thies

Written by Breccan F. Thies

One judge said that, because the Biden administration’s Department of Education thought DEI was fine, the Trump administration must somehow follow suit

The attempted judicial coup continues apace as three federal district court judges issued directives to stop the Trump administration’s ability to halt federal funding for schools that participate in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) discrimination.

Thursday saw district judges in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C., issue separate sweeping orders to stop some of the major education reforms President Donald Trump was elected to enact.

“Unelected judges, keen to disrupt the President’s efforts to remove color-consciousness from American education have forgotten that the judiciary is the only non-political branch of our tripartite system of government,” Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, told The Federalist. “Judges that prohibit the Department of Education’s enforcement of its ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ and related civil rights compliance form forget that both are constitutional and a plain-text application of longstanding federal civil rights laws like Title VI.”

“That law specifically conceives that institutions which do not uphold race neutral policies can have their federal funding revoked,” she continued. “Judges are bound to interpret the laws as they read — not as judges wish they read.”

The cases, brought by far-left teachers unions, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and others, were decided by two Trump-appointed judges and one appointee of President Barack Obama. They also came just one day after Trump signed yet another executive order trying to rein in the DEI-caused destruction in schools.

New Hampshire District Judge Landya B. McCafferty, the Obama appointee, claimed that the Department of Education did not properly define DEI in a Feb. 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague Letter,” despite the fact that, as McCafferty herself acknowledges, the letter exhaustively described the insidious ideology.

The 2025 Letter begins by asserting that schools within this country have “embrace[d] … pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences,” as well as “other forms of racial discrimination,” which have “emanated throughout every facet of academia.” It goes on to state that schools have engaged in such discrimination by “toxically indoctrinat[ing] students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices … under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (‘DEI’), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.” According to the 2025 Letter, DEI programs “discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious” ways by “frequently preferenc[ing] certain racial groups and teach[ing] students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not.” It asserts that “[s]uch programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes” and “deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.”

But McCafferty’s decision shows that she simply does not like the policy goals of eradicating DEI, goals that millions of Americans voted for when casting a ballot for Trump.

Bizarrely, the judge said that, because the Biden administration’s Department of Education — the biggest purveyor of the ideology — thought DEI was fine, the Trump administration must somehow follow suit. McCafferty also suggested that the Biden administration’s loopholes to bypass the end of the affirmative action racial admissions system should have been accounted for in the 2025 Letter.

Perhaps confused about how elections work, McCafferty continued, “Again, the 2025 Letter does not acknowledge the Department’s change in position from believing that DEI initiatives lawfully foster a ‘supportive, welcoming environment,’ to believing that DEI programs illegally ‘deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school’ by ‘stigmatiz[ing] students … based on crude racial stereotypes.’”

McCafferty added that the loss of federal funding “would cripple the operations of many educational institutions.” But the threat of pulling federal funding is consistently used by the federal government to seek compliance and is not new.

Maryland District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, a Trump appointee, made a procedural argument claiming that “the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’) claim, have demonstrated that they will be irreparably harmed absent preliminary relief, and have shown the equities and public interest favor them.”

The judge essentially said that the implementation of the 2025 Letter was not done properly and therefore stopped its implementation nationwide.

While saying the court is not required to decide whether the policies are “good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” Gallagher said she is “constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. The government did not.”

Gallagher has also ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate the return” of a Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador.

Using reasoning similar to that of McCafferty, D.C. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, another Trump appointee, said the Trump administration set “no clear ‘boundaries’” for what DEI means, adding that a directive from the Trump administration telling schools to prove their compliance in ending DEI could not reasonably be followed.

Threatening the loss of funding “without sufficiently defining the conduct that might trigger liability, violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on vagueness,” she wrote.

As my colleague Shawn Fleetwood pointed out, the responsibility to rein in the rogue lower court judges who are making sweeping, nationwide decisions lies at the feet of the U.S. Supreme Court — which has been completely derelict in fulfilling that responsibility.

*****

This article was first published on The Federalist, and is reproduced here with permission

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

What RFK Jr. Gets Right—and Wrong—About Autism

April 28, 2025/in Education, Featured, Healthcare, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Jill Escher

Editor’s Note: As the father of a 41-year-old autistic man, it is hard to comprehend why some people are upset by RFK’s attempt to do something about the problem. That in no way undermines my son’s humanity. There are problems with the fact that my low-functioning son is defined by a term that includes Elon Musk, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum. On the other hand, while I accept my son for who he is, if I could wave a magic wand and make my son “normal,” I would do it in a heartbeat. Why is there a fear of being “normal” today? Why is being normal somehow considered a threat to those who fall outside of that category? Moreover, like so many big problems the Trump administration has taken on, I’m glad to see something being done about the frequency of autism. Whether it be inflation, the border, DEI, fair trade, or autism, attempting to address the problem should be lauded. All these issues will be very difficult to solve. Those who criticize often do so, offering nothing in return but to run down those who try to make things better. Maybe the embarrassment of backing a President who had to be hidden from view, to one who dynamically tackles problems, is just too much for some people to handle.

Is it really an epidemic? Are rates increasing? Answering these questions and more

The April 16 autism press conference featuring Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had the media and internet in a frenzy. Did he offend people with autism, or was he at long last shining a light on harsh, neglected realities? Was he right to call the stunning increase in autism cases an epidemic, or was that unscientific scaremongering?

Some people, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, raged. Other people, particularly parents of the severely affected, cheered. But mostly, people were confused. And who can blame them? The truth about autism can seem as easy to grasp as a mound of warm Jell-O.

So it’s worth some quality time to closely examine the main bones of contention. After all, a hell of a lot is at stake. Probably the future of our country is at stake. Because if the new CDC autism prevalence estimate of 1 in 31 8-year-olds signals truly escalating rates, the implications for public health, research, safety-net services, and our economy are simply massive.

As someone who has labored in the trenches of autism for two decades, in the realms of both research and advocacy, I offer this little FAQ for your consideration.

Was RFK Jr. right to call autism an “epidemic”?

Score a point for the health secretary here. A half century of troves of very rich data from multiple sources across multiple systems and examining all levels of autism emphatically point to a true increase in autism rates. Despite rampant speculation about “just noticing it better,” the research does not support this conjecture, though it could explain some effects around the higher-functioning edge. Some key data points to consider:

Even limited to cases of autism with intellectual disability, or ID (formerly called mental retardation, and meaning IQ of 70 or under), childhood autism rates have skyrocketed, from about 0.01 percent to 0.05 percent of children in the 1960s based on early studies to about 1.28 percent of 8-year-olds in 2022, per the latest CDC data.
Even in 4-year-olds, who tend to have greater impairments than those diagnosed later in childhood or adulthood, prevalence has more than doubled over a short period, reaching 2.93 percent for the recent 2022 surveillance, up from 1.34 percent in 2010, when the CDC began tracking preschoolers.
Autism cases in our most populous state, California, have exploded. Its developmental disability system—which serves only significantly disabling forms of autism—has seen autism cases rise from about 4,000 in 1989 to about 206,000 in 2024. That’s a 51-fold increase over 35 years, while caseloads of ID and other categories remained fairly flat.
Careful epidemiology in the state of New Jersey conducted by the respected Rutgers University researcher Dr. Walter Zahorodny (who gave invited remarks at the RFK Jr. press conference confirming the existence of a true increase) has reflected sweeping increases in autism prevalence in the state, to the point that in some regions, about 7 percent of 8-year-olds have autism. Dr. Zahorodny told me the case definitions did not change over time.
Autism cases are up sharply in special education across all states. To be eligible for special education, a student must demonstrate significant impairments that interfere with learning, and they require specialized instruction as a consequence. For example, in California, cases grew from about 4,000 in 2000-21 to about 167,000 in 2023-34, while cases of ID remained steady. In 2019, Massachusetts reported that its schools were serving four times as many students with autism as they did 15 years prior. In Minnesota, autism cases surged exponentially beginning in the 1991 school year, with the researchers finding “diagnostic substitution does not largely explain the increasing trends.”
The largest U.S. study of autism prevalence in hospital and medical care systems shows rising autism prevalence across birth cohorts. Autism in adults over the age of 65 was shown to be extremely rare, in the range of .02 percent, compared to rates of about 3 percent for children aged 5 to 8 in 2022. When RFK Jr. says he’s never met anyone his age with significant autism, he’s not wrong. The data, especially from the robust California developmental disability system, show they hardly exist.
Autism rates are skyrocketing in our adult Medicaid and Social Security safety-net systems, where the disorder is by definition limited to more severe cases. In Medicaid, the prevalence of young adults with autism more than doubled from 2011 to 2019. For SSI, we see staggering autism growth of 336.6 percent from 2005 to 2019, while cases with ID and other mental disorders decreased by 45 percent.
Further evidence it’s not a game of diagnostic switcheroo: The CDC has found that the prevalence of children with developmental disabilities generally, including ID, has increased over time.

The word epidemic is appropriate to describe the ascension of autism, Alexander MacInnis, MS, an independent epidemiological researcher who has published on California autism data and who has a daughter with profound autism, told me. “Epidemic has a definition, and not just for infectious disease,” he said. “It can be a disorder where more cases are occurring than what you would expect based on history. We have massively increased birth cohort prevalence from every data source I can find showing very consistent increases, even within studies, which removes bias. Overall we see about a 7 percent increase in autism cases per birth year. Does this meet the definition of an epidemic? It does.”

But Scientific American just told me there’s no true increase in autism.

The media loves to cherry-pick a few old studies to defend the idea that there’s been no true increase in autism. A perfect example is this recent gem from Scientific American citing and mischaracterizing papers that are plainly irrelevant.

For example, it points to a 2015 study on special education enrollment for the idea that autism’s increase was only caused by diagnostic shifts away from ID to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). That paper was not an epidemiological study on autism increase over time but instead intended to look for hints of common molecular origin for comorbid conditions. It was conducted by geneticists, not epidemiologists using proper tools of that trade, and performed a clumping of all ages 3 to 21, which is meaningless to determine autism rates over time. In any event, the study found that a large percentage of the autism increase was not accounted for by declining ID, and many states did not reflect this trend at all, including the most populous states, California and Texas. Furthermore, the data is now 15 years old, and autism rates have clearly continued surging over that time.

*****

To continue reading, click here, and go to Tablet Magazine

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot KPRC Houston

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Army Rolls Out Equal Fitness Standards For Men And Women In Combat Roles

April 28, 2025/in Featured, National Security, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Wallace White

The U.S. Army formalized equal fitness standards between men and women in combat roles in new guidelines released Monday.

The new Army Fitness Test (AFT), formally the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), will not have separate standards for men and women in combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), according to the Army. The new standards will begin the first stage of implementation on June 1, with a projected completion by January 2026.

However, the general test that includes non-combat roles will retain gender-specific guidelines, according to the Army.

“The change reflects the Army’s continued focus on building a physically ready force capable of meeting operational demands in austere environments,” the Army said in their announcement. “The Army is also adapting its policy framework to support implementation, including support to Soldiers with medical profiles and governance to monitor the impact of the new standard on readiness, retention, and end strength.”

(RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Army Sued After Stonewalling Release Of Records On Training Slides Calling Pro-Life Orgs ‘Terrorist Groups’)

The Army also removed the standing power throw from the list of exercises, which involved throwing a 10 pound medicine ball over the back of one’s head. All personnel in combat MOS’ will have to score at least 350 points in total over the now-five events, scoring no less than 60 points each event.

The change comes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered equal standards for men and women in combat roles across the armed forces in a directive issued Mar. 31.

“For far too long, we have allowed standards to slip,” Hegseth said on X regarding the March directive. “We’ve had different standards for men/women serving in combat arms [Military Occupational Specialty] MOS’s and jobs . . . That’s not acceptable, and it changes right now!”

“The five-event Army Fitness Test is designed to increase warfighting readiness, reduce injury risk, and enhance the physical performance of the force,” Army spokesperson Matt Ahearn told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The AFT introduces a higher, sex-neutral, and age-normed standard for 21 combat specialties, aligning fitness requirements with operational demands.”

*****

This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Sales of Existing Homes Drop to Worst March since 2009. West, South, Midwest, Northeast All Get Crushed. Supply Surges to Highest since 2016

April 28, 2025/in Economy, Featured, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Wolf Richter

The 3-year 50% price explosion has caused epic demand destruction. Prices are way too high. But mortgage rates are back in the historically normal range above 6%

The feverishly anticipated spring selling season is starting out as a dud. Sales of existing homes – single-family houses, townhouses, condos, and co-ops – that closed in March fell by 3.1% from the already frozen volume a year ago to 315,000 deals, not seasonally adjusted, down by 31% from March 2022, which was when home sales began to plunge after prices had spiked in many markets by 50% or more in just three years, to ridiculous levels, thereby destroying demand.

Demand destruction on display: The seasonally adjusted annual rate of sales of existing homes fell by 5.9% in March from February, and by 2.4% year-over-year, to a rate of 4.02 million, the worst March since 2009, according to the National Association of Realtors today. From the Marches in prior years (historical data from YCharts):

2024: -2.4%
2023: -7.6%
2022: -29.3%
2019: -23.1%
2018: -27.0%

Highest supply for March since 2016.

Inventory of homes listed for sale jumped by 100,000 homes, or by 8.1%, in March from February, and by 20% year-over-year, to 1.33 million listings. This increase in inventory occurred even as buyers were on strike because prices are too high.

Supply of unsold homes on the market, amid these inventory levels and demand destruction, jumped to 4.0 months at the March rate of sales, the highest supply for any March since 2016. The months of 2025 are shown as the red squares:

*****

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

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Trump Endorses Second Candidate For In Arizona’s Governor Race

April 28, 2025/in Featured, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Zachery Schmidt

Written by Zachery Schmidt

President Donald Trump endorsed Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs this week in Arizona’s gubernatorial contest.

Trump’s seal of approval of the representative from Gilbert, Ariz. is his second time endorsing a Republican candidate for Arizona governor.

In December 2024, the president supported businesswoman Karrin Taylor Robson.

Trump wrote on Truth Social that he liked Taylor Robson “a lot.” He added that she asked him for his endorsement when no one else was running for governor. However, when Biggs decided to run, Trump endorsed both candidates, stating that neither Biggs nor Taylor Robson would let Arizonans down.

After getting his endorsement, Biggs said he was honored to receive it. The current congressman has supported Trump since he entered politics in 2016.

“I will never stop fighting for the interests of Arizona and defending the freedoms that we hold dear,” Biggs stated. “When I am governor, Arizona will support President Trump, honor the Constitution, uphold the law, and quickly become the most prosperous state in the nation.”

Taylor Robson also weighed in on the situation, saying that Trump “reaffirmed” what he told her in December 2024 about running for Arizona governor.

“He supports me and has fully endorsed my Arizona First campaign,” she said. “I cannot wait to be on the 9th floor as a partner to his America First agenda. Onward!”

The governor’s office is on the executive tower’s ninth floor on the Capitol grounds.

This will be Taylor Robson’s second time running for Arizona governor. The first time, she lost to Kari Lake by nearly 20,000 votes in the 2022 Republican primary. Trump endorsed Kari Lake instead of her.

During that race, Taylor Robson spent approximately $19 million during the 2022 GOP primary race.

The Club for Growth PAC released a poll last week, showing that Biggs is leading Taylor Robson by 29 points, with 39% of respondents still undecided.

Currently, Cook Political Playbook, a nonpartisan election analyzer, rates the 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race as a toss-up.

That same Club for Growth PAC poll showed Gov. Katie Hobbs beating Biggs by 4 points in a matchup, with 12% of people still undecided.

Hobbs leads her by 9 points in a matchup with Taylor Robson, with 15% of people undecided.

This poll had a 95% confidence rate and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4%.

Trump has a history of making two endorsements in Arizona political races. Last year, he endorsed Blake Masters and Abe Hamadeh for the state’s 8th Congressional District.

Hamadeh went on to win the race and now represents that district in Congress.

*****

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

Image Credit: U.S. House of Representatives

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Is Trump The Problem-Or The Answer Seriously Bigger?

April 27, 2025/in Economy, Featured, National Security, Politics, ThePricklyPear.org /by ThePricklyPear.org

By Drieu Godefridi

Written by Drieu Godefridi

In the tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump against China, much is said about the Americans’ strategy, mistakes and “brutality”. Less is said about China. Here are three truths about China’s relationship with the West that help to better nuance a simplistic thinking that many so readily embrace.

1. China’s homicides have poisoned the world

During the COVID-19; crisis, vaccines heated up tempers to such an extent that many people lost sight of the fact that vaccines were merely an answer to the original problem: the virus. Whether it escaped from a laboratory or came from a “wet market“, COVID is in all instances a legacy of the Chinese communist regime to the world.

Since then, China has been cracking down on any attempt to identify the source of the virus, just as, for years, it has been doing its utmost to cover up the situation. The original error seems to have been negligence, however, that was quickly followed by deliberate lies as to the human-to-human transmissibility of the virus. While China shut down its own internal systems of transportation, it intentionally, backed by the World Health Organization (WHO), saw millions of its citizens travel to locations abroad. Those who restricted admitting them were accused of “racism.”

The WHO had been warned of the danger of transmissibility by Taiwan but chose to disregard it, evidently for “political reasons”: China does not recognize Taiwan. The damage was of historic proportions. China’s cover-up about the human-to-human transmissibility of the virus was criminal. In the United States, more than 1.2 million people died from COVID; in Europe, approximately 2 million; and in the world, approximately 7 million.

According to the World Bank and IMF, in 2020, the global economy plunged into its worst recession since World War II. Instead of expected growth of 3.3%, global GDP contracted by 5%, a deviation of 8%. In monetary terms, this contraction corresponds to a loss of several trillions of dollars. The IMF estimates the cumulative loss over 2020 and 2021 at $9 trillion; more than the combined GDP of Japan and Germany. Support measures (short-time work, support to companies) increased public debt. Although figures vary, economic losses due to the COVID crisis range between $10 trillion and $20, trillion. These Dantesque losses would have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if China had not locked itself into its own degeneracy.

This global catastrophe was followed by China’s sending the poison fentanyl – and, after 2019, “just” its precursor ingredients — to the US, along with other lethal opioids. The smallest amount of fentanyl, equivalent to “a few grains of salt,” can cause death. During the last five years, more than 250,000 Americans have been killed by fentanyl overdoses.

2. China plunders the West

Estimates of intellectual property theft attributed to China vary by source and research method. A 2017 report by the bipartisan US Commission on Intellectual Property Theft estimated that losses to the US economy from counterfeit products, software piracy and theft of trade secrets by China range from $225 billion to $600 billion a year. The Cyber Brief suggests that the loss to the US could be as high as $5.6 trillion annually “when accounting for undetected and unreported cases of espionage.”

The European Commission has acknowledged that Chinese violations of intellectual property rights, such as theft of trade secrets and forced technology transfers, are causing “irreparable damage” to European companies. Sectors in which intellectual property plays a major role (such as pharmaceuticals, cars and technology) account for almost one-third of jobs in the European Union and 80% of exports, making these losses significant. According to one estimate, intellectual property theft costs the European economy between €50 billion and €150 billion a year, including counterfeit products, lost sales and impact on innovation and employment.

The pattern is familiar: a Western company invests years in research and development, launches an innovative product, and a short while later an almost identical copy turns up, from China, at a much lower price. No development costs, no middlemen, just direct access to the same market, with subsidized pricing to put the original company out of business. How can the inventor ever win like that?

Structural theft is and will remain at the heart of China’s model. Combined with “free trade’” — free in name, not in practice — this provides China with an unfair and almost unbridgeable advantage in its global power-building.

China also seems to have an impressive tradition of failing to honor any commitment to which it agrees, whether to the World Trade Organization, or pledging not to militarize its artificial islands in the South China Sea, which were militarized within months, or refusing to abide by standard accounting practices. Some might consider such behavior problematic.

3. There is no Chinese state or company: only Mao’s Party

(a) China is a closed market. China maintains a negative list for foreign investment and restricts or bans access to certain strategic sectors such as telecommunications, energy, media and finance. Even open sectors require specific licenses, which are often difficult to obtain. In virtually all sectors, Western companies have to enter into a local joint venture with Chinese “partners,” who hold a majority stake. This entails forced technology transfer and loss of operational control. The administrative processes for obtaining approvals or certifications are opaque, lengthy and subject to arbitrary interpretation, putting foreign companies at a disadvantage.

Moreover, Chinese state-owned and privately-owned companies benefit from subsidies, preferential loans and privileged access to public tenders, thus creating unfair competition for Western companies. Despite joining the WTO in 2001, China still has non-tariff barriers, such as specific technical standards and rigorous inspections, which make it difficult to import foreign products. In sectors such as steel and electric vehicles, Chinese overproduction, supported by government subsidies, floods the domestic market and marginalizes imported products. Finally, access to the internet is tightly controlled, limiting Western companies’ ability to operate in the digital sector without meeting strict requirements, such as local data storage. Technology companies must comply with cybersecurity regulations, including sharing sensitive data with authorities.

In summary, China exports massively to the West and does everything it can to impede imports: a total success for 30 years. Until Trump, the Western market was wide open to China, while China closed itself off to Western companies by every means.

(b) The party is everything. The myth that China would democratize through trade was built on the idea that Chinese companies are separate from the regime. This does not happen to be so: in China, the Communist Party is everything. There is no state in the Western sense of the word, no body separate from political power. There is only the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). No Chinese company, or CEO or even medical doctor, operates without its consent.

That CCP is, fundamentally, still the party of Chairman Mao Zedong. Policies such as the “Great Leap Forward” (1958-1962) and the “Cultural Revolution” (1966-1976) made Mao perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, certainly in absolute numbers. Estimates vary, but historians broadly agree on a death toll of between 30 and 70 million, mostly due to famines, political purges and executions (Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Famine, 2010; Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, 2005). The Great Leap Forward alone led to one of the deadliest famines ever, with an estimated 15 to 45 million victims (Yang Jisheng, Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962, 2008).

It is often said that the CCP of today has nothing to do with the CCP of the past. But that is nonsense. We are talking about pretty much one and the same party, which claims to follow pretty much one and the same ideology. Certainly on social media, and increasingly out in the open in recent years, it also appears to be re-identifying with the figure of Mao.

What would we say if the Nazi Party were still in power in Berlin? What if in 2025, it were to present itself as more open and tolerant than in 1933 or 1943, but still appealed to the same type of leader and the same ideology?

China’s global project is overtly hegemonic. Everything Chinese “companies” gain and steal from the West ultimately flows into the communist regime and funds its ambition to become the dominant world power, starting with the military. President Xi Jinping’s regime unleashed a pandemic over the world, lied about it, exacerbated the situation and categorically rejected any responsibility.

If we continue to allow ourselves to be drained by a regime that never plays by the rules, the United States will end up where Europe already finds itself: with massive deindustrialization, strategic dependency and weakness in times of crisis. Trump appears, at least for now, committed to turning that future around.

So let us criticize the orange man: his methods, his sometimes untoward comments, his impulsive shifts. But let us not lose sight that when it comes to the bottom line, in reining in a lawless predatory Chinese market and reindustrializing America, he is right. No one else even tried.

*****

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

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Part I – What Is A Goldbug?

Your Support is Critical

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Your Support is Critical

Your Support is Critical

Your Support is Critical

Highest supply for March since 2016.

*****

Your Support is Critical

1. China’s homicides have poisoned the world

2. China plunders the West

3. There is no Chinese state or company: only Mao’s Party

STAY INFORMED