Those marketing the green delusion have convinced themselves and the public that intermittent electricity from wind and solar are somehow “clean, green, renewable and sustainable”. They have successfully kept transparency from those paying for the green delusion of any information that would damage their message.

Facts about greater human and ecological impacts around the world from intermittent electricity systems favored by the climate cult are numerous and purposely withheld from the Californians that can least afford rates that are already among the highest in the nation for electricity and fuel and the same Californians that represent less than half of one percent (0.5%) of the world’s population (40 million vs. 8 billion). Among a few subjects the climate cult avoids transparency are:

• Moving to electricity ALONE and eliminating fossil fuels would mean America would have to replace 100% of its gasoline and all its oil and natural gas feed stocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and plastics for cell phones, computers, car bodies, packaging, wind turbine blades, solar panel films and more than 6,000 products that are manufactured from petroleum derivatives. As a reminder, without transportation and the leisure and entertainment industries that did not exist before 1900, we would have no commerce.
• Dependency on intermittent electricity from wind and solar resulted in California importing up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands. To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy, that lavishly expensive imported electricity has contributed to the poorest residents, particularly Latinos and African Americans, paying more than 50 percent more for electricity than the rest of the country.
• The impact of power plant closures in California are destined to increase the cost of power as California plans to shuttle three natural gas power plants and its last nuclear power plant. Those four power plants have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity to Californians. With the state having no plans to replace the closure capacity with intermittent electricity from wind and solar, the state will need to import more high-priced electricity to fill the void and let residents and businesses pay the premium.
• The climate cult is fearful of sharing that all the mineral products and metals needed to make wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control, under minimal to nonexistent labor, wage, environmental, reclamation, and worker health and safety regulations. The mere extraction of those exotic minerals presents social challenges, human rights abuses, and environmental degradations worldwide.
• Those numerous documentaries about the atrocities that the workers are put through in the cobalt mines, i.e. actually digging the mines by hand along with the horrendous living conditions. Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals. 
• For cobalt alone, over 40,000 Congolese children, as young as four years old, slave away alongside their parents in mines, for a dollar a day, risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air. 
• These environmental and human rights travesties can happen only under a system of rampant double standards, i.e., if they do NOT occur in the backyard of the climate cult, they are okay with any and all adverse impacts on foreign sites.
• Even if California or the entire USA eliminated all fossil fuel use tomorrow – it would not make an iota of difference for global carbon dioxide levels as China and India have more than 5,000 coal fired power plants and are building 600 more to provide their populations with scalable, reliable, and affordable electricity, that will continue to increase emissions.
  • o Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased, whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985.  This differential has arisen because of:
    • the off shoring of major CO2 emitting industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who care less about CO2 emissions.
    • the growing use of Coal-firing for electricity generation in the Developing world.

The primary reason that the climate cult is voraciously against transparency of any data about intermittent electricity from wind and solar favored by them, is that they would need to justify to the rural, poor, minority and working-class families and communities that  the public needs to accept  the worldwide ecological, health and economic damages being inflicted in pursuit of their pseudo-renewable electricity utopia. Additionally, for those that can least afford the passion for intermittent electricity, they need to morally accept that Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans must endure slave labor status to advance the climate cult agenda.

Let us hope the now-silent majority can restore law, order, civil debate, thoughtful reflection on our complex history, and rational resolution of these thorny problems as current climate policies are essentially discriminatory toward poor people and minorities worldwide.

Ronald Stein is Founder and Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure of PTS Advance, headquartered in Irvine, California.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily.

As my daughter recently searched for a new apartment in San Francisco’s typically overheated market, she experienced an unusual situation: Falling rent prices, less competition for available units and – get this – landlords who were calling her to sweeten the deal. Prices still are astoundingly high, but the supply-and-demand dynamic has noticeably shifted. Rents are down 5 percent in the city and even more in some nearby communities as people leave the area.

The outmigration has been evident long before COVID-19. “Real-estate site Redfin found that San Francisco lost more residents than any other city in the US in the last quarter of 2017,” according to a recent report in Business Insider. “A 2018 survey from the Bay Area Council advocacy group found that 46 percent of residents said they planned to leave the region.”

Of course, the coronavirus situation has accelerated the trend. The most obvious reason: People increasingly are working at home. There’s little reason to pay outlandish prices — the median home price in San Francisco (including condos) is $1.3 million — when you can live in a more affordable and spacious home elsewhere. San Francisco remains a beautiful and energetic place, but it’s easy to visit on the weekends and avoid the day-to-day hassles.

Pundits have debated the role of population density in spreading diseases such as the coronavirus. I don’t think people are leaving out of fear of the virus, per se — but because of the heavy-handed approaches big-city officials have taken toward dealing with its spread. In my Sacramento exurb, the shutdowns were a nuisance, but life went on largely as before. In San Francisco and other dense cities, normal life came to a halt. No one wants to be a prisoner in a 600-square-foot apartment.

“After months of forced stillness, unable to make many major decisions or follow through on some already planned, people are jumping into one of the biggest life changes there is and moving out of cities,” the Washington Post reported this month. Myriad news stories provide anecdotal evidence of people of all age groups fleeing for greener, lower-density pastures. The softening urban real-estate markets suggest there’s more to this than hype.

The unraveling social order in many big cities is another likely cause of the exodus. There’s nothing wrong with peaceful protests against police abuse and racial inequality, but the riots, looting and creation of wacky “autonomous zones” in downtown areas add to the already sprawling homeless crisis that makes urban life increasingly intolerable.

Given the generally incompetent elected leadership of San Francisco and most other major cities, there’s a ballpark-zero chance that they will adopt the right policies to improve the quality of life. In fact, urban residents in California can expect yet another wave of tax increases to help clean up the mess. Anti-eviction ordinances will discourage people from maintaining rental properties. The recent shutdowns are obliterating small restaurants and businesses, which undermines one of the pleasures of living in urban environments. Things might get worse before they get better.

Ironically, California officials have long tried to force people, through urban growth boundaries, to live in higher-density surroundings. The state has shifted its transportation priorities away from freeway and road building toward transit systems and bike lanes. State officials have punished counties for permitting single-family suburban-style developments. The goal is cram more people into the existing urban footprint — and leave the remaining outskirts as permanent open space.

I have nothing against urban living, but it ought to be a choice rather than a government mandate. Increasingly, we see the public resisting these edicts. Who can blame them? The New Urbanists believe that living cheek-by-jowl will create social harmony by increasing interactions with our neighbors. But life in San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City hardly is a utopian dream. These cities seem to be the least harmonious places around.

urthermore, transit systems are a miserable way to get around, which might explain why transit ridership is falling nationwide (with a handful of exceptions). Once again, people are voting with their feet — or at least with their mini-SUVs. Progressives have been pushing for urbanization, but have never grappled with this reality: The political leaders in urban areas have made a mess of everything, from schools systems to housing markets. They’ve made urban life unpleasant.

We all know how San Francisco has turned over large expanses of public spaces to the homeless and pays six-figure salaries to city workers who scoop poop from the sidewalks. I write this not as a San Francisco basher, but as someone who loves the city and is heartbroken at the way poor policy choices are making it so unlivable. Such cities, which have become home mainly to the super-wealthy and the destitute, should never be the model for an entire state.

On a sidenote, I suspect that so many young people have taken to the streets in protest not mainly because of concerns about policing and racial inequality — but because of a general sense of despair at their future prospects. Thanks to policies that have driven home prices into the theater of the absurd, even gainfully employed San Franciscans view home ownership, that bedrock of middle-class aspiration and family formation, as an unreachable goal.

No wonder so many Americans are leaving these places and heading toward suburbs, small towns, and rural areas. As always, people vote with their feet. I don’t blame coronavirus for that trend — but I do blame the politicians whose policies have left most people with few other choices.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at [email protected]

This article was originally published by the American Spectator

Carly Fiorina, recent chair of the American Conservative Union Foundation, said earlier this month on ⁦⁦CNBC⁩ ⁦that Donald Trump “does not represent the Republican Party I joined.” Well, then Ronald Reagan doesn’t either since though she was qualified to vote, she did not register and did not vote in 1980 and 1984 when Reagan was on ballot. Now Fiorina has taken the further step revealing her political shallowness by telling the liberal ”Atlantic” that she will vote for Biden. What a waste of time and effort from countless California Republican volunteers who worked hard for her and blindly assumed she would represent them well in the U.S. Senate! Like her friend John Bolton, what a colossal betrayal to the Conservative Movement.

From The Atlantic:

The former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina tells The Ticket that she plans to vote for Joe Biden.

Republicans who say Donald Trump should lose in November but insist they won’t vote for Joe Biden aren’t being honest, Carly Fiorina argues.

Fiorina was a Republican candidate for president just four years ago, and was briefly Ted Cruz’s prospective running mate. Trump needs to go, she says—and that means she’s voting for Biden.

Fiorina is not going to keep quiet, write in another candidate, or vote third-party. “I’ve been very clear that I can’t support Donald Trump,” she told me, in an interview that can be heard in full on the latest episode of The Ticket. “And elections are binary choices.” She struggled with the decision, and whether to go public. But she said that this struggle is one Republicans need to have—including those who have rationalized supporting Trump despite their disagreements, because of some of his policies or judicial appointments.

“As citizens, our vote is more than a check on a box. You know, it’s a statement about where we want to go, and I think what we need now actually is real leadership that can unify the country,” she said. “I am encouraged that Joe Biden is a person of humility and empathy and character. I think he’s demonstrated that through his life. And I think we need humility and empathy everywhere in public life right now. And I think character counts.”

Click here to read the full article from The Atlantic.

One recent morning a disheveled, visibly disturbed man ran frantically around the lobby of the Mark Hopkins Hotel, the historic and elegant property located at the crest of tony Nob Hill. As one of San Francisco’s designated Front-Line Worker Housing (FLWH) hotels, it’s reserved for health-care and public-safety employees working on Covid-19 related matters. But San Francisco is surreptitiously placing homeless people in luxury hotels by designating them as emergency front-line workers, a term that the broader community understands to mean doctors, nurses, and similar professionals.

“Do I look scary to you?” the man demanded. “They’re trying to evict me because I wanted more towels but I’m homeless! They called the cops on me.” He dashed out the door and around the grand circular entrance, where two police officers attempted to resolve the situation. Soon a cab pulled up and an inebriated couple emerged, holding full plastic trash bags. They fought, screaming at each other until the woman entered the lobby and her partner lit a meth pipe in the garage area. More “front-line workers.”

If neighborhood residents were more aware of the influx of these new guests who frequently suffer from drug addiction and severe mental illness as well as having criminal backgrounds, they might object. Consequently, the city has evoked emergency-disaster law to keep the information private. Officials refuse to notify the public about what is happening in their community and are blocking the press by withholding the list of hotels and preventing reporters from entering the properties. The Department of Emergency Management has attempted to spin the secrecy by claiming, “Disclosure of the names of hotels where people are being sheltered could jeopardize the privacy and safety of the vulnerable people whom the City has placed there if the public and the press become aware of the circumstances of their placement and could increase the risk that they will be subject to discrimination or harassment on the basis of their health status or status as an unsheltered person.”

The public does have a right to know, however, and obfuscation is ultimately futile. Security guards standing outside hotel entrances, where they had never been before, are clear indicators that something is amiss. An uptick in crime, drug activity, and vagrancy around the hotels is another clue. Properties that have become de facto homeless shelters range from low-end haunts such as the Motel 6 to mid-range and boutique hotels like the Inn on Broadway and Hotel Del Sol. High-end hotels that house the homeless-turned-frontline-workers include the InterContinental San Francisco —and the Mark Hopkins.

The Department of Public Health manages the controversial free alcohol, cigarette, and cannabis program for homeless people placed in the hotels. It originally claimed that money for the service came from private donations, which are not allowed by law. After multiple requests to provide the names of the donors, the DPH conceded that “No such record currently exists.” A public-records investigation into the matter has revealed that, as of June 16, DPH approved $3,795.98 to buy the homeless guests vodka and beer (cigarettes have been scrapped). The funding came from the public treasury, after all.

Meanwhile chaos is erupting inside and around the hotels. City and hotel workers are required to sign nondisclosure agreements and are forbidden from discussing what they’re seeing. Per the Mayor’s Declaration of Emergency, speaking out can result in a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment with a maximum sentence of one year, or both.

Nevertheless, concerned inside sources report destroyed rooms and rampant illegal drug use. In one hotel, guests are given needle kits and are advised to call the front desk before shooting up; there have been four deaths in the last few days. Sharp containers have been placed on every floor; used syringes are discarded haphazardly. Badly needed mental-health help is not being administered. The entire operation is disorganized, with staff members constantly moved around, never knowing what they’ll do from one day to the next. One source asked to make it clear that as public servants they love the city and all its inhabitants, but the plan has left them deeply demoralized.

The hotels were pressured into accepting the homeless guests, though they were also eager for the chance to recoup some revenue lost to the Covid-19 lockdowns. Rooms are rented at close to $200 per night, totaling $6,000 a month—nearly double the cost of a private one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. The city-sponsored guests also receive personal grooming, sanitary, and cleaning supplies, three delivered meals, and laundry service for clothes and linens. Contracts last between 90 days and two years; by that point, the guests may be able to claim de facto permanent residence.

Hotel owners consented to the arrangements fully aware of the potential pitfalls, having been assured that FEMA dollars would cover at least some of the damages incurred. As part of the agreement, the city promised the hoteliers, who are worried about bad publicity, that they wouldn’t reveal who their guests are and what they’ve been doing during their stay. Even with complementary lodging and amenities, city workers report at least a 20 percent attrition rate. Of the guests who remain, roughly a third stay outside all day, not taking the shelter-in-place rules seriously.

In the end, the wildly expensive hotel plan is unlikely to help most homeless individuals achieve self-sufficient lives and won’t elevate the city’s most destitute districts. Since the plan to shift people from tents and doorways to hotels began in May, the blighted neighborhoods have shown no sign of improvement. That’s not surprising, since change is not likely until the city disallows tents completely, abandons its hands-off drug-dealing and usage policies, and commits to treating people with addiction issues and mental illness—not giving them hotel rooms where they can overdose, whether alone or with others whom they bring into the property. At one FLWH hotel, a non-guest was recently found dead in the hallway, still clinging to a crack pipe.

Eventually, at least some of these properties will revert to being real hotels again, and homeless guests will check out. If the city has an exit plan for what happens next, though, officials aren’t sharing it.

As for the distressed “front-line worker” at the Mark Hopkins, the Department of Emergency Management announced that he is no longer permitted to remain at the hotel. “The City will be providing accommodations for this individual at an alternative program location.” Media, says DEM, are not allowed on site.

Erica Sandberg is a widely published consumer-finance reporter based in San Francisco and the author of Expecting Money: The Essential Financial Plan for New and Growing Families. As a community advocate, she focuses on homelessness and crime and safety issues.

This article was originally published by City Journal Online.

“Christopher Columbus is a deeply polarizing historical figure given the deadly impact his arrival in this hemisphere had on indigenous populations. The continued presence of this statue in California’s Capitol, where it has been since 1883, is completely out of place today. It will be removed.” 
—Official statement from the California State Legislature, June 16, 2020

And just like that, the legislative leaders of California’s one-party state are going to remove an inspiring symbol of exploration, discovery, and courage, as well as a beautiful work of art.

Calls to the Capitol have confirmed that California’s legislators have no idea, of course, what may replace the statue of Columbus and Queen Isabella, which, for now, still sits in the exact center of the State Capitol rotunda. Expect something that pleases everyone and no one, some bland and mediocre product of a committee whose primary qualifications will be the “diversity” of the members.

Also this week Sutter Health removed a statue of California Pioneer John Sutter from one of their medical campuses. Will they also change the name of their corporation? Surely if a statue of John Sutter is unacceptable, the name “Sutter Health” is also unacceptable. As one of the agitators for the statue’s removal said, “He’s a racist, he’s a murderer, and he enslaved thousands of Native Americans.” This act generated less controversy in California — who reads history anymore? — than it did in Sutter’s native Switzerland.

All this hate. Such an exaggerated, negative interpretation of history. Christopher Columbus and John Sutter were men of courage, vision, tenacity, endurance, imagination, and humanity. Their lives can be an inspiration to anyone. But we no longer hear that side of the story. The kooks rant, and the cowards take a knee.

And why stop with Sutter or Columbus? This erasure began with statues of Confederate generals, then statues of Confederate soldiers, then statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. With each step in this progression, the logic to destroy became less compelling, assuming it had ever been compelling in the first place. Clearly, nothing is off-limits. Why not carry this historical purge to its logical conclusion?

Blinkered Bias of the Woke Brigades

If spontaneous gangs don’t beat them to it, California’s legislature may carry on by removing all statues of Father Junípero Serra, who by their own standards is an exceedingly toxic historical villain.

Dispatched to the Spanish colony of Upper California back in 1769 by the imperialist Spanish regime working in concert with the hideously regressive Roman Catholic Church, Father Serra slowly marched north from San Diego to San Francisco. In a little over a decade, Serra spread pestilence across the land, imposed European culture, and enslaved the indigenous survivors in the name of salvation.

At least according to the blinkered bias of the woke brigades, the evidence against Serra is clear, and the verdict is beyond appeal. Never mind his passion, his faith, his humility, his charity. Erase Father Serra from history. Destroy his statues, destroy the missions, and while we’re at it, change the names of every Spanish-named city in California. How is it that Italian and English colonial legacies are demonized, yet the Spanish Conquistadors are given a pass? No más.

To provide some helpful examples: San Diego will be renamed Chumash, Los Angeles shall be known as Kitanemuk, San Jose will change its name to Ohlone, San Francisco to Muwekma, Sacramento to Maidu, and so on. Throughout California, not one place name shall remain in either English or Spanish, or any other European language, because these are “deeply polarizing” colonial names that cause people to feel “unsafe.”

The naïve ignoramuses who are the foot soldiers behind this nihilistic assault on American history ought to study world history a little more carefully. Every civilization that has ever existed was established by force, expanding into territories that an earlier civilization had previously occupied. Angkor Wat, Cuzco, Chichen Itza and the Pyramid of Khufu are all relics of conquering imperial slave states. Shall we destroy all vestiges of their presence on this earth? Why not?

Golden State Taliban

California’s legislators who are behind this statue removal outrage don’t care to recognize these facts of history because they are opportunistic political whores, who find it expedient to indulge the extremist passions of a small fraction of Californians.

But from an ideological standpoint, they are making common cause with the Taliban, who in March 2001 blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas. The only difference: In Bamiyan, the statues were blown to bits, whereas the statue of Columbus and Queen Isabella will probably end up on the estate of some Silicon Valley billionaire.

The truth is, everything extraordinary that humans ever produced was made possible because of wealth inequality. Only with uneven concentrations of wealth could any person or civilization afford to create beautiful art, send expeditions across land and sea, research scientific breakthroughs, invent democracy and capitalism, and, fitfully but steadily, advance the general freedom and prosperity of all peoples. We try to create equal opportunity, not equality of outcome. Erasing our history in pursuit of either of those goals is a distraction at best.

What the people who demand we tear down historical monuments are really trying to do has little to do with true social justice. It has little to do with alleviating the alleged trauma they feel when they behold these monuments. These demands are about taking power. They are about convincing a critical mass of voters in the most tolerant, well-functioning multi-ethnic society in history that they should be ashamed of who they are. Because a people who are ashamed do not bother defending themselves.

According to the twisted logic of the Left, it is only a short leap from being anti-racist to being anti-capitalist, and from there to demanding mass redistribution of wealth.

In California, the biggest businesses in high-tech amplify the agenda of the Left — from the rewriting of history to the impossible dream of proportional representation of all identifiable groups in all institutions. They support this because it furthers their own objective, which is to implement corporate socialism.

This explains why every time a monument is taken down and another scheme to compensate the disadvantaged is hatched, these corporations launch a marketing campaign. “BLM” is commercialized. “Woke” becomes a commodity. A global consumer marketplace consisting of undifferentiated human matter is the profitable goal.

Until more Americans, from California to Connecticut, become more assertive in defense of their history and culture, they face a dismal choice: Submit to rule by corporations where the only culture left is mass entertainment and leftist indoctrination, or submit to life in a failed socialist state. Venezuela offers an apt example of that. Anyone who thinks either of these outcomes is unlikely has not spent enough time in Sacramento.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

Amidst the frivolity of frat houses, football games and spring break parties lies a far more serious concern on America’s college campuses.

“China’s Communist Party uses American professors and Chinese national students as ‘nontraditional collectors’ of valuable information,” explains Congressman Michael Waltz of Florida. “Make no mistake: the Chinese government is stealing this information for later use against us.”

A member of the Armed Services Committee and former Green Beret, Waltz has become one of the leading seers of the real and present danger posed by the Chinese Communist infiltration of U.S. higher education institutions.

In January, authorities announced federal indictments against three individuals who were involved in a sophisticated Chinese espionage effort. Most notably, the indictment included Dr. Charles Lieber, the chair of Harvard’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department. Through the Chinese Communist-funded “Thousand Talents Program,” Dr. Lieber allegedly pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars, while working on vital Department of Defense research.

“This is not an accident or a coincidence,” said U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling. “This is a small sample of China’s ongoing campaign to siphon off American technology and know-how for Chinese gain.”

China has more foreign exchange students studying in the U.S. than any other country in the world. That makes it easy for the Chinese military to covertly place individual spies to pose as legitimate university students. Such was the case with Ji Chaoqun, a Chinese spy who posed as an electrical engineering student in Chicago. He allegedly recruited eight other spies working at key defense contractors.

Cornell University professors Barry Strauss and R. Richard Geddes, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are two of the few academics to publicly speak out against the Chinese Communist influence campaign.

The pair describe the Chinese Communist government’s efforts as “a global propaganda campaign — a sophisticated, data-driven effort, aided by a massive social-media blitz — to portray itself as a worldwide savior, rather than a state with a lot of explaining to do.”  

“China has been ruthless in its quest to steal research, control information, and gain approval,” they add.

It’s not just spying. China has also implemented a sophisticated propaganda campaign with campus entities, known as Confucius Institutes.

“While Confucius Institutes hide behind carefully cultivated images of benign organizations, in reality they actively foment anti-Western ideology on impressionable young college students,” points out Ahnaf Kalam, the director of The Scruton Institute.

“They inundate their curricula with historical revisionism and falsehoods on the topics of Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, the Tiananmen Square massacre, and China’s human rights record as a whole.”

A 2018 investigative report by Politico revealed how the Confucius Institutes “go to some length to obscure their political purpose.” In total, the institutes have spent $150 million across 100 entites at high schools, colleges and universities in the United States.

“Coordinate the efforts of overseas and domestic propaganda, [and] further create a favorable international environment for us,” Chinese minister of propaganda Liu Yunshan reportedly said of the institutes, according to the Politico investigative report. “With regard to key issues that influence our sovereignty and safety, we should actively carry out international propaganda battles against issuers such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, human rights and Falun Gong. … We should do well in establishing and operating overseas cultural centers and Confucius Institutes.”

Other countries have taken a firm stand against Chinese propaganda. This spring, Sweden recognized the threat and kicked out the Confucius Institutes.

“Confucius Institutes import censorship into American higher education,” Rachelle Peterson, policy director at National Association of Scholars, told the Epoch Times. “They are inherently at odds with the intellectual freedom that a college or university requires.”

Instead of assisting law enforcement with its investigation into Chinese espionage, U.S. academic institutions are doubling down on their support for China. Yale University President Peter Salovey went out of his way to defend his university’s close ties with China.

“We very much want and feel it’s important and fundamental for universities to have a free flow of scholars, students between our countries,” Salovey avowed to China Daily.

Shockingly, rather than investigate these surreptitious efforts by the Chinese government and military to influence U.S. institutions, the Obama administration, under the direction of Vice President Joe Biden, welcomed Chinese endeavors to coopt American institutions.

“These ties among our people are the life blood of our emerging partnership,” then-Vice President Joe Biden said in a laudatory 2011 speech at Sichuan University in Beijing, China. “And the more we can work together, the more our people will benefit.”

He added, “I believed in 1979 and said so and I believe now that a rising China is a positive development, not only for the people of China but for the United States and the world as a whole.”

Biden’s pro-China agenda is out of touch even among fellow Democrats. At a Brookings Institution event in May 2019, U.S. Senator Mark Warner warned the public about the threat posed by Chinese espionage.

“We have to wake this country up to what China is doing,” the Virginia Democrat said. “For this reason, I have been convening meetings between the intelligence community and outside stakeholders in business and academia to ensure they have the full threat picture and, hopefully, make different decisions about Chinese partnerships.”

Thankfully, the Trump administration recognizes the threat posed by China’s espionage efforts. U.S. institutions must work cooperatively with the Trump administration to end Chinese Communist infiltration of U.S. academic institutions.

Author and media commentator James V. Lacy is managing partner of Wewer & Lacy, LLP and President of the U.S. Justice Foundation. He is co-author of California’s War Against Donald Trump and serves as publisher of a new website in development Taxifornia.net.