Arizona’s Economic Relationship With China: Short-Term Benefits, Long-Term Risks

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

State governors usually seek to grow their states’ economies. One of Governor Ducey’s priorities has been to create a “21st Century Economy” in Arizona, which includes supporting “21st century companies that employ Arizonans.”[1]  As part of his efforts to attract “21st Century companies” to the state, the Governor has actively sought to foster greater Chinese business and investment interest in Arizona.

 In an interview with China Daily during the National Governors Association Summer Meeting in July 2017, Governor Ducey stressed that trade opportunities between China and Arizona included “public and private partnerships in our semiconductor, electronics, aerospace, defense industry, mining and ores.[2] Four months later, ahead of President Trump’s visit to China, the Governor told China Daily, “We would love opportunities to sell more to China and other opportunities for investment. I think from the franchise business to the aerospace and defense business, we would like to do more business with China.”[3]

And there does appear to be some good news in the Arizona – China trade relationship. According to figures provided by the U.S. – China Business Council, the annual value of manufactured goods exports from Arizona to China has averaged about $1 billion per year since 2010. China is now Arizona’s third largest export customer (after Mexico and Canada). In 2019, Arizona exported $1.1 billion worth of manufactured goods to China (to include $385 million worth of semiconductors and components, $138 million in aerospace products and parts, and $71 million worth of navigational and measurement instruments). According to the Council’s 2020 report, “Arizona exports to China supported 14,700 American jobs in 2018,” although it did not specify how many of these jobs are in Arizona.[4]

But the news isn’t all good. A 2020 report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found Arizona had experienced 65,800 net jobs displaced because of the U.S. – China goods trade deficit (2.28% of the state’s total estimated workforce) between 2013 and 2017. These job losses were spread across each of Arizona’s Congressional districts: [5]






1 3,900
2 3,800
3 5,400
4 4,500
5 14,200
6 7,900
7 7,200
8 7,300
9 11,600
TOTAL 65,800

Assuming Arizona – China trade does in fact support 14,700 jobs in Arizona, the EPI study suggests Arizona has actually lost an aggregate of 51,100 jobs due to the U.S.- China trade deficit – largely driven by Chinese predatory trade practices and unwillingness to abide by World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations.[6]

Chinese leaders probably do not share Governor Ducey’s vision of a “21st Century Economy” beneficial to the people of Arizona. China “does not seek to participate as an equal in the existing [international] order. Instead, it seeks to lead a China-centric order where China’s interests come first, and other countries are left to fight for what little is left.[7] According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “China will remain the top threat to United States technological competitiveness.[8]

Much of this threat takes the form of economic espionage. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about 80 percent of all economic espionage prosecutions allege conduct that would benefit the Chinese state, and there is at least some nexus to China in around 60 percent.


[1] Office of the Governor, “21st Century Economy,” 21st Century Economy | Office of the Arizona Governor (, accessed May 10, 2021.
[2] Hong Xiao and Zhang Yu’an, “Arizona Looks to Sweeten China Ties,” China Daily, July 19, 2017, Arizona looks to sweeten China ties – USA –, accessed May 10, 2021. The China Daily video of Governor Ducey’s interview is posted at ducey china daily global – Yahoo Video Search Results, accessed May 11, 2021.
[3] China Daily USA, “Governors Hail Strong Ties with China,” November 8, 2017, Governors hail strong ties with China – USA –, accessed May 10, 2021.
[4] U.S. – China Business Council, 2020 State Export Report: Goods and Services Exports to China by US States to China Over the Past Decade, April 2020, 25, 2020 State Export Report (, accessed May 10, 2021.
[5] Robert E. Scott and Zane Mokhiber, Growing Chinese Trade Deficit Cost 3.7 Million American Jobs Between 2001 and 2008 (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2020), 58,  Growing China trade deficit cost 3.7 million American jobs between 2001 and 2018: Jobs lost in every U.S. state and congressional district | Economic Policy Institute (, accessed May 10, 2021.
[6]  Ibid., 1.
[7] Lieutenant Colonel John Schaus, Brian Evans, and Colonel Elizabeth Martin, A Changing Indo-Pacific Region: Growing Complexity for the Six Anchor Nations, Indo-Pacific Theater Design Working Paper 2 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, September 2020), 3-4;  A Changing Indo-Pacific Region: The Anchor Partners (, accessed December 30, 2020.
[8] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community (Washington, DC: April 9, 2021), 7, ATA-2021-Unclassified-Report.pdf (, accessed May 10,2021.

Additional References:
[1] Robert E. Scott and Zane Mokhiber, Growing Chinese Trade Deficit Cost 3.7 Million American Jobs Between 2001 and 2008 (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2020), 58,  Growing China trade deficit cost 3.7 million American jobs between 2001 and 2018: Jobs lost in every U.S. state and congressional district | Economic Policy Institute (, accessed May 10, 2021.
[1]  Ibid., 1.
[1] Lieutenant Colonel John Schaus, Brian Evans, and Colonel Elizabeth Martin, A Changing Indo-Pacific Region: Growing Complexity for the Six Anchor Nations, Indo-Pacific Theater Design Working Paper 2 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, September 2020), 3-4;  A Changing Indo-Pacific Region: The Anchor Partners (, accessed December 30, 2020.
[1] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community (Washington, DC: April 9, 2021), 7, ATA-2021-Unclassified-Report.pdf (, accessed May 10,2021.

A Letter to Prescott’s Daily Courier Editor about HR-1 and the Cloward Piven Plan

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute


The Democrat Party is opposed to strict voter registration and voting laws, especially Voter ID. This includes one of the foundational organizations that make up the Democrat Party, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Yet, when I was a member of the NAACP, I was required to present a photo ID to vote in the internal elections of the organization. And one needs a valid ID to attend Democrat Party conventions. Both organizations are not going to let fraud determine THEIR election outcomes.

So why are Democrats passing HR-1? It is the fulfillment of a Democratic Party dream since the 1960s, when Marxists and Democratic Party activists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven established a plan to overthrow the U.S. government. Their plan included:

1.) Implementation of “Motor Voter” laws, same day voter registration, ballot harvesting, and mail in voting without voter ID. All are in HR-1, as are other anti-democratic components, eliminating the integrity and security of our elections.

2.) Pit races against each other causing hatred and chaos. Today we have Critical Race Theory and “systemic racism” taught in our schools, government agencies, and even major corporations.

3.) Implement welfare programs that bankrupt the government, enhancing chaos and hatred among various identity groups. Our federal deficit is now approximately $30 Trillion and growing and the Biden administration is preparing another $3 Trillion spending plan.

Democrats have added control of the media, “cancel culture”, and unrestricted illegal immigration adding millions of people, eventually diluting the votes of legal citizens to this toxic mix.

Bringing all this together, Democrats believe “The Transformation of America” is at hand.

Meet the Swiss Billionaire Behind Arabella Advisors’ “Dark Money” Empire

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel recently revealed the efforts by Swiss billionaire and leftist mega-donor Hansjörg Wyss to purchase the parent company of the Chicago Tribune and other failing newspapers around the country. It’s laudable to see such genuine investigative journalism—especially since it likely led the billionaire to withdraw his $100 million bid. When so many framed Wyss as a liberal white knight bent on saving a venerable American industry, the reality couldn’t have been more different.

Concrete Ethics

The Swiss-born Wyss made his fortune as the head of Synthes USA, a major medical implants and biomaterials manufacturer he built from practically nothing and sold to Johnson & Johnson in 2012 for $19.7 billion. Today, Wyss is worth an estimated $8.5 billion.

Yet his success is marred by ghoulish controversy. In 2009, Synthes USA—with Wyss at its head—was charged by Philadelphia’s U.S. attorney with running an illegal clinical trial on humans: Injecting them with a cement that turns to bone inside the human skeleton. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly told the company not to use the cement during spine surgeries. Synthes ignored the warning, and five people died as a result.

Four of Synthes’ top executives were ultimately sentenced to prison. One wonders if liberal billionaire privilege saved Wyss from sharing the blame—he wasn’t charged by prosecutors—but he’s been accused of purposefully ignoring clinical trials and of being a “hands-on,” “forceful,” “800-pound gorilla” who allowed little dissent in the ranks.

Despite his highly questionable ethics, Wyss is beloved among activists as a major donor to left-wing causes through his Wyss Foundation (2018 assets: $2.2 billion). Yet far from practicing old-fashioned philanthropy, the Wyss Foundation is as political as they come—just take its ties to the $731 million “dark money” network run by Arabella Advisors in Washington, DC.

Arabella runs four in-house nonprofits, all of which specialize in attacking Republicans, tilting elections, and passing radical legislation. Each of these nonprofits manages a host of “pop-up” groups, websites designed to fool viewers into believing they’re grassroots activist groups. To date, Capital Research Center has identified hundreds of such “pop-ups.”

What’s clear after studying this network over the past two years is that it’s the height of professional left-wing activism. When a donor goes to Arabella, they’re expecting a political payoff.

The Hub Project

The Wyss Foundation has funneled nearly $57 million into the New Venture Fund, Arabella’s flagship 501(c)(3), since 2009.

Little is known about how that money was spent. But a 2015 document created for the Wyss Foundation outlines a plan for a “communications hub”—intended to support the foundation’s “core issue areas,” “drive measurable change,” and achieve “significant wins” “leading to implementation of policy solutions at the local, state, and federal level”—which is strikingly similar to an existing Arabella group, the Hub Project.

Politico reports the Hub Project aided Democrats on “health care, taxes and the economy” in the 2018 midterm elections. The Atlantic cheerfully credits the Hub Project with doing “remarkable damage” to President Trump’s reputation among Wisconsin voters in the lead-up to the 2020 election. In April the group hired a campaign director whose last job was flipping the Senate in 2020 for a top Democratic PAC.

Yet because it’s a project of the Arabella-run Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Hub Project doesn’t disclose its funding and budgets or file Form 990 reports with the IRS. Arabella’s activism is the very definition of “dark money” that so many liberals claim to dread.

Politics Is Philanthropy

Arabella’s darkness also obscures just how much Hansjörg Wyss—a would-be media magnate who could use the Tribune to influence election outcomes—poured into this partisan group. Wyss has done it before: In 2019, his foundation granted $1 million to States Newsroom, a bundle of partisan attack sites posing as impartial news outlets that was spawned by Arabella.

Add to that this foreign national’s track record of meddling in American elections, contributing $41,000 to Democratic PACs in violation of the federal government’s strict ban on foreign nationals giving to U.S. political campaigns.

What could he do with one of the nation’s most powerful newspapers at his disposal?

Just four years ago, the threat of foreign nationals influencing our elections through fake news outlets was the worst conceivable horror on Earth. It’s liberals who should have been the loudest opponents of Wyss’s efforts to take over the media. So where were they? With the powerful exception of Mr. Vogel, they were nowhere to be seen.

We may never know how much damage this foreign billionaire’s “philanthropy” has really caused our republic. But what should be obvious is that, to the Left, politics is philanthropy—and if liberal billionaires get their way, it’s coming to a newspaper near you.


This article was published on April 22, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research.

China’s Push for Global Power

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes


One of the unique aspects of the United States Intelligence Community is that it often publishes its collective thinking in the public domain. Each year, for instance, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence produces an unclassified version of a report of worldwide threats to the U.S. which reflects the collective insights of the Intelligence Community concerning the most direct, serious threats to the nation over the coming year.

In this year’s report, which was publicly released on 9 April (ATA-2021-Unclassified-Report.pdf (, China ranked high in Community interest. The report characterized China as an “increasingly…near-peer competitor, challenging the United States in multiple arenas – especially economically, militarily, and technologically – and [as]…pushing to change global norms.”

Key points from the China section of the report, headlined “China’s Push for Global Power” (with some light editing for wording and order of presentation), included the following:

• China is increasingly combining its growing military power with its economic, technological, and diplomatic clout to preserve the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), secure what it views as its territory and regional preeminence, and pursue international cooperation at the United States’ expense. The CCP will continue its whole-of-government efforts to spread China’s influence, undercut that of the U.S., drive wedges between Washington and its allies and partners, and foster new international norms that favor the authoritarian Chinese system.

• China has been intensifying efforts to shape the political environment in the United States to promote its policy preferences, mold public discourse, pressure political figures whom the CCP believes oppose its interests, and muffle criticism of China on such issues as religious freedom and the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong.

• China will remain the top threat to United States technological competitiveness as the CCP targets key technology sectors and proprietary commercial and military technology from U.S. and allied companies and research institutions associated with defense, energy, finance, and other sectors. China uses a variety of tools, from public investment to espionage and theft, to advance its technological capabilities.

• China is building a larger and increasingly capable nuclear missile force that is more survivable, more diverse, and on higher alert than in the past, including nuclear missile systems designed to manage regional escalation and ensure an intercontinental second-strike capability. China will continue the most rapid expansion and platform diversification of its nuclear arsenal in its history, intending to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile during the next decade and to field a nuclear triad. China is not interested in arms control agreements that restrict its modernization plans and will not agree to substantive negotiations that lock in U.S. or Russian nuclear advantages.

China is working to match or exceed U.S. capabilities in space to gain the military, economic, and prestige benefits that Washington has accrued from space leadership. Counterspace operations will be integral to potential military campaigns by the People’s Liberation Army, and China has counterspace weapons capabilities intended to target U.S. and allied satellites.

• China presents a prolific and effective cyber-espionage threat, possesses substantial cyber-attack capabilities, and presents a growing influence threat. China’s cyber pursuits and proliferation of related technologies increase the threats of cyber attacks against the U.S. homeland, suppression of U.S. web content the CCP views as threatening to its internal ideological control, and the expansion of technology-driven authoritarianism around the world.

• China will continue expanding its global intelligence footprint to better support its growing political, economic, and security interests around the world, increasingly challenging the United States’ alliances and partnerships.

China’s Strange Endorsement of “Net Zero”

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

You have to hand it to Xi Jinping. The Chinese “president for life” last September schmoozed the royalty of the United Nations with his unexpected pledge that his country aims “to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality (Net Zero) before 2060.”

Xi then urged other nations “to pursue innovative, coordinated, green and open development for all” through rapid deployment of new technologies so as to “achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era and thus create a powerful force driving sustainable development.”

The eloquent sage, confident that the mantle of world leadership was passing from the United States into his hands, concluded his prepared remarks as follows:

The baton of history has been passed to our generation, and we must make the right choice, a choice worthy of the people’s trust and of our times. Let us join hands to uphold the values of peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom shared by all of us and build a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for mankind. Together, we can make the world a better place for everyone.”

And just how is China preparing itself for Net Zero?

The London-based energy and climate research group Ember reports that China generated 53 percent of the world’s total coal-fired power in 2020, a jump of 9 percent from 2015, while adding 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power installations in 2020 alone. China is also financing billions of dollars worth of coal-fired power plants in other “developing” nations.

[It should be noted that in 2020 China also added a record 71.7 GW of wind power and 48.2 GW of solar. And China has set a goal of 70 GW of installed nuclear energy by 2025. But “progress is nowhere near fast enough,” according to Ember power analyst Dave Jones. Jones added that “coal power needs to collapse by 80 percent by 2030 to avoid dangerous levels of warming.” Or so he believes.]

Analysis by the Asia Society Policy Institute and Climate Analytics, as reported in Climate Change News, indicates that to reach the Paris Agreement’s goal of 1.5o C temperature reduction by 2060, China would have to achieve peak CO2 emissions by 2025 and rapidly reduce them thereafter, with a total phaseout of coal-fired power by 2040.

Yet, according to the Renewable Energy Institute, the typical coal-fired power plant has a lifespan of about 40 years. Would China throw away massive investments just to kowtow to the UN? Zhang Shuwei, chief economist for the Draworld Environment Research Center, claims Chinese coal may have to absorb over $300 billion in stranded assets if the nation follows through and undertakes a “cliff fall of coal power generation after 2030.”

But, as the New York Post recently editorialized, China’s betrayal of its commitment to Hong Kong, together with its duplicity regarding the COVID pandemic and its dissembling on treatment of the Uighurs, signals that the Middle Kingdom cannot be trusted to keep its word. The trampling of Hong Kong’s freedoms, the paper argues, demonstrates that there is no point negotiating with the Chinese Communist Party on long-term issues like climate change.

Agence France-Presse reported in March that China’s latest five-year plan increases investment in coal and omits any cap on total energy consumption. Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, compares Xi’s words with China’s deeds, stating that, “The central contradiction between expanding the smokestack economy and promoting green growth appears unresolved.”

Similarly, Japanese journalists also question China’s commitment to the Green economy – in contrast to the “excellent” responses of Japan and its Western allies (despite the fact that new Japanese coal plants in 2020 exceeded retirements and that high-efficiency coal plants are unlikely to disappear soon. [The Japanese in their zeal to single out China ignored the fact that India and many other nations are also beefing up coal mining and power generation.]

Other journalists are equally offended at China’s apparent duplicity. Michael Standaert, a China-based free-lancer, wrote in Yale E360under the headline, “Despite pledges to cut emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Standaert argued that there is a “real and figurative haze about how strong [China’s] climate ambitions really are and how quickly the country can wean itself from … coal.” [When Mother Jones reposted Standaert’s article, the headline read in part, “China Is Bingeing on Coal.”]

Vox correspondent Lili Pike provides a backstory excuse for China’s seemingly odd behavior. She notes that China’s provinces, who gained authority to approve new power plants in 2014, see new coal plants as a way to boost their GDP and provide jobs. The economic slowdowns linked to COVID provided extra incentives for these provincial plants.

Perhaps Vox thinks that, once the provincial economies are rolling along, they will recognize their bad investments and shutter their coal plants almost immediately. Perhaps pigs will fly.

China’s “slouching towards Net Zero” approach belies the panicked warnings of UN

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who insists “the climate emergency” — the defining crisis of our time — is happening even more quickly than we feared. It “is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win.”

Guterres made a toothless plea to China last July to stop building new coal plants, but he giddily applauded Xi’s rhetoric in September. Xi has also won praise from mega-billionaire Bill Gates, who in a February 2021 interview with China Daily gushed over China’s “determination” to prioritize the climate and its contributions to carbon reduction.

According to Gates, “It’s great that President Xi is making climate a priority and wants to work with other countries on this…. Without the contributions of China, many of the key ingredients (in fighting climate change) like the batteries and solar power wouldn’t be so affordable.” [We’re on the same team, babee!]

In the real world, not every environmental disaster prediction has come true – actually, hardly any of them have. Paul Ehrlich’s best-seller, The Population Bomb, opened with this frightful bit of “news”:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Today, we have the wisdom of apparent REM fan Greta Thunberg: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change…. Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” In criticizing China for detaining a young Chinese “climate striker,” Thunberg added, “Billions of people will die, and children will die while parents lose their jobs!”

Stop it, President Xi! You are making her cry!

But perhaps Xi Jinping knows Greta is dead right. Perhaps he knows it is too late to save the planet. So why not just “binge” on coal, keep the peasants happy, and stay in office until the end. Maybe Xi has read the tea leaves, or the astronomical charts, and rightly foresees the second coming of the killer asteroid.

Or maybe he figures that by 2030 the whole world will be under his control.


This article was published April 14, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow at CFACT.

Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021.

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the U.S. lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. The vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

But the radical Left has proved resilient and enduring—which is where critical race theory comes in.


Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.


What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented towards broadly-held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states, even in red states, and it is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.


Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this……

Continue reading this article at and consider supporting Hillsdale College Imprimis publications.


Christopher F. Rufo is founder and director of Battlefront, a public policy research center. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and a former Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. As executive director at the Documentary Foundation, he has directed four films for PBS, including most recently America Lost, which explores life in Youngstown, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Stockton, California. He is also a contributing editor of City Journal, where he covers topics including critical race theory, homelessness, addiction, and crime.

China’s Espionage Assault on the United States

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

In an earlier article, I discussed the meaning behind the “China Dream” of “rejuvenating” China as a great power – which essentially means supplanting the United States to create an authoritarian, China-centric global system (What Does China Want? Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” . In pursuit this objective, China uses all of its instruments of national power, to include a broad range of sophisticated intelligence capabilities, to target the United States. (1) James Andrew Lewis, Senior Vice President and Director of the Technology Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has characterized the United States as being engaged “in a massive, undeclared espionage battle with China, by China’s choice.” (2)

While strategic competition between the U.S. and China is driven by a complex mix of issues – security, defense, economic, diplomatic, and ideological – the “intelligence relationship [between the two countries] serves as a barometer of the larger political relationship.” (3) Given that espionage is a normal and accepted feature of the international environment, Chinese intelligence operations against the United States have been particularly virulent. Speaking before the Aspen Security Forum in 2018, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray characterized China as the largest, most concerning intelligence threat to the United States:

China, from a counterintelligence perspective, in many ways, represents the broadest, most challenging, most significant threat we face as a country…. It is economic espionage as well as traditional espionage; it is nontraditional collectors as well as traditional intelligence operatives; it’s human sources as well as cyber means. We have economic espionage investigations in every state, all 50 states, that trace back to China. It covers everything from corn seeds in Iowa to wind turbines in Massachusetts and everything in between. So, the volume of it, the pervasiveness of it, the significance of it, is something I think this country cannot underestimate. (4)

Director Wray’s comments reflected U.S. intelligence officials and policy makers’ growing recognition and concern with the broad scope and nature of the Chinese espionage threat.  In its 2016 report to Congress, the U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission found that:

Chinese intelligence collection operations against the United States pose a large and increasing threat to U.S. national security. Reports of these operations have increased sharply over the past 15 years. China has targeted a wide range of U.S. national security organizations, including military forces, defense industrial entities, national security decision-makers and government organizations, and critical infrastructure entities….Chinese intelligence services seek to collect a wide range of information, from second-hand and unclassified information to classified information extracted directly from operatives within leading U.S. national security organizations….Chinese intelligence has repeatedly infiltrated U.S. national security organizations and extracted information with serious consequences for U.S. national security, including information on the plans and operations of U.S. military forces and the designs of U.S. weapons and weapons systems. (5)

In 2017, the Commission reported that China “continues to conduct pervasive industrial espionage against U.S. companies, universities, and the government and direct efforts to circumvent U.S. export controls to gain access to cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property in strategic sectors.” (6)

Chinese intelligence operations targeting the United States are broadly scoped and employ a wide range of traditional and non-traditional intelligence collectors and methods. In 2018, the Director of the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center stated, “China will continue actively targeting the U.S. Government, its allies, and U.S. companies for cyber espionage.” (7) In 2019, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence stated China is “playing the long game, finding our weak points, using any means possible…to steal our data, plans, and technologies.” (8) Also in 2019, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence assessed that “China’s intelligence services will exploit the openness of American society, especially academia and the scientific community, using a variety of means.  China, in particular, “presents a persistent cyber-espionage threat…[and] remains the most active strategic competitor responsible for cyber espionage against the U.S. Government, corporations, and allies.”  The Chinese government, said the DNI, “will authorize cyber espionage against key U.S. technology sectors when doing so addresses a significant national security or economic goal not achievable through other means.” (9)

An analysis of 152 publicly reported instances of Chinese espionage directed at the United States between 2000 and 2020 conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that:

  • 45% of actors were Chinese military or government employees.
  • 30% were private Chinese citizens.
  • 33% involved non-Chinese actors (usually U.S. persons recruited by Chinese officials).
  • 14% of incidents sought to acquire information on U.S. civilian agencies or politicians.
  • 38% of incidents sought to acquire military technology.
  • 48% of incidents sought to acquire commercial technologies. (10)

 As this analysis suggests, much Chinese espionage directed against the United States serves China’s economic and technology acquisition goals. The 2020 U.S. National Counterintelligence Strategy recognized the threat posed by a “more powerful and emboldened China” that is “increasingly asserting itself by stealing our technology and intellectual property in an effort to erode United States economic and military superiority.” (11) According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about 80 percent of all economic espionage prosecutions allege conduct hat would benefit the Chinese state, and there is at least some nexus to China in around 60 percent of all trade secret theft cases. (12)

We should not expect the China threat, or the threat posed by Chinese espionage, to abate anytime soon.    At his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called China “the most significant threat going forward.” China is “already a regional hegemon,” he said, and it seeks to become “the preeminent power in the world in the not too-distant future.” (13) In its 2021 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence characterized China as “increasingly…a near-peer competitor, challenging the United States in multiple arenas – especially economically, militarily, and technologically – and is pushing to change global norms.” (14)

China, the report continued, “will remain the top threat to U.S. technological competitiveness as the [Chinese Communist Party] targets key technology sectors and proprietary commercial and military technology from U.S. and allied companies and research institutions associated with defense, energy, finance, and other sectors.” (15) For the foreseeable future then, we should expect China’s aggressive pursuit of espionage – particularly against economic and technological targets – to remain a pervasive and critical threat to U.S. national security.

(1) National Counterintelligence and Security Center, National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States of America, 2020 – 2022 (Washington, DC: 2020), 2,, accessed April 19, 2021.
(2) James Andrew Lewis, “Responding to Chinese Espionage,” Commentary, Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2, 2018,, accessed April 19, 2021.
 (3) Susan V. Lawrence and Karen M. Sutter, China Primer: U.S.-China Relations, IF 10119, Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Updated March 3, 2021), 1,, accessed April 19, 2021; Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, 5th Ed. (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012), 353.
(4) Tara Francis Chan, “FBI director calls China ‘the broadest, most significant’ threat to the US and says its espionage is active in all 50 states,” Business Insider, July 18, 2018,, accessed April 19, 2021.
(5) U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2016 Report to Congress: Executive Summary and Recommendations (Washington, DC: 2016), 13,, accessed April 19, 2021.
 (6) U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2017 Report to Congress: Executive Summary and Recommendations (Washington, DC: 2017), 22,, accessed April 19, 2021.
(7) National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Strategic Plan, 2018 – 2022 (Washington, DC: 2018), 1,, accessed April 19, 2021.
(8) Remarks by Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Kari Bingen, “October 1 Marks New Start for DCSA,” DCSA Access 19 / 1 (January 2020), 6,, accessed April 19, 2021.
(9) Daniel R. Coats, Director of National Intelligence, Statement for the Record, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 29, 2019,—SSCI.pdf, accessed April 19, 2021.
(10) Center for Strategic and International Studies, Survey of Chinese-linked Espionage in the United States Since 2000, Survey of Chinese-linked Espionage in the United States Since 2000 | Center for Strategic and International Studies (, accessed April 18, 2021.
 (11) National Counterintelligence and Security Center, National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States of America, 2020 – 2022.
(12) United States Department of Justice, Information About the Department of Justice’s China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018, (Updated March 9, 2021),, accessed April 19, 2021.
(13) Lawrence and Sutter, China Primer: U.S.-China Relations, 1.
 (14) Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, April 9, 2021, 4;7; ATA-2021-Unclassified-Report.pdf (, accessed April 19, 2021.
(15) Ibid.


The author is a retired U.S. Army officer and a retired civilian employee of the U.S. Department of Defense. He holds an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint Military Intelligence College (now National Intelligence University), and an MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College. His published work has appeared in The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, Parameters, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the International Bulletin of Political Psychology.

Cities, Countries, and Economies Were Built With Derivatives From Oil, Not By Electricity

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Before world leaders move too fast to consummate their climate policies, they need to be cognizant of two “aha” moments: 1) wind and solar can only generate intermittent electricity, and 2) electricity cannot manufacture the oil derivatives that are the basis of the thousands of products that have built the world’s cities, countries, and economies over the last 200 years.

Can you imagine primitive man with an abundance of wind and solar electricity and nothing to power! Imagine living with Just GREEN Electricity.

Interestingly, for more than two centuries the most important benefits to humanity from fossil fuels is the oil derivatives, that electricity CANNOT provide, and NOT the fuels that can be manufactured for the transportation and military infrastructures.

The world has had more than 200 years to develop clones or generics to replace the crude oil derivatives that are the foundation of all the products demanded by lifestyles and economies around the world. Wind and solar are not only incapable of manufacturing any such derivatives, but the manufacturing of wind and solar components are themselves 100 percent dependent on the derivatives made from crude oil.

Ever since the beginning of manufacturing and assembly of cars, trucks, airplanes, and military equipment in the early 1900’s, and the discovery of the versatility of products that could be made from petroleum derivatives, the world has had almost 200 years to develop clones or generics to replace the crude oil derivatives that account for more than 6,000 products that are the basis of lifestyles and economies of the healthier and wealthier countries around the world.

The big push for more wind and solar generated intermittent electricity does not look promising as finding the land for all that intermittent electricity generations will not be easy. Opposition is growing to solar and wind farms from rural landowners and conservationists, as states work to meet their climate goals. Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law released a report in February 2021 that found local governments in 31 states have already adopted at least 100 ordinances blocking or restricting new intermittent electricity facilities.

The current passion to implement a world with only intermittent electricity is oblivious to the unintended consequences of a world without fossil fuels. The signatories to the green movement have failed to imagine how life was without that industry that did not exist before 1900 when we had, NO medications and medical equipment, NO vaccines, NO water filtration systems, NO sanitation systems, NO fertilizers to help feed billions, NO pesticides to control locusts and other pests, NO communications systems, including cell phones, computers, iPhones, and iPads, NO vehicles, NO airlines that now move 4 billion people around the world, NO cruise ships that now move 25 million passengers around the world, NO merchant ships that are now moving billions of dollars of products monthly throughout the world, NO tires for vehicles, and NO asphalt for roads, and NO space program.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was almost like living in the 1800’s with virtually no transportation systems, BUT and that’s a BIG BUT, we were able to survive the quarantine as we benefited from all those products derived from the derivatives from oil that produced all the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems, mechanical ventilators, exhalation valves, inhalation valves, CT systems, X-ray, medicines, masks, gloves, soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals, and protective gowns, gloves and face shields gear for doctors and nurses. All those products begin from crude oil, or as the Wall Street Journal states – “Big Oil to the Coronavirus Rescue.” Vaccines need refrigeration, and refrigeration need electricity, especially in the hospital sector where redundant generation capacity is a mandate.

All the electronics and communications equipment that allowed us to work virtually are powered by electricity but are all “made” with the derivatives from petroleum that did not exist before 1900.

Before 1900 the world had no medications, electronics, cosmetics, plastics, fertilizers, transportation, and military infrastructures. Looking back just a few short centuries, we have come a long way since the pioneer days.

Also, before 1900, the world had very little commerce and without transportation there is no commerce. The two prime movers that have done more for the cause of globalization than any other: the diesel engine and the jet turbine, both get their fuels from oil. Road and air travel now dominate most people’s lives.

In case you do not remember, we also had virtually no military aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, planes, and tanks around the world before 1900. Both WW I and II were won by the Allies, as they had more oil, petroleum, and coal than the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan to operate their military equipment, move troop convoys, and supplies around the world.

Today, oil and gas is not just an American business with a few refineries in the country, but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide of the suppliers that meet global demands. There are also 62,500 power plants around the world operating today, all types, generating electricity for the world’s inhabitants. Of that total, more than 2,449 are coal-fired power plants and more than 546 new coal power plants being built worldwide.

America has about four percent of the world’s population (330 million vs. 8 billion), yet a major focus of America’s climate policies has been targeted toward the oil and natural gas industry that was virtually non-existent before 1900.

1. The world continues to manufacture the following to meet demands of societies:

The oil derivatives that are the basis of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and plastics for cell phones, computers, car bodies, packaging, wind turbine blades, solar panel films and the thousands of other products manufactured from the petroleum derivatives that wind and solar are incapable of manufacturing.

2. The transportation fuels necessary to support

  • Commercial aviation, with 25,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that has been accommodating 4.4 billion passengers annually.
  • The 56,000 merchant ships that support international trade.
  • Worldwide military presence that protects each country from each other, is increasing each year to save the world. The fossil fuel energy needs for the worlds’ non-nuclear military equipment of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, troop carriers, and weaponry.

To keep economies, lifestyles, and prosperity continuing their growth among humanity, the world’s focus should be toward the development of clones or generics to the oil derivatives that have made possible the robust economies and humanity living standards of today, and not just on expansion of intermittent electricity generation from wind and solar.


This article was published on April 8, 2021 and is reproduced by permission from CFACT.

Democrats Play a Cynical Game at the Border

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

America has a border wall that is very efficient at keeping out intruders. It hasn’t been breached once in over three months.

Unfortunately, it protects only our political elites at the US Capitol, who are under minimal threat. Other Americans must make do with a wall that is highly porous, that leaks multitudes of illegal immigrants daily, including everything from petty criminals making life miserable for border residents to murderous cartel members.

Americans not living in a cave know we have a hot mess on our southern border. Fired up by Biden‘s not-so-subtle invitation to come in, hordes of migrants began forming caravans even before his inauguration.

175,000 immigrants in March alone overwhelmed border patrol agents, with unknown additional numbers sneaking across. Overcrowded facilities at the border are so deplorable that even reporters and congressmen are denied access.

Worse, 20,000 unaccompanied minors were in custody at last count. From the appearance of their accommodations, kids in cages are back big time.

Economic migration of would-be breadwinners has been replaced by families and children, because of an inane policy requiring all minors who present at the border to be automatically admitted. The Biden administration claims to be strictly enforcing immigration laws, but only 10 of 20 percent are refused admission.

The majority of illegal immigrants are released into the US population with status pending a court date far in the future.  “Asylum-seekers“ rarely prevail in court.  Understandably, few risk deportation by showing up.

Meanwhile, busloads of migrants empty out into hapless desert towns like Ajo and Gila Bend, which have absolutely no capability to provide the (free) food and accommodations expected. Some are sent to military bases where the US Armed Forces are deployed to care and provide for them. Migrants not admitted construct tent cities at the border and feel entitled to refuse to move until their “demands“ are met.

This is clearly a humanitarian crisis and a serious security threat. Even some leaders of the immigrants’ home countries object. Yet the response of the Biden administration has been a preternatural calmness.

They have made no effort to prevent the masses from coming. They spent great amounts of political capital on avoiding the word “crisis“ to describe the crisis. They have worked hard to keep us from knowing or seeing the ghastly details.

They have contended that it’s “Trump’s fault”, which is truly laughable. Border crossings were controlled during his tenure. All hell broke loose only when they foolishly reversed the previous administration’s policies.

To control the debacle, Biden appointed his VP.  But Kamala Harris has so far not even attempted to appear interested, literally laughing at the suggestion that she might even visit the border.

But c’mon man. There is only one explanation that makes any sense: Democratic dreams of millions of new easily controlled voters.  Where reasonable people see uneducated, low-skilled workers who broke our law, don’t speak our language and have no intention of sharing our history and values, Democrat leaders see future Democrats. No price is too great to pay in pursuit of an assured political future.

The suffering at the border is of no apparent concern. Known terrorists and cartel members slipping in? Children found abandoned in the desert? Unfair competition with American workers in a tight market for low-end labor? None of it matters.

The only point of the drill is to somehow get these future Dems physically into the country. Then nothing happens when they skip their court hearings, get “papers“ for jobs and government benefits and over-run welfare and justice systems.

Before long we’ll be hearing amnesty is the only possible course because, like the DACA recipients, they have been here for so long, they know no other home, there are too many to send back, blah, blah. An undemanding “pathway to citizenship“ will be the only humane solution. We’ll probably be promised enhanced border security (again) if we go along.

Up to 20 million illegal aliens already live in the US. Biden’s number is for 2 million more per year. America is a welcoming country that wants and needs a sound immigration system. We just don’t need this one.


Thomas C. Patterson, MD is a retired Emergency Medicine physician, Arizona state Senator and Arizona Senate Majority Leader in the ’90s. He is a former Chairman, Goldwater Institute.

Arizona News – April 10, 2021

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Governor Ducey Should Follow The Science By Signing The “Mask Freedom” Bill

Democrats Play The Long Game At The Border

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill In Opposition To H.R.1

March Saw Record-High Number Of Unaccompanied Minors Stopped At Border

Sheriffs Turn Up Heat On White House Immigration Policies

Arizona Sheriffs Join Over 270 Colleagues In Urging Biden Administration To Secure The Border

More Panic in Maricopa: Threats to Sue Ballot Auditors