Do Parents Have a Say In Their Kids Curriculum?

Skirmishes are erupting across America over parental involvement in the curriculum of public schools. Teachers unions and many school boards are crusading for their right to exercise control over what a child learns. Parents are pushing back, fighting for the imperative to influence curriculum content for their kids.

The confrontation over the competing ideas on education is sparking a national debate that first ignited in Virginia and has spread like a wildfire from big cities to rural school districts. Online learning during the pandemic, opened the eyes of many parents, who were vaguely aware of what their kids were taught.

The New York Times, in an effort to sabotage the nascent parental movement, echoed the arguments of an education establishment invested in mandating every aspect of a child's learning. The Times headline could have been written by the establishment:

"Parents claim they have the right to shape their kids school curriculum.  They don't"

The Times authors conceded that parents have an obligation to raise and educate their children. Then the writers added: "This right, however, does not mean that public schools must cater to parents individual ideas about education."

In The Times view, parents can send their children to private schools if they don't like the curriculum.  This patrician attitude is exactly what is wrong with today's educators, teachers and schools.  If parents don't like what their kids are being taught, then find another school.  If only most parents had that option.

Teachers unions are chagrined that any parent has the audacity to tell an educator what content might be inappropriate for their children. Unions view parental involvement as a nuisance.  Here's a sample:

"In our constitutional order, children's freedoms take priority over parental freedoms.  Given the overriding importance of schooling to democracy, our laws elevate and protect the rights of children to learn and to grow as citizens," the educational lobby insists.

Educational elitists compare the current wave of parental 'interference' to segregation.  In that era, they claim parents fought to preserve racial division in schools. With Critical Race Theory a current lightning rod for parents, the education establishment is playing the race card to silence dissent.

Ironically, African-American parents as well of those of mixed-raced children are among the most vocal opponents.  A Nevada mother of a mixed-race son sued the public school over a curriculum that teaches Critical Race Theory tenants, which elevate racial identity over individuality. 

Despite the Times claims, unions and educators are on the wrong side of the law.  Federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the rights of parents to be involved in their children's education. They are in charge of their child's learning, not unelected teachers, education bureaucrats or unions.

In 1925, the Supreme Court in the case of Pierce versus the Society of Sisters ruled: "The child is not the mere creature of the state...the state of Oregon, by forcing parents to place their children in public schools, unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians..."

Although educators dismiss the nearly century-old decision as outdated, the court's ruling has been cited in more than a 100 Supreme Court decisions and nearly 70 by lower courts. The concept is enshrined in American education.  Why change it now?  What is different today?  What are educators afraid of?

In 1978, the Congress passed a federal law that protects parents right to review curriculum.  The law, in the form of an amendment to existing legislation, is known as the "Protection of Parents Rights." Under the act, parents have the right to review a copy of their child's curriculum.

Despite the rulings, courts continue to tinker with the right of parental involvement in education. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court in Fields versus Palmdale School District ruled the foundational right to control the upbringing of a child "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

The education establishment usurps the ruling to justify its efforts to fend off the parental movement.  With air cover provided by the legacy media, the establishment has mounted a disinformation campaign to brand parents efforts as anti-LGBTQ, anti-African American and anti-sex-education.

In addition, the education establishment blames conservatives for using this as a hot button political issue, while accusing them of not being interested in the welfare of children. Despite the bluster, the education fraternity is losing because many states have moved to expand parental involvement in education.

Indiana, Georgia, Florida and Texas--to name a few--have seized the initiative to fashion new laws to reinforce the rights of parents to be the primary decision makers in all matters involving their children. That includes protecting children from age-inappropriate classroom materials.

In Georgia, the House version of a parental right bill gives parents the right to review all classroom materials, the right to access all records relating to their children, bans the teaching of "divisive concepts" on race and prohibits transgender girls from playing on girls sports teams.

Democrats claim the bills are election fodder for Republicans and nothing more without acknowledging the right of parents to be involved in the education of their children.  They allege the movement could worsen an antagonistic relationship between parents and teachers.

Notice how parents are painted as the villains.  The education establishment, which contends it values parental involvement, wants to control what students are taught, irrespective of the views of the parents. Education elitists value parents tax dollars but not their rights.

Federal, state and local spending on kindergarten through twelfth grade in the U.S. totaled $734.2 billion in 2021, according to the National Center for Education Studies.  The federal Department of Education contributed $73.5 billion of that amount.  Those billions were paid by parents and those without children.

Taxpayers, especially parents, deserve the right to demand their children get an appropriate education.  Those with the financial means are deciding to pull their children out of  public schools. Eleven percent of students were home schooled last year. Homeschooling leaped five-fold for black families. 

There are 34,576 private schools in the U.S., serving 5.7 million kindergarten through twelfth grade students.  Private education accounts for 25% of the nation's schools and 10% of students. Enrollment is declining in public schools, which lost 1.2 million students at the start of the 2022 school year. 

The education monopoly is showing signs of cracks.  The erosion of support for public schools is hastened by the education establishment's hostile attitude toward parents' request for curriculum transparency.  Ignoring parents will one day doom the public education system to irrelevance.    

Biden's Blame Game For Skyrocketing Gas Prices

President Biden's speech on banning Russian energy was littered with misrepresentations about the oil crisis.  Mr. Biden blamed petroleum firms for excessive oil prices while denying his administration's war on oil and gas was partly responsible.  

Before the announcement, Press Secretary Jen Psaki had spent days brushing off suggestions the president had any intention of sanctioning Russian oil. Her explanation was a ban would pump up gas prices, which would impact Americans.  Her boss wanted to hurt Putin not Americans, she said. 

So why did the president pivot? Mr. Biden was not only being pressured by his own party, but an overwhelming majority of Americans support a ban.  A Wall Street Journal poll prior to the Biden ban found 79% of registered voters, including 88% of Democrats, favored sanctions on Russian oil. 

After finally bowing to political pressure, Mr. Biden savaged Putin in his announcement but saved some of his indignation for the American oil industry.  Here are the three most egregious distortions of the facts from his March 8 speech. Quotes from the official version released by The White House:

"First, it's simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production"

During his first days in office,  President Biden signed executive orders implementing sweeping changes in energy policy.  The chief executive halted new oil and gas leasing and permits on federal lands and offshore.  He also paused the leasing programs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Wyoming.

In addition, the president withdrew permits of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Psaki keeps reminding the media there is no crude in the pipeline, therefore, shutting down construction has no impact. Her explanation may be technically correct, but it's grossly misleading.   

Construction was expected to be completed this year on the $9 billion pipeline from Canada to Nebraska.  Estimates are the pipeline will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil every day to the U.S.  But Biden's administration went even further than Keystone, 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signaled it would reconsider pipeline projects, which would delay the permitting process for natural gas and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. These measures are handcuffing oil and gas producers. 

Perhaps, the most harmful blow to American gas and oil producers was an International Energy Agency report calling for the world to stop drilling for gas and oil immediately.  The report, embraced by the Biden Administration, has ignited an activist movement to strangle investment in oil and natural gas.

Administration supporters have targeted institutional investors, banks and large pension funds to halt oil and gas investments. Shareholder activists put a bullseye on Exxon Mobil, after it announced a hike in oil exploration last year.  Other big oil companies are being hectored to invest less in fossil fuels. 

The activists have succeeded in turning off the spigot for oil producers while instilling uncertainty in the oil industry's future. Without assurances the administration will avoid imposing even harsher restrictions, producers will be hesitant to ramp up exploration or to build new pipelines.

To further discourage exploration and production, Democrats led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have introduced legislation to impose a new tax to punish oil companies. The senator justified the tax as a way to curb what she termed "Big Oil profiteering."

Is there more evidence needed as proof Democrats and their leader President Biden have used everything at their disposal to hobble the oil and gas industry and discourage production? 

"Second this crisis is a stark reminder: To protect our economy over the long term, we need to become energy independent."  

This sound bite suggests Mr. Biden wants America to start producing more energy immediately.  But that is not reality.  His plan is to transition to clean energy, primarily wind turbines and solar. Few oppose clean energy, but the transition will take years if not decades.

In the interim, what is the plan to supply enough energy to run American businesses and supply electricity and gas to households? Higher prices will not only damage the economy but will be a tax on those who can least afford to fill up their vehicles and heat and cool their homes. 

When Mr. Biden came into office, the U.S. was energy independent. For the first time in 50 years, America was producing more oil than it consumed.  The U.S. had a 4% surplus of domestic oil and natural gas production for export. Since then, domestic oil and gas production has fallen to a 4% deficit.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that in February of 2020, before the pandemic, America's crude oil production averaged 12,826 barrels a day.  In 2021, the daily production of crude oil never reached 12,000 barrels. 

If the U.S. was energy independent, the nation could mitigate the world's oil and gas turmoil.  Prices at the pump would still rise because the price of crude oil is set on the global market, however, the U.S. would be more insulated from dramatic spikes by relying on American production rather than foreign sources.    

"They (oil companies) have 9,000 permits to drill now.  They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year.  They have 9,000 to drill onshore that are already approved."

Mr. Biden is either ill informed about the nature of permitting or is deliberately obfuscating the issue to blame oil companies for high gas prices. Oil producers currently hold 9,173 approved permits to drill on federal and Indian lands. Many of the permits were issued under President Trump.

Mr. Biden and Psaki both used the permit issue to create the impression that oil companies are deliberately avoiding drilling. Permits do not guarantee the leased lands hold enough oil to be economically feasible to drill.   In any case, holding a permit is just the first step.

Before drilling for oil, producers must locate an existing pipeline or build a new one to connect to the existing pipeline. Rigs, crews and other equipment must be secured.  Mr. Biden and Psaki made it seem oil companies could just flip a switch and crude oil would gush from the ground.

Thousands of unused permits are not uncommon.  It happens under every presidential administration.  This is not a new phenomena.  Oil companies have more than 24 million acres under lease today, but close to one-half are not producing oil.  

Mr. Biden's use of the permit data is sheer political chicanery.    

Gas prices had rocketed to new highs in the U.S. before the Russian invasion. When Mr. Biden took office, the price of a regular gallon of gas at the pump was $2.39.  It had been as low as $1.80 in May of 2020.  Long before Putin's invasion, gasoline hit $3.39 a gallon on February 2 of this year. 

Prices for a barrel of West Texas Crude were $55 when Mr. Biden moved into the Oval Office.  By February 2, prices had swollen to $88.26 a barrel, a hike of 60.4%. 

Some administration officials and Democratic Party progressives believe steep gas prices will prompt more Americans to switch to electric cars.  They view the run up in price as a welcome development. These tin-earred politicians have no regard for the inflationary impact on average Americans.      

No doubt Putin's war triggered higher oil prices.  But Mr. Biden's policies had already fueled a 61% increase in gasoline. If the Biden Administration continues to hamstring oil and gas production, the economic pain will worsen for average Americans.  Blaming Putin and oil companies is not a solution.  

Thinking of Buying a New Car? Good Luck!

There has never been a worse time to buy a new or used car.  Car dealership inventories are skimpy. Some automobile models, especially lower priced cars, are nowhere to be found.  Prices for cars are soaring near historic highs. Forget deals. Car buyers are now paying above sticker price.  

The automobile market is reeling after the pandemic upended the balance of supply and demand. Supplies of semiconductors used in today's cars and trucks remain a scare commodity. Semiconductors are a critical component in today's feature-rich cars.  

The chips power back-up cameras, blind spot detection, adaptive cruise control, heads up displays, call phone integration, emergency braking, bluetooth connection, power management and many other features buyers want.  That is driving the demand for semiconductors at time when supplies are tight.    

This has triggered near record prices. The average new vehicle price in January reached $44,905.  The previous high for any month in history was set last December when prices hit $45,283, according to J.D. Power. Industry sources are forecasting the average will top $47,000 before the end of the year.  

In January, 80% of new car buyers paid more than sticker price, reports Edmunds, an online site that tracks pricing. Average buyers paid $900 above sticker, while luxury car shoppers shelled out $1,300 above sticker, according to data compiled by Kelley Blue Book.  

The manufacturer's suggested retail price (MRSP) jumped nearly 15% from January a year ago and $7,000 higher than the average price paid before the pandemic began roiling the automobile and light truck industry.  Customers price negotiations with salespeople are a relic of the good old days.

Some unethical dealers are tacking on up to $10,000 onto the sticker price of hard-to-get luxury cars and trucks, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.  Buyers in some markets are driving to neighboring cities for a better deal.  Manufacturers are beginning to crack down on price gouging.    

Spiraling new car prices and limited choices have steered buyers to used cars.  But there are even fewer bargains to be found.  Used cars now sell for an average of 42% more than before the pandemic.   Good luck trying to find a car under $15,000.  Used car prices have added one percentage point to inflation.    

Auto inventories on dealer lots are stingy.  According to the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) inventory levels at the end of last year totaled 1.12 million units, down 59.1% compared to the number at the end of December 2020.  January's inventory sank below one million units.

With fewer cars, auto dealers are selling vehicles as fast as they arrive on the lot.  In January, nearly 53% of vehicles were sold within 10 days of being transported to the dealer, says J. D. Power.  That would be great news for dealerships, if their lots were jam-packed with cars and trucks.  

Auto manufacturers sold 14,697,837 cars and light trucks last year, the lowest since 2012, and 15.8% lower than 2020. Demand is strong enough to support 17 million in sales this year, according to research site CarGurus.com.  But until inventories return to normal, total sales will remain suppressed.

Despite the depressed sales volume, G.M., Ford and Tesla all reported record revenues in 2021.  With semiconductors at a premium, auto manufacturers shifted to producing higher-margin vehicles, including light trucks and luxury models to fatten profits. 

Pandemic-induced shutdowns continue to hamper semiconductor supplies. The shortage has squeezed lead times.  The gap between when a semiconductor chip is ordered and then delivered is at a record high of 22 weeks, despite some improvement late last year. Chip shortages are expected through 2023.

Car manufactures are taking matters into their own hands. Currently car makers rely on Taiwan and South Korea, which account for a combined 87% of the global semiconductor market.  Chip makers shipped a record 1.15 trillion semiconductor units in 2021. Global sales topped $559 billion.

Ford signed an agreement with U.S. based semiconductor supplier Global Foundries to collaborate on developing microchips for Ford vehicles.  GM is forging ties with San Diego-based Qualcomm and NXP Semiconductors, a company headquartered in the Netherlands but with a factory in Austin. 

In an effort to reduce its reliance on China for chips, last year Tesla turned in house, switching to a new semiconductor technology using silicon carbide materials for its chips. The unique properties of silicon carbide made it more energy efficient and more durable than traditional silicon wafers. 

That is good news for American automobile manufacturers.  However, ramping up production at Ford and GM will take years.  

American car buyers likely will be hanging on to their cars and trucks a little longer.  The University of Michigan, which has been polling consumers for more than 50 years, found that more people today than ever before say it's a bad time to buy a car. 

This is another case of American dependence on overseas companies for strategic components. Car makers are captives of chip fabrication firms in Taiwan and South Korea. It may take years, but at least GM and Ford are headed in the right direction, aligning with American chip suppliers.  

A turnabout in the semiconductor supply chain can't come soon enough for American car and truck buyers. 

Putin's War: A Sober Lesson For U.S. and Its Allies

Kremlin thug Vladimir Putin strutted on the world stage for weeks, daring any country to intervene with his plan to invade Ukraine. The West, including the U.S., bloviated and did little else.  Sensing weakness, the former KGB agent unleashed his military on Europe's second largest country.

While Putin issued chilling warnings about Western inference, President Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken threatened sanctions, but appeared helpless in the face of the Russian pariah's threats. Their tone was defeatist. It was a striking juxtaposition on the projection of strength. 

Russia's mafioso-president was relying on U.S. vacillation.  After all, Putin had invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, intervened in Syria's civil war, interfered with American elections and waged cyber warfare. In response, the U.S. inflicted sanctions, which proved inept and short-lived.  

It wasn't until Russian troops stormed into Ukraine that the U.S. and Europe levied sanctions targeting Kremlin banks, imports and rich oligarchs.  Even as sanctions were unfurled, Mr. Biden admitted the restrictions would not deter Putin.  The West played defense while Russia was on the offensive.

The ruthless dictator's ambitions are to reclaim territories of the old Soviet Union and to defang the NATO military alliance.  Ukraine had been lobbying NATO for membership. Putin loathed  the idea of NATO forces and weapons camped on his border.

Europe is economically handcuffed by its reliance on Russian natural gas.  The European continent gets nearly 40% of its natural gas from Putin, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA).  In addition, Russia ships 48% of its crude oil production to European nations.

Germany depends on Russia for 65% of its natural gas. Poland gets 50% of its supply from Russia.  Italy receives 43% of its natural gas from Russia, while France imports 16% of its needs.  Smaller countries, such as Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia, are nearly totally dependent on Russian gas.  

Those figures explain why Europe balked at diplomatic suggestions to embargo Russian oil and natural gas, the so-called nuclear option. Today, if Russia turns off the spigot, European homes and factories go cold and dark. Natural gas prices would skyrocket, crippling the entire continent's economy.

The United States, despite its title as the world's largest oil producer, also is ensnared in the Russian bear trap.  

Until the invasion, few Americans knew the U.S. is also dependent on Russian crude.  Beginning in 2021, our nation began importing between 12 and 26 million barrels of crude oil from Russia every month.  In November, the latest data available, Russia shipped 17.8 million barrels to this country.  

For context, the U.S. uses about 18.9 million barrels of crude oil every day, according to the EIA.  President Biden pleaded last year for Russia and OPEC to ramp up oil production to ease U.S. gasoline prices.  OPEC ignored Biden's overture, while Russia willingly acceded.

Biden surrendered American oil independence when he became president.  One of his first acts was to cancel permits for the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,200 mile project from the Canadian province of Albert stretching down to Nebraska to join an existing pipeline. 

The pipeline was designed to carry 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude to the U.S. every day. Through executive orders and regulatory maneuvers, the Biden Administration has made its mission to decrease American oil and natural gas production, leading to higher prices at the gasoline pump.

Europe made a deal with the devil in the Kremlin because it had few crude oil and natural gas reserves. Decades ago, Putin schemed to exploit Russia's rich natural resources to make Europe a vassal of Russia. 

Russia received an unexpected assist from environmentalists. Germany, in particular,  embarked on a Green Energy diet, turning to wind and solar power.  Nuclear facilities were unplugged.  Coal burning plants shuttered.  However, the unreliability of alternative energy created power gaps.

To meet energy needs, Europe turned to Russia, which had laid the groundwork to seize the opportunity.  Putin bulked up Gazprom, a Kremlin controlled company, into a natural gas powerhouse. Over two decades, Russia constructed natural gas pipelines into Europe to supply the continent. 

In 2011, Russia turned on the spigot on the first pipeline, called Nord Stream 1.  A second line was added a year later.  The 759-mile pipeline runs through Ukraine and Poland, which creates a potential problem for Putin.  Germany is the largest customer for Russian natural gas on the continent.

With an eye to expanding its European footprint, Gazprom began constructing a 764-mile long natural gas pipeline, dubbed Nord Stream 2, in 2016.  The pipeline traverses under the Baltic Sea from Russia straight to Germany's Baltic coast.  The undersea line will double current natural gas capacity.

Although Gazprom owns the entire pipeline, it only paid half of the $11 billion in costs.  The remaining costs were shared by Shell and European natural gas and energy companies: Austria's OMCV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall DEA.  Europe is heavily invested in the pipeline.

In the wake of the Ukraine invasion, Germany's new chancellor Olaf Scholz called off certification of the pipeline.  The largely symbolic move will have little immediate impact on Russia since Nord Stream 2, completed last year, was already on hold, awaiting European Commission and German approval.

Germany had green lighted the new pipeline after the Biden Administration last year lifted sanctions on the project.  Those sanctions had been ordered by President Trump.  Only after Russian troops entered Ukraine did Mr. Biden reverse course and reimpose the sanctions. 

Those sanctions will not stop Russian natural gas from flowing through Nord Stream 1 pipelines to supply Europe with natural gas.  In fact, Putin has virtually guaranteed he will continue to pump natural gas without interruption because it enriches Russia. Gazprom even raised prices before the invasion.

With unrest in Ukraine, the U.S. and Europe will soon begin feeling the pain of sky-high gasoline prices at the pump. Any disruption of oil production by Russia will ignite a gold rush for a crude oil.  In January, the global benchmark for a barrel of oil passed $90.  

Oil traders are predicting a barrel of crude oil will touch the $100 milestone soon.   That compares to $41.96 in 2020 and $54.25 in 2017.  A rise of $10 a barrel for crude oil correlates to approximately a 25-cent per gallon rise in gasoline prices.  Experts are forecasting $5 to $6 gallon prices in the U.S.  

Putin wins no matter what Germany or the West does.  Rising prices for crude oil make Russian oil and natural gas more valuable on the open market.  And Putin just inked a $117.5 billion deal with China, to keep Russian exports of oil and natural gas flowing despite any delays in Nord Stream 2.

There are two lessons for the U.S. and Europe. First, they can no longer kowtow to the unhinged Putin. His threats have to be met with strength and an immediate response.  Also, the allies should work together to support a regime change in Russia. As long as Putin is in power, the world is not safe  

Secondly, dependence on Russia for a strategic resource, such as energy, gives Putin the bargaining chip he needs to discourage interference with his expansion plans and his effort to weaken NATO's resolve to come to the aid of other countries in future confrontations. 

Energy independence would help insulate Americans from spiraling prices for crude oil, triggered by the Russian invasion. In addition, the U.S. could assist Europe by shipping crude oil and liquified natural gas to ease the continent's dependence on Russia.  

However, the Biden Administration has made it clear it will not unshackle energy production, a decision that leaves the U.S. at the mercy of OPEC and Russia for crude oil to satisfy our nation's energy requirements. 

Russia's incursion into Ukraine is a pivotal point for the world.  These are dangerous times. How the U.S. and its allies react will determine how other rogue nations, including China, Iran and North Korea, view the West's willingness to discourage future military aggression.  

The Frenzied Global Race For White Oil

Not since the early days of the oil boom, has the world witnessed such a feverish pace of energy exploration.  From Argentina to Chile to Bolivia the hunt for lithium, dubbed "white oil", is fueling a surge in mining. Global demand for the silvery-white metal is expected to more than double by 2024.

Lithium is a key component in batteries that power electric vehicles (EV) designed to replace gasoline burning cars.  Lithium is a lightweight, alkali metal that stores energy efficiently and can be repeatedly recharged. A 1,200-pound battery in a Tesla Model S requires about 138-pounds of lithium.

Burgeoning global sales of electric cars, which increased 80% in 2021, are at the heart of the frenzied search for lithium reserves. By 2050, up to one billion electric vehicles are forecast on the roads worldwide, about 72 times more than the  EV's operating in 2020. 

Another contributor to the spiraling lithium demand is batteries for tablets, laptop computers and smart phones. Increasingly, lithium is also being deployed in electric grids to store energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.  Demand sent lithium prices skyrocketing 240% in 2021. 

In the global race to replace fossil fuels with with clean energy, the environmental impact of extracting lithium is surfacing as a major ecological issue. Most lithium is derived from traditional mine drilling or brine extraction, processes which scar the land or pollute water sources.

In Argentina and Chile massive amounts of water are used to loosen underground brine deposits, leading to contentious squabbles over the water supply. About 500,000 gallons of water are used per ton of lithium.  For some desolate areas, that could represent more than half of the available water supply.

Regions with rich lithium deposits are in poor, remote places, far removed from the nearest EV. The largest reserves of lithium--8.6 billion tons--are located in Chile, Australia and Argentina.  Nearly half of the world's known reserves reside in Chile.  These countries are also the top producers of the metal.

The United States has an estimated 630,000 tons of lithium reserves, the majority located in Thacker Pass in Nevada.  Area residents, Native American tribes and ranchers are opposing the building of a mine in the area.  To date, the opponents have stalled exploration and development.

Silver Peak Lithium Mine in Nevada represents the lone lithium operation in America.  It produces about 5,000 tons of lithium carbonate a year with capacity for 6,000 tons. That is less than 2% of the world's supply.  The operator extracts brine from an old lake bed that contains shallow ponds of lithium.

Estimates are the U.S. will need 500,000 metric tons per year of raw or unrefined lithium by 2034 just to power electric vehicles, according to California-based battery supplier OneCharge.  For comparisons sake, the entire global production of lithium in 2020 was 440,000 metric tons. 

China is the dominate player in lithium batteries.  Over the past decade, the government has spent $60 bullion to shore up its lithium industry. Additionally, China has the world's most robust lithium supply chain.

It is the largest importer of lithium-ion battery cells in the world and has the most ambitious electric car manufacturing schedule, planning to reach 52% of sales by 2040. China's lithium imports in 2019 were worth $46.9 billion,  China also exported 48% of the world's supply of lithium-ion cells and packs.

In recent years, China has been snapping up stakes in mining operations in South America and Australia.  China has invested $4.2 billion in lithium deals in South America during the last two years. The regime has also been tightening its grip on the supply of cobalt, a lithium-ion battery component. 

The threat is China will dominate the global supply of lithium just as OPEC once controlled the world's petroleum production, setting production limits and the price.  If China cuts off the U.S., American automobile and electronic industries will be left to scramble for lithium and lithium-ion batteries. 

Currently, the U.S. imports 90% of its lithium metal from two countries: Argentina and Chile.  Europe imports nearly every ounce of battery-grade lithium it uses,.  More than half (55%) originates in Australia.  Other principal suppliers include Chile (23%), China (10%) and Argentina (8%).

China is plotting to monopolize the supply and production of lithium batteries. The country already account for more than 60% of global lithium-ion battery production. In recognition of the threat, the Biden Administration has signaled it intends to provide $2.91 billion to boost U.S. battery production.

But public-private-regulatory partnerships are also needed to support lithium mining and production at home, to boost battery cell and pack manufacturing facilities and for recycling plants for battery disposal. Unless the U.S. acts soon, the nation will fall further behind China in this strategic area. 

Lessons From Pandemic: Public Trust Easily Lost

Since the beginning of the pandemic, disciples of Dr. Anthony Fauci demanded adherence to science.    Anyone who challenged the octogenarian medical advisor was labeled a science denier. That shielded Dr. Fauci and his partners at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from legitimate professional criticism.

With the protection of the legacy media, Dr. Fauci and the CDC pushed for isolating an entire country and in the process shut down the world's biggest economy.  They issued calls for mask and vaccination mandates.  They lectured Americans on how many family members could attend a Christmas gathering.

In the beginning,  Americans generally heeded the health warnings. They were frightened by dire news reporting, often lacking context, about the virus.  The New York Times and other newspapers carried updated COVID death and case counts on the front pages. Fear was a weapon for compliance.

When miracle vaccines were introduced at the end of 2020, there appeared a light at the end of pandemic tunnel. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris evolved from suggesting the vaccines were rushed into production to becoming its biggest cheerleaders. Vaccines would halt the pandemic.

Administration officials, including the president, donned masks on every occasion, even wearing one as they walked  to the podium in a nearly empty room.  They were following the science.  Masks work to protect the wearer from spreading or contracting the contagious virus. No one questioned the science.

Just when there appeared to be a rising optimism for a return to normal, President Biden unleashed executive orders to require vaccinations for Americans in businesses, government, the military and health care workers.  The federal government usurped responsibility for Americans' health decisions,.

This appeared to many legal scholars to be unConstitutional, a breach of freedom.  Court cases were filed by a growing number of states. Americans were divided into two camps: those who believed it was necessary to force Americans to get the jab versus those who wanted to make their own choice.

By mid-year in 2021, more Americans were wearying of the never ending mandates.  They wanted to exercise their right of freedom from authoritarian rules.  States began lifting mask mandates, opening schools, liberating citizens from Washington's vaccination obsession and resuming normal life.

Clearly,  politics not science is carrying the day. Never was it more clear when Democrat states New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and California announced last week they are revising or dropping mask mandates.  Mandates are deeply unpopular with voters.

Ironically, these moves come at a time when the spread of COVID remains rampant.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans are getting infected every day.  More than 3,000 are dying. In January, COVID killed more Americans than the flu has in three years.  There were 55,000 deaths, reports the CDC.

The seven-day fatality average in January was the highest point it has been since last winter before vaccines were widely available. Omicron is expected to push the U.S. total deaths past the one million mark, according to Andrew Noymer, a public health professor at University of California-Irvine.

So has the science of masks and vaccinations changed?  Mask policies are the victim of an admission by the CDC that a cloth mask is virtually useless against the spread of COVID.  And there have been thousands and thousands of so-called breakthrough cases of the fully vaccinated.

This month the CDC released a report showing that the effectiveness of the booster shot for fully vaccinated individuals begins to wane just four months after the jab, adding to public skepticism.  In another surprising move, the FDA postponed its decision on a Pfizer vaccine for children four and under.  

These are signs of a broad concession that vaccines are not the Holy Grail scientists once thought they were.  The are better than no protection against COVID, especially for high risk Americans, but the vaccines do not last as long as the CDC and Dr. Fauci claimed at one time.

As a result, there has been a near total collapse of faith in the government, the CDC and Dr. Fauci in particular, when it comes to the pandemic.  A NewsNationaPoll, conducted by Decision Desk HQ, found that a meager 15.5% trust the president and only 31% trust Dr. Fauci.

Other polls may show higher trust levels, but the research confirms Americans are losing faith in public health officials, particularly those in Washington.  An ABC News survey found that 43% of Americans do not trust the CDC.  Faith in Mr. Biden on the Coronavirus skidded to 37% in January.

The new media fared even worse.  One poll found that only one-in-ten Americans trust the information churned out by the news media on the pandemic.  At the same time, fully two-thirds of Americans trust the advice of their primary care provider on COVID.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll reflects the growing resentment of Americans with continuing restrictions.  In the survey, 75% of Americans expressed frustration and fatigue over the current state of the COVID pandemic. Fully 77% believe it is inevitable most people will be infected.

Some Democrat and Republican governors, eyeing upcoming midterms, are feeling the heat. That explains the about face on mask mandates and the softening of vaccine mandates.  Despite the administration mandates, 63.6% of Americans are fully vaccinated as of January. 

Politics is trumping science.  As the pandemic has stretched through the months, the line between science and politics has been blurred. That partly explains the erosion of public trust.  However, in a pandemic, trust in government and in one's fellow citizens is key to successful communications.

Dr. Fauci and the CDC were cast in the dominant role of the disseminating information on the virus.  It was incumbent on those speaking for the administration to be accurate, transparent, and truthful. When decisions are communicated, Americans expect facts to support the health directive. 

Unfortunately, the keepers of the information fell into a pattern of vacillating between contradictory positions, often igniting the flames of disinformation.  Worst of all, instead of admitting mistakes or just acknowledging the answers were elusive, Washington's health officials were unrepentant. 

Meanwhile, scientists, epidemiologists and health experts who disagreed with the prevailing advice from Dr. Fauci and the CDC were censored.  They were booted off social media.  Their studies were scrubbed from scientific websites  Despite their credentials, they were not allowed to have a dissenting opinion.

The censorship was conducted with the full-throated backing of Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the administration.  The move backfired.  When you end debate on a novel virus and insist on only one version of science, public mistrust deepens.  Americans are smarter than government officials believe.  

Now even Dr. Fauci has joined the billowing chorus of health officials in predicting the "full blown" pandemic could be ending soon.  He admitted that more health decisions will "increasingly be made at the local level rather than centrally" mandated.  

Then the face of the pandemic did the unthinkable by adding: "There will also be more people making their own decision on how they want to deal with the virus." Hate to burst his self-inflated ego but many Americans have been doing this since the winter of 2020 passed.

The inimitable doctor and the CDC should take stock of their communications missteps.  The lesson is trust is easily lost if Americans believe they are not getting the entire story.  Every contradictory directive, unexplained advisory and inflexible restriction chips away at public trust.

Communications also should be tailored to specific audiences.  At the start of the pandemic, more information should have been directed at the most vulnerable: the elderly, immune compromised and those with comorbidities.  Instead, the government aimed its information at the general public.

Defenders of Dr. Fauci and the CDC will retort: the COVID virus was an epidemiological mystery that required more than a year to unravel. Fair enough.  But it behoved officials to admit they didn't have all the answers. Temper advice with a caution that it is subject to change as more facts are known.

In a free society, health officials will fail or succeed in dealing with a pandemic by mobilizing public trust in the government and among its citizens.  A thorough airing of the contrarian views from health experts is healthy. Showing trust in citizens to do the right thing is crucial. 

Those are valuable lessons for health authorities to remember during the next pandemic.

SCOTUS Nominations Stir Political Histrionics

The circus is coming to Washington.  Feats of political daring and contrived theatrics will unfold under the Capitol dome instead of a big tent.  It will be entertaining for the political class inside the Beltway. But for most Americans, the Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is unwatchable absurdity.

Once upon a time, presidential appointments of Supreme Court justices was a civil process.  From 1789 until 1965, every nomination by a sitting U.S. president was ratified by a voice vote.  The last justice to receive this cordial treatment was President Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Abe Fortas 57 years ago.

Since the nomination of Clarence Thomas by George H.W. Bush in 1991, the Senate has turned what once was a dignified process into a farce. Justice Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 were blindsided in the hearings by dubious sexual allegations.  Justice Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump.

Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, was hectored by Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein over her Catholic faith.  Senate Democrats successfully filibustered the Trump nomination of Neil Gorsuch, hoping to sink the Supreme Court candidate.  What happened next, flabbergasted Democrats. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called nuclear option to pave the way for approval of the nominee on a simple majority vote.  McConnell reminded critics it was former Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid who broke tradition and pushed the nuclear button in 2013.

Those nominations cited above were approved by razor-thin margins along party lines. Compare their treatment to recent nominees by Presidents Obama and Clinton. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton nominees, were approved by bipartisan votes of 87-9 and 96-3, respectively.

Obama nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor breezed through confirmation on 63-37 and 68-31 bipartisan majorities.  Can you detect a pattern?  Democrats employ the politics of character assassination to scuttle GOP nominees, while Republicans concede a president's right to appoint a qualified person.

Now the nation is being treated to a new phenomenon.  President Biden pledged during the campaign to name an African-American female to the highest court.  There were no other qualifications mentioned.  He has since justified his injection of race, saying the high court "should look like America." 

That is a sudden about face for Mr. Biden.  Then Senator Joe Biden voted against Clarence Thomas, who was nominated to succeed the lone African-American on the court, Justice Thurgood Marshall.  If Thomas had not been confirmed over Biden's objections, the Supreme Court justices would have been all white.

When President George W. Bush nominated  African-American Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Biden opposed the choice.  After Justice Brown won confirmation, her name was later listed as a possible replacement for retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor. 

Senator Biden signaled he would filibuster the nomination before President Bush even announced his final pick.  This was Senator Biden's opportunity to make Supreme Court "look like America."  How can anyone take him seriously now?  His nominee is political payback and nothing more.

Mr. Biden's commitment to racial preference stems from the primary campaign when his flagging fortunes depended on a win in South Carolina.  Influential South Carolina Democrat Jim Clyburn pledged to deliver a primary victory, in exchange for a black female court appointee.  

That's why Mr. Biden announced he would replace Justice Stephen Breyer with an African-American female.  There was nothing altruistic about his choice.  This was a political calculus by the president to pay the debt he owed to Rep. Clyburn.

Mr. Biden's clumsy announcement, narrowing his field of candidates to black women, has not played well with voters. An ABC News/Ipsos poll this month found 76% of Americans believe the president should consider all possible nominees, rather than limiting the field to a single race.  

If you're wondering whom Mr. Biden will select for the judicial vacancy, put away your Ouija board. Rep. Clyburn has already endorsed South Carolina Federal District Judge J. Michelle Childs. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has seconded the Clyburn choice.  Case closed.

The hearings may seem like a formality with Democrats holding the majority, however, this will be a matinee worthy of Ringling Brothers. The media has already shown its hand, casting Republican opposition as racist.  Any serious questioning of the nominee will be interpreted as white patriarchy.  

There have been 115 justices who have served on the Supreme Court since it was created in 1789--two black men and five women.  An African-American female on the court would indeed be historic. However, imposing racial, gender or ethnic quotas denigrates the dignity of the nation's highest court.