Beet L. Jooz

Authord by Kurt Cobb via OilPrice.com,

Most of the news surrounding the electricity shutoffs in California - done to avert the ignition of additional wildfires by aging electrical infrastructure - has focused on two things: climate change and the greedy, incompetent management of Pacific Gas & Electric.

Missing in this discussion is the broad neglect of the complex infrastructure of the United States and possibly other wealthy nations. The American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) most recent "Infrastructure Report Card" gave the United States an overall grade of D+. (Those readers unfamiliar with the American system for grading schoolwork should note that "E" is a failing grade.)

While some will point out that the ASCE's assessment is self-interested—civil engineers will, of course, benefit from an uptick in infrastructure spending—the organization hasn't always been this negative about American infrastructure. The 1988 report card wasn't flattering, but it wasn't nearly as dire as the most recent one.

The real question is why, in a supposedly wealthy nation, has the public and private infrastructure been allowed to deteriorate over time?

One answer is that American society has simply chosen to privilege private goods over public ones, a move driven by the increasing individualism of Americans and by the heavy influence of wealthy donors on politicians who make decisions about taxes, especially taxes on the rich, and also about where those taxes are spent. There may be some truth to this though it is worth noting that many wealthy donors rely on government infrastructure contracts for their wealth.

I have been thinking about the possibility that the ongoing decline in per capita energy consumption may offer a partial explanation. Even as overall energy consumption has risen in practically every country over the last three decades, energy use per capita has not. In fact, in the United States and some other advanced economies per capita energy consumption has been falling (or flat) since the early 1980s. This could, of course, be put down to increasing energy efficiency. And, that is certainly part of the story.

But another part might simply be less energy available per person. The question arises, of course, of whether this is a worldwide phenomenon. Is population growing faster than energy supplies? The overall answer for now seems to be no. Developing nations have been experiencing just the opposite trend though the distribution of these energy riches has been uneven. China's energy use per person has nearly quadrupled since 1980. Angola's has barely budged. And, as we would suspect, the difference in prosperity between the two peoples is notable and extreme.

The thing that strikes me about the history of American infrastructure spending is that it quickened considerably after World War II during a period of very cheap energy. This was the era when the interstate highway system was built, suburbs sprung up everywhere, shopping malls appeared, and schools, universities, hospitals and other public institutions expanded rapidly.

Since the rise in energy prices in the 1970s, the loss of momentum in building new infrastructure is notable. The favorite talk among American politicians has been about curbing profligate spending and reducing public indebtedness. (Austerity in Europe has been an on-again-off-again affair during the same period.) The 1980s and 1990s were an era of low energy prices and yet, per capita energy consumption has traced out a bumpy decline in many wealthy nations right up to this day.

We did, of course, have the biggest bull market in energy in the 2000s through 2008. And, we had the highest average daily prices of oil ever in 2011 through 2013. But prices don't seem to tell the whole story in this case. One possible straw in the wind has been the persistent decline in world oil production since November 2018 even in the face of a growing world economy.

There is no doubt a link between per capita energy consumption and wealth. In fact, wealth is in large part a derivative of energy flows in the economy. If those flows slow down, the ability to get work done—make things, transport them, use them—declines.

The issue surrounding the electric utility infrastructure and the California wildfires is not so much the building of new infrastructure as the maintenance of the existing one. As the complexity and expanse of any infrastructure increases, the cost of maintaining it increases. That means more and more resources must go into maintenance, and that means fewer and fewer resources left over for expansion or profits or both.

If the energy available per capita were continuing to grow in the United States, that would imply a different financial situation. It might have been possible for PG&E to maintain its infrastructure and even upgrade it in the face of the added dangers created by climate change—while simultaneously (and even possibly inordinately) enriching its executives and shareholders.

The fact that the company had to make a choice seems to me to be one indication that our energy future (which is the basis for our economic future) continues to change in ways that suggest only further degradation of the very infrastructure that supports our industrial way of life.

Hunter Biden is stepping down from a controversial board position at a Chinese-based private-equity company, and has vowed to forego all foreign work if his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, is elected president in 2020, according to Bloomberg. 

Hunter will step down from the board on Oct. 31, according to a statement released by his lawyer, George Mesires. 

"Hunter always understood that his father would be guided, entirely and unequivocally, by established U.S. policy, regardless of its effects on Hunter’s professional interests," reads the statement. "He never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the President of the United States." 

"Under a Biden Administration, Hunter will readily comply with any and all guidelines or standards a President Biden may issue to address purported conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, including any restrictions related to overseas business interests," the statement continues. "He will continue to keep his father personally uninvolved in his business affairs."

In May, journalist Peter Schweizer accused the Bidens of corruption in both Ukraine and China - revealing that in 2013, they flew together to China on Air Force Two. Two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China, which expanded to $1.5 billion.

"If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son — who has scant experience in private equity — clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that’s because it is" -Peter Schweizer 

As the accusations against Hunter mounted, he attempted to do damage control in  a July interview with the New Yorker - in which he opened up about being a crackhead and accepting a 'bribe' from a Chinese energy tycoon in the form of a 2.8 carat diamond worth thousands of dollars, which he says wasn't a bribe - and admitted he and his father had spoken of his business dealings. 

What value did Hunter Biden add in Ukraine and China? He had zero experience in the regions and less than zero experience in the energy sector. So what exactly were the companies involved in the million dollar deals with Biden paying for?

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) October 13, 2019

President Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have homed in on both China and Ukraine - where Joe Biden leveraged his position as Vice President to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating a company whose board Hunter sat on. Bloomberg calls this claim "unsubstantiated" despite Joe Biden bragging about doing so on tape. 

U.S. banking records show that Hunter Biden’s American-based firm Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts (more than $166k/month) from the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Hunter Biden. All of this occurred during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relationship with Russia.

Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor. His threat was so severe that Ukraine would have lost $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees sending Ukraine toward insolvency. So the question is – why? Why did Joe Biden demand the immediate firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin? And what did the State Department know about Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine and Ukraine’s investigations into those business dealings? -SLF

Where’s Hunter? He has totally disappeared! Now looks like he has raided and scammed even more countries! Media is AWOL.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2019

Meanwhile, Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach announced last Wednesday that Joe Biden received $900,000 from Burisma Group for lobbying activities, citing materials related to an investigation.

Via Interfax:

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.

Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday. -Interfax

"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," said Derkach. 

Derkach also puiblicized sums of money transferred to Burisma Group representatives - including Hunter Biden.

Having exposed the disturbing realities inside Facebook, Google, The New York Times, and The State Department; Project Veritas' James O'Keefe just hinted at what could be his biggest exposé yet...

Teasing what appears to be a real whistleblower - and remember, these individuals should be protected, according to Schiff et al. - O'Keefe just told an audience in Washington DC that "our next Project Veritas #BeBrave insider is from within CNN."

BREAKING: I just walked off the stage in Washington DC where I announced that our next @Project_Veritas #BeBrave insider is from within @CNN.#ExposeCNN pic.twitter.com/TWL79UinaS

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 12, 2019

Furthermore, O'Keefe warned one very special individual of what is coming... "It might be time to recall the worst things you’ve said to CNN staff in the hallways, Brian Stetler"

It might be time to recall the worst things you’ve said to CNN staff in the hallways, @brianstelter. Project Veritas has a reliable source who wore a hidden 🎥

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 12, 2019

Excitement and speculation as to the content is hotting up on social media...

pic.twitter.com/GRqcC6QOMd

— VanLogh (@capeannpainter) October 12, 2019

pic.twitter.com/5QAKssXADy

— Jevaughn Brown 👑+++ (@Jevaughn_Brown) October 12, 2019

But Jack Posobiec sums it up most ominously:

The CNN Tapes are coming...

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 12, 2019

We cannot wait to hear how unfair this is and why the "whistleblower" needs to be doxx'd.

O'Keefe ends with a "Stay Tuned" link to ExposeCNN.com.

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

This “impeachment inquiry” is becoming more shady with each passing day.  Nancy Pelosi won’t even take a vote in the House to officially approve this “impeachment inquiry” because she is convinced that such a vote is not needed.  But as White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has aptly noted, the lack of a vote “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process”.  And now we are learning that the original whistleblower is asking if he can “submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person”, which would likely mean that we may never found out the identify of this individual.  So we could potentially be facing a scenario in which the House of Representatives actually impeaches the president of the United States based on “testimony” from an anonymous source that they never actually get to see face to face. 

The U.S. Constitution sets a very high standard for impeaching a president, and it is absolutely absurd that this process is moving forward based on information from someone that does not want to face any sort of public scrutiny and that did not even have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine in the first place.

And guess what?  Now that the original “whistleblower” has gotten so much favorable attention, it has encouraged other “potential whistleblowers” to start coming forward…

New potential whistleblowers are coming forward to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, two congressional sources tell The Daily Beast.

They seem to be emboldened by the actions of the whistleblower whose explosive account of President Donald Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky about investigating Trump’s domestic political rivals ignited the impeachment inquiry.

Perhaps the Democrats will just keep having “whistleblower” after “whistleblower” come forward until they can find something that finally sticks.

After all, if they never even have to testify publicly, there isn’t much risk for these “whistleblowers”.  Anyone in the government that wants to take down Trump could come forward with “damaging information”, and of course the Democrats would be all too eager to gobble it up and run forward with it.

According to the Daily Beast, the new “whistleblowers” are currently being vetted by “congressional investigators”…

Congressional investigators are currently vetting the new accounts they’ve received for credibility. Accordingly, knowledgeable sources would not discuss where in the government these new would-be whistleblowers come from, nor what they purport to have to say.

Needless to say, the term “”congressional investigators” could easily be replaced by “Democratic political hacks”, and anyone that has anything that could even remotely be damaging to Trump will be considered to be “credible”.

If the original whistleblower was forced to testify publicly, a lot of these new “whistleblowers” would quickly disappear.  But at this point, it appears that the original whistleblower is going to try to avoid even testifying behind closed doors to Congress.  In fact, it is being reported that he may not ever testify in person to anyone.  At this point, the legal team representing the “whistleblower” has officially asked Congress if the “whistleblower” can “submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person”…

Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.

The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.

It is true that once the identity of this “whistleblower” becomes known, that person’s life will never be the same again.

But if you are going to take down the president of the United States, it is not something that can be done anonymously.

At this point Trump’s life has been made a living hell by this “whistleblower”, and Trump deserves to be able to face his accuser.

Not only that, but if a president that is supported by nearly half the country is going to be thrown out of office, the American people deserve to hear directly from the prime witnesses.

This is a very, very serious matter, and this process should be treated with the utmost gravity.

Right now, the mainstream media is relentlessly hammering Trump, and the American public is increasingly becoming convinced that the president may have committed some sort of a crime.  In fact, the most recent Fox News poll shows that 51 percent of all Americans want “Trump impeached and removed from office”…

Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.

A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.

Needless to say, President Trump was not very impressed by this new Fox poll…

President Trump bashed his erstwhile favorite news channel, Fox News, in a pair of tweets Thursday touched off by a new Fox News poll that found a majority of Americans want to see him impeached and removed from office.

“From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll,” Trump tweeted. “Whoever their Pollster is, they suck.”

But what everyone seems to be forgetting is that in order for the president of the United States to be impeached and removed from office, he must have committed a crime, and that is simply not true in this case.

You can’t impeach a president just because you don’t like him or her.

Unfortunately, at this point our government has totally gone off the rails.  The Democrats and many Republicans seem to have no problem with repeatedly trampling on the Constitution, and this is something that I have repeatedly warned about.

The Democrats, the mainstream media and “never Trump Republicans” are setting this nation up for a major political disaster.

If President Trump is illegally impeached and illegally removed from office, there is going to be an uproar on the right like we have never seen before.

But if President Trump is illegally impeached by the House and then protected by the Republicans in the Senate, that could cause a tremendous amount of unrest on the left.

Either way, this country is going to be deeply, deeply divided by this illegal process, and at this point it is very difficult to see how this story is going to have a positive ending.