For decades, progressives have held every lever of power in the Golden State. This one-party rule has left thousands of homes and businesses in ashes as wildfires raged out of control in Southern California. Government set the stage for its unchecked spread. Hydrants ran dry as every firefighter in the region was called upon to protect the neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades, where Zillow says homes are worth an average of $3.7 million each. Appropriate precautions weren’t taken because Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and his supermajority-wielding allies in the legislature elevate environmental virtue signaling over human lives. In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 1, setting aside $7.5 billion to improve water infrastructure. After a decade, only $137 million worth of water storage projects have been completed. The Getty Villa in Malibu showed preparation pays off. This storehouse of treasures from classical antiquity survived the flames because it did everything the state should have done. Liberals don’t want to build adequate reservoirs because they’d lose the excuse for imposing drastic “conservation” measures such as water rationing on the public. Diversity-minded environmentalists used lawsuits to block the brush clearing and controlled burns that would have stopped the fire from spreading. Many residents recently found themselves without insurance as underwriters pulled out due to the state’s red tape. Others whose homes were spared from the flames found them looted, courtesy of progressives’ indulgent attitude toward crime.

In Africa, Muslims are waging war on the continent’s Christian population. The pope is silent on the persecution of Christians, Buddhists and Muslim Uyghurs in China and Tibet. I don’t think Pope Francis is an antisemite in the classic sense. He is anti-Western and views Israel as an extension of European colonialism. The pope invariably sides with people in developing countries, regardless of whether their cause is just. The pope, who grew up in Peronist Argentina, is unwavering in his opposition to capitalism. He has attacked the global economic system as based on “a god of money” and has called for the “radical rejection” of market economies. Winston Churchill once remarked: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Poverty and injustice are always greatest in nations that have followed the pope’s advice and repudiated the market economy. After six decades of communism, Cuba is importing sugar. After years of hyperinflation, corruption and misery, the pope’s native Argentina has embraced the free market through its new president. Pope Francis has said that while “Marxist ideology is wrong … I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people.” In Soviet Russia, these good people engineered the famines that killed millions. In China, the Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions, and in Cambodia, 3.3 million died in the killing fields. All are a testament to Marxist benevolence. It’s said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The construction crew includes good Marxists.

Everyone makes predictions, but only a few are foolish enough to write them down. The Dow will finish the year above 46,000. The price of oil will finish the year below $80 per barrel. At least one nation in the Western Hemisphere will fail. There will be a lot of talk about the Monroe Doctrine, but slaving, genocidal China will play an important role in resolving the failure. Despite all the nonsense from the International Energy Agency about peak demand for oil and the energy transition, the world will use more oil, natural gas and coal than it did in 2023. The increase in oil and natural gas production will be larger than in alternative energy sources. American consumers will buy about 1.3 million electric vehicles in 2025. That is just a shade more than they bought in 2023. More nations and companies will either remove or change the dates on their pledges to achieve net-zero emissions. Worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. In response, the next U.N. Climate Change Conference will have an even larger number of participants fly to Brazil to trumpet the 8 billion people on the planet who care more about affordable, reliable and plentiful energy than they do about climate change or the clean energy transition or whatever. President-elect Donald Trump will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. There will be a new successor to St. Peter before the end of the year. I’d like to think he can’t be worse than the current occupant, but anything is possible.

Political and other prognosticators are busy predicting the future, as usual. Never mind calculating how wrong they have been in the past. Our desire to know what’s coming sometimes overcomes sound thinking. Recall the number of times climate alarmists predicted we would either freeze or burn to death by certain dates and religious mouthpieces forecasting the end of the world on dates that failed to materialize. More can be learned from the past than by trying to predict the future. As Doris Day sang “The future’s not ours to see.” Sound economic and moral principles were taught in schools in 1925, but not so much today. Many feign surprise at the inevitable results. Who decided right and wrong are individually determined? Some future events were predictable if only people had paid attention. The “Roaring ’20s” focused on profit and pleasure, overlooking the rise to power of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and the coming dictator of Germany, Adolf Hitler, His book “Mein Kampf” should have warned the world about his goals. Those included world domination and the elimination of the Jewish people. Why don’t we listen and act accordingly when evil people announce what they intend to do? Humiliated by its defeat in World War I, in 1925, Germany agreed to its borders with France and Belgium and announced its intention to apply for membership in the League of Nations. Neither the league nor the Germans’ promise would last long. Given the economic challenges to come, along with a second world war that killed more than 400,000 Americans, the “roar” of 1925 would soon be drowned out by the roar of global conflict. What can we learn from history in 2025? We will soon find out.

The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. Factory jobs in America are hard to come by when all the factories have been closed and the manufacturing operations shipped to China. But at least Trump was making the call for a return to U.S. dominance in the production sector. At least he was making moves toward that end. Team Biden ― as with Team Barack Obama ― did little to nothing to shut down China’s growing economic influences, but rather opened doors wider for the country’s communists to grow their revenues and exert influences around the world. Can you say green agendas? Can you say environmental regulations? How about climate change? Trump’s promised tariffs may not magically return the manufacturing sector to America overnight. They may not flip the switch on America’s bloated consumerism into productivity. But they will send an “America First” message to those nations, particularly China, that have grown their economies at America’s expense ― literally and figuratively. The more America has moved away from manufacturing, the more America has harmed its economy, its national security, its sovereignty. Four years isn’t enough time to win all that back. But four years is enough time to send a message that America wants all that back. Four years is enough time to demand the respect from other nations that America lost under the Biden administration. Xi is concerned. Xi is worried about the “uncertainties” of Trump’s economic and political plans. Trump hasn’t even been sworn in, yet.

The Chinese economy faces some new conditions,” Xi said, The Wall Street Journal reported, “including challenges of uncertainties in the external environment and pressure of transformation from old growth drivers into new ones.” Specifically, he referenced China’s need to shift reliance on international markets. Yes. That’s ‘cause Trump has already put out the word he’s going to change how America does business ? more tariffs via executive order, with an immediate 10 percent smack on goods from China. “Trump’s Tariffs Would Raise Prices, Harm U.S. Workers,” the Center for American Progress wrote. “For the U.S. and its trading partners, Trump’s tariff threats poses a slew of economic, strategic and institutional risks,” Brookings wrote. Of note, these groups are left-of-center; that they criticize Trump’s announced tariffs ? not just on China, but on Mexico and Canada, too ? is almost as good news as the criticisms from the communists. What’s bad for far leftists is great for patriotic Americans. And as The Associated Press wrote, “Trump’s tariffs in his first term did little to alter the economy.” The second part of that headline cautioned ? “but this time could be different.” But the bigger takeaway from AP is that those who decry taking on China with direct hits on that country’s economy are drumming up fears that are based on false narratives. If America wants to be the world leader, America must strike back at China’s growing might. “Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency,” AP wrote. “But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy.“

There have been no meetings with North Korea for the past four years. Other national security issues have made North Korea less important. This lack of engagement with North Korea has resulted in a mutual defense treaty with Russia and North Korea providing artillery shells, ballistic missiles and over 11,000 special forces troops to Russia for its war of aggression with Ukraine. Hopefully, the Trump administration will again engage with North Korea to reverse these negative developments. Taking a page from Mr. Trump’s playbook in his first term, personally engaging with Mr. Xi makes eminent sense. Mr. Trump will be able to discuss issues eroding trust between our two countries. He will be able to get the departments of State and Defense and other government agencies to engage with China on a multitude of irritants affecting bilateral relations, including freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait and intellectual property theft. The expectation is that Mr. Trump has already crafted a hard olicy on China, with tariffs and ensuring that the U.S. has a strong military deterrent. A dialogue with Mr. Xi on these and other national security issues would interest both countries. Also important will be the multitude of global issues for which the U.S. and China can collaborate, such as pandemics, climate change, artificial intelligence, the peaceful use of outer space, nuclear nonproliferation, international crime, counterterrorism and counter-narcotics. This collaboration effectively dealt with these issues and built trust between our two countries.

North Korea spent 30 years seeking a normal relationship with the U.S., arguing that it would be a good friend to the U.S. and that its nuclear weapons were a deterrent to ensure the regime’s survival. Ignoring North Korea is not a viable option. Some have argued that normalizing relations with North Korea and accepting them as a nuclear weapons state was and is the best approach for dealing with North Korea. I and others have opposed this approach. Normalizing relations with a nuclear-armed North Korea could result in significant nuclear proliferation, with a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia, with South Korea and Japan ? and others ? seeking their own nuclear weapons despite U.S. extended nuclear deterrence commitments. Concurrently, arguing that we can ignore North Korea with a policy of containment and deterrence is also flawed. North Korea now has a mutual defense treaty with Russia. North Korea also has China, its economic lifeline and treaty partner, committed to its defense. Conflict on the Korean Peninsula has become more likely. With a new administration, taking a different track with North Korea is possible. Keep open the option of a path to normalization of relations with the U.S. This path also makes it clear that the U.S. continues to be committed to the defense of South Korea and Japan, with enhanced extended nuclear deterrence commitments and a continuation of joint military exercises with South Korea, which should also include Japan. A new U.S. administration has an opportunity to reengage with North Korea, a country that wanted normal relations with the U.S. but is now allied with and aiding Russia.

Foreign-funded activism against fossil fuels, cloaked in the language of climate alarmism, blocks paths to development that Western nations themselves traversed on their journey to prosperity. For decades, international financial institutions and Western donors viewed energy access as a cornerstone of African development. Many of these projects leveraged Africa’s abundant fossil fuel resources. But things have changed. The African Development Bank announced in 2019 that it would no longer finance coal projects. In 2021, it went further and placed severe restrictions on oil and natural gas investments. The World Bank followed suit. Now, even domestic efforts of Africans to rejuvenate their oil and gas sectors are being opposed by paid activists from Europe. There was heavy opposition to the Africa Energy Week event in South Africa, As they hinder African development to purportedly save the planet, Western activists are increasing the continent’s vulnerability to nature’s elements. It is a well-established fact that wealthier societies are far more resilient to environmental shocks and natural disasters such as drought and pestilence. The challenges facing Africa are immense but not insurmountable. The right policies and investments can achieve universal energy access, drive economic growth and build prosperous societies. All of this will remain out of reach, however, as long as green policies continue to obstruct sensible energy development. An ill-informed and myopic crusade threatens to entomb African aspirations in the darkness the crusaders claim to be dispelling.

In the name of saving humanity from a climate emergency and offering seemingly irresistible handouts of money and technology, the colonists insist on replacing fossil fuels with unreliable and expensive wind and solar energy. Yet the relatively high mortality and morbidity of Africans ― among the world’s poorest people ― can be relieved only by the energy of demonized coal, oil and natural gas. This artificially induced energy gap is the difference between life and death, hope and despair. It’s a pernicious intrusion in energy markets that shortens life spans, snuffs out newborns’ cries and erects barriers to progress. In 2024, it is unconscionable that over 600 million Africans still lack access to electricity. In sub-Saharan Africa, only 28% of health care centers have reliable electricity. More than 900 million people cook with traditional biomass such as wood and animal dung, inhaling toxic fumes that claim over 600,000 African lives each year. Clean water remains a luxury for vast swaths of the population. As has been shown in parts of Asia, these problems can be alleviated over time with robust investment in fossil fuels. Coal and natural gas can provide affordable and reliable electricity, and natural gas can immediately reduce deaths from the pollution of dirty cooking fuels. Consider that a single electric car charging overnight in Europe consumes as much power as an entire African village uses in a week. Such stark disparities are not mere numbers. They represent battle lines in the daily struggle for survival of Africa’s impoverished. Nations find themselves ensnared in a global madness and their potential extinguished like fire without oxygen.