Monday, October 24, 2016

Get ready to break wind says Noon

If Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, one of the changes you can expect is an invasion of industrial wind development in your community that has the potential to severely damage your property values, ruin the viewshed, impact your sleep patterns, and cause your electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket”—all thanks to your tax dollars.

The Democratic presidential candidate frequently references her pledge to install 500 million solar panels. Her website promises: “The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton’s first term.”

And, while we know she wants to make America “the clean energy super power of the 21st century,” finding her position on wind energy is not so obvious. Perhaps that is because, as more and more people learn more about its impacts on their lives, its support continues to wane.

Pragmatic environmentalists find it hard to ignore the millions of birds that are killed by the giant spinning blades—including bald and golden eagles, as well as massive numbers of bats (which are so important for insect control) that are being slaughtered. Some have even “successfully sued to stop wind farm construction,” reports Investor’s Business Daily.

More and more communities are saying: “We don’t want wind turbines here.” For example, in Ohio, a wind project was “downed” when the Logan County Commissioners voted unanimously to reject EverPower’s request for a payment in lieu of taxes to build 18 wind turbines—though since then, the developer is taking another bite at the project, and the locals are furious.

In Michigan, the entire Lincoln Township Board opposes a plan from DTE Energy to bring 50 to 70 more wind turbines to the community—despite the fact that four of the five members would profit from easement agreements they’d previously signed.

While not one of her top talking points, a President Hillary will increase the amount of taxpayer dollars available to industrial wind developers. At a July 2015 campaign stop in Iowa, she supported tax incentives and said: “We need to continue the production tax credits.” Previously, she claimed that she wants to make the production tax credits (PTC) for wind and solar permanent.

(Note: without the PTC, even the wind industry acknowledges it won’t “be able to continue.”)

She frequently says: “I want more wind, more solar, more advanced biofuels, more energy efficiency.” Remember, her party platform includes: “We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.” And: “We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.”

So, if your area hasn’t been faced with the construction of the detrimental and dangerous turbines, you can expect that it will be—even if you live in an area not known to be windy. That’s the bad news. The good news is the more wind turbines spring up, the more opposition they receive—and, therefore, the more tools there are available to help break the next wind project.

Rather than trying to figure out what to do on your own, John Droz, Jr., a North Carolina-based physicist and citizen advocate, who has worked with about 100 communities, encourages citizens who want to protect their community from the threat of a proposed wind project to maximize the resources that are available to them.

Kevon Martis, who, as the volunteer director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, has helped protect citizens in 7 states, told me: “Nothing makes it harder for a wind developer in one community than if the neighboring community already has an operating wind plant.

Once they can see the actual impacts of turning entire townships into 50 story tall power plants, they can no longer be led down the primrose path by wind companies and their agents.” Martis’ equitable wind zoning advocacy has been extremely effective.

In his home state of Michigan, wind has been on the ballot at the Township level 11 times since 2009 and has never won. In Argyle Township, in Sanilac County, Invenergy spent $164,000 in campaign funds in the 36-square-mile township, yet the people prevailed at the ballot box.

Two communities in Vermont have industrial wind on the ballot on November 8 and it is playing a big role in the state’s gubernatorial race where many Democrats are pledging to vote for the Republican candidate, who opposes more wind energy development. There, the foreign developer is essentially offering a bribe to the voters to approve the project.

Martis uses a concept he calls “trespass zoning”—which he says is a “de facto subsidy extracted from neighbors without any compensation.”

Because the definition of trespassing is: “to enter the owner’s land or property without permission,” Martis argues that wind turbine setbacks, that cross the property line and go to the dwelling, allows the externalities of wind development—noise pollution, turbine rotor failure and its attendant debris field, property value loss, and visual blight—to trespass.

He explains: “Where the wind developer can use these unleased properties for nuisance noise and safety easements free of charge, they have no reason to approach the neighboring residents to negotiate a fair price for their loss of amenity.

Trespass zoning has deprived wind plant neighbors of all economic bargaining power. It has donated their private property to the neighboring landowner’s wind developer tenant.”

Droz agrees that zoning is important—as are regulations. He believes that since an industrial wind project is something you may have to live with for more than 20 years, it seems wise to carefully, objectively, and thoughtfully investigate the matter ahead of time.

Droz says: “In most circumstances, your first line of defense is a well-written, protective set of wind-energy regulations that focus on protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. They can be a stand-alone law, or part of a more comprehensive zoning document.”

Mary Kay Barton, a citizen activist from New York State, began writing about the industrial wind issue more than a dozen years ago when her home area in Western New York State was targeted by industrial wind developers.

Wyoming County was slated to have more than 2,000 industrial wind turbines strewn throughout its 16 Townships. So far, the massive projects have been limited by the outrage of residents to the current 308 turbines in 5 rural districts.

Barton told me: “We wouldn’t even be talking about industrial wind if cronyism at the top wasn’t enabling the consumer fraud of industrial wind to exist with countless subsidies, incentives and renewable mandates.”

Minnesota citizen energy activist, Kristi Rosenquist, points out: “Wind is promoted as mitigating climate change and benefiting local rural economies—it does neither.”

Through his free citizen advocacy service, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, Droz tries to make it easier for communities to succeed when dealing with industrial wind energy by learning lessons from some of the other 250 communities—including those near Martis, Barton, and Rosenquist—that have had to deal with it.

At, Droz has a wealth of information available including a model wind energy law that is derived from existing effective ordinances plus inputs from numerous independent experts.

He advocates a wind energy law that contains carefully crafted conditions about these five elements:
  • Property value guarantees; 
  • Turbine setbacks; 
  • Noise standards; 
  • Environmental assessment and protections;
  • Decommissioning. 
Droz, Martis, Barton, and Rosenquist are just four of the many citizen advocates that have had to become experts on the adverse impacts of wind energy—which provides negligible benefits while raising taxes and electricity rates. Because of their experiences, many are willing to help those who are just now being faced with the threat.

Because I’ve frequently written on wind energy and the favorable tax and regulatory treatment it receives, I often have people reaching out to me for help—but I am not the expert, just the messenger. These folks are dealing with it day in and day out.

Here are some additional resources they suggest:
  • National Wind Watch 
  • Ontario Wind Resistance
  • Stop These Things
  • Master Resource
If the threat of industrial wind energy development isn’t a problem for you now, save this information, as it likely would be under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Barton explains: “My town was able to stop the ludicrous siting of these environmentally-destructive facilities by enacting a citizen-protective law back in 2007.

Since then however, Governor Cuomo enacted what I refer to as his ‘Power-Grab NY Act,’ which stripped ‘Home Rule’ from New York State communities and placed the decision-making process regarding energy-generation facilities above 25 MW (that translates: industrial wind factories) in the hands of five unelected Albany bureaucrats.

Other states are sure to follow Cuomo’s authoritarian lead. I urge people to be pro-active! Get protective laws on the books now—before corrupt officials steal your Constitutional rights to decide for yourselves.”

Think about your community 20, 40, 60+ years from now.

“There was a time when the environmental movement opposed noise pollution, fought industrial blight, and supported ‘little guys’ whose quality of life was threatened by ‘corporate greed,’” writes Martis. “But that was a long time ago, before wind energy.”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy

Marita hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy - which expands on the content of her weekly column. 

Follow her @EnergyRabbit.


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

The chemicals anxiety machine

Rank politics and baseless health scares are driving anxiety, North Carolina election campaigns, civil rights claims and plans for class action lawsuits, all of which could bring electricity rate hikes that will cause real job, health and civil rights problems for families – for no health or environmental benefits.

As I noted in an earlier article, North Carolina state toxicologist Ken Rudo has publicly disagreed with the US Environmental Protection Agency and other NC “tox” experts, who say levels of chromium-6 detected in some NC waters are safe. The contaminant comes from coal ash deposits and other sources.

Not surprisingly, Erin Brockovich has sided with Dr. Rudo. She became rich and famous by promoting “toxic chromium” scares, co-authored a recent letter with the radical Environmental Working Group raising Cr-6 alarms, and will speak on election eve at Catawba College in NC to stir things up still further.

The issue is also playing prominently in the NC gubernatorial campaign. Democrat candidate Roy Cooper says well water is unsafe and is hammering the Duke Energy power company for creating the deposits and sitting Governor Pat McCrory (who once worked for Duke) for rescinding a “do not drink” order.

Not to be outdone, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) claims chromium-6 is seeping out of ash deposits, contaminating drinking water supplies and “disproportionately affecting” minority families. Communities near “waste disposal” and “industrial” facilities have “extremely high” rates of cancer, heart and other health issues, a Commission report asserts, lumping those facilities in with coal ash sites.

The contaminants get into well water, drinking water, and even “recreational waters” that are “heavily used for fishing, boating and swimming,” the Commission report states. The problem “extends for miles” around communities near coal ash deposits, which are “disproportionately located in low-income and minority communities,” making this a civil rights issue that government must address.

The USCCR wants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NC Department of Environmental Quality to examine the civil rights implications, classify coal ash as a “hazardous waste,” force utility companies to relocate deposits, and compensate people for healthcare expenses and land devaluations.

A persuasive and well-documented dissent by Commissioner Gail Heriot (pages 113-142 of the report) demolishes the USCCR assertions. Her analysis deserves widespread attention both on environmental and civil rights matters, and on how some people deliberately use these issues to generate racial animosity.

No one on the Commission, she notes, has any expertise in waste disposal, toxicology, epidemiology or medicine, and thus had no business issuing pronouncements on coal ash toxicity. There is “strong” evidence that coal ash facilities “are not disproportionately located” near racial minorities. Lumping coal ash together with other facilities that involve dangerous chemicals, and then blaming coal ash, is invalid.

Ms. Heriot is also perturbed that USCCR Chairman Martin Castro suggested that NC communities are bring “victimized by environmental racism.” These kinds of “incendiary allegations” are inappropriate, she says; they “fan the flames of racial resentment” based on insufficient or false information.

Interestingly, tests in 2014 consistently found Cr-6 in city water supplies above 0.07 parts per billion, unnecessarily triggering “do not drink” advisories to some well water users, the Greensboro News & Record reported. However, May 2016 tests could not even detect the chemical, the paper noted.

The 0.07 ppb standard is equivalent to 7 seconds in 3,300 years. The EPA and NCDEQ safety standard for Cr-6 in drinking water is 100 ppb, and a 2012 scientific paper in the Journal of Applied Toxicology concluded that regularly drinking water with 210 ppb poses no health or cancer risks. That safe, non-carcinogenic 210 ppb level is 3,000 times higher than the 0.07 ppb “trigger warning” level.

There is no evidence that Cr-6 levels found in U.S. drinking water cause any of the laundry list of health problems presented by the USCCR. For the EWG to say barely detectable 0.02 ppb levels are dangerous and carcinogenic in water that 218 million Americans drink every day is disingenuous and incendiary.

Moreover, coal ash is mostly inert, with most metallic components in tiny amounts and/or bonded tightly in crystalline (glassy) sand particles. Very little leaches out. Moreover, chromium-6 occurs naturally in rocks and soils throughout the USA. It is not solely a byproduct of coal burning or industrial processes.

Saying grave health concerns arise from such minimal Cr-6 levels as 0.02 or 0.07 ppb in drinking water is groundless; saying health impacts arise from its its presence in recreational waters is absurd. Indeed, Ohio’s EPA director dismisses the EWG claims as “scare tactics” to raise money.

All this suggests that the USCCR and EWG claims are just part of the campaign to eliminate coal-fired power plants and the reliable, affordable electricity they generate. The claims could also be setting the stage for more collusive sue-and-settle lawsuits between the USEPA and environmentalist groups – with those who will be most affected having no opportunity to testify and no voice in the outcome.

Forcing utility companies to spend billions relocating huge ash deposits to “lined, watertight landfills” (in someone else’s backyard) will bring no health or environmental benefits. But it will bankrupt companies, send electricity prices soaring, reverberate through our economy, and raise true civil rights issues. As Ms. Heriot notes, “driving up the cost of power has its own disparate impact” on minority families.

Black and Hispanic families spend a 10-50% greater share of their income than white families on heating, air conditioning, lights and other electrical costs, National Black Chamber of Commerce president Harry Alford points out. They are also more likely to suffer still lower living standards and even lose their jobs, as employers respond to higher electricity prices by laying more people off.

If rates nearly double from current costs in coal-reliant states like North Carolina and Virginia (9 cents per kilowatt-hour) to those in anti-coal New York (16 cents) or Connecticut (17 cents), poor families will have to pay $500-1,000 more annually for electricity. Hospitals, school districts, factories and businesses will have to spend additional thousands, tens of thousands or millions. Where will that cash come from?

Will businesses have to lay off dozens or hundreds of employees, or close their doors? If they pass costs on to customers, where will families find that extra cash? If hospitals cut services or raise fees, how will that affect patient costs and care? Might the EWG and USCCR provide financial assistance? Fat chance.

By necessity, hospitals are energy intensive. The average U.S. hospital uses 31 kilowatt-hours of electricity per square foot per year. For facilities like the 665,000-square-foot Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia, that translates into $1,855,000 per year at 9 cents/kWh, but $3,505,000 at 17 cents. That’s a $1.6-million difference.

Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC is 530,600 square feet. That’s $1,480,000/year at 9 cents/kWh or $2,796,000/year at 17 cents: a $1.5-million gap.

Ohio State University’s James Cancer Center and Solove Research Institute in Columbus is1.1 million square feet. That’s $3,069,000/year at 9¢/kWh versus $5,797,000 at 17 cents: a $2.7 million shortfall!

Those cost increases would result in lost jobs and reduced patient care. Now try to imagine the impacts on schools, factories, churches, grocery stores, malls and thousands of other major electricity users – to address health problems that exist only in the fertile minds of a few activists and regulators.

The war on coal, petroleum, nuclear and hydroelectric power is an eco-imperialist war on reliable, affordable electricity – and on poor and minority families. Policies that drive energy prices up drive people out of jobs, drive companies out of business, drive families into green energy poverty.

An yet these fundamental “civil rights” and “environmental justice” issues are rarely mentioned by the USCCR, EWG, EPA, NAACP, Democratic Party or self-appointed “civil rights leaders.”

Too many of them also oppose charter schools for minority kids who are getting shortchanged by public schools, and regulatory reforms to spur job creation in minority communities. Will common sense ever prevail?

Paul Driessen at

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Rigged Elections: American as Apple Pie

In the final debate, GOP nominee Donald Trump won a decisive victory over his ethically challenged opponent, Hillary Clinton. Once again this result was achieved despite an unfair moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News, who gave much more time to Hillary Clinton and frequently interrupted Donald Trump.

cAt least some uncomfortable issues were raised for Hillary Clinton such as her corrupt foundation and her email scandal, but there was still not an examination of the Benghazi terrorist attack or her questionable health.

While Wallace mentioned her comments in favor of “open borders,” he ignored many of the controversial remarks of her senior adviser John Podesta that were released by WikiLeaks in their voluminous email disclosures.

Overall, Trump scored some good points on issues such as immigration, her handling of the Middle East and ISIS and the disastrous trade deals. He missed some opportunities on reminding Americans about the economic disaster we are facing and Hillary’s desire to continue the Obama agenda. While he did mention Obamacare, he should have tied Hillary to an even more oppressive government run healthcare solution that she advocated as First Lady.

After the debate, the liberal mainstream media focused on Trump’s characterization of Hillary as a “nasty woman.” They claimed that it will hurt him with female voters, but everyone knows that Hillary is “nasty.”

For evidence, one can examine the statements of those who worked for her in the Arkansas State Police, the Secret Service and the State Department. There have also been plenty of books written by former Clinton security officials testifying to her horrible treatment of people assigned to provide her protection.

The liberal media also latched on to Trump’s comment that he would not automatically accept an election result. This makes perfect sense, before an outcome can be accepted by a presidential candidate such as Trump, any reports of voting irregularities must be investigated. If there is voter fraud or illegal manipulation of the vote, the result should be challenged in court.

Trump is not advocating military action or civil unrest, but he wants to insure a fair result. We know that there are many irregularities in our voting system. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

Of course, this situation has only gotten worse since 2012 and any efforts to update the voter rolls are always opposed by Democrats. In addition, Republican attempts to mandate voter identification are routinely labeled as “racist” by Democrats who usually file lawsuits to thwart such measures.

On a more sinister level, the undercover videos released by James O’Keefe of Project Veritas show Democrat operatives boasting of promoting violence at Trump rallies and engaging in voter fraud. There have been examples of Black Panther voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008 and suspicious 2012 vote totals in Cleveland and other cities where Obama received 100% of the vote in selected precincts.

While law abiding Americans hope this election will be fair and honest, unfortunately, that has not always been the case. In the 1960 presidential election, Richard Nixon was almost certainly the victim of voter fraud in Texas and Illinois. Although he refused to challenge the results, it does not change the unpleasant reality that the election was probably stolen from him.

In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore challenged the Florida results and the final outcome was not decided until 36 days after Election Day. Eventually, Gore accepted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s decision regarding an ongoing recount and in effect award George W. Bush the Florida electoral votes and the presidency.

Of course, the real “rigging” is being provided on daily basis by the mainstream news media, Hillary’s cheering section. In fact, according to Jesse Watters of Fox News, so-called “journalists” were cheering for Hillary in the press area outside of the last debate in Las Vegas.

This is no surprise as network news broadcasts have been ignoring the WikiLeaks disclosures, but giving heavy coverage to unproven allegations of unwanted sexual advances by Donald Trump.

On Thursday October 13, the mainstream news broadcasts devoted 23 minutes to the salacious accusations against Trump and less than a minute to the incredibly important WikiLeaks stories, which contained offensive comments from top Clinton advisers about Catholics, evidence of Clinton campaign collusion with the media and much more.

For the coup de grace, the Center for Public Integrity produced an amazing report showcasing the media’s near monolithic support for the Clinton campaign. Their investigators examined all donations from journalists and broadcast media professionals in this election cycle.

Of all contributions, it was discovered that an astounding 96% or $382,000 was given to Clinton and only 4% or $14,000 was donated to Trump.

To win, Trump must overcome the media, the Democrats, the Republican Party establishment and all of the special interests who protect the status quo.

He must also triumph over a very flawed electoral system that can easily be manipulated by corrupt Democrat operatives who boast of their ability to circumvent the law.

Is Trump fighting a “rigged” system? Of course he is.

To order a copy of Jeff Crouere’s new book, “America’s Last Chance,” 

Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. 

For more information, visit Jeff's web site at or email him at

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Candidates' high court priority

Right off the bat, moderator Chris Wallace asked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: "What's your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted?"

Right off the bat, Clinton and Trump gave the wrong answers.

Clinton announced that the Supreme Court needs to "stand on the side of the American people," and then rattled off a checklist of political causes and positions she expects the court to endorse: "women's rights . . . rights of the LGBT community. . . no to Citizens United. . . not reverse marriage equality. . . not reverse Roe v. Wade."

There was nothing in her answer about how the Constitution should be interpreted, because constitutional interpretation is of no importance to her campaign. What matters to Clinton is that the court deliver the results favored by her most ardent supporters ("I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade").

Trump was no better.

Characteristically, his first words were about not what he thinks of the Supreme Court, but what the Supreme Court thinks of him. "Recently, Justice Ginsburg made some very inappropriate statements toward me and toward . . . many millions of people that I represent, and she was forced to apologize."

Then he, too, moved to stroke his base: "The justices that I'm going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment."

Once it was considered inappropriate for presidential candidates to talk about subjecting Supreme Court nominees to litmus tests on controversies that might come before them. Nominees at least paid lip service to the ideal of choosing justices on the basis of jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and fidelity to the Constitution.

But now, every presidential election is described, with panicky hyperventilation, as "the most important in our lifetime," because the winner will choose jurists who may shift the court's ideological balance.

So Trump's priority will be to name justices who think well of him. Clinton's — to choose justices likely to vote for the Democratic agenda. As for the Constitution, its priority is chiseled in marble above the entrance to the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law."

If only Clinton or Trump cared about that.

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Weekend Review with Trade Martin

Courtesy of Trade Martin Music "On Top of the News"

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Hillary's scorched earth scam

Okay, I’m hyperventilating. Tony combines beautiful drawings with biting politically incorrect wit and laugh out loud humor.” – Larry Elder – TV and Radio personality at at Fox News and KRLM AM 870

Lighten things up! Political discussions and debates don’t always have to be deep and long-winded arguments with points and counter points. Sometimes we just need to take a step back from it all and have a good laugh.

With so many discouraging things happening in our country lately, that’s the only thing we can do to keep from crying.

Conservative artist Antonio Branco is a master at encapsulating deep and complex issues in a simple comic.

He has written his first book in a series and takes on a wide array of issues, from food stamps to global warming to foreign policy, Antonio isn’t afraid to say what he thinks.

Presented in a coffee table book style, this is the perfect conversation starter with friends and family that pick it up and start glancing through it’s pages.

Who knows, that liberal aunt of yours just might come over to the right side because of this book!

This 80 pages, hardcover comic measures 8″ x 10".

Read more from A.F. (Tony) Branco at this link.


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Is the system rigged? You betcha says Buchanan

Courtesy of Our Friend Patrick J. Buchanan
“Remember, it’s a rigged system. It’s a rigged election,” said Donald Trump in New Hampshire on Saturday. The stunned recoil in this city suggests this bunker buster went right down the chimney. As the French put it, “Il n’y a que la verite qui blesse.” It is only the truth that hurts.

In what sense is the system rigged?

Consider Big Media — the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save FOX. Not in this writer’s lifetime has there been such blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party.

“So what?” They reply. “We have a free press!”

But in this election, Big Media have burst out of the closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign, aiming to bring Trump down.

Half a century ago, Theodore White wrote of the power and bias of the “adversary press” that sought to bring down Richard Nixon.

“The power of the press in America,” wrote Teddy, “is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and think about — an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.”

On ABC’s “This Week,” Newt Gingrich volunteered on Sunday that, “without the unending one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be beating Hillary by 15 points.”

On this one, Newt is right.

With all due respect, as adversaries, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not terribly formidable. Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism against those of Americanism.

Is the system rigged? Ask yourself.

For half a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has systematically de-Christianized and paganized American society and declared abortion and homosexual marriage constitutional rights.

Where did these unelected jurists get the right to impose their views and values upon us, and remake America in their own secularist image? Was that really the Court’s role in the Constitution?

How did we wind up with an all-powerful judicial tyranny in a nation the Founding Fathers created as a democratic republic?

There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants here, with millions more coming. Yet the government consistently refuses to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

Why should those Americans whose ancestors created, fought, bled and died to preserve America not believe they and their children are being dispossessed of a country that was their patrimony — and without their consent?

When did the country vote to convert the America we grew up in into the Third World country our descendants will inherit in 2042?

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a Congressional majority voted to end discrimination against black folks.

When did we vote to institute pervasive discrimination against white folks, especially white males, with affirmative action, quotas and racial set-asides? Even in blue states like California, affirmative action is routinely rejected in statewide ballots.

Yet it remains regime policy, embedded in the bureaucracy.

In 2015, in the Democratic primaries, the big enthusiastic crowds were all for 75-year-old Socialist senator Bernie Sanders.

We now know, thanks to leaked emails, that not only the superdelegates and the Obama White House but a collaborationist press and the DNC were colluding to deny Sanders any chance at the nomination. The fix was in. Ask Sanders if he thinks the system is rigged.

If there is an issue upon which Americans agree, it is that they want secure borders and an end to trade policies that have shipped abroad the jobs, and arrested the wages, of working Americans.

Yet in a private speech that netted her $225,000 from Brazilian bankers, Hillary Clinton confided that she dreams of a “common market, with open trade and open borders” from Nome, Alaska, to Patagonia.

That would mean the end of the USA as a unique, sovereign and independent nation. But the American press, whose survival depends upon the big ad dollars of transnational corporations, is more interested in old tapes of the Donald on The Howard Stern Show.

As present, it appears that in 2017, we may get a government headed by Hillary Clinton, and an opposition headed by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

Is that what the people were hoping for, working for, voting for in the primaries of 2016? Or is this what they were voting against?
Big money and the media power of the establishment elites and the transnationals may well prevail. And if they do, Middle America — those who cling to their bibles, bigotries and guns in Barack Obama’s depiction, those “deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic,” who are “not America” and are “irredeemable” in Hillary Clinton’s depiction — will have to accept the new regime.
But that does not mean they must love it, like it or respect it.

Because, in the last analysis, yes, Virginia, the system is rigged.

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Republicans controlled by 'Depend Caucus'

For a guy who’s billed as the next great Republican political wizard, he sure makes a lot of rookie mistakes.

No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — the Hamlet of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ryan is doing the Hokey–Pokey over Trump’s just–released video “How to Impress Women Like the Stars Do.” I say now, because this is only the most recent example. Ryan earlier was weathervaning over Trump’s Twitter war with the Democrat’s angry Arab. Before that it was Trump vs. the ethnic–supremacist judge. Prior to that it may have been the disabled reporter. Somewhere in there we have Carly Fiorina’s face.

Unless you have a Democrat opposition researcher in the family it’s hard to keep track.

The only thing that’s certain is the joy in the enemy camp as Ryan predictably dances to the mainstream media’s tune and the rest of the Depend Caucus wrings their tiny hands.

There’re a number of problems with Ryan’s performance of the Politically Correct Polka, beginning with the fact it makes him look weak. This confirms what conservatives have been saying for months, but going public demonstrates Ryan’s fecklessness to the entire nation.

Politically Ryan’s weakness is an even bigger mistake for GOP members of the House he’s supposed to be leading. Responding to media inquiries regarding Trump’s shambolic campaign only serves to nationalize House races, which incumbent House members should certainly avoid. House races should stay local.

Incumbents talk about the pork they’ve brought home not the pork–brain at the top of the ticket.

House members, including the Speaker, have no control over presidential candidates. Regularly commenting on the Improv Impresario at the top of the ticket means what happens there also reflects on those members.

It’s the equivalent of the Uber passenger in a self–driving car being held responsible for the robot’s tickets.

Nationalizing a House race is what challengers do to try and ride the coattails of their presidential candidates and overcome the incumbent’s name ID and record within the district.

Ryan’s continuing comments on the Trump race puts pressure on all House candidates to answer Trump questions from local reporters who take their cues from the networks.

This idiocy won’t hurt Ryan — he’s in a safe district, otherwise he wouldn’t be Speaker — but it damages incumbents in marginal districts and it really handicaps GOP challengers. Instead of signing on for color commentary of the Trump race, Ryan should have told national reporters from the very beginning that he is focused on increasing the Republican House majority and he doesn’t have time to be an advisor for the Trump campaign, too.

The media won’t accept that answer, so he’ll be pressed. He repeats those questions are a distraction for House members concentrating on (insert message sound bite). Voters will have a chance in November to decide the presidential race and they don’t need my help to do it.

Then Ryan refuses to answer any more questions about Trump.

The media will tire of badgering him and move on to reliable RINO weasels and backstabbers like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. For proof this technique works we have only to look at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He finally shut up about Trump and the media stopped asking.

Ryan’s silence regarding the Trump campaign would allow other House members to do likewise. When a local news poodle asks them to comment on the latest Trump communication adventure, all they have to do is say, like Speaker Ryan, I’m concentrating on my own race where (insert political BS). Voters can make their own decision regarding Trump and Hillary in November.

Then they can shut the heck up.

Ryan’s failure to adhere to this obvious and sensible strategy calls into question his motives. Is he trying to appeal to GOP contributors that might otherwise stop giving? If so, he can tell them in private what I’ve written here.

Does Ryan want to cozy up to the next administration? There’s probably a better chance for good relations with Hillary than with Trump. Or does Ryan want to be the national GOP leader acceptable to the media? He can ask Mitt Romney how that worked out.

A wise friend contends Ryan’s diarrhea of the mouth isn’t a mistake — it’s a fallback plan. Originally, Ryan wanted to block Trump’s nomination so the party would turn to him as nominee without subjecting him to a primary campaign.

Now Ryan just wants to defeat Trump regardless of the cost to the nation. Gov. Mike Huckabee contents the Republican RINO and consultant complex isn’t afraid Trump will lose.

They’re afraid Trump will win.

I’m beginning to think the governor and my friend are correct.

The Republican Party is Now Controlled by the 'Depend Caucus' from Michael Shannon at The Whole Shebang (mostly)

Click Here to Read Michael Shannon

Michael R. Shannon is a commentator, researcher (for the League of American Voters), and an award-winning political and advertising consultant with nationwide and international experience. He is author of "Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with added humor and available on" 

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Are they really friends of Trump?

Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will." ~ Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist.
"Too many of today's artists regard editorial cartooning as a trade instead of a profession. They try not to be too offensive. The hell with that. We need more stirrer-uppers." ~ Bill Mauldin.
Youra was one of the first recipients of a Fulbright Scholarship and worked in Latin America. He served as an editor of Current Thought on Peace and War at the United Nations in New York.

"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.

Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington. Visit the Youra Studios at

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Hillary would be disastrous for our country

I know who Hillary Clinton is. I worked for Hillary Clinton. She has already corrupted the FBI, the State Department, the White House, the Secret Service, the Diplomatic Security Service, the CIA, the DIA, and more.

If Hillary is elected, I can assure you, the dirty dealings of the Barack Obama White House will look like child's play. Hillary only understands power and government force. She is a creature of government, nourished by government, who uses government as a tactical weapon. She will not be stopped because she knows no limits.

Blow all of this off and shake your head if it makes you feel better but, I was there, I know her, and I know what awaits us if she wins this election.

Click here to read the entire article at The Conservative Review


Dan Bongino is the bestselling author of the book Life Inside the Bubble and now The Fight. He is a Contributing Editor at The Conservative Review and was the 2012 and 2014 Republican nominee for the United States Senate and 6th congressional district in Maryland. 

Dan served for over a decade as a special agent in the United States Secret Service, and currently owns a security consulting business. 

You can follow Dan Bongino on his website, at Facebook or on Twitter.


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Cleanli-Less by Mary Jane Popp

Available at Amazon
Are we too clean? Seriously, have we become over sanitized? And, what about our kidlets? Are we putting them in harm’s way?

Dr. Marie-Claire Arrieta says you bet we are. She is a scientist who has researched babies who are missing key intestinal microbiota and are more likely to develop asthma.

That’s why she and Dr. Brett Finlay put together “Let Them Eat Dirt:” Saving your child from an over sanitized world. So, do we need an attitude adjustment in thinking that bacteria is all bad to realizing that bacteria can be something good…and essential to your child’s well-being.

According to Dr. Arrieta, she really was adamant that we have to rethink our feeling about bacteria because it can affect our kids’ lifelong health. The past hundred years have brought advances in and more widespread use of antibiotics, antivirals, vaccinations, chlorinated water, pasteurization, sterilization, hand sanitizers, and even good old fashioned hand washing.

However, diseases and disorders like asthma, allergies, obesity, and autism are on the rise. According to the docs, there is a connection here.

The first five years are crucial because it takes about three to five years from the time we are born to become a fully established community for a solid foundation for future health. At the moment of birth, a child receives a big load of microbes from the mother.

Babies born vaginally encounter essential microbes. If medical interventions are necessary, such as C-sections and antibiotics, there are ways to re-populate babies’ microbiota.

Breast milk is the jackpot for microbes. We all know breast milk is rich with nutrients, but it also contains an ever-expanding list of antibodies, proteins, and enzymes that promote immunity and intestinal development. If breastfeeding is not an option, supplementary probiotics are crucial.

Antibiotics are overused. A recent study of 65,000 children in the U.S. showed that more than 70% of them had received antibiotics by the age of two, and those children and that those kids averaged eleven course by age five.

Here is what’s disturbing. Children who received four or more courses of antibiotics in their first two years were at 10% higher risk of becoming obese/

Kids need dirt. You don’t have to move to a farm (although Amish children raised among pastures have excellent gut microbiota). But making changes like less frequent handwashing after outdoor play, letting your dog snuggle with your baby (dogs are truly microbes best friend” and requiring daily time outside will all help build a stronger microbiome in your child.

Avoid sugar. The foods that babies eat in the first year of life determine the type of microbes that grow in them. Certain foods, like those with sugars and high starch, are absorbed in the upper intestine and don’t even make it to the lower intestine where microbes are waiting to be fed. Try legumes and fiber for microbes to flourish.

Probiotics are not approved by the FDA, so some products on the market may not have the exact microbes your child needs. Besides, probiotics are not enough. What’s better is not putting microbes at risk in the first place.

You can go to or check out “Let Them Eat Dirt.”

It will really go into detail. Cleaniliness? Yes! But don’t overdo!

From the files of Mary Jane Popp at KAHI Radio in Sacramento, California


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

WikiLeaks: Hillary comments on fracking

WikiLeaks: Hillary’s conflicted comments on fracking

 One of the recent WikiLeaks email dumps revealed some interesting things about hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. (This enhanced drilling technology is a big part of America’s new era of energy abundance.)

First, they add to the growing question about what Hillary Clinton really believes: her public comments, or her private positions?

Regarding fracking, the leaked emails offer a glimpse into speeches she made to closed groups that we’ve previously been unable to access. One such speech was given to the troubled Deutsche Bank on April 24, 2013. There, she praised fracking as a tool to “make even more countries more energy self-sufficient.”

She told the audience: “I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world.” She bragged about “the advantages that are going to come to us, especially in manufacturing, because we’re now going to produce more oil and gas.”

Yet, everything she’s said in the campaign, paints a different picture.

Her stated energy policies are decidedly anti-fossil fuel. The party platform calls for “a goal of producing 100 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2050.” In addition to promoting “enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within ten years,” Hillary’s website outlines her desire to “reduce the amount of oil consumed in the United States and around the world.”

She’s declared that banning fossil fuel extraction on public lands is: “a done deal.” While she won’t come out and clearly state that she’d ban fracking, at a March 6 CNN debate with Bernie Sanders in Flint, Michigan, she proudly stated: “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”

And, she has pledged to “stop fossil fuels.”

Then there’s her comment about green-group funding, as coming from Russia. It’s long been suspected that Russia is protecting its national oil-and-gas interests by funding anti-fracking activism—while not a new idea, the current attention makes it worth revisiting.

To the best of my knowledge, Russia’s reported involvement in shaping public opinion came to light in 2010, when different WikiLeaks revelations made public private intelligence from Stratfor—which had previously published a background brief on Shale Gas Activism—that speculated on Russian funding for the anti-fracking movie Gasland.

In 2013, filmmaker Phelim McAleer, in his film FrackNation, pointed out Russia’s “disingenuous objections” to fracking. In it, British journalist James Delingpole said: “Russia is screwed if it can’t export its gas, so it is really important for Russia that the shale gas revolution does not happen.

It is also in Russia’s best interest to fund those environmental groups which are committed to campaigning against fracking.”

Then in June 2014, while serving as NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Prime Minister of Denmark, stated that he’d “met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations—environmental organisations working against shale gas—to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

According to The Guardian, “He declined to give details of those operations, saying: ‘that is my interpretation.’” A few months later, the New York Times (NYT) featured a story titled: “Russian money suspected behind fracking protests.”

It recounts several cases in different Eastern European countries that are most dependent on Russian energy, where Chevron planned exploratory gas drilling that then “faced a sudden surge of street protests by activists, many of whom had previously shown little interest in environmental issues.” NYT quotes the Romanian Prime Minister, Victor Ponta: “Energy is the most effective weapon today of the Russian Federation—much more effective than aircraft and tanks.”

“Russia,” the NYT adds, “has generally shown scant concern for environmental protection and has a long record of harassing and even jailing environmentalists who stage protests. On fracking, however, Russian authorities have turned enthusiastically green, with Mr. Putin declaring last year that fracking ‘poses a huge environmental problem.’

Places that have allowed it, he said, ‘no longer have water coming out of their taps but a blackish slime.’” Russian television aimed at foreign audiences, carried warnings about poisoned water. Yet, exploration in western Romania by Gazprom, Russia’s biggest oil firm, has not stirred similar mass protests. Additionally, “Pro-Russian separatists in the east, who have otherwise shown no interest in green issues, have denounced fracking as a mortal danger.”

In January 2015, The Washington Free Beacon reported on a Bermudian firm that had connections to Russian oil interests and was funneling money to anti-fracking groups in the U.S. It outlines how the money-laundering scheme works and concludes: “The overlap between executives at firms with ties to Russian oil interests and a multi-million-dollar donor to U.S. environmentalist groups has some experts worried that Russians may be replicating anti-fracking tactics used in Europe to attack the practice in the United States.”

I addressed it in February in my column titled: “Naming enemies of U.S. fossil fuel development”—where I also brought up reports of OPEC reported involvement in funding anti-fracking activities.

In March 2015, at the Forbes Reinventing America Summit in Chicago, Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO at Continental Resources—also known as the “fracking king”–said: “Russia’s spent a great deal of money over here to cause a panic in the United States over fracking to stop it, because suddenly their market share is going away.”

Anti-fracking groups such as Greenpeace, dismiss such accusations as “silly.”

Despite all the multiple claims linking Russia to anti-fracking activity, there’s been scant hard evidence.

But, now, thanks to WikiLeaks, Russia’s reported anti-fracking funding is back in the headlines: “Leaked emails show Hillary Clinton blaming Russians for funding ‘phony’ anti-fracking groups,” wrote the Washington Times.

With knowledge only someone with a high-level security clearance and an understanding of foreign relations, like the Secretary of State, would have, Hillary, in a June 2014 speech in Edmonton Canada, reportedly said the following to an audience: “We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media.

We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”

Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, we have the first “semi-official confirmation,” as Delingpole called it, “of Russia’s sponsorship of the vast, influential and obscenely well-funded anti-fracking industry.”

McAleer, in a press release, accuses these groups of “acting as paid agents for a hostile foreign power.”

Remember, these groups are big supporters of Hillary and she’s, based on her stated public policies, a big supporter of their anti-fracking agenda. As I’ve said before, we are in an economic war and there are many who don’t want America to win.

The cheap energy prices fracking has provided give the U.S. an economic advantage—hence the hostility toward it.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy

Marita hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy - which expands on the content of her weekly column. 

Follow her @EnergyRabbit.


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]