EXCLUSIVE: Trump-Endorsed Arizona Attorney General Nominee And Former Prosecutor Abe Hamadeh HAMMERS Woke Anti-Police Radical Kris Mayes During AG Candidate Forum (VIDEO)

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Editors’ Note: As the 2022 midterm election approaches (November 8th), mail-in ballots are to be mailed out on October 12th. The Prickly Pear asks all readers and all Arizonans two simple questions: Is Arizona to be a state like California where there is widespread crime, homelessness, defunding of police and rapid deterioration of the quality of life for hard-working citizens as its “brand”? Is Arizona a state where fundamental liberties, safe streets, quality, civic minded education for our children and a thriving economy with opportunity for all is our “brand”? 
The Democrat party, its policies and certainly its 2022 candidates like Katie Hobbs, Adrian Fontes, Mark Kelly and Kris Mayes answer the first question in the affirmative, often trying to hide the truth of their radical progressive ideology. The Prickly Pear recently published the reasons to support all the Republican candidates on your ballot as a yes answer to the second question above. Kari Lake as Governor, Blake Masters as U.S. Senator, Mark Finchem as Secretary of State and Abe Hamadeh as Attorney General will all deliver an affirmative answer and fight to ensure we keep Arizona the state it is and can be rather than a slide into woke, leftist chaos and a place liberty loving citizens and families escape from. 


Trump-Endorsed Arizona Attorney General Nominee Abe Hamadeh shredded his opponent, radical pro-defund the police leftist Kris Mayes, during the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Attorney General Candidate Forum on Thursday, September 15.

“Stacey Champion is a kook, Kris… She has said all law enforcement officers equals killing black people, and I’ve not heard you denounce that,” Abe exclaimed while speaking about the Attorney General’s duty to support law enforcement and enforce Law and Order in Arizona.

Abe later told TGP, “Kris Mayes claims she does not support ‘Defund The Police’ but has surrounded herself with consultants and groups that have publicly supported this dangerous policy. Her media consultant has said vile things on social media about our police, and she has done nothing to disavow or detach herself from these groups and has yet to fire her consultant or rescind any endorsements — this is why law enforcement agencies from around the state overwhelmingly support Abe Hamedeh for Attorney General.” 

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that liberal Kris Mayes, running for the Chief Law Enforcement Official in the State, does not even support law enforcement. Her campaign PR consultant, Stacey Champion, actually hates the police and has tweeted, “We live in a country where ‘law enforcement’ = killing black folks and arresting women who need to buy tampons.”

“Killing black folks and arresting women who need to buy tampons.” What the hell does that even mean?

Stacey Champion has also been an outspoken advocate for legalizing homeless street camping and for climate action with “an equity lens” while promoting her 2030 agenda.

These fear-mongering leftists don’t care about the truth or the law.

We recently reported that an Arizona Judge has ruled that the State can enforce its ban on abortion following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is now illegal in the State, and anybody can still buy tampons. And pro-choice women can also choose to abstain from sex or use legal contraceptives like condoms and birth control.

However, During the forum, Kris Mayes promised not to enforce any current Arizona abortion laws if she is elected.….


Continue reading this article at The Gateway Pundit.

Gays Against Groomers Get Financially Deplatformed

Estimated Reading Time: 15 minutes

Editors’ Note: A long article but very much worth the read to alert and warn all citizens of the growing surveillance state and increasing control of Americans by the collusion of state, corporate, and big tech power in every aspect of the lives of ‘We the People’.


Dissident group  forbidden by PayPal and Venmo from using their services. This is how the social credit system will be used against us all

Just like that:

This is how soft totalitarianism works: no gulags, no jail time, just being excluded from the marketplace. We are rapidly approaching the point where one may not buy or sell without permission of the Regime.

This is also how soft totalitarianism works: the “Regime” is not the State alone, as in the earlier iteration of totalitarianism. It is rather the informal coalition of elites in government, media, finance, academia, and private industry (Yarvin’s term “the Cathedral” is also good) who share the same illiberal left-wing convictions, and act in concert. It is Venmo’s and PayPal’s right to do what they’re doing. But the effect is bad for democracy.

It’s like with Amazon, when it decided not to sell Ryan T. Anderson’s book critical of transgender ideology, and similarly-themed books. It’s Amazon’s right –– but if Amazon, with its dominant market share of the book market, decides that it will not sell a certain kind of book, then that kind of book will not be published.

It’s entirely legal. Do you want a system in which a bookseller is forced to sell books he finds immoral? I don’t. But in Amazon’s case, making a fully legal decision has dramatic consequences of freedom of speech and debate.

I don’t know how this should work, in terms of legislation to solve the problem of financial deplatforming. But this is an issue conservative, libertarian, and authentically liberal politicians should start talking about –– and, when workable policies and laws present themselves, then acting on them. If not, people who dissent from the Regime’s ideology will find themselves more and more driven to the margins, and forced through non-violent means to comply.

I’m on my way to Canada now to give a couple of LNBL-themed speeches. I have more to talk about now. I do every day.


This article was published by The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.


ESG Financial “Leaders” Live In La-La Land

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

This week, I virtually attended “The ESG Leadership Forum 2022” co-hosted by the Wall Street Journal Trust and Nasdaq. Panel discussions covered everything from accelerating the energy transition to how to model climate risks into climate strategy to getting to net-zero with tips on how to “actually deliver” on ESG promises.

Speakers earned an “A+” in leadership lingo and managerial theory, but a big “F” in reality. There was a creative high point where win-win was reimagined as wind-wind to describe one company’s “winning” approach to wind energy. (Get it?) In their defense, it is winning from the C-suite perspective. These companies are guaranteed to reap the benefits of government-backed dividends promised by President Biden through trillions of mismanaged taxpayer dollars. 

In reality, however, we the taxpayers will be stuck with the consequences of the ESG movement, and, most notably, the “path to net-zero,” which is both damaging and delusional. It is behind efforts to shutter reliable and affordable energy—mainly coal, oil, and natural gas—and replace it with less reliable, more expensive alternatives. The arbitrary deadlines to reach this goal are forcing the early closure of energy sources without adequately replacing them. As a result, our degraded energy grid now regularly delivers blackouts and brownouts, especially during heat waves and cold snaps when we the regular people consume it the most. This isn’t because of climate change. It can be attributed to poor planning and blind allegiance to ESG principles that constantly overpromise and underdeliver.  

As Team Biden implements its whole-of-the-government effort to shutter U.S. oil and natural gas, ESG investing is maximizing its effect. Government-mandated red tape, coupled with leasing bans, has increased operating costs. At the same time, ESG investors are limiting access to the very capital these companies need to upgrade, expand, and ultimately keep up. The resulting oil market imbalance of suppressed supply is the leading reasonfor the high costs we pay at the pump. The strained natural gas supply, which accounts for 37% of electricity production, has led to the largest 12-month increase in over 40 years and is why one in six families is now behind on utility bills. 

Adding insult to injury, this will have no impact on the climate. Some reports found that a net-zero U.S. would reduce temperatures by only 0.137 degrees in 2100. Recall that a warming temperature is the purported key driver of the change these financial gurus are fighting. 

The real problem is that these ESG elites are in charge of trillions of dollars of investments and their decisions—even the damaging and delusional ones—have a broad reach. They should not be celebrated, but rather held to account—starting with the fire-fire approach. (See what I did there?)

That is fighting fire with fire. Leading this is Strive Asset Management, a company that offers investors the ability to partake in good old-fashioned planning, where maximizing value takes precedence. Strive CEO Vivek Ramaswamyeven has the audacity to let those that reap the benefits of his fund’s returns use their own money to be the change in the world they want to be.

Americans are starting to wake up to the ESG fraud. To find out more about ESG, what it is, and how states are starting to rightfully push back, check out our comprehensive communications kit on ESG Investing.


This article was published at Independent Women’s Forum, and is reproduced with permission.

To Our Conservative and Moderate Friends

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Are you considering voting for a Democrat, or not voting for a Republican because you think they’re crazy?

If you’re someone who votes according to the “candidate I like,” rather than the political party, consider what RESULTS your vote will bring to America, Arizona, and your family. A candidate’s likability and respectfulness mean nothing if their actions bring destruction.

You may like a Democrat as a person, and they may seem “reasonable” compared to the Republican alternative, but gone are the days when you could assume both parties have the same goals for America with different ideas to achieve them. Today’s Democrats have the opposite vision for America than Constitutional Republicans.

What is your vision for America, for your everyday life, for your family’s well-being? Don’t give your vote to a politician who will dismantle and eventually destroy your vision. Check the voting record and statements of ANY Democrat. (I’m not saying every Republican is wonderful; only that they will at least do far less damage than any Democrat.) Think I’m exaggerating? Look at what Democrat ideas have done to your daily reality:

THIS is what EVERY Democrat represents—no matter how “reasonable” a person they seem to be. Just look at the results of President Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and virtually every Democrat in power—including every Congressperson. And don’t forget about Mark Kelly who ran as a moderate but votes 94% of the time with Democrats. Mark Kelly = Joe Biden. Katie Hobbs = woke insanity.

This is a different America than we had 20, 10, or even 1 year ago. And the main reason is a Leftist long march through the institutions,(Christopher Rufo) and a long strategy grounded in communism and socialism which has overtaken the Democrat party, big business, education, culture, law, and even medicine. Think about it. This is not the America we could have imagined even a few years ago.

Conrad Black sums up the RESULTS of Leftist Democrat policies:

“A disastrous and shaming flight from Afghanistan is described by President Joe Biden as ‘a triumphant success,’ while Dr. Anthony Fauci retires with dignity after doing terrible damage to the country with his nonsense about shutting schools, ‘droplets,’ the ups and downs of masking, the ‘abolition of hand-shakes’—almost all of it now thoroughly discredited.

Six years ago, no one could have imagined that these outrages would have occurred, much less that they would be accepted by a bedraggled, degraded, demoralized United States, its federal government in the hands of lawless and authoritarian myth-makers, applauded by the complicit national political media. Can this be America?”

What will your kids and grandkids experience if we keep putting Democrats in power?

It will only get worse.

That’s why a return to Constitutional Americanism is the only way to restore sanity, dignity, productivity, and hope to America.

And the surest way there is to elect Republicans (no matter how flawed one may be) to replace the destructive RESULTS of Democrats (no matter how nice one may seem).


This article was published at AZ Free News, and is reproduced with permission.

House Candidate Slams Biden as “Constitutional Disaster”

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors’ Note: There is a long list of things that we can debate with Democrats: the border, energy, inflation, subsidizing transgenderism, Afghanistan, Ukraine, abortion, educational policy, and racial discrimination, the behavior of the DOJ,  court packing; just to name a few. But behind most of these issues, is the stark reality of unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch and a failure to enforce the law. This election is about stopping the unequal application of the law, and the failure to enforce the law.  It is about blunting a move by Democrats to upend our system by simply ignoring the equal application of the law.  If you feel the arrogance of this Administration needs to be corrected, that is reason enough to vote Republican.

The Biden administration has become a “constitutional disaster” and the Constitution now is “under serious assault,” one of the most-watched Republican congressional candidates warns.

“The Biden administration is a constitutional disaster the likes of which we have not seen before,” Harriet Hageman, the GOP candidate running for Wyoming’s only congressional district, said Wednesday at a Heritage Foundation event marking Constitution Day. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

Constitution Day, which fell on Saturday, this year marked the 235th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia. Hageman’s speech also was streamed by the think tank Monday evening.

“It’s an administration that at this point makes no effort to adhere to even the most rudimentary constructs of what we call the rule of law,” Hageman told her Heritage audience, adding:

An administration that believes it can—by presidential fiat and executive order—take 30% of our real property out of production in an effort to fight what they describe as ‘global warming’ with no explanation as to how destroying our ability to grow our own food and to produce energy will do anything other than further government-imposed poverty.

Hageman overwhelmingly defeated Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump, in the Aug. 16 GOP primary in Wyoming. She now faces Democrat candidate Lynnette Grey Bull in the Nov. 8 general election.

Trump won Wyoming’s sole congressional district, which has been red historically, in a landslide in 2020, receiving 70.4% of the vote to Democrat Joe Biden’s 26.7%, Ballotpedia reported. Biden, of course, went on to defeat Trump in his reelection bid.

Hageman, an attorney, was a law clerk for federal appeals Judge James E. Barrett after graduating from the University of Wyoming College of Law. She ran for Wyoming governor in 2018, but lost in the primary, according to Ballotpedia.

As examples of unconstitutional moves, Hageman listed Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, his plan to “forgive” student loan debt, support for suppressing free speech and freedom of religion, and disregard for the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“The fact is that the Constitution has been under serious assault from the Left and from those who not only seek to rewrite history, but are incapable of understanding why the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world,” she said.

“Very simply, America is built on the foundation of freedom, of liberty, of individual autonomy and responsibility, and the concept of limited government—one that is of, by, and for the people,” Hageman added.

Hageman also said Congress has had a role in what she called the “demise of our republic” by “taking away our republican form of government [that is] guaranteed to us in the United States Constitution.”

She said:

Congress has largely abdicated its legislative responsibilities and empowered unelected bureaucrats and hundreds of federal agencies to deny our right. And what has this wrought?

An [Environmental Protection Agency] declaring an irrigation ditch as a ‘navigable water of the United States,’ and thereby preventing farmers from maintaining the irrigation infrastructure on the property that they own, so that they can grow food to feed us all.

A war on our domestic energy producers by individuals who have never produced anything except words on a page.

And a United States Forest Service that no longer measures production in terms of board feet of lumber produced, but in the number of trees burned to the ground or destroyed by the pine beetle.

Hageman also highlighted the Agriculture Department’s threats to withhold school lunch money if “radical gender ideology” isn’t adopted by schools and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s prioritizing of companies’ efforts toward achieving environmental, social, and governance policies rather than sound investment practices.

“We have, in short, a government run by the so-called experts—experts that are in the process of and intentionally destroying our prosperity and our greatness,” Hageman said, adding:

Experts who have intentionally adopted policies that are designed to increase the cost of putting food on your table, gas in your car, and a roof over your head. Experts who believe that human suffering is a virtue—for all of us, but not for them.

Hageman said Congress should “take back its rightful responsibility as the legislative branch of government” and “pass legislation to rein in the out-of-control, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats.” 

“Congress must return power to the states—where it belongs and as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” she said.

Hageman also called on Congress to “exercise its power of the purse,” saying:

[S]top running scared every time that we have yet another agency, [a nongovernmental organization], the national press, or politician tell us that if we don’t fund them to the tune of billions of dollars the world is going to explode, our children are going to suffer terrible tragedy beyond anything we’ve ever seen before, and that life on Earth as we know it will end.

Hageman concluded her remarks by emphasizing that she is optimistic despite what she described as her “dour” speech.

“I am an optimist because of our Constitution. It’s the greatest governing document that has ever been written because it is based upon one pretty simple concept—it’s based on the concept of the individual,” she said. “It’s based on the concept of freedom. It’s based on the concept of liberty.”

Tommy Binion, vice president of government relations at The Heritage Foundation, acted as host for the event, described as addressing “the gravest threats to the Constitution” and helping to “prepare the conservative movement for the fight to protect it.”

“We believe, of course, as Americans, and as conservatives, in the original text of the Constitution and the original meaning of that text,” Binion said in opening remarks before Hageman spoke. “We believe and we know that throughout our history, the U.S. Constitution has stood the test of time and protected our freedoms.”

“But today—yes, it is the job of the U.S. Constitution, but it is equally our job to protect the U.S. Constitution as it comes under fire,” he said.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

The Left Is Not Like Us

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Progressives do not want the same things as most Americans.

My colleague at the National Association of Scholars, David Acevedo, recently explained that the academic left does not apply “double standards,” because they don’t share the standards they flout. Rather, he writes, their “behavior is perfectly consistent with its true standard: gain power, crush resistance, and destroy the West by any means necessary.”

Acevedo is on point for all radical leftists, not just the academic variety. Their policies intentionally destabilize national security, personal safety, prosperity, the nuclear family, and religion, and are designed to cede America’s leadership to the so-called rules-based international alliance.

Progressives pretend to live in a utopia in which the rules of economics, physics, psychology, and science are suspended as they pursue unrealistic, tactical goals. Radical left leaders understand this dichotomy. Just as they have conceded high gas prices would force the middle class to buy electric cars, they believe the other harms they cause will facilitate achieving their ultimate objectives.

The far left readily acknowledges its preference for a centrally directed government, trillions of dollars of additional spending, higher taxes, the “green new deal,” the end of fossil fuels, restorative justice, racial and gender balancing, open borders, an LGBTQ+ obsession, and shutting down conservative voices. Now that its leaders are becoming comfortable admitting to being socialists, and even “trained Marxists,” the mask is dropping on their true ambitions.

Building on The Communist Manifesto’s call for “abolition of the family,” BLM initially sought to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Many local chapters of BLM call for the abolition of capitalism. Oregon’s Department of Education characterizes its mission as “the restructuring and dismantling of systems and institutions that create the dichotomy of beneficiaries and the oppressed and marginalized.” An initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sees its mission as “dismantling white supremacy.” The American Medical Association calls for “disrupting and dismantling existing norms.” The main trade publication for architects complains that “racism is a metastasis that is baked into every kernel, from planning and zoning to multi- and single-family housing and conversations about public and private space.”

“To love capitalism is to end up loving racism,” Ibram X. Kendi opines. Rather than be guided by the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution , and the Federalist Papers, radical leftists are guided by “social justice,” and “redistributive justice” through which government, academia, and corporations extort benefits for favored minorities from the privileged.

The left’s preoccupation with defunding police, and depriving them of both lethal and non-lethal tools, restorative justicedecarcerationeliminating cash bail, decriminalizing felonies, and refusing to prosecute lower level crimes, or seek sentencing enhancements, has caused violent crime to explode in major cities, up from five to 40 percent compared to the same period last year in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Washington, D.C. They misdirect that Covid, the war in Ukraine, or tax loopholes has caused this increase is legerdemain. Criminals understand this. In Los Angeles, for example, there is a rush to obtain plea deals before the possible recall of progressive district attorney George Gascon. About 75 George Soros-linked district attorneys control the jurisdictions of 72 million Americans. With turnover exceeding 75 percent in many of these offices, experienced prosecutors are leaving, further eroding law enforcement.

The Biden administration’s war on the fossil fuel industry has erased America’s energy advantage, threatened prosperity and energy shortages, and forced America to seek accommodations from others. Bowing to radical left policies, instead of strengthening America’s infrastructure, the administration bizarrely used the Defense Production Act for solar panels, sought oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and has considered seeking oil from Iran.

The left is committed to open borders. Since Biden took office, most Trump-era restrictions on illegal immigration have been rescinded. Unenforced borders are an invitation to terrorism, and drugs, and are intended to change elections in the near-term, and erase America’s separate existence in the long term.

Progressives, who vociferously advocate trillions of dollars of additional spending the U.S. cannot afford, this year pushed the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to 134 percent, well above the World Bank’s 77 percent redline, contributing to record-breaking inflation, deficits, and interest rate hikes that can hobble the economy. Elizabeth Warren advocates taxing unrealized gains, while other progressives more simply want to increase rates on upper incomes. Both would destabilize the economy and shift investments out of the United States.

The left’s obsession with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has, as its avowed goal, supplanted expertise, and merit with socially engineered outcomes based on race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It is axiomatic that this will reduce productivity and prosperity, and provoke racial division. As Kendi concedes, DEI is intended to dismantle capitalism.

Polls show that most people support the rights of adults to make decisions about their bodies. But, after years of promoting the transgender and nonbinary ethos, including an all-out push by the Biden administration, recent Pew and Gallup polls found that just 0.6 percent to 0.7 percent of adult Americans identify as transgender, and another one percent as nonbinary, including pre-ops who might never transition. Gallup found that just 7.1 percent of U.S. adults identify as other than heterosexual.

Numerous recent polls commissioned by liberal Democrat organizations show that Americans reject the progressive effort to replace biological sex with the concept of “identification,” and favor banning the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity to children in kindergarten through third grade (see here and here). Progressives have abused about one million post-op transgenders as pretext to destroy girls’ sports and humiliate women as menstruating and birthing persons (it is unclear how these terms apply to post-menopausal women, or adoptive mothers). Transferring power over children to the state and destroying nuclear families and religion are long-standing Marxist objectives.

Whether it’s Homeland Security’s suspended Disinformation Board, forcing out non-compliant teachersuniversity professorseditors, Sharon Osbourne, or comedians, trying to fire Joe Rogan, or fining football coaches for questioning orthodoxy, the left is aggressively punishing those who do not adhere to its dogma.

The riots immediately after George Floyd’s death cost more than $2 billion in property damage and as many as 30 deaths. Those losses continue to grow. Yet, Democrats, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, refuse to condemn or prosecute left-wing protestors who violate federal law, and often encourage their protests. Just a few weeks after Garland commenced a counter-terrorism investigation of parents who disagree with liberal school boards, and as the Justice Department continued to lock up January 6 bystanders, Garland rejected guilty pleas offered by two left-wing lawyers accused of terrorism for distributing and using Molotov cocktails in Manhattan. He instead offered them a lenient plea to a lesser charge.

The progressive rebuttal is Donald Trump, January 6, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and Donald Trump (again).

Progressives are winning the battle of ideas through their control of education, most entertainment, technology, and media companies, and professional organizations, and the acquiescence of many institutional investors and public corporations. The occasional mainstream win in Virginia, San Francisco, or at the Supreme Court, will not change the trajectory. If anger over transitory vexations like Donald Trump and January 6, important though they may be, prevents centrists and traditional conservatives from recognizing the asymmetric significance of the alternatives, the siege on American values, freedoms, and leadership will inevitably prevail.

In less than 100 days, we can start changing course, but only if Trump supporters, anti-Trumpers, and never-Trumpers channel their anger to achieve a productive result.


This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

America’s Broken Policies Put Our Energy and Environmental Futures at Risk

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

To hear the current administration tell it, the energy crisis is over because gasoline prices have come off near-record highs. They tell us that there is no “there” there when it comes to the fact that America’s energy policy is thoroughly broken and headed down a path that is already risking our economic, national and energy security.

Pay no mind to inflation at 40-year highs and gasoline prices are still well over $1.50 higher than they were in January 2021. Ignore the fact that the fundamentals that caused the problem – lack of supply, bottlenecks in refining, Putin taking advantage of European dependency on Russian oil and gas – still exist and prices are likely to go back up.

Please disregard the fact that our federal government keeps intentionally limiting U.S. energy production to essentially put the Gulf of Mexico out of the oil and gas business, even though it provides 15% of our oil supply.

Nothing to see in the UK’s economic ruin, either, where restrictive energy policies that look exactly like the ones being proposed for the U.S. caused prices to triple and felled former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government. Those same policies are expected to increase utility bills by 80% in October, barring a taxpayer-funded bailout of $172 billion.

What were some of the UK’s first steps toward disaster? Limiting exploration and production in the North Sea and bans on hydraulic fracturing. Do those sound familiar?

That is the very path some in our federal government appear to want Americans to follow. High prices of oil and gas, some argue, are why we should change our energy systems completely. They are the ones who seek to model California’s energy example, while its Europe-style policies can barely keep the lights on, strangle its economy in insane energy prices, all while backtracking on its environmental progress.

No American, regardless of party affiliation, should accept this state of affairs. This is 2022 in the most innovative nation on Earth.  We should expect more. We should expect better policies.

We must demand sound energy policies that keep energy reliable and affordable, and require constant environmental improvement. They must be worked on as a single, three-sided challenge, and not a battle of one against the other.

What we should demand Congress and the White House focus on is creating a national energy program Americans can believe in.

First, we must understand and agree that fossil fuels will play a critical role in our energy mix while we advance toward net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. Anyone who says they must be eliminated fails to understand the science and overwhelming role they play in every facet of our society. No credible study concludes that we can have the energy we need without traditional fuels by 2050 and beyond so let’s work together to advance the technologies and the workforce to build an honest path to net-zero.

Second, we need to stop talking about an “energy transition” as if we are moving away from one energy and toward another. This is a misnomer and implies a pre-determined outcome. Academic studies have shown that changes in energy systems are long-term evolutions, where the most efficient, reliable, and available sources are adopted over time – not legislated into or out of existence. We need them all – traditional sources, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, you name it– because energy depends so much on where it’s deployed and why.

Third, we must supercharge our carbon capture and sequestration efforts. One solution: capture and store carbon dioxide safely underground. The technology to make this happen is already here, and it is one of the fastest ways for us to reduce the carbon footprint of critical industrial sectors like steel, cement and other manufacturing.

Fourth, the government must recognize that its wind and solar power ambitions cannot ignore the elephant in the room: the need for hundreds of billions of dollars of new transmission infrastructure. Our permitting system must be overhauled in a way that speeds projects along while not compromising on safety and environmental studies. It no longer needs to be so complex that it spawned and sustains an entire litigation industry.

While we are at it, our pipeline infrastructure needs attention. Failing to permit energy pipelines makes our environment worse by forcing energy delivery via more polluting means. Permit delays, misguided activist protests and endless litigation are curtailing and not helping carbon mitigation.  Streamline permitting today.

Fifth, we must move swiftly to expand the domestic supply chain for critical minerals essential for many modern technologies, including clean energy innovations, now controlled by China. The Administration has ordered a review of vulnerabilities in our supply chains, but we need to act now if we have any hope of moving forward without Beijing’s blessing or supplies. Like all energy-related issues, this is a clear and present national security issue that must be resolved.

These are a few points that should receive swift bipartisan support for the good of the nation. We need national leadership from Congress and the Administration to deal realistically with our energy and environmental issues. We believe those leaders exist, but it is up to all Americans to send a clear message in November that energy is too important for anyone to mishandle.


This article was published by CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

Is There an EV in Your Future?

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Discussions about converting the American fleet of over 275 million vehicles to EVs keep accelerating as more car companies begin to offer EV models.  In California, the enlightened leadership has dictated that no internal combustion vehicles will be sold in the state after 2034.  Let us look at the practicality of this conversion.

This investigation began in conversation with a friend who knows the vehicle market as well as anyone.  Not only is he one of my go-to guys regarding his in-depth knowledge of cars, but he operates a leasing/car acquisition company and has detailed knowledge of the vehicle market.  The discussion was during the highest gas pricing phase in California. He stated he regularly gets calls from people wanting EVs. He advised clients that the additional cost of an EV – even at that moment when gas prices had hit their highest point – did not make economic sense.  Overall, you will still pay more for the EV in total cost than with a gas-fueled vehicle, and that includes rebates.  This was before the price of EVs escalated significantly because of the soaring cost of lithium and cobalt — essential to the building of EV batteries. 

Is that all the costs for converting to an EV?  I had some discussions with a general contractor and electrical contractor who work with these issues regularly.

I inquired what it would cost to retrofit my home for an EV.  The electrical contractor said though not every home would have the same costs, this is what it would cost for my home.  I would have to retrofit my electrical panel and that would run around $2,500. He cautioned not every home needs that.  I would need to run a line for the EV to my garage costing from $850 to $2,000. The price of that would go up if both the Beautiful Wife and I were to get EVs. 

The general contractor pointed out that Siemens, an international company, in coordination with an American company, ConnectDER, had developed a simplified EV connector.  The device is a collar to your home electrical meter.  The cost of the collar has not been announced yet.  The reception of the power companies having a device connected to the meter which derives power for an EV has not been sorted out either.  This device is supposed to cut the cost of adapting your electric panel from the current thousands of dollars.  This may work for single-family detached homes, but it does not resolve the bigger problem – apartment buildings and condos.

This discussion came from a story the general contractor told me about consulting with the owner of an eleven-unit building who wanted to add eleven charging stations.  The building original conceived as condos was being renovated to be sold off as condos after the renovation.  The cost to put in charging stations for all the units was budgeted at $10,000.  They had discussions with DWP (the Los Angeles power company).  The DWP would not drop in a new service just for the EVs.  DWP was requiring a new main distribution panel/electrical closet at a cost of over $100,000.  The owner passed on putting in the charging stations.

Whereas a single family detached home may have enough room on their electrical panel to expand for an EV, an apartment or condo building is built without that level of flexibility.  In a 50-unit building the panels are designed for the anticipated load of the existing units.  The electrical contractor pointed out each vehicle would need a charging station and they would not be operated by credit card as they are in commercial areas. 

The building would need to be rewired for the charging to be billed separately to each unit. The electrical contractor estimated the cost for retrofitting the building at between $400,000 and $500,000.  Also, the entire electrical service in the building would have to be shut down for an unknown period.

The electrical contractor then conveyed that the power company (DWP in LA) must redo their lines to accommodate the load capacity of the new EV chargers.  Since often there is a street with multiple apartment/condo buildings, the power company would need to completely re-engineer their delivery system to accommodate all these new EV charging stations.  The electrical contractor would not begin to estimate the cost and inconvenience of that or how long it would take to redo the entire city. 

The two contractors suggested the power company was in no way prepared to handle the huge demand that would be generated by the statewide dictate to convert to EVs.  I set out to check with the DWP of Los Angeles.  The community affairs spokesperson directed me to their annual glossy report.  The most recent one spoke only of having 45,000 commercial charging stations by 2025 and 120,000 by 2030.  This is in a city of four million people and an estimated two million residences.

I asked her the following, “How is DWP going to rewire for every apartment building, condo and single-family residence that will need to install EV chargers as dictated by the Governor?  What would the costs of that be?  That is what I am seeking.  Also, how much additional energy draw would there be?” She said she would get back to me.  When she did, she stated “The information from our Briefing Book is our answers to your questions.”  My reply was “Otherwise you have no real plan to deal with millions of charging stations.”

Many people have seen a few charging stations added to commercial buildings.  You may be thinking what is the big deal?  Commercial building owners do not need to rewire their buildings because they only have a few stations.  Those stations allow charging by credit card.  The cost of the installation is not borne by the building owner.  The owner typically passes those costs through to tenants as operating expenses under terms of their leases and recoups the full cost of those installations within a year.  Once there are mainly EVs on the road, the home charging stations will function as the principal source of energy.

Apartment owners have no such means to recoup their extensive costs.  In most cities in America (certainly in California), there is rent control.  There are no discernible means to recoup the funds.  They cannot increase rents.  That will not stop the city councils of many cities to fall in line with this “Dreamsville” plan for EVs to dictate that building owners install these charging stations.  Renters will, of course, say the “rich” apartment owners can afford to install the charging stations.  It is not their money.  And then there is the condo building where anyone who has lived in a condo knows the boards are designed to wreak havoc.

This is the end game of what happens when you elect people to run your state/city who have never run anything in their lives.  They dictate idealistic plans while not thinking their way through to the end of the scenario.  Gallivanting Gavin will be off running for president touting this as one of his accomplishments while leaving us with his unachievable, idealistic mess.

Let me leave you with this thought: If EVs are so good why do they have to be mandated? Why has the federal government had to commit billions of dollars and recommit more billions of dollars to subsidize their purchase?


This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

“Fueling” a Counter-Revolution in Europe: Can It Happen Here?

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Shades of Emanuel Macron! California Governor Gavin Newsom has horrified his core constituency by announcing his state will NOT be shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The state legislature, perhaps remembering that power outages two decades ago led to Gov. Gray Davis being recalled, voted to extend the life of the plant until 2030, only because of an urgent need to boost uncertain grid reliability:

The last-minute decision not to close Diablo Canyon, for now, reverses the anti-nuclear trend begun by Boy Governor Jerry Brown in the 1970s that stopped all new construction and eventually led to the closure of power plants at San Onofre and Rancho Seco.

Across the United States, according to the fifth annual ecoAmerica survey,support for nuclear energy has risen to 60% (up from Gallup-reported 51% in 2015. Business Wire says support for nuclear has never been higher, though the survey also reported a majority still harbor fears about nuclear solid waste disposal, health and safety, security and weaponization, and cost.

According to the survey, despite these concerns support for spending more on next-generation nuclear energy research and development has grown to over 60%, not far behind the 77% who support wind and solar energy and far above the 47% who still support natural gas R&D. Despite the nation’s continued heavy reliance on oil and coal, these fuels command support at low levels of just 36% and 27%, respectively.

The failure of the U.S. to match the pace of France’s 1980s adoption of nuclear power plants is a major reason for today’s alleged climate change “disasters,” according to Anthropocene Institute nuclear engineer Dinara Emakova. This “failure” is largely due to massive protests following the relatively minor incident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island power plant in 1979.

Speaking of France, back in February (just before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out), President Emanuel Macron announced his country would build six new nuclear reactors in the coming decades. What a reversal from Macron’s 2018 promise to shutter 14 of the nation’s existing 58 nuclear reactors by 2035!

By contrast, the German government, reacting to the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan, closed three of its remaining six nuclear reactors in January, a major step in fulfilling the 2011 commitment to end nuclear power generation by the end of 2022. The German retreat from nuclear began in 2002 under Gerhard Schroeder. Angela Merkel originally opted for extending the life of German nuclear plants but conceded to the anti-nuke movement after Fukushima.

Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Austria have also pledged to close existing nuclear power plants, while the British – who are even calling for fracking and renewed oil and gas exploration and development in the North Sea – are bullish on nuclear energy today despite plans to close five of its eight old reactors. Finland and Hungary are also building new nuclear plants, and Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic want to go nuclear.

The German retreat now seems ridiculous given that Japan, the only nation that suffered significantly from nuclear incidents since Chernobyl, has recommitted to nuclear power. Just days ago, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japan’s minister of economy, trade, and industry, announced that nuclear power is once again the key to his nation’s energy security.

Nishimura stated that Japan has already secured 10 plants for reactivation and is working to reactivate another seven plants by the end of 2023. With the nation currently 94% dependent on imports for its energy supply, the 1 million tons worth of energy produced by each reactivated nuclear plant will go a long way toward securing energy for the nation’s future, he added.

According to the Energy Information Administration, as of July 1, the U.S. had 92 reactors operating at 54 nuclear power plants in 28 states. These power plants have supplied about 20% of America’s electricity since 1990. Surprisingly, the EIA says that the U.S. has the world’s largest nuclear electricity generation capacity of any nation and has generated more nuclear electricity than any other country.

On the other hand, the most recent nuclear power plant in the U.S. is Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee, which went online in October 2016. Two other units in Georgia – Vogtle Units 3 and 4 — remain in the construction stage. Despite Congressional directives dating to 2006, the “nuclear renaissance” projected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to generate any other new reactor licensing applications. One reason may be the oppressive regulatory jungle that nuclear operators have to negotiate.

Beyond Nuclear, which opposes nuclear energy, reported in January that no utilities are seeking new construction or operating licenses for earlier nuclear designs (Gen I and II), and the demonstrated failure of prior applicants has caused many companies to suspend or cancel the initiation of new Gen III light water reactors in the U.S.

Beyond Nuclear also claims the “nuclear renaissance” has proven to be an “empty propaganda slogan,” and says the NRC and the nuclear industry are now hoping that an American nuclear future is achievable through the construction of thousands of small modular reactors (SMRs). But opponents argue that these SMRs can be weaponized if exported to other nations and that the cost per energy generated is higher than that for larger reactors.

The group further notes that back in January the NRC staff rejected a license application for an “advanced reactor” filed by Okio Incorporated, which wanted to design, construct, and operate its pilot “Aurora PowerHouse” microreactor at the Idaho National Laboratory. Once again, Beyond Nuclear and 27 other anti-nuke consumer and environmental groups fought the application.

So, while panic-stricken California lawmakers have perhaps extended their political lives by NOT shutting down Diablo Canyon, and despite a more favorable climate in the U.S. for nuclear energy than at any time since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, any hopes for nuclear supplying this nation with new electricity are about as likely as the Washington Generals beating the Harlem Globetrotters.

Other nations, despite their own anti-nuclear activists and funding concerns, are much more likely to move ahead with nuclear power than the United States. China and India are building new nuclear power plants at a rate that will soon push both nations ahead of the U.S. in nuclear energy generation. Even energy-deprived African nations are actively seeking a nuclear future.

With three-quarters of America still Jonesing for wind and solar (though often not in their own backyards), and anti-nuke groups with huge war chests, I might even bet on the Generals.


This article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.


How to Strengthen America, Weaken Putin, and Make the World Safer via Increased American Energy Production

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Russian Economy Dangerously Dependent On Oil & Gas Exports

American Experiment North Dakota has released a report detailing how American leadership on energy concerns, and a ramping up of domestic energy sources, can reduce Russia’s strategic leverage over European countries and help make the world a safer place.

In Energy Leadership: How American Energy Production Can Make the World Safer, Isaac Orr and John Phelan of the Center of the American Experiment note that Russia currently is one of the largest producers of energy on the planet, as the third-largest producer of petroleum and the second-largest producer of dry natural gas. Oil and gas exports, disproportionally important to the Russian economy, made up about 45 percent of all Russian exports in 2021. Essentially, the country is basically a giant oil emirate.

Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) relies heavily on Russia for the energy needed to power its member states. Russia supplies the EU with over a quarter of its crude oil imports and roughly one-third of its natural gas imports. Obviously, this provides Russian President Vladimir Putin with a large amount of leverage in his geopolitical strategy. For example, the authors point out, that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has suggested that Germany, which receives over half of its natural gas and 30 percent of its crude oil from Russia, would most likely not support energy sanctions on the country after its invasion of Ukraine because Russian energy is of “essential importance” to daily life in the German nation.

However, the authors note that Russia’s dependence on its energy exports to fund its economy is a very dangerous source of potential weakness for the country, over the long term. Around a third of Russian imports are invoiced in U.S. dollars and the Euro. Russian access to these two currencies used to purchase a significant number of import goods is made from the sale of its energy sources. The less energy the Russians can sell, the worse it is for their economy, and the less likely it makes Russia able to finance acts of aggression against its neighbors in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

The easiest way to reduce Russian geopolitical leverage is by ramping up the production of American energy sources, especially fossil fuels and nuclear power. Ramping up “renewable” energy sources alone will not allow the United States to achieve this objective. “Wind and solar are utterly incapable of delivering on this desired outcome, which means building more wind turbines and solar panels would simply double down on the failed policies that allowed Russia to leverage its energy sector for geopolitical gain in the first place,” the authors state. “Wind and solar are incapable of materially increasing energy security because they are unreliable, weather-dependent technologies that are primarily manufactured abroad using metals and minerals mined and refined in foreign countries.”

“Rather than impeding American [fossil fuel] energy production, we should fully embrace it,” the authors continue. “This would entail rolling back several initiatives enacted by the Biden administration that discourage domestic oil production and favor production by the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and Russia. The U.S. should also construct new coal export terminals, allowing more American coal to reach global markets and allow European nations to diversify their fuel supply.”

Beyond this, the authors continue “the United States must make a concerted effort to build new nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants are the only scalable source of electricity generation that can replace coal and natural gas, leaving more of these essential fuels available for export. A robust domestic nuclear power industry will also allow the U.S. to export reactor designs to other countries to compete with Russian and Chinese plant designs, which will enhance American influence abroad without the need for military deployment…. Embracing American energy production and export will enhance economic opportunities in the United States, provide our allies with the energy they need, and undermine a key revenue stream for…the Kremlin.”

“The role of Saudi Arabia and its oil industry in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the peaceful ending of the Cold War is a seldom commented on but important factor,” the authors conclude. “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is no less dependent on the production and export of oil and natural gas today as was the Soviet Union inherited by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985. This weakness masquerading as strength is there to be exploited now, as it was then. And, as then, it offers an important tool in resolving international conflicts without resorting to military means. Maximizing the energy resources of the United States to the fullest will yield significant economic benefits, but its greatest legacy could be a more peaceful future.”

The following documents provide more information about energy sources.

Energy Leadership: How American Energy Production Can Make the World Safer
This report from American Experiment North Dakota outlines the need for American energy leadership to make the world a safer place.

The 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth
This Policy Brief from the Institute for Energy Research argues that a countrywide 100 percent renewable plan would put the U.S. economy in jeopardy. The brief investigates the intermittency, land requirements, capacity factors, and cost of transition and construction materials that limit the ability of the U.S. to adapt to 100 percent renewable energy.

The U.S. Leads the World in Clean Air: The Case for Environmental Optimism
This paper from the Texas Public Policy Foundation examines how the United States achieved robust economic growth while dramatically reducing emissions of air pollutants. The paper states that these achievements should be celebrated as a public policy success story, but instead the prevailing narrative among political and environmental leaders is one of environmental decline that can only be reversed with a more stringent regulatory approach. Instead, the paper urges for the data to be considered and applied to the narrative.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Summary for Policymakers
In this fifth volume of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts assess the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
This Heartland Policy Brief by Joseph Bast and Peter Ferrara documents the many benefits from the historic and still ongoing use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, reducing all the negative effects of poverty on human health, and vastly improving human well-being and safety by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks. They are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improving the reliability of the food supply, directly benefiting human health. Further, fossil fuel emissions are possibly contributing to a “Greening of the Earth,” benefiting all the plants and wildlife on the planet.


This article was published by The Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.