We The People USA

Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

EPA WILL COST YOU AND YOUR JOBS AND MONEY

The EPA’s potentially lethal assault on your quality of life, while the EU vastly increases coal importation

New Rules and Old Plants May Strain Summer Energy Supplies
By MATTHEW L. WALD


WASHINGTON — As 58 million people across 13 states sweated through the third day of a heat wave last month, power demand in North America’s largest regional grid jurisdiction hit a record high. And yet there was no shortage, no rolling blackout and no brownout in an area that stretches from Maryland to Chicago.


But that may not be the case in the future as stricter air quality rules are put in place. Eastern utilities satisfied demand that day — July 21 — with hefty output from dozens of 1950s and 1960s coal-burning power plants that dump prodigious amounts of acid gases, soot, mercury and arsenic into the air. Because of new Environmental Protection Agency rules, and some yet to be written, many of those plants are expected to close in coming years.


 No one is sure yet how many or which ones will be shuttered or what the total lost output would be. And there is little agreement over how peak demand will be met in future summers.


The E.P.A. estimates that a rule on air toxins and mercury that it expects to complete in November will result in a loss of 10,000 megawatts — or almost 1 percent of the generating capacity in the United States. Electricity experts, however, say that rule, combined with forthcoming ones on coal ash and cooling water, will have a much greater effect — from 48,000 megawatts to 80,000 megawatts, or 3.5 to 7 percent. (NYT)


Obama’s War on Coal
Killing jobs, causing blackouts
By William Yeatman
Originally published in The New York Post


President Obama claims to see the need to create jobs at this time of endless 9-plus percent unemployment — yet his administration continues to relentlessly destroy jobs for ideological reasons. The best example may be the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s “war on coal.”


The EPA’s regulatory crusade directly threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs — and “rolling blackouts” that threaten even more.


Start with a proposed regulation under the Clean Air Act that’s set to be finalized in November. The Utility MACT (“Maximum Achievable Control Technology”) rule seeks to cut US power plants’ emissions of mercury from 29 tons a year to just five. Yet EPA itself estimates that cutting even as much as 41 tons out of total emissions of 105 tons “is unlikely to substantially affect total risk.”


For zero benefit, the Utility MACT is one of the most expensive federal regulations ever. In comments submitted to the EPA, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an alliance of unions representing more than 3.2 million workers, estimated that this needless regulation would jeopardize 251,000 jobs.


Then there’s EPA’s out-of-the-blue ruling last month, ordering Texas to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide by 47 percent. This, when the draft version of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule had exempted the state entirely. The excuse for the change? A supposed need to slightly reduce emissions as monitored 500 miles away in Madison County, Ill. — a locale that meets the EPA air-quality standards in question. (CEI)


U.S. Coal Exports To Europe Treble
Saturday, 13 August 2011 15:45 Ying Diao and Mathew Carr, Bloomberg


U.S. coal exports to the Netherlands jumped to 1.1 million tons from 334,628 tons. Shipments to Germany went to 899,009 tons from 166,314 tons. Trade to the U.K. rose to 852,159 tons from 159,280 tons.


The U.S. may increase coal exports, further boosting supply of the commodity in Europe, Macquarie Group Ltd. (MQG) said.


“A big push” to encourage natural-gas burning in the U.S. may drive up coal exports to Europe, China and India, said Hayden Atkins, an analyst in London at Macquarie’s commodities unit. The closing of Germany’s nuclear plants will increase demand in that nation, Atkins said.


U.S. steam-coal exports to Europe in the first quarter more than tripled from a year earlier to 4.9 million metric tons from 1.5 million tons, according to a report on the website of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. coal exports are at their highest level since 1992, it said.


Exports to the Netherlands jumped to 1.1 million tons from 334,628 tons. Shipments to Germany went to 899,009 tons from 166,314 tons. Trade to the U.K. rose to 852,159 tons from 159,280 tons. (GWPF)


Tags: COSTENERGYEPAUNCONSTITUTIONAL

Views: 1874

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile

by Jeremy N. Choate

image

This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues.  That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature.  Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent.  Here’s my vent…

Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically.  No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers.  I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.

Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to.  If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears.  If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you.  If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at.  If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy.  If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading.  Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.

First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think.  Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government.  As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.

Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation.  You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor.  The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem – it’s our attitude towards the solution.  We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved.  For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began.  You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away.  We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,

Government is not the solution to our problems;  government is the problem.

Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are.  While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect.  However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service.  There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda.  First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”.  In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress.  What is the ideal towards which you are striving?  An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away.  So, what is your ideal society?

Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy.  The rights that FDR cited are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you?  What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated?  These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”

I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America.  After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right?  Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human?  Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.

If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.  Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else.  Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens.  Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone.  A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet – and it is unconditional.

FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”.  It’s a list of demands.  If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me?  If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me?  If I have an inherentright to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?  

You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he?  If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not?  Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.

You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy.  It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well.  I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.

How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask?  In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents.  If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you.  If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.

The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish.  You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom.  If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity.  If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally.  If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.

However, you cannot say the same for liberalism.  If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor.  If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.  You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs.  You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens.  Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.

What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur.  You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi.  Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.

I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom.  What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.

I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:

“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation.  In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up.  You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else.  In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom.  If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders.  In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you.  It’s nothing personal, necessarily.  If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest.  But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

  • 8 July 2012

Newsweek: Tea Party Support Drops to All-Time Low.http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwwdmOlCY

Seventeen percent of Americans say they support the movement, according to the survey.
NEWSWEEK.COM|BY MICHELE RICHINICK
For climate change activists, it’s Paris or Bust, Al Gore, Bruce Jenner, Germaine Greer, ISIS
CANADAFREEPRESS.COM

Job No. 1 for opponents of the president’s Clean Power Plan: Block EPA’s new regs in federal court.
THEHILL.COM

I'm glad you're rebuilding the lost thread. Very Sorry for the inconvenience,still don't know why it disappeared with so many other threads.

Stuff happens 

California earthquakes, wild fires and floods have been more frequent than ever before.
RIGHTSIDENEWS.COM

OCTOBER 27, 2015

Nice: Solar Farm Fries Birds And Emits 46,000 Metric Tons Of Greenhouse Gas

Matt Vespa

10/27/2015 12:40:00 PM - Matt Vespa

Ivanpah is the giant solar farm located in California that’s frying birds   out of the sky. The temperatures above the $2.2 billion farm are said to reach 1,000 degrees, which killed 3,500 birds in the first year of operation. In Nevada, a solar farm was doing the same thing to our avian friends. At that site, biologists and engineers noticed trails of smoke   during a test, in which were birds being cooked alive.

Concerning Ivanpah, besides killing birds, it’s was off its energy projections, only generating 40 percent   of what was originally projected after 15 months in operation–and it’s also emitting quite a bit of greenhouse gas:

A solar power plant at the center of the Obama administration’s push to reduce America’s carbon footprint by using millions of taxpayer dollars to promote green energy has its own carbon pollution problem.

The Ivanpah plant in the Mojave Desert uses natural gas as a supplementary fuel . Data from the California Energy Commission show that the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 – its first year of operation – to emit more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

That’s nearly twice the pollution threshold for power plants or factories in California to be required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.

The same amount of natural gas burned at a conventional power plant would have produced enough electricity to meet the annual needs of 17,000 California homes – or roughly a quarter of the Ivanpah plant’s total electricity projection for 2014.

The plant’s operators say they are burning small amounts of natural gas in order to produce steam to jump-start the solar generating process. They said burning natural gas has always been part of the process.

Natural gas is used to preheat water that goes into boilers mounted on top of three 459-foot-tall towers at Ivanpah. This allows heat from the sun – captured by 352,000 mirrors – to make steam more quickly. The steam turns the turbines that produce electricity.

So, it’s not producing the energy it was supposed to generate, it's killing birds, and emitting 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That, uh, doesn’t sound like a roaring success.

 

American Lands Council
Mangus --
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/americanlandscouncil/mailings/..." alt="3_Minute_Messenger_logo.jpg" width="200" height="67" class="CToWUd"/>
Recently, the American Legislator reported on the monumental changes that have taken place in Canada's land management, and how those changes can act as a blueprint for the American West. 


AmericanLegislator.jpgDevolution: A Canadian Solution to Excessive Federal Ownership of Public Lands

Karla Jones | April 17, 2015 

On April 1, Canada’s Northwest Territories (NWT) celebrated an important milestone – the first anniversary of devolution. Devolution is the transfer of jurisdiction over territorial lands from the Canadian federal government to the territorial governments. However, before devolution, the situation in the Canadian territories was strikingly similar to the one in the American West today. U.S. federal control of public lands in the states from Colorado westward ranges from more than 30 percent in Montana to more than 80 percent in Nevada. The U.S. government administers more than 50 percent of the land inside the borders of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, and only 4 percent of land in the East.

Environmental and Economic Stewardship

This disproportionate western federal land ownership has far-reaching effects on states’ ability to grow and diversify economically and to fund vital public services such as education, infrastructure maintenance and construction, law enforcement and social services. There is ample evidence that the states would serve as superior economic and environmental stewards of the public lands inside their borders. According to a recent study conducted by the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), Divided Lands: State vs. Federal Management in the West, “state trust agencies produce far greater financial returns from land management than federal land agencies.” State land trusts price land leases in response to market forces and are mandated to make more money on land leases than they spend. Bureaucratic redundancy and a cumbersome regulatory system limit the federal government’s flexibility to price leases appropriately and Washington has no direct fiduciary responsibility or accountability to the residents of the state where the land is located.

The federal government’s record on protecting the environment is also lacking. Large wildfires on federal lands increased by 75 percent from the years 1980-1989 to the years 2000-2009, and mismanagement of the federal estate is widely believed to be one of the driving factors behind the increase. A Congressional Research Service report, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, attributes the problem to “poor logging practices, overgrazing and [excessive] fire control” leading to more flammable biomass. State lawmakers predict that the fuel loads on federally administered lands could lead to even greater numbers of catastrophic blazes and complain that federal policies have precluded roads in some forest regions that hinder firefighting efforts. The federal government’s own assessment is discouraging. The Department of the Interior estimates that deferred maintenance for the lands it administers runs into the billions of dollars and the National Park Service recently announced that it delayed $11.5 billion in maintenance in 2014 alone.[i]

Particularly disheartening is that in administering the federal estate, the government fails to capitalize on those opportunities where economic and environmental interests dovetail. According to Bureau of Land Management assessments, federal grazing lands do not meet the agency’s own standards for land health, which helps to explain why on average the state land trusts for Arizona, Idaho, Montana and New Mexico earn $4.89 for each dollar spent on grazing leases compared to the federal government which earns less than 15 cents for each dollar spent.[ii] In another stunning example of missed opportunity, the federal government is not permitted to lease lands to conservation groups for restoration. The states have no such restrictions and are compelled to accept competitive offers whether they originate with mining companies or a group committed to restoring the land. Much state public land has been leased for just this purpose.

This experience is driving state and, more recently, federal initiatives to transfer control of federally administered lands to the states. Federal and state legislation exclude national parks, federally designated wilderness areas, military installations and tribal lands from transfer.

Canada’s Devolution Revolution

Canada offers a glimpse into what could be the U.S. post-transfer of public lands future. Canada’s federal government once controlled huge swathes of all three territories – Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Just like in the U.S., Ottawa’s geographical distance from the lands it administered resulted in bureaucratic redundancy and lack of local accountability. In 2003, Yukon became the first territory to be awarded jurisdiction over its territorial lands and resources, and nine years on, scholars at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario issued a report confirming “that devolution has generally had a positive effect on the territory and in particular has led to more efficient and responsive land use…” From 2003-2012, Yukon’s real GDP growth exceeded the national rate and private sector contributions to the economy increased substantially. Yukon’s unemployment rate remains below the national average, and understanding the importance of tourism to the economy, Yukon has protected its lands, and has been rewarded by tourism revenues of $200 million annually.

Emboldened by Yukon’s experience, devolution became official for the NWT on April 1, 2014. NWT Premier Stephen Kakfwi explained the importance of this step as a way to job creation and an enhanced standard of living. After preparation for devolution began, NWT realized the vastness of its untapped resources. The territory is estimated to have 37 percent of Canada’s marketable light crude and 35 percent of its marketable natural gas. One year on, devolution in NWT has been a success; a fact highlighted by Canada’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development at the one year anniversary.

Devolution has given Northerners more control over their own economic and political destiny by placing decision making about land and resources in Northerners’ hands. It is increasing the prosperity of the NWT by giving the territorial government the power to collect and share in resource revenues.

Further evidence that devolution is a Canadian success story is that Nunavut, the only territory without control of its public lands, is seeking an agreement as early as autumn 2015. Devolution is a Canadian idea that the U.S. should borrow and make its own.


(Read the original article HERE.) 

Thanks for your continued support and for sharing this knowledge with those you associate with. Education is the key. 


American Lands Council
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/

American Lands Council · 859 W South Jordan Pkwy, 100, South Jordan, UT 84095, United States 
This email was sent to lockpiatt@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here
You can also keep up with American Lands Council on Twitter or Facebook.

Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders.

For more than 15 years, Georgia offered one of the country's most generous tax…
WATCHDOG.ORG|BY NEW MEXICO WATCHDOG

RSS

Support WTPUSA

Badge

Loading…

Contact Congress

Online Magazines

Accuracy In Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
American Conservative
Amer Conservative Daily
The American Prospect
Atlanta Const Journal
The Atlantic Monthly
Boston Review
Blacklisted News
The Bulletin
Canada Free Press
Capitalism Magazine
Chronicles Magazine
City Journal
CNS News
CNIN Truth
Conservative Economist
Consortium News
Commentary Magazine
The Conservative Edge
Conservative Outpost
Corruption Chronicals (JW)
The Corzine Times
CounterPunch
The Daily Caller
Daily Mail UK
Deep Journal
Digital Journal
Dissent Magazine
The Economist
Examiner
Florida Pundit
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
The Freemen Institute
The Gouverneur Times NY
The Guardian UK
The Foundry (Heritage)
Free Market News
FrontPage Magazine
Gateway Pundit
The Guardian UK
The Globalist
Harper's Magazine
Harvard Inter Review
The Hill
Human Events
In These Times
The Land of the Free
Liberty Unbound
Mission America
Mother Jones
Monthly Review
The Nation
National Interest
National Ledger
National Review
New Internationalist
The New American
The New Ledger
New Left Review
New Media Journal
News Hounds
Newstin
The New Republic
News Busters
News Fifty
NewsMax
Newsweek
News Daily
News With Views
Online Journal
Oohja.com
The Palestine Chronicle
Planet Daily
Policy Review
Poligazette
Politics Daily
The Post Chronicle
Pravda
The Progressive
Reality Check
The Real News Network
Reason
Real Clear Markets
Real Clear Politics
Red Pepper
Roll Call
Russia Today
Salon
Slate
Spectator Magazine
Spiked
Telegraph UK
Time
Toward Freedom
Townhall
U.S. News & World Report
Utne Reader
Wall Street Journal Magazine
Washington Examiner
The Washington Independent
Washington Monthly
The Weekly Standard
World Net Daily
World Magazine
World Press Review
World Reports
World Tribune
Vanity Fair

© 2017   Created by WTPUSA.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service