Blog

Wind and Solar Finally Meet the Taxpayer’s Breaking Point

A family paying the electric bill doesn’t care how noble a subsidy sounds in Washington. They care whether the lights stay on, the furnace runs, the air conditioner works, and the bill leaves enough money for groceries.

President Donald Trump’s tax law set July 4, 2026, as the deadline ending federal tax credit subsidies for new wind and solar projects not already under construction. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright called the deadline the end of roughly 35 years of federal support for wind and solar, and he noted that in 2025 they comprised about 3% of total U.S. primary energy consumption. From Just the News:

The Working Families Tax Cuts, a signature piece of President Trump’s tax legislation signed a year ago, set Saturday as the deadline for federal tax credit subsidies on any new solar or wind projects not currently under construction.

U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright touted the subsidy deadline and criticized solar and wind energy projects in a video posted to social media Thursday.

“The wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine,” Wright said. “They drive up the system costs and increase Americans’ electricity prices.”

From 2010 to 2023, solar and wind energy projects received more than $141 billion in government subsidies combined, according to an analysis by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The projects received more in government subsidies than any other energy source in the United States, the group reported.

“Beyond their direct costs, subsidies are causing artificially low or negative wholesale prices, scarcity prices during periods of high demand and low wind and solar generation, inefficient use of existing assets, and increased transmission costs,” Brent Bennett, a researcher at the Texas foundation wrote.

The original argument for subsidies was patience. Give the industry help, let technology improve, then let the market decide. After decades of federal support, taxpayers were still being asked to finance energy sources that need backup, transmission buildouts, land, materials, and favorable rules to compete.

Patience became a policy shift; policy drift becomes a bill the public never really got to vote on.

The White House executive order signed July 7, 2025, said federal policy would rapidly eliminate market distortions and taxpayer costs tied to green energy subsidies. The order directed the Treasury Department to strictly enforce the termination of clean electricity production and investment tax credits under sections 45Y and 48E for wind and solar facilities. 

It also directed the Interior Department to review policies that favor wind and solar over dispatchable energy sources.

A Just the News report placed the cost in plain sight. Wind and solar subsidies were estimated at more than $141 billion from 2010 to 2023, more than any other energy source. Before the cuts, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the two programs would increase the federal deficit by $308 billion from 2026 through 2035.

Those figures should settle the basic question. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bankroll electricity that still struggles when demand peaks and weather refuses to cooperate. America needs power that can run steel mills, hospitals, data centers, farms, factories, and homes without asking families to pray for sunshine or a breeze.

Wind and solar have a role where they make sense. Let them compete; let investors risk their own money; let customers decide what they want to buy.

Keep reading

Joe Biden Receives Massive Blowback For Posting Anti-American Fourth of July Message on America’s 250th Celebration

Joe Biden received massive blowback for his anti-American Fourth of July message on the 250th celebration on Saturday.

In a message posted to social media, Biden (or his staffer) claimed America is just an idea.

Joe Biden also scolded Americans for not fully living up to the words in the Declaration of Independence.

Biden’s full statement:

Two hundred and fifty years ago, a group of Americans signed their names to a piece of parchment and made a promise no nation had ever made before: that we’re all created equal, endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We’re the only nation in history built not on ethnicity, or blood, or geography but on an idea. That’s always been what makes us exceptional. We chose that path 250 years ago but that’s where the work began, not where it ended. Every generation has had to choose it again. At Valley Forge, at Gettysburg, on the beaches of Normandy, in the streets of Selma. Americans recommitted themselves to the principles on which our nation was founded.

Now it’s our turn.

There’s nothing guaranteed about our democracy. We have to fight for it, defend it, and earn it. Over and over, year after year. That’s not a burden. That’s what it means to be an American.

250 years in, we still haven’t fully lived up to those words in the Declaration. But we’ve never walked away from them, and this July 4, I hope all of us can commit to one thing: that we never will. I don’t believe we’re as divided as we’re told we are. I’ve bet my whole life on the American people, and I’m not stopping now.

Happy 250th birthday, America. Our story isn’t finished. Let’s keep writing it together.

Keep reading

Australia’s Top Censor Wants Power Over The “Ratio”

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner wants legal power to order social media companies to shield favored users from criticism and to suspend everyone piling on against them. Julie Inman Grant made the pitch on July 2, testifying to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, the government probe set up after the Bondi Beach terror attack.

She calls the tool a “notification power.” What it does is let her office tell a platform that a particular Australian account is under heavy criticism and demand that the platform punish the accounts responsible.

Her own description of the trigger runs to “insulting” and “ugly” comments stacking up beneath someone’s posts. “If there’s a pile-on, if there’s a brigade, if it’s meant to be an avalanche of online hate, we put the onus back on the platform to say, this Australian is being targeted,” she told the commission.

“We expect you to protect their account and take action against all of those people that you can see… whether it’s you just suspend them or you take them away.”

Watch the video here.

She wants the power to reach across platforms, too. The current adult cyber-abuse rules frustrate her because they force her office to “look at that specific tweet” rather than the whole swarm of replies beneath it. The fix she wants hands platforms a standing order to police disapproval on her behalf.

Grant does not think of this as censorship, of course. Asked about companies that frame their resistance as free speech, she said “it’s easy to slip a censorship label on just about anything,” and offered a softer account of her own work. “What we’re trying to do is minimize harm. Encourage as much speech as possible, but when it veers into the lane of hurting individuals, hurting communities, hurting society and undermining democracy, I think we all need to band together and take more of a stand.”

The regulator asking for authority to suspend users in bulk says her goal is more speech.

Who defines the harm that flips speech from protected to punishable? She does. Phrases like “hurting communities” and “undermining democracy” stretch far enough to cover most heated political argument, and the office reaching for them writes the definition.

Much of her testimony was a complaint that the companies keep winning. eSafety has eight cases running against X Corp, and Grant said six of them were “led by X.” She cast the legal pushback as commercial greed dressed up in principle, accusing platforms of fighting “to be able to serve, share and monetize horrific content.”

Asked whether she had actually seen platforms fight to monetize such material, she answered “I can’t imagine any other reason they would want to put it up there.”

The clearest example she offered cuts against her. After the Wakely church stabbing of Assyrian bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, eSafety sent formal removal notices to Meta and X. “Meta applied within the hour, and then of course, X Corp said, ‘We’re not taking it down, we’ll see you in court,’” Grant said.

X won the legal challenge. And the bishop whose stabbing she cited as the reason to censor went on to back Elon Musk and defend free speech from the pulpit in his first sermon after surviving the attack.

The person eSafety said it was protecting did not want her protection.

Keep reading

LA City Council tried to hide details of noncitizen voting — and failed

Ten days ago, the LA City Council voted to start moving noncitizen voting toward the ballot.

This week, the council ran away from it unanimously.

What happened in between? The proposal had to be written down.

Supporters said critics were overreacting. This was just the beginning of a conversation, they argued. The details would come later.

Well, the details came later.

And the details killed it.

Last week, city staff returned with the actual language needed to move the measure forward. That is when the wheels came off the car.

On Tuesday afternoon, the City Council unanimously voted to pull the proposal from the 2026 ballot and send it back for further study.

This is how bad policy gets laundered through City Hall. Politicians vote for a vague concept wrapped in moral language. They tell voters not to worry because the details will be worked out later. Then, once the authority has been granted, the real policy is written by the same politicians and activists who avoided spelling it out before the election.

That was the plan.

It just did not survive contact with paper.

The original council vote did not create noncitizen voting in LA, and it did not put noncitizen voting itself before voters. It started a process requiring city staff to come back with ballot language and a clearer explanation of what voters would be asked to approve.

Keep reading

Don’t Be Fooled By The “Democratic Socialists”, More State Bureaucracy Won’t Fix Our Problems

In mainstream political discourse a big shift is currently taking place towards the favor of “Democratic socialism” as Americans are becoming more disenfranchised with the capitalist status quo. That is, the status quo of state-capitalism, otherwise known as corporatism, wherein government intervention in the form of corporate welfare on behalf of big business stifles the market in favor of monopoly, in direct opposition to the true free market principle of voluntary enterprise, as explained by economist Murray Rothbard some decades ago.

This swing of the pendulum from one side of the statist paradigm to the other is a subject we here at The Free Thought Project have discussed for years now, and it is one that the people should not be fooled by. Yet, with the permeating influence of old guard progressives the likes of Bernie Sanders, and in more recent years rising figures like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, state-socialist sentiment has grown to influence the rise of a new wave of self identified democratic socialists, the most prominent among them being New York City’s recently elected mayor Zorhan Mamdani, along with a few other self styled democratic socialists making headway in their runs for office.

On the other side of the aisle, with midterms approaching, Republican talking heads have been ramping up their own fear mongering rhetoric akin to Cold War “Red Scare” propaganda in an attempt to drag their sullied reputation out of the mud enough to maintain some kind of political momentum. Such as with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s recent remarks deriding the Democratic Socialists of America’s platform, that unintentionally came off sounding more like an endorsement than genuine condemnation; Or President Trump doing his best Joseph Mccarthy impersonation when recently espousing that “communism is the greatest threat to our country”, despite the fact that to date there is no meaningful communist movement to be found anywhere in the United States.

Keep reading

Rep. Hank Johnson Says if Democrats Don’t Fight Back and Win Midterms, Black People Will End Up ‘Back in the Cotton Fields’

America’s dumbest congressman is back.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, the same guy who once suggested Guam could tip over if there are too many people there, is now saying that the GOP is waging war on black people. He never says how, of course.

He also claims that if Democrats don’t fight back and win the midterms, that black people will end up back in the cotton fields.

Who wants to remind Johnson that slavery ended in the United States because of Republicans, not his party?

Johnson was speaking to Roland Martin, who used to be a host on CNN.

Breitbart News reports:

If Democrats do not win the midterm elections, black Americans will be “back in the cotton fields,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) recently claimed.

Johnson made the bizarre claim during an appearance on the #RolandMartinUnfiltered daily broadcast.

“It’s a GOP war on black America, and if we don’t stand up and fight back, we’re going to be back in the cotton fields,” Johnson asserted, clarifying what he meant by “fighting back.”

He said it is not a call to arms but a call to protest, although he did not specify if he is imagining wild and violent riots reminiscent of the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests in 2020, which many Democrats failed to properly condemn.

“And when I talk about fighting back, I’m not talking about taking up arms. I’m talking about taking it to the streets in protest, and also by exercising our precious right to vote,” he said.

Johnson added, “We’re going to have to get out in November and vote, like John Lewis said, like our lives depend on it, because our lives do depend on it this time.”

Keep reading

How Do Public Libraries Select The Wrong Books For Kids?

Libraries across North America have recently been under fire from parents and authorities concerned that their collections of children’s and young adult books contain material that is sexually graphic. In many cases, the books in question are perceived as part of a progressive agenda that pushes the young to question their sexuality and gender identity. Books introducing gender and sexuality viewpoints to very young audiences have become alarmingly common in libraries. While only a minority veer into graphic sexual territory, together they raise community concern about age-appropriateness.

For the libraries in question, the defensive position is one that invokes intellectual freedom. Outside forces should not limit or direct the content of library collections—that is the purview of professional librarians, who choose material in accordance with carefully considered criteria with the goal of serving the needs of their users and communities. This argument is invoked with particular fervor when it comes to books that express the viewpoint of “marginalized” groups, because these are the groups deemed most vulnerable to censorship. The stated goal is a wide variety of viewpoints, including viewpoints that are potentially not aligned with majority opinion. But how did we get to the point where the professional selection process, seeking to include a wide variety of (often unpopular) opinions, actively collects books that promote a progressive ideology to such an extreme that graphically sexual material is allowed for young people. Has indoctrination of the vulnerable become the norm?

First, let me make clear that in many, if not most public libraries, the actual selection of books by staff librarians is limited. In the past, librarians may have spent hours perusing catalogues and review journals, and in some cases attending publishers’ showcases. Today, public libraries often do not have the resources for that level of labor-intensive work. The number of books published in a given year, thanks to electronic and self-publishing, has grown too large, and library budgets are increasingly stretched.

Instead, many public libraries rely on their suppliers to do part or all of the work. A small number of library wholesalers are in the business of supplying libraries with pre-selected books and providing them shelf-ready, with catalogue records, spine labels, and security tags included. These wholesalers select materials based on profiles that the library supplies, which detail community demographics, interests, genres, copies-to-waitlist ratios, and other criteria. Typically, a local librarian will examine the shipments before acceptance, modify the profile as needed, and supplement these “automatic release plans” with backlist orders, customer request items, specialized books, local history, and anything else that the plan doesn’t cover. The profiles in question often contain a reference to “diversity” with specified targets of books written by or about particular minority groups. In practice, the books that meet these criteria are inevitably skewed toward the progressive viewpoint within these minorities.

Keep reading

A judge decides that property owners in Wainfleet, Ont. deserve to be fined MILLIONS for renting their properties!

Government overreach has once again reared its ugly head in the Township of Wainfleet, Ont. (pop. approximately 7,000). And at least one Ontario judge is OK with this.

Here’s the skinny: Wainfleet council has effectively declared war on landowners who make their properties available for short-term rentals. And the township is fining these residents at least $10,000 per owner per dwelling per day!

Translation: as these daily fines mount, few can afford to pay these enormous sums. And that ultimately means “violators” risk having their properties seized by the township.

This seems like banana republic stuff to say the least.

Meanwhile, one dare not say anything negative about this council on social media. That’s because this council is trying to silence citizens via a lawsuit based on… copyright violation? Indeed, the township claims videos online depict the township’s crest and corporate log, emblems that are being used without consent or approval. Seriously.

It would appear that the Township of Wainfleet likes to carry out its shakedowns away from the public eye and will pursue censorship to ensure that goal if need be. All of which has many residents in the township pondering if Wainfleet is situated in the Dominion of Canada – or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.

Rebel News interviewed Scott Wilson and Laural Duquette more than a year ago. They head up the Wainfleet Association of Responsible Short-Term Rentals (STR).

Wilson says he is facing a total fine threshold that now totals $175 million. As such, his family risks having their property confiscated by the township given that they are unable to pay those fines.

The township’s heavy-handed tactics are beyond the pale. Granted, Canadians do not enjoy private property rights under the constitution. But the questions arise: what is driving this short-term rental vendetta? What is the harm in a homeowner renting out his or her property? Those are key questions – and questions that deserve answers – except that nobody at the township will come on the record to comment.

And another query arises: what indeed is the unspoken strategy behind the short-term rental jihad? Is this all about Wainfleet councilors embracing a NIMBY initiative when it comes to short-term rentals in their township?

Recently, Wilson and his fellow renters had their day in court fighting these massive fines. It did not go well. Justice James Ramsay in the Superior Court of Justice in Welland ruled in favour of the township. Here are some excerpts from his decision:

  • “There is no evidence of bad faith [by the Township of Wainfleet].”
  • “The penalties are coercive, as opposed to punitive. They are not disproportionate.”
  • “The by-law is not discriminatory. Requiring the owner to own the property for two years before applying for a licence promotes stability of ownership and makes absenteeism by landlords less desirable. Operators who live in the community have a stake in the liveability [sic] of the neighbourhood.”

Justice Ramsay dismissed the application and awarded the Township of Wainfleet partial legal costs totaling $5,000. Then again, given that Wilson is already on the hook for $175 million, five grand amounts to chump change…

Check out our most recent interview with Wilson. While he and his fellow renters may be down, they are not out given they are appealing the decision.

That appeal is scheduled for next January. This story is far from over. Stay tuned.

Keep reading

Connecticut “Human Rights” Commission Defiantly Vows To Ignore SCOTUS And Keep Biological Males In Girls’ Sports

While women and girls across America are celebrating the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling upholding bans on transgender athletes in West Virginia and Idaho, Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is doubling down on erasing women’s sports.

In an absolutely tone-deaf statement following the June 30, 2026 B.P.J. decision, the CHRO proudly declared that the ruling “does NOT limit the right of transgender women and girls to participate in sports in CT.”

Let that sink in.

A so-called “Human Rights” commission is openly misappropriating the words “women” and “girls” to describe biological males — and boasting about it.

“In Connecticut, we proudly and loudly protect civil rights,” the CHRO proclaims. Just not the civil rights of actual women and girls who are being displaced, injured, or robbed of scholarships, podiums, and opportunities by biological men in female categories.

The commission vows to continue enforcing its radical “gender identity” antidiscrimination policies (which have been in place since 2011) to ensure “transgender women and girls remain protected and able to participate fully in sports throughout our state.”

Notice the language.

They don’t say “transgender athletes.”

Instead, they specifically say “transgender women and girls.”

Why?

Keep reading

Ukraine Blamed in Germany for War Crimes in Pipeline Sabotage, Shamed in Poland for Honoring Nazi Collaborators and War Criminals, Suspected in Monaco of Horrific Bombing

Heroes and villains in the Russia-Ukraine war: a warped tale.

Of course, if you check any report by the MSM, you’ll read about what awful criminals the Russians are and how the valiant, democratic Ukrainians shield Europe from this danger.

But just in the few days, we have learned such an astonishing amount of damaging information regarding Volodymyr Zelensky’s regime that it borders on the unbelievable.

To start, German police have charged a Ukrainian veteran with war crimes in the explosion of the Nord Stream Pipeline, and prosecutors have openly told the press that the sabotage was undertaken after ‘state orders’ coming from Kiev.

As you can read in Ukrainian Man Charged in Germany With War Crime Explosions That Sabotaged Nord Stream Pipeline – Prosecutors Say He Acted on ‘State Orders’ by Kiev Regime.

That alone should give anyone pause. But there’s much more.

In Poland, officials have stripped Zelensky of a highly prestigious decoration over his government’s decision to honor WW2 war criminals (is there a theme here?) by renaming a current army unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Nazi collaborators who massacred 100,000 Poles (among other atrocities) in World War Two.

Keep reading