Liberals Are Endangering Our Citrus Industry

Florida’s citrus harvest has plummeted 60 percent from ten years ago, because of citrus greening disease, a bacterial infection that causes trees to produce stunted fruit and eventually die. The disease has also been found in one Los Angeles area orchard, potentially putting California’s citrus groves at risk. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake.

Introduced and spread by the flying aphid-like Asian citrus psyllid, citrus greening is also called HLB, from the Mandarin word for “yellow dragon disease.” It can quickly infest entire orchards, and thus far there is no cure. Infected trees must simply be destroyed.

Fortunately, a new pesticide called sulfoxaflor can prevent infections by killing psyllids. It is the only product other than neonicotinoid insecticides that protects valuable citrus trees against HLB. (Although technically in a different class, sulfoxaflor is similar to neonics.)

Unfortunately, a three-judge panel from San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently banned the chemical’s use. This is the most liberal, most frequently overturned court in the United States. But its decision has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to cancel its approval of sufloxaflor’s registration, and ban the chemical’s sale and distribution in the United States.

Both the California and Florida citrus industries need this product if oranges are going to be kept off the endangered list. Can growers and state officials secure commonsense legal decisions before it’s too late?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is extremely cautious about insecticides. Yet it approved sulfoxaflor, after discussing it with Canadian and Australian regulatory agencies and reviewing more than 400 studies, reams of data and many analyses of field tests examining effects on honeybees.

Not good enough, said the Ninth Circuit. Because “bees have been dying at alarming rates,” the judges said, they felt compelled to substitute their judgment for the EPA’s – and revoke sulfoxaflor’s approval.

In the end, their chief objection came down to three measurements of pesticide residue in nectar and pollen – out of 132 measurements taken. Because this two percent of results barely exceeded the EPA’s extremely conservative “level of concern,” and even though the detected residue amounted to only a few parts per billion (equivalent to a few seconds out of 32 years), the judges pulled the pesticide’s approval and told the EPA to do more homework.

In reality, it is the judges who need to do more homework. Their decision failed to recognize several critical facts.

First, residue detection does not equal harm. Neonicotinoids – the insecticides that the court compared to sulfoxaflor – have not impacted honeybee populations. Real-world experience and extensive field studies demonstrate that bees thrive throughout millions of acres of neonic-treated canola grown in Western Canada. These pesticides are also widely used in Australia, where the bee industry is so healthy that it exports honeybee queens worldwide.

Second, bee populations are actually rising. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that America’s colony numbers have risen slightly, from 2.6 million in 2000 to over 2.7 million in 2014. They’re currently at a 20-year high in the United States, the Washington Post reports, and up 80% worldwide since 1961.

The number of hives in Canada has also increased, even as neonic use has grown. In Ontario, hive numbers rose from 84,000 in 1995 to 97,500 in 2013. Relatively high losses in Ontario over the frigid 2014/15 winter may reflect the fact that the province has a greater proportion of hobbyist beekeepers.

They try hard to maintain their hives, commercial keeper Lee Townsend observed. But “they’re not as current as commercial beekeepers,” who are generally more up to speed on how to protect hives. Bees are “how we make our money. This is how we support our families. There’s a big difference,” he says.

Third, media reports on wintertime bee losses may have made the judges think bees are in trouble. But beekeepers lose a certain percentage of their hives every year, and view losses around 19 percent as acceptable.

When losses are higher, such as 23 percent last winter, they can cause economic setbacks for some beekeepers. But most can quickly rebuild their hives in the springtime – a detail that many news stories leave out.

Many journalists also fail to recognize that worker bees live for only six weeks in the summer. The Ninth Circuit seems to have made the same errors, ignored experts and evidence, and listened mostly to anti-chemical activists who blame neonics for seasonal bee loss fluctuations.

Fourth, it appears that significant colony losses in recent years were caused primarily by aptly named Varroa destructor mites that carry multiple bee viruses and diseases. Other serious threats to beehives have included parasitic phorid flies, intestinal fungi, the tobacco ringspot virus and abnormally cold weather in some area.

Thankfully, beekeepers are managing these challenges better, despite how difficult it is to treat bees for parasites – basically killing bugs on bugs. While trying to address hive health problems, beekeepers have sometimes accidentally killed off entire hives through overuse or off-label use of pesticides.

Fifth, while some still have problems maintaining the health of their hives, experienced, attentive beekeepers are finding their profession is “more profitable than ever,” says independent researcher and beekeeper Randy Oliver. Bees are highly sought for pollination services, and prices are high.

Meanwhile, however, U.S. citrus growers face devastation.

Sulfoxaflor offers them a chance to survive. Its safety, effectiveness and unique insect-control mechanism make it especially valuable. Even the Ninth Circuit judges acknowledged this.

As entomologist Michael Rogers, director of the University of Florida’s Citrus Research and Education Center, recently told the Lakeland Ledger: If they don’t have sulfoxaflor, “the alternatives growers would use would be more toxic” to bees that pollinate so many crops.

“Neonic crop protection is currently the only thing we have that can ensure the citrus industry survives citrus greening long enough to be rescued by genetic engineering,” Rogers adds. Ironically, many of the groups battling neonics also oppose biotechnology.

The White House’s recent National Pollinator Health Strategy emphasized the need to “balance the unintended consequences of chemical exposure with the need for pest control.” The Ninth Circuit ignored that guidance and let fear and misinformation triumph over facts.

California and Florida growers and agricultural agencies should pursue legal remedies that regain their sulfoxaflor option, before psyllids and HLB destroy the nutritious citrus fruits we love. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit just granted the EPA’s request for a panel rehearing on its decision to ban the chemical.

Growers and other affected parties should at least file “friends of the court” briefs, to ensure that the judges are aware of all the relevant facts before it renders a new decision.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

It Is Not Just Washington Which Has Voters On The Warpath

Elsewhere in this publication, I wrote about the week I spent covering the jury trial of the State of Nevada vs. James David Norrell, the young man charged with two felonies for the “crime” of defending himself, his pregnant wife and his 2 ½ year old son in their third floor Reno, NV apartment.

After a week of reversible error, feckless judging and the kind of things you never saw on Law and Order, the result was a hung jury.

To put it mildly, it was not newbie Judge Lynn Simons’ finest moment; and the Washoe County District Attorney’s office must also shoulder some blame for even charging this case, much less taking it to trial.

The judge arrogantly flouted the Nevada case law requiring her to instruct the jury regarding defense theory of the case, even when the jury ASKED for such an instruction. Nevada has a law on the books allowing a citizen to make an arrest in certain circumstances, and she refused to tell the jury. Twice.

And, frankly, that was the tip of her fecklessness. She allowed young ADA Sean Alexander to call rebuttal witnesses who had previously been excused—after the ADA was seen in the hallway discussing their new testimony. She allowed the prosecutor to question why Norrell DIDN’T say something in his testimony in his closing—a clear violation of Supreme Court case law.

And through all of this, the jury came back with no verdict because they were 12 Americans who did their jobs much better than the Judge and the prosecutor.

For the defense and Mr. Norrell, it was like trying to play the Lakers at Staples Center with three really good players while the refs continuously made bad calls.

Here’s the problem. Norrell probably spent between $20 and $50,000 with defense co-counsel Byron Bergeron and John Malone defending himself. And the DA’s office—in a wrongheaded attempt to save some face—may still attempt to retry him. That’s a lot of money for a kid starting a family who was living in Federally subsidized housing. But his future career in security depends on his ability to carry a gun.

Here’s the bigger problem.

Most people think that the criminal justice system is fair and even-handed and concentrates on violent and property crime. Until and unless they get sucked into the system like Norrell did, they maintain that belief for most of their lives.

You can’t put a cop on every corner, so our system largely depends on voluntary compliance. People have to respect the system, and that starts with the police, the judges and the prosecutors. If the average person reads about the conduct of cases like this, what then?

Well, the symptoms of “what then?” are the rise of outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Not that their initial success is a bad thing. But it’s a natural reaction to an increasing distrust of government at all levels.

District Attorney Chris Hicks was elected in 2014 with no opposition and virtually everybody’s endorsement. Judge Simons was also elected in 2014, and her endorsement list read like a list of everybody who ever had a reason to have their own personal judge on the bench.

District Attorneys are elected to maintain justice—not to win at all costs—and part of their job is to weed out bad cases before they are charged or proceed to trial. Hicks had plenty of chances here, and I don’t want to hear about how big the office is and how much bureaucracy it has. His name is on the door, and his employees are that bureaucracy; and he is responsible because the voters say so.

Judges are elected to call balls and strikes—not set the strike zone or the width of the plate. That is the sole province of the state legislature. Lynn Simons—despite the fact that she has only been on the bench about nine months—should know that legislating from the bench is not what District Judges are charged with doing, and she ought to be ashamed at her conduct of this trial.

This isn’t penny-ante stuff. People’s lives and liberty are at stake with the stroke of a DA’s pen and an arrogant ruling by a sitting judge. That is why it is appropriate to remind both Hicks and Simons that they were elected, and they can be unelected. As easily as Donald Trump can lead the Republican Presidential race because people are mad at Washington, Hicks and Simons can be in private practice in 2019 because of cases like the one against Norrell.

Respect isn’t something which the criminal justice system gets automatically. It must be earned by those who run it. And if the taxpayers have no respect for it, it is clearly the fault of the people who we have entrusted to run it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Good Law, Bad Law – Congress Shall Make NO LAW

America’s forefathers identified Good Law in the first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, where it speaks of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” These laws are intractable inasmuch as a tree is a tree, a man is a man and a woman is woman – that’s nature’s law based upon God’s eternal laws of the universe. It is figuratively written in stone that a tree cannot become a man, a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a tree. No matter how contorted the human mind may become in their effort to disrupt the laws of nature and of nature’s God, “these Truths are self-evident.”

Since that declaration of Good Law, the written word has been used by man continuously and consistently to make Bad Law; and the only reason this continues to go unabated is that through the years, decades and now centuries, We the People have allowed it to happen.

To that I say, “Shame on us; let’s fix it now before it’s too late (if it isn’t already); and remember, whenever something needs fixing, the best place to start to fix it is at the beginning.”

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights attached to the other famous American founding document, the Constitution, is one of the people’s most important freedoms, the Freedom of Religion. Our forefathers used sixteen short words to declare religious liberty for all posterity. Those sixteen words read as follows: “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s really quite straightforward; understandable at an elementary level; concrete, clear and concise.

And what have we allowed our historical judicial tyrants to do with it? Slowly, serendipitously, stealthily steal our rights so thoroughly that we now live in a country where an innocent woman in Rowan County, Kentucky, Kim Davis, is jailed because she refuses to follow the dictates of one particular judicial terrorist of the day. And why has this happened? I believe it is because we have allowed the sworn enemies of Liberty to distort the very meaning of our God-given, constitutionally protected Rights.

For example, if in fact there is to be separation of church and state, the Bill of Rights puts this concept in the context of a “one-way street.” Congress shall make NO LAW. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything to the effect that religious people shall not influence Congress. Furthermore, if there is to be a healthy “separation” of church and state, a good understanding of the mutually respectful separation can be read in a commentary written in 1888 that includes the following paragraph:

Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord’s Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future.

See: “The American Idea of Religious Freedom,” by Philip Schaff.

It’s no wonder the statists want to deny our children a proper understanding of American history.

For example, an early challenge to religious liberty was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in Reynolds v United States, involving the right of a Mormon to have more than one wife.

Now, to be clear, I believe in traditional Christian marriage between one man and one woman, and I agree with Mr. Philip Schaff when he states that “Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people” (see italicized paragraph above). That said, this case should never have been allowed (by We the People) to have been adjudicated at the federal level. This was a State issue and should have been finalized in Utah, where “the people” have “the right” to determine “the structure” of “their society” in “their State.” That’s federalism; that would have been in accordance with our constitution.

However, maybe because Americans were too busy building railroads in 1878, they failed to demand judicial adherence to their constitution; and the Supreme Court was allowed to insert their opinion that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion but allowed it to legislate against action. I don’t remember seeing caveats to NO LAW that differentiated between opinion and action; do you? In my humble opinion, the supreme court of 1878 should have cited the First and the Tenth amendments to the United States constitution, declined to even hear the case and remanded it back to the State of Utah, where it should have been properly adjudicated in accordance with the will of the people. Instead, the Supreme Court’s handling of this decision seems to have been the proverbial camel’s nose under the proverbial tent.

Our religious liberty has, since then, continuously and consistently been eroded at the federal level to the point where, in the 1960’s, the supreme court required governments to “refrain from limiting religious freedom, unless they have a compelling societal reason for doing so.”

And, of course, the socialist Senator from New York, Charles (Chuckie) Schumer, and the infamous deceased Senator from Massachusetts, Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, were only too happy to enshrine the government’s “compelling interest” restriction on our First Amendment Rights in 1993 under the deceitful guise of the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act.

I ask you: Do you really believe that Sen. Chuck Schumer or Sen. Ted Kennedy ever intended to protect your religious freedom? I rest my case.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

To Presidential Candidates On Supreme Court Justices: No More Surprises

The next President is likely to appoint as many as three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing a new majority and shaping the judicial branch for a generation. Those justices will serve for many years after the next President leaves office, and their votes will impact every facet of American life.

Will the next President select justices who abide by the text and original meaning of the Constitution, even when doing so is politically unpopular or inconvenient? Or will our system of checks and balances be further damaged by the selection of justices who take for themselves the power to rewrite the Constitution according to their own political preferences? Sadly, despite three Republican presidencies and seven appointments to the Court in the last thirty-five years, we still have a Court that too frequently does the latter.

The undersigned conservative leaders are determined to reverse that trend. To that end, candidates who seek the presidency must, at minimum:

  • Commit to nominating justices with a proven, judicial record of upholding the Constitution. No matter their credentials, avoid nominees with thin paper trails who have failed to publicly demonstrate their unwavering commitment to limited, constitutional government.
  • Commit to spending the energy and political capital necessary to win a confirmation battle. Liberal activists would do anything to block the appointment of justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.The next president must demand an up-or-down vote for such justices, and support efforts to eliminate the judicial filibuster.
  • Commit to ending the liberal American Bar Association’s preferential role in screening judicial nominees.
  • Commit to reminding the justices they appoint that they take an oath to faithfully support and defend the Constitution, and that their oath continues throughout the time they hold office.



Hon. Edwin Meese III

Former Attorney General

President Ronald Reagan


Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell

Policy Board Member

American Civil Rights Union


Hon. Bob McEwen

U.S. House of Representatives

Former Member, Ohio


William L. Walton

Vice President

Council for National Policy


Hon. David McIntosh

Former Member of Congress


Kelly Shackelford, Esq.

President, CEO and Chief Counsel

Liberty Institute


Ellen L. Barrosse

Chairman, Conservative Steering Committee of Republican National Committee


Brian Brown


National Organization for Marriage


Frank Schubert


Mission Public Affairs, LLC


Floyd Brown


Western Center for Journalism


Bob Adams


Revive America PAC


Linwood Bragan

Executive Director

CapStand Council for Policy and Ethics


Rick Scarborough


Vision America Action


Michael Farris, JD, LLM


Ted Baehr

Publisher, MOVIEGUIDE(R)
Member, Broadcast Film Critics Association


Seton Motley 


Less Government


Ali Akbar

Senior Advisor

Black Conservatives Fund


Dan Weber

CEO, Association of Mature

American Citizens (AMAC)


Rod D. Martin

Founder and CEO

The Martin Organization


Sherri R. Martin

The Martin Foundation


Nicholas Stehle

Campaign for the American Future


Hon. Sharron Angle


National Federation of Republican Assemblies


Dr. Shawn A. Mitchell

National Chaplain

National Federation of Republican Assemblies


Hon. Jerry Melvin


Florida Republican Assembly


Jim Backlin

Christian Coalition of America


Ron Robinson


Young America’s Foundation


Kristin Fecteau


Campaign to Free America


Gary L. Bauer


American Values


Carrie Severino

Chief Counsel and Policy Director

Judicial Crisis Network


Gary Marx

Former Executive Director and Board Member

Judicial Crisis Network


Phillip L. Jauregui


Judicial Action Group


Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr.

Vice President & Legal Director

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation


Richard A. Viguerie



Ron Pearson

Executive Director

Conservative Victory Fund


Curt Levey


The Committee for Justice

(All organizations listed for IDENTIFICATION purposes only)

Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop

Chairman, Conservative Action Project (CAP)

Former White House Advisor, President Ronald Reagan


L. Brent Bozell, III




Marjorie Dannenfelser


Susan B. Anthony List


Alfred S. Regnery


Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund


The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.

Former Domestic Advisor

President Ronald Reagan


Michael Grebe

President and CEO

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation


Jay Mount


MDS Communications


Lee A. Beaman


Beaman Automotive Group


James C. Miller III

Former OMB Director

President Ronald Reagan


John C. Eastman

Senior Fellow

The Claremont Institute


Col. Clifton P. Schroeder, USMC Retired

Member, Council For National Policy


Ralph Benko


Center for Civic Virtue


Quin Hillyer

Veteran Conservative Columnist


Willes K. Lee

Executive Vice President

National Federation of Republican Assemblies


Christopher N. Malagisi


Young Conservatives Coalition


Richard D. Hayes


Hayes, Berry, White & Vanzant, LLP


Kevin Kookogey

President & Founder

Linchpins of Liberty


Joseph A. Morris

Morris & De La Rosa


Elaine Donnelly


Center for Military Readiness


Judson Phillips


Tea Party Nation


C. Preston Noell III


Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.


Mike Spence


Conservative Republicans of California


Alex St. James

Executive Director

Blacks Economic-Security Trust (BEST) Foundation


Andresen Blom
Executive Director

Grassroot Hawaii Action


Larry Cirignano

DC Representative

Children First Foundation


Matt Schlapp


The American Conservative Union


Dan Schneider

Executive Director

The American Conservative Union


Tom McClusky

Vice President

March for Life Action


Hon. Donald J. Devine

Former Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Senior Scholar, The Fund for American Studies


Mario H. Lopez 


Hispanic Leadership Fund


Herman Cain

President & C.E.O.


Gina Gleason

Executive Director

Faith and Public Policy


George Landrith


Frontiers of Freedom










The Conservative Action Project, founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese and chaired by The Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, is designed to facilitate conservative leaders working together on behalf of common goals. Participants include the CEO’s of over 100 organizations representing all major elements of the conservative movement-economic, social and national security.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Here Are The Top 3 Things You Won’t Hear Donald Trump And Most Of The Other GOP Presidential Candidates Say…

1. “We need to end the Abortion Holocaust; and as president, I will enforce the 5th and 14th amendments if individual states fail to do so. We can’t ‘make America great again’ as long as we allow the most innocent among us to be murdered in cold blood with the full consent and funding of our government. The God-given right to life is the most fundamental right human beings possess; and as president, I will do everything in my power to restore the Rule of Law and the Right to Life for ALL innocent human persons.”

2. “The Supreme Court isn’t the Supreme Being, and court opinions aren’t law. And as president, I will not enforce any immoral, illegal and unconstitutional court opinion such as Roe, Windsor, and Obergefell. Judicial Supremacy, the belief that Rule of Judges=Rule of Law and that the president, Congress, and every individual state must always obey every Supreme Court opinion the very moment one is issued, is a toxic liberal lie that we must expose and extinguish; and as president, I will take the lead in doing so!”

3. “God defined, ordained, and instituted marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman; and the natural human family is the foundation for all healthy, virtuous and prosperous societies. America can’t be great unless she is good. And that begins with the preservation of the family. As president, I will call for Congress to pass a Constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in accordance with God’s definition–and will call for all state governors to cease from (illegally) authorizing the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples, since Obergefell isn’t law and since any law (or court opinion) contrary to God’s Law is no law at all (legally null and void).”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by