In the annals of history, few names inspire as much awe and fear as Genghis Khan. And that’s for good reason: he was arguably the greatest conqueror in history, building what would become the largest continental empire ever seen out of a group of squabbling nomadic tribes in central Asia.That’s not the kind of resumé you get by sheer luck. So what made Genghis and his army so incredibly successful? The truth is more complex than you might realize.The war machineFrom the very moment he was born, Genghis Khan was marked for greatness. At least, that’s what his most contemporary biographers tell us (and why would they lie?): according to the oldest-surviving literary work in the Mongolian language, The Secret History of the Mongols, he was born clutching a blood clot – a sure sign that he would become a brave warrior.But before he became Genghis Khan – back when he was just Temujin, the tribeless semi-orphan who survived out on the Mongolian steppe by foraging for berries and hunting rats and birds – you probably wouldn’t have guessed how his story would end up.So how did he get from one extreme to the other? At first, it was through the shrewd establishment of alliances – the earliest of which was to his first wife, Börte. The second-earliest, forged after Börte was kidnapped by a rival tribe, was with a powerful fellow Khan named Toghrul.Temujin now had an army. And, as he was about to prove, he had an almost preternatural sense for how to use it.“The strength of the Mongol army lay in its ability to conduct combat operations with an efficiency and effectiveness that far surpassed the abilities of their enemies to resist,” described military historian Richard Gabriel in his 2006 book Genghis Khan's Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant. “The Mongols seem to have been the first army to conceive of military command in a manner that stressed objectives while leaving the choice of ways and means to the unit commander,” Gabriel explained. “Stress was placed on initiative, innovation, and flexibility of execution.”The army under Genghis Khan was unusually well-connected both internally and externally: they employed an innovative system of communication couriers, and embraced the tactics of subterfuge and espionage. And when it was finally time to strike, the enemy wouldn’t know what hit them: the Mongols were nothing short of professional shock troopers, sending in tightly packed lines of horse-mounted archers – fighters who represented a “quantum leap in military technology,” according to historian Frank McLynn, as reported by History Extra.It wasn’t long before the little Temujin had become ruler of an empire spanning from China to Iran. But that only explains how he got the land – not how he stayed there.A benevolent tyrantWhen you rule over one of the largest empires in the history of the world, you’re going to come into contact with some pretty diverse peoples. For many imperial forces, this has been seen as a problem: consider, say the forced Christianization of the indigenous South and Mesoamericans by the conquistadors, or the Indian Removal Act in the USA.It may surprise you, given his reputation, that Genghis Khan wasn’t really interested in any such violent measures against different identity groups. “Generally, the Mongols were tolerant of religious differences,” writes Stanford University Professor of History Norman Naimark in his cheerily-titled 2017 book Genocide: A World History, “and, as such, [they] promoted the interaction between the culturally rich communities of faith in Central and South Asia, Europe and the Middle East.”“The Mongols also held little interest in racial, ethnic, or linguistic distinctions, which in the end fostered communications and the mixing of peoples and cultures in their vast empire,” Naimark continued. “Many of the khans' most trusted generals and officials represented a wide variety of nationalities and religions from Eurasia.”Indeed, you need only think back to Genghis Khan’s lasting impressive lineage to see how, ahem, enthusiastically the Mongol occupiers intermingled with the people they conquered. They married locals; hired their craftspeople and took their military advice; they even absorbed and promoted the philosophy and art of the cultures they defeated.“The widely held image of the Mongols [is of] barbaric plunderers intent on slaughter and destruction,” wrote Morris Rossabi, a Columbia University historian of China and Central and Inner Asia, in 2002. “Little attention has been paid, however, to the significant contribution these steppe peoples made as patrons of the arts during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.” Far from destroying everything they came into contact with, Genghis Khan and his descendants oversaw the building of great cities and infrastructure. They funded the development of medicine and astronomy, and sponsored ambitious engineering projects. In the arts, they promoted theater and historical scholarship. They “gave employment to Confucian scholars and Tibetan Buddhist monks, encouraging the construction of temples and monasteries,” Rossabi pointed out, and had a “policy of support for trade and the crafts.”“Though the brutality of their military campaigns cannot be ignored, neither should their impact on Eurasian culture be overlooked,” Rossabi said.It was, to be honest, a better deal than many were offering at the time – and it was especially enticing when compared to the alternative. And that’s because… Surrender or dieAs open-minded as Genghis Khan was, you wouldn’t like to get on his bad side. His rule for conquered peoples was simple and unwavering: submit, or be destroyed.“Massacres of defeated populations, with the resultant terror, were weapons he regularly used,” wrote Charles Bawden, Emeritus Professor of Mongolian at the University of London, in the Encyclopedia Britannica. “His practice of summoning cities to surrender and of organizing the methodical slaughter of those who did not submit has been described as psychological warfare […] Resistance brought certain destruction.”Indeed, so extreme was the Mongol policy of razing to the ground those who opposed them that they are frequently described as genocidal by today’s standards. Contemporary Mongol accounting of the number of survivors in conquered Middle Eastern lands show populations only one-tenth of what would be expected had they not arrived; Hungary and China are both said to have had their populations halved by their occupation. Kyiv, according to one European envoy to Genghis Khan’s grandson in 1246, was reduced by the Mongols from “a very large and thickly populated town” to “almost […] nothing, [with] scarce two hundred houses there and the inhabitants are kept in complete slavery.”Other conquered lands fared better, but not necessarily by much. Those who attempted to resist militarily – not usually a sensible option, since the Mongols were usually far superior in numbers, ability, and equipment – may have escaped with their lives if the Khanate deemed them useful: “Once the enemy was vanquished, the defeated men were usually separated into distinct groups,” Naimark writes. “Highly valued craftsmen were often spared and sent back to the Mongolian capitals to ply their trades.” “Women and children were given over to the Mongolian soldiers as slaves and wives and incorporated into Mongolian society,” he continues. “Everyone else was killed, often in groups of victims assigned for execution to individual Mongol soldiers.”Even a minor perceived slight against Mongol honor could be enough to trigger what would nowadays be considered a genocide. Basically, while the Mongols wouldn’t kill you for your religion or your race, they would destroy everyone in your city right down to your beloved cats and dogs if you didn’t show them unwavering loyalty. And when you put it like that, it’s not much of a choice, is it? “The Mongolian empire spread through sheer terror,” Naimark writes. “What prince and population would be willing to resist the Mongols knowing that the fate of extermination awaited them?”

A newly launched floating platform will trial a novel way around the challenges of harvesting the wind over deep waters, putting two giant 8.3-megawatt (MW) turbines in a V formation. This enables a combined power greater than any existing floating turbine, or indeed any wind platform in widespread use.Offshore wind provides a small percentage of the total wind energy in the world, but it is rising fast. Winds tend to be stronger and steadier offshore than over land, where surface roughness gets in their way. Moreover, the increasingly long blades used in a quest for greater efficiency can be very difficult to transport by road; ships have no such problems for offshore installation.However, waters deep enough for ships to install turbines, but shallow enough for towers of practical height, are only extensive in a few places. Floating wind turbine platforms have become the next frontier. These can be anchored in much deeper water. Although they are more expensive to build, the hope is that the stronger winds they will harvest, and the wider opportunities allowing greater mass production, will eventually make floating wind farms the cheapest source of wind energy. We may need some innovations to get there, however, which is where the OceanX by Mingyang Smart Energy comes in – although it might have been more appropriate to call it the OceanY, given its shape.Some wind power experts are questioning the size race for ever bigger turbines, but Mingyang are clearly not among them. They are one of two companies with 18-MW wind turbine models, the world’s largest, in testing, They’ve also revealed plans for even larger models.Mingyang is also the company behind the largest current mass deployed wind turbines, at 16 MW; its hub sits at 152 meters (500 feet) above the water and is driven by blades 123 meters (403 feet) long.The stresses such long blades must resist are enormous, however. Using two smaller turbines, it is theoretically possible to get a similar amount of power out of a single mooring without needing such long blades.The two turbines spin in opposite directions, so the forces they transmit to the rest of the system balance each other, a little like the counter-spin of helicopters’ two sets of rotors. Cables to three floating arms provide extra stability.Although there's nothing on their website at the time of writing, according to Mingyang’s LinkedIn page, the OceanX is “capable of producing 54 million kWh annually, sufficient to power 30,000 households.” That’s a capacity factor of 37 percent, well below what the biggest offshore turbines in the North Sea manage. Whether this reflects lower wind reliability in the South China Sea, where the OceanX is to be deployed, or indicates there is some downside to the design, is not clear.Mingyang also advertises a “Single-Point Mooring: An adaptive system that ensures stability and safety even in extreme typhoon conditions,” adding, “Breaking barriers in offshore wind, Mingyang's OceanX heralds a new dawn in marine energy. Join the celebration and let's charge into a sustainable future together!”Although much smaller prototypes of the design have been trialed, the functionality of the OceanX still needs to be tested in real world conditions before mass deployment begins. Comments on the post ask how it will respond to rapid changes of wind direction during a typhoon, and whether it will yaw in a full circle if faced with conditions that require it. 

CBS’s Stephen Colbert welcomed radio host Charlamagne Tha God to a live edition of The Late Show on night three of the Republican National Convention to irresponsibly suggest that if President Biden, or some other Democrat, wins in November, the Supreme Court will nullify it. He also suggested that Donald Trump’s rhetoric led to his being shot on Saturday, while also attacking the media for not calling him a threat to democracy in the shooting’s aftermath. Colbert asked, “You’re very honest about your struggles with anxiety. I admire you're willing to talk about that. Is there anything right now in the world that is making you anxious? Or particularly anxious?”     Charlamagne immediately launched into a broad attack on the Supreme Court, “I feel, you know, right now the Supreme Court as we know it is no longer a legitimate institution. I think the Supreme Court is a completely— I think the Supreme Court is completely corrupt.” After running through cases related to bribery, presidential immunity, and Chevron deference, he mused: Do we think that our democracy is healthy enough to have a free and fair election come November? Right, and the reason I ask that question is because I don't know who's going to be at the top of the Democratic ticket, but we know these elections are usually close. So, let's say, you know, the Democratic candidate does win come November. What happens when, you know, Donald Trump challenges that ruling? What happens when that ruling gets to the Supreme Court? In light of all the recent rulings that the Supreme Court has done, who do you think they are going to side with? Trump brought all sorts of lawsuits after 2020, and they all went nowhere. As for Colbert, he simply replied, “Well,” before Charlamagne continued, “Don't start hmming about it now. You all should’ve been thinking about this.” Colbert retorted, “I think about little else, man. Have you watched my show?” Later, Colbert would wonder, “The idea of toning down the rhetoric…You speak frankly on any issue. How can you speak frankly to the state of politics in America and the United States without risking inflaming someone?”     Charlamagne then proceeded to go on an extended diatribe against everybody, from Donald Trump to the media to Speaker Mike Johnson to VP-nominee JD Vance to Nikki Haley. First, on Trump, he appeared to blame the victim: You can condemn what happened to Donald Trump on Saturday, but you have to be honest and say that the rhetoric that Donald Trump has been spewing since 2016 has been creating an environment of political violence that's not even safe for him, and, you know, he's been cavalier about a lot of the political violence that has been happening in this country, and, you know, it's easy to be cavalier about it when it's happening to the other side, but when it starts happening to you, then what?  He also lamented, “I have been very disappointed in the media this week because I knew this was going to happen. I knew people were going to stop talking about, you know, the things that the Supreme Court was doing. I knew they were going to stop saying Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. I knew they were going to stop talking about things like Project 2025 and I think that's doing a disservice to the American people by doing that because we're all adults.” Before anyone could ask if we were talking about the same media, he continued, “And when you saw— when I see House Speaker Mike Johnson say things like, what did he say about Trump? He said that, oh yeah, he said, ‘We have to tamper down on the rhetoric. Everyone has to tamper down on the rhetoric.’ No, one person should actually tamper down on the rhetoric, right?” Finally, Charlamagne wondered what the big deal about Doomsday prophecies is, “then you see his now running mate, JD Vance, you know, he said it was the Democrats dangerous rhetoric that caused something like that to happen. Really? JD Vance, you said he was Hitler. Nikki Haley said he was an agent of chaos. So, it wasn't just Democrats, you know, speaking the truth to the matter. It's okay, I think, you know, to tell the truth in this country.” In that case, it shouldn’t be considered controversial to say that Charlamagne Tha God is losing his mind. Here is a transcript for the July 18 show: CBS The Late Show 7/18/2024 12:53 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: We’ll go to the book in a moment, Get Honest or Die Lying. CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: Yes. COLBERT: There you go right there, but first, I want to talk to you about some other stuff that I've read in your other books. You’re very honest about your struggles with anxiety. CHARLAMAGNE: Absolutely. COLBERT: I admire you're willing to talk about that. Is there anything right now in the world that is making you anxious? Or particularly anxious? CHARLAMAGNE: Oh, man. Where to begin. We are in the United States of Anxiety. You know, one thing I've been talking about a lot with my listeners, man, is that I feel, you know, right now the Supreme Court as we know it is no longer a legitimate institution. I think the Supreme Court is a completely— I think the Supreme Court is completely corrupt. I mean, when you look at things like the fact that they made bribery legal for public officials, when you look at— COLBERT: Well, people may not know—this is my favorite ruling. There's some good ones recently— CHARLAMAGNE: Okay. COLBERT: — but there was a guy who solicited, like, $13,000 from some business interest before he did something in his official capacity. They tried to charge them with bribery. But the Supreme Court said no, they gave it to them afterward— CHARLAMAGNE: Yes. COLBERT: — so it's more like a gratuity— CHARLAMAGNE: It's called gratuity now. COLBERT: Exactly. CHARLAMAGNE: Then the presidential immunity where they made it —presidents can get away with committing crimes as long as it's an “official act.” COLBERT: Which, they get to decide what's official or not. CHARLAMAGNE: That's right. Then they overturned the Chevron ruling.  COLBERT: Right. CHARLAMAGNE: So, my fear is that we have to really ask ourselves a question. Do we think that our democracy is healthy enough to have a free and fair election come November? Right, and the reason I ask that question is because I don't know who's going to be at the top of the Democratic ticket, but we know these elections are usually close. So, let's say, you know, the Democratic candidate does win come November. What happens when, you know, Donald Trump challenges that ruling? What happens when that ruling gets to the Supreme Court? In light of all the recent rulings that the Supreme Court has done, who do you think they are going to side with? COLBERT: Well. CHARLAMAGNE: Don't start hmming about it now. You all should’ve been thinking about this. COLBERT: I think about little else, man. Have you watched my show? … COLBERT: Let's get to something that he’s been talking about— CHARLAMAGNE: Okay. COLBERT: — a lot of people been talking about, is that the idea of toning down the rhetoric and I'm not trying to tone down your rhetoric but what you said made me think of it, is that you have described yourself as the ruler of rubbing people the wrong way. You speak frankly on any issue. How can you speak frankly to the state of politics in America and the United States without risking inflaming someone? CHARLAMAGNE: I think that we can, you know, condemn political violence in this country. None of us agree with what happened, you know, to Donald Trump this past Saturday. Like, none of us want to see that and if you are a person that feels like "oh, you know, that was a good thing," then I would do a quick social experiment. Ask yourself if that was somebody that you supported politically, would you want that to happen to them, right?  So, it's simple. You can condemn political violence in this country. You can condemn what happened to Donald Trump on Saturday, but you have to be honest and say that the rhetoric that Donald Trump has been spewing since 2016 has been creating an environment of political violence that's not even safe for him, and, you know, he's been cavalier about a lot of the political violence that has been happening in this country, and, you know, it's easy to be cavalier about it when it's happening to the other side, but when it starts happening to you, then what?  So, I have been very disappointed in the media this week because I knew this was going to happen. I knew people were going to stop talking about, you know, the things that the Supreme Court was doing. I knew they were going to stop saying Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. I knew they were going to stop talking about things like Project 2025 and I think that's doing a disservice to the American people by doing that because we're all adults. We're big boys and big girls. I think we can have, you know, two conversations at once.  And when you saw— when I see House Speaker Mike Johnson say things like, what did he say about Trump? He said that, oh yeah, he said, "We have to tamper down on the rhetoric. Everyone has to tamper down on the rhetoric."  No, one person should actually tamper down on the rhetoric, right? And then you see his now running mate, JD Vance, you know, he said it was the Democrats dangerous rhetoric that caused something like that to happen. Really? JD Vance, you said he was Hitler. Nikki Haley said he was an agent of chaos. So, it wasn't just Democrats, you know, speaking the truth to the matter. It's okay, I think, you know, to tell the truth in this country.

Turns out, Joe Scarborough wasn't telling the truth when for weeks and months he was talking up Biden's chances of winning, discounting any polling that indicated the opposite. We now find out that Scarborough knew better all along. On today's Morning Joe, Willie Geist told the truth. "I think what we saw yesterday was everything we'd been hearing in private. Not just, frankly, for the last three weeks, but for a long time, spilled out publicly. Which is that the polling now shows, private polling and now public polling, that we're seeing, internal polling and public polling, that this is an uphill climb, not just for the president but for everybody down ballot."  So for "a long time," not just the last three weeks, Scarborough & Co. knew that Biden was in a serious hole and in danger of dragging down his entire party. But Scarborough put on a resolutely false face of optimism. This doesn't come as any real surprise. After all, Scarborough has been bragging about spending hours at a time with Biden, and serving as an informal campaign adviser. He was no more likely to be truthful about Biden's chances than the formal members of the Biden campaign. Still, it does put a final nail in the coffin of any pretensions Scarborough might have had of being anything other than an all-in Biden lackey and hack. Scarborough has also established himself as a world-class weathervane. He went from being a Biden dead-ender, to strongly suggesting, just the day after the debate debacle, that he step aside. Only to somehow get back on the Biden team bus within a day. To now, today, suggesting that we're headed to a Biden announcement similar to that LBJ made in 1968, when he said he would not seek or accept the Democrat nomination for another term. In other grim news for the Morning Joe crew, Jonathan Lemire acknowledged that "like it or not," the Republicans are totally unified around Trump.  And you know that Morning Joe and the rest of the liberal media don't like it one bit.  In contrast, said Lemire of the Democrats, there is "this sense of doom that's permeated the party." Sad! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 7/18/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: We've had so many momentous days over the last several weeks. I can't believe there won't be history books that just detail what's happened, maybe over the last three weeks, the last 21 days. It's really dizzying.  And it feels like when, when, when you see documentaries of 1968. When, when, the chaos that went on. Just one event after another after another. But yesterday, Willie, was just a day, in and of itself that, may be determinative, that may lead to that March 1968 moment when LBJ announced that he wasn't going to seek the Democratic nomination. . . .  WILLIE GEIST: And then at the end of the day, we learn that the President of the United States has tested positive for Covid. Which feels like a coda to the day you just laid out, where Democrats just went, "ugh. How much more of this can we take?" And I think what we saw yesterday was everything we've been hearing in private. Not just, frankly, for the last three weeks, but for a long time, spilled out publicly. Which is that the polling now shows, private polling and now public polling, that we're seeing, internal polling and public polling, that this is an uphill climb, not just for the president but for everybody down ballot. . . .  JONATHAN LEMIRE: He has been out there publicly saying I'm staying in this. Stop asking me. And the questions have only grown. The Biden team's efforts to push this aside simply haven't worked. And as Joe just ran through, yesterday felt like a really significant day. And we should note, the Schumer meeting was over the weekend. Pelosi was several days ago. Jeffries was several days ago. But what was not coincidental is that they all leaked yesterday. And I think that there is a sense that this is the time, that Democrats see this as their final moment. As a contrast of what we're seeing at the RNC, where, like it or not, the Republicans are totally unified around Donald Trump. They've embraced his running mate. We're going to hear from Trump tonight. The confidence there! And they're also expected to put up a record fundraising total in the wake of the assassination attempt. You contrast that with the Democrats, their own fundraising drying up, and this sense of doom that's permeated the party. And maybe that's not fair to President Biden, but that's where the party is right now.

Liberal Republicans like Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon are allowing our beautiful rural landscapes to be colonized by dystopian environmental hazards such as solar panels, wind turbines, and carbon pipelines. These projects destroy our property and freedom under the guise of saving the environment.Imagine Norman Rockwell’s America now overrun by anti-environment wind turbines and solar panels. Much of that part of America is under Republican stewardship. Globalists need vast amounts of land to promote their “transition” to unworkable energy projects. GOP governors willingly offer their land for these projects to create temporary jobs built on government lies, mandates, subsidies, and misallocation of resources that would never succeed in a free market.These untested and unnatural green grift projects are like the COVID shots. They are unnatural mandates and subsidies imposed by the global government monopolizing the public square, law, and economy.After Gordon announced his plan to make the Cowboy State “carbon negative,” foreign companies, supported by anti-market tailwinds from the federal government, are entering the state to fill the landscape with unsightly wind farms. Spanish energy giant Repsol plans to establish a massive wind farm several miles northwest of Cheyenne. The company has already received approval for a Rail Tie wind power project west of Cheyenne in Tie Siding. Now those traveling north of the capital city on I-25 or west on I-80 will be subjected to this Agenda 2030 blight. Additionally, traveling south of Cheyenne on I-25 will reveal the great blight of 1.2 million conspicuous solar panels turning rural America into something worse than an urban asphalt jungle.Meanwhile, an $80 million “carbon capture” facility is being built in the southwest part of the state to sell “carbon credits” in the ultimate form of venture socialism. Carbon capture is cumbersome, costly, unfeasible, untested, and built on Gordon’s lie that carbon, which is essential to human life, is somehow a pollutant.Homeowners at Fish Creek Preserve outside Laramie oppose the Rail Tie wind project due to environmental concerns and the potential lowering of their property values. Red-state legislatures and county governments should support these homeowners by placing as many zoning obstacles as possible to obstruct such projects nationwide.Although this might sound like the left’s tactics against natural, effective fuel sources, it differs significantly. Coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power serve as public goods that help power the nation. Mindful zoning of any project is vital, but these energy sources are ultimately necessary.In contrast, wind farms harm the environment, incur high costs, rely on fossil fuels for operation, and cannot sustain themselves in a free market without federal and state subsidies and mandates. Addressing these projects with regulatory headwinds exercises free-market governance to counter the artificial support they receive from subsidies and mandates.As part of the Green New Deal, the Biden administration is using every tool of government in its arsenal to implement 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind-generating capacity by 2030. Plus, half the states, including many red states, have Renewable Portfolio Standards to mandate the use of these ridiculous products. Projects like wind farms, solar panels, and carbon capture enjoy a 30% investment tax credit as part of the broader subsidy scheme. An April 2023 Goldman Sachs report estimated that all of the subsidies included in the “Inflation Reduction Act” will add up to $1.2 trillion by 2032.Too many Republican governors hide behind an “all of the above approach.” They might support fossil fuels, but in a world with so many subsidies and mandates for unworkable energy, this approach unnaturally tips the playing field toward anti-market forces. Wyoming, for example, is the nation’s leading producer of coal. Without government propaganda, such as Gordon’s push for “carbon negative,” nobody would destroy the state’s beauty with wind turbines, solar panels, and carbon capture when they have access to more efficient, cheaper, and less conspicuous energy sources.The ultimate tragedy of this green grift lies in the detrimental imprint on the land, resulting in a worse environment after sacrificing our quality of life and prosperity on the altar of this pagan god of the sun and wind. Nobody has a plan to deal with the retirement of an endless array of solar panels and turbines, of which the first generation is now heading toward retirement. They do not biodegrade and pose numerous environmental and health risks.“It’s going to be a waste mountain by 2050, unless we get recycling chains going now,” said Ute Collier, deputy director of the International Renewable Energy Agency, in an interview with the BBC. An estimated 2.5 billion solar panels are in use globally, and the first generation, with a life cycle of about 25 years, is now coming due for disposal.As Alex Epstein explained in a recent column, it would take 10 watts per square meter of solar projects to power the world. Which would mean you’d need 1.8 million square kilometers of solar photovoltaic projects, which is “more than all cities, towns, villages, and human infrastructure combined ([around] 1.5 million square kilometers).” That’s before we get to the land needed for mining of all the metals needed to produce panels, turbines, and batteries, as well as the transmission lines.The more usage we have, the more space we will need for disposal.If fossil fuels are allowed to remain in use, the carbon capture scheme will require us to use significant underground storage space. Robert Bryce observes that we would need storage space equivalent to 41 oil supertankers each day, 365 days a year. This would result in an absurd amount of metal blighting the landscape and carbon being stored underground, which raises concerns about safety and effectiveness.All this effort is based on claims about climate and carbon that disrupt human life, economy, and health, similar to the disruptions caused by the response to COVID-19 and the associated vaccines.In many respects, these untested and unnatural green grift projects are like the COVID shots. They are unnatural mandates and subsidies imposed by the global government monopolizing the public square, law, and economy. They are untested products, not subject to the sort of trial and error that would make them safe and effective. The vaccines were absolved of all market forces that confer safety.We are now witnessing a rash of electric car fires across the country, with firefighters being trained to handle the intense heat these fires produce. These incidents, much like sudden unexplained deaths, often go unnoticed by the media unless one actively looks for them. This pattern is likely to continue with solar and wind energy unless we change the culture and priorities of Republicans in red states.Red states have the regulatory authority to impose hurdles on mass wind and solar farms, carbon capture, and electric vehicle infrastructure until these industries prove the safety and efficacy of their products and offer a realistic long-term plan that doesn't consume our scarce land with unsightly, out-of-place structures.We must ultimately end this nonsense at the federal level. Conservatives need a commitment from Trump and GOP leaders not just to expand oil drilling in the budget reconciliation bill but to fully repeal the Green New Deal. The GOP donor class and industry lobbyists are pushing to only partially loosen parts of the bill, much like the fight to repeal Obamacare. This approach is a colossal mistake. We need our own all-of-the-above strategy, but only for fuels proven to work and that don't rely on subsidies and mandates to survive.

JD Vance was certainly not a household name when Donald Trump formally declared the Ohio senator his running mate. “He's pretty new on the scene to most of America,” says Stu Burguiere, noting that Vance has only “been in office for two years” and “doesn't have an awful lot of political experience.” That said, Vance’s RNC speech was an opportunity to essentially introduce himself to America at large. Here are Stu’s three biggest takeaways from Vance’s debut speech: Communication According to Stu, Vance is “a good communicator” and “a clean speaker ... very, very much like Vivek Ramaswamy, who never really has any stumbles.” He “was able to hold the audience pretty well” — especially when “he was talking about his life.” “He told a couple of great stories” about his fiery grandmother and his mother’s “ten years of sobriety,” which Stu says was “maybe the best moment of the speech." Authenticity Nikki Haley and Tim Scott’s speeches take on “that stilted politician tone,” says Stu, but “JD Vance does not have that problem.” He gave “a very natural speech” and “it didn’t feel forced” or “politician-y,” and yet it was clear that “he knows policy." Debates In the event Vance finds himself in a debate, Stu has faith that his ability to parley with opponents will be “one of his strengths.” “I’m really confident JD Vance is going to smoke Kamala Harris,” he says, which just might happen if Biden remains the Democratic nominee. To hear more of Stu’s analysis, watch the clip below. JD Vance's RNC Debut: Stu Burguiere's Live Analysis www.youtube.com Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The agenda spelled out in the platform is a logical extension of President Trump’s first-term policies.

HUGE RNC SALE: 60% Off VIP Membership - Ends Today!

'Uh, You Know ... the Black Man': BET Releases Unedited Biden Interview and HELLOOO Dumpster Fire (Watch)

Dude. No. 'Absolute LUNATIC' John Harwood's Deranged Thread Implying Trump Wasn't ACTUALLY Shot BACKFIRES