Add To Cart  - $3,997.00 Only $2497 Today!
Or 6 monthly payments of $497 each
(plus state sales tax where applicable)

Peak output for the Patriot Power Generator increased from 2,000 W (1500 model) to 3,048 W (1800 model). Continuous output is 1,500 W and 1,800 W, respectively. Storage capacity for DC devices increased from 600 Wh (1500 model) to 768 Wh (1800 model).

Rosemarie Hartle voted in the 2020 election. But there was a small problem with that. Rosemarie Hartle died in 2017 of breast cancer, as her husband Kirk explained. The records show that the ballot was sent October 9 and returned the day before Election Day. Kirk Hartle explained that it never came to their house and he never returned it. Even more troubling? Nevada officials say that her signature on the ballot is a match to the one they have on record.

So why is this possibly indicative of a wider fraud? Hartle never got the ballot, yet it was returned with her signature matching the records. So you had to have someone not only have access to the ballot without it reaching her house and also have access to her signature. Who do you think that points to? I don’t know about you, but that screams someone in the board of elections. And if so, then does anyone really think that they are restricting it to only one person?

The modality of the BMD systems’ capacity to deprive voters of their cast votes without burden, long wait times, and insecurity regarding how their votes are actually cast and recorded in the unverified QR code makes the potential constitutional deprivation less transparently visible as well, at least until any portions of the system implode….

The Plaintiffs’ national cybersecurity experts convincingly present evidence that this is not a question of “might this actually ever happen?” – but “when it will happen,” especially if further protective measures are not taken. Given the masking nature of malware and the current systems described here, if the State and Dominion simply stand by and say, “we have never seen it,” the future does not bode well.

Still, this is year one for Georgia in implementation of this new BMD system as the first state in the nation to embrace statewide implementation of this QR barcode-based BMD system for its entire population. Electoral dysfunction – cyber or otherwise – should not be desired as a mode of proof. It may well land unfortunately on the State’s doorstep. The Court certainly hopes not.

Today, shortly after giving expert testimony to Congress about energy policy, I had the startling experience of being smeared by sitting members of the United States House of Representatives.

The context was a special House Committee hearing to evaluate a Democratic proposal similar to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which would spend $2 trillion over four years on renewables and other climate programs.

Congressional interest in my testimony stems in part from the fact that I advocated for a Democratic energy proposal very similar to Biden’s between 2002 and 2009. Back then, the Obama administration justified the $90 billion it was spending on renewables as an economic stimulus, just as Biden’s campaign is doing today.

But then, late in the hearing, Representatives Sean Casten of Illinois and Jared Huffman of California, both Democrats, used the whole of their allotted time to claim that I am not a real environmentalist, that I am not a qualified expert, and that I am motivated by money.

Had I been given a chance to respond, I would have noted that: I have been a climate activist for 20 years; my new book, Apocalypse Never, has received strong praise from leading environmental scientists and scholars; the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently invited me to serve as an expert reviewer; and that I have always been financially independent of industry interests.

But I wasn’t given the chance to say any of that. After Casten and Huffman lied about me, Rep. Garret Graves asked the committee’s chairperson, Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, to let me respond. She refused and abruptly ended the hearing.

What, exactly, had I said that was so dangerous as to lead Democrats to engage in character assassination and undermine liberal democratic norms? Nothing I hadn’t already said last January when I testified before Congress about climate change and energy.

Back then, I testified that climate change is real but isn’t the end of the world nor even our most important environmental problem. I pointed to the inherent physical reasons renewables can’t power a high energy industrial civilization. And I noted that cheap and abundant natural gas and nuclear, not industrial solar and wind, have been the big drivers of emissions reductions.

I further made the case that climate change was distracting us from a far greater and more urgent threat, which is the global domination of nuclear energy by China and Russia, which could be disastrous for US interests and the future of liberalism and democracy around the world.

Nations that partner with Russia or China to build nuclear plants are effectively absorbed into their sphere of influence. The line between soft power and hard power runs through nuclear energy. On the one side is cheap and clean electricity. On the other, a stepping stone to a weapons program.

During today’s hearing, several Democratic members claimed that renewables today are cheaper than existing grid electricity. But if that were true, I replied, why do solar and wind developers require hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers in the form of subsidies?

The Democrats are basing their climate agenda on what California did. But California’s electricity rates since 2011 rose six times more than they did in the rest of the US, thanks mainly to the deployment of renewables and the infrastructure they require, such as transmission lines.

So, in order to earn our trust, Joe Biden would have to call his own side out for raising the temperature. And he has steadfastly refused to do so. He hasn't called out Black Lives Matter for the suggestion that America is systemically racist; he has cheered it on. He hasn't condemned antifa; he has deemed it a philosophy rather than a dangerous movement. And he certainly hasn't said a word about the continuing attacks on Trump supporters. //

No, "unity" in the Biden formulation isn't a recognition of what we have in common; it's a demand that we silence ourselves in order to mirror Biden's priorities. Unity, you see, can be achieved one of two ways: through recognition of the other, through a determination to understand those who think differently than we do; or through ideological domination. It's rather obvious which pathway Democrats will choose. After all, social ostracization is one of their most powerful tools. Why disarm now?

Americans can only come together when we share a common philosophy, history and culture. Democrats have spent years attempting to tear away those commonalities in favor of coalitional interest-group politics. They've declared American philosophy racist from inception; they've declared American history a litany of brutalities; they've declared American culture bigotry embodied. Now they want unity -- the unity of absolute victory.

Ironically, it's that very desire -- the desire for monolithic control -- that will be their undoing. Unless Biden is serious about unity -- unless he's willing to cross the aisle and recognize the humanity of those with whom he disagrees, and to call out those on his own side who won't -- Biden's term is likely to be contentious, polarizing and ultimately unsuccessful.