'The battle over Ukraine continues to escalate'

President Donald Trump’s overwhelming victory on Election Day was another signal that the American people want to embrace affordable American energy and reject the incessant “doom and gloom” narrative being touted by environmental extremists. For decades, radical environmental groups like Greenpeace have been employing apocalyptic rhetoric while offering so-called solutions that would make energy more expensive and make life worse for working-class Americans. This election was a rejection of that rhetoric and an embrace of common sense. These environmental extremists tell us that Americans reject fossil fuels. But in the month before the election, polling found that 4 out of 5 swing-state voters believed that domestic oil and gas production could help lower energy costs for American consumers. Rising costs were a big concern for voters, and the cost of energy impacts everything from grocery bills to transportation. Voters faced a clear choice between Trump, who enthusiastically embraced the “Drill, baby, drill” mantra, and Vice President Kamala Harris, who spent the final months of the campaign walking back her previous support to ban fracking. If Democrats learn anything from their electoral defeat, it should be that activist groups like Greenpeace actually speak for a small group of elites—not for the American people. Unfortunately, Democrats have spent years being beholden to extremist environmentalists who are more effective at generating media coverage than effective policies. Groups like Greenpeace continually attempt to kill American pipeline projects, raise money for their cause, and then ignore the real-world impacts of their actions. These environmental activists claim to be speaking on behalf of the world, yet simultaneously ignore the global impacts of their actions. If they were paying attention, they would recognize that killing fossil fuel projects like refineries and pipelines in the United States does not stop them from being built. It merely ensures that they’ll be built in other countries with significantly weaker environmental policies than the United States. One entity that does understand this dynamic is China, which has benefited greatly from the loud resistance efforts of Greenpeace and others. Without sufficient pipeline capacity in North America, Canadian oil that should be refined in the United States is often shipped to China instead. Crude oil processing hit record highs in China in 2023, and the country is expected to continue building out its refining capacity. This Chinese refinery boom has led to China being a net exporter of diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil for the first time in the nation’s history. Because China lacks meaningful pollution controls, this increase is dangerous for the global environment. It’s also dangerous for the American economy, as this economic activity is benefiting the Chinese government rather than American companies and workers. Meanwhile, the United States has become a global leader in environmental stewardship. Over the past five decades, we have reduced pollution by nearly 80%, achieving safe and clean air that’s only imaginable in other places around the world, while also being No. 1 in access to clean and safe drinking water. And we’ve done this while growing our energy production and our population, proving that we can have responsible energy production that doesn’t compromise on environmental quality. America is the most responsible energy producer on the planet, and the world needs more energy to eradicate poverty, not less. Access to affordable American energy could serve those in need far better than any alternative. In spite of this, Greenpeace is doubling down on its own failures. After the election, the group released a statement calling on its activists to “resist and persist” in their fight against fossil fuels. Greenpeace USA’s executive director also added that resistance to the Trump agenda is key for “our organization’s relevance and survival.” It’s worth noting their concerns are for their own organization, not for the American people. As debates continue to rage over energy in the years ahead, it is worth remembering that the American people clearly favor solutions that embrace fossil fuels and keep energy prices down. This is something Democratic policymakers should keep in mind the next time Greenpeace protesters encamp at a pipeline site or college campus. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Rejecting Extremism: Why Voters Chose American Energy and Common Sense appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The number of abortions in Texas has flatlined following the United States Supreme Court decision last June to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

New York Times columnist and supposed conservative half of PBS News Hour’s Friday Brooks and Capehart segment was dismayed that President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, will supposedly help him take a “blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice.” Host Amna Nawaz worried, “There is the point I want to ask you about with Pam Bondi, because she is known as a loyalist. The Washington Post is now reporting tonight, citing two sources close to Trump's transition, that he plans to fire the entire team behind special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal prosecutions against him, and then use the Department of Justice to probe the 2020 election. Does having someone like Bondi in place mean he can use the DOJ like that?”     It should be noted that the Post story also says looking at 2020 is “not at the top of the list” of priorities. As for Pam Bondi, she was Attorney General of Florida for eight years, so she is not some random, inexperienced hack. Nevertheless, Brooks agreed she will do what Nawaz feared, although he never mentioned her name in a rambling response, “Yes. These are anti-institutionalists. That's the theme of the whole group of people.” Despite the fact that the question was about Bondi and that she has no scandals swirling around her, Brooks claimed Trump wants people with scandals around him, “And so many have scandals because they are outside the pale of polite society. So there are not going to be a lot of the Trump appointees like Jim Mattis, who want to be liked, who want to do a responsible job for the government. When you pick somebody who has a sex scandal or a financial scandal, they are totally on your side, because they have no other route to a career in their lives.” Brooks continued, “So, they are going to be total Trump loyalists. And their mission is to disrupt the institutions. Now, some of the — I happen to think a lot of our institutions need some disrupting. We have got a lot of, like, why can't we make — why can't we build subways in this country? Why can't we build fighter planes in this country?” He then worried Trump is going too far, “A lot of these institutions have gone creaky. And so they need reform, but they don't need a blowtorch. And especially in the attorney general's office, what we're talking about is not reforming the Justice Department. That's not cleaning out the bureaucracy. That's taking a blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice.” Some people might argue Jack Smith was a blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice. As for Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart, he would later echo Brooks when talking about Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, “These folks aren't just about disruption. They're about destruction. And that's what I'm most worried about, that the blowtorch that David is hopeful won't happen, I think that they're off to the sideline flicking the match, trying to get the blowtorch to work in time for them to take their places in the administration once he's inaugurated on January 20.” Here is a transcript for the November 22 show: PBS News Hour 11/22/2024 7:40 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Well, there is the point I want to ask you about with Pam Bondi, because she is known as a loyalist. The Washington Post is now reporting tonight, citing two sources close to Trump's transition, that he plans to fire the entire team behind special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal prosecutions against him, and then use the Department of Justice to probe the 2020 election. Does having someone like Bondi in place mean he can use the DOJ like that? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. These are anti-institutionalists. That's the theme of the whole group of people. And so many have scandals because they are outside the pale of polite society. So there are not going to be a lot of the Trump appointees like Jim Mattis, who want to be liked, who want to do a responsible job for the government. When you pick somebody who has a sex scandal or a financial scandal, they are totally on your side, because they have no other route to a career in their lives. So, they are going to be total Trump loyalists. And their mission is to disrupt the institutions. Now, some of the — I happen to think a lot of our institutions need some disrupting. We have got a lot of, like, why can't we make — why can't we build subways in this country? Why can't we build fighter planes in this country? A lot of these institutions have gone creaky. And so they need reform, but they don't need a blowtorch. And especially in the attorney general's office, what we're talking about is not reforming the Justice Department. That's not cleaning out the bureaucracy. That's taking a blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice. NAWAZ: Well, Jonathan, back on the Trump transition here, because there's still a lot of questions around the nominee for Secretary of Defense. That is Pete Hegseth, some questions about allegations of sexual assault and some troubling details that came out in a recently released police report related to that. We saw a number of senators voice concerns over Gaetz and the allegations that he was facing. Do you expect those senators to stand up and voice the same concerns about Hegseth? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes, I expect them to do that. Do I actually think they will do that? I'm not sure. I haven't heard much from the senators when it comes to the nomination of Hegseth in the way that we saw with former Congressman Gaetz. And to just jump on something that David was saying, you know, I'm all for disrupting the bureaucracy and disrupting sleepy agencies. But with all of these — with most of these appointments that we have seen, these folks aren't just about disruption. They're about destruction. And that's what I'm most worried about, that the blowtorch that David is hopeful won't happen, I think that they're off to the sideline flicking the match, trying to get the blowtorch to work in time for them to take their places in the administration once he's inaugurated on January 20.

NBC is being torn to shreds for deleting a once-second segment of an interview with Houston Texans quarterback C.J. Stroud.

'Part of the Problem': Bill Maher DROPS Neil deGrasse Tyson Over Men in Women's Sports (Watch)

Darrell Issa Asks Why State Dept. Is 'Catering to Federal Employees Personally Devastated' By Trump's Win

In the oldest days of video games, genres werent really a thing. It was just a video game, a thing that you played in some nonspecific manner.

Cute games are usually the perfect way to unwind, typically sporting bright colors, adorable characters, and charming stories that'll stay wholesome for the most part.