's some breakthroughs in solar power. So you've got a really good green economy. You get rid of your oil. You get rid of your coal. What happens to you? Well, you become conquered by China guaranteed. Because if you're powering your tanks with electricity and solar panels, I mean, I'm using a ridiculous example. You don't really have a military.

So when people are talking about the Green New Deal, sometimes they'll allow that there's an economic element to that. They'll say it's positive, not negative. I would say that if you don't have an oil-based or a carbon-based energy system with independence, you don't have a military. You do not have a military if you have the Green New Deal.

What if you get rid of your nuclear? If you get rid of your nuclear capabilities as let's say a domestic power source, you also get rid of your nuclear experts and suddenly you can't do nuclear for military either. And you kind of need it for military because you're not going to power your submarines, etc.

Now, what about space? Is it possible to be safe if your nemesis controls space and you don't? It is not possible. It is not even slightly possible that you could be militarily safe if your enemy controls space above you. It's just not even slightly possible that you could be safe from that. All right. You might have mutually assured destruction, but you'd be in a big problem.

Now, what are you going to need to have a robust space force? Nuclear power. There probably isn't any alternative to that, right? Eventually space force will be nuclear-powered unless somebody invents warp drive or something. I don't see that coming.

So anytime that people have these conversations where they've simplified it to health versus economics, here's the recording that should play in your mind. You left out the military because it's all connected. And the military is not trivial. It's necessary, right? It's just not optional.

Now, we've lived, most of us have been born into a world where the United States was so dominant militarily that you have the luxury of not thinking about it as much. It's like, well, we're militarily dominant, nobody's going to attack our homeland, you know, at least not a military force, just terrorists. And I got a feeling that if you start messing with the energy production, you might clean up the sky a little bit, but you're going to do it at the risk of your military. So if you haven't included that, you're not really doing a proper analysis.

Let's talk about Facebook. We're learning that Facebook had some kind of what they called a "break the glass" plan where if things were bad after the election, in other words, if society was starting to break down because of the election results, they were going to kick into play a change in the algorithm that would spike in visibility the mainstream publishers such as, and I'm not making this up, this is the actual list, such as CNN, NPR and the New York Times and it would de-emphasize Breitbart and some other site that I don't remember.

So what would be the justification for boosting CNN, NPR and New York Times but de-emphasizing Breitbart? Well, the word that they've injected into this is hyperpartisan. So they've decided to label Breitbart hyperpartisan while saying that CNN, NPR, and New York Times are not.

Now, is it just me or is that hilarious? Let me just walk you through some examples. Was it Breitbart that told you the Fine People hoax? Nope. Breitbart told you that it was a hoax, showed you the transcript, did it quite a few times. Actually, Joel Pollak did that a number of times. So CNN, NPR, and New York Times reported the Fine People hoax as true, which ripped the country apart and probably changed the election result. Breitbart reported it accurately, but they're being called hyperpartisan.

How about the hoax that the president suggested or noodled on the idea of drinking bleach, which of course never happened? Not even close. Did Breitbart report that the president thought about drinking bleach? No. They reported it as a