Friday, February 27, 2026

Democrats Raid Maryland Green Energy Fund... AGAIN!

 


Audrey Dtreeb, "Maryland Democrats Look To Raid Green Energy Fund To Balance Ballooning Budget"

Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore hopes to raid millions from a green program to offset the state’s budget woes.

Moore’s 2027 budget proposal would transfer roughly $300 million from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF) to help close the state’s $1.5 billion cash shortfall. The proposal would shrink the fund from more than $800 million to “$164 million in a targeted fashion” for some other green initiatives. Moore raided the fund in 2025, transferring $200 million for electricity bill rebates as affordability emerged as a political headache for Republicans and Democrats alike.

The stated goal of the SEIF fund is to “support local communities as they adopt clean energy policies. Communities benefit from sustained reduction of energy usage, cost savings, and opportunities for renewable energy development.”

SEIF receives a significant portion of its funding from alternative compliance payments — a fee utilities pay when they fail to meet certain green energy standards. Given that utilities turn to ratepayers to make up for compliance costs, some critics are concerned that Marylanders are shouldering the burden for the state’s green energy policies.

“Under Wes Moore’s proposal, Maryland’s working families are billed twice,” Communications Director for Power The Future Larry Behrens told the Daily Caller News Foundation. They pay first through their taxes and again through their utility bills, just so Governor Moore can prop up a bloated bureaucracy. It’s clear his focus on fiscal common sense seems about as razor sharp as his attention to sewer pipes on the Potomac.”

“As costs have skyrocketed on nearly everything under the Trump administration, Governor Moore remains laser-focused on making the state more affordable for families, investing in the priorities they care about, and balancing the budget for the fourth year in a row,” a spokesperson for Moore told the DCNF. “He believes we can walk and chew gum at the same time, which includes making historic investments in clean energy and climate action while delivering direct relief to everyday people.”

Moore is up for reelection in 2026, while Maryland and several other Democratic states are suffering from high electricity rates. Maryland’s grid operator, known as PJM Interconnection, is drawing criticism as residents flag concerns about rising electricity costs. PJM helps provide power to all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, according to its website.

Electricity rates and grid instability have been on the rise in the East Coast for years, particularly in the states that rely on green energy resources and have aimed to phase out dispatchable power sources like coal. Costs have climbed in states along PJM like Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania — all of which are states that have made net-zero pledges or plan to phase out coal plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Notably, Democrat-led states generally have higher energy costs, according to a December report from the Institute for Energy Research.

“SEIF money makes Maryland’s energy more affordable, cleaner and reliable through programs offered by MEA and other state agencies,” state materials on SEIF claim. “These programs address: consumer energy costs, global climate change concerns, job creation, energy resilience, economic development, business retention, and energy freedom.”

Prominent environmental organizations like the Sierra Club are reportedly fighting to preserve SEIF, with one spokesperson for the green group telling Maryland Matters that “to pull it back from its intended purposes and to use it to cover budget gaps is just unacceptable.”

Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey also criticized the move to use SEIF to balance the budget, telling the local publication that “at the end of the day, this is a hidden energy tax: Marylanders are overpaying because of Democratic mandates, and instead of giving that money back or fixing the policies that caused the problem, the Governor is using it to fund government operations. … That is not energy relief — it’s a shell game.”

A Woke Wake-Up Call...

h/t - Woodsterman

The Rise of Eurasia: The BRICS Golden Corridor

The Mackinder Doctrine in Action!

from Google AI:
Counters to Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory (1904)—which asserts that control of Eastern Europe and the Eurasian interior ("Heartland") rules the world—focus on the supremacy of maritime power, the vital importance of the "Rimland" coastal zones, and modern technological advancements that make land-based control less decisive.

Key counters and alternative theories include:
Nicholas Spykman's Rimland Theory (1942): Spykman argued that the key to global power is not the inaccessible Heartland, but the "Rimland" (the coastal fringes of Eurasia, including Western Europe, the Middle East, India, and East Asia). He famously stated, "Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world".

Alfred Thayer Mahan's Sea Power Theory: Pre-dating and contradicting Mackinder, Mahan emphasized that command of the sea, maritime trade routes, and naval choke points (like the Suez Canal or Strait of Malacca) are the true determinants of global supremacy, not land-based resources.

Technological Advancements: Critics argue that in the modern era, airpower, long-range missiles, and cyber-warfare allow for the projection of power without the need for physical, territorial control of the Eurasian landmass.

Economic Interdependence and Constraints: The development of global supply chains and the inefficiencies of land transport compared to maritime shipping mean that controlling the land interior does not automatically equate to global dominance. Furthermore, land powers face immense challenges in maintaining security over such a vast, resource-intensive area.

The "Rimland" as a Buffer: Instead of a vulnerable periphery, the Rimland acts as a containment zone that prevents the Heartland power from accessing the sea, effectively bottlenecking land-based expansion.

Regional Resistance: Historical and contemporary examples, such as the resistance in Eastern Europe, demonstrate that populations within the "pivot area" often act independently, undermining the notion that the Heartland is a monolith easily controlled by a single power.

Thursday, February 26, 2026

How Democrats Crushed the Hunter Biden Laptop Story

War Gaming Laptop Leak Counter-Strategies at the Aspen Institute...

from Google AI:
The Mackinder Doctrine, or Heartland Theory, is a 1904 geopolitical concept by Sir Halford Mackinder positing that control of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (the "Heartland" or "Pivot Area") allows command of the "World-Island" (Eurasia and Africa), eventually leading to global domination. It prioritizes land power over maritime power, warning that a dominant power in this region could threaten world freedom.

Key Aspects of the Heartland Theory:
  • The Geographic Formula: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; and who rules the World-Island commands the world".
  • Heartland (Pivot Area): The largely inaccessible, resource-rich, and land-locked region of Eurasia, protected from naval power by ice, mountains, and deserts.
  • World-Island: The combined landmass of Europe, Asia, and Africa, which contained two-thirds of the world's land and seven-eighths of its population.
  • Shift from Sea to Land: Mackinder argued that, with the rise of railways, land-based powers could out-compete traditional maritime powers (like Britain) in mobility and resource accumulation.
  • Strategic Objective: To warn Britain of the danger of a Eurasian power, such as Russia or Germany, establishing hegemony and to suggest preventing this by ensuring control over Eastern Europe as a buffer zone.
Evolution of the Theory:
  • 1904 ("The Geographical Pivot of History"): Introduced the "Pivot Area" concept.
  • 1919 ("Democratic Ideals and Reality"): Refined the theory post-WWI, focusing on Eastern Europe as the crucial, vulnerable gate to the Heartland.
  • 1943 ("The Round World and the Winning of the Peace"): Modified to include the "Midland Ocean" (North Atlantic) as a counterbalance to a potential Soviet-dominated Heartland.
Relevance in Modern Geopolitics:

The theory is often cited in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, viewing control of Ukraine as a step toward dominating the Heartland. It is also seen as a precursor to modern strategic thinking regarding land-based Eurasian infrastructure (e.g., China's Belt and Road Initiative

Why they Want to Cancel Tucker and Candace on the Right...

“World War III will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.”

- Marshall McLuhan

What Use is a Non-Representative Supra-Democracy (aka: 'Muh' Democracy)

It's No Use at All!
Trumpism = A Return to Representation within a Representative Democracy