Category Archives: Non-gun politics

Creepy video is creepy

Do parents have unapproved ideas? Do they believe politically incorrect things? Sick their kids on them!

 

Watch it. Don’t just skip the vid and read my commentary, watch it. You have to see how Americans who don’t buy into the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud are being portrayed.

 Aside from the obvious creepy aspect to this, there’s two things I noticed.

  1. Not a single bit of evidence was shown to support the concept of man caused climate change. This was entirely “Argument from Authority.” He’s a Scientist™, you should believe him!
  2. They portray the “Climate Denier” as simply objecting to everything, not offering any evidence to contradict, evidence that is ample and easy to find. They portray him as an anti-science cult member too stupid to have any good reason to oppose their Science™ which they don’t bother to support with evidence.

This isn’t how science gets done. The people pushing “global warming,” now rebranded “global climate change,” have been caught lying and manipulating data. And not just innocent mistakes, but wholesale “hide the decline” scientific fraud.

But anyone who doubts that Gaia is being raped by the globalist capitalist industrial complex is some sort of stupid idiot who harasses children just doing science projects.

Watch the video. See how the Left views you. See how the Left views everyone.

The Atlantic plays a game of Let’s Pretend

Oh those silly Yankee liberals at The Atlantic. They’ve sunk to claiming that North Carolina is the new Wisconsin.

Nowhere is the battle between liberal and conservative visions of government fiercer than North Carolina. From the environment to guns, abortion to campaign finance, religion to taxes, Raleigh has become a battleground that resembles Madison, Wisconsin, in 2011.

You mean the Madison, Wisconsin where tens of thousands of idiots staged sleep-ins at the Capitol Building? The one where the Democrat minority fled the state to prevent losing a few votes?

Newsflash Yankees. Wisconsin is a liberal state that got irritated enough to elect some Republicans. They might go back to being Democrat tomorrow. North Carolina was a state that was gerrymandered by the Dems for 100 years. In 2010 the Dems suffered such a blowout loss to Republicans that the Republicans took the Senate with a 2/3rds majority and nearly did the same in the House. The Republicans promptly gerrymandered the state to favor themselves and then in the next election scored a 2/3rds majority in BOTH houses, plus a Republican governor, plus went for Romney over Obama. 

The Dems have lost North Carolina forever. They were holding on by the skin of their teeth, and Obama’s 2010 midterm pushed them out finally. Yes, there are a few lunatics who are protesting at the Capitol, getting themselves arrested, but no one cares. Until I asked her, my wife had no idea that it was going on. Compare that to Madison, where their slobs made national news.

The whole story has the whiff of “Othering.” They act like “Who are these rubes who’ve seized power and are doing wacky extremist right wing lunatic stuff?” I left them this comment.

Are you people insane? North Carolina is the new Wisconsin? Don’t make me laugh. NC is a conservative state that was held down by the Democrats by gerrymandering for 100 years. We were “moderate” only because the Dems didn’t dare ask for all their policies because it would have turned the conservative voters against them.

The Dems finally fell off the tiger they’ve been riding and now they are getting eaten. Of course they are angry about it. Who likes to get ripped apart and devoured after successfully duping their constituents for so long?

The votes on 2010 & 2012 weren’t even close. There’s a 2/3rds majority in both houses and the governor won in 2012 running away. You don’t have Wisconsin Mark II, you have another Utah in the making. And I, for one, am glad of it.

All you New Yorkers, Jersey Girls/Boys, and other assorted Northerners will sneer at us Rebel Scum, you’ll mock the accents of my neighbors, and you’ll pretend you’re better than us. Yet come 20 years, you’ll all have moved down here with your retirement money to enjoy our easier weather and polite southern manners. We’ll still have an economy that works while your home states will have imploded due to public sector debt. And you’ll buy a gun and forget all your Yankee ways.

That’s all they’ve got. Moral superiority based on total ignorance of who we are.

Now they are going to “gag hate clerics” in (Formerly Great) Britain

I guess David Cameron is reacting to the embarrassing situation where the British police arrested Facebook and Twitter users for saying nasty things about Muslims. His latest attempt to smooth things over is to crack down on “hate preachers.”

David Cameron is planning new powers to muzzle Islamic hate preachers accused of provoking terrorist outrages such as the killing of soldier Lee Rigby.

The Prime Minister wants to stop extremist clerics using schools, colleges, prisons and mosques to spread their ‘poison’ and is to head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) made up of senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders.

The high-powered group will study a number of measures, including banning extremist clerics from being given public platforms to incite students, prisoners and other followers – and forcing mosque leaders to answer for ‘hate preachers’.

All is proceeding according to plan. No one will complain. Those Britons who believe that these Islamist lunatics need cracking down on will cheer. The Islamists will cheer the crackdown on the “racists” who oppose the Islamists. Who will stand up and say that the government is wrong to prosecute free speech from any side?

A far better response on the part of the British government would be to aggressively publicize the words of these hate preachers. They should send the BBC cameras to record the sermons and fund the translators necessary to make these hate filled sermons understandable to the average Briton. This would be what a decent government would do to educate its citizens.

But they aren’t running a decent government. They want to stay in power. And if they tell the truth about the Islamists, or better yet, allow the Islamists to tell the truth about themselves, they run the risk of the average Briton rising up and demanding that the state stop funding these vile creatures. But that would risk taking power from the people who depend on paying these Islamists for votes.

And if the choice is between Power and Truth, can you really expect the government to choose Truth?

HT: The Gateway Pundit

Why did the British Police arrest Facebook/Twitter users?

What do you have to do in the US to get arrested for something you’ve said on Facebook or Twitter? In the US, you pretty much have to admit to a crime, incite an immediate lawless action (ie, a riot), or make a direct personal threat. I think we can agree that inciting a riot and directly threatening the life or safety of another person is something that the cops should be involved in. But racist statements?

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

Presumably the police in (Formerly Great) Britain are intelligent enough that had he said “Let’s go burn down the houses of those Paki scum!” they would have said that he was arrested on suspicion of inciting a riot. Had he said “I’m going to murder the family of that soldier killing, Allah worshiping, camel jockey,” they would have said that he was arrested for making threats. But he was actually arrested for making racist/anti-religious statements. (and yes, I realize that the killers were of African not south Asian descent, but I have no idea what racial epithets the Brits use on black people)

  • Fuck Islam
  • and fuck the Paki scum, too. (apparently “Paki” is as offensive there as “nigger” is in the US)

Both perfectly legal and First Amendment protected statements here in the US. Highly offensive, but protected. But not in England.

That makes us ask, “Why?” It’s not that big a deal to us. We have the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Cult, after all. There are neo-nazis and scum sucking retards of all stripes. (Not that I wish to insult scum-sucking retard-Americans by comparing them to the KKK, WBC, or neo-nazis) And we get along just fine by allowing them to out themselves as the filth that they are by what they say. We consider the First Amendment not only to be a right of all people, but an invitation for assholes of all types to tell us what we should think of them.

Not England. Why not? We didn’t invent the free speech part of the First Amendment all on our own. No, we stole it from them. I’ve said before and I still believe that America is just England, English Common Law, and the Rights of Englishmen turned up to 11. Our big mistake as a colony was to take the ideals of England and act as if the English Government of the time actually believed in those ideals. They didn’t, we did, and so we shot each other until they gave us up as a bad job.

But now, a couple hundred years later, the British ruling class (the political rulers, not the title wearing class) is having the cops arrest people for making “racist or anti-religious” statements on Facebook and Twitter. It’s an “offense against public order.” What an Orwellian phrase that is. Against “public order.” Burning down a building is an offense against public order. Telling someone that they and their entire race and religion are subhuman is more on the order of being a jerk.

While the regular unarmed cops didn’t even try to engage the Woolwich terrorists for 20 minutes until armed police turned up, they had no problem mixing it up with the Englishmen who showed up that night to protest.

Dozens of protesters shouting far-right slogans clashed with police in Woolwich, south London on Wednesday night following the brutal killing of a man in broad daylight.

Click over for video. (Warning: auto play)

So we have two thugs with knives and a pistol and the cops keep their distance, but a few hundred unarmed “Far Right” protesters, and the British police flood the zone. Makes Sense.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it. The British ruling class have been caught trying to replace the population they have with a population that will keep them in permanent power.

There is patchy, though compelling evidence that Labour spoke with a forked tongue, and had a secret agenda. Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Jack Straw, has written that Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a ‘truly multicultural country’.

Its chief motive may have been electoral. Migrants, and to a slightly lesser extent their descendants, are much more likely to vote Labour than for any other party. So, according to this theory, the Labour Party was furtively trying to increase its powerbase.

The theory is pretty easy to follow:

Generous welfare benefits + open migration = a client class of residents who will vote their economic interests

It’s exactly what the Labour Party did to Scotland, after all. Why would they do any differently in England at the same time?

From this we can easily see why the British ruling class is adamant that the person who needs cracking down on is the “Far-Right” Englishman who objects to his country being turned into a third world hell hole with full welfare benefits. It’s because those “Far-Right” Englishmen are the enemy and the Muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate, Radical Islamist or otherwise, are their clients. The British ruling class knows who is voting for them and so cracks down on their political enemies while ignoring the crimes of their political allies.

The Left is all about will to power. They want to be in charge and they don’t care who they hurt to stay there. To some extent, the Right is the same way. In some ways, they are worse. They’d rather be the “loyal opposition” to these far Left loons than actually fight. If they fight, they might lose their preferred positions in society. Can’t have that, now can we?

I see jackboots in Europe’s future. The Golden Dawn Party in Greece, the coming racial/religious/cultural warfare in England, and whatever the heck is going on in Stockholm right now are likely to prove Tam correct. We here in the US are parading around with guns and having arguments over what the EUros would consider trivial and essential gun control requirements, but the dark night of fascism will land on the EUros.

I think that’s because our political class knows that we retain the power, and the personal armaments necessary, to send them all straight to hell if they cross us. The EUro politicians have always kept their subjects docile and disarmed, so those subjects have to run riot in the streets and seize state power for themselves before anyone takes them seriously.

It would be nice if the EUros could figure out some better method of settling their social problems than invading their neighbors and putting religious and ethnic minorities to the sword shower.

Here’s the Facebook page about the coming NC Dog Ban

Read my earlier post on this.

So some dumbass legislator thinks that in order for me to own a Pit Bull type, a Rottweiler, a Mastiff, a Chow, or a Pero de Presa Canario, I need to pass a background check as if I was buying a handgun. I’m supposed to go to the Sheriff and say “Please Mr. Sheriff, can I buy a dog?” The bill doesn’t even have any standards to which the Sheriff could measure you. Does he simply apply the Pistol laws? If you’re a felon, a domestic violence misdemeanant, or a non-resident alien, you get rejected? Or does the Sheriff just make it up on a whim? We know how well that goes.

Now go to the Facebook page and click “Like.”

We need to organize to oppose this.

The Nanny State strikes again, this time about dogs

I hate government nannies. When they start telling me what I can and can’t do, all I hear is “Sean is too stupid to be allowed to make his own decisions.” It’s the siren call of autocratic states everywhere. The politician decides that we’re too stupid to have a say in our own affairs, so they take our choices away from us.

Here’s a case in point, House Bill 956 – Regulate Ownership of Aggressive Dog Breeds

Let’s look at the language of the bill

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to regulate the ownership of aggressive dog breeds.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1.  Chapter 58 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:

Article 82B.

Regulation of Aggressive Dog Breeds.

§ 58‑82B‑1.  Regulation of aggressive dog breeds; permits.

(a)        For purposes of this section, the term “aggressive dog breed” means any of the following breeds of dog and dogs that are predominantly of any of the following breeds:

(1)        Pit bull, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed, American Staffordshire Terrier breed, and American Pit Bull Terrier breed.

(2)        Rottweiler.

(3)        Mastiff.

(4)        Chow.

(5)        Perro de Presa Canario.

The term “aggressive dog breed” also includes wolf hybrids.

(b)        A person shall not take ownership of a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed on or after January 1, 2014, unless that person does the following:

(1)        Submits to a criminal background check by the sheriff of the county where the owner resides. The sheriff shall determine the criminal and background history of the owner by accessing computerized criminal history records as maintained by the State Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation by conducting a national criminal history records check, by conducting a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and by conducting a criminal history check through the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(2)        Enrolls in a course of instruction of no less than four hours’ duration provided by the Humane Society of the United States, or any of the rescue organizations for any of the aggressive dog breeds as defined in subsection (a) of this section, that is designed to educate the owners of these dogs about their temperament and about the requirements for responsible ownership of the breed, or any other similar course of instruction approved by the Department of Insurance. Each organization offering such a course shall register a syllabus of the course with the Department of Insurance and, in consultation with the Department of Insurance, shall develop a certification process to enable owners of aggressive dog breeds to demonstrate to insurers that they have successfully participated in that course. If the owner of the dog is under 18 years of age, then the parent or guardian of the owner shall enroll in the course with the owner and be responsible for obtaining the certification.

(3)        Notifies the issuer of the person’s homeowners’ or renters’ insurance policy, if any, that the person has complied with the provisions of this section in order to establish the level of risk involved in providing insurance to the person.

(4)        Applies to the Department of Insurance for a special permit to possess a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and obtain such a permit.

For purposes of this subsection, the term “take ownership” means the purchasing, adopting, or otherwise taking possession of a dog for the first time by a person who intends to maintain possession of the dog.

(c)        The Department of Insurance shall develop and implement a program for issuing special permits to owners of dogs of an aggressive dog breed, as defined in subsection (a) of this section. Before issuing a permit under the program, the Department shall confirm that the applicant has complied with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, as well as any additional requirements designed to increase the likelihood that the person may obtain affordable insurance to cover the risks to the public that may result from the person’s ownership of such a dog. If the Department determines that the criminal background check required under subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of this section indicates that an applicant is not suitable for the ownership of a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed or that an applicant has not fully complied with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, then the Department shall not issue a permit to the person. The Department shall provide to the applicant within seven days of the refusal a written statement of the reason for the refusal to issue a permit. An appeal from the refusal shall lie by way of petition to the chief district court judge for the district in which the application was filed. The determination by the court on appeal shall be upon the facts, the law, and the reasonableness of the Department’s refusal and shall be final.

(d)        The Department may charge a fee of up to twenty‑five dollars ($25.00) for issuance of an aggressive dog breed permit under this section.

(e)        Effective January 1, 2014, until December 31, 2015, any person to whom subsection (b) of this section applies who possesses a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed without complying with the provisions of this section and obtaining a permit under this section commits an infraction and, if found responsible, is liable for a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00). Effective January 1, 2015, any person to whom subsection (b) of this section applies who possesses a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed without complying with the provisions of this section and obtaining a permit under this section is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

SECTION 2.  This act becomes effective January 1, 2014, and applies to persons who take ownership of dogs covered by this act on or after that date, and the provisions of G.S. 58‑82B‑1(e) become effective January 1, 2014, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.

So some dumbass legislator thinks that in order for me to own a Pit Bull type, a Rottweiler, a Mastiff, a Chow, or a Pero de Presa Canario, I need to pass a background check as if I was buying a handgun. I’m supposed to go to the Sheriff and say “Please Mr. Sheriff, can I buy a dog?” The bill doesn’t even have any standards to which the Sheriff could measure you. Does he simply apply the Pistol laws? If you’re a felon, a domestic violence misdemeanant, or a non-resident alien, you get rejected? Or does the Sheriff just make it up on a whim? We know how well that goes.

In addition to the background check I have to attend 4 hours of training, and then make sure I have insurance to cover the dog. Apparently the Department of Insurance will administer the permit system for this stupidity, and I will have to pay $25 for my permission slip. If I fail to do so, I get slapped with a $50 fine, until after Dec 31, 2015. After that it’s a class 3 misdemeanor.

Here’s what I think. I think that the statist idiot who wrote this bill needs to hear from us. He needs to be told in no uncertain terms to mind his own business. There is absolutely no reason in the world that someone should have to submit to a background check before buying a dog.

Here’s the Sponsor’s info

Representative Rodney W. Moore (Democrat)
919-733-5606
He is from District 99, in Mecklenburg County.
 
Here’s the Co-sponsor’s info

The last of the three towering heros of the 20th Century dies

There were three people who brought down the horror that was the Soviet Union, Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. Today Margaret Thatcher is joining the other two in her earthly reward.

Margaret Thatcher, the former U.K. prime minister who helped end the Cold War and was known as the “Iron Lady” for her uncompromising style, has died. She was 87.

“She had a stroke and died peacefully,” her spokesman, Tim Bell, told Sky News television today. “We’ll never see the like of her again. She was one of the great prime ministers of all times. She changed people’s lives. She is a fantastic person. She loved her country. She dedicated herself to improving people’s lives.”

Ronald Reagan got a lot of the credit, but according to the histories of the period Margaret Thatcher was at least an equal partner. She sat down with Solidarity in Poland, defying the Soviets. It was her government’s intelligence service which realized that the Soviet empire was an economic basket case and was susceptible to economic warfare.

But there’s one other way to tell what a great woman Margaret Thatcher was. Take a look at the people who hate her. If there is another woman in the world who was despised by more despicable people, I can’t think of one.

We are diminished by her loss. But we are also far far better off because we had her when we needed her.

Not about guns, about Drones

Drones, the aircraft, not drones the male bees.

House Bill 312 – Preserving Privacy Act of 2013

It looks like quite a few NC Representatives want to ban the use of aerial drones for searches without warrants.

Primary Sponsors: Setzer, Moffitt, D. Hall, Harrison

Cosponsers: Bumgardner, Collins, Floyd, Fulghum, Glazier, Jeter, Lewis, Lucas, Malone, Martin, McGrady, R. Moore, Murry, D. Ross, Saine, Speciale, Turner, Waddell, Warren

Text

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to regulate the use of drones to conduct searches.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known as the “Preserving Privacy Act of 2013.”

SECTION 2. Article 10 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

“§ 15A‑232. Searches using a drone.

(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section:

(1) Drone. – Any powered aerial vehicle that (i) does not carry a human operator, (ii) can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, and (iii) is expendable or recoverable.

(2) Person. – Any employee or agent of the United States or any state or any political subdivision thereof and any individual, partnership, association, business establishment, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(3) Search warrant. – As defined in G.S. 15A‑241.

(b) Prohibition. – Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person or municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency to use a drone for the purpose of gathering evidence or other information or data pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or rule. A person or municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency may use a drone for purposes other than gathering evidence or other information or data pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or rule, but any information or data acquired from the use of the drone shall not be disclosed and shall be inadmissible in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.

(c) Exceptions. – The prohibition in subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) A municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency using a drone to conduct a search pursuant to a search warrant. Any search authorized under this subdivision shall be limited to the scope of the warrant, and the warrant shall specifically state that the use of a drone is authorized.

(2) A municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency using a drone to conduct a search if consent to the search is given in accordance with Article 9 of this Chapter.

(3) A municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency using a drone to conduct a search if the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that immediate action is needed to prevent (i) imminent harm to life, (ii) serious damage to property, (iii) the imminent escape of a suspect, or (iv) the imminent destruction of evidence. The use of a drone pursuant to this subdivision is subject to the following limitations:

a. The search shall be documented, including the factual basis for possessing reasonable suspicion that immediate action was needed to prevent (i) imminent harm to life, (ii) serious damage to property, (iii) the imminent escape of a suspect, or (iv) the imminent destruction of evidence.

b. No later than 48 hours after the date on which a municipal, county, or State law enforcement agency uses a drone to conduct a search, a supervisory official with the law enforcement agency shall file a sworn statement with the clerk of court in the county in which the drone was used setting forth the information required in sub‑subdivision a. of this subdivision.

(d) Scope of Search. – When a drone is used pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, it shall be operated in a manner to collect information or data only on the person or location subject to the search and to avoid information or data collection on individuals, homes, or areas other than the subject of the search. Neither facial recognition nor other biometric matching technology may be used on information or data collected from the use of a drone that pertains to individuals, homes, or areas other than the subject of the search.

(e) Penalties – An aggrieved party may bring a civil action against any person who violates the provisions of this section. Any person who willfully and knowingly violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who violates subsection (g) of this section is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

(f) Suppression. – Any information or data obtained or collected in violation of this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.

(g) Data Retention. – Any information or data willfully and knowingly obtained or collected in violation of this section shall be destroyed within 24 hours after the date on which the information or data was first obtained or collected. If a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final decision finding that information or data was obtained or collected in violation of this section, the information or data obtained or collected in violation of this section shall be destroyed within 24 hours after the date of the final decision.

(h) Reporting Requirement. – By January 31 of each year, any official listed in G.S. 15A‑243 who issues a search warrant during the preceding calendar year authorizing the use of a drone shall report to the Administrative Office of the Courts the identity of the law enforcement agency to which the search warrant was issued, the offense specified in the warrant, and the nature of the facilities or property searched.

Beginning April 1, 2014, and every year thereafter, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall report to the General Assembly the information received pursuant to this subsection. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall adopt rules governing the content and form of the report required by this subsection and shall publish on its Web site any part of the report that is a public record under Chapter 132 of the General Statutes.”

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2013, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

I like it.

Did it ever occurred to New Yorkers to just say no?

Mayor Nanny Bloomberg is going to start enforcing the 16oz soda limit.

The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter grades.

And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.

“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,” said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna cost a lot more.”

It’s apparently a $200 fine for violations. Pizza delivery guys can’t even bring you a 2 liter with your pizza!

I thought that New Yorkers were tough. Why do they roll over for this crap? Why don’t they just tell the Health Department to get stuffed, refuse to pay the fines, and demand trials for ever single fine citywide?

Naaa. They’re too pussified to fight back.

Why do Leftists hate cheap energy?

Let’s imagine that we could smash a couple of atoms together, crack them, and make electricity. Or throw up a big wall in front of a river, run the water through a turbine and make electricity. Or pump some water into the ground, crack the rock, and extract enough clean burning natural gas to cut the price from $13 per 1,000 cubic feet to about $3. Why wouldn’t we.

Oh, wait, we already can do all of these things.

I guess my question is, why is it that every time we try to exploit an energy source the same Leftist suspects freak the hell out? It doesn’t seem to matter what the source is, from coal to natural gas. It’s always a bad deal.

I’m starting to think that the real problem isn’t the problem they complain about, the environment. Anyone with half a brain and one functioning eye could see that poor energy starved countries are far rougher on their environment. No, I think the real problem is that the usual suspects just don’t want us to have cheap energy.

Didn’t human hater Paul Erlich say “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun“?

There has to be a reason.