April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
When you’re told that windmills and solar panels will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil — because, apparently, we get electricity from oil, or else drive wind- and solar-powered cars, not sure — you ought to smell a rat.
When a president accelerates his anti-energy campaign with the supposedly protective gauze of rhetoric about still fully supporting nuclear power — words, rather contrary to actions, like canceling the one place we had built to store spent material, after 15 years and $13 billion energy-tax dollars — you ought to demand he stop playing you for a fool.
Japan’s problems largely arose from on-site storage of spent fuel. Actual support for nuclear power here would involve immediately recognizing we shouldn’t be doing that here any longer, and promptly reversing the effort to kill Yucca Mountain. After all, 61 of our 104 nuclear facilities are full up. No more room at the inn.
But nope. Words are enough. There’s a war on energy to conduct, after all.
So when someone claims a desire for energy security while waging war on 250 years of domestic coal supply, you ought to say hold, enough.
But, finally, when the reason for an agenda keeps changing, there’s probably no good reason supporting it. At least, not one its promoters think the governed will consent to.
First we were told we had to allow the state to coerce and even force us off of energy sources that work in favor of those that do not in the name of ‘climate change’ (as a proxy for all of the ever-changing variations therein which were employed).
Then it was ‘jobs’. Until the examples of supposed success stories all were destroyed under scrutiny.
Then ‘energy of the future!’, except of course wind and solar powered electricity are just as old as coal-fired (all developed in the 1880s). The former are just losers, reduced to pleading for support schemes because they’re, ahem, ‘nascent’.
Now, with today’s speech by President Obama it is the even less plausible (and therefore, fourth-tier) claim of ‘energy security!’.
Here’s a problem with that. It’s been clear all along the agenda is one that greatly weakens a nation’s security, both energy and overall: nuclear is scary, coal dirty, gas not clean enough. We’ll just rely on electricity, instead!
Or, as green activists argued in advance of a G8 summit:
“World leaders must not allow concern for energy security to distract them from taking promised action on global warming”.
One is inconsistent with the other. Got it. And yet, today, Obama takes the stage at Georgetown to claim black is white, day is night, and mortgaging our energy future on that which has throughout history failed — which even greens saw as ultimately vulnerable for reasons of the incredible energy insecurity they guarantee — must be done in the name of enhancing our security. We’ve always been at war with EastAsia, Winston.
The ‘Say Anything’ president. Wretched.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?