Reasonable security for presidential debate requires moving the debate, not shutting down I-25

By Seth Richardson

The Secret Service is well-known for their paranoid tendencies over security for the POTUS and its other protectees, but the shut-down of Interstate 25 through Denver to accommodate the presidential debates at DU are a ridiculous and offensive excess. The Secret Service will not say why exactly it deems it necessary to disrupt traffic flow and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people, but we can presume that the debate venue is too close to the interstate and they fear that a truck-bomb or shoulder-fired missile or some other long-range weapon might be used from the freeway.

Fine, they are the experts at threat assessment and far be it from me to criticize their judgment. But what the heck persuaded the candidates to hold the debates at such a vulnerable facility in the first place? Evidently the Commission on Presidential Debates decided that DU presented the best package. Peter Eyre, a senior adviser to the Commission is quoted by reporter Kristen Leigh Painter from the Denver Post as saying “One of the things that was really unique was the proximity of the debate hall to the media filing center.” In her article, Painter says “Eyre said at the end of the day, DU’s proposal displayed a willingness to do whatever it took, and had the infrastructure to support it.”

Yeah, everything it takes except some basic respect for motorists who need to get from point A to point B on a public highway that they paid a lot of money for and who don’t have the time or patience to put up with political pandering as they try to eke a living out of this floundering economy.

It seems more than coincidental that the debates landed in Colorado, which is a swing state in this election, although Eyre says that “Geography is not factored in.” Too right it’s not. One of the most essential elements of planning such an event is security for the candidates, and ignoring the obvious security threat of I-25 in making the selection smacks of political pandering over good event management or presidential security.

Why couldn’t they have booked the Pepsi Center? That’s where the Democrats had their convention four years ago, and security there was easy. I was there. They managed to keep the hordes of people hundreds of yards away from the venue, and made the pathway to the government-approved “free speech zone” (here’s a constitutional aside for politicians: the whole of the public lands in the United States is a “free speech zone” and you’d best not forget it) was such a byzantine maze of fences guiding protesters literally nearly a mile to an obscure corner near the press tent that the protesters, with about three individual exceptions, refused to be herded out of sight and sound of the delegates.

It’s  no more acceptable for the Commission to shut down a major traffic artery through Denver for the debate than it was to shut it down so that Barack Obama could grin and gloat on his Olympian dais at the Bronco’s football stadium at the end of the Democrat convention. It was a bad decision to hold the debate at DU, and just because the politically greedy administration at DU wants to score a public relations “coup” doesn’t mean it’s wise or fair to “do whatever it took” without due respect and regard for the citizens of Colorado whose ability to travel efficiently is going to be massively disrupted by this self-serving arrogance.

We cannot blame the Secret Service though. They don’t make the political decisions about where the POTUS goes. They just have the unenviable job of doing what they can to secure him wherever he chooses to go. Just a few weeks ago he appeared at CU in Boulder and on a whim he went to one of my favorite restaurants in Boulder, The Buff, to press the flesh with the college students who eat there in hordes because of the outstanding food and service. According to co-owner Jackie Sproul, the Secret Service haunted the place undercover for a day or two before the visit, but didn’t notify anyone at the restaurant of Obama’s plans till about 45 minutes before the visit. This sort of public contact is the Secret Service’s worst nightmare because they can’t vet everyone who comes within contact range of the President, especially in a state where concealed carry with a permit is legal.

What numb-nut forced what’s going to be a highly unpopular and aggravating closure of six miles of I-25 on the Secret Service? Whoever it was, they should be ashamed of themselves for disrespecting the traveling public in such an arrogant and disdainful manner.

© 2012 Altnews

United Nations bigots call for criminalizing blasphemy against Islam

By Seth Richardson

There is an insidious Islamic agenda at work in the world today. Some idiot filmmaker or preacher makes an insulting film or burns a Koran and Muslims worldwide riot and kill each other and call for killing of all non-believers and the destruction of the United States. But that’s not the agenda, the riotous Muslims are just useful idiots heeding the call of the radical Islamic leadership to engage in violence whenever Islam or their Prophet are (in some Imam’s opinion) “insulted.” It’s been this way since 610 A.D.. But now as soon as they start rioting, the radical Islamic leadership begins calling for restrictions on the free speech of infidels so that Islam can be protected from its critics rather than its customary practice of sending out armies to destroy the Christian Empire directly. It’s more insidious and deceitful nowadays. And insidious deceitfulness, not to mention outright lying to infidels, is an approved Islamic practice, which makes it impossible to trust what any Muslim says to an infidel.

Usually it’s some fringe Islamic zealot like Iran’s Ahmahdinejad, but now the United Nations are getting in on the agenda.  “The international community must not become silent, and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world,” said Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, at the U.N. on Tuesday. What he meant is that blaspheming Islam should be criminalized, but he’s right, although not in the way he intends. His sentiments were echoed by other Islamic U.N. leaders, and tacitly agreed with by President Obama in his disgusting attempts at pre-election appeasement of the Muslim world in a desperate attempt to solicit votes.

The acts that “destroy the peace of the world” are not the bigoted and hateful comments or expressions of Islamophobes, they are the evil and inhuman acts of “outraged” Muslims who riot, murder, pillage, rape and terrorize the world merely because their religious sensibilities are offended.

You won’t hear any of these Muslim zealots calling for criminalization of hate speech directed towards Christians or other “infidels.” No, it’s only Islam and Mohammed that must not be insulted. Christians are fair game, literally, not only for insults and hates speech, but as the targets of religious intolerance, murder and terroristic acts.

Tens of thousands of Christians in the Middle East have been murdered, terrorized and driven out of their homes and communities by intolerant Islamic religious zealots. Churches have been burned and children chopped down with machetes in Africa by radical Muslims “defending” Islam. And all this violence is the product of the twisted minds of those who openly called for killing and enslaving the infidels of the world because only their religion is sacred.

And if the radical Muslim fringe has its way, the Caliphate will be expanded to cover the whole world, and every non-Muslim will be killed or enslaved to the intolerance and hatred of radical Islam. So-called “peaceful” Muslims try to distance themselves from the zealots, but it’s mostly hollow sentiment and transparent denials of what is written in the Koran, and it’s an act of cowardice by these peace-loving Muslims who mouth platitudes but take no direct action against the apostates of their own religion.

The first step in the program to expand Islam and the Caliphate worldwide is to use violence and terrorism as a threat against any opposition to Islam and it’s evil intentions for the rest of us. Thus the calls for criminalizing speech rather than concerted efforts to educate, pacify and put a stop to violent, illegal acts by whipped-up Muslim fundamentalists. Blame every infidel for the acts of one or two ignorant bigots, fire up the ignorant bigots of Islam to riot and cause chaos and then lay the blame on every non-Muslim rather than on the inciting Imams and those who actually go out and destroy the peace of the world.

This insidious agenda must be stopped and opposed at every turn because no one has even the smallest right or justification for rioting over words, no matter how hateful or insulting those words may be. Civilized people control themselves and use civilized discussion and debate to resolve differences and disputes over social, political and religious issues.

So yes, Mr. Ali Zardari, the world should “criminalize… acts that destroy the peace of the world,” specifically the acts of violent, ignorant, intolerant Muslim bigots who insist on creating chaos, death and destruction over words.

© 2012 Altnews

Sierra Club ecozealots don’t like coal, and you will pay for their frivolous lawsuit.

By Seth Richardson

Cutting-edge pollution control technology being tested at the Drake power plant is threatening the ecozealot Sierra Club’s political agenda to shut down all fossil fuel power production, so they are threatening to sue Colorado Springs for alleged unpermitted “major modifications” to the plant. Gazette reporter Daniel Chacon outlines the Sierra Club’s claims in today’s Gazette, quoting club organizer Bryce Carter as saying that the Neumann Systems Group technology being tested, and soon to be installed at Drake was “definitely a consideration” in the club’s lawsuit.

The last thing the Luddites at the Sierra Club want to see succeed is pollution control technology that far exceeds all federal limits because the organization is dedicated to eliminating the use of all fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas and oil. Ignoring the obvious facts of physics that “clean energy” like wind and solar power cannot possibly take over the load from coal and gas-fired power plants any time in the next couple of centuries, if ever, these ecozealots insist on raising energy costs for everyone by filing frivolous lawsuits all over the country.

The club jumped on the Drake controversy precisely because it fears what it calls “experimental and unproven NeuStream technology” will actually succeed in dramatically reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants, which it shows every sign of doing right now. Colorado Springs is today at the forefront of technological innovation that can keep coal a cheap and viable source of power for the next century or more.

Coal is one of the United States’ most abundant and energy-dense fuels, and our low-sulphur coal is the envy of the world. So much so that we exported 27 million tons of coal to countries like Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, India and China. Sixty-five percent of the exports were “metallurgic coal” used for steel-making, which makes it a valuable national strategic resource, or it would be if the U.S. was still a major producer of steel.

Because of the enormous cost of federal regulatory compliance, many power plants have switched over to natural gas, which is another abundant source of energy in the U.S. This has caused continuing declines in coal consumption of almost 19 percent in 2011. This switch-over has actually resulted in dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions. Reason.com reporter Ronald Bailey wrote, “In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.”

But even that’s not enough for the ecozealots at the Sierra Club. Carter is quoted as saying, “There are broader questions that tie to a broader dialog” and that the city could have “paved the way to retire these old, dangerous an financially risky coal plants and transition to clean energy.” This is of course not true. Coal power technology is very mature and it’s anything but dangerous or financially risky. Coal power plants fueled the economic and industrial expansion of the nation into the economic powerhouse that it became, and the technology is quite safe and mature. Rare indeed is the explosion of a power plant’s coal stacks. Not necessarily so for natural gas fired plants.

From a tactical and strategic perspective, coal-fired power plants are more reliable than natural gas plants because they usually stockpile days to weeks worth of coal in their yards, which allows continued electric production even if delivery of coal is temporarily disrupted. Gas-fired plants can be shut down immediately simply by damaging or destroying the natural gas distribution pipelines that feed the power plant. That’s something that any competent terrorist understands. Disrupt a few major gas distribution points that feed gas-fired plants at the same time and their failure can easily cause a cascade shutdown of the entire region’s electrical grid. We see these sort of disruptions during severe weather, and the panics and riots in New York during the brownouts and blackouts in the Seventies and Eighties lead to chaos and death. Combine a deliberate disruption of power plant fuel supplies with other coordinated terrorist activities in a major city, like a “dirty bomb” or dissemination of a biological agent like Anthrax in weaponized form and the human toll could be enormous.

Nor is it wise to allow our power grid to be dependent on only one source of fuel. Wind and solar and other renewables have their legitimate place in the hierarchy of electrical power production, but they will never replace the energy-dense, abundant resources of coal and natural gas, at least not in our or our grandchildren’s lifetimes. Besides, who wants to see 400 foot tall wind generators that kill eagles stretching from horizon to horizon everywhere in the U.S.? Certainly not the late Ted Kennedy, champion of the eco-left, who vigorously objected to a plan to install wind turbines off-shore of his family compound near Martha’s Vinyard.

If NeuStream technology is effective on a large scale, it paves the way for a resurgence of clean-burning coal-fired power plants. And that terrifies the Sierra Club because they are dedicated to having us all living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the ground with sharpened sticks just to suit their religious worship of nature. So, they file frivolous lawsuits and obstruct the advancement of clean coal technology and burden taxpayers with the costs of litigation in their quest for ecological purity at the expense of human lives, economic prosperity, and national sovereignty.

And all this obstructionism is perfectly in line with President Obama’s pledge that “under [his] plan, energy costs will necessarily skyrocket” and the Sierra Club, which used to be dedicated to the preservation of wilderness areas has become just another group of mindless proletarian drones in the left’s war on capitalism and prosperity.

© 2012 Altnews