A fricking fracking fracas

By Tom Quiner

Frankly, I think fracking is getting framed.

For the uninitiated, fracking …

“is a technique in which typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create fractures, which form conduits along which fluids such as gas, petroleum, and groundwater may migrate to the well.” [Wikipedia]

In other words, it is another technological innovation to help America find new, affordable energy reserves. Needless to say, liberals hate it.

Unlike many of my conservative brethren, I do not dismiss their concerns out of hand. Here’s the problem: in light of the claims of a coming ice age in the 70s which then morphed into a global warming crisis at the turn of the century only to be reborn as climate change yet a few years later, well, it’s hard to take liberals and their scientists seriously.

You know what I mean?

To make matters worse, I have observed how the mainstream media has abandoned any pretense of objectivity on the issue (surprise!) and reports the new ice age global warming climate change as FACT.

So I opened the Des Moines Register this morning and saw the fracking fracas begin to heat up. It is very important to read news reports on environmental issues through the eyes of a conservative.

The source of the story was the USA Today. Strike one!

“Fracking wells linked to earthquakes” was the headline. Strike two!

When a headline suggests environmental cataclysm, be prepared to read between lines and jump to the last paragraph of the article (which is always continued deep in the paper where most people never read) which inevitably refutes the headline.

True to form, the last paragraph of the article states a possible different cause for the earthquakes:

“One study led by seismologist Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., suggests that some Midwestern temblors appear tied to distant aftershocks from large earthquakes worldwide, such as Japan’s massive earthquake in 2011. Such quakes in turn set off faults under pressure from disposal wells.”

Streerike three!

The rest of the piece pinned the blame squarely on fracking, NOT other major earthquakes.

Most people will read that earthquakes are up 5 TIMES IN THE PAST 3 YEARS, and fracking is the probable culprit. Most people will miss the acknowledgement that the quakes are “small.”

When anti-fracking movies are being made starring major celebrities like Matt Damon, you know that anti-fracking is officially a new sacrament in the cult of secular humanism.

Now could you bear with me a moment as I change gears? I would like to present a fracking liberal scenario. Come with me to California.

There, voters approved Proposition 8 in the year 2008. Voters defined marriage as a union of one man, one woman with the passage of this ballot initiative. Democracy in action, right?


Opponents were not about to let a little thing called democracy get in their way. They found a very liberal judge, who was gay, of course, who didn’t like it so he simply threw it out.

Supporters of traditional marriage called on the state to defend the law and take it to the Supreme Court.

The liberal governor said no.

So supporters hired their own lawyer who took it the Supreme Court.

The Court said the lawyer had no standing. They threw it back to the state. Gay marriage is now the law of the land in California in spite of the will of the voters.

Let’s connect this situation with fracking.

Suppose Californians passed an anti-fracking proposition, effectively banning this earthquake-causing, humanity-destroying procedure within the state of California.

Suppose greedy fracking barons found themselves a sympathetic judge who most certainly is driving a gas guzzling, environment-destroying SUV, who simply threw out the proposition.

Suppose anti-fracking evangelists appealed to a conservative governor to defend the law, and he simply said no.

And suppose the liberals got themselves a liberal attorney to take the case to the Supreme Court, and the Court said, “she doesn’t have standing with the court.” Case dismissed. Let the fracking times roll!

How would liberals react?

Here is how they would react: California would secede from the union.

Liberals are passionate about their religion. Fracking is their latest cardinal sin.

The ends justify the means to the anti-fracking fanatics, just as they do with other sacraments of the cult of Secular Humanism, including abortion, climate change, and so-called gay marriage.

I apologize to my faithful readers if my headline was too profane for you on this fine Friday. Frankly, I was simply feeling a little frisky after reading the MSM this morning, and decided to jump into the fray.

1 Comment

  1. Parody on July 13, 2013 at 9:54 am

    “There, voters approved Proposition 8 in the year 2008. Voters defined marriage as a union of one man, one woman with the passage of this ballot initiative. Democracy in action, right?


    The vote was overturned because it proved to be little more than a 21st Century version of a lynch mob. The vast majority of people are homophobic, brainwashed from a young age to believe that homosexuality is evil, much like people from previous centuries were brainwashed to believe that non-christians (particularly Pagan’s) were inherently evil. Back then, the masses spread their rule by way of torch and pitchfork. Now, in a more civilized society, we spread our hate by passing laws that strike down the “wicked” who have done us no harm.

    If the vast majority of the population wanted to pass a law that the practice of any religion other than Muslim was illegal, (with the rationale that their religion says that all other religions are evil, supported by evidence that non-muslims are less healthy and more likely to commit crime) do you really believe that this law represents a vision of freedom, and you would follow it unquestionably?