Kinda reminds me of Miami.

Lou’s going rogue.

Yes, Hubbert’s peak oil timeline was wrong(he predicted world production would peak in 1995),however he was spot on regarding when U.S production would peak.

I highly doubt that it’s the Euro-Left that’s preventing oil drilling, considering how dependent the continent is on Russia to meet its energy needs. As for the North Sea, it peaked sometime ago and the EROI continues to drop.

It’s the same in the U.S.A. All the easily extractable oil in places like Texas and California are gone and now were getting most of our oil from remote regions of Alaska and offshore wells.

Your right about Goldman Sachs speculating in the oil markets after the housing boom cooled off.

It’s about time the Republicans cease talking about abortion and actually do something about it. Remember, they had complete control of the federal government for nearly 6 years and did nothing significant during that time. But yap, yap, yap is all we got. George Bush wouldn’t even show his face at the March For Life.

Of course, I cannot say that there will never be an oil peak, but I do not think it is on the near horizon. Aren’t we already passing Hubbert’s original peak oil timeline anyway (and with all the limitations on oil drilling)?
Even here in Norway, they know there is far more oil to be found…if only we can get past the New Left and Euro-liberal tools who have adopted an obscurantist ideology of de-development.
Plus I am extremely sceptical whenever I hear peak oil mentioned due to the past few years when the Goldman Sachs minions were on financial TV all day saying the price of oil had to quadruple almost overnight because the Chinese just started buying cars and we are reaching peak oil. Of course that was an excuse for them to pull people into their speculative bubble and screw them badly.
Pardon my speech there.

What is your opinion of Daniel Hannan? My wife’s family (Americans) follow his speeches as much as they can, but I always sense he opposes EU integration for all the wrong reasons.

You are right that certain Christian parties had other reasons to support EU integration, and in principle pan-Europeanism is not wrong. However, almost all the CD parties stand behind it. I am glad that Van Rompuy was chosen over Blair, but at the end of the day, he will be working to enforce the will of European finance capital and vulturish globalisation.
I won’t spend long on this as it is not too important (I am sure you would agree) but the MPF, which, yes, did have the same European policy as the FN, has now evolved to a standard Eurosceptic position. Of course, they don’t support the EU as it is now, and of course they have never claimed European cooperation is wrong. However, they have evolved to the point of no longer opposing EU membership for France, whereas the FN retains its position. And of course the FN desires a cooperation of European nations, as is logical for Europe for obvious geopolitical reasons.
I do not see why you always denigrate the National Front. The MPF has certain elements of neoconservatism. Of course they are not 25% as bad. In no way are they globalists, and they backed Chirac on Iraq, unlike the free-market extremists and certain Zionist Socialists. Their problem is namely in their emphasis on Islam as a root of world evil. In this, they approach your declared enemy Geert Wilders and certain blowhard Tories. The MPF also declares itself liberal in domestic economics, meaning that they s’éloignent from Catholic Social Thought. The FN is a nationalist party that does not attempt to demonise Islam first and has an increasing scepticism of liberal capitalism and the armies which re-enforce it.
Plus, Alain de Benoist and the neopagans have abandoned the FN, so I do not see why Catholics should not choose the latter.
A final point could be your equation of Catholicism with Christendom, when, if I were just to judge by targeted countries over the past 15 years, or perhaps 500, Orthodox Christianity seems to be the faith under direct fire by both the liberals and neocons to me.

People who do want a free and conservative Cuba should have nothing to do with them and with what is in any case, even from their own point of view, their counterproductive policy of stirring up sympathy for the present regime by means of the blockade.

With an American sovereign base on Cuba, how is that regime still there a generation after the fall of the Soviet Union? Surely not because, whatever else it may be, it is no threat whatever to the United States?