It cannot be said of many people that they make MSNBC in-house loose cannon Ed Schultz look sane by comparison. Mike Malloy is one of those people.
On his radio show Friday, Malloy condemned the project with the type of infantile rhetoric one would expect from a frat boy in a late-night bull session trying to impress a winsome young lady who yearns to crusade for the Sierra Club. (Audio clips after the jump)
Here's what Malloy had to say (audio) --
Now, what would you do -- seriously, truthseeker (Malloy's pet name for his equally unhinged listeners) -- I mean, I don't ask this rhetorically, I ask this specifically and from a realpolitik point of view, reality-based point of view -- what would you do if a gang of people, well-dressed, lots of money, showed up on your front porch and let's say you have your grandchildren live with you or their with you for the summer or whatever, or your children, or your nieces and nephews, OK? But you got a whole house full of kids, two or three, six, eight kids you're taking care of. And this gang of well-dressed people showed up, and they all had huge plastic bags, and they had a lot of armed people with them too. And they came up and knocked on your door and you opened the door and they said, give us your kids. For what? We're going to smother them. We're going to suffocate them. That's why we have these plastic bags. We're going to put their little heads in there, we're going to tighten it up, and we're going to suffocate 'em. What would you do? (chuckles, oddly enough).
Uh, first, you would shut the door and say, Jesus Christ, I thought Halloween was over. Hey Maude! A bunch of people here who want to kill the kids! But then when you realized that they were serious, I don't know what you'd do. What I would do is go get one of my firearms and start shooting. I mean, once they convinced me that they were for real. I mean, if they were really there to suffocate my child, I would, I would do anything possible to defend my kid. Wouldn't you? (accusingly). Of course you would.
Now what's the difference between that little twisted scenario and what these rat bastard (beloved Malloy curse) oil people want to do with Keystone XL pipeline? They want to suffocate our kids too. So what are we going to do about it?
Those familiar with Malloy see yet again his unsettling tendency toward elaborating on scenes of graphic violence. He first crossed my radar back in 2007 when he shared his "violence fantasies" toward then-White House press secretary Dana Perino.
Just before sharing his "little twisted scenario," Malloy pointed out that regardless of whether the Obama administration approved the Keystone project, the Alberta tar sands in Canada will be extracted. But as often the case when it comes to left-wingers opining about this, Malloy held off on stating the logical consequence -- if these oil sands aren't piped and refined in the US, they will be sent elsewhere and consumed, such as to China, India and other emerging economies for which fossil fuels are as important as oxygen to a living, breathing human being. In other words, Obama rejecting the project would have a negligible impact on global carbon emissions.
That being the case, if Malloy actually advocating armed force -- sure sounds like it -- against Canada, China, India, etc., to keep those tas sands buried? Not incidentally, this heavily-armed left winger who often boasts of his arsenal hates that the Second Amendment applies to other people.
On the same day that Malloy spewed this revealing rant, Ed Schultz said this about the Keystone pipeline (audio) --
I think President Obama's going to go with this and I think he should. And I know that the enviros out there and those who are sensitive to the environment, I get it, I know where you're at and I'm going to get vilified for it and beat up and everything else. So what?! You know, we need to move forward as a country. And oh by the way, we're not getting away from oil. It's not going to happen.