You’re in.

A Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, has stated that he is now in favour of nuclear energy, and the new generation of climate activists are arguing with Greenpeace to change their stance, in spite that it's very much their foundational principle.

Of course, I do appreciate that it's far, far easier for the American Republican Party to bully a non-profit than to own up to the shady deals that Ronald Reagan and his clique made with evangelical churches back in the day in Colorado Springs. Namely, that after the oil crisis, it was obvious that one day oil was likely to get fought about, and there was this little issue that the biggest oil field in the world is right next to Mecca, but that could be dealt with because Jerusalem is not far away, either. So in case of Holy War, the evangelicals could help fight fire with fire. And in the meantime, the American military had plenty of secrets that believers needed to get distracted from. And if the war ended up being not over oil but over uranium with Russia, well, in Russia they were communist unbelievers, so it would all work out one way or the other.

It's easier to make a small nonprofit switch beliefs than to make a big party give up on power, right? Pity that in order to not give up on power, they had to give up on just about all their beliefs. And climate change denial is the one they cling on to the most, in spite that it's flying in the face of 19th-century physics. Seems like the whole energy issue is just a little bit too close to their preferred end-time scenario and the dirty little secrets they keep around it.

Lol. Ok bootlicker.

How many countries will have their own new Bastille Day over such an attempt?
Hmmm, and the City of Toronto is asking the feds to use one(or more) of the local Armouries to house the homeless, because nothing bad can come of that.