During her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that she asked the FBI to examine whether the federal government should take legal action against so-called climate change deniers. Attorney General Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change.
These climate change censors claim that the argument over climate change is settled and the deniers’ success in blocking congressional action is harming the public. Therefore, the government must disregard the First Amendment and silence anyone who dares question the reigning climate change dogma. This argument ignores the many reputable scientists who have questioned the magnitude, effects, and role of human action in causing climate change.
If successful, the climate change censors could set a precedent that could silence numerous other views. For example, many people believe the argument over whether we should audit, and then end, the Federal Reserve is settled. Therefore, the deniers of Austrian economics are harming the public by making it more difficult for Congress to restore a free-market monetary policy. So why shouldn’t the government silence Paul Krugman?
The climate change censorship movement is part of a larger effort to silence political speech. Other recent examples include the IRS’s harassment of tea party groups as well as that agency’s (fortunately thwarted) attempt to impose new rules on advocacy organizations that would have limited their ability to criticize a politician’s record in the months before an election.
The IRS and many state legislators and officials are also trying to force public policy groups to hand over the names of their donors. This type of disclosure can make individuals fearful that, if they support a pro-liberty group, they will face retaliation from the government.
Efforts to silence government critics may have increased in recent years; however, the sad fact is the US Government has a long and shameful history of censoring speech. It is not surprising that war and national security have served as convenient excuses to limit political speech. So-called liberal presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both supported wartime crackdowns on free speech.
Today, many neoconservatives are using the war on terror to justify crackdowns on free speech, increased surveillance of unpopular religious groups like Muslims, and increased government control of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Some critics of US foreign policy have even been forbidden to enter the country.
Many opponents of government restrictions on the First Amendment and other rights of Muslims support government actions targeting so-called “right-wing extremists.” These fair-weather civil liberties defenders are the mirror image of conservatives who support restricting the free speech rights of Muslims in the name of national security, yet clam to oppose authoritarian government. Defending speech we do not agree with is necessary to effectively protect the speech we support.
A government that believes it can run our lives, run the economy, and run the world will inevitably come to believe it can, and should, have the power to silence its critics. Eliminating the welfare-warfare state is the key to protecting our free speech, and other liberties, from an authoritarian government.
Well said , Ron. Unfortunately it largely falls on deaf ears.
There will always be people who think they can control everything. Because a very small system can be controlled, they believe this can be extended to larger systems…and then the SHTF.
When their plans don’t work (Obama Care disaster comes to mind), they immediately conclude that the those who opposed their ideas were at fault…the ‘evil Republicans’ or the ‘racists who hate Obama’ or some other such nonsense. It never dawns on them that control of life just isn’t possible.
Never has worked, never will.
What do you expect ??? This vile women is a socialist/ communist . They always have hated free speech especially when they can’t control the narrative.
“Attorney General Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change.”
============
Dr. Paul appears to be missing what is the KEY aspect of the “climate change” issue, which is the political left attacking scientific method itself.
Most TBP frequenters don’t seem to appreciate this, but the characteristic of science – qua science – which makes the observations, reasoned speculations, and assertions of scientific investigators RELIABLE is the error-checking mechanism embodied in skeptical (indeed, ADVERSARIAL) critique of those investigators’ work.
The lying sons of bitches who have served the statist politicians with this particular premise – that atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from the complete combustion of petrochemicals (coal, natural gas, and rock oil) has – or could POSSIBLY – influence global climate by dint of that chemical’s “greenhouse gas” effect – need to have those of us properly critical of their fucktard ineptitude SILENCED because their fumblenuts fraudulences cannot bear reasoned examination.
What they’re doing is using the SEEMING of “science” as a way to sell panic upon the basis of which the political left can take utter control of all aspects of economic life everywhere in the world. In so doing, they’re ATTACKING scientific method in order to evade it.
And, of course, our Indonesian-in-Chief and his co-conspirators are now openly and explicitly bringing the police power of government to aid “the consensus” in this nefarious pursuit.
Free speech is incompatible with any form of totalitarianism, Socialist, Marxist or otherwise.
You can tell if some one or some movement is totalitarian or not by whether or not the oppose open and free speech in the public arena.
“Eliminating the welfare-warfare state is the key to protecting our free speech, and other liberties, from an authoritarian government.”
Duh.
“you did not build that”
If I am to believe the words the ass clown in charge, then, man is not responsible for “climate change”, it was the govt. that created it.
and since everything the govt. says is a lie, then so is global warming.
see, we can use logic too.
and, yes, Loretta is a vile, vile woman.
As Tucci78 pointed out, based on the scientific method, science is never “settled”. So all of those who refer to anthropogenic climate change as “settled science” are ascribing to science and anthropogenic climate change the aspects of a religion, not science. Very clever. It is much harder to change someone’s belief system by discussing facts than it is to change their ideas about science.
I, for one, am hoping that their religious belief is correct. Additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very good for plant life. I also enjoyed the warm weather in New England this past winter and would very much like to see more of the same. Unfortunately given the current understanding of science and the current scientific data, it is much more probable that the long term weather trends are for colder, not warmer, weather.
I’m no fan of her or the just-us dept, BUT actually I think the comments were taken a bit out of context, she was talking about the major oil companies. You know, the ones selling the shit that winds up in our air causing global atmospheric warming.