Climate Change

The Left's Insidious War on the Free Speech Rights of Climate Dissenters

The main casualty of global warming is the Democratic Party's sanity.

|

Americans are so focused on the outrageous presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, we've largely missed one of the biggest political stories of 2016: the left's

Climate Dissent
John Englart Takvr via Scandinavia

fearsome tactics to suppress its ideological opponents. Case in point: the liberal crusade to silence climate change dissenters.

About 20 Democratic attorneys general have launched a campaign to go after ExxonMobil and other "corporate polluters" for allegedly disseminating "false" information about global warming. What did the Democratic Party do? Mock this campaign? No. Denounce it? Nope. Tell them to knock it off? Of course not. Instead, the Dems made this stance an official plank in their party platform, pledging to use the "Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change."

Eco-warriors claim to have internal memos that prove that ExxonMobil knew as far back as 1977, well before global warming achieved any sense of true public urgency, that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would produce a 2 to 3 degrees centigrade rise in global temperature. Liberals also claim that the company internally debated the impact of warming on its Arctic operations as far back as the early 1990s. But just like tobacco companies kept publicly denying the link between smoking and lung cancer even though they knew the truth, Exxon spent $30 million over the years to fund global warming "denialism" and stop action on climate change.

These claims are overblown at best.

First of all, comparing tobacco to fossil fuels is not just absurd, but malicious, given that smoking actually directly kills smokers. Now before you argue that global warming might one day kill people too, remember that fossil fuel is a source of cheap power without which countless millions of poor people, especially in Third World countries, would perish here and now, not in some distant future when the Earth heats up.

As for those so-called smoking gun memos, they were mere speculations that repeatedly and correctly emphasized the deep uncertainties in climate science at the time. And when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change definitively declared in 2006 that the observed warming had human causes, my Reason colleague Ron Bailey has reported, ExxonMobil started warning investors that both climate change and the policies it spawned posed a risk to its business. It also switched from opposing climate change action to supporting a carbon tax.

But none of this matters to global warming warriors who, in a zeal reminiscent of the great Spanish Inquisition, want to jail climate dissenters and have marked Exxon for "corporate death." To achieve that end, they are colluding with the Democratic Party and going after Exxon and any group that has had anything to do with climate change.

Last fall, a bunch of climate scientists at George Mason University dashed off a letter pressing the Justice Department to use the anti-mafia racketeering law called the RICO Act to investigate Exxon's alleged conspiracy of deceit. And instead of rejecting the suggestion outright, Attorney General Loretta Lynch referred the issue to the FBI, which is ominous enough.

Worse, this spring, some state attorneys general who are members of "AGs United for Clean Power" issued subpoenas to Exxon for all communication since 1977 with about 100 think tanks, advocacy groups, lobbyists, and university centers that it has funded (including Reason Foundation, where I work, which received funding from Exxon many moons ago). They also held a press conference—with none other than Al Gore to add a touch of objectivity, no doubt—announcing their intention to get to the bottom of Exxon's conspiracy.

But the First Amendment protects all corporate lobbying—even deceptive corporate lobbying. As such, this legal jihad is unlikely to result in charges. So what is its purpose? To harass Exxon to the point that it ends donations to outfits whose research and policy advocacy these AGs find threatening. When the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the listed groups, pointed out this gross abuse of power in an opinion piece, Claude Walker, the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, slapped it with a separate subpoena, demanding all correspondence with Exxon from 1997 to 2007.

Corporations usually succumb in the face of government harassment to avoid costly discovery and bad publicity. But this campaign is so beyond the pale that Exxon actually hinted that it would countersue and also filed for declaratory relief in a Texas district court on grounds that its constitutionally protected rights to free speech and due process, and against illegal searches and seizures, were being violated. Meanwhile, CEI filed a motion for sanctions against Walker, which would force him to pay its legal fees and possibly other damages. And the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, a free market legal group, FOIAed the emails of the so-called independent George Mason scientists who masterminded the missive to the Justice Department and has found clear evidence of not just collusion between them, various attorney generals, and other Democratic lawmakers, but also an effort to deceive reporters about it.

Such damning revelations have caused Walker—along with the attorneys general of Massachusetts and California—to back off. The only holdout in their cabal is New York's AG Eric Schneiderman, but he's playing a losing hand.

Still, this victory for constitutional liberties will be short lived if Hillary Clinton becomes president, given that the Democratic Party has officially declared its intention to continue to wage this war to silence climate change dissenters. And Sen. Barbara Boxer of California took to the senate floor this week to single out Reason Foundation among one of the three California-based outfits (along with Pacific Research Foundation and Hoover Institute) that are part of the "web of denial" undermining "climate science."

This is why it would behoove the GOP to put all of this centerstage in this election.

That would of course require a sane nominee interested less in himself and more in the Constitution. But Trump is so busy threatening even worse First Amendment violations to settle his own personal vendettas—for example, by using antitrust grounds to go after Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post owner, for running "wrong" stories about him —that he has neither the interest nor the standing to expose the excesses of his political opponents.

Even if he loses, which, god willing, he will, this election will have been a huge missed opportunity to moderate the increasingly unhinged agenda of the left. As things are shaping up in this awful campaign, regardless of what happens in November, free speech rights are in for a fight of their life in this country.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Friday A/V Club: The First Pokémon Panic

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So they won’t use air conditioning at the Democrat convention right?

    1. Just unemployed millennials manually fanning over large blocks of ice.

    2. They will use methane renewably generated by the fart-in to power it.

      1. Speaking of farts, the documentary “Cowpriracy” has some interesting facts about CO2 emissions. They appear to be getting them directly from govt docs.
        http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

        About the source of “climate change/global warming”, hasn’t anyone considered another cause besides cow farts and fossil fuels? I admit I know little about atmospheric (or seismic) science, but maybe the earth is warming because it’s center is made of up of molten, liquefied metals that are continuing to get hotter as time goes on. Good explanation is here: http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/core/

        1. No

        2. Did you actually read that National Geographic article on the core? Consider, for example, this statement concerning the growth of the core: “As the entire Earth slowly cools, the inner core grows by about a millimeter every year.” No, ongoing heating of the core has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, because there is no ongoing heating of the core. The heat-generating processes that affect the core lag behind the rate at which the core loses heat by conduction to the mantle and thence eventually by radiation into space. The inner core grows because the heat needed to keep the nickel-iron of the outer core liquid is gradually disappearing into space. When the core finally solidifies completely the amount of heat reaching the surface from the core will drop dramatically. Happily, the best estimates are that the sun will burn out about 85 billion years before the core solidifies, so that’s one problem we can safely ignore.

        3. The proponents of AGW can’t explain clouds or why their vaunted “scientists” (paid shills / gubment dependants) cannot explain clouds’ effect on “climate” (using quotes because the climate as a person who studies planets would describe, has not changed for a very, very long time, ice ages and all). None of them realize how ginormous is our atmosphere nor how much carbon comes from radiation hitting the upper atomosphere, nor have they been able to admit how much good the slightly higher levels of CO2 have done, ie more greening in the artic regions as well as most of the rest of the planet.

          Fantasies aside, the planet currently supports, relatively well, 7B+ people, something many said was not even possible not that long ago. Once again, wrong.

        4. The proponents of AGW can’t explain clouds or why their vaunted “scientists” (paid shills / gubment dependants) cannot explain clouds’ effect on “climate” (using quotes because the climate as a person who studies planets would describe, has not changed for a very, very long time, ice ages and all). None of them realize how ginormous is our atmosphere nor how much carbon comes from radiation hitting the upper atomosphere, nor have they been able to admit how much good the slightly higher levels of CO2 have done, ie more greening in the artic regions as well as most of the rest of the planet.

          Fantasies aside, the planet currently supports, relatively well, 7B+ people, something many said was not even possible not that long ago. Once again, wrong.

  2. But free speech is hate speech!

    1. Scratch that- reverse it.

  3. “Even if he loses, which, god willing, he will…”

    Nice sentiment Shikha, but as it turns out God’s too busy instantiating the next Superbowl dynasty to concentrate much on politics.

    1. Should have been gods willing… gunning up some polytheism controversy!

    2. Observe that Shikha is female, of that half of humanity both Mohammedan and Christian fanatics seek to rape and coerce. OF COURSE she wants the religious fanatics to lose! Bookies are betting more than 3 to 1 these mystics lose, prayer polls to the contrary be hanged.
      There is a lesson in this for the idiots responsible for the LP straddle plank on abortion: it is costing us members and votes. Wizened Christian Temperance Union crones are not going to abandon their four (04) warriors-for-fetuses-and-against-enjoyable-drugs parties to join and support the LP.

  4. I like how Shikha assumes the Democrats ever had a commitment to free speech.

    1. The Dem’s platform and Hillary in general,make Trump look,well,not so bad.We are truly fucked.It is the end times.

      1. You know what’s funny? How you put spaces between words but not between punctuation.

        1. What’s sad is you give a shit.

          1. Aww, don’t cry about it.

    2. They intended to have a commitment. That’s all that matters.

      1. they keep the commitments they intended to keep.

    3. Yeah, you cant fry something that doesnt exist.

  5. Gary Johnson- the only presidential candidate that fully supports freeDom of speech.

    1. Not exactly, if you consider forced conscription of cake-based messages to be in violation of the First Amendment.

  6. But Trump is so busy threatening even worse First Amendment violations to settle his own personal vendettas?for example, by threatening anti-trust action against Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post owner, for running “wrong” stories about him

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. She just can’t help herself, can she?

    1. What part of that is “worse”, exactly?

    2. Trump is way worse than Hitlary. He has laid out a systematic plan to dismantle every clause of the First Amendment – speech, religion, press, assembly. I appreciate Shikha’s moral clarity on this issue.

      1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

        1. Not in my wildest hallucinogenic episodes could I come up with a story line like that; I am truly jealous.

          1. It’s actually from a Mike Judge movie called “Idiocracy.”
            I haven’t seen it, but it’s on my list.

            1. buh?

              No.

              Strangers With Candy

            2. “It’s actually from a Mike Judge movie called “Idiocracy.”
              I haven’t seen it, but it’s on my list.”

              There are so many things I hate about this post.

  7. One needs only look at their love of McCain-Feingold and their disdain for Citizens United to realize that they were already against free speech.

  8. the scientific reality of climate change

    Note the rebranding.

    Also note some of the unstated assumptions in this article, which suggest that Bailey has had a bad influence on the duller members of Reason’s staff.

    1. Nothing says libertarian like deferring to authority and consensus.

  9. Imaging there’s no oil,it’s easy if you try,no gas to heat us,no coal to cloud the sky. Imagine all the people,burning dung to cook, ,You can say I’m a dreamer,I’m not the only one,someday you’ll understand us ,and live off the power of the sun.

    1. Isn’t it all, even petroleum, basically just stored energy from the sun?

      1. The Earth itself (the core) is a source of heat, so not entirely.

      2. Don’t confuse them. Then again,energy can never be destroyed or created. So,it’s all from the big bang.

        1. … which created massive amounts of energy out of nothing.

          1. Was there nothing? Every thing was compressed into a singularity .All the energy existed in one small point in space time.Or so they say. Too deep for me.

        2. As long as you keep expanding the semantics of “energy” to incorporate things like “mass energy” and “potential energy”.

          Physics is basically just a long internet flame war.

          1. Like H&R ?

  10. The key to a successful dissent is to make everyone think you’re an idiot. Then the ‘experts’ ignore you, meanwhile you brainwash all the rubes and by the time people realize what happened, it’s too late – the dawn of a new reality. Science!

    1. I get it now! You just haven’t gotten to the ‘brainwash all the rubes’ bit yet.

      1. For some reason, calling them rubes and then telling them what to think hasn’t worked yet. Just keep trying, I guess.

    2. So Tony is going to win? Because I am pretty sure everyone think he is an idiot.

      1. The experts aren’t ignoring him, though – they’re studying him to find out what went wrong. It’s going slowly because the lead researcher killed himself.

  11. Again with the attorney generals?

  12. I look forward to the day when proggies won’t be able to power their espresso machines, laptops to whine to Salon, and plug-in dildo moblies because there will only be electricity from sun and wind and there won’t be nearly enough of it. They also won’t be able to jet off for exotic vacations in Thailand or Costa Rica because airline tickets will cost half a year’s salary to pay for the jet fuel and they have already spent the other half on their electric bill and taxes to pay for free childcare, healthcare, and college tuition. Of course, they will never admit they are unhappy and will continue to worship their enlightened leaders.

    1. Or the powered strapons their girlfriends’ insist on wearing.

      1. Aw, come on! Its fun to be pegged-especially when she dresses up as Hillary.

  13. “About 20 Democratic attorney generals have already launched a campaign to go after Exxon Mobil and other “corporate polluters” for allegedly disseminating “false” information about global warming.”

    Just to remind everybody, this is the way Al Gore went after and had the government effectively take over the tobacco industry–and Al Gore was the Bill Clinton Administration’s point man on tobacco.

    Al Gore is also the guy behind this latest effort. He’s done all of this before.

    Get the attorney generals to go after Industry X for lying to the American people about how harmful something is, and then when the class actions start coming forth, have the government offer to protect the industry from further prosecution if they willingly hand over control of the industry.

    Al Gore is behind this now. Their goal is to take over the oil industry like they took over tobacco. Al Gore has done this before.

    1. Al Gore: The anti-tobacco tobacco farmer.

      “Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee. And it took several years after Nancy Gore Hunger’s death for Mr. Gore and his parents to stop growing tobacco on their own farms in Carthage, Tenn.”
      /JunkScience.com

    2. And rake in all that sweet,sweet, protection money. ‘Nice oil company you have there. You understand,we need to wet our beak.’ The Mafia has nothing on these bastards.

      1. Or these bastards ARE the Mafia?

    3. Well, the war on tobacco simply became a war on smokers as tobacco companies passed on any costs to them and city and state governments pushed taxes through the roof and banned smoking in most places. I think I see the war on fossil fuels going this way too against drivers of internal combustion vehicles. In fact, last week there was some study that showed vehicle emissions are the leading cause of asthma in “The Children.”

      1. Then they will go after electric cars, because they look too much like a gas-powered car and kids might confuse the two.

        1. And don’t get me started on using giant inflatable gorillas and the wacky wavy arm guys…

    4. Attorneys general. Everyone say it with me: attorneys general, not attorney generals.

      1. Hears you’re knew favrite websight:

        http://tinyurl.com/jyjwoc8

      2. Another English major!
        Actually, they act more like second lieutenants general.

  14. Everyone who cares should read this article:

    “Beginning in late 1994, the troika’s political and regulatory assault on cigarette makers, buttressed by the lawsuits of 40 state attorneys general, triggered the fall of Big Tobacco. Fearful of bankruptcy, the tobacco barons agreed last summer to settle the suits at a cost of $368.5 billion. Now they must convince persuade skeptical [sic] lawmakers to accept the broad legal protections included in the deal.

    But the tobacco companies know that getting congressional Republicans and Democrats to agree to a complicated deal means substantial input from the White House. And that means their fate could well be back in the hands of Al Gore in the next weeks.

    Whether distracted by the Whitewater investigation or merely eager to bolster Gore’s prospects in 2000, Clinton has increasingly deferred to his vice president on the subject of smoking. In many ways, Gore has become so closely associated with the push for reform that he embodies its conflicts”

    —-Washington Post, 1998

    http://tinyurl.com/gvwxf5g

    Gore has done this all before. He’s doing it all again with oil.

    If you don’t want the government taking over the oil industry, don’t worry. If Gore has his way, most of the heavy lifting will be done in the courts, and you pesky little voters will have little or nothing to say about it.

    1. Just one step closer to Idiocracy every day, no?

      1. Closer? Where have you been? In a suspended animation chamber?

      2. Obviously this is a Citizen X sockpuppet.

        1. But i’m actually Tulpa, so where does that leave us?

  15. Yawn. Really, Shikha, make at least an attempt to stay current. The subpoenas have come from Schneiderman, and Healey as well as Harris continue their investigations, without subpoenas. They haven’t backed off their contention that Exxon might have committed fraud, and they are investigating such. Oh, and fraud isn’t protected free speech. And it’s an investigation, not a finding. Quit whining.

    In fact, if you kept up to date, you would know that Lamar Smith just subpoenaed Healey, in addition to Schneiderman AND 350.org, Rockefeller Fund, Greenpeace, and others for communications between each in this regard. Guess Smith knows Healey is still investigating. You should too.

    Tell us, Shikha, was that action by Smith an affront to free speech to environmentalists and scientists? No? Yeah, that was righteous because it backed up Exxon for you.

    Selectivity, thy name is libertarians.

    1. Joe proves again that there’s people a lot dumber than Shikha. Shorter as well.

    2. CLEAR THE DECKS FOR PDVSA, RIGHT COMRADE?

    3. joe, thy name is cunt.

    4. And it’s an investigation, not a finding.

      Ah yes, because investigations cost nothing for those who are investigated, and they certainly don’t chill speech.

      Oh, and fraud isn’t protected free speech.

      What fraud? What investor could reasonably claim to have been induced into buying Exxon stock because of Exxon’s supposed denial of ACC?

      No, joe, this is the green lobby’s practice of extortion. And lying. But hey, it’s for the greater good, right? So what if the left needs to create monsters if it saves the world?

    5. How’s that ivanpah power production doing? How much will they need to lower the bar this month to avoid triggering default?

    6. Oh, and the IPCC said we passed the “tipping point” in, what, 2012? So what’s the point of this other than to funnel money to the green lobby via extortion?

    7. Oh, and fraud isn’t protected free speech.”

      If something is fraud, then it isn’t protected speech.

      It isn’t protected speech.

      Therefore it is fraud.

      I think that’s called “affirming the consequent”.

      1. I’ll lead you through it.

        Fraud isn’t protected speech.
        In New York, there is a law called the Martin Act that specifically proscribes fraud to the general public.
        That law has been used before against business, and prosecuted successfully (Wall Street).
        It’s the AGs job in New York to INVESTIGATE companies that he reasonably believes may have engaged in fraud to the public.
        If the AG believes fraud may have occurred, he wouldn’t be doing his job here in NY if he didn’t investigate.

        Period.

        1. It will be fucking hilarious when some science denying republican becomes president and decides to go after green energy companies for defrauding the government, getting as much money as possible and then shutting down when even that wasn’t enough to keep the companies afloat.

          But you’ve probably not thought that far ahead in your embracing this tactic.

        2. Oh of course, and all we have to do is keep stretching the legal definition of fraud, plus be the ones to decide what the truth is. For example if a for-profit newspaper makes a false statement about the existence of god, or perhaps misleads readers regarding whether someone has a right to use a particular bathroom, well that’s fraud my friends.

          See this is why govt can never protect rights and always leads down this same path to you-know-where.

        3. You’re still claiming it isn’t protected speech because it’s fraud.

          Calling it fraud over and over again and showing that there’s a law against fraud doesn’t make it fraud.

          What fraud are you alleging exactly?

          What was said that was fraudulent?

          1. I’ll try one more time. But then your on own.

            Fraud isn’t free speech and in NY there is a law that has been used to FIRST investigate possible fraud, and then bring charges if it is warranted. OK?

            Now, Exxon. Fraud hasn’t been charged. It’s being investigated because the AG thinks it may have occurred.

            You see, Ken, he doesn’t have to know. That is what the investigation is for. We will see!

            Have a great weekend.

      2. By the way, I might ask, what law did Greenpeace violate that demanded an investigation by Smith?

        1. I’m sure they violated the law somewhere. I mean, it’s your side that wants moar laws and for those laws to be read as expansively as possible.

          1. You’re sure? They just must have? After all, they’re environmentalists? So let’s subpoena? Yikes.

    8. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Tell us, Shikha, was that action by Smith an affront to free speech to environmentalists and scientists?

      Translation: “The Volcano God angry! He aaaannngry! How dare you question actions from Volcano God priests? Heretic! Oh, and Volcano God needs more virgins.”

  16. I must complain about the headline. “Insidious” implies stealthy or subtle. The Left’s attempts at censoring disagreement are neither. “Blatant” would be better. Also “Stalinist”.

  17. Here you go, Shikha, free speech being squelched once again by overreaching government officials.

    http://www.houstonpress.com/ne…..ol-8551278

    You missed this one? Or does the speech of scientists at Union of Concerned Scientists not count for you?

    1. Yeah, Shikha, I’m thinking you know all about it but are just choosing to ignore it. Because it’s not the principle that matters to you. It’s something else.

      1. WAAH! You responded to our subpoena with a subpoena! THAT’S NOT FAIR! *stomps feet*

        /joe

        1. Person A suddenly attacks Person B with a knife.

          Person B pulls out a knife to defend themselves.

          Frivolous fraud-charge apologists: “BUT WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT HOW PERSON B IS ATTACKING PERSON A WITH A KNIFE!? I THOUGHT YOU WERE TAKING A PRINCIPLED STAND AGAINST KNIFE VIOLENCE?!”

    2. Racketeering is not protected speech…

      1. It really is projection with these people. Didn’t the UCS lobby for more ethanol production?

        1. UCS has to be one of the more ironically named orgs on the planet. On the other hand, the acronym for Friends of the Earth couldn’t be more appropriate.

    3. Fuck you’re stupid. I mean seriously, seriously stupid.

      Those aren’t even in the same ballpark.

    4. @Jackass Ass,

      Volvano God priest JA says virgins should stop crying and whinning and just throw themselves inside the Volvano God to appease Him.

      Of course he would do that.

  18. We knew from the beginning that the left would use the theory of anthropogenic climate change as a weapon in their war against liberty. I can’t say I’m shocked the left would use government force against dissenters.

    1. What’s interesting is the fact that the earliest claims of global warming came from Margaret Thatcher’s Tories as part of a scheme to break the coal miner’s union and increase subsidies for nuclear power.

  19. I’ll admit this looks really bad, but I’m intrigued by this group called “AGs United for Clean Power.”

    They are promoting clean atomic energy, right?

    If they are not, that makes them a bunch of charlatans who don’t actually care about climate change other than manipulating the issue to amass/misuse more political power.

    Seriously, that’s my litmus test these days. I might disagree with someone on certain points, but if they believe modern nuclear plants are a key to fixing their pet issue, I will at least know they are arguing from sincere convictions. I can respect that. If they just want more taxes, money transfers, and a nice rebate on the new coal-powered Prius they’ve had their eye on, they can GTFO.

    1. ^So much this^

    2. Greenpeace opposes fusion.

    3. I agree. I have worked in the power industry my whole life designing/building power plants. Coal, gas, hydro, and solar. I know you will be shocked, SHOCKED, to hear that even our solar plants, every one of them, has been opposed by enviros for some such minor reason or other. Yes, the same POSs that castigate society on a daily basis as deniers and rave about green power, create laws to force construction of them, then oppose them as soon as the real action begins.

      1. Same thing happened with windmills and windfarms.

        Environmentalists would sing the praises of wind power, its cleanliness, its renewability and environment friendliness.

        Then, when actual wind energy was harnesses, and real energy was produced by wind farms, those same environmentalists balked, and opposed them.
        It is like institutional neurosis, inherited from the neurotic individuals that make them up.

  20. But Trump is so busy threatening even worse First Amendment violations to settle his own personal vendettas?for example, by threatening anti-trust action against Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post owner, for running “wrong” stories about him

    It’s a shame there’s no way for Trump to get relief from newspapers running defamatory articles about him without become President and shutting them down?

  21. OF COURSE the econazis are operating an extortion racket. Look for Red China anywhere among the Kyoto Protocol victims and realize the racket is transfer payments from industrial nations to communist dictatorships. Heller aka Steve Goddard at realclimatescience.com daily publishes evidence of fraudulent data and failed prophesies. Ecological National Socialism is the mutated strain of the old New Left: Totalitarian Socialism based on altruistic environmental purity instead of old-fashioned altruistic racial purity, nothing more.

  22. My buddy’s step-mother makes $96 an hour on this PC. She has been fired for 9 months but last month her payment was $9600 just working on the PC for a few hours. Check It out what she do..

    ===== http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  23. RE: The Left’s Insidious War on the Free Speech Rights of Climate Dissenters
    The main casualty of global warming is the Democratic Party’s sanity.

    Our beloved socialist slavers must continue their wonderful crusade against the doubters of climate change. Indeed, we should encourage and cheer these oppressors on because they represent the finest attributes of a totalitarian society, ie repression of other peoples’ opinions that go against the grain of political correctness. However, in all fairness, it is not only the democratic party that does this wonderful repression. They republicans have done it also with such novel ideas as book burnings back in the day. Now it is the democrats turn to show why we should eliminate all vestiges of dissent and/or disagreement with those who take the time and trouble to enslave us all. Let’s give both socialist slaver parties credit where it is due. Both want to rid us of the old fashioned notions of liberty and freedom set forth in the US Constitution. Soon free speech will be the thing of the past as well private gun ownership, due process, etc. Then we will all be allowed to bask in the glow of socialist totalitarianism our obvious betters want for all us little people.
    Won’t life be wonderful?

  24. “Even if he loses, which, god willing, he will, this election will have been a huge missed opportunity to moderate the increasingly unhinged agenda of the left.”

    And what, exactly, do you think Hildebeeste will do with that agenda? At least Trump matches C.S Lewis description of the warlord whose appetites may be sated rather than the fanatic acting “for the good of others”.

  25. They are not insane.

    First rule of investigation: Follow the money.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.