Did you ever think in a million years

you could lose your First Amendment Right to speak against climate change?

Submitted by IWB, on June 30th, 2016

 

The Democrats are forcing Hillary Clinton’s hand on prosecuting climate skeptics. Do we think she will comply with what the Democrats want? No question about it…of course she will!

Are we really looking at a world in which I cannot say what I think about global warming without worrying about being prosecuted? Seriously?

I believe there is climate change…global warming…whatever you want to call it, but I do not believe it is man made. I think these climate changes are based on the Earth’s relationship to our volatile Sun. Some things man is simply not powerful enough to control, but it is hard for man’s big ego to accept defeat.

I am not saying we should not keep the Earth clean and cared for. Of course, that is part of our responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth. The Earth is a very hearty planet, and with our help she can repair damage and prosper environmentally.

However, we cannot control the Earth’s relationship with the Sun. The Sun is in a volatile and cyclic period of change, and that is the way God intends it to be. I don’t think He must ask man’s permission before He makes a command of the Universe.

Will I continue to say this, even if Clinton becomes our next President? Of course, I will!

 

Sam Kazman, general counsel for the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the effort to inject party politics into what has already been described as an ideologically motivated effort to chill scientific debate comes as a “dangerous mix.”

“Whenever you have claims of fraud being tossed around in a policy debate, what’s going on is not consumer protection but an attempt at censorship, wholesale censorship,” Mr. Kazman said. “I think they [Democrats] have their eyes on appealing to certain constituencies. It’s not all that far a jump to call for the shutting down of the debate in order to get votes during the election.”

The proposal also presents a quandary for Mrs. Clinton. On the one hand, adding the proposal to the platform would help shore up her standing with progressives, who have made no secret of their preference for Mr. Sanders and their doubts about her commitment to left-wing causes.

On the other hand, allowing the language to move forward would send a signal that Mrs. Clinton can be pushed around by the left on an issue with serious First Amendment implications. The Clinton camp has already folded on the death penalty issue, allowing the drafting committee to forward a proposal calling for the abolishing of capital punishment even though Mrs. Clinton has said it should be allowed for “heinous crimes.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/dems-force-clinton-prosecution-climate-skeptics/

 

 

 

MW