Posts
The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist. Read the entire article. The fact that a sizable portion of the scientific community disagrees with Dr. Hensen's assessment is apparently of no consequence.
Let he who blasphemes suffer the pains of hell until he repents. Or in the modern parlance of NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, let's jail people for "crimes against humanity" if they should question the dogma of anthropogenic global warming.
____________________________________________________
The far left of today have a lot of historical antecedents, particularly among the inquisitors who ruthlessly punished any who questioned their dogma. This from Fox News:
Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, sounded the alarm about global warming in testimony before a Senate subcommittee exactly 20 years ago.
He returned to the topic Monday with a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., given to the Worldwatch Institute.
"Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming."
"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual," Hansen continues. "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
This attitude towards free speech and dissent is typical across the spectrum of the radical left today, of which the global warming crowd are but one subset. As we speak, a law school in Massachussets is planning a meeting in September to draw up war crimes charges against Bush, et. al for capital offenses. Obama has said one of his first actions in office will be to initiate criminal investigations of the prior administration. The far left is not merely opposed to freedom of speech, they demonize any who express opinions at variance with their own and they seek to criminalize any dissenting speech.
If not else, people like Dr. Hensen should give everyone renewed resepct for those wise men who drafted our Constitution over two centuries ago. That they thought to include protection of freedom of speech in the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights seems very prescient at the moment.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Blasphemers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's not a typical attitude to free speech over the "radical" left, but basically anything that's even slightly left.
This effect is merely masked by the little "oopsie" that they don't agree on excactly what dissent should be stamped out with violence.
And why don't we stop with the "political spectrum". This is a ruse. As everybody nows now the radical left, the communists and the radical right, the nazis are the same political ideology.
Saying everything else is between them is tantamount to saying everybody is leftist. Nazis are leftist.
I want people to fend for themselves, and I want to fend for myself. I value independance, both in general, and specific, and I abhor all forced-out help to any group (ie all taxpayer funded help). This is an opinion that is neither left nor right, and it *is* conservative.
The whole "political spectrum" idiocy is a ruse to make everybody think like a lefty.
So what legal code and section can I find "high crimes against humanity and nature" in, who is subject to its restrictions, which court has jurisdiction over them, and who has standing to prosecute their violations?
To quote Don Henley:
And have you noticed that an angry man
can only get so far
until he reconciles the way he thinks things ought to be
with the way things are?
Socratease: The particular language used, "crimes against humanity," comes from Article 7 § 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I am not sure what legal theory they would proceed with under this statute, but where there is a lawyer, there is a way.
This is the terrifying thing about the coming election. The Left is convinced that Obama will win and they are all but salivating over their hopes of bringing Bush and his underlings up on charges of war crimes. Should they succeed, no future President will ever be willing to make policy until he checks with the Left first. What a travesty!
Three years ago the Seattle Times announced that they would refuse to publish letters or articles that opposed the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I wrote a letter to the editorial page editor listing all the scientists who were credible skeptics. I then accused him of trying to censor free speech. It didn't impress him. He told me that opposing AGW was akin to teaching children that 2+2=5. So much for sophisticated thinking by the Left. That is endemic to their thinking. Whatever they don't agree with is either a lie or misinformation.
The attempts to re-introduce the "Fairness Doctrine" is just another attempt to silence their opponents.
As a friend says, "Elections matter!" IMO this one matters a great deal.
Post a Comment