Saturday, June 4

Bill in California senate would have made it a crime to cast doubt that global warming is caused by oil, gas & coal

The Left--more specifically the Democratic party--is trying to make speech it doesn't like illegal.

Of course you think that's tinfoil-hat stuff, utterly impossible.  Hyperbole.  A fiction designed to scare voters into voting Republican.  But it's not.

The Democrat-controlled California legislature has been considering a bill to make it illegal to utter or publish material dissenting from the Leftist dogma that the Earth's climate is heating up changing in a dangerous manner, and that the overwheming cause is humans burning oil, gas and coal.

It's called the "California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016," Senate Bill 1161,  and it would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that, in the bill's language, have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”  The bill stated “There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.” It also claimed that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change.

People who still think politicians--at every level--in this country retain at least a modicum of sanity immediately counter that such a law would immediately be ruled unconstitutional--you know, that old meaningless piece of paper called the Constitution says something about free speech not being infringed--whatever that means.

Silly people!  When you seek to force pols to obey the Constitution--or indeed, any law--you are defenseless as babes against tigers.  Pols know how to craft words to get what they want, the Constitution notwithstanding.

See, the Democrats who drafted the bill making criticizing "climate change" a crime--which cleared two Senate committees--couched it as coming under the state’s Unfair Competition Law.  And who could possibly defend "unfair competition," right?

The senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill described it like this:
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change.” 
Didja get that?  No?  Well that's because this and all modern laws are written in a language that's deliberately designed to be impossible for ordinary citizens to understand.  They do this because if written in clear language, the rape of the Constitutional right would be so fucking obvious to everyone that no legislator would be safe.

The criminalization of "climate dissent" is where the bill implicitly defines dissent from the Left's version of climate change as unfair competition.

The bill is a cunning variation of the legal theory used by national Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change dissent under the theory that any such dissent is actually fraud.

A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, have joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. At least four state attorney-generals prosecutors  have launched investigations into Exxon Mobil and the Competitive Enterprise Institute under this novel idea that criticizing the dogma of AGW--formerly "global warming," now "climate change"--is “fraud.”

The bill is considered dead for the moment because the senate failed to take it up before the deadline.  However, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process.

Ah yes, the "gut and amend process."  They taught you about that one in high school civics, right?  It was one of the amendments to the Constitution or something.

I suspect Hillary's minions called the senate's top officer--a Democrat--and urged him to delay this bill until after the election, since passing it before then might alarm a few thousand voters--meaning it would require that much more work to manufacture ballots to offset the lost votes. 

And of course we know Hillary is all about efficiency.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home