Majority Of Americans Support 1st Amendment, Are Against Prosecuting Climate Skeptics

This also gives us a good idea as to what percent approve of using the government to prosecute Wrongthink

(Rasmussen) Attorneys general in 15 states are attempting to prosecute corporations and individuals that they believe are misleading the public about global warming. Their action which critics claim is a violation of freedom of speech has prompted a congressional investigation. Most voters continue to believe the scientific debate about global warming is not over and oppose government action against those who question it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 69% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. Just 15% favor such investigations, while just as many (16%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

So, 15% want to explicitly violate the 1st Amendment. I’m 100% confident that we know which political ideology they represent. Another 16% are mushy headed about this whole Freedom of Speech thing.

Meanwhile, we’re learning a bit more about the targeting scheme of Democrat Party attorney generals

(Washington Times) When New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman invited other Democrats to join his effort to pursue climate change skeptics, he was interested in more than bringing lawbreakers to justice.

A letter obtained by E&E Legal Institute and released Tuesday indicates Mr. Schneiderman was also interested in advancing the Obama administration’s climate-change agenda, including the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate accord.

“The commitments of the United States and other nations at last year’s Paris climate change conference are very significant steps forward, but states must still play a critical role in ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a March 7 letter.

The letter offers fresh evidence that the Democratic-led coalition of 17 attorneys general was aimed at burnishing President Obama’s climate legacy as opposed to ferreting out wrongdoing in the form of climate change “fraud,” according to the institute.

“It is unprecedented to have the top state law enforcement officers waging a political war on behalf of the president at the cost of the First Amendment protections they are charged with upholding,” E&E senior legal fellow Chris Horner said in a statement.

“This letter lays bare that the purpose of their investigations was to launch a political campaign to silence critics of the Administration,” Mr. Horner said.

What Democrats are counting on is that Republicans would never retaliate in the same manner. And, they’re correct: most Republicans have ethics, morals, and an adherence to the Constitution, and would never do this. If any did, the Credentialed Media would be in full blown apoplexy, with claims of fascism and totalitarianism abounding.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

20 Responses to “Majority Of Americans Support 1st Amendment, Are Against Prosecuting Climate Skeptics”

  1. Hoagie says:

    Rasmussen) Attorneys general in 15 states are attempting to prosecute corporations and individuals that they believe are misleading the public about global warming.

    That’s an interesting statement. So if you disagree with the opinions of the Obama’s, Clinton’s, Gore’s, Jeffery’s and John’s you are not just voicing an opinion, you are a criminal committing a crime. They are saying their argument is so weak they fear dissent. Like in communist countries. How telling.

    • John says:

      Hoagie individuals can certainly say whatever they want
      But
      Corporations must tell the truth they are not allowed to lie to investors about known dangers arising from their business practices
      When they do they commit criminal fraud just like the tobacco companies did when they said smoking doesn’t kill and hired some scientists to also say that
      Hoagie I have no problem with you saying that CO2 doesn’t cause climate change, I also have no problem with you saying that smoking isn’t harmful
      However when corporations say that they are committing fraud
      Misleading both investors and consumers
      The straw man in Rasmussen’s poll was including individuals
      Rasmussen has a long history of being the conservatwat go to pollster
      He is on record as having McCain winning over Obama as late as one week before the election when EVERY other reputable pollster was predicting correctly a wipe out

  2. Liam Thomas says:

    They are saying their argument is so weak they fear dissent. Like in communist countries.

    This.

  3. John says:

    Please note the wording of that poll “corporations and individuals….”
    I would also be against an individual like yourself from saying whatever you wished concerning either global warming or the dangers of smoking
    But
    I would definitely want the government to prosecute for fraud corporations that tried to say smoking doesn’t kill and that there are no CO2 fueled climate change
    Now some on the right insist that corporations do have personhood and should be allowed the same range of freedom of speech as individuals but I don’t accept that premise
    Do you ?

  4. You have to show that there is fraud going on first, John. The government cannot just go on fishing expeditions against private citizens and entities on a whim or feeling.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Republicans have ethics, morals, and an adherence to the Constitution

    LOL. Good one! Oh, you were being serious.

    Conservabloggers can still lie about everything without repercussion (unless they legally defame someone). Tony Watts can supply mis- and disinformation without fear! Steve Milloy too! Even Teach.

    Corporations cannot intentionally deceive shareholders and potential investors. It’s fraud.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Corporations cannot intentionally deceive shareholders and potential investors. It’s fraud.

    Actually, it is not.

    Deceiving investors is not fraud. It is another crime under the SEC regulations.

    However, that doesn’t still address the fact that there is no evidence that Exxon lied to anyone about anything. They offered a product that no one was forced to but. The product performed exactly as advertised.

    There is no fraud no matter how often you and john try and claim there is.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    First, by law, a corporation is a person. Even the US is a corporation when it enters a courtroom.

    Secondly, you may not accept the premise of corporations not being people and you have that right.

    However, your position is that people lose their rights of free speech when they band together and form a corporation. That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Third, you have no clue as to what constitutes fraud and are simply echoing what you have read somewhere else. Exxon provided a product that performed exactly as advertised. There is no fraud.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Well, speaking of intentional deceit…

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/exclusive-hillary-aide-cheryl-mills-okd-oil-deal-that-put-500k-in-bills-pocket/

    But the DOJ says there’s really no need to investigate.
    Too busy investigating cops doing their jobs, I guess.

  9. Hoagie says:

    Corporations must tell the truth they are not allowed to lie to investors about known dangers arising from their business practices

    Where did you get your law degree, John, the same place you got you’re degree in economics? First off corporations don’t “must tell the truth” or they couldn’t say their product was better than the next. There is no positive law stating what they “must” do. The thing corporations can’t do is misrepresent their product by deliberately saying their product can do something it can’t. That’s not fraud John, it’s misrepresentation. Material misrepresentation. Now go study for that BAR exam.

  10. Liam Thomas says:

    I would definitely want the government to prosecute for fraud corporations that tried to say smoking doesn’t kill and that there are no CO2 fueled climate change

    Spoken like a true communist.

    However let me point out a couple things here.

    1. Assumed closed…..John is making an assumption that CO2 is causing climate change. IF the assumption is not challenged then what follows cannot be challenged either.

    2. Linkage. Always link an established event to a contrived event to give the contrived event legitimacy.

    3. Corporations are knowingly Defrauding the government because the left says so. Empirical evidence as established in an earlier debate is thrown out the window and replaced by climate models. In a court of law you do not throw out the body of evidence to convict and pick and choose one or two tidbits of evidence that suits your needs to convict while throwing out dozens of pieces that cast doubt upon the guilt of the party in question.

    So with Johns statement we faced with a conundrum….if you fail to challenge his hypothesis then he has already won half the debate before its started.

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    So with Johns statement we faced with a conundrum …if you fail to challenge his hypothesis then he has already won half the debate before its started.

    Uh no, he’s just a retard and he proves it every time he posts.

    He, like that little guy who exaggerates often, shouldn’t be taken seriously.

  12. jl says:

    So John, can we sue the government for fraud for telling us the temperature has gone up “X” number of degrees when alomost half the reporting stations here have their temperatures guessed at, or infilled? Or that NOAA/NASA use a urban heat island correction of only .1 degree? Any one who lives near a large city and watches the local weather report can hear the weather person say “X” number of degrees in the city, a few degrees cooler in the outlying area.” That sounds like fraud to me, and their using out tax dollars.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    So John, can we sue the government for fraud ……

    If you remember, it was the Federal government who knew of the dangers of cigarettes and continued to either give them away or sell them at reduced rates to people in the military. Now that the sin tax money is drying up, the governments are looking for another source of revenue to replace the revenue.

    This is not about fraud or the climate.

    This is money grab.

    If you don’t think it is, look at what happened to Chevron in john and Jeffery’s utopia of Venezuela. That company finally got relief after the US courts ruled the judges and the US lawyers that went after the company were crooked.

  14. john says:

    No Hoagie of course YOU as an individual can give voice to ANY opinion
    BUT
    If you are dishonest in a way that makes a profit thanthat constitutes commercial crime it is fraud. When you turn a profit and and especially when you are asking others to invest in your company you must me honest.
    Cnt trick anyone out of their money, sorry
    But you can say whatever you wish as an individual, understand ?

  15. john says:

    Gitar carver, please don’t say that I believe that Venezuala is my idea of utopia. I never said that
    I would never say
    “guitar carver’s ideal utopia is Nazi Germany where the ryan race was held as the ideal”
    of course as tRump would say, many other people would say that about GC.

  16. john says:

    Teach were you “supremely confident” that American juries would also find Joe Camel NOT GUILTY of knowingly killing Americans?
    Why all the fear of having those companies brought into court on fraud charges ?

  17. john says:

    Liam face it when 2 out of 3 Americans in a legit poll like gallup believe that C02 is causing global warming any court cases will be lost by the corporations that deny that
    Remember in civil court it is only 51% and I think we are far beyond that, don’t you ? And if you don’t then certainly you should be quite happy to have you day in court.

  18. gitarcarver says:

    Gitar carver, please don’t say that I believe that Venezuala is my idea of utopia. I never said that
    I would never say
    “guitar carver’s ideal utopia is Nazi Germany where the ryan race was held as the ideal”

    The difference being john is that you have never heard me say anything that would give you the slightest impression that I have anything but contempt for Nazis and racists. You, on the other hand, are for the type of government in Venezuela. You have made statements that you support government control of businesses before.

    Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that you are totally ignorant of what fraud is, what fraud in business is, and how the tobacco case and the people seeking to limit free speech are no where close to the same thing.

    Facts never matter to you john. You just keep trotting out the same disproven memes and think in your mind “boy, I told them,” when in fact, you are seen as a troll longing for the same type of government here as in Venezuela.

  19. gitarcarver says:

    Why all the fear of having those companies brought into court on fraud charges ?

    There is no fear of legitimate cases, john.

    What you are missing is that there is no fraud to be had here. There is no legitimate case.

    There is a fear that when the government can use their weight to make the process a punishment for legal activities, we could be next.

    Why do you support the government persecuting legal activities of citizens and companies?

    (Just like they do in your dream country of Venezuela.)

Bad Behavior has blocked 9481 access attempts in the last 7 days.