And interesting piece by Ian Dale, with that
This evening on my LBC show we discussed Ed Davey’s outrageous idea that newspapers and broadcasters should refrain from giving a platform to climate change sceptics. How very ‘liberal’ of him. I remember at 18 Doughty Street back in 2007 I phoned Greenpeace to invite them to take part in a panel discussion on climate change. They refused on the basis hat the argument was won and there was nothing to debate. It’s attitudes like this that make me very suspicious of this climate change industry, which is supported by people whose fanaticism borders on the religious.
He’s referring to the attacks by a UK political appointee on those who dare question science, because, you know, science should never ever be questioned.
The very same people who warned the world in the 1980s about the coming nuclear apocalypse are now warning about the end of the planet. In the 1980s we had politicians who were able to expose these zealots for what they were. We now have cabinet ministers who go along with them and give them money. And have the cheek to tell people on radio stations that they shouldn’t be providing platforms for climate change sceptics. Ed Davey agreed to come on my show tonight – first in the studio, then by ISDN, then on the phone, first at 620, then at 630, then at 720. Then not at all. A meeting, apparently. It happens. But if any of his staff were listening, they might have been rather worried to discover than with one exception, every caller expressed some degree of scepticism about global warming. I’d say that proves that the argument is far from won and that people like Ed Davey need to up their game. He’d probably say they were all brainwashed by a climate change sceptical media. of course.
Warmists are incredibly intolerant, and are uninterested in science. They’re interested in doctrine. Scientific research is still done on things that were supposedly “settle science”. Yet, when it comes to “climate change”, any inquiries that do not toe the official line are heresy.
Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. ~Thomas Henry Huxley
Anyone think that this is not happening over here is blind. Look at all the dictatorial abuse of power currently conducted by this administration against anyone who opposes them. Or who seek to out some news item that they want kept secret. Threatening reporters with death!? Harassing reporters and their families? Datamining and harassing pro-American groups.
If you don’t think this is more widespread, then you are johnny.
Bear with me here for a moment Gumball……
I don’t think the idea of “pro-American” matters one bit. By that I mean, my idea of what the US should be may differ from what your idea should be.
For example, if I were to form a group that wanted a centralized US bank, and you formed a group that didn’t want such a bank, which group would be “pro-American?” Two hundred and twenty years ago, my group would be headed by Alexander Hamilton. Your group would be headed by Thomas Jefferson. I think it is fair to say that neither person could be classified as “anti-American” and both would be considered “pro-American.”
As long as the group is not breaking the law, I don’t want the government to data mine, harass, etc anyone.
I don’t think the IRS was wrong in targeting conservative groups. They were wrong for targeting groups. Period.
I don’t want the IRS to be used as a sword for liberal causes, conservative causes, or anything in between.
I know the line I quoted was a bit of a “throw away” point from you, but I think it is important to remember that what this administration is doing is attacking AMERICANS.
We cannot allow that to stand no matter what the political leanings of the Americans being attacked are.
I kinda thought that my phrase might be taken wrong. Let me see if I can clarify. I didn’t want to say they targeted “tea parties”, as that was only one component of the BOLO list IRS created. There were “pro-life” groups targeted. There were “pro-founding fathers of history teaching” groups. There were “pro-Judeo-Christian ties” groups. There were “pro-small gov’t” groups, “low or fair tax” groups.
I singular called these types of groups “pro-American” as opposed to those groups who are clearly anti-American and seek to overturn capitalism, conservatism, American history, and America’s future.
Because, as you know, those groups that were particularly targeted were not bland type groups, like those that want to build more parks, or increase tree planting, or spread the love of reading, but were those that I felt could be considered “pro-American”, “pro-Liberty”, etc.
I agree, it is heinous that an administration is using the IRS to attack Americans….. but you have to admit that it is even worse that he is using the IRS to attack those that can be considered his enemies. Which for me, makes it worse. Same would be true if Bush conducted these BOLO hunts against “pro-Socialism” groups bent on destroying him and this nation.