[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Ron Paul See other Ron Paul Articles Title: Former Congressman Nails Loretta Lynch on Her Hypocrisy Former Congressman Nails Loretta Lynch on Her Hypocrisy John Thomas | March 17, 2016 The Attorney General of the United States has certain responsibilities. Like all law enforcement personelle on the Federal level, the person serving in that position takes an oath of office which includes an oath to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, like Eric Holder before her, Loretta Lynch doesn’t seem to understand what “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” means. And Ron Paul nails her on it. Paul writes, “During her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that she asked the FBI to examine whether the federal government should take legal action against so-called climate change deniers. Attorney General Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change. These climate change censors claim that the argument over climate change is settled and the deniers’ success in blocking congressional action is harming the public. Therefore, the government must disregard the First Amendment and silence anyone who dares question the reigning climate change dogma. This argument ignores the many reputable scientists who have questioned the magnitude, effects, and role of human action in causing climate change.” This is absolutely ludicrous. Lynch, like the IRS, bowed (in this case) to leftist activists who care more about their pet programs than your right to be left alone or your right to disagree with them. What happened to tolerance? Oh, yeah, tolerance only applies until you disagree with their agenda. The fact of the matter is, whether you agree with the idea of man-made climate change (personally, I don’t), unless we allow people to disagree with other people and have an open discussion about it, then we cannot move forward with any kind of semblance of understanding of the truth. And, then, there is the whole issue of your right to say what you want whether I like it or not. Loretta Lynch needs to review what she swore to support and defend. Nowhere in that document does it say that the government has the right to stop people from publicly disagreeing, and it’s dangerous to everyone’s freedoms (yes, even those who disagree with my politics) to not allow free discussion of subjects, especially controversial subjects. What is your take on Loretta Lynch’s “efforts” to support and defend the Constitution? Poster Comment: They burned books in Nazi Germany to control ideas. Do we still have a 1st Amendment here? Yes. But there are some that say it does not apply to members of the CORPORATION, only to organic citizens of the united States of America. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||