I’m under the impression that you consider the science behind global warming to be inaccurate, and that the efforts to promote it include hiding truth. A grand conspiracy, of sorts. On your TV show in November, 2009, you said:
Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene and Caspar, whoever they are. Potentially deleting emails supposedly about supposed science. So why all the secrecy?
You went on:
“Deleting emails. Hiding declines. Incorrect Data. Inadequate systems. Redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses. This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes. And literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said “wait a minute, this global warming thing, it sounds like a scam” – well, I think you’re seeing it now”
The whole story sounds like a massive conspiracy to give the government an excuse to pass cap and trade, to impose restrictions on business and individual choice, to aggrandize themselves with more money and power. It wouldn’t really surprise me.
That is what government does in the United States. In fact, it’s things like this that made me realize that neither Democrats or Republicans in D.C. had any respect for your freedom or for the Constitution. That was a driving force behind launching the Tenth Amendment Center, which I founded in mid-2006.
But, you know what? I’m not a detective, and I don’t have time to study the science, the clues, the mystery behind global warming or the global warming swindle as many people call it. So, if you had me on your TV show (sorry I wasn’t available when your producers asked last year, but I think my recommendation for a substitute worked out great!), and asked me:
“Michael – do you believe in this global warming scam, do you believe what the mainstream scientists are telling us about global warming – yes or no!?”
I’d have to answer this way:
“I’ve heard a lot of reports from reputable people on both sides of that issue. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that. What I do know is this, I don’t trust the government to tell me the truth.”
In response, would you then say that you’re “writing me off” and “writing the Tenth Amendment Center off” because I haven’t taken a position on this – and that a better source for state sovereignty information is now the Huffington Post?”
Well, that’s basically what you did with Debra Medina on your program this week. The one person in the Texas campaign who’s had the courage to speak out about the Constitution, about nullification and interposition, about the founders, about the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon. That one person is “written off” by you because she hasn’t “taken a position on” a conspiracy theory that may or may not be of interest to her or her campaign?
Wow. Obviously the Constitution isn’t very important to you. A person’s stance on a conspiracy theory is. Or maybe this is just your way of trying to marginalize one of the few candidates in the entire country running their whole campaign on the original view of the Constitution.
Is that it, Glenn? Because it sure seems that way.
Maybe the real conspiracy isn’t 9-11 or Global Warming or anything of the sort. Maybe it’s all about the establishment media, and people like yourself – is this your way of letting the hardcore constitutionalists out here know that you really prefer the establishment candidates?
What should be more important is a person’s stance on the Constitution. In fact, that’s ALL that voters should care about. Not their race, their background, their religious views, their positions on conspiracies or anything else. People are elected to follow the constitution – and nothing more.
What’s more important to you, Glenn – a person’s stance on the Constitution or their view of a conspiracy theory?
Don’t bother answering. You already have.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Getting it Wrong: James Madison’s 1830 Letter on Nullification - October 18, 2017
- A One-Track Mind: Most Lawyers on Nullification - October 14, 2017
- “Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.” - October 9, 2017