California effort to make climate dissent illegal fails

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The Democratic fascists in the California Senate have lost their bid to pass a law that would have made it a crime to express skepticism of human-caused global warming.

The bill only failed because the Senate did not take action before the end of its session, and could reappear agian.

Later this year, 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.

And I fully expect these fascists to try again, especially considering this:

The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change “fraud,” prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech. A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, have joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. At least four prosecutors reportedly have launched investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change “fraud.”

Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists.


  • Cotour

    It may be best for this law to pass. Think about it, how might it be implemented? What would be the statements or actions that would be prosecuted? Ultimately, unfortunately after it does some damage to some individual or company, it will have to be defended (crowd funded? I would contribute to that cause) in some court, even as high as the Supreme Court.

    At that point we would all understand just how insane or sane our culture has become after it is either established through testimony under penalty of perjury that no such law can be reasonably upheld, not to mention the loud and glaring with bright, bright flashing lights First Amendment violation.

    Lets see how crazy, crazy can get. Sometimes you have to confront insanity and not be afraid of what might in the short term seem as being the “truth” or “right” or “just”.

    (PS: To a man or woman, anyone who I meet that is either from California or lives in California universally confirms when I say to them “whats up with California? A beautiful place, but whats up with the people?”.

    They universally respond with “You are right, beautiful place but there’s something wrong with the people, they don’t think correctly. “)

  • Wayne

    Cotour– understand your sentiment, completely, but it’s dangerous to allow these type of laws to get passed, in any way, shape, or form; they become impossible to get rid of once passed & the odds of getting before a lefty federal district judge is something like 2 out of 3.

  • Cotour

    I agree with you, but eventually these people will get what they want, it will have to be tested, either today or tomorrow. If it is tested and it remains then you know all is lost (for the moment anyway), if it is tested and soundly rejected based first on the science and then secondly on the concept of free speech then you will know that the majority of this is just leftist rhetoric and the agenda of control of the individual and the demand to conform to unreason (“WE” already know this).

    Leftist / liberals I have found out are just about to a man / woman all intellectually dishonest when they are confronted with their thinking, they generally fall apart and just revert to reciting their Borg mantra’s, which is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly saying la, la, la, la. They are unreasonable.

  • Cotour

    Wayne: My basic technique of liberal / leftist confrontation is to present back to others their logic and have them test that logic and fully embrace what it is that they propose as being reasonable and good, competent thinking in how they run their lives and conduct their politics. Its simple and it is devastating. Not that it has much of an effect on any of them, we continue to love them because they no no better, they are mind controlled and intellectually dishonest.

    And so I ask you (although I do not consider you in any way shape or form a liberal or a leftist):

    “understand your sentiment, completely, but it’s dangerous to allow these type of laws to get passed, in any way, shape, or form; they become impossible to get rid of once passed & the odds of getting before a lefty federal district judge is something like 2 out of 3.”

    Do you consider this to be also true if a liberal / leftist is allowed to become president? Someone who can actually sign similar laws into existence on a national and international level, and someone who can and will be choosing the next life time inhabitants of the Supreme Court who will generally allow such treachery.

  • Cotour

    That’s: “Know no better”, pardon me I just had my first glass of anti liberal wine today :)

  • Wayne

    reference Federal District Judges and the President;

    >There are about 1,000 Federal District Judges. On average a President gets to appoint 100-300 of these in any given Term. (retirement, death, & the rare impeachment. See x-judge Alcee Hastings, he got impeached & now is in the House.> Democrat.)
    >Obama has appointed about 400+ in the last 7 years, all of which were approved by the Senate & while Mitch has been in charge, very few if any have been blocked. And that doesn’t include the lefty/progressive Judges appointed by Bush & Clinton.
    > A President Trump could do little to remove any of these Judges on his own–all lifetime appointments, and only Congress can write Laws countermanding Federal District Court Judges (or SCOTUS overturning a specific decision.) Trump would need to carefully choose & back solid Constitutional Judges at every single opportunity, and it wouldn’t really be felt for 10-20 years into the future if he did appoint a substantial number.
    Getting into “lawsuits” between a State and the central Federal Government is a dangerous way to address these particular type of over-reaches. (With the caveat that we aren’t in the “normal course of affairs” anymore. States have conflicts all the time, with each other & the Federal Government, which are routinely addressed in Federal Court. But what happens when these very Judges are dismantling the Constitution over a long period of time & the 4th branch of Government–the Administrative State apparatus, has been firmly entrenched since the 1930’s?)

    -The check on the California Legislature should be the Ca. Executive Branch, but Jerry Brown is in charge. This proposed Bill is illegal on it’s face. Brown would have to veto or sign it. That would (hopefully) trigger responses. (within the system)
    -Here, we start to get into Federalism big-time. The States can pass all sorts of laws but they can’t violate the national Constitution.
    -The check on California would fall to the Federal Government, and the current regime likes this type of stuff. (They love to hound Mississippi for the past 50 years but I doubt they would get involved in Ca.)
    (This also gets into elements of “pre-emption” and who has Standing to sue Whom over What. Some things are considered “political issues” by the Courts & they will not address those issues.)

    We are in a weird situation where the State of California wants to violate it’s own State-Constitution & the Federal Constitution, and all actors involved don’t appear to be bothered a whole lot about it.

    On a National level– we all have to remember the Democrats & Republicans have colluded together to either Pass, Fund, or not-object-to, every single national Law in existence the past 7 years. Obama proposed, and a Democrat Congress approved. Obama proposed again, and a Republican Congress approved.

    –It took 100 years to get into this mess & it will take a sustained effort, over generations, to undo all this stuff. One election won’t fix it. (and it takes a huge apparatus to enforce expanded tariff’s as proposed by all 3 current candidates.)

  • Cotour

    You make a pretty strong argument to begin to elect someone other than a liberal or a leftist to the presidency. Anyone!

    The longest journey begins with the first step. Some kind of first step.

  • Wayne

    Well… not just “anyone.” (har)
    100 years ago it took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol, and another Amendment to overturn itself.
    That’s in stark contrast today, where the Administrative-apparatus has wide latitude to outlaw all sorts of ‘stuff.’ >This didn’t happen overnight & we won’t be able to reverse it all overnight.

  • Cotour

    And still, there must be a first step, a movement in some direction other than the leftists direction. A direction, any direction other than this leftist direction. When and where does that happen in your well thought out strategy on a national level?

    The next president will fill probably at least 3 Supreme Court seats.

  • Garry

    The trouble is that the choice will presumably be between a confirmed liberal (Hillary) and a suspected liberal (Trump). Given Trump’s past statements and more importantly his actions, I don’t count on his doing the right thing (see eminent domain for an example).

    If the choice is indeed between a confirmed liberal and a suspected liberal, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the suspected liberal, but won’t be happy doing it.

  • Cotour

    I can live with your conclusion, you get yourself a good set of swimmers nose clips.

    I happen to agree with you in the eminent domain issue. I think that the Supreme Court over interpreted it to a place where it was not meant to go.

    My general solution if it stands?

    Whom ever the individuals private property is focused on should be compensated (and paid up front, cash money in the bank) at least 2 to 3 times the real fair market value would be for the accommodation. As a general rule if its not for a rail road or highway right of way a private developer should not be able to argue public interest in the developing of a property.

  • Cotour

    Here is another prime reason to hold ones nose:

    This is part of the master plan, flood the country with “others” and those “others” will allow those who encouraged it to rule through pure numbers.

    Who will continue this agenda.

  • Edward


    It would not be best for this law to pass. If it passes, I will have lost a natural right that even the birds and lions enjoy. What do you think I should do for my free speech rights afterward?

    You wrote: “eventually these people will get what they want, it will have to be tested, either today or tomorrow.”

    Giving up because you think that “eventually these people will get what they want” is not a good option. Eventually you will lose what you want, that way.

    It already *has* been tested, and it harms the population far worse than you seem to think. We have millennia of evidence that this kind of tyranny neglects the needs of the people and favors the needs of the ruling class. In countries run by tyranny, progress is slow or non-existent.

    Even in the English colony of Plymouth, socialism was tried and failed miserably. They lacked any OPM (Other People’s Money) to keep it going at all and it killed half the colonists. The moment that they went with free market capitalism, they thrived so much that they went from starving to abundance in one growing season. They had so much that they invited their Indian neighbors to join in their feast, giving thanks to God for the invention of free market capitalism. (Do not be confused by modern myth. The Pilgrims were farmers and did not have to be taught by the Indians how to farm.)

    If your tactic of confronting them with their thinking to “present back to others their logic” does not work, as you report, then you need to change tactics.

    You wrote: “Do you consider this to be also true if a liberal / leftist is allowed to become president?”

    And yet you support a liberal, leftist Democrat for president, claiming that you are only working with what you have. You are ignoring a lot of other assets that you have. There are good non-liberal, non-leftist non-Democrats running for president, who also would stop illegal immigration and have other advantages that you think Trump brings, but you only acknowledge the three candidates who are the worst choices.

    Your strategy of letting them get what they want so that the US population can see how bad bad can get not only gives up the ship to the pirates, but it is how the 20th century allowed socialist countries to form and remain for decades, starving, shooting, and gassing dissent, scapegoats, and those they feared.

    Once you allow the US to become a socialist tyranny, what is your plan for rescue? Do you have one? I didn’t think so. The rest of the world has relied upon the US for rescue, but once the US falls into the trap, there is no one left to rescue us.

    Your way of thinking demonstrates that you are still a leftist, whether or not you know it.

    You wrote to Wayne: “You make a pretty strong argument to begin to elect someone other than a liberal or a leftist to the presidency. Anyone! … The longest journey begins with the first step. Some kind of first step.”

    To vote for Trump is to vote in favor of tyranny. It is not the first step back to liberty; it merely makes the journey even longer.

    Please, now, take that first step and agree to reject Trump’s tyranny and vote for a non-liberal, non-leftist non-Democrat. No nose-holding necessary, either.

  • Joe

    I think all of the legacy energy producers should just pack up and leave the state till the public figures out the oil company’s aren’t the bad guys, this is nothing but a shakedown.

  • D K Rögnvald Williams

    You might be on to something, Joe. If the oil companies pulled up stakes and left Crazifornia, the people might finally vote out these nitwits.

  • Cotour

    The people are the “nitwitz”, where have all of these laws come from? The people of Crazifornia. Most all of them need to be dragged to reality, American reality.

    The longer you allow crazy to think that it is “normal” the more crazy you get.

  • Edward

    The reason why the people of Crazifornia allow these laws is because the government-run public schools teach that government is the solution, not the problem. Crazifornians have been taught to be nitwits.

    The only solutions that governments successfully provide are protection of the public from enemies, foreign and domestic, protection from fires, and peacefully resolving disputes.

    Outside of those, government presents more problems than it solves — often getting in the way of the public to prosper and enjoy life. Governments often get an inflated sense of being do-gooders when in actuality they hinder good deeds.

    The US government was one of the rare exceptions, but that started to change when FDR gave us a New Deal (or was it a raw deal?). The change accelerated when LBJ gave us a Great Society, which we can see is not so great after all. Modern students believe that the difficulties that were brought on by these two presidents are the fault of free market capitalism rather than a result of the socialism of these two failed programs. We have had surprisingly little free market capitalism in this country for a couple of decades, now, and those students have never lived in a free market capitalist society, great or not.

    Even NASA should have been a solution, encouraging new technologies and new markets, but the net result was a decades-long delay in American ingenuity propelling us into space. Congress ordered that huge sums of money be spent getting us less return on the dollar than had private industry been encouraged to do its own good deeds in space. The only real market in space was the communication satellite market. In reality, the Space Shuttle almost killed the American launch vehicle market (which was controlled by government, anyway).

    Californians have fallen into the trap that government is the solution. They need serious help in getting free.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *