Jumping the shark in the furtherance of environmentalcase lunacy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asserts he would like to have the law changed so people who disagree with his views on “climate change” could be prosecuted, and even executed, by the government.
“[Kennedy] said there should be a law that lets authorities punish skeptics and deniers — those who engage in ‘selling out the public trust,’” The Washington Times reported Tuesday, citing an interview the “progressive” activist gave to Climate Depot at the people’s Climate March in New York City. “I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish these politicians under…
“I think it’s treason,” he continued. “Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous — yes, I do … Do I think they should be in jail — I think they should be [enjoying] three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals.”
As an attorney with the finest education from exclusive schools money can buy, Kennedy certainly must be aware that conviction for treason can be punishable by death. And subjecting American citizens to international tribunals for “war crimes” over political differences in environmental policy is not only unprecedented; it’s stark, raving nuts.
That’s actually a pretty good description of the Climate March itself, where signs of the most basic misunderstanding of the way things work were evident, with slogans such as “No More Climate Change,” as if such a thing is even possible. Not that outright communi… uh… “progressives” can’t dream of controlling everything…
As with all national socialists, and that’s exactly what he and they are, every day is Opposite Day for this rich and privileged headcase. But while Kennedy wants agents of the state to come down with stomping jackboots on those who oppose his demands, he’s been treated with leniency in his own brushes with the law, encounters a non-elite might not be so fortunate to escape with his freedom, not to mention his skull, intact. Hey what good is egalitarianism if some animals aren’t more equal than others?
And while Kennedy maintains a police officer was lying when, as a teenager, he was accused of spitting ice cream in the officer’s face precipitating his arrest, he did not take the judge up on pleading not guilty, despite having the Kennedy fortune to mount a legal defense that would have allowed him to challenge the testimony. Likewise, his 1982 arrest for heroin possession resulted in probation, community service and an expunged record. Curious, that the man who would control those without addictive personalities is still described as a man who can’t – or won’t – control himself.
It’s evidently easier to shrug it all off and say there was something about Mary.
As with all “progressives,” the hypocrisy is overwhelming. For an environmentalist, he not only refuses to make personal sacrifices to reduce his own “carbon footprint,” he also found all kinds of excuses to oppose other Greens on a Cape Cod wind farm — one that just happened to be within sight of the Kennedy compound.
Without meaning to open up the debate on man-made global warming, I will say I have my skepticism about it, about different reports on polar ice cap melting or expansion rates, about fudged statistics, about major polluting nations that will not sign onto Kyoto while we’re expected to, about Al Gore, about “consensus,” about the effects of the sun, and about a lot more. That makes those who share similar concerns what the Prozis want to call a “denier,” pointedly using the same terminology applied to those who dismiss the Holocaust, and equating us with genocide-enablers.
Color me even more doubtful when Kennedy lunacy is amplified by fellow travelers like the New York University “bioethicist” professor who says we ought to combat global warming by breeding humans genetically to live shorter lives and be allergic to red meat. And where would he get that idea but from a Nobel Prize-winning chair of a UN environmental panel whose religion just happens to prohibit dietary beef?
That’s what this really is, a religious war, waged by the very fanatics who scream the loudest about a “wall of separation,” that is, until they find it convenient to employ useful idiots of the cloth to lobby from the pulpit. And as Kennedy shows with his charges of treason and his insane demands for the punishment of apostates, blasphemers, heretics and infidels, what such madmen hope to establish is very ISIL-like, and indistinguishable from an unchallengeable theocracy of evil.
So: Who wants to trust the enviromullahs and their ilk to define and enforce “reasonable and commonsense gun safety laws”? And who thinks negotiations with them, and unilateral “compromises,” are either possible or desirable?
If you’re a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won’t find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Dan) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.”
My latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column, “Garden State Gun Criminal,” examines the outrageous persecution of single mother Shaneen Allen, who tried to do the right thing and cooperate with police, but is nonetheless having her life destroyed over a technicality. Funny, how no “progressive” black or women’s groups have demanded justice for her.
My latest JPFO Alert, “Revolutionary War Fort Gun Ban,” notes “progressives” aren’t above desecrating graves of honored dead in the struggle for Liberty if they think they can get away with it.