Quote of the week: Best response to #RICO20 #ExxonKnew Attorney Generals ever

I don’t usually go for this sort of language, but sometimes, you just have to bow to the absurd, dive in, and say things in language that simple minded people will understand. Such is the case of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey who yesterday expanded the #ExxonKnew documents probe to organizations that don’t even take funding from Exxon. His advocacy group, the Center for Industrial Progress, was named in an April 19 subpoena for 40 years of internal company documents and communications. Clearly, Ms. Healey must have been asleep in class when the 1st and 4th amendments were discussed and is abusing her position of power.

Alex Epstein, who got a subpoena, posted his response on Twitter:


Lest you think Alex is one of those “old white guys” that alarmists like to stereotype, have a close look at his picture:


He has written a book: The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels and it seems to me, that very sensible book has made him a target.

I think his response, vulgar as it was, was also entirely appropriate.

Note: typo corrected about 15 minutes after publication: 2nd to read 4th. 1st amendment added.


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimmy Haigh
June 16, 2016 8:06 am

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Pete J.
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
June 16, 2016 12:08 pm

The key words are “interfering with the right to peaceably assemble.”

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
June 16, 2016 12:26 pm

I actually HAVE put it in those terms. Of course, I’m one of those plebian knuckle-draggers.

Eugene S. Conlin
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
June 17, 2016 4:38 am

Arkell v. Pressdram comes to mind 🙂

Reply to  Eugene S. Conlin
June 17, 2016 12:40 pm


Reply to  Eugene S. Conlin
June 18, 2016 2:13 pm

@ Eugene S. Conlin
That is what occurred to me as well.

June 16, 2016 8:06 am

While Alex Epstein’s reply is vulgar,
so to are Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey actions.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JohnWho
June 16, 2016 9:56 am

Profanity in response to the utterly profane; not a problem.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 3:13 pm

An eye for an eye.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 7:25 pm

Aye before Arr
Except after Har

Christopher Paino
Reply to  JohnWho
June 16, 2016 9:02 pm

Alex’s response was positively polite in comparison to the instigation.

Reply to  JohnWho
June 18, 2016 4:31 pm

As the old saw goes “Actions speak louder than words”. Her actions are a thousand times worse than his words.

June 16, 2016 8:08 am

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 16, 2016 8:31 am

They are attacking people because of the positions they took.

Reply to  MarkW
June 16, 2016 8:32 am

Arggh, of course you are right. All the talk about the 2nd ammd this week.

Patrick B
Reply to  MarkW
June 16, 2016 10:03 am

Well, given that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to ensure the citizens have the ability to defeat a government given over to tyranny, I’m not sure the reference is wrong in this case.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 16, 2016 8:44 am

my question as well. isn’t this about 4th amendment rights?

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 16, 2016 8:45 am

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the 1st.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 16, 2016 10:06 am

Despite the typo in the article, the second amendment is there to guarantee the first one ( and those which follow ).

John Silver
Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 16, 2016 11:11 am

“Clearly, Ms. Healey must have been asleep in class when the 1st and 4th amendments were discussed and is abusing her position of power.”
Clearly, the 2nd amendment says what to do with her.

Reply to  John Silver
June 18, 2016 2:22 pm

It is not clear that Ms. Healey even went to Law school.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
June 17, 2016 12:40 am

Nothing. Read the update. The numbering was confused.

June 16, 2016 8:10 am

Great response, couldn’t have said it better. 🙂

bit chilly
Reply to  wxso9110
June 16, 2016 3:12 pm

what i want to know is how the hell did that young man get through the modern education system while maintaining an open mind . good on him.

Reply to  bit chilly
June 17, 2016 4:25 am

I would say it was his upbringing by his parents. Makes a huge difference when your parents tell you not to believe everything you are taught at school.
My Millennial child ( adult 27yrs) just shakes his head at some of his other Millennial friends thought processes.

Reply to  bit chilly
June 17, 2016 2:19 pm

” how the hell did that young man get through the modern education system”
Cloaking device.
(Which enabled the parroting-back of the ‘canned answers’ his profs required as a condition of passing grades.)

Erik Driessens
Reply to  bit chilly
June 17, 2016 5:37 pm

Alex Epstein was instructed in clear thinking at the Ayn Rand Institute.

June 16, 2016 8:11 am

Do you mean 1st Amendment ? While the 2nd Amendment has been prominently in the news these last few days, the Mass. AG’s demand is clearly a 1st Amendment trashing, having nothing to do with keeping and bearing arms, and everything to do with denial of free speech by government overlords.

Reply to  TomBR
June 16, 2016 8:36 am

Clearly, Ms. Healey must have been asleep in class when the 2nd amendment was discussed and is abusing her position of power.
The article (mis)states the 2nd amendment instead of the 1st, which is why lorcanbonda asked. Needs to be corrected.

Reply to  pinroot
June 16, 2016 8:40 am

The 2nd amendment is truly about abuse of power. So maybe the author did intend to say 2nd amendment.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  pinroot
June 16, 2016 9:03 am

the 2nd is the best way to protect the 1st …

Bryan A
Reply to  pinroot
June 16, 2016 12:44 pm

Second amendment should be taught in schools along with firearm training, firearm safety, and target practice. If every person were assigned a firearm at birth, and trained to use it through school, they could quite probably achieve marksman status by the time they graduated…then as that gunman entered that club in Florida, he would have faced 150 guns pointing back at him

Reply to  TomBR
June 16, 2016 9:00 pm

Bryan A:
We had a nightclub shooting in Calgary last January. The shooter got off three shots and hit one patron before he was tackled and disarmed by a young unarmed club bouncer. I went by the club a few times to congratulate this kid, but it was shut down. A very courageous kid who probably saved many lives.
See the video of the shooting at
It is apparent that this was not a targeted attack, since the shooter fired from the outside doorway into the dark crowded nightclub. I will not speculate on motives at this time, but gang shootings are usually targeted, not random. The arrested suspects are Mohamed Salad and Mohamed Elmi.
Kudos to the bouncers, especially the first guy. The bouncers tackled the shooter but he got three shots off – one patron was seriously wounded but will survive. Unarmed guys tackling a shooter – not that common these days – everybody usually runs for cover – but hey, this is Calgary – the last best West.
Regards to all, Allan

Sean Peake
June 16, 2016 8:11 am

1st Amendment

Sean Peake
June 16, 2016 8:12 am

… and the 5th

June 16, 2016 8:19 am

More like the 4th
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reply to  rah
June 16, 2016 8:47 am

+97 Musks.

Reply to  PiperPaul
June 16, 2016 8:48 am

Or is it Elons?

Reply to  rah
June 16, 2016 8:50 am

I don’t think the 4th amendment counts anymore. https://www.nsa.gov/

Reply to  RWturner
June 16, 2016 9:39 am

driving the speed limit is PC to be stopped
“what is the problem officer?”
“I stopped you sir because you were not breaking the law, now I will search your car”
RWturner correct

Reply to  RWturner
June 16, 2016 12:39 pm

One of the most atrocious and tragically funny reasons for being arrested — resisting arrest for being under arrest for no reason.

Reply to  RWturner
June 16, 2016 6:45 pm

rebelronin says: June 16, 2016 at 9:39 am
“I stopped you sir because you were not breaking the law, now I will search your car”

That came up in Ontario, Canada a few years ago. The cop thought it was suspicious that a guy wasn’t speeding and stopped him and found (iirc) an illegal drug. The judge tossed out the case because you can’t stop someone for obeying the law. In another case, however, the judge didn’t throw out the case because of the severity of the crime that was uncovered as a result of the (otherwise illegal) traffic stop.
One thing you can rely on: The law is an ass.

Tom Halla
June 16, 2016 8:22 am

Effective response, but it is the 1st and 5th amendments, not the 2nd.

June 16, 2016 8:25 am

It just might, as far as I can see, still be a 2nd amendment problem. “What I say goes and you are not allowed to defend yourself!”
By the look of Alex Epstein, a demand for 40 years of documents would be rather amazing if he could fulfil it, he is only 36, and the CIP was founded in 2011!. Perhaps Mrs Maura Healy is confusing him with noted sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein?

Reply to  dudleyhorscroft
June 16, 2016 8:38 am

Ha ha… a 36 year old guy running a 5 year old organization, and they demand 40 years worth of emails and correspondence. Healy makes herself look silly.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
June 16, 2016 10:03 am

Well spotted, Jeff.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
June 16, 2016 12:49 pm

Oopsie! Well spotted Jeff dudleyhorscroft.
I’ve had a bunch of corrections to make today. I am literally not seeing well; dang lens implants!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  dudleyhorscroft
June 16, 2016 12:16 pm

More likely the well known sex offender Jeffrey Epstein who flies Bill Clinton to his private island hideaway in the “Virgin” Islands on his airplane: “Lolita Express”

Hoyt Clagwell
June 16, 2016 8:28 am

Let’s just say AG Healey slept through the whole bill of rights discussion. (rah is right – 4th amendment)

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
June 16, 2016 8:53 am

At the rate the alarmists are going, they may just abuse/ignore the entire Bill of Rights. It amazes me how few lawyers seem to know anything about the most basic laws of the US: the Constitution and its amendments. To be fair, lawyers who DO know their law are not going to make the news by making idiots of themselves.
I think some law schools need to a) up their standards and b) revoke some degrees.

Reply to  AllyKat
June 16, 2016 9:03 am

Maybe some state bars should require people to retake the bar exam to maintain their licenses, too.

Bryan A
Reply to  AllyKat
June 16, 2016 12:48 pm

Perhaps their problem is “Not Passing a Bar”

Reply to  AllyKat
June 16, 2016 8:52 pm

The Bill of Rights would never be passed by Congress for ratification by the States in today’s world.
It is thought to be antiquated and inappropriate in modern society. The direct consequence of this prevalent thinking is that (borrowing from the Lorax) UNLESS people consistently stand up to defend the Bill of Rights from being neutered or revoked, it WILL happen. It’s inevitable without eternal vigilance from a dwindling but vocal minority of Constitutionalists.

Reply to  AllyKat
June 17, 2016 2:24 pm

Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
“[It] needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact,” says constitutional law professor
I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.
But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.
As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it’s important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don’t know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama’s vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together.

… from a Rolling Stone article this week …

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
June 16, 2016 11:20 am

Don’t believe the constitution is even studied any longer

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
June 17, 2016 5:06 am

During the Constitutional Convention a Bill of Rights being included in the base document of the Constitution was actually opposed by many prominent Federalists. They believed the rights enumerated there in were redundant because in their opinion they were self evident and part of natural law thus did not need to be written into the founding document.
IMO based reading the history, the Federalist Papers, the minutes and broadsides of the Convention (in particular those from the Pennsylvania and Virginia delegations), plus various writings of the founders, including my only families member, George Clymer, there was a deal made between the Federalists and Anti Federalists to make the BOR about the first order of business in the first session of the first congress in order to get the Constitution without the content of the BOR included in the base document ratified.
BTW my founder ancestor, George Clymer was one of only 8 founders which signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He also voted for the Bill of Rights in the first congress. At the beginning of the Revolution he was a very wealthy merchant. By the end he had lost over 2/3rds of his wealth. So you can guess my opinion on the issue of reparations demanded by some in this country.

H. Skip Robinson
Reply to  rah
June 17, 2016 9:33 am

rah, Thought your info was cool. My folks are the Robinsons, Capt. Samuel, Moses, Samuel Jr. Silas; my direct 9x Grandfather of the infamous Green Mountain Boys. All five son’s of Capt. Samuel sons fought in the Revolution. The Battle of Bennington was fought over the Green Mountain Boys and the Continental Army Armory which just so happened was the Robinson Barn where all the arms and munitions were being stored. The British ran out of supplies and tried to take the armory and obviously lost. VT including my folks actually wrote a Constitution before the U.S. Constitution which was pretty cool because it prohibited slavery. A recent book calls Moses the Father of Vermont but it could have been his father Samuel, has he not been chosen to go back to England and try to sort out the land Grant Dispute between New York and New England. He died of small pox while he was there even though he was perfectly healthy when he left. Bennington Vermont is named after Bennington Wentworth, the then Governor of New England who my folks purchased the land grants from. We are told by other historians we are indirectly related to John Robinson the separatist and Borrowist Pastor of the Pilgrim fathers as they are now called. There is one unverified and missing link around 1640 in MA. I think it was his brother William we are directly related to. not 100% sure though. John Robinson stayed in Leylen Holland and died before he could come across. He was surely a guy that helped to defeat the religious persecution of the Crown and Church of England. It is amazing to me what these people had to go though including the revolutionary war to gain religious freedom and there are those that are so willing to acquiesce their rights for a variety of reasons.
As far as reparations, It was something many rich people gave up. Asking the tax payer to give them their money back takes the very right away, that of property they were fighting for. Many people risked their lives, liberty and fortunes and everyone was better off for it. It was the truly just war. My contention is that no war is just unless it is being fought to secure greater rights for it’s Citizens. Therefore asking or worse yet forcing though a draft, the poor to fight in wars that only improve the rights of others if it does not improve their own is unethical. Yes our government is unethical as are all of them.

Reply to  rah
June 17, 2016 8:14 pm

H. Skip Robinson
IMO a war is also righteous if it is fought to retain the fundamental rights that any human being should have and in certain cases that includes the freedom to travel and trade as in the Barbary wars and the war of 1812. WW II was a righteous war for the U.S. The US was attacked by Japan and Hitler made it righteous for the U.S. to enter the war in the western hemisphere by declaring war on the U.S. An act that was most certainly a relief to FDR and a Godsend for Churchill and to some extent Stalin. And I would ask what would your characterize our own Civil War as?

June 16, 2016 8:29 am

The 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing the rights of people to own guns.
I think he meant 1st Amendment, which prevents Congress from passing laws which inhibit: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.
Epstien’s reply was perfectly appropriate.
“Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” . Mark Twain

Reply to  SAMURAI
June 17, 2016 12:47 am

It prohibits the government from interfering with the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The word – “arms” – has a much broader meaning than mere “guns.” It includes knives, swords, sword canes, quarter staffs, bows and arrows, etc. The entire gammut of “arms” are protected by the 2nd Amendment, not just “guns.” Knives are actually as controlled as guns. The length of blade, operation mechanism of folding knives, type of blade, etc. are all controlled by laws – in the US – of questionable constitutionality.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 16, 2016 8:29 am

Perhaps gratifying, but does not count as a response to process.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 16, 2016 9:35 am

We are entering an age of Trump direct response . I certainly find that I must take that approach in my dealings when the magistrate is the only other person in the room who doesn’t have their teeth in our family assets . As I wrote in an email May 20 : I have concluded that I feel it is important to test that Pro Se is alive and well in Colorado . It is dead at the SCOTUS level .
This is why F11 is the most important key in 4th.CoSy . It puts a timestamp | 1031 | at the cursor , and if I follow it with an * my clock is on and I keep my accounts by the minute .
BTW : I plan to upload a much more human friendly and useful update of 4th.CoSy this weekend .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
June 17, 2016 2:45 pm

Does not compute.
(To use a phrase 1st coined, I think, by the robot on Lost in Space when encountering something ‘really out there’.)

June 16, 2016 8:31 am

It is beyond time for pointed comments towards these elected officials.

Reply to  borehead
June 18, 2016 9:26 am

Pointed weaponry perhaps?

June 16, 2016 8:39 am

Before all of this nonsense going on in our country gets worked out… It wouldn’t surprise me to see the 2nd amendment become a factor as well…. Just Sayin! Hard working Americans who just want to raise their children with the hope that they have a better life, with more opportunity, will only be cheated, ignored, lied to and pushed so far before they get PI$$ED. I am not an advocate by any means….. but its going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and that’s being very optimistic!

Dodgy Geezer
June 16, 2016 8:45 am

The British are more stylish when they want to give that kind of response.
Private Eye is a satirical magazine poking fun at the establishment and revealing scandals, and in 1971 they ran a story implying that the Credit Manager of Granada TV was guilty of corruption. Sure enough, a letter from a solicitor duly winged its way:
“29th April 1971
Dear Sir,
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter.
Mr Arkell’s first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Goodman Derrick & Co.”

Private Eye’s response was immediate:
“Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Private Eye”

Ever since then, if a British Lawyer wants to indicate that they want you to go away, they will refer toy to the case of Arkell vs Pressdram (Private Eye’s publishers) …

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 17, 2016 11:19 am

Mr. D. Geezer is right, that was a very stylish reply. He didn’t mention that no further action was taken by the putative plaintiff. Mr. Arkell thought it would be easy to squeeze Private Eye for several thousand pounds. But when Presssdram pushed back with their letter, Arkell caved.
Standing up to bullies has been very un-PC. That’s one reason Mr. Trump is held in such high esteem by a public that is fed up with the bullying and browbeating by politically correct self-appointed scolds with no skin in the game.
Regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, Amendments, etc., when I went to school after the Civil War, we were taught Civics every year from the 5th through the 12th grades: the differences between a republican and a democratic government, how a Bill becomes law, the meaning of States’ rights, the reasons behind the Bill of Rights, and so on.
My wife, a retired public school Principal, says she can’t recall ever seeing a Civics class on her government school’s curriculum. Instead, students are taught incessantly that the evil Europeans arrrived and killed off all the innocent and peaceful Indians Native Americans, that the White House was built by slaves, etc. The guilt is laid on heavy and thick, but teaching kids that more than 600 thousand soldiers died in the Civil War to (among other things) free the slaves hardly merits a footnote.
Once the government got control of teaching, it morphed into PC propaganda. Critical thinking is no longer taught in schools. Now, only the .edu way is taught. Period, full stop.
There is more instruction about the Constitution’s first ten amendments in this thread than in most middle schools. No wonder the snowflake generation is confused.

June 16, 2016 8:55 am

Why is there no penalty for the attempted robbery of our rights, or conspiracy to do so??

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Tobyw
June 16, 2016 12:04 pm

By coming after those with whom they disagree – the State Attorney Generals are in effect abridging the freedom of speech. They should have operated well within the constitution.
If the United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch had any integrity – she would have defended the constitution and stopped the state Attorney Generals.
from the First amendment to United States Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law …. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Her oath seems to be a deceit.

Wes Spiers
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 16, 2016 5:44 pm

I believe the plural is “Attorneys General”. They are attorneys, not generals.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Wes Spiers
June 16, 2016 9:38 pm

Thanks 🙂

Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 17, 2016 12:59 am

There are a couple of scenarios that could be floated. One is of course that she simply expects that SAGs will successfully abridge your right to free speech. The second and alternative is that the courts will hand the SAGs their collective head along with an elegant dressing down regarding the nature and meaning of the 1st Amendment. Also, she is executive branch, and her job description doesn’t actually include wrangling wayward states into line. The US is steadily drifting toward an unconstrained democracy that ignores the historical reasons for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. In thinking about democracies, it is a good thing to recall that the average I.Q. is 100 – tepid in short. The BoR exists to protect individuals from government – regardless of whether that government is “blue” or “red.”

June 16, 2016 8:56 am

Vulgar? Not in the slightest. That’s a common expression that can be said many ways, but “F[pruned]f” certainly conveys the precise and exact connotation which he was going for, and what else should we strive for in language? It’s only vulgar if it is gratuitous.

Reply to  RWturner
June 16, 2016 1:35 pm

he is saying NO and he’s doing so unambiguously and emphatically.
he’s making it abundantly clear that he means it and there will be no negotiation.
if it’s negotiated, it’s not involuntary- get it? barganing over a screwing is the affirmative defense against any accusation of rape or even intimidation.
he’s putting them on notice that he is not dickering over a dicking.
and this is the only appropriate kind of response. there is no reasoning with tyranny
while i admire the declaration of independence for the way it showcases libertarian thought- the literary merits were not what mattered. It could have been ‘fuck off!’ for all that mattered. That would have been elegant in its simplicity – not vulgar.
it’s a symptom of snowflake disease to characterize that response as vulgar.

Reply to  gnomish
June 17, 2016 2:56 pm

Proper use of capitalization at the start of each sentence would make your post MUCH easier to read on a first pass. Some of us don’t have ‘full sight’ like we used to have …

Reply to  RWturner
June 19, 2016 2:27 pm

The F word is usually used as a meaningless intensive.as in this case, and…it was very effective in getting the point across.

June 16, 2016 8:59 am

Mr Watts:
Although I am sure she was asleep when they taught the 2nd Amendment, I think you probably meant the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 17, 2016 8:34 pm

Just a point to ponder:
Only the 1st,2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments specifically use the phrase “the people” in reference to the rights proscribed there in.

June 16, 2016 9:03 am

That was in the days when Private Eye was both witty and vulgar. Last time I looked the wit was in short supply!
That retort has, of course, become a classic. And rightly so!

Steve Borodin
June 16, 2016 9:06 am

Dodgy Geezer. Wonderful

Bruce Cobb
June 16, 2016 9:11 am

For Watermelons like Healey, the constitution is a mere inconvenience to a higher calling; the CAGW ideolgy.

Patrick Upton
June 16, 2016 9:19 am

With apologies to Oscar Wilde, Ms Healey’s subpoena to ExxonMobil may be regarded as a misfortune but to issue one to Mr Epstein looks like carelessness.
The euphemism for Mr Epstein’s succinct reply was expressed by the late David Frost circa 1965 as “Go forth and multiply”. I can well appreciate that the former did not wish Ms Healey to be under any delusion as to his response.

Reply to  Patrick Upton
June 16, 2016 11:12 am

In the now famous words of Justin Bieber… “You should go and love yourself!”

Reply to  Patrick Upton
June 17, 2016 3:00 pm

Well maybe more along the lines of “Go forth and self-fornicate” or “… engage in specific anatomically impossible acts.”

South River Independent
June 16, 2016 9:23 am

The Constitution no longer applies. Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the revival of calls to ban so-called assault weapons shows how the language is distorted to meet whatever action is desired. Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent clarification that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, the left touted the opening phrase to claim it allowed gun rights only for state militias. Now they ignore the phrase, which identifies the types of firearms protected by the Amendment: those suitable for militia or military service. That is why the government did not ban fully automatic firearms in response to criminal use of them like Bonny and Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, and other mobsters, but instead passed a law requiring a license in order to own them. (Whether license requirements constitute an infringement is another question.)
Likewise, the other Amendments and the language of the Constitution is ignored or distorted to mean whatever one wants it to mean. The problem is not the language, but who is interpreting the meaning. My opinion is that the States should be the decision authorities because the Constitution describes the powers the States have given to the Federal Government.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  South River Independent
June 16, 2016 11:05 am

People do not need guns. They do not need protection from either the Government, or from bad actors. If they find themselves in a situation like Orlando, the benevolent State will send police to save them, within three hours.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 11:27 am

Here is the problem with Florida’s laws. Even if some of the patrons had had concealed carry licenses, the law states
“Further, even with a CWFL these weapons may not be carried concealed in the following places, pursuant to Section 790.06(12)(a), Florida Statutes:…
•Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose. …”

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 11:41 am

Or actors the state condones, in which case, oh well. Your fault for being you.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 1:54 pm

When I was young, almost all bars had at least one and usually three or four 12-gauge shotguns behind the bar for use of the bar tender in case of armed unruly customers. I wonder when that ceased to be standard practice? A couple of 12 gauge blasts may have limited that situation.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 2:02 pm

Jeff in Calgary: Here is an old phrase, “Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.”

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 2:27 pm

Problem Solved
“Weapons may not be carried concealed in the following places…”
Carry the firearms conspicuously visible then they aren’t “concealed weapons”.
Like I said in an earlier post, What would that gunman have done if he walked into that Club and had 150 guns pointing straight back at him???

Ian H
Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 16, 2016 9:58 pm

With respect I would not feel safe in a crowded bar full of partially or fully intoxicated people armed to the teeth with lethal weapons. Their judgement is likely to be severely impaired. And who would want to be a bouncer in such a bar. Which brings me to another point; whatever the law may or may not say about carrying weapons in public spaces is irrelevant. A bar is a private establishment and the owner has every right to refuse entry to people carrying weapons. And any sensible bar owner would. Alcohol and guns are a bad combination.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 17, 2016 3:02 pm

Jeff in Calgary June 16, 2016 at 11:27 am
“Here is the problem with Florida’s laws …”
Would not seem applicable to staff or management, only patrons.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 17, 2016 3:05 pm

Jeff in Calgary June 16, 2016 at 11:27 am
“Here is the problem with Florida’s laws …”
Recall, too, that Nick Meli ignored such state edits AND UNDOUBTEDLY SAVES LIVES at the Clackamas Mall around Christmas time a few years back …

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 17, 2016 3:39 pm

In previous, “edicts” instead of “edits”.

Reply to  South River Independent
June 16, 2016 1:31 pm

Hence their calling it a “living document”. Allows them the freedom to interpret it however they want to.

June 16, 2016 9:25 am

I think it was rude of him to act as if the horse she rode in on wasn’t even there.

gary turner
Reply to  MLCross
June 16, 2016 9:36 am

Now that made me laugh. :snort:

Reply to  gary turner
June 17, 2016 3:05 pm

That _was_ good.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  MLCross
June 16, 2016 11:09 am

MLCross wins the thread! 😀

Reply to  MLCross
June 16, 2016 1:51 pm

+10 for MLCross, snort . . .

June 16, 2016 9:27 am

I disagree the 2nd is the insurance policy to defend all of them. Misstatement or not it is blunt force. Intimidation should not be tolerated. As, intimidation has become the crux of the issue.
And, not for this one issue everything they demand has now gone to, We will force you. The information revolution is coming to an end. The storm is coming.

Science or Fiction
June 16, 2016 9:28 am

Entirely appropriate 🙂
I admire his integrity, his clear thinking and his courage.
From about 11:00 in his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee he states that:
I wish senator Whitehouse was here, because what senator Whitehouse is doing to free speech is unconstitutional and I think he should apologize or resign.
The whole clip is great – really worth watching.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 16, 2016 12:11 pm

Nice. Well worth listening to.
I love the outraged female senator at the end – priceless.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  ralfellis
June 16, 2016 1:29 pm

It is a sad state of affairs when an apparently incredibly stupid woman can get elected to the senate. All I can do is shake my head and hope that her constituents smarten up and send her packing.

Reply to  ralfellis
June 16, 2016 3:26 pm

Yes. Using the term carbon pollution is a dead giveaway she has no idea what she is talking about.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ralfellis
June 16, 2016 8:58 pm

There is an old joke that “those that can’t do, teach. Those that can’t teach, teach teachers.” I’ve amended it to include, “Those that can’t even teach teachers become politicians.”

Reply to  ralfellis
June 17, 2016 3:24 pm

Jack June 16, 2016 at 3:26 pm
Re: “Yes. Using the term carbon pollution ”
Yup; Major Idiot Alert on that stupidity by Sen. Boxer/

Reply to  ralfellis
June 18, 2016 1:06 am

Thankfully Boxer won’t be standing for re-election and California (and the Nation) will finally be rid of her. She and her co-conspirator Dianne Feinstein have been a blight on California and national politics for nearly 50 years and it continues to amaze me they’ve been returned. I have no idea ow they do it, in conversation through the course of my life I’ve never heard anyone support them.
Feinstein has threatened a 5th term run (at the age of 82). It’s very important she be defeated to avoid her appointing a successor.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 16, 2016 12:56 pm

14:15 is the key point: Epstein tells the committee that Sen Boxer seems to think that philosophy is unnecessary to evaluate science, but that religion is. Classic analysis.
I would have liked it more if Epstein had asked her if Psychology was necessary to evaluate science.
All in all, a class presentation. 10/10

Reply to  Harry Passfield
June 16, 2016 3:53 pm

Plenty of psycho’s in Climate Science.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 16, 2016 8:12 pm

An awesome tour de force.

The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry.

14:55 Fracking really slipped by Obama, he didn’t really know about it, if he had known about it he’d have probably tried to get it banned.
15:03 So our prosperity right now depends on the ignorance of our politicians, which is pretty scary.

June 16, 2016 9:32 am

This presents very attractive legal opportunities to go after Healey et. al. There is no connection to Exxon, therefore no colorable possibility to claim ‘Merchants of Doubt’ securities issues. Therefore there never was any colorable probable cause, which is necessary for a subpoena under the 4th amendment. Epstein and his Center are notable only for the book he published. Clearly that book is protected 1st Amendment speech.
Epstein should do the following. 1. Sue Healey personally for abuse of presecutorial discretion. 2. File a complaint with the Mass Bar Association, as this abuse is grounds for possible disbarment. They will have to investigate and hold an embarassing hearing. 3. File a criminal complaint with the local federal district attorney under 18USC241. If that is not acted upon, he has created a separate federal civil cause of action (unlawful discrimination) against DoJ for not enforcing a clear criminal law violation. 4. File civil suit against Healey, Gore, and the other participating AG’s under 42USC1983 and or 1985. Find a lawyer to take the case as a slam dunk contingency basis. Sue for CIP operating budget for say a decade, plus millions more in reputational damage (shill for Exxon, deni*r, whatever else can be ginned up from the wording of the subpoena). Based on the Gore/schneiderman presser and the facts already in evidence, move for immediate summary judgement on #4, as there are no facts in dispute. 5. Finally, if Mass has an antiSLAPP statute, move to quash the subpoena.

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 10:21 am

ristvan, it’s always a pleasure to read your informed comments on such issues, accompanied by legal references. Actual actionable advice.
Much more use than all the usual rants and unfounded ‘advice’ , however heartfelt and justified they may be.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 10:30 am

sic ’em

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 11:31 am

“presecutorial discretion”
Should be :
persecutorial discretion

Reply to  BFL
June 16, 2016 12:52 pm

Actually, prosecutorial discretion. It was a typo.

Reply to  BFL
June 16, 2016 5:45 pm

Nyet, Nein, meant the misspelling; look again….

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 12:20 pm

I believe Mr. Epstein’s reply already summarized your excellent analysis in two words.

Reply to  Doonman
June 16, 2016 12:54 pm

Yes. But this Mass licensed attorney was giving rather more explicit instructions on how to.

Javert Chip
Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 1:16 pm

Wow; 248 words. I much prefer Epstein’s 3. Maybe we all go throw some tea in the harbor.

Reply to  Javert Chip
June 16, 2016 1:38 pm

Epstein’s reply is more emotionally gratifying, but Rud’s reply is the more effective way.
When someone tries to intimidate you, you don’t sit back on the defense, hoping they go away. You attack. If this were to result in civil damages or Healey being reprimanded or disbarred, you can bet on it pouring water over the rest of the AG’s trying this stunt or considering it.

Reply to  timg56
June 16, 2016 1:39 pm

Both beats either .

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 2:42 pm

Epstein should do exactly what ristvan suggests. Sue the heck out of Healey and everyone else involved. All of us have an interest in this. Using the Justice Departments of State and Federal governments to suppress free speech of American citizens is illegal in the United States, and these AGs should be held accountable.

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 5:19 pm

Rud Istvan:

Epstein and his Center are notable only for the book he published.

He’s actually done quite a few notable things. He’s arranged a number of debates, interviewed people at the Climate March in his “I Love Fossil Fuels” t-shirt and he has a pretty good podcast called Power Hour. Perhaps he could schedule you as a guest.

Reply to  Canman
June 16, 2016 5:44 pm

With your Harvard law degree and all this RICO and other legal stuff going on, You’d be a timely guest and you could plug your e-books.

Reply to  ristvan
June 19, 2016 5:46 pm

Shades of Mark Steyn! Great advice. I hope Mr Epstein takes it. Will you take on the role of “a lawyer to take the case as [on?] a slam dunk contingency basis”?
/Mr Lynn

June 16, 2016 9:34 am

I hope Epstein is somewhere that Massachusetts cops can’t grab him.

michael hart
Reply to  jdgalt
June 16, 2016 10:41 am

My computer model also advises him against going for late night drives with any of their senators.

David Smith
June 16, 2016 9:42 am

I think short and succint replys are the way to go from now on when answering alarmists.
When one of them used to make a statement about imminent thermageddon I would do my best to supply counter-arguments and provide links. However, from now on when a warmist says something such as, “the seas are going to boil!” I’m just going to reply, “no they’re not” and leave them to work themselves into a lather. Lovely!

Reply to  David Smith
June 16, 2016 10:02 am

Yes. But use factual soundbites. More effective politically. Fact: No child born this century has experienced any global warming. Fact: sea level rise is not accelerating according to geostationary (or corrected by differential GPS)long record tide gauges. Fact: polar bears do not depend on late summer ice. Fact: Antarctica is gaining ice (previous GRACE loss estimates used a flawed GIA correction wrong by a factor of almost 5. Fact: diurnal and seasonal ocean pH variation is 5x more than what CO2 might do by 2100 (at worst minus 0.15-0.18 pH thanks to buffering). Fact: coral bleaching is usually a healthy adaptation to more suitable symbionts. Fact: there has been no increase in weather extremes. Fact: CO2 is causing greening, for example in the Sahel.

David Smith
Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 10:22 am

Yep, a quick truthful one-liner also really gets a warmist’s goat!

Joel Snider
Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 12:30 pm

‘Yep, a quick truthful one-liner also really gets a warmist’s goat!’
Truth. It’s the new Hate Speech.

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 2:04 pm

JS, yes the warmunists will hate the truth about CAGW. That is what makes verifiable climate truths so useful in what is an increasingly ugly battle.

Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 2:49 pm

ristvan is absolutely correct – try to be factual. It’s more difficult and generally less satisfying, but is more likely to influence people. And bear in mind that while the person you are talking to may be rusted on to their position, listening third parties may well be influenced. [BTW, Alex Epstein’s reply was 3 words, not 2. Only the first 2 words were fact-free.]

Joel Snider
Reply to  ristvan
June 16, 2016 3:10 pm

‘ristvan is absolutely correct – try to be factual’
I find that as a skeptic, I can’t ever be caught in an error, even an honest one. Truth is absolutely our only viable weapon – that’s what makes it so dangerous to alarmists.
It’s no little disadvantage against an opponent who freely spits out whatever histrionic tripe best fits their narrative – even if it’s contradictory from minute to minute.

June 16, 2016 9:46 am

Constitution? Fuggedaboutit!
As celebrity socialist author Naomi Klein says of the democracy smashing power of the big green scientific AGW stick, “This Changes Everything”!

Reply to  betapug
June 16, 2016 12:08 pm

Naomi is on the Board of 350.org which has connections with Greenpeace and both are involved in a Congressional inquiry.
According to media reports, both of these organizations refuse to supply records to a U.S. Congressional committee.
What she has written is not the issue at hand.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  betapug
June 16, 2016 3:13 pm

Speaking of Klein and her ludicrous LEAPs … be sure to check out the latest from my “neighbour”, A Chemist in Langley:
Debunking the Leap Manifesto’s 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight Health Cost Statistics for Canada
He makes virtual mincemeat of Klein and her guru of choice!

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
June 17, 2016 7:32 am

Thank you for that link; very enjoyable reading.

Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
June 17, 2016 2:21 pm

HO, ditto the thanks. Else that would have escaped me.

June 16, 2016 9:59 am

The only speech that needs constitutional protection is offensive.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Gabro
June 16, 2016 10:25 am

Sorry, but BS. Offensive to who?! There is always somebody who will find something offensive. I find the entirety of the “Global Warming/Climate Change” BS narrative offensive (both to science as a field and to my own intelligence), but that doesn’t mean I think those idiots pushing it don’t have a right to blather on.
This abuse of power by AGs isn’t about [quashing/the need for protecting] “offensive” speech, it is about silencing dissent. And THAT is TRULY offensive.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  AGW is not Science
June 16, 2016 11:01 am

“There is always somebody who will find something offensive.”
I think that was Gabro’s point. If you’re not protecting “offensive” speech, you’re not protecting ANY speech.

John West
June 16, 2016 10:05 am

Dear Mr. Epstein,
Please provide all documents necessary to convict you of laws we’re moments away from making up and prosecuting people for retroactively.
Charges may include but are not limited to:
Disagreeing with an Authoritarian Liberal.
Disparaging a Nobel Laurate.
Thinking Critically.
Basing conclusions on evidence.
Wrong Think.
Failure to salute to the flag of the Anthropocene.
Wrong Speak.
Failure to meet your book burning quota.
Failure to eagerly apply yourself to meeting 10:10 goals.
Failure to uncritically accept pronouncements from post-normal / advocacy scientists.
Failure to supply incriminating evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
The Department of Social Justice

June 16, 2016 10:07 am

Although the “moral case for fossil fuels” is clearly debatable and I could quite easily argue the opposite or, to frame the discussion in a positive sense, the “moral case for expanded use of green technology”, especially when there is a finite supply of fossil fuels remaining and we’re quickly burning through them (pun intended), I have to agree that the Mass. AG clearly overstepped her authority. I also agree that the demand for 40 years of internal company documents and communications is clearly a fishing expedition and that, as a private author, Alex Epstein’s First and Fourth Amendment rights were both infringed in equal measure and that she (the Mass. AG) is abusing her position of power. I would DISAGREE that the corporation he founded does NOT enjoy the protections of the First and Fourth Amendments, contrary to the findings of SCOTUS in ‘Citizens United’.
I thought the following Tweet of his was quite amusing:
“The Massachusetts Attorney General is persecuting @exxonmobil and now me for having opinions she disagrees with”. Seriously, “persecuting ExxonMobil”. This is almost impossible (the ExxonMobil part) or maybe even a contradiction in terms because, if persecution means having them pay for something (oh, like cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez oil spill), its quite neigh impossible (to persecute them). Their 2015 profits were $16.2 B, that’s $44 M/ day; the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989 and, to date, it has cost $7B for the cleanup (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2010/04/30/7620/oil-spills-by-the-numbers ). If we annualize that expense, it works out to be $259 M/ year or $710 K/ day since 1989, a number that is barely 2% of their *daily* profits in 2015 numbers.
One final point, he doesn’t look a day over 40 in that picture (and quite possibly younger) so, since he founded his Think Tank in 2011, exactly what “corporate documents” are the targets of the subpoena since the corporation didn’t exist 40 years ago and he most likely WASN’T EVEN BORN yet? To give him the benefit of the doubt, that ‘s really a question for Ms. Healey.

Reply to  T. Madigan
June 16, 2016 10:11 am

Correction to first paragraph: “I would DISAGREE that the corporation he founded “enjoys” the protections of the First and Fourth Amendments, contrary to the findings of SCOTUS in ‘Citizens United’.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  T. Madigan
June 16, 2016 12:03 pm

If corporations don’t enjoy those rights, the government could shut all media down because they are mostly corporations. A corporation is really just a legal structure for individuals and groups to operate in, and any speech is really an extension of the speech of the individuals or groups that run them. And those individuals and groups DO have that protection. So it makes sense to protect the speech and due process rights of corporations.

Reply to  T. Madigan
June 16, 2016 12:36 pm

So in your learned opinion, a group of individuals operating under a voluntary agreement (a corporation) relinquishes their individual rights upon and because they’ve entered into an agreement.

Reply to  T. Madigan
June 16, 2016 1:01 pm

TM, you and Obama may disagree but Citizen United was decided correctly from a constitutional perspective. Legally, corporations are ‘persons’ which conveys speech and association freedoms. Political contributions are a form of both. Basic 1st Amendment stuff.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  T. Madigan
June 16, 2016 2:23 pm

I am less enthusiastic about regarding corporations as “persons.” The corporation is a creation of law, not of nature, and it is empowered to conduct legal and financial transactions…all the while holding its human initiators and agents as blameless. It is a contrivance to escape legal liability. It seeks rights, but shields its decision-makers from responsibility. This is not a good thing, and they should never be given a say in political matters, for that would be collusion with the regulatory power. The people involved have their own political rights, and that is sufficient for anyone.
And don’t get wroth over the lack of alternatives. Before there were corporations (and excessively greedy shareholders), there were privately-owned businesses and partnerships. A good example of this is General Atomics. Or possibly SpaceX.
I speak as one who has worked for a major corporation for the past 40 years. The more the corporation becomes an uncontrolled juggernaut with a rubber-stamp board of directors and a faceless-mass, greed-motivated body of shareholders, and top executives who are liable to the sins of corruption, cupidity, and stupidity, the less it should be held in esteem.

Martin Hertzberg
June 16, 2016 10:14 am

All the information the MA. Attorney General might need is contained in Epstein’s book: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. But that assumes that she will go to the trouble of reading it and can understand it.

John Robertson
Reply to  Martin Hertzberg
June 16, 2016 2:53 pm

You assume she can read?

June 16, 2016 10:17 am

As far as the inclusion of the 2nd amendment; although incorrect specifically, the attacks on the 2nd amendment and the complaisance that many moderates have towards the inroads on that amendment that are now enshrined in law and precedent were just the tip of the iceberg for a long time on the attack by the left on the Bill of Rights.
If one is successfully attacked and diminished, then all of them are diminished and in danger.
Because the attackers can always come up with a rational seeming argument against their validity. They will always find willing defendants and causes that appear to justify the encroachment on the citizens rights due to some perceived threat or other.
That is how a right is effectively destroyed; by regulating it, by claiming it is outmoded or dangerous and by outright denial that such a right exists.
Remember this the next time you find yourself agreeing with someone on “Gun Control”. All those rights have a purpose, they were felt to be so important that they became the linchpin of the entire document and without their inclusion, the United States would not be what it is today.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  jakee308
June 16, 2016 11:31 am

My favorite retort to the “gun control” crowd is “The first thing Hitler did was take away everyone’s guns.”
“Liberal Fascism” is still Fascism, even when hiding behind the “smiley faces.”

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  jakee308
June 16, 2016 2:30 pm

Hear, hear.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment, some points: (1) The meaning of “shall not be infringed,” for those who are obtuse, is “shall not be regulated.” “Infringe” means to touch upon in any degree, however slight. (2) According to the body of the Constitution, Congress has no enumerated power to make laws to govern the subject of firearms or firearms ownership. (4) Excepting that Congress does have an enumerated DUTY to provision and train the civil militia.
Consider also the implications of any “regulation” of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
June 17, 2016 4:01 am

The 9th and 10th Amendments.
Which, after our congressional Squealers get their pots of white paint, will no doubt read: “Everything that is not mandatory is prohibited. And vice-versa.”

June 16, 2016 10:33 am

Some reaction by ExxonMobil
Note, Under the Clinton Presidency, Exxon and Mobil merged into one company. Mobil was very aggressive in one page editorials in the NY times defending the industry.

Reply to  Catcracking
June 16, 2016 1:06 pm

Read Exxon’s pleadings against Walker’s USVI subpoena, also. Its a series of devastating points. No juridiction, conflict through the DC contingency law firm that actually got the subpoena issued, violation of civil rights under both Texas and Federal law,…

Eyal Porat
June 16, 2016 10:38 am

Taking his response literally could actually be quite fun… 😉

June 16, 2016 10:44 am

An AG has to prove that a company or person’s actions CAUSE HARM to their constituency before they’re allowed to make such a demand.

Reply to  prjindigo
June 16, 2016 12:08 pm

The theory is that there was harm caused to EXXON’s shareholders.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
June 16, 2016 1:08 pm

Dumb theory. The stock has been very good to shareholders. Falsely claiming CAGW certainty when there is none implies mitigation measures that would send the stock down and harm shareholders. That is where Schneiderman will trip up.

June 16, 2016 10:47 am

Some people in the state must think their self righteousness out weighs the law. They must think climate science has been settled and any contrary view has been outlawed by all 3 branches of government.

Todd Foster
June 16, 2016 10:57 am

From mere political correctness it’s come to ideological correctness and government force demands that you prove you are not tainted. I’m voting straight Libertarian from now on.

Reply to  Todd Foster
June 16, 2016 11:34 am

to bad the libertarian party ticket this go round isn’t even close to being libertarian.

June 16, 2016 11:25 am

Welcome to the do not fly list.

Major Meteor
June 16, 2016 11:43 am

CAGW is like a state sponsored religion. If you don’t agree with them, you get prosecuted. Bow down and kiss the ring of Gaia!

June 16, 2016 12:13 pm

US 4th Amendment from English law:
Entick vs Carrington (1765). Lord Camden’s ruling:
“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment”
Human rights and civil liberties, from nearly 350 years ago.
Check out Frank Turner (English folk/punk singer) and his song “Sons of Liberty” from the album Poetry of the Deed, especially the lyrics at the end of the song. Same sentiment.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 17, 2016 4:13 pm

Frank Turner – “Sons of Liberty”

Harry Passfield
June 16, 2016 1:04 pm

Please make sure you post any response to that succinct rebuttal, AW.

June 16, 2016 1:52 pm

Attorney General Maura Healey’s action is far more vulgar and profane to the rule of law than Alex Epstein was to public language.

Michael Spurrier
June 16, 2016 1:53 pm

Goodbye lol and rofl, hello fof

Reply to  Michael Spurrier
June 16, 2016 6:38 pm

spread the meme!
– TNDbay

June 16, 2016 3:13 pm

Describing Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey as a “fascist” looks like fair comment to me.
He was also correct to ask her to “Foxtrot Oscar”

June 16, 2016 3:57 pm

I avoid that F word as it demeans sexual intercourse, I’ve told Gutsy Alex that. In general I support him. I understand he is writing an article/letter.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
June 17, 2016 4:13 am

Bad words were made for bad things.

Johann Wundersamer
June 16, 2016 4:01 pm

Fuck off, fascist.
3 words, 13 alphanumericals. Stoic sumup of 40 years thoughtless small talk.

June 16, 2016 4:32 pm

It is good to visit History for some guidelines when thugs come a-knocking.

Reply to  hunter
June 17, 2016 1:54 am

@hunter: “Nuts!” – Stole my thunder, fair and square.
Just some added information from a student of WWII: “Nuts!” was rumored to be the ‘G’ rated, or 1944 newspaper printable, version of General McAuliffe’s response to the Nazis. This is one of those proverbial “between the lines” of written history. In other words, General McAuliffe’s, ‘real,’ reply had a very high probability of being similar to Alex Epstein’s.

Evan Jones
Reply to  PaleoSapiens
June 17, 2016 4:18 am

“Balls,” said the queen, “If I had to, I’d be king.” (etc.)

Reply to  PaleoSapiens
June 18, 2016 12:37 am

Addition –
After doing further, Internet, research it seems General McAuliffe was one of the few non-profane commanders in the U.S. Army (according to one of his aides). Also, an article, on an official U.S. Army web page ( https://www.army.mil/article/92856 ), written by his nephew, Kenneth J. McAuliffe Jr., insists the “Nuts!” reply is accurate.
A believable account, based on hearsay and unverified data, from biased sources….sound familiar?…

June 16, 2016 4:35 pm

And of course Woody Allen should have been thinking of this witch wen he gave a great performance:

June 16, 2016 4:37 pm

“Color of Law” is a FELONY found somewhere in book 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The b***** needs to be thrown into JAIL for years as a felon. We won’t regain our rights otherwise.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
June 17, 2016 3:36 pm

I believe that is US Code (USC, not “Code of Federal Regulations”), specifically, TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242.
These (the US Code) are the statues congress passes as opposed to regulations (CFR) drawn up by various federal bureaus …

Reply to  _Jim
June 17, 2016 4:07 pm

“Statutes.” Doh.

Ken Andrews
June 16, 2016 7:47 pm

My congratulations to WUWT for publishing word for word Alex Epstein’s response to the Mass. Attorney General. It’s about time we name the ugly ideology that drives these despicable people – fascist!

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Ken Andrews
June 16, 2016 10:12 pm

“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.” – Wikipedia
Why didn´t we recognize it?
Kudos to Alex Epstein

Jean Paul Zodeaux
June 16, 2016 7:49 pm

“I don’t usually go for this sort of language…”
Yeah, I don’t much like the word “fascist” either.

H. Skip Robinson
June 16, 2016 11:46 pm

Succinct, to the point and truthful. How can that be bad? A fascist is a person who is willing to acquiesce not only his own morays but the rights of others for personal gain. Almost all fascists work for some level of government or are in collusion with them to transfer the taxpayers money into their own pockets or that of their cronies. I like to call them the thieves that try to steal the wealth of a nation and will use unethical and unconstitutional means to accomplish it. Crony capitalism is a much gentler form of the word, meant to erroneous infer that capitalism is a part of the problem when it is the nation state that is. [pruned. .mod]
[Off topic, unless you also want to compare the hundreds of billions sent every year to those who violently oppose that lobby. .mod]

June 17, 2016 1:43 pm

Healy needs a refresher course on the Constitution. This type of fishing expedition, esp. when freedom of expression is the target, is expressly prohibited. She should in fact be disbarred for exceeding her authority, violating her oath of office, and just generally being stupid. Just because Obama gets away with ignoring his oath of office and the Constitution doesn’t mean that every liberal dingdong can do the same.

June 17, 2016 3:32 pm

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey – May a giant bird of paradise fly up your nose.
May an elephant caress you with his toes. and then F off you sniveling arrogant fascist elitist!

Reply to  TG
June 19, 2016 6:16 pm

June 17, 2016 5:05 pm

I’d have made it ~ Frack off, fascist ~

June 18, 2016 4:40 pm

I usually refer to Democrats as “socialists”. Pretty soon I’m going to have to switch to “fascists”.
The fascist tactic of persecution by warmunist AGs, the college and BLM shout-down tactics, and the takeover of industries by regulation (energy, finance, medicine, the over-regulation of food production and processing, education) are hallmarks of government virtual takeover of the large parts of the private sector.
In addition whole industries have been snatched up – mortgages, student loans, flood insurance, agricultural subsidies to control large segment of farm production. Government have a monopoly on education, about 85% of all K-12 and about 80% of all colleges.

Reply to  RedBaker
June 18, 2016 5:31 pm

I consider Dems across the board guilty of crimes against reality .

June 25, 2016 3:38 am

Paket Umroh Murah 2016 I Satriani Wisata I 021 4601175
Paket Umroh Murah , dengan biaya yang terjangkau mulai dari $ 1.600,
tersedia paket bintang 3, 4, 5 serta VIP. cek info lengkapnya

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights