I’d like you to consider something. It’s from Government Accountability & Oversight P.C.(GOA), a tax-exempt charity under section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code, which is not an agency of the federal, state, or local government. Under the headline, “Transparency Group Sues Biden White House Over ‘Climate Disinformation’ Records”, GOA published this:
Government transparency group Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) filed suit on Thursday against the Biden White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy’s refusal to produce correspondence pertaining to one of an increasing number of initiatives to combat opposition to the administration’s political agenda as “disinformation.”
I’ll translate that for you: If you disagree with the administration’s narrative about climate change or anything else for that matter, the free-speech rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution the administration swore to uphold are null, void, and fuggedaboudit.
The requested records will inform the public of high-profile ethics revelations at OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy] and media coverage thereof, and also the genesis of a tendentious event and campaign out of OSTP … seeking to counter political opposition, one of many Biden administration initiatives seeking to do so by styling opposition as “disinformation” (“deliberate disinformation campaigns that are as insidious as they are invidious” … The public deserves to know, without further delay, the genesis of the aforementioned tendentious effort.”
Even if you’re not interested in your First Amendment rights — and even if you’re inclined to take at face value whatever you’re told by the government, by faux scientists, or by anyone else — this should trouble you deeply. And it should make you wonder.
If you happen to think I’m nuts (never out of the question), you should still be curious about some things. Here are just a few:
Why would anyone telling and confident in the truth — an individual, let alone a government — have to label anything as disinformation? What might it be hiding? What might it be afraid of? Why should it hide or be afraid of anything? Why wouldn’t a government of officials, duly elected by citizens to represent their interests, want to be transparent, to entertain disparate perspectives, and to present and defend its own perspectives, rather than to stifle free speech? What does stonewalling those who are supposed to be represented represent?
Those are not rhetorical questions, kids. We have the right to ask them. And we have a right to know the answers.
All we need is the informed interest and the political will to ask them.
The administration’s deliberate opacity is painfully transparent.
How about now? Can we be angry now?