When It Comes To Global Warming We Don't Need No Stinkin' First Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

I expect there may be a "climate change" advocate or two that will not like what I have to say here. In my honest opinion the entire "global warming" scenario is fraudulent.  Thank heavens I don't live in California after having just said that--i might be liable to imprisonment for that statement. I have dared to question the theology of the global warming faith. Oh horrors! While I am far from an expert on the subject, I have read enough over the past few years from reputable scientists that have the same doubts that I have about the theology of global warming. To paraphrase--There is one god, the state, and the global warming scientists are his prophets.

What makes me have even graver doubts is that this is not a subject open to debate by its adherents. They are almost unanimous in their desire to stifle all dissent and when I see someone trying to silence all debate on any given subject my first inclination is to doubt their position because, if they were honest,  they would not fear healthy debate. The fact that the climate change crowd wants to silence any and all dissent from their dogmatic views leads me to believe that their position  will not stand up to any real scrutiny and that is the reason they seek to silence their opposition. The adherents of global warming (climate change) want no voices out there on this subject but theirs, which fact, by itself, shows that their position is not legitimate.

And in the state of California they are taking legislative steps to insure that no position but theirs is heard--even to the violation of the First Amendment. But then, as long as they get to promote their agenda, who cares is someone else's  First Amendment rights to publicly and openly disagree are abrogated?

According to an article on http://www.patdollard.com  "The first-of-its-kind legislation--Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016--is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May. The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the states Unfair Competition Law...While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a 'totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead'."

So, in California, if you support any group in favor of using all forms of energy, including oil, or even if you have written a letter to the editor of your local paper favoring drilling for oil, you may well have broken this potential new law and the CCP (Climate Change Patrol) will be out to nail your hide to the wall. That would violate your First Amendment rights, you say? Do you honestly think that the people that run Washington (the ones behind your elected officials--the "shadow government" really give a rip about your rights? Disabuse yourself of that fantasy right now. We are currently living in Soviet Amerika where your "rights" are what the feds say they are, until they change their minds, which could happen momentarily.  So what is okay today could land you in the slammer tomorrow. If they pull this off in California you can bet the farm it will be tried in other places too.

Never forget, we now have a president whose avowed (although he's not real "transparent" about it) agenda is the destruction of the Second Amendment. If he can manage to gut that, or even if he can't and Hillary has to finish the job when she ascends the royal throne, how will you protect any rights you have? Lose the right to defend yourselves and your families and all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights become little more than words on a piece of old parchment and you can light your cigar with the Bill of Rights, (if you are even allowed to smoke anymore) because, after all cigar smoke might contribute to global warming.

People had better start turning off those reality shows and start keeping an eye on what their state legislators are doing because, and let's don't kid ourselves here, lots of our legislators would sell out our rights in a New York minute for a mess of socialist pottage. So wake up and learn to be vigilant. The liberties you preserve may be your childrens'.

Planned Parenthood and Federal Threats

by Al Benson Jr.

It's not unusual to see the federal government doing what it does best, threatening the states if they refuse to comply with federal edicts. This is, after all, what the centralizers and collectivists in Washington, the District of Corruption, live for. It makes their day if they can find some way, somehow, to stomp on states rights today.

Thus, when two states, Louisiana and Alabama, have sought to defund Planned Parenthood, this is something the feds can't afford to let pass. Notice these two states are both in the South.

In an article on www.reuters.com for August 12th it was stated that: The U.S. government has warned states moving to defund women's health group Planned Parenthood that they may be in conflict with federal law, officials said Wednesday." The article reiterated  this same line a couple paragraphs later with commentary from the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS). Reuters noted that "The agency warned those two states that their plans to terminate Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood may illegally restrict beneficiary access to services, the spokesman said in a statement." In other words, you may be in violation of federal statutes that allow the murder of unborn babies if you restrict the "rights" of mothers to use this group to help them murder their unborn children.

Gary North, in an article on lewrockwell.com for August 19th noted that the operative word in use here is may. You may be in violation of some federal statute, but if you may, there is also a 50-50 chance that you may not. So this is a (at this point) thinly veiled threat by the Washington bureaucrats to the states that they better not try this. After all when it comes to murdering babies the federal government should have the final say and heaven help those states that really don't want to go along.

Now I hate to sound like a rabble-rouser, but I would dearly love to see another batch of states decide that they had had enough of Planned Parenthood's policy of murdering babies and marketing the baby parts. Will the feds decide to prosecute 15 or 16 states if they decide to adopt such a policy?

I can just hear some pompous federal bureaucrat dumping all over various states because they are not willing to pay for the murder and resale of unborn children (and they ARE children, even if unborn). However, the "law" that allows for the murder of unborn children is not nearly as old as the one that says Thou shalt not kill  (Exodus 20:13). And the two laws obviously have two different and opposite sources. And now the federal government may prosecute states that choose to follow the Commandment rather than the federal edict.

Some of those  in the insane race for president have stated that would look into what Planned Parenthood has been doing if elected. Which means, in plain English, that they want the pro-life vote so they will give the appearance of being concerned until the election is over.  I'm sorry, but at this point, I don't trust any of them.

The Reuters article noted also that: "Anti-abortion activists said that a sixth video, released on Wednesday, shows  Planned Parenthood doctors sell(ing) aborted fetal tissue to researchers without the mother's permission." And of course Planned Parenthood still maintains it has done nothing wrong. The blood of those unborn children, crying out from their graves, gives the lie to that absurdity and the people at Planned Parenthood who willingly participate in these murders will answer to the Lord for these lives.

In the meantime, other states that would like to defund Planned Parenthood should go ahead and take that action and make that statement. For if there is a chance that they may be in violation of federal statutes, there is also the chance that they may not.  And either way, it is the right thing to do.