Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Presidential Debates Work Better If the Moderator Doesn't Help the Democrat

by Al Benson Jr.

Presidential debates are hardly my favorite source of entertainment or of information for that matter. Elections are often fraudulent and rigged and so are presidential debates. They are part of what has been dubbed "political theater" by Lew Rockwell. In fact he has a section on his web site www.lewrockwell.com called "political theater."

On our way into church last Sunday morning one of our church members asked me something to the effect of "Do you plan to watch the political mockery tomorrow night?" I can't disagree with his assessment. I've watched enough political debates over the years to know that they are hardly instruments of revealed truth.

If you have two candidates, one of which is supposed to be conservative and patriotic while the other one is a screaming cultural Marxist, you have to know going in, that the moderator and the cultural Marxist are going to work together and gang up on the conservative. It's standard operating procedure. They did it to Mitt Romney when he debated Comrade Obama before the 2012 election charade, not that Romney was any kind of real conservative, but, bad as he was, he made chopped liver out of Obama in their first debate. Obama didn't have his teleprompter and without that he was dead in the water. He had four or five stock lines and all he could do throughout the debate (not possessing an original thought of his own) was to find different ways of restating those stock lines. In their second debate you can be sure the teleprompter was there and the moderator helped Obama carry the debate load with his commentary. By this time Romney knew the game and just played along--the loyal "opposition" as it were.

I hadn't planned on watching this current charade but a friend living in the town I live in invited me over to his house to watch it. When he had lived in the North he had belonged to the Tea Party and so I figured he's pretty much be on the same page as I was, and he is.

And the debate between Trump and "Hillary the unindicted" was a carbon copy of most of the ones I have watched previously. The moderator, Lester Holt bent over backwards to give Hillary as much help as he could possibly give without totally giving himself away and he badgered Trump as much as he could get by with and gave Hillary as much extra time to present her points as he could while restricting Trump to his allotted time. Mr. Holt was in Hillary's corner and that was plain to see. Objective he was not and even his pretense of it was shallow.

Noted libertarian author Tom DiLorenzo had it figured out also and he noted in brief commentary on www.lewrockwell.com that Hillary's running mate had said that: "He hopes the moderator, Lester Holt, will expose Trump's 'lies' while at the same time giving Hitlery time to express her 'vision' for America."

He further said: "This is a warning to Lester Holt from the Clinton Crime Family: Don't do what Matt Lauer did and ask questions and then let the candidate respond to the questions. Badger him, challenge everything he says, insinuate that he is a liar or a buffoon (or better yet, both), interrupt him, while allowing Queen Hitlery to be her good old visionary self. Or else, Lester." I would say Lester responded to the prompting quite well. He was going to make sure he didn't end up being chopped liver.

And so "Queen Hitlery" made her points for her vision for America (no guns for Americans but lots of aliens (preferably illegal) for Americans, although she didn't quite say it that way. If you have learned to understand Marxist doublespeak you know what she was talking about. It was almost as if Mr. Trump had been cautioned not to fight back, a persona that is at odds with where he usually is. I hope this was just a learning experience for him and not something worse, because if it ends up being something worse then you can kiss the country goodbye, and your God-given liberties will be chopped liver.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Welcome to (almost) "Free Mississippi"

by Al Benson Jr.

Welcome to (almost, but not quite) free Mississippi, where your state flag is not welcome on college campuses and where you can be threatened with arrest if you dare to carry it on campus. The folks that run many of these colleges and universities, not only in Mississippi but in other parts of the country as well are cultural Marxists, which means, in plain language that they are often the "nice" Marxists. They won't cut your throat but they will try to steal your kids' heritage from them. And if they happen to work at a state college then you are paying them to do this with your tax money. Comforting thought isn't it?

So the state flag is no longer welcome at Ole Miss and other places in Mississippi as well. But the people that run many of these centers of "education" would be more than willing to have Communist flags on campus, or flags representing the black liberation movement or the transgender movement. This, they believe, would demonstrate their penchant for "diversity" or multi-culturalism or whatever they are calling their particular brand of prejudice nowadays. I'm sure that when folks start to catch on they will change the names again.

I remember, years ago now, a school I knew about on the East Coast (the original Left Coast) brought in an identified Communist to teach the kids committed to their charge how to do "community organizing." When a local pastor called them on that they told him "We like to expose our students to all different viewpoints." Of course having someone from the John Birch Society in to lecture the students would never, and I mean never, have occurred to them. They wanted to be diverse but not THAT diverse!

Same situation in Mississippi. The educational elders in many of these schools welcome diversity, as long as it is a diversity from the left. The right is not worth mentioning--and they don't, anymore than they are forced to except to scream about how those on the right are all "racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamaphobes, and "deplorables." Sound familiar? The erstwhile candidate that is running (maybe not as fast as she used to) on the Democratic ticket could have taken her speech about us deplorables from most any college president in the country. But it gives you a really good view of what these folks thinks of us ordinary folks, and it ain't much, but then you already knew that.

So the kids at the University of Mississippi are free to go to the football games as long as they don't take their state flag in with them or as long as they don't bring in a sign requesting that the band play Dixie. The kids could walk in with almost anything else and it wouldn't be nearly as reprehensible as these two items. You have to know that your world has really been turned upside down when your state flag is banned on campus. The Communist Hammer & Sickle would be welcomed but the Mississippi state flag is not. If you are paying attention at all this has to tell you something, and if you're not paying attention then maybe you should be.

Lots of kids showed up with Mississippi state flags for last Saturday's football game at the University of Mississippi--and had them confiscated by campus police. According to an article on http://dailycaller.com "Students who had their flags taken away by police--along with signs declaring 'Let The Band Play Dixie'--said they were threatened with arrest if they did not give them up." So at the University of Mississippi you can be arrested for displaying your state flag. I tell you, folks, that's real progress, a sign of true "liberty" but for who? Certainly not for ordinary Mississippians. How long will it be before flying your state flag on your own property will be forbidden? Don't laugh--it's not as far fetched as it sounds. And if the folks in Mississippi don't stand up and resist this damn-foolishness it may well come to that.

I noted one positive event at the university's football game last week--a whole batch of students got together and unfurled a 20' by 30' Mississippi state flag in the student section. Someone sent me a photo of it on Facebook and it had to have caught someone's attention as big as it was, but it also showed that those students who held it up there for everyone to see must still have had some pride in and thankfulness for their state flag and its heritage. I don't know if the police eventually confiscated this one or if someone managed to sneak it out wrapped in their jacket or not but it was good to see the picture. It showed that, at some level, not quite all the students had bought into this cultural Marxism that is so cloyingly present on so many campuses, even in the South. With the Lord's help and guidance there may yet be hope, but the battle is far from over and far from won. And those who want to preserve their heritage, faith, and culture need to learn to "keep the skeer on" because you can bet our adversaries plan on doing that.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Flag Sickness Among the Politically Correct

by Al Benson Jr.

On September 10th there was a Confederate flag rally at the state capitol in Jackson, Mississippi to garner signatures  for Initiative 58, which is a worthwhile effort to keep Mississippi's State Flag as it is and to deny the cultural Marxists, in the future, the chance to tinker around with it until they remake it into some ghastly leftist perversion that no one could even look at before breakfast.

Interestingly enough just a few days before that, on September 8th I think, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that would have declared the Confederate emblem on the state flag as "an unconstitutional relic of slavery."

The suit had been filed by Grenada, Mississippi lawyer Carlos Moore who  stated that the state's flag literally made him ill. The judge, although sympathetic to Moore, was at least honest enough to dismiss his plea. The judge stated: "Moore's arguments are phrased as constitutional claims, yet his allegations of physical injuries suggest that he is making an emotional distress tort claim.  To succeed in constitutional litigation, however, Moore needs to identify that part of the Constitution which guarantees a legal right to be free from anxiety at State displays of historical racism. There is none." Although I have no doubt someone will now introduce one somewhere down the line.

This has now become a tactic of the cultural Marxists in Mississippi and elsewhere. "Confederate flags not only offend me but they make me physically ill, so you need to take them down so I don't keep getting sick from seeing them." If it were not so pitiful it would be ludicrous. So now everyone is supposed to haul their Confederate flag in because just the sight of one makes the cultural Marxists deathly sick. How long will it be before the sight of the Stars and Stripes also makes them sick?

This is  a ploy with the cultural Marxists to destroy your culture in stages and most folks still don't get it.
In South Carolina they complained about the Confederate Flag on the flagpole at the state house years ago and they finally, with the finagling of some state legislators, got it removed and put up in a different spot at the state house, lower down so not as many people would be forced to view it. Less cultural Marxist illness that way I guess. It wasn't long before they were complaining about the new location for the flag. Too many people could still see it! But it was a location they had agreed to, but now the flag was still too prominent and they continued to grouse about it until the shooting of those black folks in the church in Charleston, at which point their turncoat governor did what they had wanted all along and took it down completely. Her name should be mud in South Carolina politics. There are still questions about that shooting and the "spontaneous" outburst all across the country to get rid of Confederate flags and monuments. Some of us feel that maybe it wasn't all quite as "spontaneous" as it was made out to be. However, now that the flag is down in South Carolina all the cultural Marxists in that state should be in grand health--until the next item on their agenda comes along.

So now this Mississippi lawyer wants the State Flag down because it makes him "sick."  And he's also afraid of the emotional damage it will cause his daughter when she sees it flying at the public school she attends. All I can say is that these black cultural Marxists today must be a pretty fragile group! Their ancestors seem to have handled things a lot better than they do. All they have to do nowadays is see something or hear something they don't like and instantly they become physically and/or emotionally ill and whatever they have decided they don't like is supposed to be removed immediately if not sooner. Sorry folks, I hate to burst your Marxist bubble, but it ain't always gonna work that way. You better get used to that. Somewhere along the way when you want a flag or something taken down because you claim it "offends" you someone is going to say "no, it's part of my heritage and culture and I'm not taking it down because you don't like it." So you will just have to learn to live with lots of stuff you don't like just the same as the rest of us do. That's the real world! Of course you can always appeal to weak-kneed politicians to pass laws that give you what you want, but at some point they won't be there and someone who will stand up for principle just might be. What will you do them--try to tear down and steal the Confederate Flag you don't like in your neighborhood and possibly risk getting shot doing it? I can just hear your defense in court now--"He's a racist because he wouldn't let me tear down his Confederate Flag because I didn't like it. It made me sick."

That old saw is going to wear real thin with juries after awhile.

To the cultural Marxists out there I will say this--you may accomplish a lot of what you want but you will never get all of what you want. There is a core of Southern and Confederate patriotic folks out there who will not give in to your  ludicrous Marxist demands for them to dismantle their culture to make you happy.
In fact some I have seen lately have become increasingly ticked off at your demands that they trash their heritage to keep you happy and I doubt that some will be pushed much further. I realize, being what you are--cultural Marxists--you won't quit--but then neither will some of them. Just something for you to think about.

Thursday, September 01, 2016

Insurance For Hillary To Win (even if she doesn't)

by Al Benson Jr.

To anyone with the ability to think it has to be obvious that the Ruling CFR/Trilateral Establishment is concerned over the possibility that Trump might really win this next presidential election and so they are busy putting into place all the contingencies possible to make sure that will not happen (even if he wins). If fact the federal scenario might well read "even if he wins he loses."

I noted yesterday an article from The Washington Examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com that told us that the Dept. of Homeland Security is eying a "special declaration to take charge of the elections."
Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson smirked as he said: "There's a vital interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure." Critical for who--Hillary?

I mean, let's don't kid ourselves, do we really think, in light of all the federal foolishness regarding Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation and all the rest, that a Dept. of Homeland Security that is stuffed full of Obama appointees is going to labor to give us an honest, unbiased election result? If we honestly think that we are beyond gullible--and probably beyond any reasonable help. The FBI couldn't find it in their hearts to indict Hillary despite all the evidence, the leaks and all the rest--and we expect an "unbiased" election return from Homeland Security??? C'mon folks, get real! I fear that all we will get from these people is an agenda to ensure that Hillary's coronation will take place officially no matter who gets how many votes. If you wonder why I take such a negative view of all this, try over 150 years of government lies to the public that I know about, and others know even more than me.

And to make sure they are able to continue to lie to us, with no competition from any truthful source, they plan to sign away control of the Internet at the end of this month. And, according to some arcane law, they have to assign it to some "governing body" which will most likely be the United Nations or some derivitive thereof. Notice all this takes place before the election so that whatever source feeds us our election returns will be under the control of some international body. Once the Internet is gone where do you go for independent and alternative news? Most likely you don't, and we will be right back where we were before the Internet, looking to the prostitute press controlled by the Establishment to get whatever news they feel is in our (and their) "best interests."

So what happens to all those web sites and blog spots that have proliferated in recent years that tell us all the stuff that the government would rather we be ignorant of? Do you need to ask? Down the "memory hole" folks, because you don't need to know this stuff. And the Establishment is going to make darned sure you don't.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Agenda 21, the South, and then the rest!

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back I talked to a man that lives just down the street from us. He has bought some property out on the bayou and when he retires he'd like to move out there, put up a little house, and do some fishing. I wish him well, but if the United Nations, our federal government, and their economic "planners" have their way (and unfortunately they usually do) it will never happen.

Their plan for this man, and for the rest of us, is not that any of us own any private property anywhere out in the country or anywhere else no matter how much we might like to. The glorious plan for all of us, unless we wake up, is a little two-by-twice apartment in some big city mega-complex along with everybody else where we are limited to traveling within the confines of the city we have been assigned to. No automobiles or pickup trucks any further than the city they assign us to because if we do anymore than that it strains the "economic sustainability" of our state, the country, and the entire world--and so we must be severely limited in everything we do (and say and think) for the environmental "good" of the entire world. If you are tempted to do a little reading (before it becomes outlawed)  check out some of the sources where you see this term "economic sustainability" on the Internet or in the "news" media and you will be looking at sources, people, articles, that have been strongly influenced by the United Nations Agenda 21 program.

You say you've never heard of that? I'm not surprised. It's not exactly a priority for the "news" people unless they are encouraging different states, cities, etc. to sign up and become part of it. Other than that they seem to "know nothing" about it. In an article this size there is no way I can give you everything. The best I can do is to try to hit a few high spots for you that will, hopefully, encourage you to start checking out just what Agenda 21 is on your own.

I started assembling a file of articles on this United Nations aberration  awhile back. Anything having to do with the United Nations concerns me because this is the group that is supposed to lead the way into the glories of One World Government for the planet. If you want to find out where the United Nations is going check out the background of a man named Alger Hiss on the Internet.

I found a very informative article on http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com from back on March 24, 2014 which said, in part, that: "Agenda 21 is based around the idea that a world-wide system must be set up, to save the planet from humans, which are destroying it with their cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all around high standards of living. The planners of the Agenda want to have complete control over all the resources in the world, in order to implement 'sustainable' or 'smart' growth, which includes the reduction of the standard of living of people in first world countries. For this plan to work, people must be made to believe that a reduction of their standard of living is good, and is being done to protect the environment, preserve resources for the next generation, reduce carbon emission, prevent climate change, and other wonderful sounding goals...To achieve the environmental goals of Agenda 21, one of the actions that needs to be taken by governments throughout the world, is to move people off of their privately-owned land and into special collectively-owned communities..." Any of this sound familiar to any of you? It's little more than an updated version of the "workers paradise" they had in the Soviet Union before Communism supposedly fell--and it's all a pile of bovine fertilizer!

No private property, no land, especially no guns, (you won't need them in the city anyway) and no freedom to travel. Your car or pickup truck will have been "confiscated" for the public good because you will have no freedom to travel, actually no freedom for much of anything. Oh yes, you will be totally free to obey all the UN and federal edicts--or else! What a Kountry!!!

The article quoted above is not the only sources for this information. Writer Henry Lamb says in Agenda 21--What Is It? How Did It Get Here  that: "(Agenda 21) is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection,social equity, and what is called 'sustainable' economic development. At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles." Doesn't that sound warm and fuzzy?

Even an article in The Blaze, which I don't always agree with by any means, got this one right.  It noted that support for Agenda 21 didn't come only from the United Nations.  It also came from "wealthy donors like billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society gave ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) a $2.1 million grant in 1997 to support its local Agenda 21 Project. The financing was used to promote the project in the United States." You have to wonder how much of the UN propaganda is promoted in public schools in this country. Well, actually you don't. Just look up UNESCO on the Internet and see what they do regarding public schools in this country. You won't be pleased. I can recall seeing tons of pro-Un stuff in public school when I went, and that is a long, long time ago. I have no sane reason to suppose  the volume of it has slowed given the Marxist predilections  of our federal government.

So what does this mean for the South (and for the country as a whole for that matter)? It means that if this monstrosity ever gets enacted my friend up the street can kiss his retirement home out on the bayou goodbye. He will be informed by some federal commissar that he will be much better off living in a miniature apartment in the local ghetto with the rest of the proles. His pickup truck?  He won't need it, he won't be going much of anyplace anymore. His guns? Forget those! The entire country will be one huge "gun free zone" except for the feds and their friends in the underworld. Fishing? Don't make me laugh! Where will he fish--in the gutters of the streets in his ghetto after we've had a toad strangler? His private property out on the bayou will have been "awarded" to some apparatchik from the UN as a reward for keeping ordinary folks away from it.

Folks, maybe you ought to consider checking out some of the stuff on the Internet regarding Agenda 21. A couple good sites to start off with are www.whatisagenda21.net  and  www.thenewamerican.com  especially an article by Alex Newman back in May, 2013. Oh you will find some sites out there that will "laud and magnify" the United Nations and all it seeks to do,but if you are discerning you will be able to come up with some of those that tell you the real truth. And as for your Confederate flags and your "Don't Tread on Me" flags--forget those. There will be no place in the local ghetto for such things. In fact if people sit around long enough and work hard at doing nothing, there won't even be a faint memory of such things anymore--and everyone will learn to love Big Brother, whether he lives in Washington or New York, or both.

Saturday, August 06, 2016

Evolution and Spiritualism--Darwin and Wallace

by Al Benson Jr.

I can remember, years back now, hearing a preacher in West Virginia talk about evolution.  He was, as they say "agin it" and he gave some pretty fair country reasons for his position. One thing he said that I never forgot was that the theory of evolution absolves man from any accountability to God for his actions. If man is nothing more than a highly "evolved" animal then he is accountable to no one for his actions, no matter how good or evil they may be. He is just doing what "comes naturally" since he has no creator. If that's the case, you have to wonder why so many people get mad over what Hitler and Stalin did. If they are responsible to no one and to no God then how can anyone condemn their actions? The Illuminist forebears  of the perpetrators of the French Revolution were absolutely shocked at the thought that they might, somehow, be responsible for their actions.The very thought was anathema to them.

So you can see that, among those that do not care to be judged for their deeds, that the theory (and it is only a theory) of evolution would have a particular appeal.

You always hear about "Darwin's theory of evolution" but the "history" books, if such they can even be called anymore don't say much about Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, who might well be called Darwin's alter ego.

According to an article on http://evolution.berkeley.edu  Darwin and Wallace worked together on a theory they had both come up with independently. Darwin started working on his "natural selection" theory in the 1830s and kept at it for about twenty years, during which time he "corresponded briefly" with Wallace. At a certain point, Wallace decided to ask Darwin's help to publish his own ideas about evolution, so he sent Darwin a copy of his theory in 1858, which, "to Darwin's shock, nearly replicated Darwin's own." This is about where most histories stop.  There is, however, a little more information about Dr. Wallace we should all be aware of--and maybe that's why it's usually left out.

According to the informative book To The Victor Go The Myths And Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson, Spiritualism played a part in all this. Mr. Thompson notes, on page 203, that: "Spiritualism began in the U.S. and spread to Britain among the Owenites. One of England's most prominent spiritualists was Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace.  He was the co-originator with Darwin on the natural selection theory of evolution.  Wallace was also involved in socialist theory and activism. His youthful education that started him on this path included reading the works of Robert Owen and Thomas Paine. In other words, there was a socialist influence on the development of the theory of Darwin, and it was tied to spiritualism."

Ann Braude in Radical Spirits, on page 158, confirms Wallace's ties to spiritualism when she writes: "In 1876, Alfred Russel Wallace's defense of Spiritualism from the chair of the Anthropological Section of the British Association made it an issue in the transatlantic scientific community."

Mr. Thompson, in his book, made another interesting observation on page 262 where he said: "Since all Marxists profess a belief in Darwin, it is strange that people do not see through the rhetoric advocating justice for all races embodied in communist organizations' propaganda. How can Marxists advocate equality when they believe in a Darwinian system that says that all men are not equal? It becomes obvious that Marxist leaders are lying about what they stand for in order to enlist the gullible, bleeding-heart activist."

Now I am no expert on all the in's and out's of evolution. Some folks I know have probably forgotten more about it than I will ever know, but just looking at this background would make the whole proposition a little dicey for me. As a Christian I can't buy evolution because it leaves God and our responsibility to Him out. The church my wife and I attend doesn't believe it either. I realize that, among the "scientific" community that makes us anachronisms or Neanderthals or whatever. Well, that's tough. I've been called worse and I expect to be again--just don't call me late for supper!

When you add all this together--the spiritualist and socialist influence, then this becomes the shakiest of propositions. Anything with spiritualist and socialist connections does not bode well for Christians or for the Church and when you look at the fact that some form of Darwin's theory is, basically, the only theory allowed to be discussed in government schools you have to realize that the fact they are not willing to debate or discuss anything else means that this theory is the accepted socialist dogma they plan to teach your kids. That thought, alone would make me, if I still had school age children, want to secede from the public school system. So think about all of this--and more importantly, pray about it.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

"The Fix Is In"

by Al Benson Jr.

Back in January of 2015 I did an article for my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com entitled "Has the Next President Already Been Chosen?" It went into the fact that the One World Government group, the Bilderbergers, had already chosen Hillary Clinton to be the next president of this country, no matter what the voters said. Their sentiments were/are not important and so the culturally Marxist agenda is for Hillary to be enthroned in the White House--no matter what. That article has gotten more viewership than any other article in the last year and a half so it must have resonated with somebody out there. If it turns out that I am wrong and Trump wins by some fluke no one will be happier than I am and in this one case I won't mind having been wrong, in fact I will be quite satisfied at having been wrong.

That's not to say that I think Mr. Trump is the perfect candidate. I am not really crazy about his vice-presidential choice, though I have to admit it's better than Newt Gingrich who was simply awful, but it's better only by degrees.

Today someone sent me a short message to the extent that Reuters had changed the numbers on a recent poll to indicate a loss of 17 points for Trump, and naturally the "news" ( I laugh whenever I use that term) media has shown a 7 point jump for Hillary. I can't verify the Reuters info at this point, so for me it's just a report, not fact yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be accurate. If Hillary is slated to win, no matter what, then us boobs out here in flyover country have to be psychologically prepared to accept that without too much fuss and what better way to do that than fudging on poll numbers?

At first I felt that I was almost the only one that considered that the upcoming election might be won with "creative voting" techniques. But then, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? How many voting precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2012 had their votes tallied and showed that Romney never got a single vote in their precincts? And the Republican establishment never once complained? You'd have thought in some of these precincts that there would have been at least one grumpy old man that would have voted for Romney, but, no, it didn't happen--so they tell us. Do I believe it? Do pigs fly? I wonder how many names on the voting rolls you could have found duplicated at local cemeteries. Obama was supposed to win, no matter what--and the Republican establishment went right along with it. They were, indeed, the "loyal"opposition!

Turns out, however, that I am not the only one with a suspicious mind. Today someone sent me an article from SHTFplan.com  written by Mac Slavo and entitled No One Can Stop Her...And She Knows It: "This Election Won't Be Fair"

Mr. Slavo noted, quite accurately I think,  that: "In a fair election, my best estimate is that Donald Trump would win in a landslide. But this election will not be fair, few of them are." Can't argue with him there, either. Slavo referred to the Democratic Convention and its results as "Hillary's coronation" and he said the entire dog and pony show had been "stage managed to downplay the overwhelming noise from Bernie supporters who are outraged and feel betrayed by Hillary. The entire convention  has had a certain air to it,  a quality that reveals the desperation for power,..." I guess that's as good a way of saying it as any--"a desperation for power." Hillary was told to stand down in 2008 so Obama could assume the mantle of "transparency" and now she feels it's her turn and she means to have it irregardless of anything else.

So Hillary must be allowed to win at all costs (and there will be costs). Slavo noted that even Americans who don't pay much attention to what goes on in Washington or much of anything else beyond the ball scores, have started to notice what GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA have done to their job situation and how these programs have created "...an entire shift into pseudo-governing structures of globalism that have eaten away at the sovereignty of the United States and devoured the prosperity of its people...And we have all been programmed to take it lying down."

And Slavo then askes: "Can anyone else see that the most rigged and stolen election of all time is shaping up? If the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary, what makes anyone think the entire country wants anything to do with her. Before you answer that openly, make a strong educated guess about who the next president s going to be...and how many bodies she will have to climb over to get there."

Like I said, I would love to be wrong, but the Establishment has had control of all the presidential candidates since I have been alive, (and probably several before) and so they are not about to allow a maverick to get in there and upset the culturally Marxist agenda at this late point.

You have to know that, with a Hillary presidency, Christians and real patriots are going to face a time of persecution unlike anything this country has seen since the War of Northern Aggression. So get ready.  And don't sit there and think that "the rapture" will get you out of this sticky mess, because I don't believe that will happen. Christians have way too much apathy and complacency to answer for to get off that easy.