Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Republican Establishment Is Still Marxist

by Al Benson Jr.

The Republican Establishment people are still Marxists, just like they were back in 1856. The only difference is that, today, they have found a more devious way of doing it, one that makes them look like conservatives and makes the Democrats look like the only Marxist game in town. Not true! Oh, the Democrats are Marxists alright, but hardly the only ones in the national game--they are just the ones that come closest to admitting it. After all, the Communist Party endorsed Hillary so that fact has to tell you something.

Understand, when I use the term "Marxist" I am not saying that one has to be a card carrying member of some Marxist group. Rather, I am describing their worldview, what, as Hillary would say, is in "the darkness of their heart."

That the Republican Party had leftist origins is something that has been well documented. Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln's Marxists, dealt with the Republican Party and its leftist origins and agenda on pages 125-27 and pages 142-43, as well as other places. We wrote about John Charles Fremont, the so-called "pathfinder" who was the first presidential candidate for the new Republican Party in 1856. Fremont had an affinity for socialism and socialists and had many in his command during the War of Northern Aggression. If you want something more than our book, then read Arthur R. Thompson's book To The Victor Go The Myths & Monuments. It's a long book, around 460 pages, but you will learn about the Republican Party and other conspiratorial groups as well. It's good background if you want to understand what is going on in the country today. Check out what Thompson has to say about Alvan E. Bovay and the Republican Party on pages 221 and 422.

The Republican Establishment has one goal, furthering the agenda of those who promote One World Government. And believe it or not, in order to do this without being detected, they often have to appear to be bumbling idiots. And they are really good at it. I can recall that Sam Francis, whose insightful articles many of you have read over the years, called the Democrats "the evil party" and the Republicans "the stupid party." And while I loved some of the stuff Sam wrote, I had to disagree with him on this one point. The Republican Party was not stupid--it was as evil as he thought the Democrats were, only it hid it better. And it's still doing it.

Just yesterday I read an article by Sally Zelikovsky on for October 18th. She said, in part, "While imbecilic Republicans bicker and snicker about Trump, Democrats will, once again, gather around Hillary despite their competing coalitions. Republicans are stuck in the quagmire of who killed the GOP and who is a more principled conservative, while the Democrats work with their media comrades and perfect their ground game. How do they do it? By dangling distractions with the one hand that Republicans fall for every time, while working their election magic with the other." And let me say here that Republican Establishment people that really want Hillary to win have to be pretty intelligent to appear that stupid. So why do they do it?  Because it fools their conservative core constituency  into thinking they have merely blundered with good intentions, when, in reality, they have been working to make sure the agenda of the Democrats slides on through without their being blamed for it.

And about now, I can hear some irate person asking the question: "Why would they do that?" They would do it because, at heart, they have the same worldview and agenda that the Democrats have, but they have to create the illusion of us having two "competing" parties so we don't ever catch on to the fact, as Donald Trump has so often stated, that "the system is rigged."

Pat Buchanan had an informative article on for October 19th, the title of which was: Is the System Rigged? You Betcha. And then Pat went on to explain how the system is rigged. He mentioned "Big Media--the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save FOX. Not in this writer's lifetime has there been such a blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party...Big Media have burst out of the closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign, aiming to bring Trump down." While I have known for decades now, after watching and listening to them, that our "news" (what a laugh) media were Far Left in their thinking, I have watched them go after Trump with what could be labeled a blood lust. And Pat made a comment we should all stop and think about when he said: "Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism against those of Americanism." Look at what he is saying there--and then burn your subscription blank to the New York Times or the Washington Post.

He mentioned several other things in the article, most of which I cannot cover here. He mentioned the Supreme Court, the 11 million illegal immigrants we now have here with the current rogue Regime, and Hillary, wanting to bring in many more. He noted Hillary's now famous speech to the Brazilian bankers in which she touted open borders for this country, essentially doing away with national sovereignty. How much have you heard about that from Big Media? They won't tell you about that because you are not supposed to know that Hillary, for all intents and purposes, wants to do away with the United States as a separate country. The moderator had the courage to bring up that question in the presidential debate last evening and Hillary tried to sluff it off by giving a lame answer about how she was really talking about electronic open borders. Bull! She was talking about doing away with our borders--because that's part of the One World Government agenda and she has been primed to push thatAnd if she manages, with the help of Big Media, to worm her way into office there will be Republicans in Congress that will be more than willing to help her remove our borders and contribute their part toward the creation of an inter-continental mega-state in the Americas.  I realize I sound dubious as to her intentions. You'll have to pardon me if I don't quite trust her. Eight years of Slick Willy and her in the White House already have really tarnished their halos.

Pat looks at the real possibility that we may get St. Hillary, one way or another, in this upcoming election when he says "Big Money and media power of the establishment elites and the transnationals may well prevail." And he asked the question: "Is that what the people were hoping for, working for, voting for in the primaries of 2016? Or is this what they were voting against?"  And he noted that Hillary's "opposition" (again, what a laugh) would be headed by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

So look for these "stupid" and "distracted" Republicans to fully cooperate with Hillary in everything they can that won't get them tossed out of office in the next upcoming election--if there is one. No, the Republican Establishment is not stupid, bumbling or inept--it is treacherous--because it has the same agenda as the One World Government crowd but conceals that fact under a cloak of pseudo-conservatism.

We better start waking up and realizing what a total sham the rigged system has become.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Hillary's "Vision" For Amerika and "Republicans for Hillary"

by Al Benson Jr.

Pat Buchanan had an interesting article on for October 12th in which he discussed the recent second presidential debate and the "moderators" (read that surrogate debaters for Hillary) failure to ask the right questions. Of course, if the truth were known, they were questions they would shy away from dealing with because they would draw attention to Hillary's One World Government mindset and that is the last thing they want to bring to the public's attention. Why is that, the naive might ask? Because they share Hillary's worldview in that area, that's why.

Pat made some cogent observations when he asked: "How could the moderators have ignored that other leak of last week, of Clinton's speech to Brazilian bankers where she confessed she 'dreams' of a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders." He continued: "If the quote is accurate, and Clinton has not denied it, then she was saying she dreams of a future when the United States ceases to exist as a separate, sovereign  and independent nation.  She envisions not just a North American Union evolving out of NAFTA but a merger of all the nations, North, South and Central America, with all borders erased and people moving freely from one place to another within a hemispheric super-state." This is yet one more story the major media and the bosses that control it have deemed that the average American does not need to be aware of. So just ignore it.

All the moderators really wanted to deal with for the evening was Trump and that eleven year old tape and all other subjects were supposed to pale into insignificance. And Hillary would have been quite content to remain there also. This was supposed to be the evening that Trump was destroyed and his presidential possibilities probably handed over to one of the Council on Foreign Relations political hacks that he defeated in the primaries. Trump's bringing out for the audience four of the women that William Jefferson Clinton was accused of raping, one of which he paid a huge settlement to in order to keep it out of court, sort of put a little damper on that. But Trump's destruction was something the Republican Establishment really looked forward to because they never wanted Trump in the beginning. What they had really planned on was for one of the CFR-controlled hacks that he beat out to, somehow, be reinstated as a possible candidate again, didn't make any difference which one because they were all prepared to play the One World Government game, with the possible exception of Rand Paul. Albeit the rhetoric would have been a little different from one to the other, but the results for America would have been the same with any or all of them. But, then, I still think the initial plan was for Hillary to trounce whichever one was chosen to be the "loyal opposition."

After all the planned fuss over Trump's old tape broke, a whole bunch of gutless wonders calling themselves Republicans jumped ship and loudly asserted that for moral reasons they could not support Trump any longer--all the way from the Speaker of the House to the august (and I use the word loosely) Senator from Arizona. One thing folks, especially in the South and West need to start realizing--the Republican Party is utterly corrupt. It has been, like the Democratic Party, thoroughly co-opted by the CFR/Trilateralist cabal and those that run it are high in the echelons of the One World Government crowd. Their vision for "Amerika" is the same as Hillary's vision, and no matter how much they prattle about being "the party of small government" it is all a sham. I trust most of them about as far as I trust Bill Clinton and his presidentially-minded spouse.

The Republican Establishment never wanted Trump and they were almost to the point of choking when they had to pretend they did. They would have jumped at any possible means of scuttling Trump's candidacy so they could support Hillary (covertly of course). All I can say is that if this is the "best" the Republicans can do, who even needs the Democrats? There is no real difference between the two parties except the labels put there to confuse a slow-minded electorate.

As for that eleven year old Trump tape, the man he said all this stuff to, and who egged him on to say it, was Billy Bush. That surname ring any bells? It should. George Bush 1 is Billy's uncle and George Bush 2 and Jeb Bush are his cousins. The Bush Dynasty long ago stated up front that there was no way they could support Trump. He didn't have "New World Order" credentials.

Do you begin to see the possibility of connecting just a few dots here?

Interesting that one of the Bush Clan just happened to get this tape leaked at this critical time. Coincidence, just pure coincidence, right??? I notice that Billy has now been suspended from NBC for his part in this. Is he on the way out because his job there was done or has he been thrown under the bus after it was done?

I've said this before but it bears repeating. If most folks knew the real history of the Republican Party they would realize that its foundations are anything but conservative. To learn about the true history of the Republican Party read two books, Lincoln's Marxists, by Donnie Kennedy and myself, and To The Victor Go the Myths and Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson. These will give you a pretty good idea of the origins of the Republican Party. What goes on today is of the same caliber as what Lincoln and his friends did back in the 1860s. So please, stop looking at the Republican Party as our "national savior"--an office only Jesus Christ can fulfill.

The Republican Establishment will work to sell you out just as quick as Hillary will--because their loyalty to the New World Order is exactly the same as Hillary's

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 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 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 "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 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 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  and  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.