Monday, May 23, 2016

They Want Your Votes But Leave Your Flags At Home Please!

by Al Benson Jr.

Well, just last week the "conservative" House in Sodom on the Potomac voted to ban Confederate flags from flag poles in national cemeteries even on days when they had heretofore been allowed. The vote was 265-159.  The promoter of this choice bit of cultural Marxism  pontificated on the passage of his bill, observing that the flag represents "racism, slavery and division." Now where do you suppose he came up with that mouthful? Sounds like he's been reading the NAACP playbook on how to destroy Southern heritage in one easy lesson.

And you thought the ethnic cleansing was all over! Haven't figured out the game plan yet have you?

Last year some of us told you this would happen, that when the cultural Marxists got enough resistance they would back off for awhile until your ardor cooled and you took down your Confederate flags that you had put up in protest last summer. Well, lots of you all cooled down, took your flags down, and proceeded to go back to sleep. Eternal vigilance you didn't have and the cultural Marxists realized that and knew all they had to do was wait until you fell asleep at the switch again and they could then clobber you anew and it would be that much harder for you to get back up and fight back again now like you did then. Folks, they have got this kind of thing down to a science while we're still playing games!

We have yet to begin to discern their tenacity and their agenda, but they already know that, after a certain amount of time we will tuck tail and go home, thinking it's all over, thinking we did our bit last year and now we can go back to the ball game or the bass fishing or whatever. Welcome to Round Two!

I've noticed here in North Louisiana that the number of Confederate flags flying has been drastically reduced in the past few months. The leftists backed off and we sat down and turned the boob tube back on and once we got fixated on it again they snuck up on us and kicked us in the stomach when our back was turned.

Now we are wondering what happened. We thought we'd done all this last year and now we've got to do it all over again you're telling us? That's what I am saying and not only that, we've got to do it all over again and keep on doing it!  That's part of our problem--no sticktoativity.  They've got it--we don't! And until we start to get it they are always going to win because they keep on with their agenda and after awhile we get tired and go home thinking we've done our bit, so lets let Leon (Trotsky) do it for awhile--and he does and then we find out we don't like that.

So the flags came down. So let's put them back up again this year--and this time leave them up! And let's start checking out those House critters that voted for this monstrosity. How many came from the South? Get a list of them and how they voted. I got one off  for May 19th. It's probably still up. Find our what your House critter did, how he/she/it, voted and if they voted for this horrendous bill then start informing people you know and start working to defeat them in the next election they have to run in. Expose their vote in letters to the editor, on Facebook, however you can. And keep on opposing and exposing what the cultural Marxists are trying to do to your culture. Don't get halfway through the Summer, stop to watch the All-Star game and then forget to get up again. The cultural Marxists in Washington and elsewhere are counting on your doing that, so learn to throw them a curve ball and keep up your resistance to what they are trying to do. The culture you save, with a bit of persistence might just be your own--and that of your children and grandchildren. They always have to be taken into the equation.

The cultural Marxists understand only one thing--resistance.  So lets start giving them some--on an ongoing basis.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Trump Doesn't Need Gingrich--He might as well have Hillary!

by Al Benson Jr.

Donald Trump has become hugely popular with ordinary folks because he has been saying things that they know need to be said and because he has proposed solutions to problems that they realize need solutions other than those given by the Ruling Establishment. Trump has positioned himself as an anti-Establishment candidate and the voting public is thoroughly fed up with the "business as usual" attitude of the Republican/Democratic Establishment because they realize those people are out to stiff them. In the final analysis what's the real difference between Hillary, Bernie, Jeb or Marco, or even Cruz for that matter?
The only difference is the rhetoric--they say different things but DO the same things!

It looked like Trump might actually be a breath of fresh air and try to do something other than pursue the Ruling Establishment's agenda. I say "looked like" because it now appears, after talking up a big anti-Establishment crusade, he is now about to pick one of the Establishment's major players as his vice-president--Newt Gingrich. For those folks desiring real change in the direction of government this is bad news.

A few years back I did a couple articles about Newt Gingrich  for blog spots that are no longer on the Internet and so they are not readily available. However there is a very relevant article presently on the Internet on  written by Kelleigh Nelson on May 11th of this year. Mrs. Nelson presents several important facts about Gingrich that people should be aware of--and that Donald Trump should be aware of if he isn't. I will pass along a few of Mrs. Nelson's concerns here.

She noted that, in 1968 Gingrich campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller.  She also observed that: "In 1990, he became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. If you've never read Richard N. Gardner's April 1974 article in CFR's World Affairs, Gardner called for an end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece. The CFR was founded in 1921 for world government and eliminating national independence. Henry Kissinger is also a CFR member and actually schooled Newt, and both claim they're conservatives..." So it seems that Kissinger tutored Mr. Gingrich and anyone who knows anything about anything knows that Kissinger is no more a conservative than was Mao Tse Tung! The CFR is diametrically  opposed to what Mr. Trump says he stands for--America first.

While he was in the Senate Gingrich voted for the creation of the Department of Education and Mrs. Nelson also observed that "William Z. Foster called for a federal Department of Education in his book Towards Soviet America..." And Gingrich also voted to designate 68 million acres as Federal protected wilderness. Mrs. Nelson also noted that ":Federal land grabs today are huge percentages of the 13 western states that are not federally owned." If Mr. Trump really believes in property rights as he claims then this should be a major concern to him. Gingrich voted for $1.2 billion for UN "peacekeeping." That's a direct slap in the face to anyone advocating national sovereignty. And he wanted Most Favored Nation status for Red China and he was strongly pro-amnestly--right along with Jeb Bush. These are things Mr. Trump has claimed to be opposed to, yet here he is looking at a man for vice-president who is in favor of all the things Trump says he wants to straighten out.

I can't go into everything in Mrs. Nelson's article but suffice it to say that she points out key areas where Gingrich, over the years, has taken the exact opposite position from the one Trump advocates. So what goes on here??? Does Trump really not know where Gingrich is coming from on all these issues? If that's the case then Mr. Trump needs a fast education before he picks a running mate. If that's not the case, then does the public have a right, in view of all that has gone on, to question whether they are being lied to yet one more time?

If Mr. Trump is really sincere in his positions, and up to now I felt he was, and yet he picks Gingrich as his running mate, then I have one more question. If the Bilderbergers who have ordained that Hillary should be the next president decide, for some reason at this late date, to throw her under the bus and Trump ends up getting elected, then what happens if down the road a few months, something "happens" to Trump so that Gingrich ends up being president?

Why, folks, if that happens, then we are back to Square One and once again it will be "business as usual in Sodom on the Potomac" as the Ruling Elite tighten their control. They will get richer and more powerful and us ordinary folks will continue to get stiffed and who knows where it will all end? Another French Revolution? At some point the public will revolt and there will be a bloody mess. I think the Lord's people need to pray for guidance to know what they will need to do when it all hits the fan because it's not a questions of whether it will, but only a question of when.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Let the Boys Into the Girl's Bathrooms in Public Schools--Or Else!!!

by Al Benson Jr.

This if for all those who thought they had seen everything. Guess what folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet! There was an "interesting" article on for May 13th (Friday the 13th) about Comrade Obama ordering public schools to let the boys into the girls' bathrooms. I mean, why not? Don't their "civil rights" entitle them to that, and vice-versa? All you "civil rights" advocates have helped to bring us here. Is this what you really wanted? Maybe it is, who knows?

The Conservative Firing  Line article, written by Joe Newby, states that: "On Thursday, news broke that the Obama regime is ordering schools nationwide to let students use whichever bathroom that corresponds to whatever gender they think they might be at that moment in time, essentially saying that schools must let boys use the girls restroom." Our all-inclusive Attorney General has said: "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex." And the article notes that keeping boys out of the girls restrooms just might lead to schools losing their federal funding.

Governor Abbott of Texas says that Obama is not a dictator and he says he will fight the edict. I hope he is able to, but after all the talking is done, let's wait and see what happens and check that out against what has been said. The governor of North Carolina is fighting this same battle and I wish him well, too. However, again, in spite of all the rhetoric, lets take a brief look at a couple things.

No matter how you want to slice the bread or cut the mustard, public schools ARE Government Schools. You can't really get away from that. You may have parent teacher groups that give the illusion of parental involvement and you may even elect your local school board members, yet with all this cleverly-packaged window dressing, in the final analysis these are still government schools. Why else do you have a federal Department of Education? Folks, begin to get it through your heads--these schools do not belong to you or to the local community--they belong to the government, and as long as the government is paying for them, even though they soak you for part of the price via your property taxes, they will get to decide what these schools do or don't do and how they do or don't do it. Simple as that! Local control of public schools is a myth--always has been and always will be, except now with some of what's going on the myth is getting a little more difficult to peddle, but they're still working at it and they are still fooling too many people.

If some conservative school district here in the South decides they don't want to play this game the will lose their federal funding. The only way to fight this is for local (and I use that word carefully) school districts all across the country, hundreds of them, to flat out refuse to comply and for them to start withholding whatever money they have been sending to Washington to help pay for local kids "education." And in all reality, you know that isn't going to happen because when push comes to shove, you will find that many of those you have elected to school boards nationwide have the same worldview as the One World Government people in Washington. They just didn't bother to tell you that when they ran for office. If you want a perfect example of how this works take a look back at the school board in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s when all the rotten textbooks were being implemented in public schools there. How well did that school board reflect the real concerns of parents? One member of that board, Alice Moore, did. She had a genuine concern about what they were feeding the kids that passed for "education" and she did her best to fight against it. She was a minority of one! But you have to give her credit. She did try.

To take this a step further, once Obama's multi-sexual worldview on bathrooms in public schools is fully implemented, how many Christians will remove their children from those schools in protest over this? The governors of Texas and North Carolina have vowed to fight Obama on this and I do wish them well. They will be in need of our prayers because the feds will try to slice them up and have them for supper. Again, how many Christians will be willing to remove their kids from public schools over this? Admittedly, some can't given their family situations. But what about those who can if they are willing to make a little sacrifice for their kids' well being, both physically and emotionally? How many will make that move and do it? Let's just say that it'd be nice to have a dollar for everyone that just won't be bothered.

And if Obama manages to pull this off, might he even dare to take it a step further? Might there possibly be a federal thrust in the direction of Christian churches? Is it just possible that churches that are not willing to go along with multi-sex bathrooms in their buildings might be denied their 501c3 tax exemptions unless they are willing to knuckle under and comply? If the feds can withhold federal funding for public schools then why can't they play the same game with churches and start denying them their 501c3 tax breaks if they will not legitimize the transgender lifestyle? You think that sounds far out? Don't kid yourself. He who pays the piper plays the tune.

The present federal agenda calls for the dismantling of any residual Christian morality left in this country, particularly in the South. This is what Obama's "fundamental transformation" was and is really all about. Now it's up to us, our churches, and our States to decide how we are going to respond to all this.

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Taking a Picture of a Confederate Flag Gets You Suspended From Your Public School For Two Days

by Al Benson Jr.

One of the major places where our next generation is being conditioned to accept the premises of cultural Marxism is the public school campus--and this holds true especially in the South.

An article I read just recently on noted that the Ridgeview Middle School, which is part of the Round Rock Independent School District (that's in Texas, folks) has suspended seven students for what they feel is a horrendous crime, almost too terrible to mention. They took pictures of a Confederate flag, some of them selfies--at school no less. Folks, this has to be the crime of the century! Why every public school administrator in the state of Texas should go into immediate shock at the commission of a criminal act of such gigantic proportions. How dare they! This is simply beyond the pale. These students have just gone too far. Should prison sentences be meted out???

Andrew Birdwell, father of one of the students was slightly ticked off. He said the school had no right to suspend his son for two days and that he and his son deserve an apology from the school. But Mr. Birdwell, you just don't understand! You son had his picture taken with a CONFEDERATE FLAG! Do you understand the magnitude of such a crime? Obviously not or you wouldn't be asking for a well-deserved apology. And by the way, don't hold your breath waiting for one!

The school district released a statement, according to the Freedom Outpost article, that said there "were a series of incidents at school involving a group of students posing with a Confederate flag and speaking 'hateful language.' The district would not comment any further..." It's probably a good thing for them they didn't. Turns out that school officials had to admit that Birdwell's son didn't say anything hateful. He and the other students were currently learning "whatever version of Civil War history that school decides to teach its students." I thought that was an astute observation by Freedom Outpost. Seems that they might recognize that "whatever version of Civil War history" is being taught may not be altogether accurate.

The Freedom Outpost article duly noted Mr. Birdwell's reaction. He said "I called up there yesterday asking for a copy of the disciplinary action and (the principal's) was to me that the boys were holding up a Confederate flag and that is a sign of slavery." Really? Who taught the principal that? Did he learn it in teachers' college? Who says it's a sign of slavery--Al Sharpton, Je$$e Jackson, the kids' "history" textbook? Who? The article concluded with this thought: "What do you think these kids will learn from this event?" Interesting question. What will they learn?  What will the other kids in their class learn?  What will they all learn from their school principal?

They'll learn that Confederate flags can get you in trouble, so you are best to avoid them, no matter what they are all about. That's the cultural Marxist "history" lesson that's being taught here.

And what lesson should Anthony Birdwell learn from this "experience?"  He should learn that there is no freedom of thought or expression at public schools and that if his son shows any streak of independence of thought in coming years he will always be in trouble for thinking outside of the cultural Marxist box. Such is not permitted, and those that do will pay the price. Act or think differently from the rest of the sheeple and you will pay the price. I speak from experience.

Cultural Marxism, as practiced in public schools limits your field of thought and endeavor to those areas pre-approved by the cultural Marxist worldview. If you slip those traces you will have problems. He should also learn that, since this is the case, his son would be much better off in a private educational setting where state approved attitudes are not the only thing tolerated and where students can ask honest questions and get honest answers rather than politically correct dogma such as "the Confederate flag is a flag of slavery." No one who has done any real history homework honestly believes that, but if you repeat a lie often enough most folks who won't bother doing the homework will just unthinkingly grab onto it and rattle it off as gospel truth, which it ain't! Doing the homework should be encouraged. This is why Christian and home schooling efforts should be promoted.

If you really want to learn the truth about Confederate history you won't get it in public school, unless you happen to be one of the fortunate few to run across a dedicated history teacher who has been there so long that he has tenure and they can't get rid of him so they have to leave him alone. But you can bet the farm that after he's gone no more real history will be taught there and the person that replaces him will be into "social studies" rather than history.

We in the South (and other places as well) must begin to learn that our history and heritage will not be preserved for the next generation by sending our kids to public schools. That is a lesson for all of us. Let us pray God that enough will learn it to make a difference.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Now--Culturally Marxist Currency!

by Al Benson Jr.

Right after he was awarded the presidency of this country Obama said that he was going to "fundamentally transform" the United States. People could only guess what he meant by that, but those that knew anything of Obama's real background had deep suspicions that whatever he was going to do, it wasn't going to be good. Their suspicions have been more than justified. His transformation agenda (the agenda of his handlers) has been at work transforming the culture of this country. In fact, you could say that American culture has been emotionally and physically assaulted under "his" regime.

Now he and his handlers will further assault the culture by changing the design of the country's currency. You all have read by now about the new design of the twenty dollar bill and other bills that will be undergoing the Obamaite "transformation." The new currency designs to be foisted off on the public in the near future are living proof that the cultural Marxists will literally push their agenda in every area of our lives in an attempt to convert the sleeping public into accepting their pernicious theology.

A main "cornerstone"  of their theology is an abolitionism morphing into a "civil rights" movement. And it's all part of Karl Marx's "reconstruction of a social world" that Donnie Kennedy and I took note of in our book Lincoln's Marxists. 

Our august Secretary of the Treasury has dutifully informed us that the picture of Andy Jackson on our twenty dollar fiat currency bills will soon be replaced with a simply glowing portrait of Harriet Tubman, one of the movers and shakers in the "underground railway" before the War of Northern Aggression.

The Underground Railway, we have been told, was a system of "safe houses" from places in the South leading all the way up through the Northern states and into Canada. Supposedly friendly Southern abolitionists helped the escaping slaves to go north where a friendly, virtuous Northern population awaited their arrival with open arms. They teach some of this in many of the country's public school "history" texts.

Suffice it to say that "it ain't quite so." Writer Michael B. Chesson is a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and he specializes  in the history of the American "Civil War." He wrote an authoritative article for The Textbook League which appeared in their newsletter, Volume 12, Number One. Check out  Professor Chesson noted several history books that promote this line about the Underground Railway and he noted the inaccuracies in all this regarding Harriet Tubman.

Suffice it to say there are culture-changing reasons why Ms Tubman is about to replace Andy Jackson on the twenty. Andy Jackson is not politically correct (culturally Marxist) and Ms. Tubman is. But they are going to keep Alexander Hamilton on the ten dollar bill. He is politically correct as the promoter of the first national bank, so the feds don't really want to remove him.

But even for that, they plan on making some changes to the ten spot, and to the five dollar bill as well, although I don't expect they will remove from the five dollar bill the portrait of the president who was a favorite of the Marxists and socialists.

The Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, has said, in part: "The new $10 bill will honor the story and the heroes of the women's suffrage movement against the backdrop of the Treasury Building...The new $10 design will depict that historic march and honor Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul for their contributions to the suffrage movement.?

It's interesting that Mr. Lew neglected to mention the connections of Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton with the Spiritualist Movement during the latter part of the nineteenth century. If you can find a copy of the book Radical Spirits  by Ann Braude that will give you some insight into the Spiritualist Movement and its connections with the "women's rights" movement. The early feminist movement was riddled with Spiritualism. This is something else the "history" books have mostly forgotten to mention.

After neglecting to mention all that, Mr. Lew moved on to inform us that the new five dollar bill, in addition to keeping the portrait of the Marxist's favorite president, "will depict the historic events that have occurred at the Lincoln Memorial." Lew noted that, in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave us his "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Lew noted that, on the back of the five dollar bill, they will start featuring leaders of the civil rights movement. That should be interesting. I wonder which ones they will pick--they can't go too far in hardly any direction without bumping into someone with Communist connections, not that this would bother them, as long as the public at large can be kept in total ignorance about it. With our current public education system that should be no problem.

So we have finally gotten to the point where all the culturally Marxist leftist aberrations will now be commemorated as healthy and normal on our currency. Former history will be erased  and some of the prize agendas of the cultural Marxist Movement will be enshrined on the currency, complete with anti-counterfeit strips. What more could you ask for?

I just wonder what they will end up doing with the one dollar bill. After all, George Washington WAS a slave owner. Maybe, they can find some way to get someone like Pol Pot, the great Cambodian "liberator" onto the one dollar bill. Undoubtedly he would be quite acceptable to the cultural Marxist crowd and they could then get rid of that picture of that nasty old Southern slave owner. After all, we have had presidential candidates whose citizenship in this country has not been beyond question, so why not a known Communist on the one dollar bill? Our currency (notice I have not called it money) has become a major propaganda tool for the One World government crowd. Unfortunately, most people probably will not even notice. Unfortunately, their children and grandchildren will--and the knowledge won't be positive.

Monday, April 11, 2016

The Republican Party--Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?

by Al Benson Jr.

By no stretch of the wildest imagination can the Republican Party be considered truly conservative and/or patriotic. I realize such a statement will shock some folks who grew up with the myth that the Republican Party was the "party of small government."

If you doubt, just go back and look at the history of the GOP. Who was its first presidential candidate back in 1856? Anyone know? It was John Charles (Pathfinder) Fremont. Actually Fremont didn't find too many of the paths--Kit Carson, his scout found most of them, but Fremont got the credit. Fremont was, by any accurate definition, a radical that leaned hard left in his political views. When the War of Northern Aggression broke out Fremont, who had a command in Missouri, ended up with a whole cadre of socialist Forty-eighters (Lincoln's Marxists) in his command.

When Fremont had run for president in 1856, Frederick Hassaurek, one of the socialist Forty-eighters campaigned all over the Midwest for him. That fact established a relationship between Fremont and the Forty-eighters. And when Fremont didn't make the cut in 1856 the Forty-eighters had to wait another four years until Abraham Lincoln came along and, as they had done for Fremont, so they did for Lincoln. They worked for his election and when the war started they thronged to serve in his armies, and some of them served in the early Republican Party. A couple of Forty-eighters even helped to write the Republican Party platform in 1860--hardly what you would call an auspicious "conservative" beginning for the party.

Real conservatism has seldom been part of the Republican Party agenda.  Perceived conservatism has though. Perceived conservatism is great for getting conservative support from people who have not done the homework, and they serve as good window dressing to make others think conservatism thrives where it really doesn't. For some background material on the early Republican Party and the Forty-eighters, read the book Lincoln's Marxists.  

So, over the years, the Republican Party has worked to fool the voting public into thinking it is something it is not--patriotic and conservative! You might be tempted to say "well that was then but this is now." Okay--show me the difference between what they did then and what they are doing now. In 2012 you had Ron Paul running for president, and he had won several states, one of them Louisiana where I live. I went to the party caucus in Monroe in 2012 and Ron Paul got 80% of the vote there. Romney got 20%. It was the same in most other Louisiana cities that we checked. However, when the state caucus was held in Shreveport shortly after, with Ron Paul having 80% of the delegates statewide, the state Republican Establishment decided it was not going to seat Ron Paul's 80%--it was going to seat and recognize Romney's 20%. When the 80% of legitimate delegates complained the Republican Establishment called the police in and they made sure the illegitimate 20% were the delegates that were recognized. Lots of folks have forgotten this. I haven't. The Republican Establishment in Louisiana (and several other states) stole their state from Ron Paul and handed it to Mitt Romney. Why? Because they realized that Romney was not going to beat Obama and Obama was supposed to get a second term. Romney was the weakest Republican they could have nominated--same as in 2008 when McCain got the nod. Everyone knew he wasn't going to beat Obama, wasn't supposed to beat Obama. If I had a suspicious mind I'd be tempted to say "the fix was in." But far be it from me to think such thoughts. The Republicans are noted for putting up weak candidates in years the Democrats are supposed to win.

And 2016 is no different. One of the stable of Establishment candidates was supposed to win and then lose to Hillary in the general election. So far it hasn't worked out that way, but it will eventually if the "conservative" Republicans can figure out a way to deep six Donald Trump. He was the real spoiler in their plan and he has hung on to the bitter end. If he gets enough delegates to take the nomination then the Republican Establishment will have to find a way to deny him the nomination--because he is not supposed to win--Hillary is! And you can tell the way the Republican Establishment is acting that this is the game plan. They are bending over backwards to smear Trump. Conservatives--so called--are stating openly that if Trump wins the nomination they will not support him. They are howling that Trump is not a real conservative. The question then arises--are they??? Not hardly.

One thing you have to realize--at the national level and most state levels, the Republican and Democratic parties share the same socialist worldview and so they scratch one another's backs because they promote identical socialist agendas and they don't want some rank outsider coming along to upset the apple cart they have worked at filling for the last several decades.. Both parties, working together, have moved this country a long way down the road to One World government. That's their real agenda.

Doug Parris wrote an interesting article that appeared on on April 8th. Mr. Parris noted some of the less-than-conservative actions of the "party of small government" in recent years. He said: "...from 1988 to 2012 the Party elites successfully rebuffed the candidacies and enormous grassroots movements of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul, all of whom were treated as hostile invaders and their millions of supporters as vermin, despised and rejected. And the odd candidates the Party occasionally elected in their stead loyally compromised away the principles that animated their supporters." In other words, they sold out!

So Mr. Parris feels that the Republican Party is on its last legs, that  it's almost finished whether they end up  stopping Trump or not. Parris describes the GOP bosses as "flexible." Is that a good description or what? So we end up with a Republican Party that tries to convince people it is conservative when all it is at this point is irrelevant. And as long as they can fool the voters they don't really care. It's all a game, a charade, a political scam if you will to make people think you have two different parties with two different worldviews when all you really have is one internationalist, socialist party with two names.

Sunday, March 13, 2016

No Wonder the Left Usually Wins--the Right is Nothing But a Hollow Shell

by Al Benson Jr.

I have been watching, this weekend, all the fuss over the Communist groups that managed to break up Trump's rally in Chicago. From Communist groups you expect this sort of thing. Since they can't intelligently debate their corrupt points their only alternative is to shout down their adversaries and try to shut them down and them blame their adversaries for it. This is the standard bill of fare for the lefties, proving that they really have nothing worthwhile to contribute and can get by with blaming the opposition for that fact.

What surprised me, though, was the people over on the right who spouted the exact same line the lefties did. Communist groups broke up Trump's rally and it was all Trump's fault according to many that are supposed to be "right-wingers." Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were among the headliners in this dog and pony show and when you begin to see "conservative" candidates pushing the same line at Hillary and Bernie you have to know something is wrong, dreadfully wrong.

I can come up with no other conclusion than this; that much of what we consider to be the conservative, patriotic movement is really nothing more than a hollow shell, geared to fool honest, patriotic Americans with its blather about "small government" when what they are really doing is providing cover for the left without appearing to do so. And they do fool lots of folks who lack the discernment to figure out what they are doing.

It's a given than both Republican and Democratic Parties are nothing more than two wings on the same socialist, One World vulture and anyone who really trusts the Republicans to deliver the country from the clutches of the "liberal Democrats" is whistling Yankee/Marxist Doodle because that's all the Republicans will ever give him--doodle!

I'm thinking of going through my email list and deleting a batch of those sites I have been getting mail from for years so because, as I watch what they say more and more, I find many of them seem to be nothing more than foils for the Marxists. Now I will admit that Donald Trump is far from the perfect candidate. He has issues I don't agree with, such as his position on eminent domain. But on the other hand, I can't disagree with  him on the Second Amendment--as long as he sticks to what he's said so far. What amazes me is that he draws fire from both left and right and, on some reflection, that says to me that left and right really agree on many things when push comes to shove and they only let us know about it when someone like Trump comes along that they are forced to say something about because his positions attack the left/right coalition they are really part of.

So, it seems to me that lots of folks who have claimed to be on the right and to be patriotic with their "America first" messages have really been lying to us, which probably siphons money and support away from those groups that are genuinely conservative and patriotic. That would be a Marxist goal too.

I'm thinking that it might be a good idea for us to start reassessing some of these "patriotic" groups to see what they really are doing for us, if anything, and how much of their supposed effort in our behalf amounts to little more than meaningless blather that directs real opposition away from the left. When Cruz and Rubio reach the point where they become indistinguishable from Hillary and Bernie then we better start realizing we have homework to do. A good start might be to check the Internet and find a membership list for the Council on Foreign Relations and check out any members of Congress who might be members or have family members who belong or have belonged. Then check out "news" media people who belong. Once you have done that you will know why you get the slanted media coverage so prevalent on the six o' clock news and in the daily fishwrapper you still refer to as a newspaper.

Unfortunately the advocates of One World Government are alive and well on both the left and the right. It should be our bounden duty to expose the ones on the right.