Monday, July 11, 2016

The Black Panthers--no hate crime here folks, just move along

by Al Benson Jr.

Just read an "interesting" article on  about comments made by the former header of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Shabazz, where he told a crowd in Charleston, South Carolina that it was time to "finish the mission of killing 'slave masters' and their families.'  He made these comments  at a Save the Black Church rally there. Shabazz was referring to an 1822 slave revolt started by Denmark Vessey where it was planned to kill all the whites in their beds, regardless of age or sex. Shabazz said, quite plainly that it was time to "finish" Vessey's crusade to kill whites.

I thought, as I read his inflammatory comments that, if some KKK leader in this country had advocated the killing of all blacks it would be portrayed in the media nationwide and worldwide as the hate crime of the century. Whether they actually got to do it or not would not have made any difference. The mere suggestion of it would constitute a hate crime that Washington and their prostitute press would never let us forget.

But here is this black Marxist advocating the killing of whites and the media hardly has a whimper about it. It would appear that, instead of being charged with a hate crime, Comrade Shabazz will end up getting a copy of Hillary's "Get out of jail free" card. With a Marxist administration in control of the White (Red) House does that really surprise anyone. It's all part of the Marxist class struggle program now being implemented in this country and when Hillary assumes the royal throne next year it will continue in spades!

If Sabazz said this at a Save the Black Church rally, one has to wonder exactly what kind of black churches he is endeavoring to "save." Black Liberation churches no doubt, churches that already preach Marxist dogma as Sunday morning sermons.

But the Marxists, cultural and otherwise, are nothing if not tenacious and consistent.  In Baton Rouge this past weekend New Black Panther Party leader Babu Omowale was busy urging blacks to all migrate south so they could "form their own country away from racist whitey." From the context of his remarks one would almost get the idea that "racism" existed in the North. Now wherever would he have come up with that idea? He'd better be careful he doesn't deviate from the approved script too far because we've been told for years that all the "racism" existed in the South and now here's Omowale telling his devoted followers to come south to escape from "racist whitey."

And Omowale said his followers should claim five states that should belong to the "black nation" which states are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. He figures that if enough blacks move in then whites will start to move out. He says "the end game is land ownership." Only problem there is that when a country is Marxist, ordinary folks are not able to own private property, only the powers that be are allowed that, and they own their property in the name of "the people." He never said who would end up owning the land, but then he probably doesn't want to deal too much with that part of it. That conversation might get a bit sticky for him so just leave it a vague generality.

I said the Marxists were consistent, and they are. This idea of a black nation in our Deep South is one that was floated by the Marxists around forty or fifty years ago now. It didn't go anywhere then, but with national conditions seeming moving to the left maybe they figure it's a good time to try again. No doubt Hillary would love it! Keep your eyes open because in today's volatile situation you just never know what's going to happen. All you can be sure of at this point is that most of it won't be real good.

Friday, July 01, 2016

Reflections on the Looney Left and a Possible Sellout or Co-option

by Al Benson Jr.

Last week was a pretty fair country week. The Brits seceded from the EU and our beloved ruler in Sodom on the Potomac had a couple reversals he's rather not have had. This week has not been so good. Should have known we couldn't have two like that in a row.

The activity of those we refer to as leftists (socialists and communists and various other One World Government types) continues to defy common sense, but then they don't seem to care, as they realize our intrepid and valorous "news" media will continue to cover for them, making sure the public learns as little as possible of what they need to know.

We have been informed that, coincidentally of course, Slick Willie and Comrade Loretta Lynch met in the airport at Phoenix and sat and talked. Now folks with a little common sense might consider this as a conflict of interest, but the "news" media rushed in to assure a hopefully gullible public that all the two talked about were Clinton's grandchildren and his golf game while in Phoenix. Undoubtedly they also discussed current weather conditions in Zimbabwe and who might win the 2028 World Series, but absolutely nothing beyond that mind you! Believe that and you will look for purple cows to jump over the moon at least once a month!

I also ran across an article on  informing us that 67% of Democrats would love to see Obama stick around for a third term--something he'd love to do if he could just find a way to get by with it--but then Hillary might squawk that "it's her turn to shaft the American people and get rich doing it now" and there might be a slight rift in the Democratic Party. I find it hard to believe that even a majority of Democrats would be willing to put up with another four years of what we've had for the past eight years. The thought boggles the mind. If that's really the case, then the public schools in this country have been successful beyond their wildest dreams. They have successfully propagandized a whole generation. The problem here is that, unfortunately, many in the Republican Establishment don't feel too much different. Oh they might not want Obama around, but they're willing to take Hillary in his place--and honestly folks, what's the difference? Same shell game with different players that's all.

But something that bothered me even worse was a couple articles I checked out just today (7/1) that noted that Trump has got his possible VP list down to just two names--Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie. Now Christie wouldn't be my all time favorite by any means but Gingrich is an absolute no-no. If Trump picks him (and I did an article on this previously if you want to check back) then Trump will be picking a man that is the total antithesis of everything Trump says he stands for. Newt Gingrich is the penultimate Internationalist and One World Government advocate and Trump has to know that. He's not stupid. So what goes here? Another sell out of the frustrated and angry public who is now beginning to wake up and realize how they have been shafted by corporate fascism and its friends in Washington? Sadly, it's beginning to  look that way to me, and if that is so then after the election, no matter who wins, it will go back to "business as usual."

And another question--even if Trump is honest (and I always felt he was) what happens if something should happen to him once he gets into office that incapacitates him? Gingrich will end up being president and I  honestly wonder if that has been the plan all along, whether Trump realizes it or not. We might be able to get by with Christie for VP though it would hardly be the best of all possible worlds, but with Gingrich you know you are going to get stiffed. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

So if Gingrich ends up as Trump's VP choice then you can kiss all the rhetoric about making America great again goodbye because that's just what it was--but maybe Trump was right--it will be great again--for the corporate fascists, just not for the folks that deserve a break. Oh Lord,   how long???

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Southern Baptists Cave In To Cultural Marxists--so what else is new?

by Al Benson Jr.

Well, on the issue of the Southern Baptist Convention caving in to the cultural Marxists regarding the Confederate flag I can't say that I am at all happy about it, but on the other hand neither am I overly surprised. Most churches today don't even begin to recognize cultural Marxism for what it is--Marxism taken to a whole new level, and what's more, most couldn't care less. As long as they can conduct some sort of a service on Sunday morning they don't much worry about the rest of it.

The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union conducted morning services through most of the time the Communists remained in apparent power and the church hierarchy was loaded with KGB agents who made sure that the Sunday faithful were fed the Party line. They may have been thoroughly propagandized each week, but they did have their Sunday service, if such it could be called.

I often wonder, after a few of the churches we've attended over the years, how much difference there really is. When it comes to what happens out in the world most Christians are totally naive, couldn't care less, and are happy to have it so. No real responsibility for the culture that way except to complain when it gets so anti-Christian they can't stand it anymore. That they might have done something to prevent that never once occurs to them. Churches in this country have been feeding on the tainted bread of cultural Marxism since the end of the War of Northern Aggression and the task of the cultural Marxists in the seminaries and among the clergy has been to make sure they learned to like it. They have mostly succeeded.  And so the decision of the SBC regarding the Confederate battle flag comes as no real surprise. I would have been pleasantly surprised had they voted to leave it alone, but in my heart of hearts I guess I realized that would not happen.

An article in The Dallas Morning News  by Hannah Wise, on June 14th, said: "The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism that should not be used, Southern Baptists declared in a resolution approved Tuesday at their national meeting." The original proposal did stir some debate and prompted one call for the withdrawal of the proposal, but that wasn't going to happen. A milder version was floated later on and according to the Morning News it was "...not as strongly worded as the original and calls for Christians to 'discontinue' the flag's display." So the SBC calls for Christians to "discontinue the flag's display." Let them speak for themselves. Whatever Confederate flags I have, and I have several, will not be taken down to satisfy the whims of the cultural Marxist crowd that has as its agenda the total destruction of all Southern, Confederate, and Christian culture, and those Christians that give in to them in the name of "inclusiveness" are helping to seal the destruction of their culture and that of their children and grandchildren. And they will live to regret it someday, but by the time they wake up and realize what they have done it may well be way too late and they will discover that they have sold their heritage for a mess of socialist pottage which quite frankly, turns the stomach and sickens the soul.

I recall, years ago now, that I read where Richard Land, one of the leaders in the SBC at that time had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier One World Government organization in this country. I have often wondered if what Mr. Land did as a member of the CFR had any effect on his denominational affiliation and its program. You all be the judges of that.

I can't speak for others, but if I belonged to the SBC I would seriously think of looking for another church, one that was willing to leave the symbols of my culture alone--most especially when those symbols have their foundation in Christianity. One has to wonder, given the intellectual and historic softness so apparent in most churches today, when some cultural Marxist person or group will come along and, with a little persuasive language, get Christians to denounce the cross of Christ because of its "non-inclusiveness" in the society around it.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Southern Baptist Convention To Vote Next Week On Resolution To Condemn Confederate Battle Flag

by Al Benson Jr.

That was the headline on the article that a friend sent me just this morning (June 10th). The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest denomination in the country, right behind the Roman Catholics.

My friend, who is Baptist, is urging all those that are Southern Baptists to contact their ministers and tell them to oppose this resolution. My friend stated that this resolution is: "straight from the NAACP handbook." I don't doubt him for a minute. He has had past experience dealing with the NAACP and realizes that trying to talk reasonably with them is an exercise in futility. They have a cultural Marxist agenda and being reasonable with those whose culture they are trying to destroy is not part of that agenda.

This resolution to have the Southern Baptists condemn the Confederate battle flag has been couched in terminology that is supposed to promote "inclusiveness and healing." Anyone who has read any of these "resolutions" before knows what a farce that is and that racial healing is the absolute last thing all of this promotes--and it was never intended to. That's basically cultural Marxist language for the church to cave in and give into the desires of a small minority of dedicated leftists. This has nothing whatever to do with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and with what the church is supposed to be doing.

This sort of thing has been done before in other smaller denominations where leftist radicals try to get churches to condemn a part of their heritage and to completely omit the use of words like "Confederation" because they are deemed too "hurtful" to offended parties. Once the flags or offending terms are done away with the "offended" parties move on to other churches to promote the same cultural Marxist shell game somewhere else. Sadly, most Christians never seem to get it!

So I pray that our Baptist brethren will make a point of contacting their ministers now and tell them to oppose this--as the meeting where this is to be done will be held on June 14-15. Let's hope that enough people will do this that it will make a difference.

Saturday, June 04, 2016

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

by Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.