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.