Even The Washington Post Dared To Hint At Lincoln's Socialist Proclivities

 by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back in July of 2019 Gillian Brockell did an article for The Washington Post which dealt with Abraham Lincoln and his socialist leanings.

She made a point of telling her readers that "Of course, Lincoln was not a socialist, nor communist, nor Marxist, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer aren't. But Lincoln and Marx--born only nine years apart--were contemporaries. They had many mutual friends, read each other's work and, in 1865, exchanged letters. When Lincoln served his sole term in Congress in the late 1840s, the young lawyer from Illinois became close friends with Horace Greeley, a fellow Whig who served briefly alongside him. Greeley was better known as the founder of the New York Tribune..."

Horace Greeley was also, as Donnie Kennedy and I wrote in our book Lincoln's Marxists, a utopian socialist. But then, a lot of Lincoln's friends were socialists, or communists.

Brockell duly noted that Karl Marx was "intensely interested" in the plight of American slaves. Sure he was! The man who advocated the biggest system of slavery the world has ever known was concerned with the plight of American slaves! Give your readers a break, lady! Most of them except for the "useful idiots" trained to be Marxists know better. 

Brockell observed that, like many Republicans, Lincoln was a steady reader of the Tribune and if you think he didn't read the material Marx wrote for the Tribune, nearly 500 articles, then you just ain't paying attention.

It was noted by Brockell that there were two factors that helped Lincoln in his presidential quest--"First, the support of former German revolutionaries who had become key players in the Republican Party; and second, the support of the party's newspaper, the Tribune. Look at what she is telling us here. Two of the main aids to Lincoln becoming president were the help of the Forty-Eighter socialists and communists who had basically infiltrated the new Republican Party and the  help of a newspaper run by a utopian socialist. Sounds like most of Lincoln's help came from the political left. You don't suppose the reason for that was that the leftists of that day already knew where Lincoln was coming rom, do you? You have to wonder if Lincoln's comments about labor being prior to and independent of capitol had anything to do with this.

We were also told by Brockell that "Marx was friends with Charles A. Dana, an American socialist fluent in German who was managing editor of the New York Tribune. He was the one who hired Marx to write for the Tribune. And Brockell has told us that, once Lincoln took office, "his alliance with socialists didn't stop. Dana left the Tribune to become Lincoln's eyes and ears in the War Department..." Dana informed Lincoln, among other things, about what he thought of his generals.

Our book Lincoln's Marxists noted, on page 50, that Dana served under Edwin M. Stanton as assistant secretary of war in the Lincoln administration. That was a pretty lofty national position to be held by a socialist in the 1860s. So much for those folks that try to tell us we never had a problem with socialism or communism in this country until the 1930s. Such folks are either naive or they hope the rest of us are.

Arthur R. Thompson, in his informative work To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments noted of Dana, on page 198 that: "Charles Dana was a vice president of the National Convention of Associations. He was a member of the Prodhonian Club, nicknamed the 48ers of America, composed mainly of Americans who  participated in the revolution of 1848-1849 in Europe. In 1848 he spent eight months covering the revolutions for the New York Tribune, and he shared Marx's views. Dana wrote that the purpose of the uprisings was 'not simply to change the form of governments, but to change the form of society.' He did more than report. Dana is  but one example of reporters who participated in revolutionary activities and then posed as impartial observers as 'reporters.' This has long been a tactic of the Left, and continues to this day." 

Brockell reiterated once more that "Lincoln never took up the mantle of socialism" as if to tell us that we should now ignore all she has told us about Mr. Lincoln and he leftist coterie in Washington. Mr. Lincoln did not have to "take up the mantle. His actions spoke louder than his words. I have long contended that while Lincoln may not have been a Marxist he most assuredly had a socialist worldview and he had no problem whatever with socialists and communists. He was perfectly comfortable around them and their leftist views. The only thing Lincoln ever "emancipated" people from was their God-given liberties--and he was a master at that.

Lincoln assassination series booklet

Check out series of articles about Lincoln assassination on
https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com    that ran for the month of May.

If all goes well I plan to make a little booklet out of this series so that those who
may not have seen it might be able to get it in printed form.

If you have any friends you think may be interested pass this brief article along to them. Costs for
the booklet will be minimal, but I will have to pay for printing costs.

Al Benson Jr.

If anyone has questions about this booklet please contact me at cpprhd10@aol.com and title your communication "Booklet". Thank you.

Ongoing "Reconstruction"

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have an email friend who is a fellow Copperhead. Like me, he was born in the bleak atmosphere of a New England that was affected by the cold chill of Unitarianism. It affected where he lived as it affected where I lived. Probably neither of us recognized that at the time, but we both realized in our innermost beings that something there wasn't quite right.

He moved from Northern New England down to West Virginia, where he seems quite content. We moved all over the place, depending on circumstances, ending up in Illinois several years ago, and from there we came to North Louisiana. Knowing our concern for their heritage and history, the good Southern folks accepted us and we have been more comfortable in the South than we had been anywhere else (except when I lived in Oklahoma briefly during the late 1960s).

Anyway, this friend, like me, studies history and keeps a weather eye on the political scene. Just recently he emailed me with some observations. He noted that, after looking at history, he had concluded that the "Civil War" never really ended--and it sure didn't end when Lee walked out of the courthouse at Appomattox. Technically it didn't end then--it limped along for a little more than  another two months. But even for that, it didn't really "end." You see, the War of Northern Aggression (which it what it really was), was a culture war. It's main agenda was the total destruction of Southern culture, history, and heritage, and that all didn't end when the fighting ceased and so the War had to continue But they had to cover that fact up and so they ceased to call it a war and they renamed it--they started calling it Reconstruction. This was his take on it and I have to admit, I can't really disagree with him. I'd figured out the same thing awhile back. 

It had always amazed me that "reconstruction" was Karl Marx's term. He had called for "the reconstruction of s social world" in regard to changing the worldview of the South. His Radical Abolitionist friends in the North seized on his terminology (as a possible hidden tribute to him) when they gave a name to what they planned to do to the South.

Over the years, I have contended that "reconstruction" never really ended and instead  the Establishment, Shadow Government, or whatever you want to call them, has just continued it under a varied collage of different titles--affirmative action, global warming, no child left behind, or whatever other noble-sounding fiction they thought would befuddle the public at large. My Copperhead friend had concluded the same thing. Interestingly enough, he and I had come up with our conclusions totally independently of one another. Each of us looked at the evidence we had been able to amass--and we came up with the same conclusion as the other.

Reminds me of a situation several years ago now, back when I started digging up evidence for Lincoln being in love with the Marxists and socialists. I had put together quite a bit of evidence on Lincoln's affinity for the Left and published some of it in a couple articles when I got an email from a man in North Carolina indicating that he had found the same thing. He shared his sources with me and it turned out a lot of them were not the same sources I had used, but they were just as authoritative.

This goes to show you that there are a lot of people out there quietly doing the homework and connecting the dots and much of what they find ends up on blog spots and websites. I don't think most people realize how many blog spots there are out there, but there are thousands of them and lots and lots of them come from a patriotic, American perspective. The Deep State may be trying to censor conservative viewpoints and they may be trying to shut down some of the bigger patriotic websites and they may succeed to a degree. If such does happen, then many  people who are aware of some of these more obscure sites will start checking out the "second string" of sites where they can get their news. The days of the  "big 3" in the prostitute press controlling all the news are over. Millions of people nowadays realize the Main Stream Media is pure hogwash and they constantly search out the alternate media for their news--and part of the alternate media is these thousands upon thousands of blog spots--and I don't think the Deep State can shut them all down no matter how much they'd love to.

There are lots of us out here digging up the stuff the establishment media would rather have buried and the Marxist "historians" have kept under wraps for years. They can't hide it all anymore, and that fact will eventually be their undoing.

The Desire For Total Control

The latest commentary by our two political commentators as they take a long view on history.
Al Benson Jr.

The Desire For Total Control

by Schwartz & Viscount

It goes way, way back. Check out the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Man wanted to reach to Heaven by his own efforts, to be God, as it were. If you read the Genesis account you see that he didn't quite make it. However, that has not stopped his efforts in that direction for centuries and they continue to this day.

The Caesars controlled the Roman Empire, which was all of southern Europe, the eastern Mediterranean area, and much of North Africa; the known world at that time. Caesar (depending on which one) was a benevolent dictator. You could have whatever religious beliefs you wanted to--as long as you recognized Caesar as Lord. The Christians wouldn't, couldn't, do that, hence Caesar would not have total control--and that was where their problems began. For them, Jesus the Christ was Lord, not Caesar. When Caesar tried to force the issue, and a lot of Christians died, it was the beginning of the end for Rome.

For us in this country, it goes back to the British Empire. King Henry started the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican, or, in this country, the Episcopal Church. Henry wanted everyone to worship the way he thought was right, although there was more to it than that. This resulted in the Pilgrims, separatists by belief, leaving England and coming to America so they would not be under the king's control in their worship.

And, as time passed, the children of the Pilgrims and Puritans had major problems with King George over taxes on tea and other things, and finally, at Lexington and Concord, King George discovered that he did not have the total control he craved. The "Divine Right of Kings" was, in the final analysis, only their desire to control all in their realms. In the end, it did not work out. Not that some of what replaced them has been much better in many instances!

But the quest for control continued on (as it still does in our day)! Our ULN-civil war was really not about freeing the slaves; it was, in the end, about controlling the whole country. Lincoln didn't want a country "half slave and half free"--he wanted it, politically, ALL slave. And he accomplished this--more than 80 years after our Declaration of Independence and the victory over King George. One way he sought to control it was with a heavy tariff, beneficial only to the North, which the South ended up paying most of. But that is another story.

Fact is, Lincoln sought (to commend and promote Union troops) many openly socialistic men as officers; men who had failed in their 1848 efforts to coerce the German populace and others into swallowing their Marxist/socialist ideas in Europe. Having failed in Europe they naturally matriculated to the US, where they could then force their brand of total control on an unsuspecting American populace--starting in the South.

You have to ask the question; did some of these guys induce some of the atrocities committed by Sherman and Sheridan  in their wanton destruction of many of the wonderful homes/plantations in the South, along with all the other property they destroyed. One author called Sherman's men in South Carolina "A legion of devils." An apt description! But these were the same tactics used by Hitler and Stalin.

Friends, that is Communism (Marxism)--control by force and destruction. In your minds it may seem far fetched or absurd, but think about this: Is taking over the Communications Commission what the Marxists are doing by forcing local radio and television stations to be controlled by the "already fake news" outlets? Is this one more way to control what is supposed to be an entity for the expression of our free speech (First Amendment Rights)? The FCC has out-stepped its bounds by allowing this to happen.

In fact, you might ask the question--"Who owns the airwaves--the FCC or God?" If the answer is God, then possibly the FCC should think about shutting its doors and sending its people home.We don't expect that to happen, though, because for the bureaucrats the agenda is always control. Little by little, so no one notices, their intention is always control! 

Update 1/15/17
In regard to total control, please read the most recent article on 
https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com
dealing with driverless cars and the United Nations' Agenda 21 program which would shut us all up in sardine can apartments in megacities, unable to go anywhere except where these new driverless cars are willing to take us. All for our own "good" of course.

New post on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com
from a history professor about some of the folks that really won the Civil War.
Hint: They were not right-wingers!  1/16/18

"Journalists" Here and Abroad, Yesterday and Today

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Thoughts about journalists in our day tend to be somewhat tainted and jaded--and for that you have to blame the journalists themselves. Let's face it, bastions of truth and accuracy the journalists have not been. I, with others, have labeled them as "the prostitute press" and in the main, I don't think that's  too far off.

In my library I have some books for enjoyable reading. One of those is one called The Red Fox, written by Anthony Hyde. It's fiction, but in it Mr. Hyde makes several observations that are worth some reflection. For instance, on page 53, one of the characters in the story asks the question "Who rules the rulers?" That's something many of us have asked for a long time, and in some instances where we could, tried to answer it. It's a question worth considering, although most people won't.

On page 233 he discusses Soviet "journalists" and seeks to compare them to western journalists to point out the differences. I don't doubt, when he got this book published (1985) he thought it was an honest question. Today I'm not so sure. The Red Fox is an excellent story and it does hold your interest. You can tell that Mr. Hyde did a lot of research to come up with all the detail in the book. I have heard that this is the way he usually writes, though I have not ever been able to come up with any of his other books, and I have looked. To me that means that people hang onto them like I do and they seldom make their way into used book stores. This is the mark of an entertaining and engaging writer. I've read my copy of The Red Fox fully half a dozen times over the years.

Having said that, I'm not sure Mr. Hyde recognized how similar Soviet and American "journalists" really are. In the Soviet Union the "journalists" were expected to hew the Party line, and if they didn't, in short order, they were no longer journalists. Sad to say it has not been much different here. Many of the journalists or reporters I have run across in this country do exactly the same thing. I did an article before the last election about how the media was nothing more than Hillary's water carrier. And everything I have seen since the last election has only reinforced that view, except they don't only carry water for Hillary, they also carry it for what we call "The Deep State" or the Establishment, or whatever you want to call those that really "rule the rulers."

The idea that the "news media" exists to give the public the unbiased, objective truth about what really goes on has long since gone by the boards. It disappeared with the Tooth Fairy and the Man in the Moon, at least for most normal people. Nowadays the media gives us what "those who rule the rulers" think is pertinent for their well-being, not ours. True, there are exceptions. The alternative media, The Drudge Report, InfoWars, LewRockwell, World Net Daily and a handful of others out there are able to give concerned people enough truth that they are beginning to have some idea of what really goes down. That hasn't always been the case. If you want real news, these are the sources you have to turn to turn to because what we refer to as the "Main Stream Media" has dissolved into nothing more than "fake news" and pure  propaganda--Soviet style! If you follow only them you will have a completely skewed view of world events, and particularly what goes on in the White House during the Trump administration. The regular media gets it wrong so much of the time that you have to realize they are doing it on purpose. Were it only accidental, they would err on the side of accuracy now and again, but this never happens.

Sadly, this is not an especially new development. It has gone on for many years, though sometimes a little less spectacularly than at present. Back before the War of Northern Aggression the "journalists" in the North were making such an icon out of John Brown, the abolitionist/terrorist, that he was literally being compared to Jesus Christ and the gallows he hung on was being compared to Jesus' cross. Talk about an exercise in blasphemy!  This, and the propaganda being dished out by writers of the ilk of Harriet Beecher Stowe, helped to fuel the fires of war in the late 1850s and painted the entire South with a wholly unrealistic brush.

So let us not kid ourselves--"journalists" in America, at least in the last 150 years,  have not stood for "truth, justice, and the American way." They have stood for pushing the agenda, whatever it may have been at the time, of those that "rule the rulers" and the real truth be hanged!

If you want to find out who "rules the rulers" than I suggest you do a little homework. (About 7% of those that read this will follow through). Get on the internet and check out the Council on  Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group, Skull and Bones, and while you are at it check out the Clinton Foundation. If you are willing to do at least this much then you will come away with a whole different concept of who really runs things in this country and the world. And then you can ask the other question one of Mr. Hyde's characters in his book puts forth; "What the hell will they do to us next?"

Here Are The Facts

by Sammy Schwartz

DO NOT clump me with those stupid, offensive idiots who did NOT have the slightest CLUE what they were supposed to protest (either for or against) when they chose to venture to the town of Charlottesville, Virginia.

NOW, let us "Set the record STRAIGHT." And this is for ALL media and commentators, as well as Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayor, etc., etc., etc.

1. It has to do with our Southern Cultural Heritage... 
   a) not the issue of slavery,
   b) not white vs. black Americans
   c) not the Confederate Flag, which
     1. displays the St. Andrews Cross
     2. has the sacred meaning that a man, many years ago was crucified sideways
         by his own choice,
    d) is an issue of "tearing down" our heritage (statutes, NOT statues). The statues of
        NOT of people who hated;  they were those who knew The Truth of the reason for the War.
        It was NOT about keeping slaves in bondage;  it was trying to keep what land they rightfully owned.
        (Remember, the South was invaded).
     e) Many blacks (knowing the real reason for the War) also, smartly fought for the South.

2. The UN-civil War was what "the Yankees"--promoters of "Federal Supremacy" fought for, and
     it was here that the 1860s Media turned their attention. The War was truly about "money" the love of
     which is the root of all evil. The South had become more wealthy than the North could tolerate, even
     with the excessive tariffs, so they used any excuse to MAKE war. Actually, the NORTH was the
     aggressor, regardless  of what "The Media of 1860" said.

3. THEY LIED! Back then, there was NO alternative media, no live "talk radio." (To verify what I have           been telling you) please read Lincoln's Marxists by Al Benson Jr. and Donnie Kennedy.

4. Heritage and culture are concerns noted in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. The Manifesto           lists and recommends how to destroy any country they are mentally attacking. And, there are those in       our own midst who intend to destroy what our founding fathers: George Washington and Thomas                 Jefferson, along with many other patriots who wrote and endorsed our Great Constitution gave us.

5. Now, Saul Alinsky (Marxist and destroyer of freedom) has  disciples who are trying to undermine that       great document  (Constitution) by staging all kinds of protests, often funding both sides of the issue.           Specifically, they are intending to DESTROY our culture, with the SOLE intention: to undermine our           wonderful heritage, and, in effect, Our Constitution.

6. For your information, both sides in the Charlottesville protest were funded by George Soros money,             delivered by Robert Creamer, who is the husband of Leftist Congresswoman Jan Schaowsky.

7. These people are the REAL HATERS, and there is a clear and deliberate intent on their part to destroy       our culture and our form of government--and our form of government IS a Republic, as stated in the             Pledge of Allegiance. And we true Patriots want a "nation under God--with liberty and justice for all.

8. The Liberals (and the Marxists) redundancy here, sorry, are against us on every issue.  And they can't       handle what Trump stands for and stands up for: GOOD PEOPLE!

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 http://www.americanthinker.com 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 http://www.lewrockwell.com 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 that.  And 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.

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

by Al Benson Jr.

Pat Buchanan had an interesting article on www.lewrockwell.com 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

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 http://www.textbookleague.org  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.

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 http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com 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.

Follow up on Donnie Kennedy Interview

by Al Benson Jr.

I talked with Donnie Kennedy on Tuesday morning, August 19th regarding his interview on the Alan Colmes show on Fox Radio. Most folks realize that Colmes is a rank liberal, and Donnie realized that before he went on his show, so he knew where  Colmes would be coming from.

Donnie felt that he held his own pretty well during the interview and although I did not get to hear it, I think he probably did too. I have heard Donnie talk on tv before in front of questionable hosts and he held his own.

Part of the reason he agreed to the interview was to have an opportunity to get a little exposure for the book he and I co-authored, "Lincoln's Marxists." We have felt that, with this book, we covered the kind of material that the "historians"--so called, just love to leave out regarding Mr. Lincoln, the Republican Party, and the socialist and Communist influence that was very prevalent in this country at that time, and has continued on ever since.

There are many on the left that have commented on our book and the blanket charge they all throw at is is "they say Lincoln was a Communist." In fact, we have not said that, but then, who are these people to worry about facts? Their agenda is to spread propaganda, not truth. We have said that Lincoln and the Republican Party were influenced by socialists and communists and there is evidence to back that up. If you want to know where, then you will have to read the book. It's all in there and we give sources, but we never said "Lincoln was a communist."

One of our major concerns is that folks in the Southern and Confederate Movements have been almost totally unaware of this. Both Donnie and I have given speeches to Southern groups over the past few years and when you bring up some of the material we've dug up on Lincoln's involvement with the socialist "Forty-eighters" from Europe you can see people's jaws drop! They never heard this until we dealt with it--which tells you something about the quality of what passes of history nowadays, even in conservative circles.

Lord willing, we plan to keep on hammering away with this information. People, North and South, need to know the real history and we try to provide as much of it as we are able to in "Lincoln's Marxists."