Bond Issues--Where Does the Money Go ???

by Al Benson Jr.

The recent article in the "El Paso Times" in El Paso, Texas read: "Hard on the heels of a tax-increase request by the El Paso Independent School District, officials at the Ysleta Independent School District are talking about floating a $160 million bone issue this spring. The district's plans have some significant differences but the common denominator is asking for a tax hike during volatile economic times in which people are struggling financially in a number of ways." At the risk of sounding slightly cynical, how many of these government school districts really even think about the average man's financial problems when they decide they need more untold millions of our tax dollars? The tax-paying public is the golden goose--to be plucked at will until there's nothing left.

The article continues: "YISD Superintendent Michael Zolkoski said, 'I want the people to decide whether we want this money or not. In the old days when I did bonds, we used to say Just give us a couple hundred million and trust us. But today, people want to know where the money is going'." Can you really blame them? How much have government taxing agencies stolen off the public in the past 100 years and before? And government offices, from the White House on down, are so filled today with political liars, who believes anything they tell us anymore?

It's no secret that, in many parts of the country, about 3/4 of the property tax goes to support government schools. I can remember when we lived in Illinois the first time, years ago now, I saw someone's property tax bill. Back then it was for about $675 if I recall. That would be a pittance now, and the part of that which went to finance the government schools there was well over $450--just about 2/3 of the total amount.

Government school systems are forever wanting to float more and more bond issues so they can do all manner of things in schools that are supposed to provide that ever-elusive "quality education" that they never quite have enough money to provide--if only they could just get one more bond issue passed, and then one more if that doesn't do it, and on and on. Yet the more money they get, the dumber the kids seem to get. It's a game, folks, and we are the suckers being fleeced!

And talk about scare tactics! Many public school districts are not at all above using these to extort more money from hard-pressed parents. I remember when we lived in Indiana several years back now, one of the local government school districts wanted to float a bond issue. They got lots of good press from a compliant media trying to brainwash the locals about how great this bond issue would be for everyone. It would cure all the ills of man and beast in the area for the next century. When it came time to vote, the public turned it down resoundingly. After a smashing defeat, one of the school officials there stated: "Well, I guess we'll just have to give the public another opportunity to vote for this." So much for the will of the people! That only counts when the results are what the politicians and teachers' unions want. Within a few short months, they did give the public another golden "opportunity" to vote for this monstrosity, and guess what--the public turned it down a second time.

About that time, many kids started bringing stories home from school to the effect that most of their favorite teachers were going to be fired if their parents didn't vote for another bond issue. This propaganda barrage went on for weeks, again, dutifully aided and abetted by the local media, which unhesitatingly printed all manner of scare stories about how, without this bond issue, the local school system would be absolutely decimated. Somehow, the school system had managed to carry on rather well up to this point, but suddenly, without the extra millions, why the school house doors would be closed tomorrow, or the day after. After enough softening up by the media blitz and the scare stories brought home by the kids, the issue was voted on for a third time and this time it passed--barely, but it did pass. And educational blight was prevented--and pigs fly too, so they tell me!

This scare tactic is used all over the country. Here in Louisiana a few years ago, the public school officials in one parish simply could not keep their books straight. Their accounting system was about an inch short of an abomination. When the finally achieved some semblance of having the books straightened out, they found they were unable to account for about a million dollars. How to fix this slight "discrepancy?" One of the school officials said, rather blithely, "I guess we'll have to have a property tax increase." The school system couldn't keep track of their finances, lost over a million dollars somewhere they couldn't account for, and their solution to the problem was to go back and soak the public with higher property taxes to atone for their gross mismanagement. They had already requested one tax increase that year, which was voted down resoundlingly. But they decided to go back and try again. So they did, and it was voted down the second time, rather conclusively. People were just plain tired of seeing their money squandered by a profligate school system and the school district had to learn that year to get along with what it had. Of course the usual charges of "racism" were thrown out there at the public, even though the black population of the school district was only about 10%. Guess what? The school system did get along with what it had to work with that year. They ended the school year not in great shape, but they managed to live within their budget that year, which showed that they really could get along without more of our tax money when they had to.

Unfortunately, most folks across the country have not yet learned what the government school system is really all about (brainwashing 101) and so they vote again and again to authorize these new bond issues that take more and more money out of their pockets. So, some folks are beginning, in these lean economic time, to want to know just what their money is being spent on, and some are even learning to say "NO" to these bond issues. They are going to have to learn to keep saying NO, over and over again, because once you defeat a school bond issue, you can rest assured its proponents will return to try again, and again, and again...

Learn to vote NO on all government school bond issues--and to keep voting NO each time they rear their ugly heads. We are paying for the destruction of our children and our culture with them and we must learn to refuse to do that any longer.

Obama--The Original "Barackachurian Candidate"

by Al Benson Jr.

When Barack Obama/Sotero (or whatever his real name is) campaigned for the presidency he promised the gullible American public a new era of "transparency, open government, and full disclosure" as he sought to distance his approach from that of his predecessor. However, once he had ascended the presidential throne, Obama, with his secrecy, made George Bush look like a downright gossip.

According to an article by Steve Baldwin on http://www.westernjournalism.com the president "...will not reveal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records. He will not disclose his Harvard records, his Columbia College records, or his Occidental College records--he will not even release his Columbia College thesis. All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and he claims his scheduling records during those Senate years are lost as well. In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii."

In other words, you simply cannot find out anything about this guy except what he has released through his "press secretary" which material is about as useful as reading the funny papers. The "Team Obama" lawyers have now spent a cool $1.4 million blocking access to any possible document that could give the public any information about this person.

Mr. Baldwin continues: "Indeed, everywhere one looks into Obama's background, we find sealed records, scrubbed websites, altered documents, deception and unanswered questions." Mr. Baldwin also goes into Obama's social security number, or numbers. It would seem he has several--from all around the country.

And the website scrubbers missed one news article from "The Sunday Standard" which I believe is in England, for Sunday, June 27th, 2004. The headline for that article reads "Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate." Wonder how they missed that one!

So, what we essentially have is a man in the Oval Office that we really know nothing about. We don't even know for sure if he is a US citizen, which, according to the "Sunday Standard" article he may not be. World Net Daily has, for months now, had a series of billboards up in various places around the country in regard to Obama, asking "Where's the Birth Certificate?" There have been several lawsuits brought into various courts seeking to get Obama to prove his US citizenslhip, but it seems that the judicial folks are in on the game along with the media and they keep dismissing the lawsuits requiring him to prove US citizenship. Of course the prostitute press seldom reports any of this. Better for Obama and his agenda if you don't know about it.

I realize George Bush was a disaster. His open grasping for dictatorial powers was a national disgrace, as was his total disregard for the Constitution. But, have the American people done any better with Obama??? We have gone from a fascist to a Marxist! Sorry folks, but that ain't a real big improvement! Fascism and Marxism are nothing more than two ticks on the same collectivist hound dog.

The main difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric. Both were and are taking us in the same direction--total government! Bush did it with the Patriot Act, which gutted the Bill of Rights, and Obama is doing it with his regulatory czars who will make sure the Bill stays gutted. But at least we knew about Bush's background, his association with the Skull and Bones, his father's accociation with it, and all the rest. You can't find out hardly anything about Obama. It's like he's so "transparent" you can't even find him. What happened in his life from his birth to his ascension to his current throne in the White House? Well, few people really seem to know. We do know that he has been surrounded by Marxists since his youth. Just for the fun of it, check out The Obama File on the Internet. It should still be there if they haven't managed to scrub it too.

Obama seems to be a blank screen. The trouble is, the color of that screen is RED!

American voters have got to start seriously considering third party candidates in the upcoming election (if there is one).

Sarah Palin--You Have To Wonder ?

by Al Benson Jr.

You have to wonder about Sarah Palin. Is she really a patriotic conservative or just one more in a long line of "business as usual" Republcans?

She just spoke at the big Tea Party rally in Nashville, Tennessee. Supposedly she got a fee of $100,000 for her appearance there. That's a bit more expansive than giving a speech somewhere and having the sponsors pick up your dinner tab.

While in Nashville, she mentioned that she would consider running for president in 2012, and that she was going to Texas to campaign for Gov. Rick Perry after she departed Nashville. Interesting. The governor's race in Texas is also interesting. There is a viable candidate in that race, Debra Medina, that the Tea Parties in Texas have been supporting. I don't know how she is doing in that race, but it seems that Gov. Perry wants to sidestep any debates in Texas that Medina appears at. It seems that he does not wish to debate Debra Medina. Why???

In the last presidential election the establishment Republicans managed to shut Ron Paul out of most of the presidential debates so the quick-tempered John McCain would be there alone to fumble the ball so Obama could pick it up and run with it. Without the presence of Ron Paul the presidential debates were the typical establishment dog and pony show. I'm sure the debates between the gubernatorial candidates in Texas without input from Debra Medina will amount to the same thing.

So,if the Tea Parties in Texas have endorsed Debra Medina, why is Sarah Palin, who just spoke at a Tea Party event in Nashville, going to Texas to help out Gov. Perry when she should be going to help Debra Medina?

Is this yet another case of trying to fool people so they end up voting for the phony "conservative" instead of the real one? That little trick has worked well in the past, so why not now? How often have patriotic Americans been gulled into voting for some phony instead of the real thing?

Sarah Palin is an attractive lady. So how many people will be fooled into voting for whoever she endorses and supports by letting their hearts rule where their heads should?

If she is what she claims to be, why will she be campaigning for someone other than the person the Tea Party folks have supported?

And, is it also possible that the "business as usual" Republicans, who are really no different than the "business as usual" Democrats, are trying to co-opt the Tea Party Movement and turn it into something they can use for their own purposes? I guess inquiring minds would like to know.

Secession!

by Daniel Benson

Once upon a time
In a not-so-distant land
Our fathers set out to make a difference.

Secession was their plan
To stay away from what we see today
And to make this our own good land.

Federal government said "Heck, no,
We're not about to let you go.
We'll invade to keep you here!"

When it was done
And they had won,
They changed their ideal.

So, slaves to them, we all should bow
And government seeks to oppress us now
And keep us while they can.

But stop and listen to their words,
Look at the banner they choose to unfurl
To make government slaves of each boy and girl.

No longer will you have a home,
Government says IT now will own
And fathers and mothers all will groan.

So, to be said, when they are done,
Away from this we'll want to run!
Wake up America, it won't be fun.

Socialist Obama is here you know,
To possess us all as we grow
From newborn babes to grown adults.

Smell the fear within our hearts.
Watch the falsehood of his charts.
Listen not to what he says, but watch his deeds instead!

Reprinted from The Copperhead Chronicle
Second Quarter AD 2009

Dead Money (Stimulus checks sent to the deceased)

by Daniel Benson

Dead men tell no lies,
Yet to them the money flies.
They tell us government didn't know,
Yet somehow to them the money did flow.

Social Security lost a lot,
Around two million, what a cash crop!
Ten thousand checks to the dead, so they say,
And dead men will cash them anyway!

Money missing that you pay,
And this government just dies to give it away.
Missing money and checks mailed--
For such negligence they should be jailed!

Around two million unaccounted for,
Yet they choose to underscore.
When will we as a nation awake?
Too late, and too bad we didn't see the break.

Those Political Parties

by Daniel Benson


Two political parties, though really the same,
Many voters they can claim.
Yet no difference in my view,
Though the parties, they say, are two.
Socialists they claim abound,
Yet they forget to look around.

Many people they call friend
Still are socialists to the end.
Senator Arlen Spector wanted to switch,
Yet when they're the same, which is which?
So to the masses I proclaim
Is this thought of "two" not just insane?

When two parties "differences" they desire,
Yet to do the same things they conspire.
So I ask, just what they find true,
Since they can't make out red or blue.
These parties that say they are two
Really are one when brought into view.

To the politicians this I say,
"Please, why don't you go away?"
Liars, cheaters, that's what most are.
This I can see from afar.
Government small should be,
Nationally or locally.

So wake up America!
Your government's taking your freedoms to task,
And how long will this country last?
Part of a one-world government I will not be.
Politicians take our kids away
And public schools mold them into slaves of clay.

Health reform is just a joke,
Your new doctor may be English country folk.
Your car will make its way, the ocean to cross,
While China,Yugoslavia, and Africa await your loss.
So little time and money you see,
But voters next year we may not be.

So to end my political rant,
When honest politicians are oh, so scant,
America again may never be,
Except as part of the Communist tree.

The So-Called Stimulus Package

by Daniel Benson

To every aspiring government hack I ask one simple question. Why can't you seem to get it through your heads that I and many of the American people did not vote any of you into office--yet you say the American people did such. How many dogs, cats, and gravesites did it take in some cases to fill your ballot boxes--or voting machines?

You squabble, fight, and argue and yet manage to do nothing beneficial when you are in office except to hurt the chances for our children to grow up correctly instead of being wimps, losers, and nobodys. You accomplish nothing but the public arguing before passing out the pork to your friends) and for some dumb reason I can't understand you seem to fascinate the "news" people of this once great nation that is now on the third world doorstep of most other nations.

This stimulus package that House and Senate haven't been able to agree on with the president lies in shambles, which might be a good thing (though some sort of backroom deal will eventually be cut).

Here is my plan for government hacks. I think you should all work for minimum wage while you hold on to your supposedly elected offices and then let's see how fast you run for office again. Or better yet, while you are in office--work for free and let's see how quickly you get things accomplished that will benefit the American people, who are now just a mish-mash of other nationalities and can't even salute the American flag when it goes by.

I wonder how many of you take up politics for the fat paycheck we pay you when we are having difficulty putting food on the table. We don't need protection from other countries--we need protection from our own elected officials.

So I suggest that rather than putting more of our money in your friends' pockets you should all consider a vote for cutting our taxes and putting more money back in our pockets, not yours or your friends. And while you are at it, why not consider restoring to us those God-given rights we were guaranteed in the original Constitution? And even if you cut a deal and pass this thing (with all that pork for your friends) before I reach a ripe old age, I can guarantee I won't be voting for any of you the next time either and will hope fervently that you lose your cushy congressional jobs to someone else. Who knows, that someone else might even be someone like me.

THAT BIG CONFEDERATE FLAG IN TAMPA

by Al Benson Jr.

It would seem that the local group of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tampa, Florida has done something that has really driven the liberal/Communist establishment up the wall. For years, various Leftist fringe/hate groups have marched, moaned and in general paraded around complainly loudly about Southern flags and symbols. The mere sight of a Confederate flag anywhere seems to set their noses to twitching and their ears to smoking. They caper, drool, and moan about how their delicate sensibilities have been "offended" at the mere sight of a small Confederate flag on a grave marker somewhere. Of course they have no concern whatever about the sensibilities of other folks that they may offend. The rest of us are just supposed to take that in stride while they moan about how we've offended them!

Well, guess what? Their delicate Leftist sensibilities can now really be offended. The SCV folks in Tampa, Florida have, on private property, near Routes I 4 and I 75 outside of Tampa, erected a huge flagpole with a 30' X 50' Confederate Naval Jack on it. The flagpole is 139 ft. high and is located at the construction site of a monument to Confederate veterans.

And what will be even worse for those Left-wingers, once the Confederate monument is completed, that big flag will be illuminated at night. At that point the Lefties will get to be "offended" twenty four hours a day. Doesn't your heart just bleed for them? (Don't all answer at once!)

The usual suspects have crawled out from beneath their collectivist rocks to make the usual complaints. The Hillsborough County president of the NAACP has said "I'm surprised they would let something like this go on in Hillsborough County." Buddy, I hate to disallusion you, but if the flag and monument are on private property and have met all zoning requirements, which they seem to have, then no one can tell them what they can and can't have on their own property. It seems that the NAACP would abrogate people's right to use their own property if they could get by with it.

And it was common knowledge the Fox News sent out a reporter to cover this incident. That man, Orlando Salinas, has to be one of the few remaining decent reporters in the entire country. He interviewed all the folks concerned and actually turned in an objective report, giving the Southern Heritage folks their just due. Fox News was then reported to be considering cancelling Mr. Salinas' piece because it didn't paint the Confederate flag as racist. When this became known, I think Fox News got lots of emails and calls and Mr. Salinas' report ended up being run after all, much to the chagrin of those on the Left.

The SCV folks in Tampa are adament--the big flag stays. They say they are tired of their history and heritage being constantly trashed and this big flag is one way they are fighting back. May the Lord bless their efforts.

If you are trying to figure out who is right in all of this, just look at the credentials of those who oppose not only this flag but any and all Southern flags and symbols. The majority of them are dedicated Leftists, socialists, "Red Republicans", Communists, and ultra-liberals.

And, at root, their main problem is still that these Southern symbols are mainly Christian symbols. That's what "those people" really hate--Jesus Christ and the Christian faith.

If you would like to read about some of the origins of political and religious Leftism in this country then get hold of the book "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" by Donnie Kennedy and myself. It deals with the radical Leftists in both Lincoln's armies and in the early Republican Party, which, contrary to some, has NO real conservative roots. Check out the website for Ole South Books to find out how to get a copy of the book.

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN !!!

by Al Benson Jr.

Folks, the system is broken! It doesn't work for ordinary folks (and hasn't since 1861).

A few years back I read an article about a Harvard University political scientist who was mourning the fact that more Americans don't take part in the political process nowadays. He noted polls indicating that the number of Americans who worked for political parties fell 42% between 1973 and 1994. He also observed that the number who attended political meetings fell 35% and the number who bothered to write a letter to their congress critters fell by 23%. He mourned that we have become "a nation of bystanders" and he felt that when ordinary folks quit taking part in the civil life of a "democratic" society then that society tends to become unbalanced. I might enquire, in my cynicism what "democratic" society is is talking about. One can hardly label the corporate fascist society we exist under todaly as "democratic" unless he uses that term in the classic Marxist sense.

The political scientist claimed that our present problem did not exist earlier, where civic participation was to be expected to some degree at most levels of society. The article stated that: "Everyday Americans had a voice, and the nation's leaders listened because they depended on them--whether as citizen-soldiers, taxpayers, or volunteers." Sounds nice, but in all honesty, we are forced to recognize that the situation being described has not existed in this country for many, many years. It sounds so warm and fuzzy that we must reflect that it is simply not realistic. This country's leadership couldn't care less what ordinary people think or feel. They have their agenda and that agenda, a One-World government one, will be pushed and promoted regardless of how the public at large might feel about it. Look at the illegal immigration problem, for example. Polls have shown that somewhere around 80% of the public wants strong action from the government to curb illegal immigration. Are they giving it to us? If you think they are you must be dreaming. What has been the national "leadership's" response in both branches of the Republicrat Party? They've done a lot of promising and rhetorical side-stepping and that's it. They voted for a border fence and then told us the funding isn't available for it. So their solution is to ignore the problem and hope we don't notice that all the rhetoric doesn't amount to doodly-squat. The One-World clique in control of both major political parties wants the illegal immigrants in here. They will help to totally adulterate what is left of American culture as a definable entity and that's what they want. So we'll get that from them whether we want it or not. They want the illegals here; they mean to have them here--and the public be damned!

We also need to take note of our government "education" system, the one that most of us were forced to endure for twelve miserable years. It is a system that does not encourage political participation unless it be in a variety of Left-wing causes. For instance, we celebrate "Earth Day" in April. I remember the first Earth Day they celebrated and made such a fuss over way back in 1970. They just "happened" to pick the day to begin observing that on the day that was the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth. The purest of coincidences of course!

It seems that many folks, one way or the other, have finally figured out that the political system we now have (the same one we've had since the Lincoln administration) doesn't work, and will never work for them and their families. That being the case, they have just sort of "tuned out" and refuse to bother taking part anymore. The dog and pony show we euphemistically refer to as the "national elections" don't interest them any longer, and who can really blame them? Most of these folks couldn't tell you rationally what's wrong with the country if you asked them. Yet, in spite of their government school "educations" in their heart of hearts they instinctively know something is wrong, something isn't working right, and they know they are powerless to change it. For ordinary people THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN and never to be fixed. Ordinary folks must continue to pay the confiscatory taxes and take with a grain of salt the constitutionally illegal usurpations of their freedoms the system dishes out, and so they, having little idea of how the game is really played at the top, attempt to live with the current situation with as little personal hassle as possible. Some of them over the years, me included, went to political meetings and wrote letters to our Congress critters about the many problems we saw. About all most of us ever got back for our efforts were those nice, meaningless form letters from them, telling us how important our opinions were and how they would take them into consideration when they voted. A pile to cow chips--bovine fertilizer, if you will! Most of them never saw our letters. Some ribbon clerk in a back office somewhere in Washington rubber-stamped the congressman's "signature" on form letters back to their constituents and they couldn't have cared less about our opinions on anything! They were going to vote on this or that whether we wanted it or not, because the One-World government clique wanted it and that was that.

In the current dog and pony show, has anyone listened to Hitlery or Obama or McCain in the soundbytes we get on the tube? Are any of them really saying anything different than the others? Are any of them really saying anything? Seems to me all we are getting is pious socialist platitudes from all of them. Years ago George Wallace said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Whatever else you might think of Wallace one way or the other, he was right on this point. It doesn't make any difference which party sits in the White House after next November--you are going to get the same agenda either way. Only the rhetoric will be different. The politics of plunder, confiscation, and collectivism, with an aim to completely restricting our liberties will remain the same. You think something like this new "North American Union" isn't part of this? Think again.

So lots of folks just don't bother to participate in the workings of the system any longer because they know, at the gut level, that the politicians that rant and rave at them, pandering for their votes, don't mean a thing they say, will break every promise they made after the elections are over, and business as usual will continue on in Washington and most of our state capitals--compliments of the Council on Foreign Relations and the rest of the One World government crowd.

Unfortunately, many Christians who should know better, mostly don't. They've been gulled into thinking that "voting Republican" will, somehow save the country. Many of them and their fathers have been doing that, voting Republican, since Abraham Lincoln--and look where that has got us. And I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat--I most assuredly am not.

If Christians are not going to wake up enough to work to change this moribund culture, then they at least should do enough homework to realize that they need to start thinking about third party candidates. If ever we are to see any meaningful change in this country we have got to begin to look somewhere else rather than to the two branches of America's Socialist Internationale that today call themselves Republicans and Democrats.

If you want to check out a little of the sorry history of this country since the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression in 1865, please check out my website at http://www.albensonjr.com and if you want to check out the book Donnie Kennedy and I have written "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" then please check out the website of Ole South Books.

COMMUNIST DOUBLESPEAK--It's all in a word and how you use it

by Al Benson Jr.

Ever run into a situation where one word means two different things to two different people? Those who have taken the trouble to understand the Communist mindset (sorry folks, but communism isn't dead) will understand what I'm talking about. Over the years Communists have often used common, everyday terms that we all use, but to them these mean something else entirely. This is called aesopian language and it is one way Communists were able to fool liberal "useful idiots" in the West into thinking that they were great humanitarians instead of the international thugs they really were (and are).

Back in the early 1970s Professor Roy Colby wrote an informative little book called "A Communese-English Dictionary" in which he dealt with many, if not most, of the terms that Communists regularly employed in their dealings with the West that meant the complete opposite of what we've been conditioned to think they mean.

Hence, when some Red diplomat came to this country and gave a speech, he would prattle on long and loud about how the Communists in his particular country really wanted only "peace" with the United States. Many in the fawning liberal news media actually believed this twaddle and took such statements seriously. They wrote glowing accounts of the Soviet or Red Chinese Communist's quest for "peace" and they castigated the West for being a batch of warmongers. Of course some in the media knew the diffence, but they willingly lied to us anyway. Thus, you ended up with headlines in many liberal rags that passed for newspapers such as "Kruschev wants peace." No one ever bothered to ask Mr. Kruschev what he meant by the word "peace."

Professor Colby, in his book, told us. When the Communist told you he wanted "peace" what he really meant was that he sought "Absense of resistance to Commmunist expansionism, Western policy or practice favorable to Soviet or Communist objectives, An international climate in which Communism may flourish..." Suffice it to say that's not quite what you and I were brought up to think the term meant. But Communist use of the word for Western consumption always employed this meaning. So a "peacebreaker" was one who resisted Communist aggression. Do you begin to see how the game is played?

The term "racial discriminatio" was used by the Reds in much the same way. To the Communist it meant "Opposition of any kind to black demands or to the Party Line on the black revolution." So, if you resisted radical black demands for reparations or whatever, no matter how utterly riduculous they were, you were automatically a racist. It mattered not at all how far out these black demands might have been--anyone speaking out against them was automatically suspect. Still works the same way today, doesn't it?

When I said earlier that communism wasn't dead, I meant it. This is exactly the way the term "racist" is used by the Cultural Marxists in our day. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, anyone resisting the demands of radical blacks or radical illegal immmigrants, or just speaking up in defense of Southern heritage, is a flaming racist. Their use of the term "racist" is thoroughly Marxist in origin--the same way the Marxist term "reconstruction" was used after the end of the War of Northern Aggression to justify the rape of the Southern states.

Some naive soul might be tempted at this point to ask in the SPLC is really a Cultural Marxist group. To which I would answer "will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?"

There are many individuals and groups out there that qualify to be considered as Cultural Marxists. They continue to use language today exactly the way the Communists used it for decades. Today they rail about "diversity" when what they really mean is "no whites need apply." They carry on endlessly about "multi-culturalism" in which there is supposedly a place at the table for everyone--except us white folks of course. We are the reason for all the world's problems--so we should just stay away--except when those people want our money--and then we should dutifully line up with wallets in hand to fork over our long green, all the time displaying the proper amount of self-guilt and loathing. Right?

Wrong!!! The Cultural Marxists have no regard whatever for truth or common decency. They work to manipulate their intended victims, who should know better, but thanks to government education, mostly don't. If makes you wonder where the churches have been for the past several decades. They sure haven't, for the most part, been on the front lines educating the Lord's people, who, when it comes to Cultural Marxism, are usually as dumb as dirt!

Ephesians 5:11 tells Christians to "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove (expose) them." Had more of our churches taken the trouble to try to do this we might have had less people deceived by the Communists years ago and less deceived by their spiritual grandchildren, the Cultural Marxists, today.

HUCKSTERBEE AND THE CHRISTIANS (not as wise as serpents

by Al Benson Jr.

Since 1968 I have been watching the presidential elections in this country and have kept tabs on how the evangelical Christian community votes as a whole. I must say I have not been encouraged by their track record. They seem to fall for whatever candidate can spout about his "Christianity" the longest and loudest and it never seems to occur to them to ever check as to whether his actions match his words (and usually they don't).

Richard Nixon claimed to be "born again", sat close to Billy Graham at one of Graham's crusades in 1968, the Christians were fooled and we ended up with Watergate, a lot of Nixon's foul language on the Watergate tapes and One World architect Henry Kissinger, who some even said was a Soviet spy, as part of Nixon's cabinet. Jimmy Carter, the would-be peanut farmer from Georgia pulled the same stunt. Talked about his Christian faith and then packed his cabinet with leftists of the Rockefeller tint. We were told Reagan was a Christian, although he seldom ever attended church and his lifestyle didn't really back up the claims, but he was a good enough actor at the game that he is still fooling some conservatives even though he has passed away. But, then, some folks claim that Abraham Lincoln didn't become a Christian until after he was dead for six months.

We had the same deal with Bush the Second. I remember many evangelicals I knew of just falling all over themselves about how wonderful a Christian man Bush the Second was and how he held Bible studies in the White House. Of course the fact that he was part of the Skull and Bones society was never mentioned in Christian circles. But as we went along, Bush the Second eviscerated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even more than Slick Willie could have dreamed about doing--but that was okay with the Christians because he was, supposedly, one of them. Yeah, right! Some folks believe that purple cows fly too. And the evangelicals never seem to learn. After getting gutted in almost every election in the past forty years, here they are, right back, ready to be sheared in the 2008 election by another "devout Christian" the former governor of Arkansas, one Mike Huckabee. Does the title "former governor of Arkansas" ring a bell? Is this deja vu or what?

The stories are floating by thick and fast about Huckabees "Christianity" but again, no one is bothering to check out Mr. Huckabees actions to see if he walks the walk he talks about. You're just supposed to take his word and the word of his handlers, and of the "news media" about everything--God help us! After having done a little checking on Mr. Huckabee and his positions in several areas, I as a Christian, could not in good conscience, support him, nor will I.

Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum, has noted that Huckabee has "destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas and left the Republican Party a shambles. Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee." You have to wonder at who is doing this sales pitch and if there isn't a pattern here of selling evangelicals on New World Order candidates over and over? Yes, Virginia, there is a pattern.

Huckabee has continued to peddle his religious Huckadrivel. He has compared the illegal aliens in this country, for whom he obviously has a soft spot, to the slaves that were brought here from Africa, who were sold to slave traders by other black Africans. Obviously, if that comparison could be sold to the Christians, they should then feel compassion for the illegals. Sorry, Mike, but it won't wash. Slaves were brought here, both North and South, through no choice of their own. The illegal aliens are here by the millions, coming in illegally, breaking the law to get here and to stay here. Yet Huckabee opposed legislation in Arkansas to prevent illegals from voting or getting state benefits. He claims those supporting such legislation are really nothing but racists. Really? Huckabee begins to sound like the el presidente of Mexico. He says the same thing--if we won't let his illegals enter our country and steal American jobs then we're all racists. Viva Senor Huckabee!

To prove his love for illegal aliens, while governor of Arkansas, he arranged for a Mexican consulate to be located in Little Rock, supposedly to help illegals with their problems with the American law, and naturally, the state of Arkansas would pay most of the expenses for all this misplaced "compassion." What that really means is that you folks living in Arkansas will foot the bill through taxes. And that brings us to another point. Mr. Huckabee never saw a tax he didn't love. Maybe he should change his name from Huckabee to Taxabee!

Ernie Dumas of the Arkansas Leader wrote: "Mike Huckabee has raised more taxes in 10 years than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years." And State Representative Randy Minton said: "(Huckabee) says he's pro-family. If your're raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that's not pro-family." Can't argue with that logic. Many writers have agreed that Huckabee is no conservative--yet he is being peddled to the evangelicals as one. So who's doing the sales pitch?

According to the website http://www.taxhikemike.com "...the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee's tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike, gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; higher beer taxes. Huckabee oversaw a 50% increase in spending...opposes private school choice." Some "pro-family" candidate!

He also spoke recently to the National Education Association and he has called the "No child left behind" program "the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime." More bovine fertilizer! The best way the federal government could "reform" education would be to get out of it altogether. But, then, remember that Karl Marx was in favor of public, or government schools also.

Mr. Huckabee is also naming Richard Haas, the president of the CFR as his advisor on foreign policy. Conservative Christians should know, (although most don't have a clue) about the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization has been labeled as "the shadow government in the United States." Most important positions, regardless of who is in power, are filled from this group. They really are our unelected government.

All this, plus the fact that Huckabee has the support of the liberal wing of his church, should begin to tell you something. You should be able to begin to deduce that Mr. Huckabee in no way represents the interests of the Christian community, or of anyone else except for the One World "tax and spend" crowd that is busily grooming him for possible office.

But I suspect that, as usual, the evangelical community will end up being bamboozled by yet another spiritual charlatan, and they won't realize what has happend, should he get elected, until about halfway through his second term. As usual, they will be disappointed, but with their incredibly short memories they will again be manipulated into voting for the "next Christian" One Worlder to be paraded out after our next president is history.

REPARATIONS--By and for the Black Marxists

by Al Benson Jr.

Earlier this year a legislative committee in Missouri studied the feasibility of issuing an apology from the state of Missouri for slavery. One more state victim of the "apology for slavery" craze that seems to be infecting the country this year, with erstwhile legislators weeping huge crocodile tears for something that happened before their great grandfathers were even born. And, too, the crocodile tears might help with the black vote! At any rate, for whatever reason, Missouri did not act on this apology and thus has not yet had its golden opportunity to sit on the black racists' "stool of everlasting repentance" as other states have done.

But not to worry, the black racists are now back, with their white quislings, again ready to parade their guilt trip for whitey so he will yet have one more chance to grovel in the presence of their rabid ethnocentrism.

A recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch noted that: "A formal apology by Missouri for slavery is a necessary step in overcoming social and economic inequities suffered by many of its black citizens, speakers told a special legislative committee Tuesday." They failed to stipulate how an apology for the slavery of 150 years ago would economically benefit blacks in Missouri today, but then, I guess we are not supposed to ask that question are we?

The article continued: "White supremacy has had far-reaching implications on race relations up to this day," said Jamala Rogers, a "veteran civil rights activist" with the Organization for Black Struggle.

Just out of mild curiosity, I did a little digging to see what I could find out about Jamala Rogers. Seems she is the National Organizer for a friendly little group called the Black Radical Congress. This group has what it calls a "freedom agenda" which is quite revelatory. Among their projects are "...laws mandating public ownership of utilities" (in Marxist terms that means the state owns them). And they also seek "...a fair equitable, highly progressive tax system..." And they claim that they will "...struggle to ensure that all people in society receive free public education" and not for their younger years only, but throughout their lifetimes. You see, the indoctrination must continue beyond the high school years to be effective. Anyone who has ever read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto should go back and look at it again and you will find all these things listed in it as part of Marx's program for communizing a country. This "freedom agenda" is Marxist to the core. Other things they wish to do are to abolish the death penalty and establish "civilian review boards" to monitor the police forces--both projects promoted by the Communists in recent decades. They will also, so they claim, "...fight against homophobia and (they) support anti-homophobic instruction in public schools." That means, in plain English, that they get the right to teach your kids that homosexuality is perfectly okay. Oh, and by the way, they also claim they will fight for black reparations. All of these things have, at one point or another, been part and parcel of the Marxist program for this country and apparently still will be if these people have their way. And since no one seems to be opposing them at this point, it does make you wonder.

The Post Dispatch article also mentioned one Zaki Baruti, "another veteran activist" who voiced his unstinting support for reparations. Not be be outdone my Ms. Rogers, Mr. Baruti is the President/General of the Universal African Peoples Organization. Part of their program is to: "Support African-centered curriculum in the public schools. Control local public school boards with Afrocentric thinking people." Sounds as if, with their mindset, there will be no room nor purpose in schools for anyone except blacks. It would seem that Mr. Baruti is a subscriber to the "all whites are racist" fiction and his solution is to replace white racism with black racism--which is, of course, okay, since black racism is allowed and white racism isn't.

Looking over this Post Dispatch article, you may well be tempted to think that St. Louis is chock full of black Marxist groups. And it does seem as if they are mostly the ones screaming and howling about apologies for slavery and reparations. Too bad the "news" media didn't see fit to give us a little info about these people and the groups they belong to. If I could find out this bit of info on these worthy Left-wing individuals you can bet the news people could have too. Simply calling them "veteran activists" really tells the reading public nothing, and I'm sure that's the intention. You can bet your boots that if someone over on the political Right were proposing some project the media would be out en mass, digging up all the dirt they could find on him and his family all the way back to Henry the Eighth! But with the black Marxists you don't have to worry about that. Their ideologies will never be mentioned by the media people--the public really doesn't need to know--that way they will never realize they should be in opposition to what these people are trying to do and life will go on and on, the Marxists will eventually get what they want and the brainwashed public will never wonder.

Liberal Preachers and their Left-wing Connections

by Al Benson Jr.

As is probably known to most in the Southern Heritage Movement by now, the Rev. Louis Coleman of the Justice Resource Center in Louisville, Kentucky was one of those who made a big fuss over Confederate symbols at Allen High School in Floyd County, Kentucky, way over in Appalachia, just a bit of a way from his native stomping ground in Louisville. You might wonder why.

Rev. Coleman was supposed to speak to a school board meetig in Floyd County during January of this year (2007). Coleman's talk was an attempt to get the school board to force Allen Central to do away with their school's Confederate symbols. It would have been nice if someone over in Floyd County had just told Rev. Coleman to go back to Louisville and mind his own business, as what they do in Floyd County is their business, not his.

Given Rev. Coleman's background and associations, though, it is not at all surprising that he would be in the forefront of the attempt to obliterate Confederate symbols when and wherever he ran across them. His associations with those on the far political Left bear this out. Just a small example, if you will allow.

Enter Anne Braden, who just passed away this past year. She and Rev. Louis Coleman have had some association with each other. There is, on the Internet, a photo of her and Rev. Coleman, with others, standing side by side at a "Myles Horton 100th Birthday Party in Louisville, Kentucky in July of 2005." Well, so what, you say--but please bear with me--it gets better. Myles Horton was one of the founders of the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. He said of his school "Here in the mountains, should the economic situation become pressing enough, the people could be made to understand that the socialization of property would give them more personal freedom...Here was an opportunity to direct the American revolutionary tradition towards a cooperative society operated by and for the workers...Many strike songs are as class-conscious as the writings of Karl Marx..." In other words, Horton was using this "folk school" as a vehicle for the promotion of Communist propaganda.

In fact, the Joint Legislative Committee of Un-American Activities for the state of Louisiana has listed Highlander Folk School as a "Communist training school." So Rev. Coleman and Anne Braden were photographed together at this party for one of the founders of a Communist training school--which is not really surprising, for you see, Anne Braden and her husband, the late Carl Braden, were both identified in sworn testimony as Communists. For years the operated the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) which was a Communist front group. Doesn't Rev. Coleman keep interesting company? The picture of he and Anne Braden is part of an article on the Internet for the Highlander Research and Education Center, in an article dealing with Anne Braden. Check out http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-braden.asp and see for yourself.

Some among the gullible might say that this one association could be coincidental, and well it might be, except that this isn't the only one.

There is another outfit out there, operating among us "great unwashed", the Coalition for the People's Agenda. Interesting name! Folks from this group meet regularly at the Braden Center, 3208 W. Broadway in Louisville, Kentucky. Now who do you suppose the Braden Center has been named for? At any rate, this group has an entire litany of leftist programs going on. Anyone who has read Communist propaganda during the 1950s and 60s has already seen this type of stuff--it's not really new. It has just been repackaged a little so it will sell to the contemporary crowd (they hope). This organization has something going called "The People's Agenda" and guess who two of the authors and planners were for this project--Anne Braden and the Rev. Louis Coleman. Surprise surprise! Birds of a feather and all that!

It would seem that Rev. Coleman's political affiliations place him way, way over at the Left end of the political spetrum--not exactly in the mainstream of American thought. So why, pray tell, should patriotic Americans in Floyd County, Kentucky seek to rid themselves of their Confederate symbols for the sake of him and his Leftist pals?

The theological and political Left has always been in the forefront of the opposition against the Confederacy and her symbols and flags. It was so in the 1860s and it is no different today. Their Leftist propaganda needs to be exposed for what it is--divisive class hatred and an abiding hatred for anything Southern, Confederate, or Christian.

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE THE PANTHER INVASION

by Al Benson Jr.

I paraphrase the old poem slightly when I say "What to my wondering eyes should appear but cadres of (Black) Panthers all coming here (to Jena, Louisiana). That was my initial thought after picking up the Monroe, Louisiana newspaper one day recently and reading an article on the first page that stated that the "New Black Panthers" were coming to Jena, Louisiana to "patrol" the streets to keep the infamous Jena 6 and their families safe and secure from alleged Ku Klux Klan threats. My second thought was that the good folks in Jena, both black and white are just going to love this!

I wondered if the local police might possibly try to keep them out as a possible disruptive influence. Then I thought, no, that probably won't happen. It wouldn't be politically correct. Now if they happened to be an outfit called The White Panthers, then you can be sure they would have been denied access to Jena, but the Black Panthers probably won't--"racism" and all that you know.

I can recall when I first got into political activism back in the late 1960s. The original Black Panther Party was alive and well, spreading their black Marxist theology among the masses, and college students ate it up like bread and honey. For all their supposed intelligence they had about as much discernment as a potato chip that has just been stepped on in the parking lot. Of course the "objective" media would never admit the Black Panthers were communists--they finally had to do that themselves--and then the "news" media looked rather pathetic for not having brought that fact out earlier. But then you know how it is with the news media (and I do use that term in the loosest possible sense)--much better to have a communist under every bed than to be forced to admit that he's there. The original Black Panther Party seems to have gone the way of all flesh mostly. Survivors of that original group are now about as old as I am. However, this newest mutation of them has sprouted from the same noxious Marxist weed, and its roots and vines are gradually creeping into the "new civil rights movement."

The New Black Panthers are an interesting group. They claim capitalism is the primary evil in the world ( I always thought that sin was) and naturally they see revolution as the only solution. To say that these people are anti-Christian would be an understatement. However, they claim that they don't draw their inspiration from Karl Marx. Instead, with a clever play on words, they state that Marx drew his ideology from indigenous African cultures, and they, therefore, just eliminate the middle man, so to speak, and hark directly back to those African cultures for what they believe. What they are saying, in effect, is that these African cultures were Marxist before Marx was. Interesting concept.

The present head of the New Black Panthers is one Malik "Zulu" Shabazz. He was born Paris Lewis, but I reckon that didn't sound militantly Muslim enough for him, hence the new moniker. He went to Howard University and got a law degree, was strongly influenced by Louis Farrakhan, and claimed that meeting Farrakhan "changed my life." Oh, I'll just bet it did!

Shabazz has some rather novel views. He thinks all black prisoners in this country should be freed as they could not possibly have gotten fair trials in such a "racist" country. Back in 2002, Shabazz noted his "solidarity" with the former H. Rap Brown (also sporting a new Muslim name). Mr. Brown was eventually convicted of killing a black sheriff's deputy in Georgia. Wonder if they considered that a "hate crime" or just plain murder? Shabazz also falls all over himself to support Mumia Abu Jamal, another convicted cop-killer. He seems to have an odd affinity for people that shoot policemen. Of course we all know that these cop-killers Shabazz so ardently supports are all innocent, pure as the driven snow, because, after all, they were tried in "racist" courts. And this is what's going to be patrolling the steeets in Jena, Louisiana? Folks better hide their daughters and put their pets in the garage!

It would seem that Jena, Louisiana is now to be made the new "civil rights" guinea pig. As such it will be subjected to whatever the Leftist civil rights crowd and our "Justic Department" in Washington can get away with. This will continue until the town's residents are not so subtly "persuaded" to confess their "racism". Then, they can be made to sit on "stools of everlasting repentance" for the rest of their natural lives, while, via sensitivity training and other devices, their hometown is slowly turned into something none of them will even recognize in five years.

As we go along, I as well as many others, begin to wonder about this whole "racist" concept. It rather seems that the people who push it the strongest are among the most ethnocentric people on the face of the planet. Maybe they need to begin to recognize that, whatever supposedly constitutes "racism" they are every bit as guilty as the rest of the human race. However, for them to do that, they would need to admit they are just as sinful and needful of the salvation of Jesus Christ as the rest of us. Wonder what it'll take to make that happen--nothing short of Divine intervention.

Interestingly enough, black author Thomas Sowell labeled the whole Jena scene as "mindless tribalism." Tribalism it was, but at its leadership levels, it was far from mindless. It was Marxism in action!!!

THE RACE CARD IS GETTING SICKENING

by Al Benson Jr.

Literally for decades now, I've been hearing about how bad "white racism" is. To listen to some people you would think it is responsible for everything from constipation to the latest crop failures in India. In fact, to listen to some of these people you would think that white racism is the one unforgivable sin and that no other sins really mattered. You can be an adulterer--several of those that complain the loudest about white racism have been--but that's excusable just as long as you continue to denounce "white racism." The racist (for that's what they really are) shouters remind me of the 19th century abolitionists in this country. To them, slavery was the only sin worth mentioning. You could be a murderer or a terrorist (as was abolitionist John Brown), but that was all right as long as you were murdering people to protest the "sin" of slavery. All was acceptable. Black racists (yes, Virginia, they exist too), Muslim racists, Latin American racists, and all other manner of racists get to rant about the cardinal sin of "white racism" as they struggle to steal the moral high ground, thus climbing out of the racial morass they have been wallowing around in.

Years ago at O. J. Simpson's "trial" for the murder of his wife, his lawyer cleverly play the race card and O. J. got to walk. It seems that, every time some black man gets arrested for some horrible crime that white racism is the cause of it. One black may have murdered or robbed another black, but "white racism" is really the culprit. Let a new property tax levee somewhere for government schools get turned down and its the fault of "white racism." Illiegal aliens from Mexico, one in awhile, do get caught and shipped back to Mexico (not to worry, they'll be back for another try) and that's the fault of white racism.

That's basically the tack that former Mexican president Vicente Fox recently took. Fox recently said that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies in regard to immigration. He said "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race...they are deciding the future of this nation." Dare I say it, but the future of this nation is none of Fox's business. But, not to be stopped, he continued: "To be so repressive isn't democratic or free...to be putting up fences, chasing Mexicans, that isn't right." Pardon me, Mr. Fox, but if those Mexicans are here illegally, there is not one whit of wrong involved in chasing them back into Mexico, or putting up a border fence to help keep them in Mexico, though I seriously doubt the politicians in this country will ever allow much of the fence to be built.

If the Mexican government would try to work out policies to give Mexicans decent work in their own country, maybe some of them would stay there. That fact that they won't be bothered doing that shows they really have no regard for their own people and they want the U.S. to take care of them. And we realize that, with the innate corruption in Mexico as a way of life, waiting for them to take responsibility for their own people just isn't going to happen. Much easier to accuse us of "white racism" than it is to assume personal responsibility themselves.

And, a question for Mr. Fox and friends,--what about those extreme Left-wingers from Mexico and other points south that comprize such organizations as La Raza (the race)? Any racism in these groups Mr. Fox? Oh no, of course not, none of them are racist because they aren't white and we all know that no other race has any racist problems except whites. Why, if you're white you are automatically a racist, but if you belong to any other race, why everyone just knows that you never had a racist thought in your entire life--all has been sweetness and light! This is the way the game is played by these shameless hypocrites. It's a pile of bovine fertilizer and they all know it. What they hope is that you don't know it. Supposedly, by making white folks feel ashamed of being white they can feel proud of whatever race they belong to. The problem is that if you have to tear someone else down to life yourself up, then maybe you don't have as much to offer as you think you do. They would do well to consider that aspect.

I've had black friends over the years, as well as friends of other races. Often we have sat and talked of the War of Northern Aggression, slavery, and other "touchy" issues. However, it was done in a Christian manner, with Christian charity on both sides, and no one got mad or called names if someone else didn't totally agree with him. If you want someone to respect you, then treat them with respect too--but then, mutual respect is not part of the agenda for these racist hypocrites--seeking to create more racial animosity is part of the agenda.

And, as far as ex-president Fox in Mexico is concerned, allegations have arisen about "illicit wealth." It seems a magazine down there published photos of his newly renovated ranch. Fox claimed that this was nothing but "yellow journalism." So maybe it helps Fox in this instance to attempt to sound "moral" by accusing us Americans of "white racism." It may take a little of the heat off him at home. As I said earlier--shameless hypocrites--and racist hypocrites at that. A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Condemn others, elevate yourself--it's a classic Marxist tactic.

DO WE REALLY NEED GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS? NOT HARDLY!

by Al Benson Jr.

We have been told for decades now that the public or government school system is a dire necessity so that the country's children can be properly educated, so they may learn to read, write, and all the rest. Although if you look at the failing public school test scores you might conclude that the program is a gigantic bust. But then the teachers' unions will pop us, like a pop-up add on your computer and tell you that "all we need is more money so we can provide a quality education." (And more, and more, and more). Most of us have heard that old saw for years now. Yet, having observed the public education scene for over three decades now, I am forced to admit that the more money we toss down the government school rathole the dumber our kids seem to get. Ask kids in some school districts who George Washington was and they will tell you they think he was a linebacker for the New Orleans Saints. Many of them can't find Texas on a map of the United States, and anything that happened before the advent of the Beatles is a complete mystery to them.

Back in the early 1980s Samuel Blumenfeld wrote an illuminating book called Is Public Education Necessary? Mr. Blumenfeld contended it wasn't, and I agree with him. He checked out the literacy rates back in the country's early days and found out that, without public schools, they were higher than they are now with public schools. In his book , on page 20, he noted: "Prof. Lawrence Cremin, in his study on colonial education, estimated that, based on the evidence of signatures on deeds, wills, militia rolls, and voting rosters, adult male literacy in the American colonies ran from 70 to 100 percent. It was this high literacy rate that, indeed, made the American Revolution possible."

Other sources, even without deliberate intention, undergird this contention. Author Benson Bobrick, in his interesting book on the American War for Independence, Angel in the Whirlwind
noted on pages 46 and 47 that: "The literacy rate in America was extrodinarily high. Although there was no public education system as such, almost every community had a church or parish school..." And on page 49 he observed: "The broad literacy and political involvement of the people in their democratic institutions helped turn the average American into a kind of citizen-lawyer." And I recall hearing a speech years ago by a man that told us the Federalist Papers were written so the farmers in upper New York state would understand what was taking place regarding the debates on ratification of the Constitution. To most folks today, trying to read the Federalist Papers is like trying to read Chinese, yet in those days the farmers in New York could understand what they said quite well. What does that tell us about our "educational" level today? All this points to the fact that this country did very well in regard to education without a government school system. Note Bobrick's comments about each community having a church or parish school. That meant that the Christian church has, at that point, upheld its responsibility to educate and enlighten the population, and this fact of local Christian education was what initially brought the government schools into existence--they were a reaction against Christian education.

The people that initially started government schools in this country were Unitarians like Horace Mann who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and they were encouraged and supported by socialists like Robert Owen. Both the Unitarians and the socialists realized that if they could just get true Christianity out of the educational curriculum without people realizing it, then they could substitute their own theology for it. That's right, I said theology. For, at heart, all education is theological and either promotes a Christian worldview or some other worldview far less desirable.

Dr. Wilson L. Thompson, in his lecture entitled Revolution Through Routinization noted that: "The socialists saw the public school as their tool to reform American character and to establish a socialist society. But religious conservatives were conned into believing public education was a viable means of maintaining Protestant supremacy over a huge influx of Catholic immigrants. But, Catholics established their own parochial schools, leaving Protestants mired in secular schools." But, then, that's exactly where the Unitarians and socialists wanted them. Dr. Thompson also noted: "Harvard's Unitarian elite soon moved to adopt the Prussian model of state-controlled education, and they ultimately included its compulsory school attendance laws." They wanted a captive audience.

Samuel Blumenfeld noted that the Unitarians viewed state-controlled education as the only way to solve the problem of evil. They really thought that compulsory government schools would eventually do away with evil, poverty, and crime and create the perfect man--the new "Soviet man" if you will. So the Unitarians viewed compulsory public education as the world's messiah. After all, who needs Jesus Christ for salvation when you have such a magnificent government school system, capable of curing all the ills of the world? Why just "educate" the kiddies properly and you can dump all those outmoded ideas about man's original sin and his need of salvation only through Jesus Christ and you can create the new perfect man by tinkering with his environment. Sounds just wonderful. The only problem is, it doesn't work--never has, never will. If it was working the way they told us it would and should then why did we have situations like the one in Columbine a few years ago? Oh, the public school system is an excellent vehicle for the promotion of socialist propaganda. It has been that since day one! The government school system is not a system of education it is a system of indoctrination. True education doesn't even begin to enter the picture. Since when have Unitarians, socialists, and today's secular humanists ever been interested in truth? The agenda is the name of the game, not education.

Those people that say "If we could just get the public schools back to where they were when we went to them we'd be okay" don't begin to get the big picture, nor do they begin to understand the real function of public education (if such it can be called). The government school system has been a vehicle for socialist propaganda and anti-Christian theology since its inception. Pray tell, in that case, what do you "reform" it back to? If the tree bears bad fruit it needs to be cut down, not just have a few branches trimmed off.

So if the literacy rate was better before we were "blessed" with a public school system, then why do we need one? Let education be returned to the private sphere. It functioned better there anyway, because, for the most part, it was education and not propaganda.

It is worth remembering that the tenth plank of Marx's Communist Manifesto was "free education for all children in public schools." The alternative to this is to do away with compulsory attendance laws. Then let Christian education flourish--classical Christian schools, homeschooling, regular Christian schools, however you want to do it. But get government at all levels out, completely out of the education business.

MEXICO THINKS IT'S THE WORLD

by Al Benson Jr.

If the United States were ruled by sane and moral people instead of the One World crew in Washington, recent comments by the Mexican president Felipe Calderon would have been thoroughly repudiated. But, since sanity, reason, and morality do not exist in Sodom on the Potomac, our so-called "leaders" will say nothing in reply to Calderon's blatant hypocrisy and outright meddling in our national affairs. Our "leadership" has become as "dumb dogs" when it comes to defending our people and our country from illegal immigration. Oh, a few photo op "raids" are made to give the illusion that the federals are really doing something about the problem, but its mostly a dog and pony show. After all, our leaders wouldn't want to really do anything that might offend the illegals--they might vote to give them the vote someday, whether they are legal or not. And if our own citizens who seek justice are offended, well, hey, who really cares anyway? All they're good for is to foot the tax bill so our beneficient government can have money for illegal alien social security payments and other goodies. The only place in the country that seems to have taken any meaningful steps in regard to illegal aliens is Oklahoma.

Felipe Calderon recently gave his state of the union address in Mexico in which he said: "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican there is Mexico." I suppose the implication there is that, wherever in the world Mexicans happen to find themselves, that place belongs to them and not to the country of their residence. If that is indeed their mindset, would they then only consider themselves bound by the laws of Mexico and not by the laws of wherever they happen to be? There just might be a few countries that would have a problem with that mindset. Obviously the federal government in this country has no problem with it, or if they do they don't dare speak up lest they offend the Mexicans! I wonder now Calderon would feel if an American politician told him that wherever a U. S. citizen is anywhere, that that place becomes the United States. He'd probably howl and scream until the hot place froze over.

Calderon has griped about the U. S. government's "increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement." In other words he sits down in Mexico City and has the crust to tell us what we should be doing in our own country. Imagine his reaction if we did the same thing regarding illegal U.S. citizens in Mexico!

Lou Dobbs has written: "Calderon, like his predecessors, Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, has failed miserably to establish policies that would create jobs for the Mexican people and to eliminate shameful unchecked corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government." After all, establishing responsible policies that might aid your own people is darn hard work. It's a lot easier to just have them enter the United States illegally for work and then scream and rant with righteous indignation if the U.S. tries to defend itself from the illegal onslaught. Just let 'em come sneaking across the border--then they become our problem and Mexico doesn't have to try to deal with them.

I remember, years ago, reading a book by Blair Coan entitled "The Red Web." It was originally written back in the 1920, and in it the author said: "Mexico is today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow the most fertile incubator of bolshevik revolution on the American continent." From what I have seen, I can't disagree with that assessment. Coan mentioned the "...general condition of petty graft and open robbery in a place where the apostles and disciples of bolshevism and communism hold sway..." Certainly that describes Mexico to a T! The country is famous for "la mordida" (the bite) that many officials at all levels take as part of their due.

I remember the first time I went to Mexico. We crossed the border from Laredo, Texas to Nuevo Laredo. On the American side of the border, the border officials were neat and courteous. Once we hit the Mexican side it was a whole other world. The individual that sauntered out to check us in wore a uniform that looked as if it hadn't been washed since Noah's flood. He had an ivory-handled automatic pistol stuck in his belt (all the better to intimidate you with) and he was not particularly courteous for friendly. He pawed through our possesions, left the mess for us to straighten out, and then tried to charge us for the privilege of having turned all our things upside down. The fellow I was with refused to pay, sensibly, and told the Mexican "My good man, we are not about to pay you for doing something you are already getting paid to do." The Mexican border official shrugged, turned and walked away. At least he had tried to extort a little something from us. If he couldn't get it from us he'd probably try to charge the next Americans he dealt with double. That seems to be a way of life with Mexican officians--extort what you can when you can. Typical for Marxist Mexico!

It seems unlikely if, anytime, soon, we will end up with moral people in Washington. Although the majority of our citizens are fed up with this whole illegal immigration game and how our government is handling it, the politicians, unless threatened with being ousted from office, will pay no attention to us that is meaningful. Many of them really want the illegals to have the vote (illegally) so they can play to that new voting bloc and remain in office. As I said earlier, the rest of us don't matter to them. Were just here to pay for all this insanity and, dare I use the word--treason?

Did Lincoln Hate Southern Christianity?

by Al Benson Jr. Over the years many have been "treated" to various books dealing with the stalwart Christian faith of Abraham Lincoln. We even have some preachers on television telling us what a wonderful Christian man he was. Some of these folks have done really good work in other areas, for which I applaud them, but they seem to have a real blind spot when it comes to Lincoln and his supposed Christianity. Even the home school movement has books out there parading Lincoln's supposed Christian faith for all to see. These folks should know better! In the face of all this evangelical Lincolnian hoopla we have the words of one of Mr. Lincoln's closest associates, Ward Lamon. Mr. Lamon wrote a book about the life of Lincoln back in 1872 and in that book he made a few rather blunt statements about Lincoln's supposed faith. Lamon wrote: "Mr. Lincoln was never a member of any church, nor did he believe in the divinity of Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures in the sense understood by evangelical Christians." This is right from the horse's mouth, as it were. Lamon continued: "When a boy he showed no sign of that piety which his biographers ascribe to his manhood. When he went to church at all, he want to mock, and came away to mimic." And one more little gem, which we can consider, with Lamon, as coming from a primary source: "When he (Lincoln) came to New Salem, he consorted with Freethinkers, joined with them in deriding the gospel story of Jesus, read Volney and Paine, and then wrote a deliberate and labored essay, wherein he reached conclusions similar to theirs. The essay was burned, but he never regretted or denied its composition." So we must conclude, from the words of one of those closest to Mr. Lincoln, that he was hardly the stalwart Christian he has been turned into via literary legerdemain. Since the South had been, to one degree or another, undergoing somewhat of a religious revival since the 1830s, one might be led to wonder if Mr. Lincoln bore some latent hatred for that part of the country based upon his own personal non-Christian convictions. Did he look at a part of the country that was in the process of undergoing Christian revival and then decide that this was anathema according to his own unbelieving world view--something he needed to help do away with? Although he never explicitly said such, you do have to wonder. His view of government was hardly in keeping with scriptural views--he was in favor of large, centralized government, as opposed to the decentralized and localized government he saw in the South with the Southern concept of the rights of the individual states. I just can't help but wonder if Lincoln's theological views contributed to his desire to get and keep the South under his thumb. Just a little food for future thought.

The Marxist/Lincolnist Revolution of 1861

by Al Benson Jr.

Over the years I have mentioned, in many articles, the connections between what went on in Europe in 1848 and what went on in America from 1861-65. A few of these are probably still out there on various Internet sites.

Many have looked askance, or down their noses, at my research and contentions. It has never occurred to them that 1848 in Europe could ever have anything to do with 1861 in the United States. That thinking is way outside the box for them and most would just as soon stay inside the box. They are comfortable in there discussing battles, generals, strategies, personalities, etc. They don't wish to go where I have been. Or, as one homeschooling mom once said to me when I brought up the subject of the sainted Mr. Lincoln: "I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln. I don't want to go there with you." She didn't. Thankfully, others have been willing to make the trip, not because of anything I said or did, but on their own, because they sought the truth.

John J. Dwyer, in his excellent new history book "The War Between the States--America's Uncivil War" has made the connections. He has duly noted: "What became the single overarching revolution of 1848 failed in all eighteen places where it broke out. But the ideas spawned would survive to define the century that followed...America's conflict of 1861-65 in rarely considered in this context, at least by Americans. An awareness of it is critical in grasping the key philosophical principles at stake in the struggle between what became the Northern and Southern governments. Just as European theology, fashions and culture influenced 19th century America, particularly the North, so did European political theory. The tens of thousands of Europeans who participated in the 1848 revolutions and them immigrated to America (again, especially the North) accelerated this influence...The revolutionaries of 1848 faced an America with three different cultures, economies, and religious bases. They determined to remove those differences by a series of political manuevers." And, in many instances, their instrument for removing those differences was "The Communist Manifesto."

We might, indeed should, ask how close Lincoln and then the Radical Reconstructionist crowd after him came to implementing Marxist goals in the United States. So let's take a brief look at what Marx advocated for the overthrow of a country and see how close Lincoln & Associates approximated it.

Marx advocated the elimination of private property. The radicals advocated mandatory property taxes, to be determined by and payable to the government, or else the "owner's" property is duly "confiscated" (stolen). Does that one sound vaguely familiar to anyone today?

Marx sought a progressive, "graducated income tax." Mr. Lincoln gave us the Internal Revenue Service in 1862 and we are still "doubly blessed" with that institution today.

Marx wanted state control of banking. During the war years we got the Federal Banking Act. And Marx also sought state-controlled currency. Lincoln's administration gave us the National Banking Act in 1863. Mr. Marx wanted state-controlled labor, and today we have federal wage controls.

The Marxists advocated state-controlled agriculture. The Southern Redistrubution Act redistrubuted much property in the South into collectives. Much more was taken for the construction of "public" educational facilities (indoctrination centers). Naturally, all of this property was under the control of Yankee carpetbaggers.

And then, the crowning achievement--state controlled education. Marx sought "free education for all children in public schools." The Morrill Land Grant Act, passed during Mr. Lincoln's tenure in office authorized federal aid to established, government-controlled colleges. Naturally, with such aid came the attached strings--federal government regulations. And today, we in the South, as well as in the rest of the country, suffer with the illegitimate child of "Reconstruction" the government school system, which works overtime teaching the South's children to be ashamed of their history and heritage and what their ancestors fought for.

In light of all this, just ask yourself how identical were the goals of Marx and Lincoln and his radical followers. Go back and read the list again. I may be a bit dense, but I can't seem to find any major differences between Marxism and Lincolnism, but then, that's just me.


Ask yourself how many of these little Marxist/Lincolnist treats we all live with today, even under our supposedly "conservative" administration. Maybe we have already become the Marxist/Lincolnist States of Amerika and don't even realize it. But, then, as they say "the brainwashed never wonder" especially if they were "educated" in a government school!

SECESSION !!! Part 2

by Al Benson Jr.

When the Southern states seceded they did so in a very orderly fashion. According to Clarence Carson's "A Basic History of the United States--Volume 3": "The procedure for secession was to have an election for delegates to a state convention, to meet in convention, and to adopt ordinances of secession. This was done in accord with the Southern understanding of what would be in keeping with the United States Constitution. It had, after all, been ratified by states acting through conventions. Could they not 'un-ratify' it--secede from the Union--in the same fashion?" Although Carson did not address the question, we know from sources previously mentioned that some Northern states had taken an identical position earlier in the 19th century.

In 1803, St. George Tucker, professor of law at the University of William and Mary had recorded some of the ratification statements for the state of Virginia in "Blackstone's Commentaries With Notes of Reference To The Constitution And Laws Of The Federal Government Of The United States and Of The Commonwealth of Virginia." Some of the ratification language for the state of Virginia is as follows: "We the delegates of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..." I submit if that is not a clear statement of the right of secession, then no one has ever heard one. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with that language included in them.

Based upon what we have seen to this point, the right of secession was never clearly in doubt in this country until the South seceded in 1860-61. At that point, what some Northern states had threatened to do three times prior suddenly became illegal and immoral in the eyes of many Northern politicians, particularly those that had a major interest in promoting and raising the tariffs.

According to columnist Joe Sobran: "...even many Northerners agreed that a sovereign state had the right to withdraw from the Union. A large body of people in the North were willing to accept a peaceful separation from the South. Lincoln had thousands arrested without trial for expressing such views, including several Maryland legislators who, while remaining in the Union, opposed using force to keep other states from seceding." So, many ordinary Northern folks did not have a major problem with the South leaving the Union, but certain creatures of a political nature did. The fact that earlier would-be secessionists had been Yankees was carefully swept under the historical rug. It's about time we lifted the rug up!

How about getting the double standard of one set of rules for the North and another set of rules for the South out in the open?

Whether you agree with the timing of the Southern states' secession or not is another matter. Even Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States of America, didn't totally agree with the timing. He though the South should have waited until she had exhausted all possible legal remedies, yet in the final analysis, he remained loyal to his native state when she seceded. Timing wasn't, and isn't, the real point.

Serious consideration needs to be given, again, and again, to the fact that the states, any states, did have the right to secede, and that some states in both regions of the country had moved in that direction at one time or another.

In light of our history, the Southern position on secession is much more sound than current "historians" or should we call them "hysterians" would have us believe--and therein lies much food for thought.

And, as an afterthought, there is currently a group in Vermont that has met, and issued papers dealing with Vermont's possible secession from the Union, so the North is at it again. Let's stay tuned and find out what happens up there.