Things Are Looking Up In Selma, Alabama
by Al Benson Jr.
Back in September of 2012 I wrote two or three articles about a situation in Selma, Alabama where black domestic terrorists were trying to prevent a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from being put up in Live Oak Cemetery in an area called Confederate Circle. There was a big fuss over who owned the land in Confederate Circle. The United Daughters of the Confederacy noted the land had been deeded to them back in the 1880s, although there seemed to be a problem locating a copy of the deed. The local black civil rights terrorists refused to believe this and so trespassed on what would later, by court order, be deemed as the property of the UDC and they just flat out stopped the construction work, threatening to call in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who would, naturally, conduct a big march and demonstration which would be geared to stop any future work on the Forrest monument--with the "news" media naturally playing right along with them as they usually do.
The local UDC folks, no doubt having been labeled with the favorite Trotskyite term "racist" were all supposed to silently submit to the racial blackmail and retreat in silence.
It didn't quite work that way. The company that was doing the work on the monument, KTK Mining and the UDC took it to court and sued the City of Selma for refusing to protect their rights. Even though it's been well over a year now (so much for speedy trials) the City of Selma must, somewhere along the line, have realized that if it went to trial they would not win, and so they accepted a settlement put forth by KTK Mining for $100,000.
According to http://www.selmatimesjournal.com for November 26, 2013 we are told: "In a 5-3 vote, the Selma City Council voted to approve a settlement in a lawsuit over a monument to Confederate general and former Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrect, effectively ending the suit.The settlement terms include giving a deed to the one-acre tract of land containing the monument in Old Live Oak Cemetery to Chapter 53 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy." The council president voted in favor of this, along with four other members and said it was time for the city to move forward and focus on more important issues.
However, that decision was not enough for the local civil rights terrorists, one of which, Rose Sanders, also known as Faya Rose Toure, (interesting how these black radicals, like Obama, always seem to have more than one name) managed to get herself arrested for disorderly conduct at the city council meeting. But then, this is so typical of leftist radicals. If they can't get their way they attempt to disrupt everything so that nothing can be accomplished unless everyone is willing to give in to their radical agenda. This time it didn't work. That must have been a real blow to the fragile ego of Ms. Sanders/Toure. Shouting everyone down has always worked before--this time it didn't. How sad--for her, not for the rest of the folks there.
Even though KTK Mining has the right to go on with finishing construction of the Forrest Monument, I expect there will be all manner of nit-picky things the domestic terrorists will come up with to hamper the work and if nothing else works they will resort to outright vandalism. It wouldn't be the first time.
But, for now, things are looking up in Selma. The defenders of the Confederacy finally won one, which is welcome news, because, lets face it folks, between the government, the "news" media and the dedicated leftists of various hues, we don't win too many. Thank the Lord for this victory--and strive to remain vigilant because the battle is probably not over yet.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Better or Worse, it was Still a Pack of Lies!
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, President Obama has finally come out and apologized to the thousands of people that have had their current insurance cancelled. Big deal! I'm sure his "humble" apology will be of great help to them as they now sit with no insurance coverage.
Let's face facts. These folks were lied to by this current regime. Obama said that, in many cases, Obamacare would be better than their current policies. That statement begs the question and seeks to let him off the hook. Whether Obamacare is better or worse or equal to what these folks had is not what we are dealing with here. Regardless of the status of their current insurance policies, better, or worse, these people were lied to by this regime. There is no nice way to say it--and if they have lied to us about Obamacare, then what else have they lied about?
As we go along and keep tabs on the actions of the current Marxist regime, whether it's Benghazi or the Syrian situation or their new "educational" effort, Common Core (called by some "Commie Core") or whatever it is, the American people are not being told the truth. And what we laughingly refer to as the "news" media is complicit in all this.
Obama employed the classic Marxist tactic when he first ran for President in telling us if elected his administration would be the most transparent in our history. Actually it has been the exact opposite. The only time Obama has told us the truth is when he said he would fundamentally transform the United States--and he never told us how he planned to do that. Now we are finding out and his "transformation" scheme ain't all it was cracked up to be. but then, Marxism never is.
It has been reported that, if George Soros and the CFR people don't allow Obama to declare himself Dictator for life and he has to vacate Washington in 2016 then it is already planned that we will get Hitlery Clinton as his worthy successor. Doesn't that thought give you the warm fuzzies? Or maybe send chills up and down your back?
Either way, the totalitarianism will continue until all opposition has been suppressed.
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, President Obama has finally come out and apologized to the thousands of people that have had their current insurance cancelled. Big deal! I'm sure his "humble" apology will be of great help to them as they now sit with no insurance coverage.
Let's face facts. These folks were lied to by this current regime. Obama said that, in many cases, Obamacare would be better than their current policies. That statement begs the question and seeks to let him off the hook. Whether Obamacare is better or worse or equal to what these folks had is not what we are dealing with here. Regardless of the status of their current insurance policies, better, or worse, these people were lied to by this regime. There is no nice way to say it--and if they have lied to us about Obamacare, then what else have they lied about?
As we go along and keep tabs on the actions of the current Marxist regime, whether it's Benghazi or the Syrian situation or their new "educational" effort, Common Core (called by some "Commie Core") or whatever it is, the American people are not being told the truth. And what we laughingly refer to as the "news" media is complicit in all this.
Obama employed the classic Marxist tactic when he first ran for President in telling us if elected his administration would be the most transparent in our history. Actually it has been the exact opposite. The only time Obama has told us the truth is when he said he would fundamentally transform the United States--and he never told us how he planned to do that. Now we are finding out and his "transformation" scheme ain't all it was cracked up to be. but then, Marxism never is.
It has been reported that, if George Soros and the CFR people don't allow Obama to declare himself Dictator for life and he has to vacate Washington in 2016 then it is already planned that we will get Hitlery Clinton as his worthy successor. Doesn't that thought give you the warm fuzzies? Or maybe send chills up and down your back?
Either way, the totalitarianism will continue until all opposition has been suppressed.
Friday, October 11, 2013
When All Else Fails Just Blame the South
by Al Benson Jr.
A recent article on http://www.examiner.com displayed how totally asinine many of those on the theological and political left can really be.
That premier ambulance chaser, Je$$e Jack$on, claims that the continuing government shutdown has its roots in the Confederate States. Dear Je$$e tweeted: "Shutting down the US Govt. is the closest this Congress can get to seeing the Confederacy finally win." Another twitter noted that Jackson should "call out the Democratic Party for its racist past." How about doing the same thing for Abe Lincoln and the Republicans? Can't do that--Abe Lincoln is an untouchable icon and his "racist" views need to be shoved down the memory hole.
Another person labeled Jackson a "fraud" who makes money by exploiting his own people. That observation comes closer to the truth.
Folks, let's get real here. No one on either side of this entire shutdown charade has any use for the Confederacy or anything remotely Confederate. They all hate our guts, our flags, and symbols, and our history and heritage as well.
Blaming the Confederacy for this mess is just one more way of playing the race card.
You might as well blame the Easter Bunny because all the hens quit laying Easter eggs the day before Easter. One makes as much sense as the other, but, then, the theological and political left has never been noted for their ability to make any real sense. It's a good thing the "news" media is there to cover for them.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Follow The Money
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently some friends in Texas sent me a little booklet. It was a speech given by a General Smedley Butler and the title of it was "War Is A Racket." General Butler, who was a decorated Marine veteran, told, in his speech, originally given back in 1933, how much money there was to be made in a war and who made it.
Although many may regard his speech, 80 years old now, as a bit antiquated, nonetheless he raised some excellent points.
Now, 80 years after General Butler's speech someone else has sent me a few comments about the Rothschild banking empire. In their commentary they noted: "In the year 2000 there were 8 countries without a Rothschild-owned central bank. They were: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Iran."
"Now there are only 4 left; Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran." The Obama Regime is busily trying to get us into a war in Syria, which no one wants but the bankers and the Israel Lobby. They've worked the same game in Iran. Does anyone see a pattern here? How about following the money and connecting the dots.
Everyone gets something out of this but the American taxpayer and all he gets is the bill for it all--and his sons (and daughters, now) get to shed their blood so Israel can be rid of more of her enemies and the bankers can make big bucks. Such a deal, right?
Recently some friends in Texas sent me a little booklet. It was a speech given by a General Smedley Butler and the title of it was "War Is A Racket." General Butler, who was a decorated Marine veteran, told, in his speech, originally given back in 1933, how much money there was to be made in a war and who made it.
Although many may regard his speech, 80 years old now, as a bit antiquated, nonetheless he raised some excellent points.
Now, 80 years after General Butler's speech someone else has sent me a few comments about the Rothschild banking empire. In their commentary they noted: "In the year 2000 there were 8 countries without a Rothschild-owned central bank. They were: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Iran."
"Now there are only 4 left; Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran." The Obama Regime is busily trying to get us into a war in Syria, which no one wants but the bankers and the Israel Lobby. They've worked the same game in Iran. Does anyone see a pattern here? How about following the money and connecting the dots.
Everyone gets something out of this but the American taxpayer and all he gets is the bill for it all--and his sons (and daughters, now) get to shed their blood so Israel can be rid of more of her enemies and the bankers can make big bucks. Such a deal, right?
Monday, June 03, 2013
Homeschool History Series:
A real teaching alternative for Christian, Pro-Southern parents
by Al Benson Jr.
Are you tired of politically correct "histories" of the War Between the States? Want to learn the facts about its true causes, the actual events, and the people involved?
Now there is an educational program available for high schoolers and Mom's and Dads too. Composed from carefully researched facts about the War Between the States it consists of five easy-to-read mini-histories, which provide accurate and key informaton regarding the War that changed America.
Each mini-history, which includes an accompanying test, is $10.00. This includes grading of the test and return to the student if desired, with appropriate comments. You can purchase individual booklets or the entire set by sending check or money order to The Copperhead Chronicle, P O Box 55, Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.
The mini-histories include:
1. Apostasy, Abolitionism, The Civil War and Reconstruction
This explains the root causes of the War Between the States and debunks the myth about slavery as the reason for the War. Describes how the War and "Reconstruction" afterwards were designed to change our system of government into something quite different from what was envisioned by the Founders. (28 pages)
2. The Abolitionists
Spells out the theological convictions of many in the Abolitionist Movement, showing the radical abolitionism was actually a religion; a religion that was a substitute for biblical Christianity. (14 pages)
3. The Socialist Supporters of Honest Abe
This was the foundation document for the book by Al Benson Jr. and Walter D. Kennedy Lincoln's Marxists, which is available on Amazon.com
It reveals the almost totally covered up fact that communists, socialists, and various other European radicals totally supported Lincoln and the Union cause during the War. Several well-known Union generals were actually socialists and some were communists who came here after the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. The author names names. (13 pages)
4. A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
Beginning with the Declaration of Independence it presents a history of secessionist sentiment in the United States. Shows that up until 1860 most of the country thought that secession was a legitimate option, and not just the South! (28 pages)
5.Emancipation As Propaganda
This booklet goes into detail about what a sham the Emancipation Proclamation really was and how it was viewed by many, both here and in Europe when it was issued.
For a limited time, all 5 booklets and tests can be purchased at a discount when purchased together at one time. Purchase of all 5 together would be $45.00, a saving of $5.00, and there is no shipping charge.
A real teaching alternative for Christian, Pro-Southern parents
by Al Benson Jr.
Are you tired of politically correct "histories" of the War Between the States? Want to learn the facts about its true causes, the actual events, and the people involved?
Now there is an educational program available for high schoolers and Mom's and Dads too. Composed from carefully researched facts about the War Between the States it consists of five easy-to-read mini-histories, which provide accurate and key informaton regarding the War that changed America.
Each mini-history, which includes an accompanying test, is $10.00. This includes grading of the test and return to the student if desired, with appropriate comments. You can purchase individual booklets or the entire set by sending check or money order to The Copperhead Chronicle, P O Box 55, Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.
The mini-histories include:
1. Apostasy, Abolitionism, The Civil War and Reconstruction
This explains the root causes of the War Between the States and debunks the myth about slavery as the reason for the War. Describes how the War and "Reconstruction" afterwards were designed to change our system of government into something quite different from what was envisioned by the Founders. (28 pages)
2. The Abolitionists
Spells out the theological convictions of many in the Abolitionist Movement, showing the radical abolitionism was actually a religion; a religion that was a substitute for biblical Christianity. (14 pages)
3. The Socialist Supporters of Honest Abe
This was the foundation document for the book by Al Benson Jr. and Walter D. Kennedy Lincoln's Marxists, which is available on Amazon.com
It reveals the almost totally covered up fact that communists, socialists, and various other European radicals totally supported Lincoln and the Union cause during the War. Several well-known Union generals were actually socialists and some were communists who came here after the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. The author names names. (13 pages)
4. A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
Beginning with the Declaration of Independence it presents a history of secessionist sentiment in the United States. Shows that up until 1860 most of the country thought that secession was a legitimate option, and not just the South! (28 pages)
5.Emancipation As Propaganda
This booklet goes into detail about what a sham the Emancipation Proclamation really was and how it was viewed by many, both here and in Europe when it was issued.
For a limited time, all 5 booklets and tests can be purchased at a discount when purchased together at one time. Purchase of all 5 together would be $45.00, a saving of $5.00, and there is no shipping charge.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Gun Confiscation Has Always Been the Name of the Game
by Al Benson Jr.
A recent article from http://www.infowars.com has noted that: "The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation...The DOJ memo states the administration 'believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation' according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks 'won't work without requiring national gun registration.' The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration's public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that the laws proposed by Obama would not take away a gun from a single law-abiding family."
Well, I supposed you might be tempted to say that, in a sort of convoluted way, he was telling the truth. He doesn't want the guns from a single law-abiding family--he wants to confiscate them ALL from ALL law-abiding families!
Gun registration has always been the prelude to gun confiscation and this administration fully intends to do away with the Second Amendment rights of all Americans--except for those Council on Foreign Relations fat cats and their banker friends who exist at the top of the political heap. We surrender our guns so they can all plunder us with impunity.
And those Republican congresspersons that think they can deal with this administration regarding "responsible" gun control measures either have mush for brains or they sincerely hope the electorate does.
We need to contact our Senators and tell them, under no circumstances should they vote for any bill that even has the word "gun" in it, nor for any amendment to any bill that has the word "gun" in it. If they ignore us and do it anyway, which many of them dearly want to do, then we should work to defeat them in the next election. Let's not be so shortsighted that we forget what they do now by election time if they do decide to sell us out.
by Al Benson Jr.
A recent article from http://www.infowars.com has noted that: "The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation...The DOJ memo states the administration 'believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation' according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks 'won't work without requiring national gun registration.' The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration's public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that the laws proposed by Obama would not take away a gun from a single law-abiding family."
Well, I supposed you might be tempted to say that, in a sort of convoluted way, he was telling the truth. He doesn't want the guns from a single law-abiding family--he wants to confiscate them ALL from ALL law-abiding families!
Gun registration has always been the prelude to gun confiscation and this administration fully intends to do away with the Second Amendment rights of all Americans--except for those Council on Foreign Relations fat cats and their banker friends who exist at the top of the political heap. We surrender our guns so they can all plunder us with impunity.
And those Republican congresspersons that think they can deal with this administration regarding "responsible" gun control measures either have mush for brains or they sincerely hope the electorate does.
We need to contact our Senators and tell them, under no circumstances should they vote for any bill that even has the word "gun" in it, nor for any amendment to any bill that has the word "gun" in it. If they ignore us and do it anyway, which many of them dearly want to do, then we should work to defeat them in the next election. Let's not be so shortsighted that we forget what they do now by election time if they do decide to sell us out.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Abolish the Local Sheriff?
by Al Benson Jr.
For The Copperhead Chronicle Blog Spot
This afternoon, 1/26/13, I received an email from http://chasvoice.blogspot.com that dealt with a rather shocking story considering current national conditions. It started out: "A news report has quietly been making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state." Quite naturally the prostitute press has not bothered to report this--better if the average citizen does not know this kind of thing--no embarrassing questions that way.
However, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware and he has issued a mandate to county commissioners letting them know that the sheriffs in the three counties in Delaware no longer have arrest powers. You might think that this is not important, after all, Delaware is just a small state on the East Coast.
But--further checking reveals that there is a country-wide effort to strip county sheriffs of their enumerated powers which are mandated in the constitutions of the various states. This movement would have the net effect of abolishing county sheriff's departments and adding the power of federal law enforcement agencies. Well, gee, what a surprise!
You don't think any of this might have anything to do with some county sheriffs across the country telling the Obama administration that they will not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens in their counties do you?
Naw, couldn't be. I didn't think so either. It's just another one of those continuing coincidences that we are seeing more and more of as the Obama administration seeks to drag this country further and further into the Marxist orbit. Nothing to worry about, right? Right???
If you are one of those folks that think there might be a small problem here, make copies of this and pass it along to your friends. Maybe even give your county sheriff a copy. Write to the editor of your local paper and tell him about it. He may not print your letter, but at least he will know that you know.
by Al Benson Jr.
For The Copperhead Chronicle Blog Spot
This afternoon, 1/26/13, I received an email from http://chasvoice.blogspot.com that dealt with a rather shocking story considering current national conditions. It started out: "A news report has quietly been making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state." Quite naturally the prostitute press has not bothered to report this--better if the average citizen does not know this kind of thing--no embarrassing questions that way.
However, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware and he has issued a mandate to county commissioners letting them know that the sheriffs in the three counties in Delaware no longer have arrest powers. You might think that this is not important, after all, Delaware is just a small state on the East Coast.
But--further checking reveals that there is a country-wide effort to strip county sheriffs of their enumerated powers which are mandated in the constitutions of the various states. This movement would have the net effect of abolishing county sheriff's departments and adding the power of federal law enforcement agencies. Well, gee, what a surprise!
You don't think any of this might have anything to do with some county sheriffs across the country telling the Obama administration that they will not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens in their counties do you?
Naw, couldn't be. I didn't think so either. It's just another one of those continuing coincidences that we are seeing more and more of as the Obama administration seeks to drag this country further and further into the Marxist orbit. Nothing to worry about, right? Right???
If you are one of those folks that think there might be a small problem here, make copies of this and pass it along to your friends. Maybe even give your county sheriff a copy. Write to the editor of your local paper and tell him about it. He may not print your letter, but at least he will know that you know.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Political Correctness Gone Crazy
by Al Benson Jr.
I debated about what I should use for a title for this brief article, but then I thought, after all, I am talking about the public school system so the title fits.
Recently I read an article on http://politicaloutcast.com which talked about 6-year olds playing cops and robbers with each other during recess at school. These kids are in the first grade, yet the school has suspended them for playing cops and robbers! Can you believe it? Well, again, it's a public school so, yes, you can. The article noted: "In the assistant principal's letter to the student's parents, she wrote that their son 'threatened to shoot another student." Come on folks, this is two 6-year olds playing cops and robbers. Of course they pretend to shoot one another. I shudder to think what could have happened if they had been playing cowboys and Indians. That would have been a racial problem of international importance. They might have had to call a representative from the United Nations in to counsel the white kid for perceived hostility toward someone of an indigenous race.
However, the parents of the youngster were not amused. They ended up getting a lawyer to appeal the decision of the school. The decision was appealed and the school ended up overturning the student's suspension, which was so idiotic it never should have happened in the first place. I can remember, as a kid, we often played cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians at school--sometimes whole bunches of us on one side or the other. Just think, had I grown up in more politically correct days, half my school could have been suspended for the unconscionable "sin" of pointing our fingers at each other and pretending they were guns. And for all the pretend shooting we did of one another, to my knowledge none of the kids I went to school with turned out to be cold-blooded killers. We were, for the most part, pretty normal kids who, when we grew up, got on with out lives and the pretend carnage we committed as 6-year olds or 9-year olds never really affected us all that much.
But in this enlightened day and age the sin of pointing your finger and someone and saying "bang" is second only to the sin of "white racism" which according to some government educrats, white kids can display by eating peanut butter sandwiches in front of kids from Somalia.
Some of this foolishness is part of the reason we never sent our kids to public schools anyplace we ever lived and why we encourage others to eschew those supposed institutions of "learning."
Public schooling has a very suspicious and checkered history going right back to its Unitarian/socialist inspired origins and things have only gotten worse since those dubious beginnings. Kids don't learn to read; they don't learn accurate history, and the literature they are given is horrendous and the older they get the worse it all gets. Public schools don't educate--they brainwash--which is their real reason for existence. They act as a buffer against Christian education, which they were founded to combat. The textbook protest in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s proved that.
The Internet abounds with sites you can do research about the public schools on, so sometime when you have an extra six or seven hours check it out. I can guarantee, if you use discernment, you will not like most of what you will find.
by Al Benson Jr.
I debated about what I should use for a title for this brief article, but then I thought, after all, I am talking about the public school system so the title fits.
Recently I read an article on http://politicaloutcast.com which talked about 6-year olds playing cops and robbers with each other during recess at school. These kids are in the first grade, yet the school has suspended them for playing cops and robbers! Can you believe it? Well, again, it's a public school so, yes, you can. The article noted: "In the assistant principal's letter to the student's parents, she wrote that their son 'threatened to shoot another student." Come on folks, this is two 6-year olds playing cops and robbers. Of course they pretend to shoot one another. I shudder to think what could have happened if they had been playing cowboys and Indians. That would have been a racial problem of international importance. They might have had to call a representative from the United Nations in to counsel the white kid for perceived hostility toward someone of an indigenous race.
However, the parents of the youngster were not amused. They ended up getting a lawyer to appeal the decision of the school. The decision was appealed and the school ended up overturning the student's suspension, which was so idiotic it never should have happened in the first place. I can remember, as a kid, we often played cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians at school--sometimes whole bunches of us on one side or the other. Just think, had I grown up in more politically correct days, half my school could have been suspended for the unconscionable "sin" of pointing our fingers at each other and pretending they were guns. And for all the pretend shooting we did of one another, to my knowledge none of the kids I went to school with turned out to be cold-blooded killers. We were, for the most part, pretty normal kids who, when we grew up, got on with out lives and the pretend carnage we committed as 6-year olds or 9-year olds never really affected us all that much.
But in this enlightened day and age the sin of pointing your finger and someone and saying "bang" is second only to the sin of "white racism" which according to some government educrats, white kids can display by eating peanut butter sandwiches in front of kids from Somalia.
Some of this foolishness is part of the reason we never sent our kids to public schools anyplace we ever lived and why we encourage others to eschew those supposed institutions of "learning."
Public schooling has a very suspicious and checkered history going right back to its Unitarian/socialist inspired origins and things have only gotten worse since those dubious beginnings. Kids don't learn to read; they don't learn accurate history, and the literature they are given is horrendous and the older they get the worse it all gets. Public schools don't educate--they brainwash--which is their real reason for existence. They act as a buffer against Christian education, which they were founded to combat. The textbook protest in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s proved that.
The Internet abounds with sites you can do research about the public schools on, so sometime when you have an extra six or seven hours check it out. I can guarantee, if you use discernment, you will not like most of what you will find.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Mass Killings--Do You Detect a Pattern?
by Al Benson Jr.
There has been all manner of commentary on the Internet regarding the recent tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
Some have suggested that we look at the bigger picture--one the includes Aurora, Colorado, Columbine High School, the recent Oregon shootings and several others. In each of the school shootings there seems to be a number of things that repeat themselves. It's almost like there is a set formula for these events, as if they are all part of a staged drama, brought about to create a certain public climate.
One commentator noticed that every one seems to take place in a "gun free" area, which means that there are already laws on the books banning guns in those places. Yet we continue to hear the multitudinous screams for more gun control. If these shootings are taking place in already-existing gun free zones, then what good will more gun control laws do? That question is never answered, or even addressed. In fact it is studiously ignored.
He also noted that every shooter, when they get to him, is either already dead or is mentally impaired or in some way unable to be questioned. Therefore none of them is ever available to make any public statements. How convenient!
After each shooting the "news" media delves almost exclusively into the human interest part of the event. No questions are asked that will reveal any kind of information about the shooting or possible shooters other than the one found dead on the scene. It is all media fluff--guaranteed to be real "tear-jerker" stuff, while passing no real information along to the public.
Then comes the usual plethora of calls for more gun control, heralded forth by the usual suspects in the socialist and ultra-liberal camps and their compliant lap dog media. You've heard it all before and you will hear it all again--until the federal government manages to do away with the Second Amendment. That's what it's all about.
According to CNN's Don Lemon, guns "...should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children." Leave it to CNN to put that kind of a spin on it, but let's face it, that's what they are there for.
The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo--that bastion of constitutional liberty--is now busy tinkering with ideas to force gun confiscation in his state, by hook or by crook, makes no difference. You must remember that to these people the end justifies the means.
Just remember, "gun control is really people control." That's the real name of the game.
There has been all manner of commentary on the Internet regarding the recent tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
Some have suggested that we look at the bigger picture--one the includes Aurora, Colorado, Columbine High School, the recent Oregon shootings and several others. In each of the school shootings there seems to be a number of things that repeat themselves. It's almost like there is a set formula for these events, as if they are all part of a staged drama, brought about to create a certain public climate.
One commentator noticed that every one seems to take place in a "gun free" area, which means that there are already laws on the books banning guns in those places. Yet we continue to hear the multitudinous screams for more gun control. If these shootings are taking place in already-existing gun free zones, then what good will more gun control laws do? That question is never answered, or even addressed. In fact it is studiously ignored.
He also noted that every shooter, when they get to him, is either already dead or is mentally impaired or in some way unable to be questioned. Therefore none of them is ever available to make any public statements. How convenient!
After each shooting the "news" media delves almost exclusively into the human interest part of the event. No questions are asked that will reveal any kind of information about the shooting or possible shooters other than the one found dead on the scene. It is all media fluff--guaranteed to be real "tear-jerker" stuff, while passing no real information along to the public.
Then comes the usual plethora of calls for more gun control, heralded forth by the usual suspects in the socialist and ultra-liberal camps and their compliant lap dog media. You've heard it all before and you will hear it all again--until the federal government manages to do away with the Second Amendment. That's what it's all about.
According to CNN's Don Lemon, guns "...should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children." Leave it to CNN to put that kind of a spin on it, but let's face it, that's what they are there for.
The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo--that bastion of constitutional liberty--is now busy tinkering with ideas to force gun confiscation in his state, by hook or by crook, makes no difference. You must remember that to these people the end justifies the means.
Just remember, "gun control is really people control." That's the real name of the game.
Monday, December 10, 2012
"Right Wing Fascists"
by Al Benson Jr.
I remember when I was a youngster, (ancient history now) that people used to refer to Hitler as a "right-wing fascist" and they used to promote the false idea that while Stalin was on the far left, Hitler was on the far right. Now granted, Communists and fascists did not especially like one another, but the reason for that was that they were in competition for total government and no total government figure likes competition.
Of the two systems, fascism is the most efficient because the people living under it maintain the facade of owning the property, which means that they are responsible for its upkeep and the government tells they what they can or cannot do with it and when. With Communism, the state claims ownership of all property, and therefore the state is responsible for taking care of it all. So, as a totalitarian worldview fascism is more efficient.
Both Communism and fascism are different forms of total government and therefore both systems belong over on the far left of the political spectrum. That being the case, if the far left represents total government, then the far right has to mean almost no government at all--anarchy. So as far a Communism and fascism go politically, we have all been lied to--both are on the far left and both are equally reprehensible.
It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, yet how many people really stop to think about it? Most just accept what they've heard all their lives and never give it a thought. You'd think that civics or political science classes in public schools would deal with something as elementary as this, yet in school I don't ever recall hearing anything about this and I was in school during some of the Cold War years, graduating back in 1956.
I recall briefly seeing some of the McCarthy hearings on television and not paying them any mind. I wish I had had the perception back then to realize what it was all about. I never heard anything about both Communism and fascism being on the political left until I heard a speaker in 1970 give a talk on different systems of government.
I wondered why this mystery was never cleared up until I realized that it was deliberate. The politicians and news-twisters we call the "news" media wanted it that way. They wanted Hitler portrayed as a right-winger so that people on the right politically could be smeared with the Nazi identity brush. Mostly it worked.
So, folks, remember this brief little political history lesson--both Communism and fascism are way over there on the far left politically--and theologically--because they are both totalitarian theologies..
by Al Benson Jr.
I remember when I was a youngster, (ancient history now) that people used to refer to Hitler as a "right-wing fascist" and they used to promote the false idea that while Stalin was on the far left, Hitler was on the far right. Now granted, Communists and fascists did not especially like one another, but the reason for that was that they were in competition for total government and no total government figure likes competition.
Of the two systems, fascism is the most efficient because the people living under it maintain the facade of owning the property, which means that they are responsible for its upkeep and the government tells they what they can or cannot do with it and when. With Communism, the state claims ownership of all property, and therefore the state is responsible for taking care of it all. So, as a totalitarian worldview fascism is more efficient.
Both Communism and fascism are different forms of total government and therefore both systems belong over on the far left of the political spectrum. That being the case, if the far left represents total government, then the far right has to mean almost no government at all--anarchy. So as far a Communism and fascism go politically, we have all been lied to--both are on the far left and both are equally reprehensible.
It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, yet how many people really stop to think about it? Most just accept what they've heard all their lives and never give it a thought. You'd think that civics or political science classes in public schools would deal with something as elementary as this, yet in school I don't ever recall hearing anything about this and I was in school during some of the Cold War years, graduating back in 1956.
I recall briefly seeing some of the McCarthy hearings on television and not paying them any mind. I wish I had had the perception back then to realize what it was all about. I never heard anything about both Communism and fascism being on the political left until I heard a speaker in 1970 give a talk on different systems of government.
I wondered why this mystery was never cleared up until I realized that it was deliberate. The politicians and news-twisters we call the "news" media wanted it that way. They wanted Hitler portrayed as a right-winger so that people on the right politically could be smeared with the Nazi identity brush. Mostly it worked.
So, folks, remember this brief little political history lesson--both Communism and fascism are way over there on the far left politically--and theologically--because they are both totalitarian theologies..
He Was Red All Along
by Al Benson Jr.
For literally decades we were assured that Nelson Mandela from South Africa was not a Communist, that this wild accusation was thrown at him only so the forces of apartheid in South Africa could stigmatize him before the world. We were told his only crime was wanting equal treatment for blacks in South Africa, that he was really a South African patriot--and on and on the usual media drivel went.
Now that South Africa has basically gone Communist (is there a lesson for the US here?) we are informed that, guess what, Mandela was a Communist after all. What a surprise! Some of us knew this forty years ago in spite of what the media told us. Groups like the John Birch Society were smeared as "Red baiters" simply for telling the truth that Mandela had lied about.
In an article by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan that was on http://www.telegraph.co.uk appeared the following: "For decades it was one of the most enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela. the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government at the time alleged?...Now nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustices perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr. Mandela was a Communist Party member after all."
The articles continued: "But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr. Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr. Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule."
Let's get one thing straight here. If Mandela was a Communist then his first primary concern was to further whatever agenda the Communist Party in his country put forward, and not to help black people. Communists are noted the world over for using black people as cannon fodder in their "wars of resistance." So if Mandela was, indeed, Red, then his first loyalty was to the Party and not his people.
The British researcher, after noting Mandela's Party membership, went on to talk about how "magnanimous" Mandela was to all South Africans. Anyone who knows anything about Communists knows they are not magnanimous people. That sentiment does not fit into their agenda for world governance, which, contrary to poplular opinion, they still have.
I wonder if Mandela's magnanimity extended to his wife, Winnie, who, while he was still in prison was noted for her practice of having her political opponents "necklaced." If you don't know what that term implies check it out on the Internet referencing it to her.
So it's all just another case of the public, world-wide, being lied to by the politicians and the media movers and shakers. So what else is new?
by Al Benson Jr.
For literally decades we were assured that Nelson Mandela from South Africa was not a Communist, that this wild accusation was thrown at him only so the forces of apartheid in South Africa could stigmatize him before the world. We were told his only crime was wanting equal treatment for blacks in South Africa, that he was really a South African patriot--and on and on the usual media drivel went.
Now that South Africa has basically gone Communist (is there a lesson for the US here?) we are informed that, guess what, Mandela was a Communist after all. What a surprise! Some of us knew this forty years ago in spite of what the media told us. Groups like the John Birch Society were smeared as "Red baiters" simply for telling the truth that Mandela had lied about.
In an article by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan that was on http://www.telegraph.co.uk appeared the following: "For decades it was one of the most enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela. the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government at the time alleged?...Now nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustices perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr. Mandela was a Communist Party member after all."
The articles continued: "But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr. Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr. Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule."
Let's get one thing straight here. If Mandela was a Communist then his first primary concern was to further whatever agenda the Communist Party in his country put forward, and not to help black people. Communists are noted the world over for using black people as cannon fodder in their "wars of resistance." So if Mandela was, indeed, Red, then his first loyalty was to the Party and not his people.
The British researcher, after noting Mandela's Party membership, went on to talk about how "magnanimous" Mandela was to all South Africans. Anyone who knows anything about Communists knows they are not magnanimous people. That sentiment does not fit into their agenda for world governance, which, contrary to poplular opinion, they still have.
I wonder if Mandela's magnanimity extended to his wife, Winnie, who, while he was still in prison was noted for her practice of having her political opponents "necklaced." If you don't know what that term implies check it out on the Internet referencing it to her.
So it's all just another case of the public, world-wide, being lied to by the politicians and the media movers and shakers. So what else is new?
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
The Marxist Mindset
by Al Benson Jr.
Some writers have observed Marxists and their actions and concluded that they are liars and hypocrites. These do not understand the Marxist mindset or worldview.
The late Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote in his informative little book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) the following: "The Communists are not hypocrites. They suffer from paranoic delusions of an intense sincerity. They are so enmeshed in the delusions of Marxism-Leninism that they are beyond the scope of rational argument and conviction. All observed phenomena are interpreted within the framework of their preconceived conclusions. If they were hypocrites it would be much easier to deal with them. You can make a bargain with a huypocrite; you can scare a hypocrite. When you are dealing with paranoia of highly organized delusional patterns, your sole resource is to acknowledge and understand these patterns and take appropriate measures to protect yourself against the conduct which results from the delusions."
Dr. Schwarz noted that it is not possible for a Communist to lie in the interest of Communism because any statement he or she makes that will further the Communist agenda is automatically the truth in their eyes. Any statement that advances the Communist program is, therefore, true and we can always trust Communists to tell "Marxist-Leninist truth." Therefore, any lie, fable, or fairy tale that will advance Communist conquest and/or control is automatically not a lie, but rather is "Marxist truth." Final and complete maturity for the Communist is reached when you get to the point where you identify your emotions completely with what the Party wants. Not the slightest bit of room for individual thinking here--even the very thought of it is :"thought crime."
People need to realize that this is where Marxists are coming from and that any action they take--robbery, rape, falsehood, deception--anything they do that will advance the Marxist agenda is, in their eyes, the truth and is, therefore, righteous and "holy" to them. Communism is, in fact, a false theology. Whittaker Chambers, in his excellent book Witness noted that Communism and Christianity are, in fact, two irreconcilable faiths. At root, Communism is not economic, it is theological. It's adherents would deny that truth, but it is nonetheless a truth. If you wish to understand the Marxist then begin to understand his mindset.
One might be led to wonder if this is one reason the Republicans have so much trouble dealing with Obama on so many issues. He was raised in a totally Marxist environment and that's the way he thinks. Of course since the current crop of Republican "leaders" lives for no other reason than to pretend to resist Obama's agenda before dutifully caving in to it, it may not make that much difference.
Whittaker Chambers' book Witness is still available on Amazon.com and would be worth picking up to grasp the Communist worldview. Having just finished reading it, I recommend it.
by Al Benson Jr.
Some writers have observed Marxists and their actions and concluded that they are liars and hypocrites. These do not understand the Marxist mindset or worldview.
The late Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote in his informative little book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) the following: "The Communists are not hypocrites. They suffer from paranoic delusions of an intense sincerity. They are so enmeshed in the delusions of Marxism-Leninism that they are beyond the scope of rational argument and conviction. All observed phenomena are interpreted within the framework of their preconceived conclusions. If they were hypocrites it would be much easier to deal with them. You can make a bargain with a huypocrite; you can scare a hypocrite. When you are dealing with paranoia of highly organized delusional patterns, your sole resource is to acknowledge and understand these patterns and take appropriate measures to protect yourself against the conduct which results from the delusions."
Dr. Schwarz noted that it is not possible for a Communist to lie in the interest of Communism because any statement he or she makes that will further the Communist agenda is automatically the truth in their eyes. Any statement that advances the Communist program is, therefore, true and we can always trust Communists to tell "Marxist-Leninist truth." Therefore, any lie, fable, or fairy tale that will advance Communist conquest and/or control is automatically not a lie, but rather is "Marxist truth." Final and complete maturity for the Communist is reached when you get to the point where you identify your emotions completely with what the Party wants. Not the slightest bit of room for individual thinking here--even the very thought of it is :"thought crime."
People need to realize that this is where Marxists are coming from and that any action they take--robbery, rape, falsehood, deception--anything they do that will advance the Marxist agenda is, in their eyes, the truth and is, therefore, righteous and "holy" to them. Communism is, in fact, a false theology. Whittaker Chambers, in his excellent book Witness noted that Communism and Christianity are, in fact, two irreconcilable faiths. At root, Communism is not economic, it is theological. It's adherents would deny that truth, but it is nonetheless a truth. If you wish to understand the Marxist then begin to understand his mindset.
One might be led to wonder if this is one reason the Republicans have so much trouble dealing with Obama on so many issues. He was raised in a totally Marxist environment and that's the way he thinks. Of course since the current crop of Republican "leaders" lives for no other reason than to pretend to resist Obama's agenda before dutifully caving in to it, it may not make that much difference.
Whittaker Chambers' book Witness is still available on Amazon.com and would be worth picking up to grasp the Communist worldview. Having just finished reading it, I recommend it.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Obama--the Superlative Vote Getter
by Al Benson Jr.
You have to give Comrade Obama credit. He sure knows how to rack up the votes. Votes for him literally keep counting and counting and counting. I received an article from http://www.punditpress.com that had a headline that said: Breaking: St. Lucie County Florida Had 141.1% Turnout; Obama Won County.
The article noted that: "Out of 175,554 registered voters, 247,713 vote cards were cast in St. Lucie County, Florida on Tuesday. Barack Obama won the country." With that kind of extra "help" I would guess he would have won the county. With 72,159 more votes cast than there were registered voters how could he miss?
The article continued: "Along with this questionable result, Mr. Obama also received over 99% of the vote in numerous districts in Broward County. In various districts in Cleveland, he received 100% of the vote. In Florida, Mr. Obama received over 99% of the vote in precincts where GOP inspectors had been removed. Gee,. what a surprise. Sounds like all the Romney voters just stayed home so Obama could win all these precincts by 100%--or over
From the same source yet another article stating: Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors were Removed; Turnout Somehow "30%" Above Gov't Numbers. The article also noted that "Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations... Coincidentally (or not) Mr. Obama received 'astronomical' numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received 'over 99%' of the vote. Ward 4 which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55." And also "Obama won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In Ohio, Obama won a county with 108% voter registration."
Yet another source http://poorrichardsnews.com said "Voter fraud? Boston reports 129% voter turnout" It also noted figures for Ward 18 in three specific precincts where Obama received 97.15%, 98.91% and 97.57% respectively. Doesn't sound like anybody in Massachusetts voted for Romney either. He might as well have stayed home. If you took all these kinds of results and translated them nationwide Obama would have gotten 110% of the vote and Romney would actually owe him several votes.
Vote fraud? Why perish the thought! Such would never happen in our "democracy" would it? After all, if you can't trust "the system" then who or what can you trust? Right? And you know the Obama administration is so open and transparent they would never allow such to go on, don't you? Well, don't you? Someone please speak up--I don't hear any answers.
Awhile back Obama was caught with his microphone on when he thought it was off. He was telling the Russian ambassador to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I will have more flexibility after the election is over." Almost makes you wonder if even at that point, several months ago, the results of this election were already a done deal and everybody involved already knew Obama would be back, no matter what the voters wanted. If that is the case, then the whole election charade, including the debates, primaries and all the rest, was nothing but one gigantic dog and pony show for the benefit of the ignorant masses. As the man once said--"it's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes". The American people have been had--but then that's nothing new. It's been going on since Abraham Lincoln and we still haven't figured it out--thanks to our public school "educations."
by Al Benson Jr.
You have to give Comrade Obama credit. He sure knows how to rack up the votes. Votes for him literally keep counting and counting and counting. I received an article from http://www.punditpress.com that had a headline that said: Breaking: St. Lucie County Florida Had 141.1% Turnout; Obama Won County.
The article noted that: "Out of 175,554 registered voters, 247,713 vote cards were cast in St. Lucie County, Florida on Tuesday. Barack Obama won the country." With that kind of extra "help" I would guess he would have won the county. With 72,159 more votes cast than there were registered voters how could he miss?
The article continued: "Along with this questionable result, Mr. Obama also received over 99% of the vote in numerous districts in Broward County. In various districts in Cleveland, he received 100% of the vote. In Florida, Mr. Obama received over 99% of the vote in precincts where GOP inspectors had been removed. Gee,. what a surprise. Sounds like all the Romney voters just stayed home so Obama could win all these precincts by 100%--or over
From the same source yet another article stating: Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors were Removed; Turnout Somehow "30%" Above Gov't Numbers. The article also noted that "Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations... Coincidentally (or not) Mr. Obama received 'astronomical' numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received 'over 99%' of the vote. Ward 4 which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55." And also "Obama won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In Ohio, Obama won a county with 108% voter registration."
Yet another source http://poorrichardsnews.com said "Voter fraud? Boston reports 129% voter turnout" It also noted figures for Ward 18 in three specific precincts where Obama received 97.15%, 98.91% and 97.57% respectively. Doesn't sound like anybody in Massachusetts voted for Romney either. He might as well have stayed home. If you took all these kinds of results and translated them nationwide Obama would have gotten 110% of the vote and Romney would actually owe him several votes.
Vote fraud? Why perish the thought! Such would never happen in our "democracy" would it? After all, if you can't trust "the system" then who or what can you trust? Right? And you know the Obama administration is so open and transparent they would never allow such to go on, don't you? Well, don't you? Someone please speak up--I don't hear any answers.
Awhile back Obama was caught with his microphone on when he thought it was off. He was telling the Russian ambassador to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I will have more flexibility after the election is over." Almost makes you wonder if even at that point, several months ago, the results of this election were already a done deal and everybody involved already knew Obama would be back, no matter what the voters wanted. If that is the case, then the whole election charade, including the debates, primaries and all the rest, was nothing but one gigantic dog and pony show for the benefit of the ignorant masses. As the man once said--"it's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes". The American people have been had--but then that's nothing new. It's been going on since Abraham Lincoln and we still haven't figured it out--thanks to our public school "educations."
Thursday, November 08, 2012
The New Republican Left
by Al Benson Jr.
Ever since Tuesday, November 6th when we had that debacle charitably called an election there has been much public soul-searching regarding the Republican Party and its future.
Some have advocated that the Party "get rid of all that right-wing stuff" and move to the "center", which is really the left but they don't dare call it that. Others have advocated that real conservatives secede from the Republican Party and form a really conservative third party. Of these two solutions I would prefer the latter.
If the real conservatives did get out of the Republican Party then those who stayed in could just merge with the Democratic Party because they aren't all the different anyway. You could name them "the Republicrat Party." You would still end up with two parties.
Former presidential candidate Herman Cain wants a third party but he doesn't want the Ron Paul people in it. He says we need a "legitimate third party." The Ron Paul folks aren't legitimate? Why Herman? The Ron Paul folks are a lot more legitimate than what passes for the Republican Party at this point.
I said on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com on July 14th and September 30th of this year that I felt that Romney was going to toss the election to Obama and do a "John McCain" on us and that the Republican establishment had no problem with that. So far it looks like I might be right. I really wish I had been wrong.
But when you come down to it both major parties are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission--the one world government boys--and so both parties are essentially the same--two different wings on the same socialist turkey. Years ago George Wallace said there was not a dime's worth of difference between them. Turns out old George was right on the money.
Question is, if both of these "political parties" are controlled by a group that advocates the US being part of a one world government, the question could be asked, and rightly so, if either one of them are legitimate? The only major difference between them is rhetorical.
Maybe they should merge officially. That way we could see the Old Left, the New Left and the Republican Left all in one happy group and those that are pretending to be conservative could quit pretending and hoist the Red flag along with Comrade Obama and the rest. At least it would be more honest than what we have now.
by Al Benson Jr.
Ever since Tuesday, November 6th when we had that debacle charitably called an election there has been much public soul-searching regarding the Republican Party and its future.
Some have advocated that the Party "get rid of all that right-wing stuff" and move to the "center", which is really the left but they don't dare call it that. Others have advocated that real conservatives secede from the Republican Party and form a really conservative third party. Of these two solutions I would prefer the latter.
If the real conservatives did get out of the Republican Party then those who stayed in could just merge with the Democratic Party because they aren't all the different anyway. You could name them "the Republicrat Party." You would still end up with two parties.
Former presidential candidate Herman Cain wants a third party but he doesn't want the Ron Paul people in it. He says we need a "legitimate third party." The Ron Paul folks aren't legitimate? Why Herman? The Ron Paul folks are a lot more legitimate than what passes for the Republican Party at this point.
I said on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com on July 14th and September 30th of this year that I felt that Romney was going to toss the election to Obama and do a "John McCain" on us and that the Republican establishment had no problem with that. So far it looks like I might be right. I really wish I had been wrong.
But when you come down to it both major parties are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission--the one world government boys--and so both parties are essentially the same--two different wings on the same socialist turkey. Years ago George Wallace said there was not a dime's worth of difference between them. Turns out old George was right on the money.
Question is, if both of these "political parties" are controlled by a group that advocates the US being part of a one world government, the question could be asked, and rightly so, if either one of them are legitimate? The only major difference between them is rhetorical.
Maybe they should merge officially. That way we could see the Old Left, the New Left and the Republican Left all in one happy group and those that are pretending to be conservative could quit pretending and hoist the Red flag along with Comrade Obama and the rest. At least it would be more honest than what we have now.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Will "Frankenstorm" Postpone the Election?
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, some watched the presidential debates, at least as much of them as they could stomach. Some of us watched portions of them via the Internet.
I am no big fan of Mitt Romney. I think history shows that the Republicans are just as much of a problem for the country as the Democrats. That the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission control both major parties is common knowledge to those who follow the political scene, even to those who won't admit such. So you will get their boy no matter who wins this beauty contest we still call a presidential election.
What I think is more important for people to concentrate on is local, county, parish and state elections. Informed people can still have an impact on those.
Anyway, after the debates were over and much of the "news" media claimed that Obama had won the last two debates hands down, Romney started to do much better in many of the polls and he has continued on that upward trend slowly but surely.
Now a little more than a week before the election a good portion of the country is about to be threatened by "Frankenstorm"--the "mother" of all bad weather systems in the US. We have a hurricane that is supposed to ravage the East Coast from the Carolinas up to Maine, a blue norther coming down out of Canada that has dropped temperatures by 30 degrees even in the deep South, and more rain coming up from the Southwest--and all of these weather systems are supposed to collide with one another for weather fun and games.
All of a sudden the news about Romney passing Obama in the polls has disappeared from the front pages of what passes for newspapers, to be replaced with pictures of hurricane-force winds pounding against some old building at the end of a wharf on the East Coast.
What happens if this storm or combination of storms hits just before the election and power is lost in several states, not to be returned for weeks? Will the election be postponed by an announcement from Obama on the nightly "news" broadcast telling us the election will resume when everything gets back to normal, whenever that is?
It all gives Obama such a golden opportunity to look "presidential" while he is informing us that there can be no election for the foreseeable future--however long that might be. Will his "presidential" performance during this storm change any of the poll numbers from what they would otherwise have been?
I listened to an interview on Infowars.com recently in which the interviewer noted that the US government has been able to influence weather patterns since sometime in the late 1960s.
I can't say that is what is going on here, but it does make you wonder just what is going on. But, then, after all, if you can't trust your government...???
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Hate Group On The Left--The Southern Poverty Law Center
By Al Benson Jr.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, located in Montgomery, Alabama, is an organization well known to most of those in the Southern and Confederate Movements—and not viewed with fondness. This is the organization that, over ten years ago, published a list of Confederate “hate groups” that included the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans among others. None of the groups they listed could have been considered hate groups to anyone acquainted with reality. However reality is not something that concerns the SPLC.
Their agenda is to demonize almost anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez, a chore they work at with gleeful abandon. When it comes to Confederate or Southern historical or heritage groups they are all hate groups as far as the SPLC is concerned.
Not only does the SPLC seek to stigmatize Southern Heritage folks, they go after Tea Party people as well and they even stick up for segments of the United Nations agenda.
James Simpson, freelance journalist and former White House budget analyst wrote an article on http://www.rightsidenews.com in which he said: “The SPLC author called Agenda 21 an ‘environmental protection’ initiative, when anyone who has actually studied the document—I have—immediately recognizes it as a rationalization for socializing every aspect of our lives. Not merely redistributing income, which it calls for with a ‘global tax’ but redistributing populations within borders, across borders and even across continents. Sound familiar? Welcome to the open borders crowd and George Soros’ ‘Open Society.’”
Mr. Simpson has realized that the political and theological left often has a problem in promoting indefensible and unpopular agendas that promote socialism and so they are forced to come up with terminology that seeks to make something horrendous sound warm and fuzzy—and this fools lots of people. Thankfully it does not fool all of them and some of those that are not fooled do speak out.
Regarding Agenda 21 Mr. Simpson has further observed: “The U.N.’s primary vehicle for imposing Agenda 21 on local communities is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). National awareness of this malevolent organization has now resulted in a percent decline of their membership! About 85 local governments followed the commissioners’ example and revoked their memberships. State governments are now beginning to enact laws against Agenda 21. …We need to recognize that the SPLC does not merely represent an organized example of leftist lunacy. It is a dangerous organization, whose goal is to isolate its enemies and make them politically radioactive. They achieve this through calculated, disingenuous and hate-filled propaganda.”
Simpson has also told us that the SPLC has become a sort of “consultant” not only to the FBI but also to the Department of Homeland Security. What a convenient way to polarize their enemies and make them look evil not only to the federal government but to the public at large. I don’t know how many “news” articles I’ve seen in the past few years that call this or that organization a “hate group” and they cite the SPLC as their source. Years ago those in the Southern Movement stated quite plainly and truthfully that those who use the SPLC as source for their information about “hate groups” are just not credible and should not be taken seriously. I agree.
One piece of revelatory information was passed along by Mr. Simpson in his article when he said: “On May Day this year a bombing attempt by the Occupy Cleveland activists was thwarted. Afterward, a reporter for “National Review” asked the SPLC if it planned to put Occupy Wall Street on its ‘hate group’ list? SPLC’s stunning answer: ‘We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.’” In other words, their agenda is to make those on the Right look bad or look like hate-mongers but they don’t really plan to do anything in regard to leftist groups which may be genuine hate groups.
In other words, all their agenda covers is making groups on the right look bad. They have no interest in exposing leftist groups. Why? Because they are over on the far left themselves and they dare not expose any of their “comrades” they have been instructed to leave alone.
Simpson has also noted that: “The SPLC, a ‘non-profit’ organization, has a one quarter billion dollar endowment, and socks away many millions every year in donations and investment returns much of which is kept in offshore banks. Why? The SPLC is an institutionalized, heavily funded genuine hate group that focuses not on other hate grups but on groups it hates.
As far as Agenda 21 goes, I would expect the SPLC to support and endorse its “initiatives” as the United Nations is a “one world organization” with decided socialist goals. An article published on March 16, 2012 on http://ppigfiles.wordpress.com has observed: “While actual groups do exist that are quite obviously built around hatred or intolerance of other sectors of the population, it is highly doubtful that the government or law enforcement needs the assistance of SPLC to identify them. As SPLC has acquired its massive wealth through selling their own brand of hatred for profit, doubtless they should top the list of possible suspects.”
The next time you see an article about some “right-wing hate group” and the author cites the SPLC as his source, write to the publication he works for and tell them that this group is not a credible sources and encourage the author of the article to get out and do some real homework on his subject instead of buying the tales of leftist prevaricators.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Interviews
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently I did an interview on the Spingola Speaks radio show (9/24/12) dealing with the book "Lincoln's Marxists" written by Walter D. Kennedy and myself. You should be able to find this by doing a Google search and you can then listen to the podcast of the show, which was two hours long.
Interviews are interesting, yet sometimes daunting, because you never quite know what you will be asked and someone can always come up with a question that you know almost nothing about even on a subject you have researched. No one can pick up everything to do with a subject even researching it.
I have done a few radio interviews over the years and had a handful of speaking engagements at Southern Heritage events. A polished speaker I am not, so folks don't get a slick, glitzy presentation out of me but they do get facts which I hope they might be able to use and to pass on to others and that's the real reason for doing these things. Our book "Lincoln's Marxists" (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) contains lots of information the history books leave out about the socialist and communist involvement in the War of Northern Aggression, on the Union side.
I did a similar interview about our book about four years ago which, surprisingly, is still on the Internet at thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll
Needless to say, not everyone agrees with our presentation of facts about socialist involvement in the War. The politically correct folks hate this kind of book and they are quick to denounce it or to write book reviews that trash it. I have been told that even a bad book review is better than no book review because some who read the review just may want to check out the book to see why the reviewer thought it was so terrible.
I can recall, years ago, when I went to movies that I would always read the movie reviews in the paper and if the reviewers really panned some movie I would think it must might be worth seeing. I usually enjoyed what the reviewers hated.
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently I did an interview on the Spingola Speaks radio show (9/24/12) dealing with the book "Lincoln's Marxists" written by Walter D. Kennedy and myself. You should be able to find this by doing a Google search and you can then listen to the podcast of the show, which was two hours long.
Interviews are interesting, yet sometimes daunting, because you never quite know what you will be asked and someone can always come up with a question that you know almost nothing about even on a subject you have researched. No one can pick up everything to do with a subject even researching it.
I have done a few radio interviews over the years and had a handful of speaking engagements at Southern Heritage events. A polished speaker I am not, so folks don't get a slick, glitzy presentation out of me but they do get facts which I hope they might be able to use and to pass on to others and that's the real reason for doing these things. Our book "Lincoln's Marxists" (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) contains lots of information the history books leave out about the socialist and communist involvement in the War of Northern Aggression, on the Union side.
I did a similar interview about our book about four years ago which, surprisingly, is still on the Internet at thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll
Needless to say, not everyone agrees with our presentation of facts about socialist involvement in the War. The politically correct folks hate this kind of book and they are quick to denounce it or to write book reviews that trash it. I have been told that even a bad book review is better than no book review because some who read the review just may want to check out the book to see why the reviewer thought it was so terrible.
I can recall, years ago, when I went to movies that I would always read the movie reviews in the paper and if the reviewers really panned some movie I would think it must might be worth seeing. I usually enjoyed what the reviewers hated.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Congress talking again about increading minimum wage by Al Benson Jr.
I just read an article this evening that mentioned that Congress is again talking about increasing the minimum wage, in increments, until it reaches somewhere in the neighborhood of $9.80 and hour.
To lots of folks making minimum wage that sounds really great. However, think what it will do to many business owners who are operating on a marginal basis at this point. Many of them will be forced to go out of business because they can no longer pay the wages necessary to stay in business. Others who are not marginal but are still having to struggle will end up laying off people because they cannot afford to pay this increase. So their work will have to be absorbed by people that are already working at their own jobs who will not be thrilled at having to "double up" and do someone else's work along with their own. Everybody today expects to get more and pay less and mostly that won't happen. You can only squeeze the turnip so much until their ain't no juice left there.
I remember, in this context, listening to Milton Friedman, years ago now when the minimum wage was $2.25 an hour. It had just been raised and he was skeptical of that. He asked the question, and I think it was a good one--why is an entry level black student better off unemployed at $2.25 an hour than he was employed at $2.00 per hour?
He had a good point and I have yet to hear anyone answer his question. Raising the minimum wage yet again will only result in lots of marginal workers losing their jobs because their employers just can't afford to pay that much to all the people that work for them and so some will have to go.
But the Congresscritters, trying to make points back home with the electorate don;'t have to worry too much about that. Their retirement is already secure and you can bet they will get lots more than the folks on Social Security
So, is this a "concern for the poor" or just another vote-getter?
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Will There Be An Election In November? by Al Benson Jr.
Within the past three days I have gotten emails from three different sources all noting the possibility that there may not be an election next November because there will be some sort of "October surprise" that will cancel out the "need" for an election.
I cannot personally verity the accuracy of any of these but all have come from sources that have been accurate and on target in the past so it does give me some cause for reflection at this point.
One source has noted that someone in Washington has designed what we call a "false flag" event before the election so that it will appear as if Obama has been the victim of "racist hatred by the white gun owners and people concerned about the Constitution..." This would be in keeping with such events that have taken place in the past.
For other sources relating to this please check out
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com and
http://beforeitsnews.com
Sunday, August 26, 2012
That Anti-Obama Movie
by Al Benson Jr.
My son sent me an email this afternoon which noted that Dinesh D'souza's new movie "Obama 2016" had made it to the top movie of this weekend grossing $6.3 million in sales. That's pretty good for a documentary movie, and one that's only 29 minutes long.
It was in about 1,000 theaters for the weekend, while most of the regular commercial movies were in around 3,000 theaters, so for it to end up being the top seller while being in less theaters has to say something.
It may mean that, at last, some folks are waking up to the fact that Mr. Obama is a Marxist and that he has loaded his administration with leftists who vary in shade from deep pink to bright Red.
You will get very little of this from the lap dog media who seem to be so addicted to Obama and his Marxist agenda that they will not publish or broadcast anything that makes him look bad. Hence his Marxism will never be exposed by those people, making them complicit in his Marxist agenda--not that such bothers them. To say that our "news" media leans to the left would be putting it mildly.
Some writers on the Internet feel that Obama's campaign is running out of steam and that he has nothing new to offer (what he's already offered is more than we need) and so he has resorted to attacking his opponent rather than dealing with issues. This is a standard Marxist diversionary tactic.
Erick Erickson, writing on http://www.redstate.com on August 24th noted that: "From Mark Halperin to Jake Tapper, to Chuck Todd, more journalists are actually now admitting just how pliable the media ix when it comes to Barack Obama's spin. All week long, as the economy deteriorates, most every anchor at most every news outlet, most every editorialist in most every paper, and most every 'centrist' and liberal pundit has been pointing out the GOP's extremist abortion position."
This is a classic example of what I am talking about. Obama has the economy in shreds and he wants four more years to complete the job and all the media can do is to rant about what they claim or "extremist" Republican positions on other things.
Do the folks that make up the "news" (what a laugh) media know that Obama's Marxist politics have ruined the country's economy? Of course they do. Will they reveal that to the American public? Don't hold your breath waiting! Whatever news that reflects badly on Comrade Obama will either be spun to make him look good or tossed down the memory hole. I don't see how these guys have the gall to still call themselves the "news" media. I saw what the "news" media did to Ron Paul here in Louisiana--and if it wasn't a crime it should have been. So I have no faith whatever in the regular "news" media. Those that are not outright liberals and socialist, with a few exceptions, are trying to be.
And for all of that, they are still not fooling a goodly segment of the public, otherwise this new anti-Obama movie would not have grossed over $6 million this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)