Cultural Genocide From a Generational Perspective

by Al Benson Jr.

For the past few weeks I have been watching the national reaction to the shooting at the black church in Charleston, South Carolina and the gigantic fuss being made of the Confederate flag in regard to that.

In my opinion this is shaping up like a well-managed psy-ops campaign to rid the South of not only guns, but also the symbols of her culture and heritage. If one said that situations like this seldom happen by accident he would be pretty close to the truth.

They started out by working to remove all Confederate flags they could in Southern states. The political hacks we have for politicians have been lining up to see who could be the first to remove Confederate flags.  The governors of South Carolina and Alabama seem to have won that questionable race while it looks like Mississippi might end up a distant third, depending on how much noise her voters make over the issue.

Now we have started to see the emergence of a campaign to remove all Confederate statues as well. This gives the Cultural Genocide campaign against the South a more enduring perspective. Statues are something that usually remain for generations and people from all generations see them. Youngsters in the upcoming generation see them and often ask their parents why this statue is here and what it represents and, if the parents have a clue,  they can usually explain to the kids the reason for the statue.

If the statues end up being removed, along with the flags, then part of your past culture ends up missing, and if your kids never see it they don't know what it represented and can't ask.

Folks, I grew up in the North. In my growing-up years I never saw much that passed for regional culture except the Yankee mindset that everyone should think like they did.

In the South you have had a vibrant, traditional and regional culture that I have enjoyed. It's part of the reason my wife and I are here. And the politically correct Cultural Marxist crowd is trying to kill that as quickly as they can. You can't let them do it, because, once it is dead, you will never get it back.

Begin to realize that "those people" are trying to purposely destroy your culture, which has a Christian base, and that this is the main object of their agenda. You have got to stand up and resist this. Weeping and moaning on the sidelines won't cut it--you have got to fight back! Find ways to resist every attempt they make to remove your culture because  what they are really doing is to try to make sure your children inherit not culture whatever.  Years ago I heard a man say "The 'new' South is NO South!" He said that in a speech and although I didn't agree with some of the other things he said, he was right on target with that comment.  A region bereft of its history and traditions is a region already dead, and, from the neck up, its people are dead. This is the Cultural Marxists' plan for the South.

Franklin Sanders, in the October, 2014 issue of The Moneychanger said, and quite accurately, "Make no mistake! For any people the past is their life. Cut  off from their past, a people cannot have any future. Their future dies. So it is not trivial when they attack your flag--they are not attacking merely that symbol, but everything that symbol represents, your religion, your culture, and ultimately you. They want to destroy the culture because they want to destroy you. They understand that without your past, they destroy your future."

Even fictional writers realize this. West Texas author Elmer Kelton (now deceased) once wrote at the end of one of his books: "All history is relevant today, because the way we live--the values we believe in--are a result of the molds prepared for us by our forebears a long time ago. We are the products of the preparation of those who came before us." Another fictional writer, Louis L'Amour (also deceased) said basically the same thing. He wrote: "We must not lose touch with what we were,with what we had been, nor must we allow the well of our history to dry up, for a child without tradition is a child crippled before the world."

That is exactly what the Cultural Marxists want for your kids--first across the South and then all across the rest of the country--a generation crippled before the world. They want a Southland ashamed of its history and heritage and supine on the ground so that when they kick it, it will not even whimper! They want a Southland unaware of its Christian foundations and ashamed of what it is aware of, and if "those people" have their way that won't be much--except for the slavery issue.  The fact that the North once had slaves also will NEVER  be mentioned. All some of them will ever be ashamed of is that, when they sold their slaves south, they didn't make more on the deal.

So don't just take my word for it. Look at what those men I have quoted in this article have all said, and they have basically said the same thing, totally independent of one another! There was no grand design on their part to help each other preserve Southern heritage--but you can't say the same for the Cultural Marxists that are working to destroy Southern heritage and culture. They work together and they have a plan, which hopefully you are beginning to see if you hadn't before, to see the fruit of their efforts. Get rid of all Confederate flags. Get rid of any Confederate statuary, get rid of all street, school, and bridge names, and park names that have anything to do with the Old Confederacy. All Confederate memory must be wiped off the slate. The next generation must have NOTHING  whatever in their memories to relate to the Old South and/or those that fought for it (except slavery naturally).

They plan to totally brainwash the next generation so they will have nothing worthwhile about their past to refer back to--and if they have no past, then they have no future--except that which the Cultural Marxists have planned for them.

If we refuse to stand up and resist this orchestrated cultural purge then we will deserve exactly what we get. If we won't stand up and resist the destruction of our future generations' culture and heritage, the day will come when our descendants may well curse us because we did not leave them anything worthwhile or worth fighting for. We will have left them "crippled before the world" and, if at some point, they curse us for that, they will be justified in so doing.

And someday we will have to stand before the Lord and answer as to why we would not stand up for those good things He provided for us, and why our "reality shows" were more important than our culture, heritage, and history. People can lie to one another about why they couldn't be bothered to speak out for what was right, but they won't be able to lie to the Lord. He already knows the answer.

So, if Southern folks can't be bothered to stand up and defend a culture that has a Christian base and to try to pass that along to their children, then they will have to answer.

Reprinted from The Copperhead Chronicle newsletter, 2nd quarter 2015

To Southern Folks: The Republican Party Will Not Save You (and they are not really trying to)

by Al Benson Jr.

Too many folks here in the South really believe that the Republican Party is the "party of small government" that is out there manfully trying to protect them from the "liberal Democrats." It sounds so good when you read the Republican Party literature during an election year. Unfortunately, much of what sounds good to people often turns out to be bovine fertilizer and the Republican "concern" for limited government is one of the biggest piles of that around.

The Republican Party is not really concerned about limited government and if you look at their history, there have really been very few times when they were. Their first presidential candidate, John C. (pathfinder) Fremont back in 1856 leaned to the left politically, and when the War of Northern Aggression commenced he had several Forty-eighter socialists under his command. Donnie Kennedy and I have documented this in our book Lincoln's Marxists. Their next candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was just as far to the left, but the "history" books don't bother to tell you any of that. Better for the establishment if you don't know. Except, thanks to authors like Tom DiLorenzo, the word is getting out about what Lincoln really was, and there are others as well.

Today I read an article on LewRockwell.com by Paul Gottfried called  Neocons Hate the South. Mr. Gottfried noted that since the shootings in Charleston "GOP officials have been scrambling to comply with leftist demands that Southern whites be stripped of visible signs of their Confederate heritage. The GOP has actually been downplaying the Confederacy for years..." I recall, a few years back now, when Cheney was Vice-President, someone of note in the South passed away and the was a Confederate flag at the funeral home where he was displayed. Cheney refused to even go in until that Confederate flag was removed. This is your Republican's "love" for the South and your heritage. Gottfried noted that: "Neoconservatives have long stood out from other Republicans and members of Conservatism Inc. by virtue of the intensity of their loathing for the white South." And at this point in time, it seems that these are the people that control the Republican Party. The Republicans don't hesitate to use the Southern vote to help them gain control of Congress--but look at what has happened since they got control in November, 2014. Has government gotten any smaller? Are the Republicans really trying to stave off the efforts of the "liberal" Democrats for more and bigger government? Hardly! What has happened is that the public, if they really take the trouble to look, will find that what we really have in Washington is a melding together of both political parties into one group and it is predominently liberal/left in its outlook and the Republicans, for all their "conservative" rhetoric are more than willing to go along with much of what Comrade Obama has planned for the country.

So our path down the road to some sort of European socialism will be promoted by two political parties who claim to disagree with one another but who are willing to work together to forge the chains of socialism around the necks of the American people.

And they particularly want to forge those chains on people in the South because that is the region that balks most consistently against the wiles of big government. Make no mistake about it--both parties in Washington hate your guts of you are Southern. You stand for everything that their One World government agenda is opposed to. The South is the last part of the country that even makes any pretention to the Christian faith, and that is their real enemy. Christ and the Confederacy have to go in the South and so all symbols and flags that remind anyone of either one must be purged--and the Republicans will work just as eagerly at that as will any black NAACP member! They hate your faith. They hate your heritage. They want them both gone and you had better wake up and realize that.

As for Confederate flags and monuments we are going to have to start looking for private property to put them on, preferably along highways where they have some visibility. But we can pretty well figure, with the present purge, that any "public" property will not be healthy for our heritage. I've just read where they have, in Memphis, decided to dig up Bedford Forrest and his wife and to re-inter them somewhere less "public" than where they are now. I suppose at this point the authorities in Memphis are on the lookout for some "potter's field" out in the boonies where they hope no one will ever go to rebury them.

Folks, I've stated before in articles that the Republican Party ain't your friend and that if you really are conservative or patriotic then you need to start looking somewhere else. Folks in the South have got to start looking for another political savior because the Republicans won't cut the mustard--and actually there is no salvation in politics anyway. North or South, only the Lord can straighten out the mess we find ourselves in today so maybe we had better get on our knees and ask Him what He wants us to do--and if the mess is to be straightened out He will want us to do something, not just sit it out and wait for the "rapture."

NASCAR Plans to Eliminate Confederate Flag

by Al Benson Jr.

Just this morning (6/29) I published an article on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com about the ethnic cleansing (Cultural Marxism) going on presently in Marxist Memphis, Tennessee. I would encourage those reading this to go and check it out. One writer, commenting on all this called it a "Stalinist purge" and I agree with his take on the current situation. He's figured it out. Lots of these other commentators don't have the first clue.

Shortly after I posted that I came across a short article from GOPUSAEagle which noted that now NASCAR president Brian France plans to work to make sure that NASCAR is no longer, in any way, connected to the Confederate flag. He said: We want to go as far as we can to eliminate the presence of that flag at NASCAR events." 

That's a pretty straight forward statement for Southern folks to digest, if they will take the trouble to do it. Your money is welcome as NASCAR because it will enrich their coffers, but your flags are not welcome, so bring your cash and leave your flag at home.

I've never bothered much with car racing, at least not for several decades now, but I will tell you one thing--if NASCAR spit on my heritage they way they have spit on Southerners heritage, I'd never darken the door of one of their tracks again. If you don't need my flag then you don't need my money either. It'd  be nice to see 5,000 Confederate flags at some NASCAR event in the near future. One wonders if the track officials would throw out all those that carried them, not let them in, or what.

What would be even better would be for Southern folks who truly revere their cultural heritage to just stop patronizing NASCAR events. They are willing to spit in your face and on your flag while taking your money, which shows they really have no concern for their clientele except what's in their wallets. If I still attended car races anywhere, I'd be strongly attempted to start boycotting NASCAR events.

Muslims Didn't Create Quite As Much As We've Been Told They Did

by Al Benson Jr.

If we listened to certain "historians" we would think that the Muslim faith is responsible for just about all of Western civilization and that Europeans would still be living in caves if it were not for them. Even that man in the White House, who some have called "that Muslim Mole" has stated that the fabric of this country's founding was strongly Muslim. Sounds like he's been reading some of our current "historians" who are willing to accord anyone except Christians credit for most everything good that has happened here.

Historian Rodney Stark is one who is honest enough not to participate in this politically correct charade. Mr. Stark has observed that: "...the sophisticated culture so often attributed to Muslims...was actually the culture of the conquered people--the Judeo-Christian-Greek culture of Byzantium."

Pastor Steve Wilkins of Monroe, Louisiana has pointed out several areas where Muslims have gotten historical credit for the accomplishments of those they conquered. Pastor Wilkins has noted that: "What is called the 'earliest scientific book in the language of Islam' was a treatise on medicine by a Syrian Christian priest in Alexandria, which was translated into Arabic by a Persian Jewish physician. The leading Muslim physicians were trained in the Nestorian medical center in Syria. The first hospital in Baghdad was built by a Nestorian Christian.  The man who paved the way for the great medical advances was not a Muslim but Belgian physician,Andreas Vesalius. He published the first accurate description of human internal organs. He could do this because Christianity doesn't forbid examination of human bodies (autopsies)--which were forbidden by Islam."

Years ago I started to read a book by writer Louis L'Amour called The Walking Drum which repeated this same fallacy about Muslim supremacy. If you believed what L'Amour wrote you would envision a thriving Muslim civilization emerging while most of Europe huddled in cold stone castles, afraid to even take a bath! Unfortunately, L'Amour had succumbed to politically correct "history" when he wrote that book. It was about the only book of his I ever read that I didn't finish. About a third of the way through I said "This is nothing but pro-Muslim propaganda" and I just quit reading. L'Amour was a good writer and the Westerns he did were just great. I've read many of them several times. He should have stuck to Westerns!

Pastor Wilkins noted further that: "Donald R. Hill, author of the definitive work on the Muslim contribution to science,  admits that very few developments could be traced to Arab origins and that most of these contributions originated with conquered populations. The most important 'Muslim' philosopher-scientist, Avicenna, was not a Muslim but a Persian (as was the famous mathematician and astronomer, Omar Khayyam). The 'father of algebra' Abu Ja far Muhammed, was a Zoroastrian. 'Arabic' numerals were developed by Hindus in pre-Islamic India. The famous 'Muslim' astronomer, Masha'alla Athari, was a Jew'."

All this is not to say the Muslims never made any contributions, "But  Robert Spencer notes, 'the historical record simply doesn't support the idea that Islam inspired a culture that outstripped others.' The Muslims, for the most part, borrowed a culture they were incapable of developing. It was for this reason when Islamic rulers sought to stamp out all adherents to other religions in the 14th century, 'Islamic culture' collapsed into the backwardness we see today."

And Pastor Wilkins asked the question--"What is it about Islam that stifles progress and intellectual growth? Biblical faith teaches us that we serve a Triune God who is infinitely creative, who calls upon His people to imitate Him in searching out, investigating, and exploring His creation. Christianity has always produced lively, inquisitive cultures, who could explore and examine, and invent without fear of offending the true God.  Allah, however, is to be believed and never questioned.  The prevailing assumption of Islam is that the Qu'ran is the perfect book and no other is needed. Biblical Christians understand that God is a God of order and that He not only created all things but actively sustains all things. This reality makes science and scientific experimentation possible...Islam kills science and consequently, there is little progress or advance in Islamic countries."

The central issue with Islam is always submission--all other religions and cultures are to submit to Islam. We see this happening today all over Europe wherever Muslims have large centers of population and the Europeans are just now beginning to grasp the fact that if they don't do something they will lose their countries to their growing Muslim populations. Because, whether you like the thought or not, these people DO intend to make you submit and they will take your weak attempts at "being nice" to them in such a way as to question your backbone and they will exploit your lack of resolve.

If you want to check out one major contribution to the world culture that Muslims are largely responsible for, take a look at the slave trade. The Muslims were slave traders. They still are. For all their horror over the slave trade, today's politically correct "useful idiots" prefer to confine their comments about slavery, especially in this country, to a slavery that disappeared 150 odd years ago. It no longer exists. But Muslims promote and practice slavery in other countries in our day and the politically correct never deal with this. It might :"offend" the Muslims and so they just don't mention it. It's just fine to offend Christians, in fact it's part of their agenda, but heaven forbid that they offend a Muslim!

So that's where it is today, and the Christians had better wake up and smell the coffee!

"Spontaneous Demonstrations"--yeah right! Pigs fly, too

by Al Benson Jr.

Following the political scene as I have for years, I have seen commentary on all manner of riots, demonstrations, marches and what-not over the years. The usual case is that what we laughingly refer to as the "news" media leaves far more information out than they give about these events.

Most of them are labeled "spontaneous" demonstrations over whatever the leftist agenda currently lists as the "cause of the day." However, let's don't kid ourselves. These demonstrations are about as spontaneous as Chivington's attack on the Cheyenne village at Sand Creek, Colorado in 1864.

I recall being on the East Coast during the Kent State situation where national guardsmen fired into a crowd of "student" demonstrators and the entire country erupted within a day. I saw students being schooled in how to demonstrate "spontaneously" by their professors and I saw some of that those students did "spontaneously." Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore have not been that much different. The Watts riots back in the 1960s were hardly spontaneous, but lots of thought and planning went into making sure they looked that way to the general public.

I have quoted a couple times, in articles, from a book called The Strawberry Statement--Notes of a College Revolutionary where the author stated, on pages 130-131 how he and other radicals were offered Establishment money to "make a lot of radical commotion" so some in the Ruling Elite can be made to look like centrists while they move to the left. The author of the book, James Simon Kunen, said exactly that. He observed: "We were offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They wanted us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left. I found out at this meeting that Life is doing a five-part article on SDS in the fall. The article is supposed to be favorable, and they want our cooperation. It was obvious to everyone that what Life is trying to do is co-opt us. And I always thought they were trying to sell magazines." No, James, Life, Newsweek, Time and a lot of other publications were about much more than "selling magazines." They, like the government schools, were about leftist propaganda and the befuddlement of the general public with it. Their job is to put the right spin on the news and they do that by telling us only part of the story and omitting what doesn't fit the leftist/Establishment agenda.

I've seen them at work over the years and they are downright devious. Their "reporters" come to write about a certain event and its participants and they basically have their story already written before they even show up. All they have to do is get a few names and then spin those people's comments to make them say what fits the agenda--even if that's not really what they said. They are not there for the truth, they are there to promote the agenda of those who pay them to write half-truths and outright falsehoods. I could give personal examples of some of what I have witnessed in this area but it would take pages!

So now we have riots in Baltimore over the death of a black man. I don't know all the ins and outs of how he died but I have read that he had a rap sheet as long as your arm--mostly drug-related incidents--not that this excuses any police brutality that there may have been but lets face it folks, this guy was no saint! It seems like most of the black people in this incidents who are painted as innocent martyrs have very checkered pasts and yet the media portrays them as being pure as the driven snow.

A good thing to look at in Baltimore, as well as other places, is who starts the riots and demonstrations that end up destroying private property and ruining lives? The news media seldom dwells on this, which is all the more reason people should start checking out what the alternative media has to say about it. Quite often the alternative media reports what the regular "news" media should and doesn't. An article I read just today noted that one of the main troublemakers in Baltimore was an individual who had been part of the New Black Panther Party. Now the regular media had to know that and yet the omitted it entirely and named only one other advocacy group he belonged to. Why not name both? Well, naming the group this person was involved with that had a Marxist background would have given the game away and so the "news" media conveniently left it out.

I recall, during the Kent State affair, seeing boxes and boxes of printed propaganda material in various places where the local college students could have access to it. Some of it was even printed in North Viet Nam and this was during the Viet Nam War. Who do you suppose shipped all this Marxist material to these college kids? No one ever asked that question. Just an ignored fact that wasn't supposed to be dealt with.

In observing these "spontaneous" riots or whatever, start checking out the alternative media to see what it has to say and start trying to ascertain who benefits from these things. It surely isn't the rioters--they're only the cannon fodder for the folks that finance and promote all this-the people that are trying to exert pressure from above (the Ruling Elite) and to do that they are using pressure from below (the leftist radicals) and those caught in the middle between these two pressure points are the Middle Class--and squeezing them and eventually eliminating them is what it's really all about, according to Marx.

Charleston Voice: Government Schools—the god that failed on purpose

Charleston Voice: Government Schools—the god that failed on purpose:   By Al Benson Jr. Posted on April 21, 2015   In the past I have commented on how most people view public schools, how many have commented on their gross failure to educate and I have stated that the public schools have really not failed-at what they were instituted to do--the dumbing down of our kids. At this they have  been a smashing success.

What they have failed to do, and this is on purpose, is to educate the children committed to their charge. They continue to turn out graduates who don't even know what century the War of Northern Aggression was fought in or who Hitler was, or who was president before our current Commissar took the office.

Check out this full article on www.chasvoice.blogspot.com

"Freedom" in the U.S.? Don't Make Me Laugh!

by Al Benson Jr.

After the 9/11 debacle, (whoever was responsible for that) President Bush got on tv and said that the terrorists that did it hated us because of our freedoms. At that point my first thought was "what hogwash." And as the Bush administration went along after 9/11 they made more than sure that American citizens would never again be burdened with too much freedom and to do that they gave us the Patriot Act. It has gone downhill from there.

By the time our current commissar came along to inhabit the White (Red) House he had promised us that he would fundamentally "transform" the United States and would have the most "transparent" administration in history. This line didn't even deserve to be rated as hogwash--it was even below hogwash. I probably couldn't come up with a term for it that wouldn't get me shut down so I will leave it to your imaginations. Suffice it to say that I, long ago, had given up believing the political fertilizer slingers that assured us we were living in a "free country." I knew they were lying and so did they--but they did it with such a straight face that most folks, less suspicious than me, bought into it. The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has been transformed into the "land of the freeloader and the home of the brain-dead." And it hasn't been accidental. It's part of the agenda.

I've been waiting for the Christian Church to wake up and realize what has happened. Mostly, it ain't happening. Most Christians I've come across don't know and they don't want to know. After all, if you can't trust your government then who can you trust? That's their rationale. Anyone who tries to tell them, for their own good, what's going on is automatically a "conspiracy theorist" or a "right wing nut." They haven't got time to be bothered trying to defend their liberties so they can pass them along to their children and grandchildren. That's not important. Half of them, or more, feel that they will be "raptured" out of here before it gets real sticky and so they don't have to be bothered doing anything about our problems. The rest feel so strongly that the Lord is in control (which He is) that they don't have to be bothered doing anything to combat evil in the world--the Lord will take care of all that. They are just along for the spiritual ride. The Church has been lulled to sleep in the last 150 years, due to apostasy and planned neutralization. It once stood for something--now it falls for everything.

Just today I read an article by John Whitehead, from his web site entitled Kick Open the Doorway to Liberty: What Are We Waiting For?  It's in the commentary section of the Rutherford Institute web site.
Mr. Whitehead seems to feel the same frustration that I do about where the country is going and about the almost total lack of concern of most people.

Mr. Whitehead noted that: "Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head. Free speech, religious expression, privacy, due process, bodily integrity, the sanctity of human life, the sovereignty of the family...the right to self defense, protection against police abuses...private property, human rights--the very ideals that once made this nation great--have become casualties  of a politically correct, misguided, materialistic, amoral, militaristic culture." Again, this is NOT by accident. It's not just "happening." And he also says: "Why should we Americans have to put up with the government listening in on our phone calls, spying on our emails, subjecting us to roadside strip searches, and generally holding our freedoms hostage in exchange for some phantom promises of security?" Good question. But let's be realistic here. The promises of "security" (prisons are secure, too) are nothing more than a way to get Americans to surrender their God-given liberties without a fight. It's a lot less bloody if the government can convince people that it is "protecting" them instead of taking over their lives to fulfill the socialist agenda of the One World Government crowd in Washington and New York.

And if you think this isn't really happening, that it's not really that bad, take a look at a National Review article, (www.nationalreview.com) by Alec Torres for January 1, 2014. Mr. Torres wrote: "When President Obama took office in 2009, the U.S. was ranked the sixth freest economy. It is the only country in the world to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years.  Since 2006, the U.S. has 'suffered a dramatic decline of almost six points, with particularly large losses in property rights, freedom from corruption, and control of government spending,' according to the report. 'Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. economic freedom. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness."

Now I don't always agree with all the National Review says, but in this case, Mr. Torres has nailed it pretty accurately. Your freedom and liberty and economic status had seriously deteriorated since the advent of the current Marxist regime with its promises of "transparency."

Although there are lots of folks who don't like what they see happening and are concerned by what has more and more become a rogue administration, their main response has been to gripe a little and that's it. Christians, in the main, don't have anymore of a clue than anyone else, and sad to say, lots of them don't want one. For them to realize what's going on would mean that they would have to, as Christians, take some responsibility to take a stand against the evil they see around them--and that's just too much trouble nowadays. Lots easier to tune in the upcoming "Reality" show and forget about the rest. Just "let George (or Barack) take care of it--which is just what they've done and now they don't like the results.

Mr. Whitehead, at the conclusion of his article asks: "Where are the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence and the insistently courageous  city councils now, when they are crucially needed to bring back the Bill of Rights that protect every American against government tyranny worse than King George III's? Where are the citizens demanding that these doorways to liberty be opened? What are we waiting for?"

Well, Mr. Whitehead, what they are waiting for is the "rapture" to take them out of all this so they won't have to do any of the things you mention here, or else they are waiting for the Lord to do it all so they don't have to get involved and get their hands dirty. Either way, what we've mostly got here, not totally, but mostly, is a do nothing church that just can't be bothered and that doesn't want to believe it's as bad as some have told them. This country will probably be judged for their attitude, and that's not a pleasant thought.

Where Is the Church Headed Now—And should we resist the trip?

By Al Benson Jr.

Earlier this week someone sent me an article from Relevant Magazine entitled: The Presbyterian Church Votes to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage. The headline is slightly misleading because all Presbyterians have not voted to endorse or accept same-sex (sodomite) marriage. No doubt the “progressive Presbyterians” have accepted it, but us Neanderthals in many Presbyterian churches have not, and will not, in accordance with God’s Word, accept this.

Actually the article is referring to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or PCUSA as most of us call it.  This denomination has been drifting leftward by degrees for decades now and so such a move was not totally unexpected. According to the Relevant article: “While the office of the General Assembly is still awaiting official tallies, it appears that a majority of the 171 presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have approved a change to the current description of marriage in the PC (USA)’s Constitution.”

Unfortunately, the liberal Presbyterians are not the only ones in the church that are pushing this perversion. In another article on www.relevantmagazine.com  the headline reads: Rob Bell: The Church Is ‘Moments Away’ From Accepting Gay Marriage. The article went on to say: “He (Bell) went on to say the church was risking irrelevance by holding off on an embrace of gay marriage. ‘I think the culture is already there,’ he said. ‘And the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense…’.” Look at his last statement. Do you realize what he’s saying here? He’s calling into doubt what the New Testament has to say about marriage because it doesn’t seem “relevant” to him. Where does that put him in regard to the authority of Scripture? If he can dismiss the truth of Scripture that easily because it doesn’t conform to what the world believes, I would suggest that, in the long run, maybe he is irrelevant.

In another article on www.standupfortruth.com  Rob Bell is noted as part of the Emergent Church movement, which the article describes this way: “The Emergent Church movement is a progressive Christian movement that attempts to reduce or eliminate Christian doctrine in favor of experience and feelings. Most do not believe man can know what is absolute truth, and believe God must be experienced outside of traditional biblical doctrines.” This is just another version of “if it feels good do it.” No doctrine, no absolute truth, just experience and feeling. These people are the Transcendentalists of the 21^st century. Emerson and Thoreau would have loved them! The article notes some of the leaders of this movement—among whom are Rob Bell and Rick Warren (“whom many of these leaders point to as their inspiration for the Emergent Movement.”) Does this help you to understand why Warren’s name was linked with Obama’s during the 2008 presidential farce?

It would seem that the arrogance and egotism of some of these apostates (and that’s what they are) knows no ends. In a brief article on www.beginningandend.com  the following was noted: “In a stunning sign of the growing apostasy—the rise of the false church in Christianity that no longer treats the Bible as its final authority, Reverend Oliver White of Grace Community United Church,  came on the radio show of Fox News Host Sean Hannity to proclaim that Jesus Christ was ‘wrong’  on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage. White, speaking for Jesus Christ, said, with respect to the issue of gay marriage no longer being a sin: ‘If Jesus were alive today, I think he would be more inclined to say: you know, I didn’t know it all’…” There’s a photo of Rev. White at the top of this article holding what appears to be a big Bible—but then, with Rev. White’s attitude toward Jesus, maybe it’s really an enlarged version of The Humanist Manifesto. Here’s a man who thinks he knows more than Jesus Christ. Another 21^st century Transcendentalist! Who says Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, and all the other unholy “isms” died in the 19^th century? Some of them may have taken a little breather, but they are back, alive and well today and their practitioners are back, fooling another generation of “useful idiots” who have never read their church history anymore than they have their American history and so they continue to make grandiose pronouncement while not knowing upside down from inside out.

You have to wonder why more preachers don’t stand up and expose this stuff. Too many have been bemused into a “all I’m called to do is to preach the gospel and I don’t want to get involved in politics” stance. This absolves them, so they think, from having to do anything about the abysmal spiritual condition of the church in our day. If they don’t know anything about any of it then they can’t deal with it, and so they continue on with a truncated version of John 3:16 and never, and I mean never, get beyond that. Nothing against John 3:16—it’s foundational, but if you never get past  the foundation then the house isn’t going to get built and you’ll live in the cellar forever. That’s one problem I have with the Scofield Bible Notes. They teach Christians to stay in the cellar because that’s all they will ever be.

Another problem for the cellar dwellers is the501c3 syndrome, which says that if any church, anywhere, makes even the remotest political statement about anything, then they will lose their tax exemption. Churches today are hide-bound by this and scared stiff to say anything that might “offend” the ruling elite and cost them their exemption. An article on www.hushmoney.org noted that “Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Senator Lyndon B. Johnson for that.  Johnson was no ally of the church.  As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping ‘public policy’…For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything the government declares ‘legal’ even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.) that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a ‘chilling effect’ upon the free speech rights of the church.” The article noted that LBJ was a “shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.”

Now the IRS routinely warns churches during election years not to deal with where candidates stand on any issues and so the threat is always there.

So this seems to be where the church is headed—intimidated by the IRS, scared stiff of losing their tax exemptions, inundated with false preachers who tell us that sodomy and other related sins are okay and that we wont be “relevant” unless we dump biblical teaching and embrace all the latest perversions. Thank the Lord there are some churches that don’t buy into this bovine fertilizer, but there are too many that do. The pastors that promote this rank apostasy are leading their congregations astray and there doesn’t seem, in many cases, to be enough spiritual discernment among the congregants to grasp this.

At the risk of offending the current seekers of “relevance” I would go back and advocate what the Scripture says in 2^nd Corinthians 6:14-18 to Christians in our day. If you are in a church where this kind of thing is permitted or encouraged then separate yourself from that church and find one that believes in and trusts the Holy Scriptures. Staying in apostate congregations will do nothing more than make you “two-fold more the child of hell” than you were before. I can understand wanting to help and love sinners, but accepting their perversions as normal does not help them, in fact it may well do them eternal harm.

Atheists Blow It Again In Lake Worth, Florida

by Al Benson Jr.

I'm sure by now many of you all have read, if you follow the Internet, about the city council meeting in Lake Worth, Florida back at the end of last year where an atheist gave the "invocation" before the start of the meeting. Since invocations are usually given to Almighty God asking for His blessing on the meeting, you have to wonder what this atheist who doesn't believe in God was doing there. Usually those who give invocations at meetings are invited to come and do so. Who invited this worthy to come and spread his particular brand of venom at this meeting? That would be interesting to find out. Who invited this guy and why? Was he part of someone's agenda or what? In fact, the whole thing seems almost ludicrous--having an atheist give an invocation to a God he professes not to believe in. So who was he invoking?

Well, it turns out that he "invoked" lots of false deities--Satan, the "wanna be" god, Zeus, Buddha, Krishna, and then he gave thanks for the "one in five Americans" who are "atheists, agnostics, and non-religious." I kid you not, this was all in his "prayer" if you can call it that. It was really more of an anti-God rant than it was a prayer. One has to wonder who they will have to give the invocation at the next city council meeting in Lake Worth--Howdy Doody or the three stooges!

His "prayer" was so insensitive that the mayor and three city commissioners got up and left the chambers before he started.  One commissioner stayed. Was he the one that invited this guy? I guess we'll never know. The one commissioner that stayed said later that: Walking out was "very un-American and a slap in the face to the principles people fought very hard to make sure we had those rights." The atheist later said he didn't believe in Satan but just wanted to show us home folks how silly it is to pray in city hall. And he stated, before the prayer, that "Our collective atheism--which is to say, loving empathy, scientific evidence, and critical thinking--leads us to believe that we can create a better, more equal community without religious divisions." Is he then advocating a One World Religion where all such ":deities" are created equal?

As for his "collective atheism, critical thinking, and scientific evidence" in a non-religious world, that's nothing new. That's already been tried. Anyone remember the French Revolution. Lots of "loving empathy" in the form of the guillotine and the Reign of Terror. They wanted to get rid of God and we ended up with Napoleon. Wasn't much of a trade off. Then the Bolsheviks tried again in Russia in 1917. Same game--get rid of God, persecute the church, or try to render it neutral just as they are doing in this country now--and we got International Communism--with the help of some New York millionaires.

I've known a couple atheists in my life. Happy, helpful, extroverted people they  ain't! In fact, they're usually pretty miserable. In fact, I can't help but think that the atheists really, in their heart of hearts, believe in God, but they want to replace Him with themselves--just like Satan did. So they spread their rather pathetic little tales about His non-existence while all the while trying to climb the ladder so they can grasp the throne.

Psalm 14:1 says "The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works..." And Psalm 2 pretty much sums it up in verses 2-4: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." I would imagine, in the atheist mindset, such truths really cause "weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth" and so they have to work to try to dispense with this kind of truth--water down church doctrine, regulate the Internet, get churches to become dependent on 501c3--whatever it takes.

Those people are really at war with the God they profess not to believe in--the Trinitarian God of Holy Scripture, only they don't want anyone to realize that. It's too bad, at this point, that more Christians don't realize it. If more Christians in the Lake Worth area had realized that they might have showed up at that city council meeting to protest this atheist's war against the God of Scripture.

So Where Is Their First Loyalty?

By Al Benson Jr.

Recently there was a mild flap over the fact that Netanyahu spoke before Congress and some even made the absurd remark that some Congressmen “clapped slower than others” during his speech, the implication being that those who “clapped slower” were not firm enough in their support for Israel.

Someone made that statement about Rand Paul and he was quoted on www.teapartyupdate.com  as saying: “You have these gossipy websites who really demean themselves by putting stuff like that out. I gave the prime minister 50 standing ovations, I co-sponsored bringing him here…we have gossipy websites looking at, you know, the metric of how fast you clap…”

It would appear, then, that Rand Paul has not chosen to take the non-interventionist position that his father took in regard to foreign entanglements. He supports Israel, but then so do just about all the Republican contenders for president in 2016. This includes Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker,  and Rick Perry. It would appear that one of the main signs of their political orthodoxy is their support for Israel.  My question is, should this be the criteria that Americans use to select (as if they had any real say in the matter) a presidential candidate?  In fact, Lindsey Graham even threatened to deny US funding to the United Nations if they try to take over the peace negotiations with Iran in regard to Iran’s getting nuclear weapons. Now I have no problem whatever with denying funds to the United Nations.  This country should have done that decades ago, but we have still continued to fund the lion’s share of this Marxist monstrosity. Should we defund the UN only because it has problems with Israel? The right solution for the wrong reason.

The comments of our Founding Fathers in regard to foreign entanglements should have been more than enough to lead us to keep our long noses out of the Middle East, but other interests have prevailed and so we end up being in an area we shouldn’t be in. The idea seems to be, for some folks, that you support Israel—no matter what—and regardless of what they say, I do not feel you can make a case from the Bible that we should support the secular nation of Israel unconditionally. I realize that comment will gain howls of dismay from some who read this, but I think Galatians 3:29 really explains what Genesis 12:3 is all about.

This is a complicated question with a lot of nuances, not the least of which is the ethnic ancestry of many of those today who embrace the religion of Judaism. Subtle hint: Many of them are not originally descended from the 12 tribes of Israel. Years ago I read a book called Conquest Through Immigration—How Zionism Turned Palestine Into a Jewish State.  Another interesting book I read is Heirs of the Pharisees by Jakob J. Petuchowski, and he noted, on page 60 what I thought was an interesting quote. It said: “’Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord,’ thus sang the Psalmist of old, ‘or make all His praise to be heard?’ (Psalm 106:2). But a modern Zionist Hanukah song proclaims: ‘Who can express the mighty acts of Israel?’ And it goes on to relate that ‘in those days, at this time, the Maccabee  was the savior and redeemer. But in our days, the whole people of Israel will unite and arise to redeem itself.” Sounds to me rather like the modern state of Israel has no redeemer because they will take care of their own redemption and they don’t need any help to do it and they surely don’t need Jesus Christ to do it. These kinds of attitudes are one reason that I, as a Christian, cannot support the modern secular state of Israel.

Having said that, such does not mean that I support Obama’s friends, the Muslim extremists, either. The Muslim religion, political movement, or whatever you want to call it, has a bloody record in the Middle East and their record of conquest gives the lie to their statements about being a “religion of peace.”

 But modern Judaism does not recognize Jesus Christ as Savior any more than does Islam, so for presidential candidates to run  around shouting about their support for Israel as a mark of their political orthodoxy bothers me. That should not be what they are bragging about, yet it is. I wonder if any of them could tell us how much foreign aid we have given to Israel since 1948.

Folks, go back and read your New Testaments. Where did Jesus’ main opposition come from? It was from the religious leaders of Israel, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Where did Paul’s opposition come from in the Book of Acts? The Jewish religious leaders. If this bothers some, I’m sorry, but it’s history and history isn’t always what we’d like it to be.

Charleston Voice: A Lone Wolf President & His Executive Orders

Charleston Voice: A Lone Wolf President & His Executive Orders: Can the president rewrite federal laws? Can he alter their meaning? Can he change their effect? These are legitimate questions in an era ...

The president will do all this and more because the supposed "conservative" Republican-controlled Congress will go right along with what he wants to do, proving that both political parties are nothing more than two wings on the same socialist bird. The Republicans want the same things that the Democrats do--a socialist, One World government and by them working together they will make sure we get that.

Dumbing Them Down For the New World Order

by Al Benson Jr.

Today I watched a You Tube video where a young lady interviewed several college students about basic history questions that most of us knew the answers to when we were in the fifth grade--and most of these college students didn't have a clue, not the remotest clue as to the correct answers. And these were kids that were studying business administration and other like subjects. They weren't just there for the ride, or to find a husband or wife. They were going into professional careers when they got out of school (if there are any professions left when our current regime gets through).

The first question the interviewer asked was "Who won the Civil War?" Would you believe nine out of ten of them got that wrong. One young lady and one young black man both said "the South." One other one said "America." The rest just had no answer whatever. Not a clue! One young lady said "the North." So out of about ten students, one got it right.

Another question she asked was when the American Revolution ended. One kid questioningly  said "1977?" But she wasn't sure. Another one said "1644." Again, for the rest, not the remotest clue.

She then asked them who was the current vice-president of the United States. One out of the bunch answered "Joe Biden" but the rest were totally dumbfounded. This is the generation that is supposed to have voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the last election. Now I will admit that Joe Biden, outside of sticking his foot in his mouth, is not the most charismatic vice-president this country has ever had, but at least the kids ought to know his name--shouldn't they?

If this is what you get from college kids it does make you wonder what their history teachers were doing during  their high school years. I guess lots of history teachers were taking their paychecks under false pretenses. But, then, understanding the history of the public school system, that should be no surprise. Now I don't doubt that there are probably history teachers in public schools that do try to teach history, I've known a couple. But then you have to ask what the public school history teachers are being taught. Obviously none of the kids in these interviews ever had any dedicated history teachers for a history class.

One interesting point, though, toward the end of the interview the young lady conducting it asked them several questions about the current pop culture, like who was Brad Pitts current wife--and they all, without exception, knew the answer to that one.

Folks, this is the next generation that will be called on the run the country, or rather they will be called on to vote for the One World Government crowd that will run the country--and they will do that, because they don't know upside down from inside out. You can't tell me these kids are that dumb accidentally. There has to be design to their ignorance.

Unless we can, somehow, raise up enough Christian and home schooled kids to begin to counter this planned ignorance then we face, at least for the foreseeable future, a pretty bleak outlook. All the more reason for concerned parents to seriously start looking at options other than public schools for educating their kids. Parents, especially Christian parents, really need to start checking out these other options--and they are out there if you are willing to take the time and trouble to check them out.

Colder is Really Warmer

by Al Benson Jr.

I have followed what I refer to as the "global warming scam" for quite some time now and have seen nothing to convince me that it is not a scam. Most other folks I talk to feel the same way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that the whole game is a collectivist fraud designed to make some of the government's friends even more wealthy than they are now as well as restricting our liberties in the name of "environmentalism." And restricting our liberties is a goal deal to the heart of all collectivist types. It's what they live for.

And so the global warming propaganda continues to flow from the mouth of big government, telling us how we have destroyed the environment with our huge "carbon footprints." Their ultimate solution--shut down most of the industry in this country and go back to cooking over campfires and living in caves. Interestingly they never discuss the carbon footprints left by countries like Red China. I know, that's something we are not supposed to talk about and once they have "neutralized" the Internet such discussion will be verboten.

I just find the propaganda to be, not even humorous, but rather ludicrous. I read an article at the end of January that stated that this January had been the second warmest on record. Where? Near the Equator? It surely wasn't warmer in the South and from what I read of other parts of the country it was colder than usual. As I write this, the usual temperature for this time of year in North Louisiana is a little over 60 degrees. Today the temperature here is 29 and we had an ice storm yesterday. It's not supposed to get out of the low 40s all this week.

In fact, its so bad, even the weather services have had to admit that February has been just plain cold this year. AccuWeather.com had an article on the Internet for February 23 in which it stated: "Additional waves of frigid air will continue to flow southward out of Canada  and into the central and eastern United States this week, but there are indications the cold will ease up next week...While the air masses moving through this week are not quite as extreme as that of last week, daily record low temperatures will continue to be challenged.  Once again, record lows dating as far back as the late 1800s will be on the table...Multiple locations including Boston, New York City, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago are likely to finish the month within the top three coldest Februaries on record. In some cases, temperatures for the remainder of the month may deliver the coldest February on record and could rank as one of the coldest months ever."

Doesn't sound to me like global warming is having much of an effect on the weather in this country. At least not as much as it will have in July! So, with even the weather bureau being forced to admit that this is one of the coldest Februaries on record, you have to wonder how these people in Washington have to gall to keep telling us this has been one of the warmest years on record so far.

If you follow the Yankee/Marxist "logic" flowing out of Sodom on the Potomac you will be forced to conclude that warmer is really colder, that slavery is really freedom, that if we just spend enough money we can spend ourselves into riches, and that war is really peace. And in amongst all of this political malarkey will be buried the fact that, according to Isaiah the prophet in the Scriptures, there are some who call evil good and good evil, some that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. And it occurs to me that what Isaiah described is exactly what is going on right now. Government is telling us that colder is really warmer and that (our) slavery is really freedom--and they hope we are too stupid to know the difference. In fact, their fondest wish is that we are too stupid to know the difference.

And, while global warming is a hot (pardon the pun) topic right now, the thought, hopefully, will occur to some of us that if they have lied to us about this--the what else have they lied to us about?

The Crusades, Islam, and Obama's Anti-Americanism

by Al Benson Jr.

By now everyone has heard about our Marxist president's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast where he excoriated Christians for the Crusades which happened 700 years and more ago but he could barely bring himself to find fault with Muslim terrorists today. As usual, the president has done no history homework on this subject, or if he has then he sincerely hopes you don't come up with what he did because that would blow his speech out of the water.

I find it almost incomprehensible that Christians would invite this man to any kind of Christian function. I know he's the president and all that, but his attitude toward Christians and their faith has been exceedingly negative since he took office and though he claims to be a Christian, if you do any research on the church he attends you will be in for a shock. It's practically the Black (Marxist) Liberation capitol of the country, which probably explains why Obama even attends there. To say that it is a place where socialism trumps the Christian faith would be an understatement.

But now that the president has publicly castigated the Crusades (and by implication the Christian faith) it might not hurt to look a little more at the Crusades to see what they were really all about. I recently read a good article by A. J. Delgado which was posted on http://ajdelgadoblog.files.wordpress.com entitled The Crusades are nothing for which to apolotize. 

In the article Delgado quotes  Professor Thomas F. Madden, a professor of history as well as an author, and a leading authority on the Crusades. Professor Madden observes: "The Crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history...The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of a full two-thirds of the Christian world...Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the (First Crusade's) real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formally Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy."

And Delgado also quotes Dr. Timothy Furnish, who has a doctorate in Islamic history, and Dr. Furnish notes: "The Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats (and lost territory), really fought back." It seems that, if you really get in there and start to read some of the history, provided you can find some accurate history books, that the "peaceful" Muslims were quite a bit like the "peaceful" Communists--whatever "peace" was to be had was required to be on their terms. It was, literally, their way or the highway.

I recently saw a map showing most of the battles the Muslims had fought in Europe and there were literally hundreds of them. If they had not been an expansionist and aggressive religion why would they have been fighting in Europe, the cradle of Christendom?  They were fighting there because they sought world domination in the Middle Ages, and they still do. Delgado stated that: "With the fall of Acre, the Crusaders finally went home in 1291 and the "Crusades" as we know them officially ended. But did the Muslims call it a day and keep to their land (they certainly had conquered enough Christian territory), leaving us to ours? Nope! Their campaign of expansion by the sword--what prompted the Crusades in the first place, and even preceded it by centuries--continued into the very heart of Europe." So remind me again who the aggressors were and why I should apologize for the Crusades?" Well, I guess we should apologize for it because Mr. Obama and the politically correct (Marxist) community organizer coterie in this country feels that if we don't we might "offend" the Muslims. Wouldn't that be a pity?

Earlier this week I also read an article by a Robert Spencer entitled Most U.S. Mosques Teach Violence. Mr. Spencer noted that: "Last week came new confirmation that mosques in the U.S. aren't quite holding potluck suppers and teaching civic pieties. A new study has demonstrated that 80% of mosques right in this country are teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Researchers Mordechai Keder and David Yerushalmi reported in the Summer of 2011 issue of Middle East Quarterly about a new survey that found that '51% of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Sharia-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim.' Another 30% of mosques in the United States 'had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence,' while only 19% had no violent texts at all." It really makes you wonder what goes on in their Friday afternoon prayer services.

It seems that the more Muslim violence that takes place the more excuses for it we get from the political correct, Cultural Marxist leftists having to do with it. I will admit that the U.S. should have kept its long nose out of the Middle East. Everyone would have been better off. However, I am beginning to think there is more than that involved. In spite of all their protests and the protests of their friends to the contrary, the Muslim theology is one of aggressive expansion and force and they will try to convert you to Islam--with words if they can, with swords if they can't. Such an ideology must be resisted both here and abroad, and if the Christian church is too afraid to speak out against this, they may end up getting the sword.

Jesus, Israel, and the Prophecy Situation

by Al Benson Jr.

Lots of people end up interpreting much of what Jesus said so that it comes out sounding sort of like an "ooey-gooey" love that opposes no one and nothing and just accepts anything and everything in the name of "love." Although God truly is Love, I don't believe that's really what He had in mind. After all, the Scripture does say "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: (Psalm 97:10).

Jesus' earthly ministry stirred up intense opposition, most of it from the Jewish religious leaders.  A reading of the Gospels will verify that. About a year or so ago, as we did family devotions and were going through the Gospels, I was struck by the fact that most of Jesus' opposition came from the religious leaders of Israel and it was vehement and unstinting in most cases. The Pharisees and Sadducees literally hated Jesus. Guess you couldn't say they displayed much love toward Him. But then, He came to uproot their religious establishment and they quickly realized that. If people started listening to Jesus then there was no longer a need for their religious establishment or for them. They couldn't let that happen.

It has been observed that the world doesn't hate sin, but rather it hates righteousness, whether it be the Jewish world or the Gentile world. Therefore, anyone that is truly faithful will face opposition. In fact, the question might be asked--if everyone loves you and there is never any opposition to what you say or do--why isn't there? Could that mean you are not doing anything?

At the time of Jesus' first coming, it has been noted in Matthew, chapter 10, that Jesus had said Israel was "like sheep without a shepherd." At the time of Jesus' ministry Israel had no faithful shepherds to lead them. One can hardly call the Jewish religious leaders that plotted His death faithful shepherds that would lead Israel in the right direction. In fact, the question ought to be asked just where were they leading Israel?

Pastor Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has commented on the parables that Jesus spoke to Israel and noted: "We often think parables were intended to make the teachings of the kingdom plain and obvious. But Jesus tells His disciples that He teaches in parables to hide the truth (Matt 13:13). In doing this the prophecy of Isaiah 6 is being fulfilled (Matt 13:14-15). In Isaiah 6 God tells Isaiah that He is calling him to give Israel the opportunity of rejecting His word one last time before He brings judgment upon them. Jesus says that the final fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is going to be brought to pass through Him. The majority of the people and nearly all the teachers and leaders of Israel are just like the people who heard Isaiah. But this time, a final judgment is coming upon Israel, and will soon come in full force upon them in 70 A.D....When God speaks in parables to Israel, judgment is coming. Thus, it is significant that in the middle of these parables, Matthew quotes Psalm 78 (Matt 13:34-35). God has spoken to Israel so many times and yet they refused to listen. Now, He speaks to them one last time through His Son and He speaks in such a way that unless they are willing to hear and search out the meaning--they will not be able to understand. Jesus teaches in parables for the same reason that Nathan spoke to David--to call Israel to repentance, because judgment is coming."

In Matthew 23:37-38 Jesus says: " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth  her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Jesus gave Israel one last chance at repentance--and they weren't having any--and after that, judgment would come for Israel and her religious system in 70 A.D.

To be continued as the Lord allows.

Obama's "Help For the Middle Class" is Hogwash!

by Al Benson Jr.

I didn't watch the State of the Union address this year. As I said to one lady only yesterday, "I've not got the time to listen to political liars." She agreed and said she was going to watch some basketball game, which she probably got more truth out of than she would have had she listened to this yearly political charade.

Not being unconcerned even though I didn't watch it, I read quite a bit of political commentary before the unfolding of this august event, and I've read even more today, none of it really revelatory given the current national situation. Dick Morris commented that he felt Obama was not really speaking to the American people, but was rather talking directly to Hillary Clinton, trying to lay out a left-wing agenda for her to have to run on in 2016. He might have had a point there, except I'm not sure anyone has to lay out a left-wing agenda for Hillary. After all, her and Obama both work for the same One World Government clique and both do as they are told to. Any agenda used by either one of them will be laid out for them by those people and Heaven help either one if they don't follow it. Neither one owns their own soul.

Other commentators have said that Obama had refused to recognize the Republican victory in the mid-term elections and was proceeding along as if it had never happened.  Again, much of the Republican leadership and Obama work for the same people--and it ain't the American people! Still others noted that Obama claimed that the leftist agenda he was going to lay out (with a little help from his One World friends) was really going to help the middle class and that's what it was all about. If you look at his plan to raise taxes on "the rich" to help the middle class you have to realize that this is just another of his Marxist "redistribution of the wealth" scams, probably with the idea in there of gaining a few naive middle class votes for the Demoncrats (oops, I meant Democrats). Little slip of the finger there.

Through all this running commentary people don't seem to grasp that Obama is a Marxist. That truth eludes them, or they hope it eludes their readers and listeners. As a Marxist, he hates the middle class, any middle class anywhere, but especially in this country. The middle class is where most resistance to the left comes from. The One World Elite, our ruling elite, think very much like Marxists. After all, some of their grandfathers helped to fund the setting up of the Soviet Union in the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The notion that the super-rich and the Communists hate each other is more carefully contrived drivel. They don't--they work together quite often.  If you don't think so, then get on the Internet and read None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. It's on there and you can read it there without it costing you one thin dime.

The very poor, in many cases, will often just go along with whoever promises them the most goodies. This doesn't include those among the poor that do work and try to make their own way, but it includes all the others who are only along for the free ride. It's easier for them not to work than it is to sweat at a job, and often the welfare payments they get are more than they'd get if they did honest work. So they just "chill out" and take the freebies. Their votes are bought and paid for with the welfare check. That leaves only the middle class for potential resistance to the left.

So, understanding the Marxist mentality, you have to realize that when a Marxist tells you about his great concern for the middle class and how he wants to help them, what he is really looking to do is to find yet one more way to stiff them. And when Obama says he want so tax "the rich" you really have to start asking how he defines "the rich." The actual definition might well be something like "anyone at all who has any extra money that the government would like to take from them to redistribute (to their already rich friends)."

I read an interesting article of www.townhall.com  on January 19th which noted: "Obama's plan totals $380 billion in new taxes and it isn't just 'on the rich' or the 'one percent' as the President and officials in his administration claim. The majority of his newly proposed taxes, including more taxes on hard earned retirement plans are a direct hit on the middle class and his big government spending will saddle all Americans with crushing debt for decades to come. Also, as a reminder, the middle class has significantly shrunk since 2009 and the poverty rate has increased as a result of President Obama's 'redistribution of wealth' economic policies...While the Obama administration has trumpeted job growth in recent months, the middle class is taking home a shrinking portion of the country's income..."

And, folks, no matter what this president tells you, that's the way it was planned. His policies, actually the policies of his handlers, are gutting the middle class while he stands up in front of the public and tells us all how concerned he is for the preservation of the middle class. His only real "concern" with the middle class is that he has not been able to obliterate it completely--but not to worry--he's working on that and he's got two more years to work on it before he turns the reins of power over to Hillary, who, the One World Government people hope will finish the job if he doesn't.

Folks, stop listening to what these political con artists tell you and start to watch and analyze what they are doing to you. That's where the action really is.

Establishment Republicans Really Want To Keep Boehner

by Al Benson Jr.

There is supposedly a big fuss going on now in Congress as to who the next speaker of the House is going to be. Lots of truly conservative Republicans, some in Congress and many not, are really tired of the lackluster leadership John Boehner has given the House since 2010. Boehner has made a career of talking tough to Comrade Obama and then, when something comes to a vote, caving in and giving our current Commissar (president) just about everything he wanted. So Boehner's tough talk is really nothing more than a charade to fool people into thinking he will oppose Obama when what he's really there for is to lead the House into caving in to Obama's agenda while making it appear that he's not doing that.

Let's don't kid ourselves. Having the Republicans in control of Congress means absolutely nothing. The conservative rhetoric gets all toned up in order to hide the socialist votes that will come down the pike once Obama passes along his marching orders to his loyal "opposition" in Congress.

The Republican establishment (no different than the Democratic establishment) wants it that way and so you can look for them to try to quell the opposition to Boehner when it comes time to vote for the next House speaker. They want Boehner to continue as speaker because they realize he will play the game and go along with Obama's socialist agenda--and that's really what they want--because Obama's socialist agenda is almost identical to their socialist agenda. The history of the Republican Party definitely displays that real conservatism is the absolute last thing they want and they have become quite adept at making it look like that's what they want when many of them are little more than closet socialists.

If the opposition to Boehner becomes so strong that they are forced to yield and come up with another nominee then you can bet it will be another establishment toady that will do what they want. They are not about to let a genuine conservative capture the speaker's chair and work to move a conservative agenda along. The Republican establishment does not want that and they will try to move Heaven and earth to avoid it.

Remember, the same people (CFR/Trilateral Commission) control both parties and so you end up with their agenda either way. The last thing the Republican establishment wants is any real resurgence of genuine patriotism or conservatism. They didn't want that in 1856 or 1860 and they don't want it now. To learn some of the leftist history of the Republican Party, get the book Lincoln's Marxists which is available on Amazon.com

Update as of 1/6/15
The Republican Party has continued its long trend of seeking to curry favor on the left, a position it is really comfortable with, at least at the leadership levels. The vote to either re-install or de-instal John Boehner as Speaker of the House for another term was taken today and Obama's favorite member of the loyal "opposition" John Boehner was re-installed as House Speaker by a vote of 216 to--whatever it was. A couple of principled opponents ran against him but it was a foregone conclusion that Boehner was a shoo-in, as most of the RINOs present voted for him, with only a mere handful having the intestinal fortitude to vote for someone else.

So we can again look forward to "Cave-in-Johnny" talking a good fight against Obama's agenda while looking for ways to cave in to it without seeming to do so. How little really changes in Sodom on the Potomac. It would be downright discouraging if we couldn't hold onto the truth that the Lord surely is in control of it all and that He will not permit those people in Washington to do anymore than His agenda for them allows.  A good prayer for those people would be: Lord, please restrain the evil they try to do and make them to realize that they are and always will be accountable to You for what they do, and may this knowledge hinder their efforts at harm for this people.

Being Slowly Poisoned At The Local Supermarket?

by Al Benson Jr.

It would seem that our Ruling Elite, our "Shadow Government," has decreed that we are, at least most of us, to perish from poisoning. And this poisoning will take many forms. We are being poisoned politically by a government and its hired "news" media who tell us virtually nothing that is really going on--hence we have no real knowledge to base anything on as to what is really happening in the country. We are being educationally poisoned by a government "education" system and its attendant programs (Commie Core and others) where our kids, even a the lower age levels, are being taught more about sex and socialism than they are about math, literature, and real history.

And we are being slowly poisoned at the local supermarket by much of what is for sale there that passes for food. How many of you remember that old Charleton Heston movie from the early 1970s Solyent Green? So you think the Food and Drug Administration in Washington will protect you when it comes to food? Don't kid yourself. They are much more concerned with prosecuting those who wish to use raw milk than they are about what you eat--and that's not by accident.

I have a good friend who studies up on proper diet, healthy food, natural vitamins, and such. Years ago he told me about a sticky little substance called High Fructose Corn Syrup. He said you'd find it in an awful lot of different foods. He said that its main function was to make people hungry, so they'd eat more, and supposedly the "more" they ate would also contain high fructose corn syrup, so it was a self-perpetuating cycle. After talking to him I started checking the ingredients in much of what was for sale in our local markets. Sure enough, high fructose corn syrup was in all kinds of stuff--from cereal to salad dressing to soda, from bread, buns, jelly and pancake syrup to you name it.

So, when my son and I went shopping we started avoiding all the stuff with high fructose corn syrup in it. If there was bread or jelly or peanut butter that didn't have that ingredient in it, then that's what we bought. And apparently other folks had started doing the same thing, because pretty soon we started seeing products on the shelves that plainly stated: no high fructose corn syrup. Interestingly enough, many companies made, and still make, two different varieties of their products--one that omitted the high fructose corn syrup, and one that didn't. The one that left that ingredient out was for those who were alert enough to look for it, and the other was for those who were not yet awake as to what was in what they were eating. But at least some people are looking now and that's encouraging.

We've noticed that it gets harder and harder to buy decent bread anymore, not because of the poor quality of the wheat, but because of what they do to it before its harvested. I recently got an email from a friend that dealt with this. It stated, in part: "According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT who has studied the issue in depth and who I recently saw present on the subject at a nutritional conference in Indianapolis, desiccating non-organic wheat crops with glyohosate just before harvest came into vogue in the late 1990s with the result that most of the non-organic wheat in the United States is now contaminated with it." Doesn't sound overly encouraging does it? Even Wikipedia had commentary on this glyphosate.  It said, in part: "Glyphosate was quickly adopted by farmers, even moreso when Monsanto introduced glyphosate resistant crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops...While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and are widely used, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist...Some crops have been genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (i.e. Roundup Ready, also created by Monsanto."

So now, if you are going to use this stuff on your wheat before harvest and have it not kill the wheat, your wheat already has to have been "genetically modified." Do you suppose that fact, plus what they spray on it, has any effect on the wheat in the bread or cereal you eat? Naw, of course not--after all, the "regulatory bodies" say it doesn't, which, based on this government's record of veracity, would tend to make me doubt very much anything they tell us anymore. If they insist this stuff won't hurt us, then I'd start looking around for some produce this stuff wasn't used on--like organic food.

I've also noticed of late that there are now foods in the market that specify "Non-GMO" which means they are letting you know that this is real food and not some hybridization of ...whatever. We are on a fixed income and so we can't buy totally organic food, but where we can afford it we do and we look for things labeled Non-GMO. We search for foods with minimal ingredients and minimal processing. Food with a whole big list of ingredients whose names I can't begin to pronounce is a tip-off that we want something with less additives and, hopefully, a little more food value.

There is obviously a lot on this subject that I can't begin to get into here. There are pages and pages on the Internet pertaining to this. But the upshot of it is--that between big government, big agri-business, and big regulatory laxness (in certain cases) it is all yet one more phase of the psychological war being conducted on the American public. We are slowly being poisoned--physically, morally, and spiritually--where they can get away with it. In spite of what they try to feed us, we have got to start waking up, not only to the political (and spiritual) warfare emanating from Washington, but also to the agricultural part of that war that is being declared on us via our weekly grocery shopping.  What we ultimately end up eating may well be a determining factor in our ability to fight back.

The Republican Party: There are NO conservative roots there

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back, I received an email from a conservative activist who was busily urging people to try to get the Republican Party "back to its conservative roots." My initial thought was--what conservative roots? Anyone who had done any research as to the origins  of the Republican Party and is not wearing blinders has got to realize that the Republican Party in this country had radical, leftist beginnings, hardly to be considered conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Back in early 2008, author, columnist and researcher Alan Stang (since deceased) did a review of Donnie Kennedy's and my book Lincoln's Marxists. The title of his article was The Republican Party--Red From the Start. I thought his title was quite appropriate. My Stang understood what many conservatives do not seem to grasp, that the Republican Party was really leftist in its origins. While I sincerely appreciate the sincerity and intent of many conservatives, I feel they have got to begin to do the homework and wake up and realize what the Republican Party really is.

For years I've been getting mail urging me to vote Republican so as to fight against the "liberal Democrats." The people that promote and send this stuff out must think we are all stupid enough to actually think that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberal. What about fighting against liberal Republicans that are really no different than liberal Democrats? Ahh, we aren't even supposed to know enough to ask that question, are we?

So let's take a brief look at the "conservative" roots of the Republican Party.  When the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, back in 1856, Fremont had the backing of several men who were socialist refugees from the failed socialist/communist revolts in Europe in 1848; (they were known as "Forty-Eighters). One of the most well known of these was Friedrich Hassaurek, an Austrian socialist, who stumped the Midwest in Fremont's behalf. It did little good at that point, as Fremont was beaten. However, it is worth noting  that when the War (of Northern Aggression) broke out in 1861, General Fremont ended up with a goodly number of these Forty-Eighter socialists and communists on his military staff while the war was in progress. The Forty-Eighter socialists  seem to have flocked to Fremont. What did they know about the august General that our "history" books have not bothered to reveal to us?

Although Fremont was beaten in 1856,  the socialists and communists  were nothing if not patient. In 1860 they found another candidate worthy of their leftist support--Abraham Lincoln. So, in the presidential campaign of 1860, the Forty-Eighters all came out for Lincoln. Carl Wittke, author of Refugees of Revolution noted that: "Lincoln was fully aware of the political influence of the Forty-Eighters in the campaign of 1860, in persuading many of their countrymen to desert the Democratic allegiance for the Republicans..." It appears that the Forty-Eighters had quite a bit of influence in the Republican Convention in 1860--even helping to write parts of the party's platform. So much for "conservatism" at the Republican roots!

Establishment historian, James McPherson, told us in his book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution that Mr. Lincoln had championed the cause of the socialists and communists in Europe in 1848. You can find the quote about that on pages 24 and 25 of McPherson's book. So why, then, would Lincoln not embrace their unstinting support for his presidential aspirations in 1860? One can, quite accurately, label this whole scenario The Red Roots of the Republican Party.

If socialists and communists supported Fremont in 1856 and Lincoln in 1860 and 1864, we can hardly label the beginnings of the Republican Party as "conservative" now, can we? The roots of the Republican Party were anything but conservative. At best, they might be considered deep pink.  Our decent, patriotic folks in this country need to start becoming aware of this so they will not be guilty of trying to take us back to Republican "conservative" roots that do not, and never did, exist.

It is true that the Republican Party did take a more conservative tack in the late 1940s and 50s, and even through the early 60s, but only out of political necessity; it hardly reflects the foundation and origins of the GOP.

It is worth noting that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals. People today should know the difference--and the real history. The fact that most don't, reveals the lack of depth in what most of us received in government schools that passed for education. Sadly, what most of us received was little more than leftist propaganda.

Political Liars Abound. So Do Their Omissions.

by Al Benson Jr.

Years ago I can remember hearing a rather sickening radio commercial that informed the public that "inflation is really all their fault." After laying his little guilt trip on an unsuspecting public the speaker proceeded to tell them how they could redeem themselves and thus be purged of the gross sin of  "inflationary living." What they needed to do, immediately if not sooner, is to sit down at the kitchen table, write to some address in Pueblo, Colorado and send for this booklet that would tell them how to stop contributing to the nation's inflation rate. If the whole thing had not been such total hogwash it might almost have been laughable. As it was, the commercial stood as a classic piece of misinformation!

For years various government "economists" (who were mostly socialists)  and other "experts" have sought to fill our heads with the rubbish that inflation is our fault because "we are all too greedy." In other words, if a man works overtime on Saturdays or evenings to help feed his family, then he's greedy. The fact that he may need the extra income to help put food on the table or pay his utility bills is not worth mentioning. Just remind him that he's contributing to inflation by working all those extra hours. So all of you all out there that have worked extra hours over the years to help provide your families with more than just the bare necessities had better quit that extra job. Learn to be satisfied with the bare minimum and just watch that inflation rate plummet! So said the government "experts" years ago. Now, we have an economy that our Exalted Ruler tells us is really booming, and he tells us how much he loves the middle class (just a slight prevarication there). Lots of folks can't get work, or if they do get it, it's part time and not full time, and the inflation rate, thanks to his reckless borrowing for his "stimulus packages" has gone through the roof. I haven't seen too many commercials of late telling the public that they are the main problem when it comes to inflation, probably because after six years of the "Great One" being in the White House, anyone who dared to put out such a commercial would be stoned. But they find other ways to lie to us. They continue to spit in our faces and tell us that it's dew.

What the monetary "experts" have been expert at NOT telling us is that, in reality, it is not those of us who work for a living that cause inflation. Rather it is our unsound and ungodly money system, operated not for the public good, but rather operated for the tax free profit of the bankers that control the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, that is the real culprit.

Indeed, the highly questionable odor of Federal Reserve practices became so obnoxious several years ago that the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House of Representatives even held hearings on the situation.  Dr. Russell Lee Norburn, testifying before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, stated the following: "The result of 50 years shows that our present monetary system is merely a finesse for perpetuating financiers dedicated to maintaining the status quo instead of the public good." In plain language that meant that the Fed bankers couldn't have cared less about what happened to you or the country as long as they got their financial pound of flesh! Dr. Norburn told people that Federal Reserve manipulation of gold, bank credit, and Federal Reserve notes had resulted in gigantic exploitation of both government and people. In other word, folks, we've been had.

With no fast standard of gold or silver to stand in back of the debt-notes we've been conditioned to call money, the bankers can have a field day and you know by now who pays for it all--you do, you lucky stiff! This is the kind of information that Ron Paul tried for decades to get out to people and it's why he so strongly sought to have the Fed audited. Whether many agree or disagree with some of what he did, he understood the bankers and what they were doing to us and the country, and when he ran for president, the ruling elite in both parties who play footsie with the bankers had to make sure he never got close to the White House even though he did have a legitimate chance, had not his own party leadership played the part of the Judas Goat.

Gold and silver are real money. Paper is not. A return to currency redeemable in gold or silver is the very least we should do--but don't hold your breath. Supposedly now that the Republicans have taken back Congress, conservatism will rule. This ruse will fool lots of people and they will go back to sleep, but don't let it fool you. Nothing has changed except the name of the party supposedly running things, and seeing that the Council on Foreign Relations has its tentacles strongly into both parties, nothing will change unless they, for some reason, want it to.

In regard to all this, it would be interesting to see what some of your kids have for economics books in public schools. I'd be willing to be they parrot the "party line" rather than giving the kids any real truth.