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.

Christians--Some Forgotten Truth

by Al Benson Jr.

In the 6th chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, verses 15 and 16, Paul states: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."

Many in our day have struggled over what this passage means. Many think this can only refer to national Israel, who, we have been informed for many generations, are the "chosen people." Those who have read the old Scofield Bible and searched for Scofield's comments on this passage in his running commentary will be disappointed as I was. They will find no commentary from Mr. Scofield. He chose not to comment on these words.

While I am far from being an avid fan of Bible commentaries, especially those published in the 20th century, I do have a set of Matthew Henry's commentaries that was given to me as a gift. Henry, writing in a saner day than ours, theologically speaking, had no trouble with this passage. In fact, his comments, in light of much of what we read today, are quite enlightening.

In speaking of the peace and mercy mentioned in verse 16, Henry stated: "These, he declares, shall be the portion of all the Israel of God, by whom he means all sincere Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, all who are Israelites indeed, who, although they may not be the natural, yet are become the spiritual seed of Abraham; these being heirs of his faith, are also heirs together with him of the same promise, and consequently entitled to the peace and mercy here spoken of."

If Matthew Henry could see the plan truth of this passage of Scripture, why can so many Christians today not see it? It was no secret in Matthew Henry's day that all who trust in Christ Jesus for their salvation constitute the Israel of God.  How, then, in our supposedly advanced age, can so many have forgotten such an essential truth?

Abraham's true descendants have always been only those who were of faith. The name "Israel" unfortunately has many meanings for many people today. Sadly, most of those to whom the name really belongs have unconsciously passed along their birthright to others who are not currently believers and have become willing to settle for being nothing more than a parenthesis  in history. They have forgotten, or been led to forget, that all history revolves around God's true Israel, those who are in Christ.

The world will ultimately not be judged by how it responds to natural Israel in the Middle East, but by how it responds to the true Israel--Christ's Church. God has never had two "chosen people", one earthly and the other heavenly.  From the start, God's chosen people have been those who have responded to Him in faith (Galatians 3:29).

Think about this, and ask the Holy Spirit to give you insight and discernment that you may know the truth. It is in knowing the truth that you will be set free.

The Gift of Christian Resistance

by Al Benson Jr.

As we enter the Advent Season of the Christian year we look forward to the Christmas Season which commemorates the birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. We look upon this historic event as God's precious gift to His elect people, His new Israel. It is this gift that Christmas is really all about. Jesus Christ  came to die and to rise again to procure salvation for all His people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

As this Christmas Season approaches we observe the world situation, and to those without Christ it is a hopeless one indeed. And even in the Church, we observe the retreatist attitudes of many. Rather than do battle with the world, the flesh, and the devil, many Christians seek to retreat within the four walls of their church building and to shut the world out, to have no dealings "out there" and therefore, to effect no cultural changes out there. I have wondered, over several Christmas Seasons if the best gift the Church might give the world at the Christmas Season is the gift of Christian resistance.

Should not we, as Christians, seek to resist the present (One) World System with all its evil machinations?  Are we to fear the world and its anti-Christ conspiracies? NO! But we should resist and expose them (Ephesians 5:11).

If we will only take our heads out of the spiritual sand we cannot help but take note of the blatantly anti-Christian trends in government, education, economics, the media, and in a score of other areas we could name. Why not the gift of Christian resistance to anti-Christian forces in all areas of life? Are we supposed to contend for the culture around us or just to surrender to it? Many Christians would claim that all we will ever be is a "counter-culture" and that we better be satisfied with that. We have inherited a lot of retreatist attitudes from the early promoters of the Darby-Scofield school of retreatism, so much so that we need to overcome that and find anew that strong strain of godly Christian resistance so prevalent in the Protestant Reformation.

Let Christian again stand up and RESIST anti-Christian governments, anti-Christian educational systems, ungodly money systems, etc.

So, as Christ brought to us the free gift of salvation, let us also bring the Good News of that event to others as He leads us to do so. And let us also seek to give to the world the precious gift of Christian resistance to what is ungodly. Let us, as the Lord leads, learn to "fight the good fight of faith" and let us learn to "resist the devil" in ALL areas of life. Our Lord did not tell us to retreat until He came; He told us to OCCUPY until He returned. If Jesus made a whip of cords and drove the money changers from the temple, can we do less today? Unfortunately, for many Christians today the answer to that question is "yes--lots less."

It is high time for Christians to stop retreating and to start resisting. Think about that as this Christmas Season approaches.

For Real "Freedom" Let Government Regulate the Internet

by Al Benson Jr.

Now that the Republicans have taken the Senate it almost seems as if Comrade Obama is in overdrive, trying to accomplish as much of his socialist agenda as possible before the end of the year. And even though many in the Republican-controlled Congress will always be soft of socialism and collectivism he can't be sure enough will be so that his socialist schemes, which he characterizes as "legislation" will always be veto-proof.

That's why he is in such a huff to issue executive orders making millions of illegal immigrants legal before Comrade Reid vacates the senate. As leftist as some of the Republicans are, there are some things they are just not going to do for him so he's got to get them done before the Republicans take over.

There was an article on www.foxnews.com  on November 10th which stated: "We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bi-partisan  policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme" regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and  Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry." The head Commissar, I mean the President, wanted federal regulators to have the Internet reclassified as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

Supposedly this is all about cable companies and all the rest, but let's don't kid ourselves. This is really all about federal censorship of Internet content. Although they will never admit it, that's the real name of the game. People can go to the Internet and access far more information than the government fells they should have, information that often aids them in deciding what's really going on in Washington--and the feds would rather they not have that information. Intelligent decisions are not something the feds are in favor of when it comes to us "stupid voters." They want us to be dumb and easily led sheeple so they can tell us what we should be doing and we are too dumb to question any of it.  Real "freedom" isn't the name of the game, censorship is.

Voters should have learned by now that when this administration tells you anything then you had better start considering that the exact opposite of what they told you comes pretty close to the truth. Remember all those Obamaesque fables about how "transparent" his administration would be? There wasn't much transparency in the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning situation or in the situation with the IRS "lost" emails was there? This administration has told us so little truth you could almost post it on the head of a pin, a very small pin.

And we haven't been told much of anything about Holder's "replacement" at Attorney General--something else Obama wants to get taken care of before the first of the year. Just more "transparency" folks, don't even think about it. However, there was an interesting little article on www.stage2omega.com  written by Dr. Orly Taitz on November 9th. Dr. Taitz stated: "...so I am rather certain that Loretta Lynch is an old college friend of Sharon Malone, the wife of the current AG Eric Holder. Why is this connection important? Holder will be investigated by Congress for totally lawless gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels in Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, VA scandal, DOJ, NSA, EPA, FEC and other scandals. Most importantly, Holder covered up Obama's use of a stolen CT Social Security number of Harrison J. Bounel 042-68-4425 and Obama's use of bogus IDs. It seems that a long time friend of Holder's wife was picked up as a gate keeper to continue all the cover up by Holder and shield Holder and Obama from criminal prosecution."

If Dr. Taitz has all this down pat, then we have to ask "How's all the "transparency" working out for you?

We also have to ask that if Obama claims he needs more government regulation so the Internet can be more "free" then what's the real name of the game? You can bet the farm it ain't "freedom." You can also bet the farm that whatever justification he claims, it won't be long before the Internet is much less free and our access to information that will help us know what really goes on will be as severely restricted as this regime can make it. Real truth is the absolute last thing this regime wants the public to have access to.

More "Calibration" Errors--What A Surprise!

by Al Benson Jr.

The most recent article I did for this blog spot dealt with a man in Illinois who voted early and wanted to vote Republican but his voting machine would only let him vote Democrat. Although he eventually got his individual problem taken care of, he (and I) wondered if this was going to be a problem with other voting machines.

Of course it's going to be a problem--nationwide. This may well be the way the Democrats regain control of the House and keep the Senate.

An article on www.newsmax.com for October 28, 2014 has stated: "A number of voting machines in Maryland and Illinois  are electronically switching Republican votes to the Democrats, raising suspicions that fraud could be at the root of the alleged malfunction...According to Watchdog.org election officials in both states have characterized the problem as a'calibration issue,' but a software developer and expert on touch screens used by U.S. intelligence agencies told Newsmax that the explanation was bogus. 'It's a software issue, and its incredibly suspicious that a bug like that could slip through accidentally. It defies belief' said Tony Heller. He said that any expert trained in the technology could figure out within minutes whether the problem with the software was accidental and deliberate...It's completely unacceptable that an official waved it off as a calibration error. It's something that can be easily verified and should be."

Multiple early voters in Maryland experienced this problem (first Illinois, then Texas, now Maryland) when they tried to vote for Republican candidates only to have their votes registered for Democrats. Does anyone detect a trend here? A Maryland election official characterized it as, guess what, a "calibration error" involving one voting machine. Yet people in four different locations in Maryland had the same problem. What did they do--move this one faulty voting machine around to four different locations??? Equal opportunity election fraud here, folks, line up and get taken! How much does anyone want to bet that there will be lots of "calibration errors" on voting machines in key states that the Democrats need to hold onto?

After all, if you can't trust your government then who can you trust--right? Right? How come I don't hear any answers from anyone?

I'd advise anyone who has to vote using these infernal machines to make sure your vote result tallies with how you voted before you leave the voting booth and if it doesn't then squawk to high heaven about it--loud enough so anyone in line waiting to vote hears your complaint.

It's Who Counts the Votes Stupid!

by Al Benson Jr.

There is an old saying attributed to Joseph Stalin that goes like this: "It's not those that vote that count. It's the people that count the votes." It sounds just evil enough to have been something Stalin would have said, but, then, the same sentiment could be attributed to some in this country. I have always wondered how Obama managed to get 140% of the vote in some places in the Northeast and I have also wondered why no Republicans ever complained about that. I have my own theory about that and, needless to say, it ain't politically correct.

But, however it happened, through intentional vote fraud, unintentional vote fraud, too many deceased folks voting too many times or through some magical phase of the moon, it looks like we may be getting ready in the upcoming mid-term elections for a repeat performance. I can almost see the headlines the morning after the election: "Democrats pick up enough seats to keep Senate, even pick up several in the House." I hope I am in error, but if such happened it would not surprise me.

This morning (October 21) someone sent me an email about a situation in Schaumburg, Illinois, in Cook County, Illinois. I used to live in Cook County, often called "Crook County" by those who knew what really went on.

Seems a State Representative candidate, Jim Moynihan, who is running in the 56th district decided to take advantage of the early voting program at the Schaumburg Public Library. Mr. Moynihan is a Republican and when he went to vote for himself he found that his voting machine cast his ballot for his Democratic opponent. He said: "You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.." No matter who he tried to vote for, the vote always turned up for some Democrat. Knowing his way around a little bit, Moynihan got hold of the election judge and showed him what his voting machine was doing, and he "was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates." It wasn't reported whether this particular voting machine was removed or not, though I did read another report that said it had been. Supposedly there was a "calibration" error made when the machine was being set up for voting. You might be tempted to wonder, especially in Illinois, how many other voting machines have similar "calibration" errors that will probably not be detected.

I checked this story out on several websites to make sure it was not something that just turned up on one far out site somewhere. Two sites I checked were www.eagnews.com and www.americanthinker.com which is a site that has a pretty good reputation. There were a batch of others but I can't list them all.

Moynihan stated that: "I cannot say whether or not this was intentional, but Cook County voters deserve better and should not have their right to vote suppressed." Good sentiment, and I agree, but Cook County voters have been getting the shaft from the county political machine for so long about so many issues that this would hardly be a surprise. As one commentator reported "They don't call it Crook County for nothing." Sadly he's right.

For years political pundits have railed about crooked politics in Louisiana and Mississippi. I'm here to tell you, folks, these two states have nothing on Illinois when it comes to crooked politics. I recall reading an article awhile back that said: "Illinois, where your governors make your licence plates." That was because so many ex-governors were in prison--from both parties.

No matter where you live, if you have to use a machine to vote instead of a plain old paper ballot, which I think is still the best way, you better check your machine before you leave the voting booth to make sure it recorded who you voted for and not his opponent.

Just to add this on the day following the one I posted this article on, I heard from a friend in Texas who knew someone that voted early in his county and it seems he had the same problem the man in Illinois did--a voting machine that when he voted Republican all it would give him were Democratic results. There must have been lots of "calibration" errors on voting machines across the country this year. Interesting that most of those found thus far seem to favor Democratic candidates. Wonder how that happened? Anyone who still thinks we have honest elections in this country had better buy his tickets for the next Easter Bunny extravaganza from the Tooth Fairy!

A couple good sites

You all might enjoy checking out a couple good blog spots and a few other things.

jerryd14.wordpress.com  which has several thought provoking articles about Lincoln and Southern heritage.

http://troublesomecreekpublications.wordpress.com  which contains insightful commentary on some of what passes for politics in our day.

Also, do a Google search for Deovindice.org which is the website for the Confederate Society of America.

http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com  which contains many articles on Confederate and Southern heritage, public education and its background and several articles on Marxism and political correctness (which is another form of Marxism)

On this site check out the entry for June 3, 2013 which has information about the home school mini-history course for home school youngsters and others as well.

Check out the book Lincoln's Marxists on both Amazon;com and the Internet in general. It deals with much of the history of the War of Northern Aggression that the establishment historians would rather you didn't know too much about.

Obama and Ebola

by Al Benson Jr.

When I first read about the Ebola outbreak in West Africa my first thought was "How long will it be before they manage to bring it to the United States?" Turns out I didn't have too long to wait before I found out and, lo and behold, we had our first Ebola patient from Liberia in a hospital in Dallas, Texas.

At that point, my next thought was--well maybe better if I don't go into my next thought except to say that as this whole situation progressed I got the distinct feeling that Comrade Obama did not have the best interests of the American people at heart. But, then, did he ever?

Columnist Thomas Sowell probably said it much better, and with more gentility, that I ever could have. For those who may not know, Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and a well-known author who happens to be black. Several years ago he wrote an informative book, which I have read, called Inside American Education. In it he told people all that they should have known about the American education system but didn't really want to, lest they have to do something to remedy it.

Just today, 10/7/14, he had a column on townhall.com  which also appeared in the Washington Times and in several other outlets. In it he noted: "The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans--about President Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves."

He continued: "There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Barack Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done. The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas." Unfortunately, no truer words have been spoken in either this or the last century. The safety of Americans matters not at all to this man. As I've said before, he couldn't care less. And to prove that, he has American troops "fighting Ebola overseas" and downplaying the dangers not only to these soldiers but also to other Americans when those troops do finally come home.

Mr. Sowell then asks the question: "What does this say about Obama? At a minimum it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as President of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans' interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally." I wonder, also, if he considers Americans expendable--and if Ebola gets out here and kills a few thousand--so what?

Obama and his Regime look with absolute contempt on the average American. We exist only to pay his vacation and golfing expenses. He has the mindset of the typical Marxist elitist--the world lives to make me comfortable.

One place I do disagree somewhat with Mr. Sowell is his comments about those who spent considerable effort trying to either validate or invalidate Obama's "birth certificate." Although that effort has not produced everything the investigators hoped for, I believe it was a necessary effort and I cannot help but commend those that undertook it. Whether more turns up in that area or not we will just have to wait and see.

Sowell makes an insightful comment, one most folks have probably not thought much about, when he says: "Those critics who have been citing Barack Obama's foreign policy fiascoes and disasters as evidence that he is incompetent may be overlooking the possibility that he has different priorities than the protection of the American people and America's interests as a nation." If anything that is a masterful understatement of the real situation. The priorities of Americans are last on Obama's list--the one thing he will never get to and he never intended to. He has had his own priorities as well as the agenda of the elite cabal that made sure he got into office and that's all he has an interest in fulfilling. Mr. Sowell seems to have grasped that fact. Too bad more Americans haven't. You would think after him being in office for six years it would have become rather apparent.

Mr. Sowell concluded his article with: "No one knows at this point how big the Ebola danger may turn out to be. But what we do know is that official reassurances about this and other dangers have become worthless. The erosion of Constitutional government over the years has become, under the Obama administration, a deluge of arbitrary edicts and defiant lawlessness protected by a grossly politicized Department of Justice."

No sane person, unless he be prone to delusion, can come up with any other conclusion. Those that helped Obama get into office, either by votes or other methods, have enabled him to preside over the destruction of the country--and he couldn't be happier!

Does Anybody Really Think He Cares???

by Al Benson Jr.

Just read a post from a Tea Party group which noted that Comrade Obama feels that our dying economy has recovered, but us stupid clods just don't realize yet all he has done for us and so we are not able to feel the great economic recovery he has provided for us. That probably sums up this Regime's attitude toward ordinary Americans--stupid clods. Anyone with eyes to see has to realize that this is exactly what he and this Regime think of us.

As for what we think of him and this current Marxist/Fascist Regime, does anyone honestly think he really cares? I read all manner of articles about polls--what the public thinks of Obama's domestic policy, or his foreign policy or about the performance (or lack thereof) of Congress.

It almost seems like those who publish these various polls think our negative opinions of this Regime will really make a difference. They won't.  The person that wrote this brief Tea Party article seems almost like they are about to get. Let's hope they follow through and go all the way.

The writer stated in part: "You can't help but wonder what planet Obama is from."Hint--it's a planet where the Red flag is raised above their capitol and their "leader" is "dictator for life."

But the writer continued: "A recent 60 Minutes interview showed just how far out of touch and disconnected the commander in chief is. It's as if all the numbers, every poll, all the outrage, doesn't even phase him." The writer is just beginning to get it. None of the polls, the numbers, any of it, makes a bit of difference to Obama. What the public has got to begin to realize is that no matter how bad the polls are, the President couldn't care less. He's not disconnected from what we think, he just doesn't give a Tinker's Damn what we think. He's not where he is to listen to or help the American people or to protect their interests. He's there to follow the orders given to him by the CFR/Trilateral/Bilderbeger Cabal and that's the only reason he is there. What the public wants or needs DOES NOT EVEN BEGIN TO ENTER INTO IT! If 99% of the public totally disapproved of what he did and he had orders from his puppet masters to do it, he'd do it anyways.

We've got to learn to disabuse ourselves of the illusion that he cares about the American people. He despises the average American. Oh, he loves the dedicated socialists and Communists, the illegal immigrants, the gay, lesbian and transgender crowd and the Muslim militants. To him these are the citizens worth placating. The rest of us who pay the bills can go to the Hot Place as far as he is concerned. And if he can find a way to use Obamacare to help us on our way he'll be more than ecstatic to do it.

This is where it's at, folks, we need to wake up and smell the coffee. He and his handlers have an agenda--to reduce this country to the status of a third world banana republic and this is what they will do no matter what we want. Nothing will get in the way of that except Divine Intervention, and I can picture Obama and his handlers arguing with God because they think they can do a better job than He can.

We need to repent of our sins and pray that the Lord will restrain the efforts of the One World crowd, not because we deserve it, but because of His grace in Christ. And that's not just a cliche, I'm serious about people praying that way. We need to start doing that. More of us need to start doing it than have been doing it. The power of prayer is something that this Marxist/Fascist Regime will not be able to overcome, though they may try.