by Al Benson Jr.
Back in the mid-1970s, socialists and Marxists, along with the willing assistance of the public school establishment, sought to establish a solid beachhead for their agenda in Appalachia via the textbook route. They sought to implant Cultural Marxism in the public schools in Kanawha County, West Virginia through the adoption of a set of highly questionable textbooks. They thought they would just slip it in by everyone and no one would ever notice what they had done in an area that was highly resistant to outside influences. It was probably to be a major coup for them. It didn't quite work out the way they had planned. They had underestimated parental resistance and resistance in general.
Oh, they eventually got their politically correct textbooks in, but the doing of it caused a major flap in West Virginia and around the country and lots of folks all over the place were alerted to what went on in public schools (and what's still going on) and many opted for other means to educate their kids. New Christian schools were started, which I'm sure was not the fondest desire of the Cultural Marxists.
Now another round in the same ongoing game is about to commence, this time at the university level. Often you can determine the inherent right or morality of a cause by looking at who supports it. If Communists and socialists are in the vanguard of a cause then you'd better look askance at it and check it out because it won't be what you were told it was.
I came across an article on the Internet just this morning (4/3/14) from http://www.redstate.com which dealt with a situation at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. The headline read: "SEIU Teams With Socialists, Other Marxist 'Revolutionaries' In Appalachia." Having lived in West Virginia for two years back in the 1970s during the textbook protest, that caught my attention. We lived a little over forty miles east of Huntington.
At any rate, it seems that Marshall University in Huntington has been having some employee problems that have caught the attention of the socialist/Marxist crowd, or maybe they were the ones that pointed them out, I don't know for sure. I don't pretend to have extensive knowledge of conditions at Marshall University. Maybe some of the gripes are even legitimate ones, but when you look at the leftist groups in the middle of this you have to question.
According to the Red State article, quoting from the socialist-run Worker's World: "A coalition of activists from Fight Imperialism, Stand Together (FIST), Workers World Party, Students for Appalachian Socialism, and Jewel City Solidarity Network and Service Employees union Local 32BJ held a public meeting on March 25th to kick off a 'Fight for 15 at Marshall University!' campaign. The meeting was attended by campus workers, faculty, students and community supporters, who received the coalition's message with enthusiasm and support. Attendees signed petitions that will be hand-delivered to the university administration. The goal of the meeting was to begin to build a mass movement to force the university to accept the coalition's list of demands."
The Red State commentator observes: "It is worth noting, however, that the allies of the SEIU are not merely fighting for higher wages--they are fighting for a socialist society where, in the case of the Workers World Party, "the wealth is socially owned and production is planned to satisfy human need. Here is the list of the SEIU's Appalachian 'allies:' FIST (Fight Imperialism--Stand Together) is a...national group of young revolutionaries. On its website, FIST states, 'We believe that the only way to achieve true liberation for all peoples throughout the world is through socialism." Talk about Lenin's "useful idiots"--they're here in spades!
And the Students for Appalachian Socialism website says: "Our vision of socialism is a society rules from the bottom up, a society that's single moral is 'people before profit.'...Che Guevara once said that 'the life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth.' That being noted, we will dare to struggle for socialism." Che Guevara, the terrorist, must have loved humanity--that's why he killed so many. These are the people that are spearheading a list of "demands" to be made of Marshall University.
Interesting that these folks claim they are not interested in money or profits, but one of the main demands this coalition is making of the university is: "A $15 minimum wage for all workers with a stipulation that the increased cost of workers' wages will not come from the elimination of any jobs or by shifting workers to part-time, stagnation or elimination of advancement of workers' wages past the new entry-level wage of $15, or tuition and/or fee hikes to students."
In other words, $15 per hour is just the beginning for these folks. Even Obama didn't dare propose that kind of a hike in the minimum wage when he floated that trial balloon, but, apparently, for this socialist coalition the sky's the limit!
They have to realize there's probably no way the university can afford that, which means they don't really expect that much, but they will be willing to dicker with the university for a lower figure--plus other "concessions." Only time will tell what those other "concessions" might be--a new course in Marxist studies, a Socialist Critique of American Culture, or a course in Transgender politics or what have you. I'm sure they have something in mind. You can bet the farm these socialists/Marxists have some project in mind they will demand that the university enact and they are trying to build support among ignorant workers for their agenda by seeming to be concerned about the plight of poor, underpaid workers, which they, in reality, couldn't care less about.
That's how these leftist groups operate. They seize upon what might be some legitimate grievance and use it to insert their socialist camel's nose into the tent, and before you know it, the socialist camel is completely inside the tent and anyone not on the left is pushed out. Their genuine concern for the "poor and downtrodden" is so much balderdash.
The folks in West Virginia better keep an eye on this situation. It bodes no good for them in any case.
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
How To Help Gun Control--Lie To Students About The Second Amendment
by Al Benson Jr.
What's one of the best ways to help to foster a "gun control" culture among the next generation? That's easy. Just lie to them in their courses in public school about what the Second Amendment really says. That's all it takes, and if you just can keep on telling the lie often enough and long enough the kids will start to believe it because "it's what we were taught in public school so it must be right." Right? I hate to be a party-pooper, but that is 100% WRONG! Teaching kids fake or perverted "history" is never right.
Many of you have heard of the new "Common Core" educational standards which most states have, unfortunately, signed on for in their public schools, thinking this would improve public school education. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who know most about this feau-education program have labeled it "Commie Core" and that isn't too far off the mark. The John Birch Society recently put out a DVD on this program which is quite revelatory. I have a batch of them a friend sent me. If anyone is interested send me your name and address and $3.00 for mailing cost and I will send one along to you.
To try to go into all the problems with Common Core here would take up enough space for a small book, so I will cite one glaring example of their "curriculum" in which they outright lie to students about the Second Amendment.
Public school district 186 in Springfield, Illinois (where else but in the hometown of "Honest" Abe) they have a Common Core workbook that deals with the Second Amendment. In the US Constitution the Second Amendment clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Teach kids that truth and most of us have no problem with it.
However, the version of this being taught in District 186 in Springfield says: "Amendment 2 (1791) Right to bear arms--This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and that they have never been in prison..." Just a slight deviation from the original wouldn't you say?
This public school workbook is telling students that people have a right to "certain weapons" provided they "register" them and haven't been in the slammer. Sorry folks, that's not what the Second Amendment really says. That's what the public school Educrats wish it said. That's what they'd like to get it changed to say. And who would decide which weapons our people could have? Why our completely trustworthy federal government, that's who. You folks who "trust" the federal government nowadays, please don't all raise your hands at once! Rest assured I am not among your number. This government has lied to us about so much for so long, no matter which party is in power (and they're both controlled by the same people) that I'm afraid I don't believe much, if any, of what they tell us.
And where do public schools get their educational guidelines, from the Department of Education in Washington, that's where. So it's in their interest to lie to us about the Second Amendment. If this drivel is being passed off as the Second Amendment in school districts in Illinois, then where else is it being passed off? Louisiana, Texas, Connecticut or New York?
Get a copy of the Bill of Rights and see what the Second Amendment really says, not what the public school educrats would like it to say and what they are teaching our kids that it says. And while you are at it, why not look also for alternate forms of education for your children, such as Christian or home schools? At least, at this point, these would still give your kids the real Second Amendment.
What's one of the best ways to help to foster a "gun control" culture among the next generation? That's easy. Just lie to them in their courses in public school about what the Second Amendment really says. That's all it takes, and if you just can keep on telling the lie often enough and long enough the kids will start to believe it because "it's what we were taught in public school so it must be right." Right? I hate to be a party-pooper, but that is 100% WRONG! Teaching kids fake or perverted "history" is never right.
Many of you have heard of the new "Common Core" educational standards which most states have, unfortunately, signed on for in their public schools, thinking this would improve public school education. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who know most about this feau-education program have labeled it "Commie Core" and that isn't too far off the mark. The John Birch Society recently put out a DVD on this program which is quite revelatory. I have a batch of them a friend sent me. If anyone is interested send me your name and address and $3.00 for mailing cost and I will send one along to you.
To try to go into all the problems with Common Core here would take up enough space for a small book, so I will cite one glaring example of their "curriculum" in which they outright lie to students about the Second Amendment.
Public school district 186 in Springfield, Illinois (where else but in the hometown of "Honest" Abe) they have a Common Core workbook that deals with the Second Amendment. In the US Constitution the Second Amendment clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Teach kids that truth and most of us have no problem with it.
However, the version of this being taught in District 186 in Springfield says: "Amendment 2 (1791) Right to bear arms--This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and that they have never been in prison..." Just a slight deviation from the original wouldn't you say?
This public school workbook is telling students that people have a right to "certain weapons" provided they "register" them and haven't been in the slammer. Sorry folks, that's not what the Second Amendment really says. That's what the public school Educrats wish it said. That's what they'd like to get it changed to say. And who would decide which weapons our people could have? Why our completely trustworthy federal government, that's who. You folks who "trust" the federal government nowadays, please don't all raise your hands at once! Rest assured I am not among your number. This government has lied to us about so much for so long, no matter which party is in power (and they're both controlled by the same people) that I'm afraid I don't believe much, if any, of what they tell us.
And where do public schools get their educational guidelines, from the Department of Education in Washington, that's where. So it's in their interest to lie to us about the Second Amendment. If this drivel is being passed off as the Second Amendment in school districts in Illinois, then where else is it being passed off? Louisiana, Texas, Connecticut or New York?
Get a copy of the Bill of Rights and see what the Second Amendment really says, not what the public school educrats would like it to say and what they are teaching our kids that it says. And while you are at it, why not look also for alternate forms of education for your children, such as Christian or home schools? At least, at this point, these would still give your kids the real Second Amendment.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Who Is Debo Adegbile???
by Al Benson Jr.
Who is Debo Adegbile? You mean you don't know? Ever heard of him? Given the sterling quality of our "news" (pardon me while I gag) media, if you haven't I'm not surprised. Or if you have recently heard of him but really don't know anything about him, I'm not surprised there either. He's one of those far-left Obamaphiles the establishment media would rather you didn't know too much about. Less questions that way.
Debo P. Adegbile has been Director of Litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. That he is part of the NAACP should tell you something right there. These are the folks that think they are "helping" black folks by ridding the countryside of all Confederate flags. They don't really know any responsible way to "help" black folks so they do that instead. But, I digress, so read on.
According to http://www.americanfreedomfighters.com "In 1982, former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal never denied the killing during his trial. He and his supporters are still unapologetic for Faulkner's death." According to Matthew Vadum: "The question of Abu-Jamal's guilt is not a close call," according to John Fund. "Two hospital workers testified that Abu-Jamal confessed to them: 'I shot the mother...and I hope the mother...dies.' His brother, William, has never testified to his brother's innocence even though he was at the scene of the crime. Abu-Jamal himself chose not to testify in his own defense." According to the article, Abu-Jamal shot the officer once in the back, and then, standing over him, shot him four more times at close range, one time in the face. Now there's real courage, don't you think? I thought only white folks were supposed to hate that much and that blacks were incapable of that kind of hatred--at least that's what some of these egghead college professors tell us. Guess they were wrong.
The freedom fighter article states: "One of those unapologetic supporters is a former NAACP Legal Defense Official Debo P. Adegbile, who has worked tirelessly to free guilty murderer Abu-Jamal from prison. President Obama has nominated Adegbile to head the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as an assistant attorney general to replace radical Tom Perez, who is now Secretary of Labor. Adegbile is sure to continue carrying out the radical racial agenda of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder with the weight of the law behind him." Through his work with the NAACP and in arguing before the Supreme Court, Adegbile has made it known that he doesn't believe that civil rights apply to whites. So, in other words, all the other races are entitled to them and we aren't. Are you really surprised? If you've been doing your homework you shouldn't be. If you haven't, then shame on you!
Obama, dedicated Marxist that he is, is incapable of nominating any other kind of person for any office. The far Left is all he has ever known from his childhood up. His mind runs in this one narrow Marxist groove and he just can't think any other way. I have often wondered how many of those that so zealously support him have any clue. Of course it wouldn't make any difference to many of them anyway. As long as the skin color is right that's all that matters to most of his supporters. There have been several astute black leaders that have learned where he is coming from and tried to warn their people. Mostly they don't care to hear it. And as for those squirrely white liberals that support him, even if they had to hold their noses when they did it, they'd feel guilty of "white racism" if they dared to vote any other way.
However, Adegbile will have to wait just a little longer before he gets to sit in the Department of Justice to rub our white noses in it. To do that he had to be confirmed by the Senate, and, according to what I heard today, March 5, 2014, his nomination didn't quite make it--this time. The Senate rejected his nomination 52-47, but not to worry, our glorious senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, voted for him. That should make her constituents here in Louisiana deliriously happy--shouldn't it?
Adegbile is so far to the left that even seven Democratic senators felt impelled to vote against his nomination along with the Republicans. Majority Leader Harry Reid voted no, but, under Senate rules, this lets him bring Adegbile's nomination back up again at a later time--probably after the election. So many things happen "after the election." Comrade Reid didn't vote against him out of conviction. He voted against him so he could give him another shot later on. Isn't the "honesty" of our political class a wonderment to behold? I tell you folks, there's real "transparency" here.
Just maybe we need to write our senators and instruct them to vote against the radical leftist the next time a vote for him arises in the august chambers of the Senate--and I don't doubt it will arise. Someone who believe whites have no civil rights is just what Obama wants.
In the meantime, Comrade Obama will have to be patient and pretend he is going along with "the will of the people."
For those that are interested, a friend of mine, David Sauls, in Georgia has a new blog spot up that is worth checking out. David often comes up with insightful commentary that you should check out. His new blog is http://troublesomecreekpublications.wordpress.com
Who is Debo Adegbile? You mean you don't know? Ever heard of him? Given the sterling quality of our "news" (pardon me while I gag) media, if you haven't I'm not surprised. Or if you have recently heard of him but really don't know anything about him, I'm not surprised there either. He's one of those far-left Obamaphiles the establishment media would rather you didn't know too much about. Less questions that way.
Debo P. Adegbile has been Director of Litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. That he is part of the NAACP should tell you something right there. These are the folks that think they are "helping" black folks by ridding the countryside of all Confederate flags. They don't really know any responsible way to "help" black folks so they do that instead. But, I digress, so read on.
According to http://www.americanfreedomfighters.com "In 1982, former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal never denied the killing during his trial. He and his supporters are still unapologetic for Faulkner's death." According to Matthew Vadum: "The question of Abu-Jamal's guilt is not a close call," according to John Fund. "Two hospital workers testified that Abu-Jamal confessed to them: 'I shot the mother...and I hope the mother...dies.' His brother, William, has never testified to his brother's innocence even though he was at the scene of the crime. Abu-Jamal himself chose not to testify in his own defense." According to the article, Abu-Jamal shot the officer once in the back, and then, standing over him, shot him four more times at close range, one time in the face. Now there's real courage, don't you think? I thought only white folks were supposed to hate that much and that blacks were incapable of that kind of hatred--at least that's what some of these egghead college professors tell us. Guess they were wrong.
The freedom fighter article states: "One of those unapologetic supporters is a former NAACP Legal Defense Official Debo P. Adegbile, who has worked tirelessly to free guilty murderer Abu-Jamal from prison. President Obama has nominated Adegbile to head the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as an assistant attorney general to replace radical Tom Perez, who is now Secretary of Labor. Adegbile is sure to continue carrying out the radical racial agenda of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder with the weight of the law behind him." Through his work with the NAACP and in arguing before the Supreme Court, Adegbile has made it known that he doesn't believe that civil rights apply to whites. So, in other words, all the other races are entitled to them and we aren't. Are you really surprised? If you've been doing your homework you shouldn't be. If you haven't, then shame on you!
Obama, dedicated Marxist that he is, is incapable of nominating any other kind of person for any office. The far Left is all he has ever known from his childhood up. His mind runs in this one narrow Marxist groove and he just can't think any other way. I have often wondered how many of those that so zealously support him have any clue. Of course it wouldn't make any difference to many of them anyway. As long as the skin color is right that's all that matters to most of his supporters. There have been several astute black leaders that have learned where he is coming from and tried to warn their people. Mostly they don't care to hear it. And as for those squirrely white liberals that support him, even if they had to hold their noses when they did it, they'd feel guilty of "white racism" if they dared to vote any other way.
However, Adegbile will have to wait just a little longer before he gets to sit in the Department of Justice to rub our white noses in it. To do that he had to be confirmed by the Senate, and, according to what I heard today, March 5, 2014, his nomination didn't quite make it--this time. The Senate rejected his nomination 52-47, but not to worry, our glorious senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, voted for him. That should make her constituents here in Louisiana deliriously happy--shouldn't it?
Adegbile is so far to the left that even seven Democratic senators felt impelled to vote against his nomination along with the Republicans. Majority Leader Harry Reid voted no, but, under Senate rules, this lets him bring Adegbile's nomination back up again at a later time--probably after the election. So many things happen "after the election." Comrade Reid didn't vote against him out of conviction. He voted against him so he could give him another shot later on. Isn't the "honesty" of our political class a wonderment to behold? I tell you folks, there's real "transparency" here.
Just maybe we need to write our senators and instruct them to vote against the radical leftist the next time a vote for him arises in the august chambers of the Senate--and I don't doubt it will arise. Someone who believe whites have no civil rights is just what Obama wants.
In the meantime, Comrade Obama will have to be patient and pretend he is going along with "the will of the people."
For those that are interested, a friend of mine, David Sauls, in Georgia has a new blog spot up that is worth checking out. David often comes up with insightful commentary that you should check out. His new blog is http://troublesomecreekpublications.wordpress.com
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
The United States is the "Main Enemy"
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently, I came across a batch of old books about Soviet Communism and its war on America, both in this country and around the world.
I am not one of those naive people who believes that "communism is dead, that it died when the Berlin Wall came down." In our day that's what our own government would have us to believe, in fact our own government may be among the biggest allies the communists have, especially with the present Marxist administration that is in power.
I just finished reading an informative book called The Secret World written by Peter Deriabin, a Soviet defector to this country back in 1954. In 1953 he had been stationed in Vienna, Austria, where he was the Chief of Soviet Counterintelligence and the Communist Party boss for the Austro-German section. He ended up testifying before both the Senate and the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1959. He wrote and co-authored several books about his life as a secret policeman in the Soviet Union. Mr. Deriabin's book that I read can still be found on Amazon.com It went though three printings, the one I read from 1959, one in 1982 and another in 1987 and the full text can be found online.
Deriabin offered clear analysis in several areas. On page 29 he observed: "The Communist rulers, furthermore, steeped in the Marxist 'working-class' theory of Revolution, distrusted and despised the Russian farmer both as a class and individually and saw him as an enemy of their state. Collectivization appeared to offer a solution by turning the independent farmer into an agricultural 'worker.' He would, then, it was hoped, develop a true 'working-class' psychology and a necessary loyalty to the regime, because he would be so dependent on it." A true principle of Marxism/Leninism--do away with private property and make sure it all belongs to the "state." That way everyone is dependent on the State for his bread one way or another.
Another theory that had real currency among the Communists was the "guilty until proven innocent" theory. Deriabin noted: "To the Chekist (secret police) inefficiency is the same as criminality, and criminality, by definition, is not an individual's deviation, but automatically a political crime against the state. To a mind trained in this pattern a faulty conveyer belt is sabotage unless conclusively proved otherwise. A fire in a factory suggests the existence of smouldering 'anti-Sovietism' among the workers...Gossip is enough to start a complicated investigation. No specific crime or utterance need be alleged...The question of guilt or innocence has long since been rendered academic." It seems to me that, more and more, we are operating on that theory in this country. With the IRS, if they find a "problem" they don't have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your innocence.
I just read an article on the Internet about the federal government trying to decide whether to use a drone to kill a US citizen in Pakistan because he is a "suspected" terrorist. No concern about trying to determine whether he is really guilty or not, just concern over whether they should take him out because he is "suspected" of terrorism.
Deriabin noted the difference in the standard of living between ordinary Soviet citizens and the ruling elite there. The Marxist concept of a classless society looks great on paper and in theory, but in reality it doesn't work that way in real life in any Communist country. Under Marxism the rich (ruling elite) get richer and the poor get even poorer so they can contribute to the comfort which the ruling elite think they are entitled to live in. In this country we now have a (Marxist) "health care" system which all citizens are expected to participate in and which they can tax you for if you don't choose to participate. But our ruling elite, Congress, the cabinet, and all those wonderful office-holders and bureaucrats in Washington are exempt from that. They have their own plan and it's lots better than what the ordinary citizen can afford, but they don't have to worry--we pay for it all.
Toward the end of the book Deriabin said: "But no one can properly appreciate freedom unless he has been deprived of it." We are in the process of being deprived of it in this country and most of us don't even have a clue to what is happening to us. We won't grasp that until it happens--and maybe that's what it will take to make us appreciate it--our losing it by default--because that's what's happening.
Most Americans don't want to be bothered defending their liberty--too much trouble and responsibility to all that--let George do it so it doesn't interrupt my poker night next week. We fail to realize that our liberty is a gift from God, and as such, we are obligated to seek to defend it and protect it. We are too busy squandering it to be concerned about it. One bright morning we will wake up and find we no longer have it. Our current Marxist-in-Chief will have decreed, by executive order, that we don't need it any longer and so we will now have martial law from henceforth into eternity--so he hopes.
A final thought, if our liberty is God-given, what will the Lord say to each of us on Judgment Day when He asks us what we did with the liberty He gave us and we stand before Him and have to tell Him we frittered it away because it was too much of a responsibility to be bothered with?
The United States used to be the "Main Enemy" of Marxism. It isn't anymore.
Recently, I came across a batch of old books about Soviet Communism and its war on America, both in this country and around the world.
I am not one of those naive people who believes that "communism is dead, that it died when the Berlin Wall came down." In our day that's what our own government would have us to believe, in fact our own government may be among the biggest allies the communists have, especially with the present Marxist administration that is in power.
I just finished reading an informative book called The Secret World written by Peter Deriabin, a Soviet defector to this country back in 1954. In 1953 he had been stationed in Vienna, Austria, where he was the Chief of Soviet Counterintelligence and the Communist Party boss for the Austro-German section. He ended up testifying before both the Senate and the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1959. He wrote and co-authored several books about his life as a secret policeman in the Soviet Union. Mr. Deriabin's book that I read can still be found on Amazon.com It went though three printings, the one I read from 1959, one in 1982 and another in 1987 and the full text can be found online.
Deriabin offered clear analysis in several areas. On page 29 he observed: "The Communist rulers, furthermore, steeped in the Marxist 'working-class' theory of Revolution, distrusted and despised the Russian farmer both as a class and individually and saw him as an enemy of their state. Collectivization appeared to offer a solution by turning the independent farmer into an agricultural 'worker.' He would, then, it was hoped, develop a true 'working-class' psychology and a necessary loyalty to the regime, because he would be so dependent on it." A true principle of Marxism/Leninism--do away with private property and make sure it all belongs to the "state." That way everyone is dependent on the State for his bread one way or another.
Another theory that had real currency among the Communists was the "guilty until proven innocent" theory. Deriabin noted: "To the Chekist (secret police) inefficiency is the same as criminality, and criminality, by definition, is not an individual's deviation, but automatically a political crime against the state. To a mind trained in this pattern a faulty conveyer belt is sabotage unless conclusively proved otherwise. A fire in a factory suggests the existence of smouldering 'anti-Sovietism' among the workers...Gossip is enough to start a complicated investigation. No specific crime or utterance need be alleged...The question of guilt or innocence has long since been rendered academic." It seems to me that, more and more, we are operating on that theory in this country. With the IRS, if they find a "problem" they don't have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your innocence.
I just read an article on the Internet about the federal government trying to decide whether to use a drone to kill a US citizen in Pakistan because he is a "suspected" terrorist. No concern about trying to determine whether he is really guilty or not, just concern over whether they should take him out because he is "suspected" of terrorism.
Deriabin noted the difference in the standard of living between ordinary Soviet citizens and the ruling elite there. The Marxist concept of a classless society looks great on paper and in theory, but in reality it doesn't work that way in real life in any Communist country. Under Marxism the rich (ruling elite) get richer and the poor get even poorer so they can contribute to the comfort which the ruling elite think they are entitled to live in. In this country we now have a (Marxist) "health care" system which all citizens are expected to participate in and which they can tax you for if you don't choose to participate. But our ruling elite, Congress, the cabinet, and all those wonderful office-holders and bureaucrats in Washington are exempt from that. They have their own plan and it's lots better than what the ordinary citizen can afford, but they don't have to worry--we pay for it all.
Toward the end of the book Deriabin said: "But no one can properly appreciate freedom unless he has been deprived of it." We are in the process of being deprived of it in this country and most of us don't even have a clue to what is happening to us. We won't grasp that until it happens--and maybe that's what it will take to make us appreciate it--our losing it by default--because that's what's happening.
Most Americans don't want to be bothered defending their liberty--too much trouble and responsibility to all that--let George do it so it doesn't interrupt my poker night next week. We fail to realize that our liberty is a gift from God, and as such, we are obligated to seek to defend it and protect it. We are too busy squandering it to be concerned about it. One bright morning we will wake up and find we no longer have it. Our current Marxist-in-Chief will have decreed, by executive order, that we don't need it any longer and so we will now have martial law from henceforth into eternity--so he hopes.
A final thought, if our liberty is God-given, what will the Lord say to each of us on Judgment Day when He asks us what we did with the liberty He gave us and we stand before Him and have to tell Him we frittered it away because it was too much of a responsibility to be bothered with?
The United States used to be the "Main Enemy" of Marxism. It isn't anymore.
Monday, February 10, 2014
So Who's Kidding Who?
by Al Benson Jr.
I just got through reading an article on http://www.newsmax.com in which political commentator Mary Matalin, wife of former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville, stated that Republicans don't have to worry in the next presidential election because Hillary won't even be running. She then went on to list many of the possible candidates in the Republican Party that might be making a run for the presidency, some of them even retreads left over from 2012.
As I read the article, the thought came to mind that "this is a great article for fooling the naive among the conservatives into thinking they will really have a choice of who gets to run for president among the Republican half of the oligarchy." They can argue among themselves (and it's all purely academic) about who would be better for the country--Christie, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Huckabee or Ted Cruz from Texas. And you know what? None of it will make any difference.
The vast majority of the electorate, comprising both parties, fails to realize that there is one elite clique, made up of people in the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, along with the Bilderberger Group that controls both major political parties and so they, in the end, get to decide who will run for both parties. This means that there is hardly any meaningful difference between the candidates for both parties. The differences are purely cosmetic--just enough to fool the average voter into thinking there is a major difference where none really exists. Do you begin to realize now why these people could not, under any circumstances, allow Ron Paul to get anywhere near the White House, no matter what they had to do to prevent him? He was truly the odd man out when it came to the political game in Washington--he was honest--and no honest man gets into the White House anymore because he might upset the apple cart of our ruling elite and shoot down their agenda, so that can't happen.
Goldwater was the last man to do that in 1964 and they had to stop him at all costs. They did. George Wallace caused them some problem in 1968 when he won five states in the South, but it wasn't enough to derail them. Wallace was a big speed bump in their road and so they made sure that when he ran as a Democrat in 1972 that he was cleared out of the road. After that it was smooth sailing until now and to the One World Government people it doesn't really make any difference which party resides in the White House. Since they control both parties they get their agenda enacted either way. The rhetoric may vary from party to party but that's all that does.
I can't verify whether it is totally accurate or not, but some sources I have seen have stated that it's already been decided that Hitlery, er, I mean Hillary, will be the next president. If this is so it means that our election process has become nothing more than an One World Government-orchestrated charade. After all, as Stalin is reported to have said "It isn't who votes, but who counts the votes." In the last election there were places where Obama was reported to have gotten 140% of the vote. In other areas he only got 100% of the vote. You mean to tell me there were places in the country, mostly in the North, where there was not a single Romney voter? And how do you get 140% of the vote anywhere? Yet, with all this foolishness, the Republican Party never once issued a complaint. They were quieter than church mice. That means that the folks that run the party were satisfied with the outcome. Romney was a weak sister, as was McCain before him. Both were only put up there because the Republican Party had to have someone to run against Obama, who everyone in the know in both parties knew was going to win anyway.
The only way your vote really counts anymore is if you are a dead Democrat in Chicago, or in Gary, Indiana--and then your vote counts, and counts, and counts. The motto in those two cities is "vote early and vote often." Maybe that's how Obama got his 140%!
Frankly, we are wasting our time playing around with presidential politics because the real establishment candidate is going to win anyway, no matter which party he belongs to. Seems we'd be better off trying to elect some honest folks at the local level and the county and parish level and then working to make sure they stayed honest, because the power inherent in government will corrupt.
Who really cares which CFR/Trilateral candidate occupies the White House? You get the same One World Government agenda either way. But if you can elect some honest, principled people for local offices and they are willing to stay with it then you might start to make a difference in a couple generations. That may sound long term to some folks, but let's face it, what we are doing now ain't working--except in favor of the One World folks. Something to think about.
by Al Benson Jr.
I just got through reading an article on http://www.newsmax.com in which political commentator Mary Matalin, wife of former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville, stated that Republicans don't have to worry in the next presidential election because Hillary won't even be running. She then went on to list many of the possible candidates in the Republican Party that might be making a run for the presidency, some of them even retreads left over from 2012.
As I read the article, the thought came to mind that "this is a great article for fooling the naive among the conservatives into thinking they will really have a choice of who gets to run for president among the Republican half of the oligarchy." They can argue among themselves (and it's all purely academic) about who would be better for the country--Christie, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Huckabee or Ted Cruz from Texas. And you know what? None of it will make any difference.
The vast majority of the electorate, comprising both parties, fails to realize that there is one elite clique, made up of people in the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, along with the Bilderberger Group that controls both major political parties and so they, in the end, get to decide who will run for both parties. This means that there is hardly any meaningful difference between the candidates for both parties. The differences are purely cosmetic--just enough to fool the average voter into thinking there is a major difference where none really exists. Do you begin to realize now why these people could not, under any circumstances, allow Ron Paul to get anywhere near the White House, no matter what they had to do to prevent him? He was truly the odd man out when it came to the political game in Washington--he was honest--and no honest man gets into the White House anymore because he might upset the apple cart of our ruling elite and shoot down their agenda, so that can't happen.
Goldwater was the last man to do that in 1964 and they had to stop him at all costs. They did. George Wallace caused them some problem in 1968 when he won five states in the South, but it wasn't enough to derail them. Wallace was a big speed bump in their road and so they made sure that when he ran as a Democrat in 1972 that he was cleared out of the road. After that it was smooth sailing until now and to the One World Government people it doesn't really make any difference which party resides in the White House. Since they control both parties they get their agenda enacted either way. The rhetoric may vary from party to party but that's all that does.
I can't verify whether it is totally accurate or not, but some sources I have seen have stated that it's already been decided that Hitlery, er, I mean Hillary, will be the next president. If this is so it means that our election process has become nothing more than an One World Government-orchestrated charade. After all, as Stalin is reported to have said "It isn't who votes, but who counts the votes." In the last election there were places where Obama was reported to have gotten 140% of the vote. In other areas he only got 100% of the vote. You mean to tell me there were places in the country, mostly in the North, where there was not a single Romney voter? And how do you get 140% of the vote anywhere? Yet, with all this foolishness, the Republican Party never once issued a complaint. They were quieter than church mice. That means that the folks that run the party were satisfied with the outcome. Romney was a weak sister, as was McCain before him. Both were only put up there because the Republican Party had to have someone to run against Obama, who everyone in the know in both parties knew was going to win anyway.
The only way your vote really counts anymore is if you are a dead Democrat in Chicago, or in Gary, Indiana--and then your vote counts, and counts, and counts. The motto in those two cities is "vote early and vote often." Maybe that's how Obama got his 140%!
Frankly, we are wasting our time playing around with presidential politics because the real establishment candidate is going to win anyway, no matter which party he belongs to. Seems we'd be better off trying to elect some honest folks at the local level and the county and parish level and then working to make sure they stayed honest, because the power inherent in government will corrupt.
Who really cares which CFR/Trilateral candidate occupies the White House? You get the same One World Government agenda either way. But if you can elect some honest, principled people for local offices and they are willing to stay with it then you might start to make a difference in a couple generations. That may sound long term to some folks, but let's face it, what we are doing now ain't working--except in favor of the One World folks. Something to think about.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Conservatives, New York's Commissar Cuomo Doesn't Like You
by Al Benson Jr.
According to http://www.theblaze.com the head commissar of New York has no use for conservatives, at least not real ones. He said, in a radio interview that if: "extreme conservatives are right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay, then they have no place in the state of New York, because that's not who New Yorkers are."
I could have gone to The Blaze website and listened to Commissar Cuomo's collectivist diatribe, but I thought, why bother? I've heard it all before from the lips of other "progressive" socialists and Marxists, including the one presently residing in the White (Red) House, and no matter how they say it, somehow it all sounds the same--we need the federal or state government to remove all our liberties so they can "protect" us from all those nasty right-wing "extremists"--you know, those horrible home schoolers, those fanatics who support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, those bigots who dare to believe the Bible, those terrible people who are opposed to murdering unborn children--they're all extremists that the Amerikan people must be protected from, and especially the Amerikan public must be protected from their ideas, their worldview, so that the theories of Marx and other progressive socialists can be embraced.
I wonder how many of the inhabitants of New York state fit into the catagory of those that Commissar Cuomo feels have no place in his state. Maybe he expects them to move on out or move on over into Pennsylvania or New Jersey. He sure doesn't want those extremists in HIS state.
Why if you're against murdering unborn babies and in favor of protecting your Second Amendment rights or a Christian that takes a dim view of sodomy Commissar Cuomo just doesn't want you around. He's quite plain about that.
However if you are a "moderate" conservative then he may be persuaded to tolerate you, provided you either totally agree with his agenda or just keep your mouth shut. Let's define what he means by "moderate" conservative. It's someone that is basically willing to go along with his socialist agenda just like many of the so-called Republicans in Congress are willing to go along with Comrade Obama's agenda. Oh, they have to pretend they don't want to, but if the truth were known, many of them really love what he's doing. They just can't publicly agree with him, at least not until after the next election, lest they find themselves voted out of office and no longer able to feed at the public trough.
As obnoxious as Commissar Cuomo is, at least he's honest. He has no problem with killing unborn kids or of depriving you of your Second Amendment rights or of giving full approval to a sexually-deviant lifestyle. He believes in all these things. They are part and parcel of this personal theology. They reflect where he is at and he admits it.
Needless to say, I totally disagree with him on all these issues. True biblical theology militates against all these positions that Commissar Cuomo has taken and I am sure he realizes that fact and just doesn't give a hoot, although, again, he'd never say that in an election year. There must be enough folks in New York that go along with him or he would not have gotten elected to be head commissar (governor). Of course maybe it was a case of who counted the votes there too.
Cuomo has no problem with "moderate" Republicans that are consistently passing or promoting his agenda. If that's the kind of Republicans they have in New York, then who needs 'em?
Commissar Cuomo is the consummate Yankee/Marxist. I wouldn't live in his state if they paid me to. I grew up right next door, in Soviet Massachusetts. That was bad enough. Commissar Cuomo's "progressive paradise" in New York sounds even worse. With this Marxist mindset permeating the Northeast, you have to know why I live in Louisiana.
According to http://www.theblaze.com the head commissar of New York has no use for conservatives, at least not real ones. He said, in a radio interview that if: "extreme conservatives are right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay, then they have no place in the state of New York, because that's not who New Yorkers are."
I could have gone to The Blaze website and listened to Commissar Cuomo's collectivist diatribe, but I thought, why bother? I've heard it all before from the lips of other "progressive" socialists and Marxists, including the one presently residing in the White (Red) House, and no matter how they say it, somehow it all sounds the same--we need the federal or state government to remove all our liberties so they can "protect" us from all those nasty right-wing "extremists"--you know, those horrible home schoolers, those fanatics who support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, those bigots who dare to believe the Bible, those terrible people who are opposed to murdering unborn children--they're all extremists that the Amerikan people must be protected from, and especially the Amerikan public must be protected from their ideas, their worldview, so that the theories of Marx and other progressive socialists can be embraced.
I wonder how many of the inhabitants of New York state fit into the catagory of those that Commissar Cuomo feels have no place in his state. Maybe he expects them to move on out or move on over into Pennsylvania or New Jersey. He sure doesn't want those extremists in HIS state.
Why if you're against murdering unborn babies and in favor of protecting your Second Amendment rights or a Christian that takes a dim view of sodomy Commissar Cuomo just doesn't want you around. He's quite plain about that.
However if you are a "moderate" conservative then he may be persuaded to tolerate you, provided you either totally agree with his agenda or just keep your mouth shut. Let's define what he means by "moderate" conservative. It's someone that is basically willing to go along with his socialist agenda just like many of the so-called Republicans in Congress are willing to go along with Comrade Obama's agenda. Oh, they have to pretend they don't want to, but if the truth were known, many of them really love what he's doing. They just can't publicly agree with him, at least not until after the next election, lest they find themselves voted out of office and no longer able to feed at the public trough.
As obnoxious as Commissar Cuomo is, at least he's honest. He has no problem with killing unborn kids or of depriving you of your Second Amendment rights or of giving full approval to a sexually-deviant lifestyle. He believes in all these things. They are part and parcel of this personal theology. They reflect where he is at and he admits it.
Needless to say, I totally disagree with him on all these issues. True biblical theology militates against all these positions that Commissar Cuomo has taken and I am sure he realizes that fact and just doesn't give a hoot, although, again, he'd never say that in an election year. There must be enough folks in New York that go along with him or he would not have gotten elected to be head commissar (governor). Of course maybe it was a case of who counted the votes there too.
Cuomo has no problem with "moderate" Republicans that are consistently passing or promoting his agenda. If that's the kind of Republicans they have in New York, then who needs 'em?
Commissar Cuomo is the consummate Yankee/Marxist. I wouldn't live in his state if they paid me to. I grew up right next door, in Soviet Massachusetts. That was bad enough. Commissar Cuomo's "progressive paradise" in New York sounds even worse. With this Marxist mindset permeating the Northeast, you have to know why I live in Louisiana.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Television is Dying--and who's gonna miss it?
by Al Benson Jr.
I remember when I spent 33 days in the hospital back in 2007. You can only read just so much and so you turn on the television just to get a little variety. A wasted effort for the most part. If I was fortunate enough to come across a channel that had some old western movies on it I was okay for awhile. If all I could get were the usual weekly shows I'd shut it off after about ten minutes. The tv dialogue was absolutely mind-numbing. You know you are in trouble when the commercials are more entertaining than the show you were watching. Decades ago, television was actually entertaining, even though there was a certain amount of propaganda even back then. Comedy still made you laugh. Nowadays it makes you retch. Every joke today has a double meaning and with many of the public television channels the promotion of the sodomite agenda is so transparent even the naive are not fooled anymore.
Just picture in your mind, a tv "news" analyst with a sheaf of papers in his hand stating: "This just in--Americans are not falling for our bovine fertilizer anymore."
There was a very good article on http://chasvoice.blogspot.com for January 11th reproducing an editorial by Anthony Wile. Mr. Wile stated: "Variety commented just yesterday on 'CNN Eyes Primetime Shake-Up." Wile continued: "In fact, an end-of-year memo from CNN president Jeff Zucker reemphasized what CNN would become: 'The goal for the next six months, is that we need more shows and less newscasts'."
Seems if I recall correctly, the original purpose of CNN was for it to broadcast news, not entertainment. Seems that CNN's ratings for the end of 2013 took a significant dip. Fox News (not nearly as conservative as it used to be) still chalked up about 1.78 million viewers for the fourth quarter of 2013 compared with 477,000 for CNN.
Wile makes an interesting comment about CNN when he says: "Like all the major networks, CNN reports on Western society's prevailing structure and hierarchy without challenging it in any significant way. This lack of significant opposition is no doubt a significant reason for CNN's failure. It is a creature of the power structure it purports to observe, and this is increasingly evident to viewers." In other words, CNN's left-of-center biases are starting to slip and the public is starting to notice. People are beginning to realize they are getting managed news. The time will come when this will begin to show up for other networks also. CNN is only the first.
More people are learning to get their news off the Internet and there are lots of good, conservative, patriotic sites out there once you learn how to look for them. Someone who is willing to "hunt and peck" for the truth on the Internet need never turn on the television and accept the drivel that passes for news there again.
So unplug the television and don't waste anymore money on pricey cable packages. With the coming price of Obamacare you won't be able to afford to watch it anyway. Who needs to sit mesmerized in front of the tube while a political huckster tells you, with a smile on his face, that "if you like your present insurance plan you can keep it." Start hunting for alternative news sources and start getting some truth.
One place I'd suggest checking out is the Charleston Voice blog spot. It carries material on it that the managed "news" media wouldn't pass along to you if your life depended on it. Don't forget the address: http://chasvoice.blogspot.com
I remember when I spent 33 days in the hospital back in 2007. You can only read just so much and so you turn on the television just to get a little variety. A wasted effort for the most part. If I was fortunate enough to come across a channel that had some old western movies on it I was okay for awhile. If all I could get were the usual weekly shows I'd shut it off after about ten minutes. The tv dialogue was absolutely mind-numbing. You know you are in trouble when the commercials are more entertaining than the show you were watching. Decades ago, television was actually entertaining, even though there was a certain amount of propaganda even back then. Comedy still made you laugh. Nowadays it makes you retch. Every joke today has a double meaning and with many of the public television channels the promotion of the sodomite agenda is so transparent even the naive are not fooled anymore.
Just picture in your mind, a tv "news" analyst with a sheaf of papers in his hand stating: "This just in--Americans are not falling for our bovine fertilizer anymore."
There was a very good article on http://chasvoice.blogspot.com for January 11th reproducing an editorial by Anthony Wile. Mr. Wile stated: "Variety commented just yesterday on 'CNN Eyes Primetime Shake-Up." Wile continued: "In fact, an end-of-year memo from CNN president Jeff Zucker reemphasized what CNN would become: 'The goal for the next six months, is that we need more shows and less newscasts'."
Seems if I recall correctly, the original purpose of CNN was for it to broadcast news, not entertainment. Seems that CNN's ratings for the end of 2013 took a significant dip. Fox News (not nearly as conservative as it used to be) still chalked up about 1.78 million viewers for the fourth quarter of 2013 compared with 477,000 for CNN.
Wile makes an interesting comment about CNN when he says: "Like all the major networks, CNN reports on Western society's prevailing structure and hierarchy without challenging it in any significant way. This lack of significant opposition is no doubt a significant reason for CNN's failure. It is a creature of the power structure it purports to observe, and this is increasingly evident to viewers." In other words, CNN's left-of-center biases are starting to slip and the public is starting to notice. People are beginning to realize they are getting managed news. The time will come when this will begin to show up for other networks also. CNN is only the first.
More people are learning to get their news off the Internet and there are lots of good, conservative, patriotic sites out there once you learn how to look for them. Someone who is willing to "hunt and peck" for the truth on the Internet need never turn on the television and accept the drivel that passes for news there again.
So unplug the television and don't waste anymore money on pricey cable packages. With the coming price of Obamacare you won't be able to afford to watch it anyway. Who needs to sit mesmerized in front of the tube while a political huckster tells you, with a smile on his face, that "if you like your present insurance plan you can keep it." Start hunting for alternative news sources and start getting some truth.
One place I'd suggest checking out is the Charleston Voice blog spot. It carries material on it that the managed "news" media wouldn't pass along to you if your life depended on it. Don't forget the address: http://chasvoice.blogspot.com
Friday, December 27, 2013
When Knockouts Became a Hate Crime
by Al Benson Jr.
For some months now I have been reading articles on the Internet about how black teens and some older have been playing this "knockdown" game on white folks.
The way it works is that a group of black young people walk by a lone white man or woman and one of them punches or hits the white person hard enough that they fall down and are knocked unconscious. Several white people have been severely injured by this but the blacks claim "it's just a game." Some game! A black young person knocks down an elderly white person so he or she is injured, in some cases severely, and it's "just a game." And it's interesting that most of these gangs of blacks do seem to go after older white folks. I guess, maybe, that proves they are cowards at heart. They seldom pick on someone in their 20s or 30s but seem to prefer older folks. I suppose the rationale is that the older folks can't fight back and so that makes them easier pickings. Kind of like these people that kill others with weapons in "gun free" zones where there is small chance anyone will shoot back. They're cowards, too, even the ones that are part of false flag events.
In a couple instances I read about the older person that got knocked down had a weapon and they shot at their assailants. One lady shot and killed one and wounded another. That sort of activity tends to put a bit of a damper on the "game atmosphere" of the knockdown. If the perpetrator of the knockdown doesn't know if he might get shot for his efforts then it gets to where it's not quite so much fun anymore.
In all of these that I read about the possibility of this being a hate crime because the black youths always picked on white people was never mentioned. That was ignored. "Nothing to see here, folks, just move along." Besides, a few years ago, some hair-brained college professor back east said that blacks couldn't be racist anyway because they didn't have the "power" to be racists--only white folks had that. I don't know where he got his information or what he had been smoking, but whatever it was it must have been pretty potent stuff for him to come out with an idiotic statement like that. However, such inane rationale is probably enough to insure his tenure at the school he supposedly teaches at for life.
I just read today, though, that finally, the knockdown game is going to be considered a hate crime--because a white man did it to a black person. Now it's a hate crime of major proportions and it made the "news" media sit up and take notice because now its white on black crime rather than black on white crime--which is usually way beneath notice. I expect our famous "Department of Justice" in Washington will try to find some way to prosecute this white guy. This is the same Department of Justice that ignores Black Panthers standing with billy clubs at polling places in Philadelphia in order to "encourage" white voters not to bother voting. But, hey, that's okay, just like its okay when blacks commit crimes against whites. It's just not okay when white do the same against blacks. Our Department of Justice seems to operate on the "heads I win, tails you lose" premise" or better yet, on the Animal Farm premise--all the animals in the barnyard are equal but some are more equal than others.
So, folks, if you want to make sure the knockout game gets to the status of a hate crime you have to make sure that a white guy does it. Otherwise it will never reach that status--in fact, in most cases, it will be almost totally ignored. The Obama administration promised Amerika "transparency" folks, so lots of "useful idiots" voted for Obama so they could experience the new transparency. How do you like it?
For some months now I have been reading articles on the Internet about how black teens and some older have been playing this "knockdown" game on white folks.
The way it works is that a group of black young people walk by a lone white man or woman and one of them punches or hits the white person hard enough that they fall down and are knocked unconscious. Several white people have been severely injured by this but the blacks claim "it's just a game." Some game! A black young person knocks down an elderly white person so he or she is injured, in some cases severely, and it's "just a game." And it's interesting that most of these gangs of blacks do seem to go after older white folks. I guess, maybe, that proves they are cowards at heart. They seldom pick on someone in their 20s or 30s but seem to prefer older folks. I suppose the rationale is that the older folks can't fight back and so that makes them easier pickings. Kind of like these people that kill others with weapons in "gun free" zones where there is small chance anyone will shoot back. They're cowards, too, even the ones that are part of false flag events.
In a couple instances I read about the older person that got knocked down had a weapon and they shot at their assailants. One lady shot and killed one and wounded another. That sort of activity tends to put a bit of a damper on the "game atmosphere" of the knockdown. If the perpetrator of the knockdown doesn't know if he might get shot for his efforts then it gets to where it's not quite so much fun anymore.
In all of these that I read about the possibility of this being a hate crime because the black youths always picked on white people was never mentioned. That was ignored. "Nothing to see here, folks, just move along." Besides, a few years ago, some hair-brained college professor back east said that blacks couldn't be racist anyway because they didn't have the "power" to be racists--only white folks had that. I don't know where he got his information or what he had been smoking, but whatever it was it must have been pretty potent stuff for him to come out with an idiotic statement like that. However, such inane rationale is probably enough to insure his tenure at the school he supposedly teaches at for life.
I just read today, though, that finally, the knockdown game is going to be considered a hate crime--because a white man did it to a black person. Now it's a hate crime of major proportions and it made the "news" media sit up and take notice because now its white on black crime rather than black on white crime--which is usually way beneath notice. I expect our famous "Department of Justice" in Washington will try to find some way to prosecute this white guy. This is the same Department of Justice that ignores Black Panthers standing with billy clubs at polling places in Philadelphia in order to "encourage" white voters not to bother voting. But, hey, that's okay, just like its okay when blacks commit crimes against whites. It's just not okay when white do the same against blacks. Our Department of Justice seems to operate on the "heads I win, tails you lose" premise" or better yet, on the Animal Farm premise--all the animals in the barnyard are equal but some are more equal than others.
So, folks, if you want to make sure the knockout game gets to the status of a hate crime you have to make sure that a white guy does it. Otherwise it will never reach that status--in fact, in most cases, it will be almost totally ignored. The Obama administration promised Amerika "transparency" folks, so lots of "useful idiots" voted for Obama so they could experience the new transparency. How do you like it?
Friday, December 13, 2013
Mandela Is Dead--Long Live the Propaganda
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, Nelson Mandela, Communist thug par excellence has finally come to his eternal reward. For anyone with a strong enough stomach to have endured all the bovine fertilizer spread around by the (pardon me if I laugh) "news" media, if the whole episode has caused you to view what passes for news with a jaundiced eye, then you will have learned something.
Mandela, according to many sources, participated in over 150 acts of terrorism during his rather checkered career. An article appeared on http://www.lewrockwell.com a couple days ago which dealt with where Mandela was really coming from. It was written by Alex Newman for The New American. Newman said: "Shortly after the death of South African revolutionary Nelson Mandela, the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress both released official statements acknowledging what was already well-known among experts: 'Comrade' Mandela was indeed a Communist Party Leader who served on the Soviet-backed organization's Central Committee...not only was the confessed terror leader a senior official on the South African Communist Party's highest decision-making body, he was actually close to the outfit until his death."
This is the man that our "news" media sought to portray as a virtual reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and to do that they simply had to bury as much of the truth as possible so that the gullible in this country would have no clue. So his years of terrorist activity were simply ignored and he was presented as one of the greatest "freedom fighters" of all time. This is the man that Comrade Obama wanted all the flags in this country lowered to half staff to commemorate. He was a Communist and Obama is a Marxist. Undoubtedly, for Obama, this Communist thug was the George Washington of all Africa.
His record of terrorism, as well as that of his wife, Winnie Mandela, will simply be swept under the rug, or shoved down the "memory hole." He will be portrayed as the "saviour" of South Africa--the deliverer of the poor and downtrodden, and by the time you wade through all this bilge you will need a barf bag of gigantic proportions. If you really want to find out what this man was all about look up his wife on the Internet. Do a Google search on "Winnie Mandela and necklacing in South Africa." Just don't read what you find before supper.
Problem is, how many will be willing to do a little homework to find out the truth? Or will it just be easier to swallow the media hogwash and continue to be a compliant prole?
The Homeschool Mini-History series is still available. History may be written by the victors but the truth does not change. For information email copperhead102@juno.com or write to The Copperhead Chronicle, P O Box 55, Sterlington, Louisiana 71280
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Things Are Looking Up In Selma, Alabama
by Al Benson Jr.
Back in September of 2012 I wrote two or three articles about a situation in Selma, Alabama where black domestic terrorists were trying to prevent a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from being put up in Live Oak Cemetery in an area called Confederate Circle. There was a big fuss over who owned the land in Confederate Circle. The United Daughters of the Confederacy noted the land had been deeded to them back in the 1880s, although there seemed to be a problem locating a copy of the deed. The local black civil rights terrorists refused to believe this and so trespassed on what would later, by court order, be deemed as the property of the UDC and they just flat out stopped the construction work, threatening to call in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who would, naturally, conduct a big march and demonstration which would be geared to stop any future work on the Forrest monument--with the "news" media naturally playing right along with them as they usually do.
The local UDC folks, no doubt having been labeled with the favorite Trotskyite term "racist" were all supposed to silently submit to the racial blackmail and retreat in silence.
It didn't quite work that way. The company that was doing the work on the monument, KTK Mining and the UDC took it to court and sued the City of Selma for refusing to protect their rights. Even though it's been well over a year now (so much for speedy trials) the City of Selma must, somewhere along the line, have realized that if it went to trial they would not win, and so they accepted a settlement put forth by KTK Mining for $100,000.
According to http://www.selmatimesjournal.com for November 26, 2013 we are told: "In a 5-3 vote, the Selma City Council voted to approve a settlement in a lawsuit over a monument to Confederate general and former Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrect, effectively ending the suit.The settlement terms include giving a deed to the one-acre tract of land containing the monument in Old Live Oak Cemetery to Chapter 53 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy." The council president voted in favor of this, along with four other members and said it was time for the city to move forward and focus on more important issues.
However, that decision was not enough for the local civil rights terrorists, one of which, Rose Sanders, also known as Faya Rose Toure, (interesting how these black radicals, like Obama, always seem to have more than one name) managed to get herself arrested for disorderly conduct at the city council meeting. But then, this is so typical of leftist radicals. If they can't get their way they attempt to disrupt everything so that nothing can be accomplished unless everyone is willing to give in to their radical agenda. This time it didn't work. That must have been a real blow to the fragile ego of Ms. Sanders/Toure. Shouting everyone down has always worked before--this time it didn't. How sad--for her, not for the rest of the folks there.
Even though KTK Mining has the right to go on with finishing construction of the Forrest Monument, I expect there will be all manner of nit-picky things the domestic terrorists will come up with to hamper the work and if nothing else works they will resort to outright vandalism. It wouldn't be the first time.
But, for now, things are looking up in Selma. The defenders of the Confederacy finally won one, which is welcome news, because, lets face it folks, between the government, the "news" media and the dedicated leftists of various hues, we don't win too many. Thank the Lord for this victory--and strive to remain vigilant because the battle is probably not over yet.
by Al Benson Jr.
Back in September of 2012 I wrote two or three articles about a situation in Selma, Alabama where black domestic terrorists were trying to prevent a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from being put up in Live Oak Cemetery in an area called Confederate Circle. There was a big fuss over who owned the land in Confederate Circle. The United Daughters of the Confederacy noted the land had been deeded to them back in the 1880s, although there seemed to be a problem locating a copy of the deed. The local black civil rights terrorists refused to believe this and so trespassed on what would later, by court order, be deemed as the property of the UDC and they just flat out stopped the construction work, threatening to call in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who would, naturally, conduct a big march and demonstration which would be geared to stop any future work on the Forrest monument--with the "news" media naturally playing right along with them as they usually do.
The local UDC folks, no doubt having been labeled with the favorite Trotskyite term "racist" were all supposed to silently submit to the racial blackmail and retreat in silence.
It didn't quite work that way. The company that was doing the work on the monument, KTK Mining and the UDC took it to court and sued the City of Selma for refusing to protect their rights. Even though it's been well over a year now (so much for speedy trials) the City of Selma must, somewhere along the line, have realized that if it went to trial they would not win, and so they accepted a settlement put forth by KTK Mining for $100,000.
According to http://www.selmatimesjournal.com for November 26, 2013 we are told: "In a 5-3 vote, the Selma City Council voted to approve a settlement in a lawsuit over a monument to Confederate general and former Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrect, effectively ending the suit.The settlement terms include giving a deed to the one-acre tract of land containing the monument in Old Live Oak Cemetery to Chapter 53 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy." The council president voted in favor of this, along with four other members and said it was time for the city to move forward and focus on more important issues.
However, that decision was not enough for the local civil rights terrorists, one of which, Rose Sanders, also known as Faya Rose Toure, (interesting how these black radicals, like Obama, always seem to have more than one name) managed to get herself arrested for disorderly conduct at the city council meeting. But then, this is so typical of leftist radicals. If they can't get their way they attempt to disrupt everything so that nothing can be accomplished unless everyone is willing to give in to their radical agenda. This time it didn't work. That must have been a real blow to the fragile ego of Ms. Sanders/Toure. Shouting everyone down has always worked before--this time it didn't. How sad--for her, not for the rest of the folks there.
Even though KTK Mining has the right to go on with finishing construction of the Forrest Monument, I expect there will be all manner of nit-picky things the domestic terrorists will come up with to hamper the work and if nothing else works they will resort to outright vandalism. It wouldn't be the first time.
But, for now, things are looking up in Selma. The defenders of the Confederacy finally won one, which is welcome news, because, lets face it folks, between the government, the "news" media and the dedicated leftists of various hues, we don't win too many. Thank the Lord for this victory--and strive to remain vigilant because the battle is probably not over yet.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Better or Worse, it was Still a Pack of Lies!
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, President Obama has finally come out and apologized to the thousands of people that have had their current insurance cancelled. Big deal! I'm sure his "humble" apology will be of great help to them as they now sit with no insurance coverage.
Let's face facts. These folks were lied to by this current regime. Obama said that, in many cases, Obamacare would be better than their current policies. That statement begs the question and seeks to let him off the hook. Whether Obamacare is better or worse or equal to what these folks had is not what we are dealing with here. Regardless of the status of their current insurance policies, better, or worse, these people were lied to by this regime. There is no nice way to say it--and if they have lied to us about Obamacare, then what else have they lied about?
As we go along and keep tabs on the actions of the current Marxist regime, whether it's Benghazi or the Syrian situation or their new "educational" effort, Common Core (called by some "Commie Core") or whatever it is, the American people are not being told the truth. And what we laughingly refer to as the "news" media is complicit in all this.
Obama employed the classic Marxist tactic when he first ran for President in telling us if elected his administration would be the most transparent in our history. Actually it has been the exact opposite. The only time Obama has told us the truth is when he said he would fundamentally transform the United States--and he never told us how he planned to do that. Now we are finding out and his "transformation" scheme ain't all it was cracked up to be. but then, Marxism never is.
It has been reported that, if George Soros and the CFR people don't allow Obama to declare himself Dictator for life and he has to vacate Washington in 2016 then it is already planned that we will get Hitlery Clinton as his worthy successor. Doesn't that thought give you the warm fuzzies? Or maybe send chills up and down your back?
Either way, the totalitarianism will continue until all opposition has been suppressed.
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, President Obama has finally come out and apologized to the thousands of people that have had their current insurance cancelled. Big deal! I'm sure his "humble" apology will be of great help to them as they now sit with no insurance coverage.
Let's face facts. These folks were lied to by this current regime. Obama said that, in many cases, Obamacare would be better than their current policies. That statement begs the question and seeks to let him off the hook. Whether Obamacare is better or worse or equal to what these folks had is not what we are dealing with here. Regardless of the status of their current insurance policies, better, or worse, these people were lied to by this regime. There is no nice way to say it--and if they have lied to us about Obamacare, then what else have they lied about?
As we go along and keep tabs on the actions of the current Marxist regime, whether it's Benghazi or the Syrian situation or their new "educational" effort, Common Core (called by some "Commie Core") or whatever it is, the American people are not being told the truth. And what we laughingly refer to as the "news" media is complicit in all this.
Obama employed the classic Marxist tactic when he first ran for President in telling us if elected his administration would be the most transparent in our history. Actually it has been the exact opposite. The only time Obama has told us the truth is when he said he would fundamentally transform the United States--and he never told us how he planned to do that. Now we are finding out and his "transformation" scheme ain't all it was cracked up to be. but then, Marxism never is.
It has been reported that, if George Soros and the CFR people don't allow Obama to declare himself Dictator for life and he has to vacate Washington in 2016 then it is already planned that we will get Hitlery Clinton as his worthy successor. Doesn't that thought give you the warm fuzzies? Or maybe send chills up and down your back?
Either way, the totalitarianism will continue until all opposition has been suppressed.
Friday, October 11, 2013
When All Else Fails Just Blame the South
by Al Benson Jr.
A recent article on http://www.examiner.com displayed how totally asinine many of those on the theological and political left can really be.
That premier ambulance chaser, Je$$e Jack$on, claims that the continuing government shutdown has its roots in the Confederate States. Dear Je$$e tweeted: "Shutting down the US Govt. is the closest this Congress can get to seeing the Confederacy finally win." Another twitter noted that Jackson should "call out the Democratic Party for its racist past." How about doing the same thing for Abe Lincoln and the Republicans? Can't do that--Abe Lincoln is an untouchable icon and his "racist" views need to be shoved down the memory hole.
Another person labeled Jackson a "fraud" who makes money by exploiting his own people. That observation comes closer to the truth.
Folks, let's get real here. No one on either side of this entire shutdown charade has any use for the Confederacy or anything remotely Confederate. They all hate our guts, our flags, and symbols, and our history and heritage as well.
Blaming the Confederacy for this mess is just one more way of playing the race card.
You might as well blame the Easter Bunny because all the hens quit laying Easter eggs the day before Easter. One makes as much sense as the other, but, then, the theological and political left has never been noted for their ability to make any real sense. It's a good thing the "news" media is there to cover for them.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Follow The Money
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently some friends in Texas sent me a little booklet. It was a speech given by a General Smedley Butler and the title of it was "War Is A Racket." General Butler, who was a decorated Marine veteran, told, in his speech, originally given back in 1933, how much money there was to be made in a war and who made it.
Although many may regard his speech, 80 years old now, as a bit antiquated, nonetheless he raised some excellent points.
Now, 80 years after General Butler's speech someone else has sent me a few comments about the Rothschild banking empire. In their commentary they noted: "In the year 2000 there were 8 countries without a Rothschild-owned central bank. They were: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Iran."
"Now there are only 4 left; Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran." The Obama Regime is busily trying to get us into a war in Syria, which no one wants but the bankers and the Israel Lobby. They've worked the same game in Iran. Does anyone see a pattern here? How about following the money and connecting the dots.
Everyone gets something out of this but the American taxpayer and all he gets is the bill for it all--and his sons (and daughters, now) get to shed their blood so Israel can be rid of more of her enemies and the bankers can make big bucks. Such a deal, right?
Recently some friends in Texas sent me a little booklet. It was a speech given by a General Smedley Butler and the title of it was "War Is A Racket." General Butler, who was a decorated Marine veteran, told, in his speech, originally given back in 1933, how much money there was to be made in a war and who made it.
Although many may regard his speech, 80 years old now, as a bit antiquated, nonetheless he raised some excellent points.
Now, 80 years after General Butler's speech someone else has sent me a few comments about the Rothschild banking empire. In their commentary they noted: "In the year 2000 there were 8 countries without a Rothschild-owned central bank. They were: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Iran."
"Now there are only 4 left; Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran." The Obama Regime is busily trying to get us into a war in Syria, which no one wants but the bankers and the Israel Lobby. They've worked the same game in Iran. Does anyone see a pattern here? How about following the money and connecting the dots.
Everyone gets something out of this but the American taxpayer and all he gets is the bill for it all--and his sons (and daughters, now) get to shed their blood so Israel can be rid of more of her enemies and the bankers can make big bucks. Such a deal, right?
Monday, June 03, 2013
Homeschool History Series:
A real teaching alternative for Christian, Pro-Southern parents
by Al Benson Jr.
Are you tired of politically correct "histories" of the War Between the States? Want to learn the facts about its true causes, the actual events, and the people involved?
Now there is an educational program available for high schoolers and Mom's and Dads too. Composed from carefully researched facts about the War Between the States it consists of five easy-to-read mini-histories, which provide accurate and key informaton regarding the War that changed America.
Each mini-history, which includes an accompanying test, is $10.00. This includes grading of the test and return to the student if desired, with appropriate comments. You can purchase individual booklets or the entire set by sending check or money order to The Copperhead Chronicle, P O Box 55, Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.
The mini-histories include:
1. Apostasy, Abolitionism, The Civil War and Reconstruction
This explains the root causes of the War Between the States and debunks the myth about slavery as the reason for the War. Describes how the War and "Reconstruction" afterwards were designed to change our system of government into something quite different from what was envisioned by the Founders. (28 pages)
2. The Abolitionists
Spells out the theological convictions of many in the Abolitionist Movement, showing the radical abolitionism was actually a religion; a religion that was a substitute for biblical Christianity. (14 pages)
3. The Socialist Supporters of Honest Abe
This was the foundation document for the book by Al Benson Jr. and Walter D. Kennedy Lincoln's Marxists, which is available on Amazon.com
It reveals the almost totally covered up fact that communists, socialists, and various other European radicals totally supported Lincoln and the Union cause during the War. Several well-known Union generals were actually socialists and some were communists who came here after the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. The author names names. (13 pages)
4. A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
Beginning with the Declaration of Independence it presents a history of secessionist sentiment in the United States. Shows that up until 1860 most of the country thought that secession was a legitimate option, and not just the South! (28 pages)
5.Emancipation As Propaganda
This booklet goes into detail about what a sham the Emancipation Proclamation really was and how it was viewed by many, both here and in Europe when it was issued.
For a limited time, all 5 booklets and tests can be purchased at a discount when purchased together at one time. Purchase of all 5 together would be $45.00, a saving of $5.00, and there is no shipping charge.
A real teaching alternative for Christian, Pro-Southern parents
by Al Benson Jr.
Are you tired of politically correct "histories" of the War Between the States? Want to learn the facts about its true causes, the actual events, and the people involved?
Now there is an educational program available for high schoolers and Mom's and Dads too. Composed from carefully researched facts about the War Between the States it consists of five easy-to-read mini-histories, which provide accurate and key informaton regarding the War that changed America.
Each mini-history, which includes an accompanying test, is $10.00. This includes grading of the test and return to the student if desired, with appropriate comments. You can purchase individual booklets or the entire set by sending check or money order to The Copperhead Chronicle, P O Box 55, Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.
The mini-histories include:
1. Apostasy, Abolitionism, The Civil War and Reconstruction
This explains the root causes of the War Between the States and debunks the myth about slavery as the reason for the War. Describes how the War and "Reconstruction" afterwards were designed to change our system of government into something quite different from what was envisioned by the Founders. (28 pages)
2. The Abolitionists
Spells out the theological convictions of many in the Abolitionist Movement, showing the radical abolitionism was actually a religion; a religion that was a substitute for biblical Christianity. (14 pages)
3. The Socialist Supporters of Honest Abe
This was the foundation document for the book by Al Benson Jr. and Walter D. Kennedy Lincoln's Marxists, which is available on Amazon.com
It reveals the almost totally covered up fact that communists, socialists, and various other European radicals totally supported Lincoln and the Union cause during the War. Several well-known Union generals were actually socialists and some were communists who came here after the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. The author names names. (13 pages)
4. A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
Beginning with the Declaration of Independence it presents a history of secessionist sentiment in the United States. Shows that up until 1860 most of the country thought that secession was a legitimate option, and not just the South! (28 pages)
5.Emancipation As Propaganda
This booklet goes into detail about what a sham the Emancipation Proclamation really was and how it was viewed by many, both here and in Europe when it was issued.
For a limited time, all 5 booklets and tests can be purchased at a discount when purchased together at one time. Purchase of all 5 together would be $45.00, a saving of $5.00, and there is no shipping charge.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Gun Confiscation Has Always Been the Name of the Game
by Al Benson Jr.
A recent article from http://www.infowars.com has noted that: "The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation...The DOJ memo states the administration 'believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation' according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks 'won't work without requiring national gun registration.' The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration's public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that the laws proposed by Obama would not take away a gun from a single law-abiding family."
Well, I supposed you might be tempted to say that, in a sort of convoluted way, he was telling the truth. He doesn't want the guns from a single law-abiding family--he wants to confiscate them ALL from ALL law-abiding families!
Gun registration has always been the prelude to gun confiscation and this administration fully intends to do away with the Second Amendment rights of all Americans--except for those Council on Foreign Relations fat cats and their banker friends who exist at the top of the political heap. We surrender our guns so they can all plunder us with impunity.
And those Republican congresspersons that think they can deal with this administration regarding "responsible" gun control measures either have mush for brains or they sincerely hope the electorate does.
We need to contact our Senators and tell them, under no circumstances should they vote for any bill that even has the word "gun" in it, nor for any amendment to any bill that has the word "gun" in it. If they ignore us and do it anyway, which many of them dearly want to do, then we should work to defeat them in the next election. Let's not be so shortsighted that we forget what they do now by election time if they do decide to sell us out.
by Al Benson Jr.
A recent article from http://www.infowars.com has noted that: "The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation...The DOJ memo states the administration 'believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation' according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks 'won't work without requiring national gun registration.' The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration's public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that the laws proposed by Obama would not take away a gun from a single law-abiding family."
Well, I supposed you might be tempted to say that, in a sort of convoluted way, he was telling the truth. He doesn't want the guns from a single law-abiding family--he wants to confiscate them ALL from ALL law-abiding families!
Gun registration has always been the prelude to gun confiscation and this administration fully intends to do away with the Second Amendment rights of all Americans--except for those Council on Foreign Relations fat cats and their banker friends who exist at the top of the political heap. We surrender our guns so they can all plunder us with impunity.
And those Republican congresspersons that think they can deal with this administration regarding "responsible" gun control measures either have mush for brains or they sincerely hope the electorate does.
We need to contact our Senators and tell them, under no circumstances should they vote for any bill that even has the word "gun" in it, nor for any amendment to any bill that has the word "gun" in it. If they ignore us and do it anyway, which many of them dearly want to do, then we should work to defeat them in the next election. Let's not be so shortsighted that we forget what they do now by election time if they do decide to sell us out.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Abolish the Local Sheriff?
by Al Benson Jr.
For The Copperhead Chronicle Blog Spot
This afternoon, 1/26/13, I received an email from http://chasvoice.blogspot.com that dealt with a rather shocking story considering current national conditions. It started out: "A news report has quietly been making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state." Quite naturally the prostitute press has not bothered to report this--better if the average citizen does not know this kind of thing--no embarrassing questions that way.
However, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware and he has issued a mandate to county commissioners letting them know that the sheriffs in the three counties in Delaware no longer have arrest powers. You might think that this is not important, after all, Delaware is just a small state on the East Coast.
But--further checking reveals that there is a country-wide effort to strip county sheriffs of their enumerated powers which are mandated in the constitutions of the various states. This movement would have the net effect of abolishing county sheriff's departments and adding the power of federal law enforcement agencies. Well, gee, what a surprise!
You don't think any of this might have anything to do with some county sheriffs across the country telling the Obama administration that they will not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens in their counties do you?
Naw, couldn't be. I didn't think so either. It's just another one of those continuing coincidences that we are seeing more and more of as the Obama administration seeks to drag this country further and further into the Marxist orbit. Nothing to worry about, right? Right???
If you are one of those folks that think there might be a small problem here, make copies of this and pass it along to your friends. Maybe even give your county sheriff a copy. Write to the editor of your local paper and tell him about it. He may not print your letter, but at least he will know that you know.
by Al Benson Jr.
For The Copperhead Chronicle Blog Spot
This afternoon, 1/26/13, I received an email from http://chasvoice.blogspot.com that dealt with a rather shocking story considering current national conditions. It started out: "A news report has quietly been making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state." Quite naturally the prostitute press has not bothered to report this--better if the average citizen does not know this kind of thing--no embarrassing questions that way.
However, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware and he has issued a mandate to county commissioners letting them know that the sheriffs in the three counties in Delaware no longer have arrest powers. You might think that this is not important, after all, Delaware is just a small state on the East Coast.
But--further checking reveals that there is a country-wide effort to strip county sheriffs of their enumerated powers which are mandated in the constitutions of the various states. This movement would have the net effect of abolishing county sheriff's departments and adding the power of federal law enforcement agencies. Well, gee, what a surprise!
You don't think any of this might have anything to do with some county sheriffs across the country telling the Obama administration that they will not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens in their counties do you?
Naw, couldn't be. I didn't think so either. It's just another one of those continuing coincidences that we are seeing more and more of as the Obama administration seeks to drag this country further and further into the Marxist orbit. Nothing to worry about, right? Right???
If you are one of those folks that think there might be a small problem here, make copies of this and pass it along to your friends. Maybe even give your county sheriff a copy. Write to the editor of your local paper and tell him about it. He may not print your letter, but at least he will know that you know.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Political Correctness Gone Crazy
by Al Benson Jr.
I debated about what I should use for a title for this brief article, but then I thought, after all, I am talking about the public school system so the title fits.
Recently I read an article on http://politicaloutcast.com which talked about 6-year olds playing cops and robbers with each other during recess at school. These kids are in the first grade, yet the school has suspended them for playing cops and robbers! Can you believe it? Well, again, it's a public school so, yes, you can. The article noted: "In the assistant principal's letter to the student's parents, she wrote that their son 'threatened to shoot another student." Come on folks, this is two 6-year olds playing cops and robbers. Of course they pretend to shoot one another. I shudder to think what could have happened if they had been playing cowboys and Indians. That would have been a racial problem of international importance. They might have had to call a representative from the United Nations in to counsel the white kid for perceived hostility toward someone of an indigenous race.
However, the parents of the youngster were not amused. They ended up getting a lawyer to appeal the decision of the school. The decision was appealed and the school ended up overturning the student's suspension, which was so idiotic it never should have happened in the first place. I can remember, as a kid, we often played cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians at school--sometimes whole bunches of us on one side or the other. Just think, had I grown up in more politically correct days, half my school could have been suspended for the unconscionable "sin" of pointing our fingers at each other and pretending they were guns. And for all the pretend shooting we did of one another, to my knowledge none of the kids I went to school with turned out to be cold-blooded killers. We were, for the most part, pretty normal kids who, when we grew up, got on with out lives and the pretend carnage we committed as 6-year olds or 9-year olds never really affected us all that much.
But in this enlightened day and age the sin of pointing your finger and someone and saying "bang" is second only to the sin of "white racism" which according to some government educrats, white kids can display by eating peanut butter sandwiches in front of kids from Somalia.
Some of this foolishness is part of the reason we never sent our kids to public schools anyplace we ever lived and why we encourage others to eschew those supposed institutions of "learning."
Public schooling has a very suspicious and checkered history going right back to its Unitarian/socialist inspired origins and things have only gotten worse since those dubious beginnings. Kids don't learn to read; they don't learn accurate history, and the literature they are given is horrendous and the older they get the worse it all gets. Public schools don't educate--they brainwash--which is their real reason for existence. They act as a buffer against Christian education, which they were founded to combat. The textbook protest in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s proved that.
The Internet abounds with sites you can do research about the public schools on, so sometime when you have an extra six or seven hours check it out. I can guarantee, if you use discernment, you will not like most of what you will find.
by Al Benson Jr.
I debated about what I should use for a title for this brief article, but then I thought, after all, I am talking about the public school system so the title fits.
Recently I read an article on http://politicaloutcast.com which talked about 6-year olds playing cops and robbers with each other during recess at school. These kids are in the first grade, yet the school has suspended them for playing cops and robbers! Can you believe it? Well, again, it's a public school so, yes, you can. The article noted: "In the assistant principal's letter to the student's parents, she wrote that their son 'threatened to shoot another student." Come on folks, this is two 6-year olds playing cops and robbers. Of course they pretend to shoot one another. I shudder to think what could have happened if they had been playing cowboys and Indians. That would have been a racial problem of international importance. They might have had to call a representative from the United Nations in to counsel the white kid for perceived hostility toward someone of an indigenous race.
However, the parents of the youngster were not amused. They ended up getting a lawyer to appeal the decision of the school. The decision was appealed and the school ended up overturning the student's suspension, which was so idiotic it never should have happened in the first place. I can remember, as a kid, we often played cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians at school--sometimes whole bunches of us on one side or the other. Just think, had I grown up in more politically correct days, half my school could have been suspended for the unconscionable "sin" of pointing our fingers at each other and pretending they were guns. And for all the pretend shooting we did of one another, to my knowledge none of the kids I went to school with turned out to be cold-blooded killers. We were, for the most part, pretty normal kids who, when we grew up, got on with out lives and the pretend carnage we committed as 6-year olds or 9-year olds never really affected us all that much.
But in this enlightened day and age the sin of pointing your finger and someone and saying "bang" is second only to the sin of "white racism" which according to some government educrats, white kids can display by eating peanut butter sandwiches in front of kids from Somalia.
Some of this foolishness is part of the reason we never sent our kids to public schools anyplace we ever lived and why we encourage others to eschew those supposed institutions of "learning."
Public schooling has a very suspicious and checkered history going right back to its Unitarian/socialist inspired origins and things have only gotten worse since those dubious beginnings. Kids don't learn to read; they don't learn accurate history, and the literature they are given is horrendous and the older they get the worse it all gets. Public schools don't educate--they brainwash--which is their real reason for existence. They act as a buffer against Christian education, which they were founded to combat. The textbook protest in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s proved that.
The Internet abounds with sites you can do research about the public schools on, so sometime when you have an extra six or seven hours check it out. I can guarantee, if you use discernment, you will not like most of what you will find.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Mass Killings--Do You Detect a Pattern?
by Al Benson Jr.
There has been all manner of commentary on the Internet regarding the recent tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
Some have suggested that we look at the bigger picture--one the includes Aurora, Colorado, Columbine High School, the recent Oregon shootings and several others. In each of the school shootings there seems to be a number of things that repeat themselves. It's almost like there is a set formula for these events, as if they are all part of a staged drama, brought about to create a certain public climate.
One commentator noticed that every one seems to take place in a "gun free" area, which means that there are already laws on the books banning guns in those places. Yet we continue to hear the multitudinous screams for more gun control. If these shootings are taking place in already-existing gun free zones, then what good will more gun control laws do? That question is never answered, or even addressed. In fact it is studiously ignored.
He also noted that every shooter, when they get to him, is either already dead or is mentally impaired or in some way unable to be questioned. Therefore none of them is ever available to make any public statements. How convenient!
After each shooting the "news" media delves almost exclusively into the human interest part of the event. No questions are asked that will reveal any kind of information about the shooting or possible shooters other than the one found dead on the scene. It is all media fluff--guaranteed to be real "tear-jerker" stuff, while passing no real information along to the public.
Then comes the usual plethora of calls for more gun control, heralded forth by the usual suspects in the socialist and ultra-liberal camps and their compliant lap dog media. You've heard it all before and you will hear it all again--until the federal government manages to do away with the Second Amendment. That's what it's all about.
According to CNN's Don Lemon, guns "...should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children." Leave it to CNN to put that kind of a spin on it, but let's face it, that's what they are there for.
The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo--that bastion of constitutional liberty--is now busy tinkering with ideas to force gun confiscation in his state, by hook or by crook, makes no difference. You must remember that to these people the end justifies the means.
Just remember, "gun control is really people control." That's the real name of the game.
There has been all manner of commentary on the Internet regarding the recent tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
Some have suggested that we look at the bigger picture--one the includes Aurora, Colorado, Columbine High School, the recent Oregon shootings and several others. In each of the school shootings there seems to be a number of things that repeat themselves. It's almost like there is a set formula for these events, as if they are all part of a staged drama, brought about to create a certain public climate.
One commentator noticed that every one seems to take place in a "gun free" area, which means that there are already laws on the books banning guns in those places. Yet we continue to hear the multitudinous screams for more gun control. If these shootings are taking place in already-existing gun free zones, then what good will more gun control laws do? That question is never answered, or even addressed. In fact it is studiously ignored.
He also noted that every shooter, when they get to him, is either already dead or is mentally impaired or in some way unable to be questioned. Therefore none of them is ever available to make any public statements. How convenient!
After each shooting the "news" media delves almost exclusively into the human interest part of the event. No questions are asked that will reveal any kind of information about the shooting or possible shooters other than the one found dead on the scene. It is all media fluff--guaranteed to be real "tear-jerker" stuff, while passing no real information along to the public.
Then comes the usual plethora of calls for more gun control, heralded forth by the usual suspects in the socialist and ultra-liberal camps and their compliant lap dog media. You've heard it all before and you will hear it all again--until the federal government manages to do away with the Second Amendment. That's what it's all about.
According to CNN's Don Lemon, guns "...should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children." Leave it to CNN to put that kind of a spin on it, but let's face it, that's what they are there for.
The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo--that bastion of constitutional liberty--is now busy tinkering with ideas to force gun confiscation in his state, by hook or by crook, makes no difference. You must remember that to these people the end justifies the means.
Just remember, "gun control is really people control." That's the real name of the game.
Monday, December 10, 2012
"Right Wing Fascists"
by Al Benson Jr.
I remember when I was a youngster, (ancient history now) that people used to refer to Hitler as a "right-wing fascist" and they used to promote the false idea that while Stalin was on the far left, Hitler was on the far right. Now granted, Communists and fascists did not especially like one another, but the reason for that was that they were in competition for total government and no total government figure likes competition.
Of the two systems, fascism is the most efficient because the people living under it maintain the facade of owning the property, which means that they are responsible for its upkeep and the government tells they what they can or cannot do with it and when. With Communism, the state claims ownership of all property, and therefore the state is responsible for taking care of it all. So, as a totalitarian worldview fascism is more efficient.
Both Communism and fascism are different forms of total government and therefore both systems belong over on the far left of the political spectrum. That being the case, if the far left represents total government, then the far right has to mean almost no government at all--anarchy. So as far a Communism and fascism go politically, we have all been lied to--both are on the far left and both are equally reprehensible.
It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, yet how many people really stop to think about it? Most just accept what they've heard all their lives and never give it a thought. You'd think that civics or political science classes in public schools would deal with something as elementary as this, yet in school I don't ever recall hearing anything about this and I was in school during some of the Cold War years, graduating back in 1956.
I recall briefly seeing some of the McCarthy hearings on television and not paying them any mind. I wish I had had the perception back then to realize what it was all about. I never heard anything about both Communism and fascism being on the political left until I heard a speaker in 1970 give a talk on different systems of government.
I wondered why this mystery was never cleared up until I realized that it was deliberate. The politicians and news-twisters we call the "news" media wanted it that way. They wanted Hitler portrayed as a right-winger so that people on the right politically could be smeared with the Nazi identity brush. Mostly it worked.
So, folks, remember this brief little political history lesson--both Communism and fascism are way over there on the far left politically--and theologically--because they are both totalitarian theologies..
by Al Benson Jr.
I remember when I was a youngster, (ancient history now) that people used to refer to Hitler as a "right-wing fascist" and they used to promote the false idea that while Stalin was on the far left, Hitler was on the far right. Now granted, Communists and fascists did not especially like one another, but the reason for that was that they were in competition for total government and no total government figure likes competition.
Of the two systems, fascism is the most efficient because the people living under it maintain the facade of owning the property, which means that they are responsible for its upkeep and the government tells they what they can or cannot do with it and when. With Communism, the state claims ownership of all property, and therefore the state is responsible for taking care of it all. So, as a totalitarian worldview fascism is more efficient.
Both Communism and fascism are different forms of total government and therefore both systems belong over on the far left of the political spectrum. That being the case, if the far left represents total government, then the far right has to mean almost no government at all--anarchy. So as far a Communism and fascism go politically, we have all been lied to--both are on the far left and both are equally reprehensible.
It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, yet how many people really stop to think about it? Most just accept what they've heard all their lives and never give it a thought. You'd think that civics or political science classes in public schools would deal with something as elementary as this, yet in school I don't ever recall hearing anything about this and I was in school during some of the Cold War years, graduating back in 1956.
I recall briefly seeing some of the McCarthy hearings on television and not paying them any mind. I wish I had had the perception back then to realize what it was all about. I never heard anything about both Communism and fascism being on the political left until I heard a speaker in 1970 give a talk on different systems of government.
I wondered why this mystery was never cleared up until I realized that it was deliberate. The politicians and news-twisters we call the "news" media wanted it that way. They wanted Hitler portrayed as a right-winger so that people on the right politically could be smeared with the Nazi identity brush. Mostly it worked.
So, folks, remember this brief little political history lesson--both Communism and fascism are way over there on the far left politically--and theologically--because they are both totalitarian theologies..
He Was Red All Along
by Al Benson Jr.
For literally decades we were assured that Nelson Mandela from South Africa was not a Communist, that this wild accusation was thrown at him only so the forces of apartheid in South Africa could stigmatize him before the world. We were told his only crime was wanting equal treatment for blacks in South Africa, that he was really a South African patriot--and on and on the usual media drivel went.
Now that South Africa has basically gone Communist (is there a lesson for the US here?) we are informed that, guess what, Mandela was a Communist after all. What a surprise! Some of us knew this forty years ago in spite of what the media told us. Groups like the John Birch Society were smeared as "Red baiters" simply for telling the truth that Mandela had lied about.
In an article by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan that was on http://www.telegraph.co.uk appeared the following: "For decades it was one of the most enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela. the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government at the time alleged?...Now nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustices perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr. Mandela was a Communist Party member after all."
The articles continued: "But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr. Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr. Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule."
Let's get one thing straight here. If Mandela was a Communist then his first primary concern was to further whatever agenda the Communist Party in his country put forward, and not to help black people. Communists are noted the world over for using black people as cannon fodder in their "wars of resistance." So if Mandela was, indeed, Red, then his first loyalty was to the Party and not his people.
The British researcher, after noting Mandela's Party membership, went on to talk about how "magnanimous" Mandela was to all South Africans. Anyone who knows anything about Communists knows they are not magnanimous people. That sentiment does not fit into their agenda for world governance, which, contrary to poplular opinion, they still have.
I wonder if Mandela's magnanimity extended to his wife, Winnie, who, while he was still in prison was noted for her practice of having her political opponents "necklaced." If you don't know what that term implies check it out on the Internet referencing it to her.
So it's all just another case of the public, world-wide, being lied to by the politicians and the media movers and shakers. So what else is new?
by Al Benson Jr.
For literally decades we were assured that Nelson Mandela from South Africa was not a Communist, that this wild accusation was thrown at him only so the forces of apartheid in South Africa could stigmatize him before the world. We were told his only crime was wanting equal treatment for blacks in South Africa, that he was really a South African patriot--and on and on the usual media drivel went.
Now that South Africa has basically gone Communist (is there a lesson for the US here?) we are informed that, guess what, Mandela was a Communist after all. What a surprise! Some of us knew this forty years ago in spite of what the media told us. Groups like the John Birch Society were smeared as "Red baiters" simply for telling the truth that Mandela had lied about.
In an article by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan that was on http://www.telegraph.co.uk appeared the following: "For decades it was one of the most enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela. the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government at the time alleged?...Now nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustices perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr. Mandela was a Communist Party member after all."
The articles continued: "But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr. Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr. Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule."
Let's get one thing straight here. If Mandela was a Communist then his first primary concern was to further whatever agenda the Communist Party in his country put forward, and not to help black people. Communists are noted the world over for using black people as cannon fodder in their "wars of resistance." So if Mandela was, indeed, Red, then his first loyalty was to the Party and not his people.
The British researcher, after noting Mandela's Party membership, went on to talk about how "magnanimous" Mandela was to all South Africans. Anyone who knows anything about Communists knows they are not magnanimous people. That sentiment does not fit into their agenda for world governance, which, contrary to poplular opinion, they still have.
I wonder if Mandela's magnanimity extended to his wife, Winnie, who, while he was still in prison was noted for her practice of having her political opponents "necklaced." If you don't know what that term implies check it out on the Internet referencing it to her.
So it's all just another case of the public, world-wide, being lied to by the politicians and the media movers and shakers. So what else is new?
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
The Marxist Mindset
by Al Benson Jr.
Some writers have observed Marxists and their actions and concluded that they are liars and hypocrites. These do not understand the Marxist mindset or worldview.
The late Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote in his informative little book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) the following: "The Communists are not hypocrites. They suffer from paranoic delusions of an intense sincerity. They are so enmeshed in the delusions of Marxism-Leninism that they are beyond the scope of rational argument and conviction. All observed phenomena are interpreted within the framework of their preconceived conclusions. If they were hypocrites it would be much easier to deal with them. You can make a bargain with a huypocrite; you can scare a hypocrite. When you are dealing with paranoia of highly organized delusional patterns, your sole resource is to acknowledge and understand these patterns and take appropriate measures to protect yourself against the conduct which results from the delusions."
Dr. Schwarz noted that it is not possible for a Communist to lie in the interest of Communism because any statement he or she makes that will further the Communist agenda is automatically the truth in their eyes. Any statement that advances the Communist program is, therefore, true and we can always trust Communists to tell "Marxist-Leninist truth." Therefore, any lie, fable, or fairy tale that will advance Communist conquest and/or control is automatically not a lie, but rather is "Marxist truth." Final and complete maturity for the Communist is reached when you get to the point where you identify your emotions completely with what the Party wants. Not the slightest bit of room for individual thinking here--even the very thought of it is :"thought crime."
People need to realize that this is where Marxists are coming from and that any action they take--robbery, rape, falsehood, deception--anything they do that will advance the Marxist agenda is, in their eyes, the truth and is, therefore, righteous and "holy" to them. Communism is, in fact, a false theology. Whittaker Chambers, in his excellent book Witness noted that Communism and Christianity are, in fact, two irreconcilable faiths. At root, Communism is not economic, it is theological. It's adherents would deny that truth, but it is nonetheless a truth. If you wish to understand the Marxist then begin to understand his mindset.
One might be led to wonder if this is one reason the Republicans have so much trouble dealing with Obama on so many issues. He was raised in a totally Marxist environment and that's the way he thinks. Of course since the current crop of Republican "leaders" lives for no other reason than to pretend to resist Obama's agenda before dutifully caving in to it, it may not make that much difference.
Whittaker Chambers' book Witness is still available on Amazon.com and would be worth picking up to grasp the Communist worldview. Having just finished reading it, I recommend it.
by Al Benson Jr.
Some writers have observed Marxists and their actions and concluded that they are liars and hypocrites. These do not understand the Marxist mindset or worldview.
The late Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote in his informative little book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) the following: "The Communists are not hypocrites. They suffer from paranoic delusions of an intense sincerity. They are so enmeshed in the delusions of Marxism-Leninism that they are beyond the scope of rational argument and conviction. All observed phenomena are interpreted within the framework of their preconceived conclusions. If they were hypocrites it would be much easier to deal with them. You can make a bargain with a huypocrite; you can scare a hypocrite. When you are dealing with paranoia of highly organized delusional patterns, your sole resource is to acknowledge and understand these patterns and take appropriate measures to protect yourself against the conduct which results from the delusions."
Dr. Schwarz noted that it is not possible for a Communist to lie in the interest of Communism because any statement he or she makes that will further the Communist agenda is automatically the truth in their eyes. Any statement that advances the Communist program is, therefore, true and we can always trust Communists to tell "Marxist-Leninist truth." Therefore, any lie, fable, or fairy tale that will advance Communist conquest and/or control is automatically not a lie, but rather is "Marxist truth." Final and complete maturity for the Communist is reached when you get to the point where you identify your emotions completely with what the Party wants. Not the slightest bit of room for individual thinking here--even the very thought of it is :"thought crime."
People need to realize that this is where Marxists are coming from and that any action they take--robbery, rape, falsehood, deception--anything they do that will advance the Marxist agenda is, in their eyes, the truth and is, therefore, righteous and "holy" to them. Communism is, in fact, a false theology. Whittaker Chambers, in his excellent book Witness noted that Communism and Christianity are, in fact, two irreconcilable faiths. At root, Communism is not economic, it is theological. It's adherents would deny that truth, but it is nonetheless a truth. If you wish to understand the Marxist then begin to understand his mindset.
One might be led to wonder if this is one reason the Republicans have so much trouble dealing with Obama on so many issues. He was raised in a totally Marxist environment and that's the way he thinks. Of course since the current crop of Republican "leaders" lives for no other reason than to pretend to resist Obama's agenda before dutifully caving in to it, it may not make that much difference.
Whittaker Chambers' book Witness is still available on Amazon.com and would be worth picking up to grasp the Communist worldview. Having just finished reading it, I recommend it.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Obama--the Superlative Vote Getter
by Al Benson Jr.
You have to give Comrade Obama credit. He sure knows how to rack up the votes. Votes for him literally keep counting and counting and counting. I received an article from http://www.punditpress.com that had a headline that said: Breaking: St. Lucie County Florida Had 141.1% Turnout; Obama Won County.
The article noted that: "Out of 175,554 registered voters, 247,713 vote cards were cast in St. Lucie County, Florida on Tuesday. Barack Obama won the country." With that kind of extra "help" I would guess he would have won the county. With 72,159 more votes cast than there were registered voters how could he miss?
The article continued: "Along with this questionable result, Mr. Obama also received over 99% of the vote in numerous districts in Broward County. In various districts in Cleveland, he received 100% of the vote. In Florida, Mr. Obama received over 99% of the vote in precincts where GOP inspectors had been removed. Gee,. what a surprise. Sounds like all the Romney voters just stayed home so Obama could win all these precincts by 100%--or over
From the same source yet another article stating: Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors were Removed; Turnout Somehow "30%" Above Gov't Numbers. The article also noted that "Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations... Coincidentally (or not) Mr. Obama received 'astronomical' numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received 'over 99%' of the vote. Ward 4 which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55." And also "Obama won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In Ohio, Obama won a county with 108% voter registration."
Yet another source http://poorrichardsnews.com said "Voter fraud? Boston reports 129% voter turnout" It also noted figures for Ward 18 in three specific precincts where Obama received 97.15%, 98.91% and 97.57% respectively. Doesn't sound like anybody in Massachusetts voted for Romney either. He might as well have stayed home. If you took all these kinds of results and translated them nationwide Obama would have gotten 110% of the vote and Romney would actually owe him several votes.
Vote fraud? Why perish the thought! Such would never happen in our "democracy" would it? After all, if you can't trust "the system" then who or what can you trust? Right? And you know the Obama administration is so open and transparent they would never allow such to go on, don't you? Well, don't you? Someone please speak up--I don't hear any answers.
Awhile back Obama was caught with his microphone on when he thought it was off. He was telling the Russian ambassador to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I will have more flexibility after the election is over." Almost makes you wonder if even at that point, several months ago, the results of this election were already a done deal and everybody involved already knew Obama would be back, no matter what the voters wanted. If that is the case, then the whole election charade, including the debates, primaries and all the rest, was nothing but one gigantic dog and pony show for the benefit of the ignorant masses. As the man once said--"it's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes". The American people have been had--but then that's nothing new. It's been going on since Abraham Lincoln and we still haven't figured it out--thanks to our public school "educations."
by Al Benson Jr.
You have to give Comrade Obama credit. He sure knows how to rack up the votes. Votes for him literally keep counting and counting and counting. I received an article from http://www.punditpress.com that had a headline that said: Breaking: St. Lucie County Florida Had 141.1% Turnout; Obama Won County.
The article noted that: "Out of 175,554 registered voters, 247,713 vote cards were cast in St. Lucie County, Florida on Tuesday. Barack Obama won the country." With that kind of extra "help" I would guess he would have won the county. With 72,159 more votes cast than there were registered voters how could he miss?
The article continued: "Along with this questionable result, Mr. Obama also received over 99% of the vote in numerous districts in Broward County. In various districts in Cleveland, he received 100% of the vote. In Florida, Mr. Obama received over 99% of the vote in precincts where GOP inspectors had been removed. Gee,. what a surprise. Sounds like all the Romney voters just stayed home so Obama could win all these precincts by 100%--or over
From the same source yet another article stating: Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors were Removed; Turnout Somehow "30%" Above Gov't Numbers. The article also noted that "Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations... Coincidentally (or not) Mr. Obama received 'astronomical' numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received 'over 99%' of the vote. Ward 4 which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55." And also "Obama won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In Ohio, Obama won a county with 108% voter registration."
Yet another source http://poorrichardsnews.com said "Voter fraud? Boston reports 129% voter turnout" It also noted figures for Ward 18 in three specific precincts where Obama received 97.15%, 98.91% and 97.57% respectively. Doesn't sound like anybody in Massachusetts voted for Romney either. He might as well have stayed home. If you took all these kinds of results and translated them nationwide Obama would have gotten 110% of the vote and Romney would actually owe him several votes.
Vote fraud? Why perish the thought! Such would never happen in our "democracy" would it? After all, if you can't trust "the system" then who or what can you trust? Right? And you know the Obama administration is so open and transparent they would never allow such to go on, don't you? Well, don't you? Someone please speak up--I don't hear any answers.
Awhile back Obama was caught with his microphone on when he thought it was off. He was telling the Russian ambassador to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I will have more flexibility after the election is over." Almost makes you wonder if even at that point, several months ago, the results of this election were already a done deal and everybody involved already knew Obama would be back, no matter what the voters wanted. If that is the case, then the whole election charade, including the debates, primaries and all the rest, was nothing but one gigantic dog and pony show for the benefit of the ignorant masses. As the man once said--"it's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes". The American people have been had--but then that's nothing new. It's been going on since Abraham Lincoln and we still haven't figured it out--thanks to our public school "educations."
Thursday, November 08, 2012
The New Republican Left
by Al Benson Jr.
Ever since Tuesday, November 6th when we had that debacle charitably called an election there has been much public soul-searching regarding the Republican Party and its future.
Some have advocated that the Party "get rid of all that right-wing stuff" and move to the "center", which is really the left but they don't dare call it that. Others have advocated that real conservatives secede from the Republican Party and form a really conservative third party. Of these two solutions I would prefer the latter.
If the real conservatives did get out of the Republican Party then those who stayed in could just merge with the Democratic Party because they aren't all the different anyway. You could name them "the Republicrat Party." You would still end up with two parties.
Former presidential candidate Herman Cain wants a third party but he doesn't want the Ron Paul people in it. He says we need a "legitimate third party." The Ron Paul folks aren't legitimate? Why Herman? The Ron Paul folks are a lot more legitimate than what passes for the Republican Party at this point.
I said on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com on July 14th and September 30th of this year that I felt that Romney was going to toss the election to Obama and do a "John McCain" on us and that the Republican establishment had no problem with that. So far it looks like I might be right. I really wish I had been wrong.
But when you come down to it both major parties are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission--the one world government boys--and so both parties are essentially the same--two different wings on the same socialist turkey. Years ago George Wallace said there was not a dime's worth of difference between them. Turns out old George was right on the money.
Question is, if both of these "political parties" are controlled by a group that advocates the US being part of a one world government, the question could be asked, and rightly so, if either one of them are legitimate? The only major difference between them is rhetorical.
Maybe they should merge officially. That way we could see the Old Left, the New Left and the Republican Left all in one happy group and those that are pretending to be conservative could quit pretending and hoist the Red flag along with Comrade Obama and the rest. At least it would be more honest than what we have now.
by Al Benson Jr.
Ever since Tuesday, November 6th when we had that debacle charitably called an election there has been much public soul-searching regarding the Republican Party and its future.
Some have advocated that the Party "get rid of all that right-wing stuff" and move to the "center", which is really the left but they don't dare call it that. Others have advocated that real conservatives secede from the Republican Party and form a really conservative third party. Of these two solutions I would prefer the latter.
If the real conservatives did get out of the Republican Party then those who stayed in could just merge with the Democratic Party because they aren't all the different anyway. You could name them "the Republicrat Party." You would still end up with two parties.
Former presidential candidate Herman Cain wants a third party but he doesn't want the Ron Paul people in it. He says we need a "legitimate third party." The Ron Paul folks aren't legitimate? Why Herman? The Ron Paul folks are a lot more legitimate than what passes for the Republican Party at this point.
I said on http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com on July 14th and September 30th of this year that I felt that Romney was going to toss the election to Obama and do a "John McCain" on us and that the Republican establishment had no problem with that. So far it looks like I might be right. I really wish I had been wrong.
But when you come down to it both major parties are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission--the one world government boys--and so both parties are essentially the same--two different wings on the same socialist turkey. Years ago George Wallace said there was not a dime's worth of difference between them. Turns out old George was right on the money.
Question is, if both of these "political parties" are controlled by a group that advocates the US being part of a one world government, the question could be asked, and rightly so, if either one of them are legitimate? The only major difference between them is rhetorical.
Maybe they should merge officially. That way we could see the Old Left, the New Left and the Republican Left all in one happy group and those that are pretending to be conservative could quit pretending and hoist the Red flag along with Comrade Obama and the rest. At least it would be more honest than what we have now.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Will "Frankenstorm" Postpone the Election?
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, some watched the presidential debates, at least as much of them as they could stomach. Some of us watched portions of them via the Internet.
I am no big fan of Mitt Romney. I think history shows that the Republicans are just as much of a problem for the country as the Democrats. That the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission control both major parties is common knowledge to those who follow the political scene, even to those who won't admit such. So you will get their boy no matter who wins this beauty contest we still call a presidential election.
What I think is more important for people to concentrate on is local, county, parish and state elections. Informed people can still have an impact on those.
Anyway, after the debates were over and much of the "news" media claimed that Obama had won the last two debates hands down, Romney started to do much better in many of the polls and he has continued on that upward trend slowly but surely.
Now a little more than a week before the election a good portion of the country is about to be threatened by "Frankenstorm"--the "mother" of all bad weather systems in the US. We have a hurricane that is supposed to ravage the East Coast from the Carolinas up to Maine, a blue norther coming down out of Canada that has dropped temperatures by 30 degrees even in the deep South, and more rain coming up from the Southwest--and all of these weather systems are supposed to collide with one another for weather fun and games.
All of a sudden the news about Romney passing Obama in the polls has disappeared from the front pages of what passes for newspapers, to be replaced with pictures of hurricane-force winds pounding against some old building at the end of a wharf on the East Coast.
What happens if this storm or combination of storms hits just before the election and power is lost in several states, not to be returned for weeks? Will the election be postponed by an announcement from Obama on the nightly "news" broadcast telling us the election will resume when everything gets back to normal, whenever that is?
It all gives Obama such a golden opportunity to look "presidential" while he is informing us that there can be no election for the foreseeable future--however long that might be. Will his "presidential" performance during this storm change any of the poll numbers from what they would otherwise have been?
I listened to an interview on Infowars.com recently in which the interviewer noted that the US government has been able to influence weather patterns since sometime in the late 1960s.
I can't say that is what is going on here, but it does make you wonder just what is going on. But, then, after all, if you can't trust your government...???
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Hate Group On The Left--The Southern Poverty Law Center
By Al Benson Jr.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, located in Montgomery, Alabama, is an organization well known to most of those in the Southern and Confederate Movements—and not viewed with fondness. This is the organization that, over ten years ago, published a list of Confederate “hate groups” that included the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans among others. None of the groups they listed could have been considered hate groups to anyone acquainted with reality. However reality is not something that concerns the SPLC.
Their agenda is to demonize almost anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez, a chore they work at with gleeful abandon. When it comes to Confederate or Southern historical or heritage groups they are all hate groups as far as the SPLC is concerned.
Not only does the SPLC seek to stigmatize Southern Heritage folks, they go after Tea Party people as well and they even stick up for segments of the United Nations agenda.
James Simpson, freelance journalist and former White House budget analyst wrote an article on http://www.rightsidenews.com in which he said: “The SPLC author called Agenda 21 an ‘environmental protection’ initiative, when anyone who has actually studied the document—I have—immediately recognizes it as a rationalization for socializing every aspect of our lives. Not merely redistributing income, which it calls for with a ‘global tax’ but redistributing populations within borders, across borders and even across continents. Sound familiar? Welcome to the open borders crowd and George Soros’ ‘Open Society.’”
Mr. Simpson has realized that the political and theological left often has a problem in promoting indefensible and unpopular agendas that promote socialism and so they are forced to come up with terminology that seeks to make something horrendous sound warm and fuzzy—and this fools lots of people. Thankfully it does not fool all of them and some of those that are not fooled do speak out.
Regarding Agenda 21 Mr. Simpson has further observed: “The U.N.’s primary vehicle for imposing Agenda 21 on local communities is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). National awareness of this malevolent organization has now resulted in a percent decline of their membership! About 85 local governments followed the commissioners’ example and revoked their memberships. State governments are now beginning to enact laws against Agenda 21. …We need to recognize that the SPLC does not merely represent an organized example of leftist lunacy. It is a dangerous organization, whose goal is to isolate its enemies and make them politically radioactive. They achieve this through calculated, disingenuous and hate-filled propaganda.”
Simpson has also told us that the SPLC has become a sort of “consultant” not only to the FBI but also to the Department of Homeland Security. What a convenient way to polarize their enemies and make them look evil not only to the federal government but to the public at large. I don’t know how many “news” articles I’ve seen in the past few years that call this or that organization a “hate group” and they cite the SPLC as their source. Years ago those in the Southern Movement stated quite plainly and truthfully that those who use the SPLC as source for their information about “hate groups” are just not credible and should not be taken seriously. I agree.
One piece of revelatory information was passed along by Mr. Simpson in his article when he said: “On May Day this year a bombing attempt by the Occupy Cleveland activists was thwarted. Afterward, a reporter for “National Review” asked the SPLC if it planned to put Occupy Wall Street on its ‘hate group’ list? SPLC’s stunning answer: ‘We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.’” In other words, their agenda is to make those on the Right look bad or look like hate-mongers but they don’t really plan to do anything in regard to leftist groups which may be genuine hate groups.
In other words, all their agenda covers is making groups on the right look bad. They have no interest in exposing leftist groups. Why? Because they are over on the far left themselves and they dare not expose any of their “comrades” they have been instructed to leave alone.
Simpson has also noted that: “The SPLC, a ‘non-profit’ organization, has a one quarter billion dollar endowment, and socks away many millions every year in donations and investment returns much of which is kept in offshore banks. Why? The SPLC is an institutionalized, heavily funded genuine hate group that focuses not on other hate grups but on groups it hates.
As far as Agenda 21 goes, I would expect the SPLC to support and endorse its “initiatives” as the United Nations is a “one world organization” with decided socialist goals. An article published on March 16, 2012 on http://ppigfiles.wordpress.com has observed: “While actual groups do exist that are quite obviously built around hatred or intolerance of other sectors of the population, it is highly doubtful that the government or law enforcement needs the assistance of SPLC to identify them. As SPLC has acquired its massive wealth through selling their own brand of hatred for profit, doubtless they should top the list of possible suspects.”
The next time you see an article about some “right-wing hate group” and the author cites the SPLC as his source, write to the publication he works for and tell them that this group is not a credible sources and encourage the author of the article to get out and do some real homework on his subject instead of buying the tales of leftist prevaricators.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Interviews
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently I did an interview on the Spingola Speaks radio show (9/24/12) dealing with the book "Lincoln's Marxists" written by Walter D. Kennedy and myself. You should be able to find this by doing a Google search and you can then listen to the podcast of the show, which was two hours long.
Interviews are interesting, yet sometimes daunting, because you never quite know what you will be asked and someone can always come up with a question that you know almost nothing about even on a subject you have researched. No one can pick up everything to do with a subject even researching it.
I have done a few radio interviews over the years and had a handful of speaking engagements at Southern Heritage events. A polished speaker I am not, so folks don't get a slick, glitzy presentation out of me but they do get facts which I hope they might be able to use and to pass on to others and that's the real reason for doing these things. Our book "Lincoln's Marxists" (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) contains lots of information the history books leave out about the socialist and communist involvement in the War of Northern Aggression, on the Union side.
I did a similar interview about our book about four years ago which, surprisingly, is still on the Internet at thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll
Needless to say, not everyone agrees with our presentation of facts about socialist involvement in the War. The politically correct folks hate this kind of book and they are quick to denounce it or to write book reviews that trash it. I have been told that even a bad book review is better than no book review because some who read the review just may want to check out the book to see why the reviewer thought it was so terrible.
I can recall, years ago, when I went to movies that I would always read the movie reviews in the paper and if the reviewers really panned some movie I would think it must might be worth seeing. I usually enjoyed what the reviewers hated.
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently I did an interview on the Spingola Speaks radio show (9/24/12) dealing with the book "Lincoln's Marxists" written by Walter D. Kennedy and myself. You should be able to find this by doing a Google search and you can then listen to the podcast of the show, which was two hours long.
Interviews are interesting, yet sometimes daunting, because you never quite know what you will be asked and someone can always come up with a question that you know almost nothing about even on a subject you have researched. No one can pick up everything to do with a subject even researching it.
I have done a few radio interviews over the years and had a handful of speaking engagements at Southern Heritage events. A polished speaker I am not, so folks don't get a slick, glitzy presentation out of me but they do get facts which I hope they might be able to use and to pass on to others and that's the real reason for doing these things. Our book "Lincoln's Marxists" (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) contains lots of information the history books leave out about the socialist and communist involvement in the War of Northern Aggression, on the Union side.
I did a similar interview about our book about four years ago which, surprisingly, is still on the Internet at thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll
Needless to say, not everyone agrees with our presentation of facts about socialist involvement in the War. The politically correct folks hate this kind of book and they are quick to denounce it or to write book reviews that trash it. I have been told that even a bad book review is better than no book review because some who read the review just may want to check out the book to see why the reviewer thought it was so terrible.
I can recall, years ago, when I went to movies that I would always read the movie reviews in the paper and if the reviewers really panned some movie I would think it must might be worth seeing. I usually enjoyed what the reviewers hated.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Congress talking again about increading minimum wage by Al Benson Jr.
I just read an article this evening that mentioned that Congress is again talking about increasing the minimum wage, in increments, until it reaches somewhere in the neighborhood of $9.80 and hour.
To lots of folks making minimum wage that sounds really great. However, think what it will do to many business owners who are operating on a marginal basis at this point. Many of them will be forced to go out of business because they can no longer pay the wages necessary to stay in business. Others who are not marginal but are still having to struggle will end up laying off people because they cannot afford to pay this increase. So their work will have to be absorbed by people that are already working at their own jobs who will not be thrilled at having to "double up" and do someone else's work along with their own. Everybody today expects to get more and pay less and mostly that won't happen. You can only squeeze the turnip so much until their ain't no juice left there.
I remember, in this context, listening to Milton Friedman, years ago now when the minimum wage was $2.25 an hour. It had just been raised and he was skeptical of that. He asked the question, and I think it was a good one--why is an entry level black student better off unemployed at $2.25 an hour than he was employed at $2.00 per hour?
He had a good point and I have yet to hear anyone answer his question. Raising the minimum wage yet again will only result in lots of marginal workers losing their jobs because their employers just can't afford to pay that much to all the people that work for them and so some will have to go.
But the Congresscritters, trying to make points back home with the electorate don;'t have to worry too much about that. Their retirement is already secure and you can bet they will get lots more than the folks on Social Security
So, is this a "concern for the poor" or just another vote-getter?
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Will There Be An Election In November? by Al Benson Jr.
Within the past three days I have gotten emails from three different sources all noting the possibility that there may not be an election next November because there will be some sort of "October surprise" that will cancel out the "need" for an election.
I cannot personally verity the accuracy of any of these but all have come from sources that have been accurate and on target in the past so it does give me some cause for reflection at this point.
One source has noted that someone in Washington has designed what we call a "false flag" event before the election so that it will appear as if Obama has been the victim of "racist hatred by the white gun owners and people concerned about the Constitution..." This would be in keeping with such events that have taken place in the past.
For other sources relating to this please check out
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com and
http://beforeitsnews.com
Sunday, August 26, 2012
That Anti-Obama Movie
by Al Benson Jr.
My son sent me an email this afternoon which noted that Dinesh D'souza's new movie "Obama 2016" had made it to the top movie of this weekend grossing $6.3 million in sales. That's pretty good for a documentary movie, and one that's only 29 minutes long.
It was in about 1,000 theaters for the weekend, while most of the regular commercial movies were in around 3,000 theaters, so for it to end up being the top seller while being in less theaters has to say something.
It may mean that, at last, some folks are waking up to the fact that Mr. Obama is a Marxist and that he has loaded his administration with leftists who vary in shade from deep pink to bright Red.
You will get very little of this from the lap dog media who seem to be so addicted to Obama and his Marxist agenda that they will not publish or broadcast anything that makes him look bad. Hence his Marxism will never be exposed by those people, making them complicit in his Marxist agenda--not that such bothers them. To say that our "news" media leans to the left would be putting it mildly.
Some writers on the Internet feel that Obama's campaign is running out of steam and that he has nothing new to offer (what he's already offered is more than we need) and so he has resorted to attacking his opponent rather than dealing with issues. This is a standard Marxist diversionary tactic.
Erick Erickson, writing on http://www.redstate.com on August 24th noted that: "From Mark Halperin to Jake Tapper, to Chuck Todd, more journalists are actually now admitting just how pliable the media ix when it comes to Barack Obama's spin. All week long, as the economy deteriorates, most every anchor at most every news outlet, most every editorialist in most every paper, and most every 'centrist' and liberal pundit has been pointing out the GOP's extremist abortion position."
This is a classic example of what I am talking about. Obama has the economy in shreds and he wants four more years to complete the job and all the media can do is to rant about what they claim or "extremist" Republican positions on other things.
Do the folks that make up the "news" (what a laugh) media know that Obama's Marxist politics have ruined the country's economy? Of course they do. Will they reveal that to the American public? Don't hold your breath waiting! Whatever news that reflects badly on Comrade Obama will either be spun to make him look good or tossed down the memory hole. I don't see how these guys have the gall to still call themselves the "news" media. I saw what the "news" media did to Ron Paul here in Louisiana--and if it wasn't a crime it should have been. So I have no faith whatever in the regular "news" media. Those that are not outright liberals and socialist, with a few exceptions, are trying to be.
And for all of that, they are still not fooling a goodly segment of the public, otherwise this new anti-Obama movie would not have grossed over $6 million this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)