by Al Benson Jr.
The Republican Establishment people are still Marxists, just like they were back in 1856. The only difference is that, today, they have found a more devious way of doing it, one that makes them look like conservatives and makes the Democrats look like the only Marxist game in town. Not true! Oh, the Democrats are Marxists alright, but hardly the only ones in the national game--they are just the ones that come closest to admitting it. After all, the Communist Party endorsed Hillary so that fact has to tell you something.
Understand, when I use the term "Marxist" I am not saying that one has to be a card carrying member of some Marxist group. Rather, I am describing their worldview, what, as Hillary would say, is in "the darkness of their heart."
That the Republican Party had leftist origins is something that has been well documented. Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln's Marxists, dealt with the Republican Party and its leftist origins and agenda on pages 125-27 and pages 142-43, as well as other places. We wrote about John Charles Fremont, the so-called "pathfinder" who was the first presidential candidate for the new Republican Party in 1856. Fremont had an affinity for socialism and socialists and had many in his command during the War of Northern Aggression. If you want something more than our book, then read Arthur R. Thompson's book To The Victor Go The Myths & Monuments. It's a long book, around 460 pages, but you will learn about the Republican Party and other conspiratorial groups as well. It's good background if you want to understand what is going on in the country today. Check out what Thompson has to say about Alvan E. Bovay and the Republican Party on pages 221 and 422.
The Republican Establishment has one goal, furthering the agenda of those who promote One World Government. And believe it or not, in order to do this without being detected, they often have to appear to be bumbling idiots. And they are really good at it. I can recall that Sam Francis, whose insightful articles many of you have read over the years, called the Democrats "the evil party" and the Republicans "the stupid party." And while I loved some of the stuff Sam wrote, I had to disagree with him on this one point. The Republican Party was not stupid--it was as evil as he thought the Democrats were, only it hid it better. And it's still doing it.
Just yesterday I read an article by Sally Zelikovsky on http://www.americanthinker.com for October 18th. She said, in part, "While imbecilic Republicans bicker and snicker about Trump, Democrats will, once again, gather around Hillary despite their competing coalitions. Republicans are stuck in the quagmire of who killed the GOP and who is a more principled conservative, while the Democrats work with their media comrades and perfect their ground game. How do they do it? By dangling distractions with the one hand that Republicans fall for every time, while working their election magic with the other." And let me say here that Republican Establishment people that really want Hillary to win have to be pretty intelligent to appear that stupid. So why do they do it? Because it fools their conservative core constituency into thinking they have merely blundered with good intentions, when, in reality, they have been working to make sure the agenda of the Democrats slides on through without their being blamed for it.
And about now, I can hear some irate person asking the question: "Why would they do that?" They would do it because, at heart, they have the same worldview and agenda that the Democrats have, but they have to create the illusion of us having two "competing" parties so we don't ever catch on to the fact, as Donald Trump has so often stated, that "the system is rigged."
Pat Buchanan had an informative article on http://www.lewrockwell.com for October 19th, the title of which was: Is the System Rigged? You Betcha. And then Pat went on to explain how the system is rigged. He mentioned "Big Media--the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save FOX. Not in this writer's lifetime has there been such a blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party...Big Media have burst out of the closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign, aiming to bring Trump down." While I have known for decades now, after watching and listening to them, that our "news" (what a laugh) media were Far Left in their thinking, I have watched them go after Trump with what could be labeled a blood lust. And Pat made a comment we should all stop and think about when he said: "Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism against those of Americanism." Look at what he is saying there--and then burn your subscription blank to the New York Times or the Washington Post.
He mentioned several other things in the article, most of which I cannot cover here. He mentioned the Supreme Court, the 11 million illegal immigrants we now have here with the current rogue Regime, and Hillary, wanting to bring in many more. He noted Hillary's now famous speech to the Brazilian bankers in which she touted open borders for this country, essentially doing away with national sovereignty. How much have you heard about that from Big Media? They won't tell you about that because you are not supposed to know that Hillary, for all intents and purposes, wants to do away with the United States as a separate country. The moderator had the courage to bring up that question in the presidential debate last evening and Hillary tried to sluff it off by giving a lame answer about how she was really talking about electronic open borders. Bull! She was talking about doing away with our borders--because that's part of the One World Government agenda and she has been primed to push that. And if she manages, with the help of Big Media, to worm her way into office there will be Republicans in Congress that will be more than willing to help her remove our borders and contribute their part toward the creation of an inter-continental mega-state in the Americas. I realize I sound dubious as to her intentions. You'll have to pardon me if I don't quite trust her. Eight years of Slick Willy and her in the White House already have really tarnished their halos.
Pat looks at the real possibility that we may get St. Hillary, one way or another, in this upcoming election when he says "Big Money and media power of the establishment elites and the transnationals may well prevail." And he asked the question: "Is that what the people were hoping for, working for, voting for in the primaries of 2016? Or is this what they were voting against?" And he noted that Hillary's "opposition" (again, what a laugh) would be headed by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
So look for these "stupid" and "distracted" Republicans to fully cooperate with Hillary in everything they can that won't get them tossed out of office in the next upcoming election--if there is one. No, the Republican Establishment is not stupid, bumbling or inept--it is treacherous--because it has the same agenda as the One World Government crowd but conceals that fact under a cloak of pseudo-conservatism.
We better start waking up and realizing what a total sham the rigged system has become.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
The Republican Establishment Is Still Marxist
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Hillary's "Vision" For Amerika and "Republicans for Hillary"
by Al Benson Jr.
Pat Buchanan had an interesting article on www.lewrockwell.com for October 12th in which he discussed the recent second presidential debate and the "moderators" (read that surrogate debaters for Hillary) failure to ask the right questions. Of course, if the truth were known, they were questions they would shy away from dealing with because they would draw attention to Hillary's One World Government mindset and that is the last thing they want to bring to the public's attention. Why is that, the naive might ask? Because they share Hillary's worldview in that area, that's why.
Pat made some cogent observations when he asked: "How could the moderators have ignored that other leak of last week, of Clinton's speech to Brazilian bankers where she confessed she 'dreams' of a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders." He continued: "If the quote is accurate, and Clinton has not denied it, then she was saying she dreams of a future when the United States ceases to exist as a separate, sovereign and independent nation. She envisions not just a North American Union evolving out of NAFTA but a merger of all the nations, North, South and Central America, with all borders erased and people moving freely from one place to another within a hemispheric super-state." This is yet one more story the major media and the bosses that control it have deemed that the average American does not need to be aware of. So just ignore it.
All the moderators really wanted to deal with for the evening was Trump and that eleven year old tape and all other subjects were supposed to pale into insignificance. And Hillary would have been quite content to remain there also. This was supposed to be the evening that Trump was destroyed and his presidential possibilities probably handed over to one of the Council on Foreign Relations political hacks that he defeated in the primaries. Trump's bringing out for the audience four of the women that William Jefferson Clinton was accused of raping, one of which he paid a huge settlement to in order to keep it out of court, sort of put a little damper on that. But Trump's destruction was something the Republican Establishment really looked forward to because they never wanted Trump in the beginning. What they had really planned on was for one of the CFR-controlled hacks that he beat out to, somehow, be reinstated as a possible candidate again, didn't make any difference which one because they were all prepared to play the One World Government game, with the possible exception of Rand Paul. Albeit the rhetoric would have been a little different from one to the other, but the results for America would have been the same with any or all of them. But, then, I still think the initial plan was for Hillary to trounce whichever one was chosen to be the "loyal opposition."
After all the planned fuss over Trump's old tape broke, a whole bunch of gutless wonders calling themselves Republicans jumped ship and loudly asserted that for moral reasons they could not support Trump any longer--all the way from the Speaker of the House to the august (and I use the word loosely) Senator from Arizona. One thing folks, especially in the South and West need to start realizing--the Republican Party is utterly corrupt. It has been, like the Democratic Party, thoroughly co-opted by the CFR/Trilateralist cabal and those that run it are high in the echelons of the One World Government crowd. Their vision for "Amerika" is the same as Hillary's vision, and no matter how much they prattle about being "the party of small government" it is all a sham. I trust most of them about as far as I trust Bill Clinton and his presidentially-minded spouse.
The Republican Establishment never wanted Trump and they were almost to the point of choking when they had to pretend they did. They would have jumped at any possible means of scuttling Trump's candidacy so they could support Hillary (covertly of course). All I can say is that if this is the "best" the Republicans can do, who even needs the Democrats? There is no real difference between the two parties except the labels put there to confuse a slow-minded electorate.
As for that eleven year old Trump tape, the man he said all this stuff to, and who egged him on to say it, was Billy Bush. That surname ring any bells? It should. George Bush 1 is Billy's uncle and George Bush 2 and Jeb Bush are his cousins. The Bush Dynasty long ago stated up front that there was no way they could support Trump. He didn't have "New World Order" credentials.
Do you begin to see the possibility of connecting just a few dots here?
Interesting that one of the Bush Clan just happened to get this tape leaked at this critical time. Coincidence, just pure coincidence, right??? I notice that Billy has now been suspended from NBC for his part in this. Is he on the way out because his job there was done or has he been thrown under the bus after it was done?
I've said this before but it bears repeating. If most folks knew the real history of the Republican Party they would realize that its foundations are anything but conservative. To learn about the true history of the Republican Party read two books, Lincoln's Marxists, by Donnie Kennedy and myself, and To The Victor Go the Myths and Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson. These will give you a pretty good idea of the origins of the Republican Party. What goes on today is of the same caliber as what Lincoln and his friends did back in the 1860s. So please, stop looking at the Republican Party as our "national savior"--an office only Jesus Christ can fulfill.
The Republican Establishment will work to sell you out just as quick as Hillary will--because their loyalty to the New World Order is exactly the same as Hillary's
Pat Buchanan had an interesting article on www.lewrockwell.com for October 12th in which he discussed the recent second presidential debate and the "moderators" (read that surrogate debaters for Hillary) failure to ask the right questions. Of course, if the truth were known, they were questions they would shy away from dealing with because they would draw attention to Hillary's One World Government mindset and that is the last thing they want to bring to the public's attention. Why is that, the naive might ask? Because they share Hillary's worldview in that area, that's why.
Pat made some cogent observations when he asked: "How could the moderators have ignored that other leak of last week, of Clinton's speech to Brazilian bankers where she confessed she 'dreams' of a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders." He continued: "If the quote is accurate, and Clinton has not denied it, then she was saying she dreams of a future when the United States ceases to exist as a separate, sovereign and independent nation. She envisions not just a North American Union evolving out of NAFTA but a merger of all the nations, North, South and Central America, with all borders erased and people moving freely from one place to another within a hemispheric super-state." This is yet one more story the major media and the bosses that control it have deemed that the average American does not need to be aware of. So just ignore it.
All the moderators really wanted to deal with for the evening was Trump and that eleven year old tape and all other subjects were supposed to pale into insignificance. And Hillary would have been quite content to remain there also. This was supposed to be the evening that Trump was destroyed and his presidential possibilities probably handed over to one of the Council on Foreign Relations political hacks that he defeated in the primaries. Trump's bringing out for the audience four of the women that William Jefferson Clinton was accused of raping, one of which he paid a huge settlement to in order to keep it out of court, sort of put a little damper on that. But Trump's destruction was something the Republican Establishment really looked forward to because they never wanted Trump in the beginning. What they had really planned on was for one of the CFR-controlled hacks that he beat out to, somehow, be reinstated as a possible candidate again, didn't make any difference which one because they were all prepared to play the One World Government game, with the possible exception of Rand Paul. Albeit the rhetoric would have been a little different from one to the other, but the results for America would have been the same with any or all of them. But, then, I still think the initial plan was for Hillary to trounce whichever one was chosen to be the "loyal opposition."
After all the planned fuss over Trump's old tape broke, a whole bunch of gutless wonders calling themselves Republicans jumped ship and loudly asserted that for moral reasons they could not support Trump any longer--all the way from the Speaker of the House to the august (and I use the word loosely) Senator from Arizona. One thing folks, especially in the South and West need to start realizing--the Republican Party is utterly corrupt. It has been, like the Democratic Party, thoroughly co-opted by the CFR/Trilateralist cabal and those that run it are high in the echelons of the One World Government crowd. Their vision for "Amerika" is the same as Hillary's vision, and no matter how much they prattle about being "the party of small government" it is all a sham. I trust most of them about as far as I trust Bill Clinton and his presidentially-minded spouse.
The Republican Establishment never wanted Trump and they were almost to the point of choking when they had to pretend they did. They would have jumped at any possible means of scuttling Trump's candidacy so they could support Hillary (covertly of course). All I can say is that if this is the "best" the Republicans can do, who even needs the Democrats? There is no real difference between the two parties except the labels put there to confuse a slow-minded electorate.
As for that eleven year old Trump tape, the man he said all this stuff to, and who egged him on to say it, was Billy Bush. That surname ring any bells? It should. George Bush 1 is Billy's uncle and George Bush 2 and Jeb Bush are his cousins. The Bush Dynasty long ago stated up front that there was no way they could support Trump. He didn't have "New World Order" credentials.
Do you begin to see the possibility of connecting just a few dots here?
Interesting that one of the Bush Clan just happened to get this tape leaked at this critical time. Coincidence, just pure coincidence, right??? I notice that Billy has now been suspended from NBC for his part in this. Is he on the way out because his job there was done or has he been thrown under the bus after it was done?
I've said this before but it bears repeating. If most folks knew the real history of the Republican Party they would realize that its foundations are anything but conservative. To learn about the true history of the Republican Party read two books, Lincoln's Marxists, by Donnie Kennedy and myself, and To The Victor Go the Myths and Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson. These will give you a pretty good idea of the origins of the Republican Party. What goes on today is of the same caliber as what Lincoln and his friends did back in the 1860s. So please, stop looking at the Republican Party as our "national savior"--an office only Jesus Christ can fulfill.
The Republican Establishment will work to sell you out just as quick as Hillary will--because their loyalty to the New World Order is exactly the same as Hillary's
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Presidential Debates Work Better If the Moderator Doesn't Help the Democrat
by Al Benson Jr.
Presidential debates are hardly my favorite source of entertainment or of information for that matter. Elections are often fraudulent and rigged and so are presidential debates. They are part of what has been dubbed "political theater" by Lew Rockwell. In fact he has a section on his web site www.lewrockwell.com called "political theater."
On our way into church last Sunday morning one of our church members asked me something to the effect of "Do you plan to watch the political mockery tomorrow night?" I can't disagree with his assessment. I've watched enough political debates over the years to know that they are hardly instruments of revealed truth.
If you have two candidates, one of which is supposed to be conservative and patriotic while the other one is a screaming cultural Marxist, you have to know going in, that the moderator and the cultural Marxist are going to work together and gang up on the conservative. It's standard operating procedure. They did it to Mitt Romney when he debated Comrade Obama before the 2012 election charade, not that Romney was any kind of real conservative, but, bad as he was, he made chopped liver out of Obama in their first debate. Obama didn't have his teleprompter and without that he was dead in the water. He had four or five stock lines and all he could do throughout the debate (not possessing an original thought of his own) was to find different ways of restating those stock lines. In their second debate you can be sure the teleprompter was there and the moderator helped Obama carry the debate load with his commentary. By this time Romney knew the game and just played along--the loyal "opposition" as it were.
I hadn't planned on watching this current charade but a friend living in the town I live in invited me over to his house to watch it. When he had lived in the North he had belonged to the Tea Party and so I figured he's pretty much be on the same page as I was, and he is.
And the debate between Trump and "Hillary the unindicted" was a carbon copy of most of the ones I have watched previously. The moderator, Lester Holt bent over backwards to give Hillary as much help as he could possibly give without totally giving himself away and he badgered Trump as much as he could get by with and gave Hillary as much extra time to present her points as he could while restricting Trump to his allotted time. Mr. Holt was in Hillary's corner and that was plain to see. Objective he was not and even his pretense of it was shallow.
Noted libertarian author Tom DiLorenzo had it figured out also and he noted in brief commentary on www.lewrockwell.com that Hillary's running mate had said that: "He hopes the moderator, Lester Holt, will expose Trump's 'lies' while at the same time giving Hitlery time to express her 'vision' for America."
He further said: "This is a warning to Lester Holt from the Clinton Crime Family: Don't do what Matt Lauer did and ask questions and then let the candidate respond to the questions. Badger him, challenge everything he says, insinuate that he is a liar or a buffoon (or better yet, both), interrupt him, while allowing Queen Hitlery to be her good old visionary self. Or else, Lester." I would say Lester responded to the prompting quite well. He was going to make sure he didn't end up being chopped liver.
And so "Queen Hitlery" made her points for her vision for America (no guns for Americans but lots of aliens (preferably illegal) for Americans, although she didn't quite say it that way. If you have learned to understand Marxist doublespeak you know what she was talking about. It was almost as if Mr. Trump had been cautioned not to fight back, a persona that is at odds with where he usually is. I hope this was just a learning experience for him and not something worse, because if it ends up being something worse then you can kiss the country goodbye, and your God-given liberties will be chopped liver.
Presidential debates are hardly my favorite source of entertainment or of information for that matter. Elections are often fraudulent and rigged and so are presidential debates. They are part of what has been dubbed "political theater" by Lew Rockwell. In fact he has a section on his web site www.lewrockwell.com called "political theater."
On our way into church last Sunday morning one of our church members asked me something to the effect of "Do you plan to watch the political mockery tomorrow night?" I can't disagree with his assessment. I've watched enough political debates over the years to know that they are hardly instruments of revealed truth.
If you have two candidates, one of which is supposed to be conservative and patriotic while the other one is a screaming cultural Marxist, you have to know going in, that the moderator and the cultural Marxist are going to work together and gang up on the conservative. It's standard operating procedure. They did it to Mitt Romney when he debated Comrade Obama before the 2012 election charade, not that Romney was any kind of real conservative, but, bad as he was, he made chopped liver out of Obama in their first debate. Obama didn't have his teleprompter and without that he was dead in the water. He had four or five stock lines and all he could do throughout the debate (not possessing an original thought of his own) was to find different ways of restating those stock lines. In their second debate you can be sure the teleprompter was there and the moderator helped Obama carry the debate load with his commentary. By this time Romney knew the game and just played along--the loyal "opposition" as it were.
I hadn't planned on watching this current charade but a friend living in the town I live in invited me over to his house to watch it. When he had lived in the North he had belonged to the Tea Party and so I figured he's pretty much be on the same page as I was, and he is.
And the debate between Trump and "Hillary the unindicted" was a carbon copy of most of the ones I have watched previously. The moderator, Lester Holt bent over backwards to give Hillary as much help as he could possibly give without totally giving himself away and he badgered Trump as much as he could get by with and gave Hillary as much extra time to present her points as he could while restricting Trump to his allotted time. Mr. Holt was in Hillary's corner and that was plain to see. Objective he was not and even his pretense of it was shallow.
Noted libertarian author Tom DiLorenzo had it figured out also and he noted in brief commentary on www.lewrockwell.com that Hillary's running mate had said that: "He hopes the moderator, Lester Holt, will expose Trump's 'lies' while at the same time giving Hitlery time to express her 'vision' for America."
He further said: "This is a warning to Lester Holt from the Clinton Crime Family: Don't do what Matt Lauer did and ask questions and then let the candidate respond to the questions. Badger him, challenge everything he says, insinuate that he is a liar or a buffoon (or better yet, both), interrupt him, while allowing Queen Hitlery to be her good old visionary self. Or else, Lester." I would say Lester responded to the prompting quite well. He was going to make sure he didn't end up being chopped liver.
And so "Queen Hitlery" made her points for her vision for America (no guns for Americans but lots of aliens (preferably illegal) for Americans, although she didn't quite say it that way. If you have learned to understand Marxist doublespeak you know what she was talking about. It was almost as if Mr. Trump had been cautioned not to fight back, a persona that is at odds with where he usually is. I hope this was just a learning experience for him and not something worse, because if it ends up being something worse then you can kiss the country goodbye, and your God-given liberties will be chopped liver.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Welcome to (almost) "Free Mississippi"
by Al Benson Jr.
Welcome to (almost, but not quite) free Mississippi, where your state flag is not welcome on college campuses and where you can be threatened with arrest if you dare to carry it on campus. The folks that run many of these colleges and universities, not only in Mississippi but in other parts of the country as well are cultural Marxists, which means, in plain language that they are often the "nice" Marxists. They won't cut your throat but they will try to steal your kids' heritage from them. And if they happen to work at a state college then you are paying them to do this with your tax money. Comforting thought isn't it?
So the state flag is no longer welcome at Ole Miss and other places in Mississippi as well. But the people that run many of these centers of "education" would be more than willing to have Communist flags on campus, or flags representing the black liberation movement or the transgender movement. This, they believe, would demonstrate their penchant for "diversity" or multi-culturalism or whatever they are calling their particular brand of prejudice nowadays. I'm sure that when folks start to catch on they will change the names again.
I remember, years ago now, a school I knew about on the East Coast (the original Left Coast) brought in an identified Communist to teach the kids committed to their charge how to do "community organizing." When a local pastor called them on that they told him "We like to expose our students to all different viewpoints." Of course having someone from the John Birch Society in to lecture the students would never, and I mean never, have occurred to them. They wanted to be diverse but not THAT diverse!
Same situation in Mississippi. The educational elders in many of these schools welcome diversity, as long as it is a diversity from the left. The right is not worth mentioning--and they don't, anymore than they are forced to except to scream about how those on the right are all "racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamaphobes, and "deplorables." Sound familiar? The erstwhile candidate that is running (maybe not as fast as she used to) on the Democratic ticket could have taken her speech about us deplorables from most any college president in the country. But it gives you a really good view of what these folks thinks of us ordinary folks, and it ain't much, but then you already knew that.
So the kids at the University of Mississippi are free to go to the football games as long as they don't take their state flag in with them or as long as they don't bring in a sign requesting that the band play Dixie. The kids could walk in with almost anything else and it wouldn't be nearly as reprehensible as these two items. You have to know that your world has really been turned upside down when your state flag is banned on campus. The Communist Hammer & Sickle would be welcomed but the Mississippi state flag is not. If you are paying attention at all this has to tell you something, and if you're not paying attention then maybe you should be.
Lots of kids showed up with Mississippi state flags for last Saturday's football game at the University of Mississippi--and had them confiscated by campus police. According to an article on http://dailycaller.com "Students who had their flags taken away by police--along with signs declaring 'Let The Band Play Dixie'--said they were threatened with arrest if they did not give them up." So at the University of Mississippi you can be arrested for displaying your state flag. I tell you, folks, that's real progress, a sign of true "liberty" but for who? Certainly not for ordinary Mississippians. How long will it be before flying your state flag on your own property will be forbidden? Don't laugh--it's not as far fetched as it sounds. And if the folks in Mississippi don't stand up and resist this damn-foolishness it may well come to that.
I noted one positive event at the university's football game last week--a whole batch of students got together and unfurled a 20' by 30' Mississippi state flag in the student section. Someone sent me a photo of it on Facebook and it had to have caught someone's attention as big as it was, but it also showed that those students who held it up there for everyone to see must still have had some pride in and thankfulness for their state flag and its heritage. I don't know if the police eventually confiscated this one or if someone managed to sneak it out wrapped in their jacket or not but it was good to see the picture. It showed that, at some level, not quite all the students had bought into this cultural Marxism that is so cloyingly present on so many campuses, even in the South. With the Lord's help and guidance there may yet be hope, but the battle is far from over and far from won. And those who want to preserve their heritage, faith, and culture need to learn to "keep the skeer on" because you can bet our adversaries plan on doing that.
Welcome to (almost, but not quite) free Mississippi, where your state flag is not welcome on college campuses and where you can be threatened with arrest if you dare to carry it on campus. The folks that run many of these colleges and universities, not only in Mississippi but in other parts of the country as well are cultural Marxists, which means, in plain language that they are often the "nice" Marxists. They won't cut your throat but they will try to steal your kids' heritage from them. And if they happen to work at a state college then you are paying them to do this with your tax money. Comforting thought isn't it?
So the state flag is no longer welcome at Ole Miss and other places in Mississippi as well. But the people that run many of these centers of "education" would be more than willing to have Communist flags on campus, or flags representing the black liberation movement or the transgender movement. This, they believe, would demonstrate their penchant for "diversity" or multi-culturalism or whatever they are calling their particular brand of prejudice nowadays. I'm sure that when folks start to catch on they will change the names again.
I remember, years ago now, a school I knew about on the East Coast (the original Left Coast) brought in an identified Communist to teach the kids committed to their charge how to do "community organizing." When a local pastor called them on that they told him "We like to expose our students to all different viewpoints." Of course having someone from the John Birch Society in to lecture the students would never, and I mean never, have occurred to them. They wanted to be diverse but not THAT diverse!
Same situation in Mississippi. The educational elders in many of these schools welcome diversity, as long as it is a diversity from the left. The right is not worth mentioning--and they don't, anymore than they are forced to except to scream about how those on the right are all "racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamaphobes, and "deplorables." Sound familiar? The erstwhile candidate that is running (maybe not as fast as she used to) on the Democratic ticket could have taken her speech about us deplorables from most any college president in the country. But it gives you a really good view of what these folks thinks of us ordinary folks, and it ain't much, but then you already knew that.
So the kids at the University of Mississippi are free to go to the football games as long as they don't take their state flag in with them or as long as they don't bring in a sign requesting that the band play Dixie. The kids could walk in with almost anything else and it wouldn't be nearly as reprehensible as these two items. You have to know that your world has really been turned upside down when your state flag is banned on campus. The Communist Hammer & Sickle would be welcomed but the Mississippi state flag is not. If you are paying attention at all this has to tell you something, and if you're not paying attention then maybe you should be.
Lots of kids showed up with Mississippi state flags for last Saturday's football game at the University of Mississippi--and had them confiscated by campus police. According to an article on http://dailycaller.com "Students who had their flags taken away by police--along with signs declaring 'Let The Band Play Dixie'--said they were threatened with arrest if they did not give them up." So at the University of Mississippi you can be arrested for displaying your state flag. I tell you, folks, that's real progress, a sign of true "liberty" but for who? Certainly not for ordinary Mississippians. How long will it be before flying your state flag on your own property will be forbidden? Don't laugh--it's not as far fetched as it sounds. And if the folks in Mississippi don't stand up and resist this damn-foolishness it may well come to that.
I noted one positive event at the university's football game last week--a whole batch of students got together and unfurled a 20' by 30' Mississippi state flag in the student section. Someone sent me a photo of it on Facebook and it had to have caught someone's attention as big as it was, but it also showed that those students who held it up there for everyone to see must still have had some pride in and thankfulness for their state flag and its heritage. I don't know if the police eventually confiscated this one or if someone managed to sneak it out wrapped in their jacket or not but it was good to see the picture. It showed that, at some level, not quite all the students had bought into this cultural Marxism that is so cloyingly present on so many campuses, even in the South. With the Lord's help and guidance there may yet be hope, but the battle is far from over and far from won. And those who want to preserve their heritage, faith, and culture need to learn to "keep the skeer on" because you can bet our adversaries plan on doing that.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Flag Sickness Among the Politically Correct
by Al Benson Jr.
On September 10th there was a Confederate flag rally at the state capitol in Jackson, Mississippi to garner signatures for Initiative 58, which is a worthwhile effort to keep Mississippi's State Flag as it is and to deny the cultural Marxists, in the future, the chance to tinker around with it until they remake it into some ghastly leftist perversion that no one could even look at before breakfast.
Interestingly enough just a few days before that, on September 8th I think, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that would have declared the Confederate emblem on the state flag as "an unconstitutional relic of slavery."
The suit had been filed by Grenada, Mississippi lawyer Carlos Moore who stated that the state's flag literally made him ill. The judge, although sympathetic to Moore, was at least honest enough to dismiss his plea. The judge stated: "Moore's arguments are phrased as constitutional claims, yet his allegations of physical injuries suggest that he is making an emotional distress tort claim. To succeed in constitutional litigation, however, Moore needs to identify that part of the Constitution which guarantees a legal right to be free from anxiety at State displays of historical racism. There is none." Although I have no doubt someone will now introduce one somewhere down the line.
This has now become a tactic of the cultural Marxists in Mississippi and elsewhere. "Confederate flags not only offend me but they make me physically ill, so you need to take them down so I don't keep getting sick from seeing them." If it were not so pitiful it would be ludicrous. So now everyone is supposed to haul their Confederate flag in because just the sight of one makes the cultural Marxists deathly sick. How long will it be before the sight of the Stars and Stripes also makes them sick?
This is a ploy with the cultural Marxists to destroy your culture in stages and most folks still don't get it.
In South Carolina they complained about the Confederate Flag on the flagpole at the state house years ago and they finally, with the finagling of some state legislators, got it removed and put up in a different spot at the state house, lower down so not as many people would be forced to view it. Less cultural Marxist illness that way I guess. It wasn't long before they were complaining about the new location for the flag. Too many people could still see it! But it was a location they had agreed to, but now the flag was still too prominent and they continued to grouse about it until the shooting of those black folks in the church in Charleston, at which point their turncoat governor did what they had wanted all along and took it down completely. Her name should be mud in South Carolina politics. There are still questions about that shooting and the "spontaneous" outburst all across the country to get rid of Confederate flags and monuments. Some of us feel that maybe it wasn't all quite as "spontaneous" as it was made out to be. However, now that the flag is down in South Carolina all the cultural Marxists in that state should be in grand health--until the next item on their agenda comes along.
So now this Mississippi lawyer wants the State Flag down because it makes him "sick." And he's also afraid of the emotional damage it will cause his daughter when she sees it flying at the public school she attends. All I can say is that these black cultural Marxists today must be a pretty fragile group! Their ancestors seem to have handled things a lot better than they do. All they have to do nowadays is see something or hear something they don't like and instantly they become physically and/or emotionally ill and whatever they have decided they don't like is supposed to be removed immediately if not sooner. Sorry folks, I hate to burst your Marxist bubble, but it ain't always gonna work that way. You better get used to that. Somewhere along the way when you want a flag or something taken down because you claim it "offends" you someone is going to say "no, it's part of my heritage and culture and I'm not taking it down because you don't like it." So you will just have to learn to live with lots of stuff you don't like just the same as the rest of us do. That's the real world! Of course you can always appeal to weak-kneed politicians to pass laws that give you what you want, but at some point they won't be there and someone who will stand up for principle just might be. What will you do them--try to tear down and steal the Confederate Flag you don't like in your neighborhood and possibly risk getting shot doing it? I can just hear your defense in court now--"He's a racist because he wouldn't let me tear down his Confederate Flag because I didn't like it. It made me sick."
That old saw is going to wear real thin with juries after awhile.
To the cultural Marxists out there I will say this--you may accomplish a lot of what you want but you will never get all of what you want. There is a core of Southern and Confederate patriotic folks out there who will not give in to your ludicrous Marxist demands for them to dismantle their culture to make you happy.
In fact some I have seen lately have become increasingly ticked off at your demands that they trash their heritage to keep you happy and I doubt that some will be pushed much further. I realize, being what you are--cultural Marxists--you won't quit--but then neither will some of them. Just something for you to think about.
On September 10th there was a Confederate flag rally at the state capitol in Jackson, Mississippi to garner signatures for Initiative 58, which is a worthwhile effort to keep Mississippi's State Flag as it is and to deny the cultural Marxists, in the future, the chance to tinker around with it until they remake it into some ghastly leftist perversion that no one could even look at before breakfast.
Interestingly enough just a few days before that, on September 8th I think, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that would have declared the Confederate emblem on the state flag as "an unconstitutional relic of slavery."
The suit had been filed by Grenada, Mississippi lawyer Carlos Moore who stated that the state's flag literally made him ill. The judge, although sympathetic to Moore, was at least honest enough to dismiss his plea. The judge stated: "Moore's arguments are phrased as constitutional claims, yet his allegations of physical injuries suggest that he is making an emotional distress tort claim. To succeed in constitutional litigation, however, Moore needs to identify that part of the Constitution which guarantees a legal right to be free from anxiety at State displays of historical racism. There is none." Although I have no doubt someone will now introduce one somewhere down the line.
This has now become a tactic of the cultural Marxists in Mississippi and elsewhere. "Confederate flags not only offend me but they make me physically ill, so you need to take them down so I don't keep getting sick from seeing them." If it were not so pitiful it would be ludicrous. So now everyone is supposed to haul their Confederate flag in because just the sight of one makes the cultural Marxists deathly sick. How long will it be before the sight of the Stars and Stripes also makes them sick?
This is a ploy with the cultural Marxists to destroy your culture in stages and most folks still don't get it.
In South Carolina they complained about the Confederate Flag on the flagpole at the state house years ago and they finally, with the finagling of some state legislators, got it removed and put up in a different spot at the state house, lower down so not as many people would be forced to view it. Less cultural Marxist illness that way I guess. It wasn't long before they were complaining about the new location for the flag. Too many people could still see it! But it was a location they had agreed to, but now the flag was still too prominent and they continued to grouse about it until the shooting of those black folks in the church in Charleston, at which point their turncoat governor did what they had wanted all along and took it down completely. Her name should be mud in South Carolina politics. There are still questions about that shooting and the "spontaneous" outburst all across the country to get rid of Confederate flags and monuments. Some of us feel that maybe it wasn't all quite as "spontaneous" as it was made out to be. However, now that the flag is down in South Carolina all the cultural Marxists in that state should be in grand health--until the next item on their agenda comes along.
So now this Mississippi lawyer wants the State Flag down because it makes him "sick." And he's also afraid of the emotional damage it will cause his daughter when she sees it flying at the public school she attends. All I can say is that these black cultural Marxists today must be a pretty fragile group! Their ancestors seem to have handled things a lot better than they do. All they have to do nowadays is see something or hear something they don't like and instantly they become physically and/or emotionally ill and whatever they have decided they don't like is supposed to be removed immediately if not sooner. Sorry folks, I hate to burst your Marxist bubble, but it ain't always gonna work that way. You better get used to that. Somewhere along the way when you want a flag or something taken down because you claim it "offends" you someone is going to say "no, it's part of my heritage and culture and I'm not taking it down because you don't like it." So you will just have to learn to live with lots of stuff you don't like just the same as the rest of us do. That's the real world! Of course you can always appeal to weak-kneed politicians to pass laws that give you what you want, but at some point they won't be there and someone who will stand up for principle just might be. What will you do them--try to tear down and steal the Confederate Flag you don't like in your neighborhood and possibly risk getting shot doing it? I can just hear your defense in court now--"He's a racist because he wouldn't let me tear down his Confederate Flag because I didn't like it. It made me sick."
That old saw is going to wear real thin with juries after awhile.
To the cultural Marxists out there I will say this--you may accomplish a lot of what you want but you will never get all of what you want. There is a core of Southern and Confederate patriotic folks out there who will not give in to your ludicrous Marxist demands for them to dismantle their culture to make you happy.
In fact some I have seen lately have become increasingly ticked off at your demands that they trash their heritage to keep you happy and I doubt that some will be pushed much further. I realize, being what you are--cultural Marxists--you won't quit--but then neither will some of them. Just something for you to think about.
Thursday, September 01, 2016
Insurance For Hillary To Win (even if she doesn't)
by Al Benson Jr.
To anyone with the ability to think it has to be obvious that the Ruling CFR/Trilateral Establishment is concerned over the possibility that Trump might really win this next presidential election and so they are busy putting into place all the contingencies possible to make sure that will not happen (even if he wins). If fact the federal scenario might well read "even if he wins he loses."
I noted yesterday an article from The Washington Examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com that told us that the Dept. of Homeland Security is eying a "special declaration to take charge of the elections."
Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson smirked as he said: "There's a vital interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure." Critical for who--Hillary?
I mean, let's don't kid ourselves, do we really think, in light of all the federal foolishness regarding Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation and all the rest, that a Dept. of Homeland Security that is stuffed full of Obama appointees is going to labor to give us an honest, unbiased election result? If we honestly think that we are beyond gullible--and probably beyond any reasonable help. The FBI couldn't find it in their hearts to indict Hillary despite all the evidence, the leaks and all the rest--and we expect an "unbiased" election return from Homeland Security??? C'mon folks, get real! I fear that all we will get from these people is an agenda to ensure that Hillary's coronation will take place officially no matter who gets how many votes. If you wonder why I take such a negative view of all this, try over 150 years of government lies to the public that I know about, and others know even more than me.
And to make sure they are able to continue to lie to us, with no competition from any truthful source, they plan to sign away control of the Internet at the end of this month. And, according to some arcane law, they have to assign it to some "governing body" which will most likely be the United Nations or some derivitive thereof. Notice all this takes place before the election so that whatever source feeds us our election returns will be under the control of some international body. Once the Internet is gone where do you go for independent and alternative news? Most likely you don't, and we will be right back where we were before the Internet, looking to the prostitute press controlled by the Establishment to get whatever news they feel is in our (and their) "best interests."
So what happens to all those web sites and blog spots that have proliferated in recent years that tell us all the stuff that the government would rather we be ignorant of? Do you need to ask? Down the "memory hole" folks, because you don't need to know this stuff. And the Establishment is going to make darned sure you don't.
To anyone with the ability to think it has to be obvious that the Ruling CFR/Trilateral Establishment is concerned over the possibility that Trump might really win this next presidential election and so they are busy putting into place all the contingencies possible to make sure that will not happen (even if he wins). If fact the federal scenario might well read "even if he wins he loses."
I noted yesterday an article from The Washington Examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com that told us that the Dept. of Homeland Security is eying a "special declaration to take charge of the elections."
Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson smirked as he said: "There's a vital interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure." Critical for who--Hillary?
I mean, let's don't kid ourselves, do we really think, in light of all the federal foolishness regarding Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation and all the rest, that a Dept. of Homeland Security that is stuffed full of Obama appointees is going to labor to give us an honest, unbiased election result? If we honestly think that we are beyond gullible--and probably beyond any reasonable help. The FBI couldn't find it in their hearts to indict Hillary despite all the evidence, the leaks and all the rest--and we expect an "unbiased" election return from Homeland Security??? C'mon folks, get real! I fear that all we will get from these people is an agenda to ensure that Hillary's coronation will take place officially no matter who gets how many votes. If you wonder why I take such a negative view of all this, try over 150 years of government lies to the public that I know about, and others know even more than me.
And to make sure they are able to continue to lie to us, with no competition from any truthful source, they plan to sign away control of the Internet at the end of this month. And, according to some arcane law, they have to assign it to some "governing body" which will most likely be the United Nations or some derivitive thereof. Notice all this takes place before the election so that whatever source feeds us our election returns will be under the control of some international body. Once the Internet is gone where do you go for independent and alternative news? Most likely you don't, and we will be right back where we were before the Internet, looking to the prostitute press controlled by the Establishment to get whatever news they feel is in our (and their) "best interests."
So what happens to all those web sites and blog spots that have proliferated in recent years that tell us all the stuff that the government would rather we be ignorant of? Do you need to ask? Down the "memory hole" folks, because you don't need to know this stuff. And the Establishment is going to make darned sure you don't.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Agenda 21, the South, and then the rest!
by Al Benson Jr.
Awhile back I talked to a man that lives just down the street from us. He has bought some property out on the bayou and when he retires he'd like to move out there, put up a little house, and do some fishing. I wish him well, but if the United Nations, our federal government, and their economic "planners" have their way (and unfortunately they usually do) it will never happen.
Their plan for this man, and for the rest of us, is not that any of us own any private property anywhere out in the country or anywhere else no matter how much we might like to. The glorious plan for all of us, unless we wake up, is a little two-by-twice apartment in some big city mega-complex along with everybody else where we are limited to traveling within the confines of the city we have been assigned to. No automobiles or pickup trucks any further than the city they assign us to because if we do anymore than that it strains the "economic sustainability" of our state, the country, and the entire world--and so we must be severely limited in everything we do (and say and think) for the environmental "good" of the entire world. If you are tempted to do a little reading (before it becomes outlawed) check out some of the sources where you see this term "economic sustainability" on the Internet or in the "news" media and you will be looking at sources, people, articles, that have been strongly influenced by the United Nations Agenda 21 program.
You say you've never heard of that? I'm not surprised. It's not exactly a priority for the "news" people unless they are encouraging different states, cities, etc. to sign up and become part of it. Other than that they seem to "know nothing" about it. In an article this size there is no way I can give you everything. The best I can do is to try to hit a few high spots for you that will, hopefully, encourage you to start checking out just what Agenda 21 is on your own.
I started assembling a file of articles on this United Nations aberration awhile back. Anything having to do with the United Nations concerns me because this is the group that is supposed to lead the way into the glories of One World Government for the planet. If you want to find out where the United Nations is going check out the background of a man named Alger Hiss on the Internet.
I found a very informative article on http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com from back on March 24, 2014 which said, in part, that: "Agenda 21 is based around the idea that a world-wide system must be set up, to save the planet from humans, which are destroying it with their cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all around high standards of living. The planners of the Agenda want to have complete control over all the resources in the world, in order to implement 'sustainable' or 'smart' growth, which includes the reduction of the standard of living of people in first world countries. For this plan to work, people must be made to believe that a reduction of their standard of living is good, and is being done to protect the environment, preserve resources for the next generation, reduce carbon emission, prevent climate change, and other wonderful sounding goals...To achieve the environmental goals of Agenda 21, one of the actions that needs to be taken by governments throughout the world, is to move people off of their privately-owned land and into special collectively-owned communities..." Any of this sound familiar to any of you? It's little more than an updated version of the "workers paradise" they had in the Soviet Union before Communism supposedly fell--and it's all a pile of bovine fertilizer!
No private property, no land, especially no guns, (you won't need them in the city anyway) and no freedom to travel. Your car or pickup truck will have been "confiscated" for the public good because you will have no freedom to travel, actually no freedom for much of anything. Oh yes, you will be totally free to obey all the UN and federal edicts--or else! What a Kountry!!!
The article quoted above is not the only sources for this information. Writer Henry Lamb says in Agenda 21--What Is It? How Did It Get Here that: "(Agenda 21) is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection,social equity, and what is called 'sustainable' economic development. At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles." Doesn't that sound warm and fuzzy?
Even an article in The Blaze, which I don't always agree with by any means, got this one right. It noted that support for Agenda 21 didn't come only from the United Nations. It also came from "wealthy donors like billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society gave ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) a $2.1 million grant in 1997 to support its local Agenda 21 Project. The financing was used to promote the project in the United States." You have to wonder how much of the UN propaganda is promoted in public schools in this country. Well, actually you don't. Just look up UNESCO on the Internet and see what they do regarding public schools in this country. You won't be pleased. I can recall seeing tons of pro-Un stuff in public school when I went, and that is a long, long time ago. I have no sane reason to suppose the volume of it has slowed given the Marxist predilections of our federal government.
So what does this mean for the South (and for the country as a whole for that matter)? It means that if this monstrosity ever gets enacted my friend up the street can kiss his retirement home out on the bayou goodbye. He will be informed by some federal commissar that he will be much better off living in a miniature apartment in the local ghetto with the rest of the proles. His pickup truck? He won't need it, he won't be going much of anyplace anymore. His guns? Forget those! The entire country will be one huge "gun free zone" except for the feds and their friends in the underworld. Fishing? Don't make me laugh! Where will he fish--in the gutters of the streets in his ghetto after we've had a toad strangler? His private property out on the bayou will have been "awarded" to some apparatchik from the UN as a reward for keeping ordinary folks away from it.
Folks, maybe you ought to consider checking out some of the stuff on the Internet regarding Agenda 21. A couple good sites to start off with are www.whatisagenda21.net and www.thenewamerican.com especially an article by Alex Newman back in May, 2013. Oh you will find some sites out there that will "laud and magnify" the United Nations and all it seeks to do,but if you are discerning you will be able to come up with some of those that tell you the real truth. And as for your Confederate flags and your "Don't Tread on Me" flags--forget those. There will be no place in the local ghetto for such things. In fact if people sit around long enough and work hard at doing nothing, there won't even be a faint memory of such things anymore--and everyone will learn to love Big Brother, whether he lives in Washington or New York, or both.
Awhile back I talked to a man that lives just down the street from us. He has bought some property out on the bayou and when he retires he'd like to move out there, put up a little house, and do some fishing. I wish him well, but if the United Nations, our federal government, and their economic "planners" have their way (and unfortunately they usually do) it will never happen.
Their plan for this man, and for the rest of us, is not that any of us own any private property anywhere out in the country or anywhere else no matter how much we might like to. The glorious plan for all of us, unless we wake up, is a little two-by-twice apartment in some big city mega-complex along with everybody else where we are limited to traveling within the confines of the city we have been assigned to. No automobiles or pickup trucks any further than the city they assign us to because if we do anymore than that it strains the "economic sustainability" of our state, the country, and the entire world--and so we must be severely limited in everything we do (and say and think) for the environmental "good" of the entire world. If you are tempted to do a little reading (before it becomes outlawed) check out some of the sources where you see this term "economic sustainability" on the Internet or in the "news" media and you will be looking at sources, people, articles, that have been strongly influenced by the United Nations Agenda 21 program.
You say you've never heard of that? I'm not surprised. It's not exactly a priority for the "news" people unless they are encouraging different states, cities, etc. to sign up and become part of it. Other than that they seem to "know nothing" about it. In an article this size there is no way I can give you everything. The best I can do is to try to hit a few high spots for you that will, hopefully, encourage you to start checking out just what Agenda 21 is on your own.
I started assembling a file of articles on this United Nations aberration awhile back. Anything having to do with the United Nations concerns me because this is the group that is supposed to lead the way into the glories of One World Government for the planet. If you want to find out where the United Nations is going check out the background of a man named Alger Hiss on the Internet.
I found a very informative article on http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com from back on March 24, 2014 which said, in part, that: "Agenda 21 is based around the idea that a world-wide system must be set up, to save the planet from humans, which are destroying it with their cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all around high standards of living. The planners of the Agenda want to have complete control over all the resources in the world, in order to implement 'sustainable' or 'smart' growth, which includes the reduction of the standard of living of people in first world countries. For this plan to work, people must be made to believe that a reduction of their standard of living is good, and is being done to protect the environment, preserve resources for the next generation, reduce carbon emission, prevent climate change, and other wonderful sounding goals...To achieve the environmental goals of Agenda 21, one of the actions that needs to be taken by governments throughout the world, is to move people off of their privately-owned land and into special collectively-owned communities..." Any of this sound familiar to any of you? It's little more than an updated version of the "workers paradise" they had in the Soviet Union before Communism supposedly fell--and it's all a pile of bovine fertilizer!
No private property, no land, especially no guns, (you won't need them in the city anyway) and no freedom to travel. Your car or pickup truck will have been "confiscated" for the public good because you will have no freedom to travel, actually no freedom for much of anything. Oh yes, you will be totally free to obey all the UN and federal edicts--or else! What a Kountry!!!
The article quoted above is not the only sources for this information. Writer Henry Lamb says in Agenda 21--What Is It? How Did It Get Here that: "(Agenda 21) is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection,social equity, and what is called 'sustainable' economic development. At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles." Doesn't that sound warm and fuzzy?
Even an article in The Blaze, which I don't always agree with by any means, got this one right. It noted that support for Agenda 21 didn't come only from the United Nations. It also came from "wealthy donors like billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society gave ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) a $2.1 million grant in 1997 to support its local Agenda 21 Project. The financing was used to promote the project in the United States." You have to wonder how much of the UN propaganda is promoted in public schools in this country. Well, actually you don't. Just look up UNESCO on the Internet and see what they do regarding public schools in this country. You won't be pleased. I can recall seeing tons of pro-Un stuff in public school when I went, and that is a long, long time ago. I have no sane reason to suppose the volume of it has slowed given the Marxist predilections of our federal government.
So what does this mean for the South (and for the country as a whole for that matter)? It means that if this monstrosity ever gets enacted my friend up the street can kiss his retirement home out on the bayou goodbye. He will be informed by some federal commissar that he will be much better off living in a miniature apartment in the local ghetto with the rest of the proles. His pickup truck? He won't need it, he won't be going much of anyplace anymore. His guns? Forget those! The entire country will be one huge "gun free zone" except for the feds and their friends in the underworld. Fishing? Don't make me laugh! Where will he fish--in the gutters of the streets in his ghetto after we've had a toad strangler? His private property out on the bayou will have been "awarded" to some apparatchik from the UN as a reward for keeping ordinary folks away from it.
Folks, maybe you ought to consider checking out some of the stuff on the Internet regarding Agenda 21. A couple good sites to start off with are www.whatisagenda21.net and www.thenewamerican.com especially an article by Alex Newman back in May, 2013. Oh you will find some sites out there that will "laud and magnify" the United Nations and all it seeks to do,but if you are discerning you will be able to come up with some of those that tell you the real truth. And as for your Confederate flags and your "Don't Tread on Me" flags--forget those. There will be no place in the local ghetto for such things. In fact if people sit around long enough and work hard at doing nothing, there won't even be a faint memory of such things anymore--and everyone will learn to love Big Brother, whether he lives in Washington or New York, or both.
Saturday, August 06, 2016
Evolution and Spiritualism--Darwin and Wallace
by Al Benson Jr.
I can remember, years back now, hearing a preacher in West Virginia talk about evolution. He was, as they say "agin it" and he gave some pretty fair country reasons for his position. One thing he said that I never forgot was that the theory of evolution absolves man from any accountability to God for his actions. If man is nothing more than a highly "evolved" animal then he is accountable to no one for his actions, no matter how good or evil they may be. He is just doing what "comes naturally" since he has no creator. If that's the case, you have to wonder why so many people get mad over what Hitler and Stalin did. If they are responsible to no one and to no God then how can anyone condemn their actions? The Illuminist forebears of the perpetrators of the French Revolution were absolutely shocked at the thought that they might, somehow, be responsible for their actions.The very thought was anathema to them.
So you can see that, among those that do not care to be judged for their deeds, that the theory (and it is only a theory) of evolution would have a particular appeal.
You always hear about "Darwin's theory of evolution" but the "history" books, if such they can even be called anymore don't say much about Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, who might well be called Darwin's alter ego.
According to an article on http://evolution.berkeley.edu Darwin and Wallace worked together on a theory they had both come up with independently. Darwin started working on his "natural selection" theory in the 1830s and kept at it for about twenty years, during which time he "corresponded briefly" with Wallace. At a certain point, Wallace decided to ask Darwin's help to publish his own ideas about evolution, so he sent Darwin a copy of his theory in 1858, which, "to Darwin's shock, nearly replicated Darwin's own." This is about where most histories stop. There is, however, a little more information about Dr. Wallace we should all be aware of--and maybe that's why it's usually left out.
According to the informative book To The Victor Go The Myths And Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson, Spiritualism played a part in all this. Mr. Thompson notes, on page 203, that: "Spiritualism began in the U.S. and spread to Britain among the Owenites. One of England's most prominent spiritualists was Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace. He was the co-originator with Darwin on the natural selection theory of evolution. Wallace was also involved in socialist theory and activism. His youthful education that started him on this path included reading the works of Robert Owen and Thomas Paine. In other words, there was a socialist influence on the development of the theory of Darwin, and it was tied to spiritualism."
Ann Braude in Radical Spirits, on page 158, confirms Wallace's ties to spiritualism when she writes: "In 1876, Alfred Russel Wallace's defense of Spiritualism from the chair of the Anthropological Section of the British Association made it an issue in the transatlantic scientific community."
Mr. Thompson, in his book, made another interesting observation on page 262 where he said: "Since all Marxists profess a belief in Darwin, it is strange that people do not see through the rhetoric advocating justice for all races embodied in communist organizations' propaganda. How can Marxists advocate equality when they believe in a Darwinian system that says that all men are not equal? It becomes obvious that Marxist leaders are lying about what they stand for in order to enlist the gullible, bleeding-heart activist."
Now I am no expert on all the in's and out's of evolution. Some folks I know have probably forgotten more about it than I will ever know, but just looking at this background would make the whole proposition a little dicey for me. As a Christian I can't buy evolution because it leaves God and our responsibility to Him out. The church my wife and I attend doesn't believe it either. I realize that, among the "scientific" community that makes us anachronisms or Neanderthals or whatever. Well, that's tough. I've been called worse and I expect to be again--just don't call me late for supper!
When you add all this together--the spiritualist and socialist influence, then this becomes the shakiest of propositions. Anything with spiritualist and socialist connections does not bode well for Christians or for the Church and when you look at the fact that some form of Darwin's theory is, basically, the only theory allowed to be discussed in government schools you have to realize that the fact they are not willing to debate or discuss anything else means that this theory is the accepted socialist dogma they plan to teach your kids. That thought, alone would make me, if I still had school age children, want to secede from the public school system. So think about all of this--and more importantly, pray about it.
I can remember, years back now, hearing a preacher in West Virginia talk about evolution. He was, as they say "agin it" and he gave some pretty fair country reasons for his position. One thing he said that I never forgot was that the theory of evolution absolves man from any accountability to God for his actions. If man is nothing more than a highly "evolved" animal then he is accountable to no one for his actions, no matter how good or evil they may be. He is just doing what "comes naturally" since he has no creator. If that's the case, you have to wonder why so many people get mad over what Hitler and Stalin did. If they are responsible to no one and to no God then how can anyone condemn their actions? The Illuminist forebears of the perpetrators of the French Revolution were absolutely shocked at the thought that they might, somehow, be responsible for their actions.The very thought was anathema to them.
So you can see that, among those that do not care to be judged for their deeds, that the theory (and it is only a theory) of evolution would have a particular appeal.
You always hear about "Darwin's theory of evolution" but the "history" books, if such they can even be called anymore don't say much about Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, who might well be called Darwin's alter ego.
According to an article on http://evolution.berkeley.edu Darwin and Wallace worked together on a theory they had both come up with independently. Darwin started working on his "natural selection" theory in the 1830s and kept at it for about twenty years, during which time he "corresponded briefly" with Wallace. At a certain point, Wallace decided to ask Darwin's help to publish his own ideas about evolution, so he sent Darwin a copy of his theory in 1858, which, "to Darwin's shock, nearly replicated Darwin's own." This is about where most histories stop. There is, however, a little more information about Dr. Wallace we should all be aware of--and maybe that's why it's usually left out.
According to the informative book To The Victor Go The Myths And Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson, Spiritualism played a part in all this. Mr. Thompson notes, on page 203, that: "Spiritualism began in the U.S. and spread to Britain among the Owenites. One of England's most prominent spiritualists was Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace. He was the co-originator with Darwin on the natural selection theory of evolution. Wallace was also involved in socialist theory and activism. His youthful education that started him on this path included reading the works of Robert Owen and Thomas Paine. In other words, there was a socialist influence on the development of the theory of Darwin, and it was tied to spiritualism."
Ann Braude in Radical Spirits, on page 158, confirms Wallace's ties to spiritualism when she writes: "In 1876, Alfred Russel Wallace's defense of Spiritualism from the chair of the Anthropological Section of the British Association made it an issue in the transatlantic scientific community."
Mr. Thompson, in his book, made another interesting observation on page 262 where he said: "Since all Marxists profess a belief in Darwin, it is strange that people do not see through the rhetoric advocating justice for all races embodied in communist organizations' propaganda. How can Marxists advocate equality when they believe in a Darwinian system that says that all men are not equal? It becomes obvious that Marxist leaders are lying about what they stand for in order to enlist the gullible, bleeding-heart activist."
Now I am no expert on all the in's and out's of evolution. Some folks I know have probably forgotten more about it than I will ever know, but just looking at this background would make the whole proposition a little dicey for me. As a Christian I can't buy evolution because it leaves God and our responsibility to Him out. The church my wife and I attend doesn't believe it either. I realize that, among the "scientific" community that makes us anachronisms or Neanderthals or whatever. Well, that's tough. I've been called worse and I expect to be again--just don't call me late for supper!
When you add all this together--the spiritualist and socialist influence, then this becomes the shakiest of propositions. Anything with spiritualist and socialist connections does not bode well for Christians or for the Church and when you look at the fact that some form of Darwin's theory is, basically, the only theory allowed to be discussed in government schools you have to realize that the fact they are not willing to debate or discuss anything else means that this theory is the accepted socialist dogma they plan to teach your kids. That thought, alone would make me, if I still had school age children, want to secede from the public school system. So think about all of this--and more importantly, pray about it.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
"The Fix Is In"
by Al Benson Jr.
Back in January of 2015 I did an article for my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com entitled "Has the Next President Already Been Chosen?" It went into the fact that the One World Government group, the Bilderbergers, had already chosen Hillary Clinton to be the next president of this country, no matter what the voters said. Their sentiments were/are not important and so the culturally Marxist agenda is for Hillary to be enthroned in the White House--no matter what. That article has gotten more viewership than any other article in the last year and a half so it must have resonated with somebody out there. If it turns out that I am wrong and Trump wins by some fluke no one will be happier than I am and in this one case I won't mind having been wrong, in fact I will be quite satisfied at having been wrong.
That's not to say that I think Mr. Trump is the perfect candidate. I am not really crazy about his vice-presidential choice, though I have to admit it's better than Newt Gingrich who was simply awful, but it's better only by degrees.
Today someone sent me a short message to the extent that Reuters had changed the numbers on a recent poll to indicate a loss of 17 points for Trump, and naturally the "news" ( I laugh whenever I use that term) media has shown a 7 point jump for Hillary. I can't verify the Reuters info at this point, so for me it's just a report, not fact yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be accurate. If Hillary is slated to win, no matter what, then us boobs out here in flyover country have to be psychologically prepared to accept that without too much fuss and what better way to do that than fudging on poll numbers?
At first I felt that I was almost the only one that considered that the upcoming election might be won with "creative voting" techniques. But then, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? How many voting precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2012 had their votes tallied and showed that Romney never got a single vote in their precincts? And the Republican establishment never once complained? You'd have thought in some of these precincts that there would have been at least one grumpy old man that would have voted for Romney, but, no, it didn't happen--so they tell us. Do I believe it? Do pigs fly? I wonder how many names on the voting rolls you could have found duplicated at local cemeteries. Obama was supposed to win, no matter what--and the Republican establishment went right along with it. They were, indeed, the "loyal"opposition!
Turns out, however, that I am not the only one with a suspicious mind. Today someone sent me an article from SHTFplan.com written by Mac Slavo and entitled No One Can Stop Her...And She Knows It: "This Election Won't Be Fair"
Mr. Slavo noted, quite accurately I think, that: "In a fair election, my best estimate is that Donald Trump would win in a landslide. But this election will not be fair, few of them are." Can't argue with him there, either. Slavo referred to the Democratic Convention and its results as "Hillary's coronation" and he said the entire dog and pony show had been "stage managed to downplay the overwhelming noise from Bernie supporters who are outraged and feel betrayed by Hillary. The entire convention has had a certain air to it, a quality that reveals the desperation for power,..." I guess that's as good a way of saying it as any--"a desperation for power." Hillary was told to stand down in 2008 so Obama could assume the mantle of "transparency" and now she feels it's her turn and she means to have it irregardless of anything else.
So Hillary must be allowed to win at all costs (and there will be costs). Slavo noted that even Americans who don't pay much attention to what goes on in Washington or much of anything else beyond the ball scores, have started to notice what GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA have done to their job situation and how these programs have created "...an entire shift into pseudo-governing structures of globalism that have eaten away at the sovereignty of the United States and devoured the prosperity of its people...And we have all been programmed to take it lying down."
And Slavo then askes: "Can anyone else see that the most rigged and stolen election of all time is shaping up? If the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary, what makes anyone think the entire country wants anything to do with her. Before you answer that openly, make a strong educated guess about who the next president s going to be...and how many bodies she will have to climb over to get there."
Like I said, I would love to be wrong, but the Establishment has had control of all the presidential candidates since I have been alive, (and probably several before) and so they are not about to allow a maverick to get in there and upset the culturally Marxist agenda at this late point.
You have to know that, with a Hillary presidency, Christians and real patriots are going to face a time of persecution unlike anything this country has seen since the War of Northern Aggression. So get ready. And don't sit there and think that "the rapture" will get you out of this sticky mess, because I don't believe that will happen. Christians have way too much apathy and complacency to answer for to get off that easy.
Back in January of 2015 I did an article for my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com entitled "Has the Next President Already Been Chosen?" It went into the fact that the One World Government group, the Bilderbergers, had already chosen Hillary Clinton to be the next president of this country, no matter what the voters said. Their sentiments were/are not important and so the culturally Marxist agenda is for Hillary to be enthroned in the White House--no matter what. That article has gotten more viewership than any other article in the last year and a half so it must have resonated with somebody out there. If it turns out that I am wrong and Trump wins by some fluke no one will be happier than I am and in this one case I won't mind having been wrong, in fact I will be quite satisfied at having been wrong.
That's not to say that I think Mr. Trump is the perfect candidate. I am not really crazy about his vice-presidential choice, though I have to admit it's better than Newt Gingrich who was simply awful, but it's better only by degrees.
Today someone sent me a short message to the extent that Reuters had changed the numbers on a recent poll to indicate a loss of 17 points for Trump, and naturally the "news" ( I laugh whenever I use that term) media has shown a 7 point jump for Hillary. I can't verify the Reuters info at this point, so for me it's just a report, not fact yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be accurate. If Hillary is slated to win, no matter what, then us boobs out here in flyover country have to be psychologically prepared to accept that without too much fuss and what better way to do that than fudging on poll numbers?
At first I felt that I was almost the only one that considered that the upcoming election might be won with "creative voting" techniques. But then, it wouldn't be the first time, would it? How many voting precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2012 had their votes tallied and showed that Romney never got a single vote in their precincts? And the Republican establishment never once complained? You'd have thought in some of these precincts that there would have been at least one grumpy old man that would have voted for Romney, but, no, it didn't happen--so they tell us. Do I believe it? Do pigs fly? I wonder how many names on the voting rolls you could have found duplicated at local cemeteries. Obama was supposed to win, no matter what--and the Republican establishment went right along with it. They were, indeed, the "loyal"opposition!
Turns out, however, that I am not the only one with a suspicious mind. Today someone sent me an article from SHTFplan.com written by Mac Slavo and entitled No One Can Stop Her...And She Knows It: "This Election Won't Be Fair"
Mr. Slavo noted, quite accurately I think, that: "In a fair election, my best estimate is that Donald Trump would win in a landslide. But this election will not be fair, few of them are." Can't argue with him there, either. Slavo referred to the Democratic Convention and its results as "Hillary's coronation" and he said the entire dog and pony show had been "stage managed to downplay the overwhelming noise from Bernie supporters who are outraged and feel betrayed by Hillary. The entire convention has had a certain air to it, a quality that reveals the desperation for power,..." I guess that's as good a way of saying it as any--"a desperation for power." Hillary was told to stand down in 2008 so Obama could assume the mantle of "transparency" and now she feels it's her turn and she means to have it irregardless of anything else.
So Hillary must be allowed to win at all costs (and there will be costs). Slavo noted that even Americans who don't pay much attention to what goes on in Washington or much of anything else beyond the ball scores, have started to notice what GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA have done to their job situation and how these programs have created "...an entire shift into pseudo-governing structures of globalism that have eaten away at the sovereignty of the United States and devoured the prosperity of its people...And we have all been programmed to take it lying down."
And Slavo then askes: "Can anyone else see that the most rigged and stolen election of all time is shaping up? If the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary, what makes anyone think the entire country wants anything to do with her. Before you answer that openly, make a strong educated guess about who the next president s going to be...and how many bodies she will have to climb over to get there."
Like I said, I would love to be wrong, but the Establishment has had control of all the presidential candidates since I have been alive, (and probably several before) and so they are not about to allow a maverick to get in there and upset the culturally Marxist agenda at this late point.
You have to know that, with a Hillary presidency, Christians and real patriots are going to face a time of persecution unlike anything this country has seen since the War of Northern Aggression. So get ready. And don't sit there and think that "the rapture" will get you out of this sticky mess, because I don't believe that will happen. Christians have way too much apathy and complacency to answer for to get off that easy.
Monday, July 11, 2016
The Black Panthers--no hate crime here folks, just move along
by Al Benson Jr.
Just read an "interesting" article on http://anongalactic.com about comments made by the former header of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Shabazz, where he told a crowd in Charleston, South Carolina that it was time to "finish the mission of killing 'slave masters' and their families.' He made these comments at a Save the Black Church rally there. Shabazz was referring to an 1822 slave revolt started by Denmark Vessey where it was planned to kill all the whites in their beds, regardless of age or sex. Shabazz said, quite plainly that it was time to "finish" Vessey's crusade to kill whites.
I thought, as I read his inflammatory comments that, if some KKK leader in this country had advocated the killing of all blacks it would be portrayed in the media nationwide and worldwide as the hate crime of the century. Whether they actually got to do it or not would not have made any difference. The mere suggestion of it would constitute a hate crime that Washington and their prostitute press would never let us forget.
But here is this black Marxist advocating the killing of whites and the media hardly has a whimper about it. It would appear that, instead of being charged with a hate crime, Comrade Shabazz will end up getting a copy of Hillary's "Get out of jail free" card. With a Marxist administration in control of the White (Red) House does that really surprise anyone. It's all part of the Marxist class struggle program now being implemented in this country and when Hillary assumes the royal throne next year it will continue in spades!
If Sabazz said this at a Save the Black Church rally, one has to wonder exactly what kind of black churches he is endeavoring to "save." Black Liberation churches no doubt, churches that already preach Marxist dogma as Sunday morning sermons.
But the Marxists, cultural and otherwise, are nothing if not tenacious and consistent. In Baton Rouge this past weekend New Black Panther Party leader Babu Omowale was busy urging blacks to all migrate south so they could "form their own country away from racist whitey." From the context of his remarks one would almost get the idea that "racism" existed in the North. Now wherever would he have come up with that idea? He'd better be careful he doesn't deviate from the approved script too far because we've been told for years that all the "racism" existed in the South and now here's Omowale telling his devoted followers to come south to escape from "racist whitey."
And Omowale said his followers should claim five states that should belong to the "black nation" which states are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. He figures that if enough blacks move in then whites will start to move out. He says "the end game is land ownership." Only problem there is that when a country is Marxist, ordinary folks are not able to own private property, only the powers that be are allowed that, and they own their property in the name of "the people." He never said who would end up owning the land, but then he probably doesn't want to deal too much with that part of it. That conversation might get a bit sticky for him so just leave it a vague generality.
I said the Marxists were consistent, and they are. This idea of a black nation in our Deep South is one that was floated by the Marxists around forty or fifty years ago now. It didn't go anywhere then, but with national conditions seeming moving to the left maybe they figure it's a good time to try again. No doubt Hillary would love it! Keep your eyes open because in today's volatile situation you just never know what's going to happen. All you can be sure of at this point is that most of it won't be real good.
Just read an "interesting" article on http://anongalactic.com about comments made by the former header of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Shabazz, where he told a crowd in Charleston, South Carolina that it was time to "finish the mission of killing 'slave masters' and their families.' He made these comments at a Save the Black Church rally there. Shabazz was referring to an 1822 slave revolt started by Denmark Vessey where it was planned to kill all the whites in their beds, regardless of age or sex. Shabazz said, quite plainly that it was time to "finish" Vessey's crusade to kill whites.
I thought, as I read his inflammatory comments that, if some KKK leader in this country had advocated the killing of all blacks it would be portrayed in the media nationwide and worldwide as the hate crime of the century. Whether they actually got to do it or not would not have made any difference. The mere suggestion of it would constitute a hate crime that Washington and their prostitute press would never let us forget.
But here is this black Marxist advocating the killing of whites and the media hardly has a whimper about it. It would appear that, instead of being charged with a hate crime, Comrade Shabazz will end up getting a copy of Hillary's "Get out of jail free" card. With a Marxist administration in control of the White (Red) House does that really surprise anyone. It's all part of the Marxist class struggle program now being implemented in this country and when Hillary assumes the royal throne next year it will continue in spades!
If Sabazz said this at a Save the Black Church rally, one has to wonder exactly what kind of black churches he is endeavoring to "save." Black Liberation churches no doubt, churches that already preach Marxist dogma as Sunday morning sermons.
But the Marxists, cultural and otherwise, are nothing if not tenacious and consistent. In Baton Rouge this past weekend New Black Panther Party leader Babu Omowale was busy urging blacks to all migrate south so they could "form their own country away from racist whitey." From the context of his remarks one would almost get the idea that "racism" existed in the North. Now wherever would he have come up with that idea? He'd better be careful he doesn't deviate from the approved script too far because we've been told for years that all the "racism" existed in the South and now here's Omowale telling his devoted followers to come south to escape from "racist whitey."
And Omowale said his followers should claim five states that should belong to the "black nation" which states are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. He figures that if enough blacks move in then whites will start to move out. He says "the end game is land ownership." Only problem there is that when a country is Marxist, ordinary folks are not able to own private property, only the powers that be are allowed that, and they own their property in the name of "the people." He never said who would end up owning the land, but then he probably doesn't want to deal too much with that part of it. That conversation might get a bit sticky for him so just leave it a vague generality.
I said the Marxists were consistent, and they are. This idea of a black nation in our Deep South is one that was floated by the Marxists around forty or fifty years ago now. It didn't go anywhere then, but with national conditions seeming moving to the left maybe they figure it's a good time to try again. No doubt Hillary would love it! Keep your eyes open because in today's volatile situation you just never know what's going to happen. All you can be sure of at this point is that most of it won't be real good.
Friday, July 01, 2016
Reflections on the Looney Left and a Possible Sellout or Co-option
by Al Benson Jr.
Last week was a pretty fair country week. The Brits seceded from the EU and our beloved ruler in Sodom on the Potomac had a couple reversals he's rather not have had. This week has not been so good. Should have known we couldn't have two like that in a row.
The activity of those we refer to as leftists (socialists and communists and various other One World Government types) continues to defy common sense, but then they don't seem to care, as they realize our intrepid and valorous "news" media will continue to cover for them, making sure the public learns as little as possible of what they need to know.
We have been informed that, coincidentally of course, Slick Willie and Comrade Loretta Lynch met in the airport at Phoenix and sat and talked. Now folks with a little common sense might consider this as a conflict of interest, but the "news" media rushed in to assure a hopefully gullible public that all the two talked about were Clinton's grandchildren and his golf game while in Phoenix. Undoubtedly they also discussed current weather conditions in Zimbabwe and who might win the 2028 World Series, but absolutely nothing beyond that mind you! Believe that and you will look for purple cows to jump over the moon at least once a month!
I also ran across an article on http://www.teaparty.org informing us that 67% of Democrats would love to see Obama stick around for a third term--something he'd love to do if he could just find a way to get by with it--but then Hillary might squawk that "it's her turn to shaft the American people and get rich doing it now" and there might be a slight rift in the Democratic Party. I find it hard to believe that even a majority of Democrats would be willing to put up with another four years of what we've had for the past eight years. The thought boggles the mind. If that's really the case, then the public schools in this country have been successful beyond their wildest dreams. They have successfully propagandized a whole generation. The problem here is that, unfortunately, many in the Republican Establishment don't feel too much different. Oh they might not want Obama around, but they're willing to take Hillary in his place--and honestly folks, what's the difference? Same shell game with different players that's all.
But something that bothered me even worse was a couple articles I checked out just today (7/1) that noted that Trump has got his possible VP list down to just two names--Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie. Now Christie wouldn't be my all time favorite by any means but Gingrich is an absolute no-no. If Trump picks him (and I did an article on this previously if you want to check back) then Trump will be picking a man that is the total antithesis of everything Trump says he stands for. Newt Gingrich is the penultimate Internationalist and One World Government advocate and Trump has to know that. He's not stupid. So what goes here? Another sell out of the frustrated and angry public who is now beginning to wake up and realize how they have been shafted by corporate fascism and its friends in Washington? Sadly, it's beginning to look that way to me, and if that is so then after the election, no matter who wins, it will go back to "business as usual."
And another question--even if Trump is honest (and I always felt he was) what happens if something should happen to him once he gets into office that incapacitates him? Gingrich will end up being president and I honestly wonder if that has been the plan all along, whether Trump realizes it or not. We might be able to get by with Christie for VP though it would hardly be the best of all possible worlds, but with Gingrich you know you are going to get stiffed. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."
So if Gingrich ends up as Trump's VP choice then you can kiss all the rhetoric about making America great again goodbye because that's just what it was--but maybe Trump was right--it will be great again--for the corporate fascists, just not for the folks that deserve a break. Oh Lord, how long???
Last week was a pretty fair country week. The Brits seceded from the EU and our beloved ruler in Sodom on the Potomac had a couple reversals he's rather not have had. This week has not been so good. Should have known we couldn't have two like that in a row.
The activity of those we refer to as leftists (socialists and communists and various other One World Government types) continues to defy common sense, but then they don't seem to care, as they realize our intrepid and valorous "news" media will continue to cover for them, making sure the public learns as little as possible of what they need to know.
We have been informed that, coincidentally of course, Slick Willie and Comrade Loretta Lynch met in the airport at Phoenix and sat and talked. Now folks with a little common sense might consider this as a conflict of interest, but the "news" media rushed in to assure a hopefully gullible public that all the two talked about were Clinton's grandchildren and his golf game while in Phoenix. Undoubtedly they also discussed current weather conditions in Zimbabwe and who might win the 2028 World Series, but absolutely nothing beyond that mind you! Believe that and you will look for purple cows to jump over the moon at least once a month!
I also ran across an article on http://www.teaparty.org informing us that 67% of Democrats would love to see Obama stick around for a third term--something he'd love to do if he could just find a way to get by with it--but then Hillary might squawk that "it's her turn to shaft the American people and get rich doing it now" and there might be a slight rift in the Democratic Party. I find it hard to believe that even a majority of Democrats would be willing to put up with another four years of what we've had for the past eight years. The thought boggles the mind. If that's really the case, then the public schools in this country have been successful beyond their wildest dreams. They have successfully propagandized a whole generation. The problem here is that, unfortunately, many in the Republican Establishment don't feel too much different. Oh they might not want Obama around, but they're willing to take Hillary in his place--and honestly folks, what's the difference? Same shell game with different players that's all.
But something that bothered me even worse was a couple articles I checked out just today (7/1) that noted that Trump has got his possible VP list down to just two names--Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie. Now Christie wouldn't be my all time favorite by any means but Gingrich is an absolute no-no. If Trump picks him (and I did an article on this previously if you want to check back) then Trump will be picking a man that is the total antithesis of everything Trump says he stands for. Newt Gingrich is the penultimate Internationalist and One World Government advocate and Trump has to know that. He's not stupid. So what goes here? Another sell out of the frustrated and angry public who is now beginning to wake up and realize how they have been shafted by corporate fascism and its friends in Washington? Sadly, it's beginning to look that way to me, and if that is so then after the election, no matter who wins, it will go back to "business as usual."
And another question--even if Trump is honest (and I always felt he was) what happens if something should happen to him once he gets into office that incapacitates him? Gingrich will end up being president and I honestly wonder if that has been the plan all along, whether Trump realizes it or not. We might be able to get by with Christie for VP though it would hardly be the best of all possible worlds, but with Gingrich you know you are going to get stiffed. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."
So if Gingrich ends up as Trump's VP choice then you can kiss all the rhetoric about making America great again goodbye because that's just what it was--but maybe Trump was right--it will be great again--for the corporate fascists, just not for the folks that deserve a break. Oh Lord, how long???
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Southern Baptists Cave In To Cultural Marxists--so what else is new?
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, on the issue of the Southern Baptist Convention caving in to the cultural Marxists regarding the Confederate flag I can't say that I am at all happy about it, but on the other hand neither am I overly surprised. Most churches today don't even begin to recognize cultural Marxism for what it is--Marxism taken to a whole new level, and what's more, most couldn't care less. As long as they can conduct some sort of a service on Sunday morning they don't much worry about the rest of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union conducted morning services through most of the time the Communists remained in apparent power and the church hierarchy was loaded with KGB agents who made sure that the Sunday faithful were fed the Party line. They may have been thoroughly propagandized each week, but they did have their Sunday service, if such it could be called.
I often wonder, after a few of the churches we've attended over the years, how much difference there really is. When it comes to what happens out in the world most Christians are totally naive, couldn't care less, and are happy to have it so. No real responsibility for the culture that way except to complain when it gets so anti-Christian they can't stand it anymore. That they might have done something to prevent that never once occurs to them. Churches in this country have been feeding on the tainted bread of cultural Marxism since the end of the War of Northern Aggression and the task of the cultural Marxists in the seminaries and among the clergy has been to make sure they learned to like it. They have mostly succeeded. And so the decision of the SBC regarding the Confederate battle flag comes as no real surprise. I would have been pleasantly surprised had they voted to leave it alone, but in my heart of hearts I guess I realized that would not happen.
An article in The Dallas Morning News by Hannah Wise, on June 14th, said: "The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism that should not be used, Southern Baptists declared in a resolution approved Tuesday at their national meeting." The original proposal did stir some debate and prompted one call for the withdrawal of the proposal, but that wasn't going to happen. A milder version was floated later on and according to the Morning News it was "...not as strongly worded as the original and calls for Christians to 'discontinue' the flag's display." So the SBC calls for Christians to "discontinue the flag's display." Let them speak for themselves. Whatever Confederate flags I have, and I have several, will not be taken down to satisfy the whims of the cultural Marxist crowd that has as its agenda the total destruction of all Southern, Confederate, and Christian culture, and those Christians that give in to them in the name of "inclusiveness" are helping to seal the destruction of their culture and that of their children and grandchildren. And they will live to regret it someday, but by the time they wake up and realize what they have done it may well be way too late and they will discover that they have sold their heritage for a mess of socialist pottage which quite frankly, turns the stomach and sickens the soul.
I recall, years ago now, that I read where Richard Land, one of the leaders in the SBC at that time had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier One World Government organization in this country. I have often wondered if what Mr. Land did as a member of the CFR had any effect on his denominational affiliation and its program. You all be the judges of that.
I can't speak for others, but if I belonged to the SBC I would seriously think of looking for another church, one that was willing to leave the symbols of my culture alone--most especially when those symbols have their foundation in Christianity. One has to wonder, given the intellectual and historic softness so apparent in most churches today, when some cultural Marxist person or group will come along and, with a little persuasive language, get Christians to denounce the cross of Christ because of its "non-inclusiveness" in the society around it.
Well, on the issue of the Southern Baptist Convention caving in to the cultural Marxists regarding the Confederate flag I can't say that I am at all happy about it, but on the other hand neither am I overly surprised. Most churches today don't even begin to recognize cultural Marxism for what it is--Marxism taken to a whole new level, and what's more, most couldn't care less. As long as they can conduct some sort of a service on Sunday morning they don't much worry about the rest of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union conducted morning services through most of the time the Communists remained in apparent power and the church hierarchy was loaded with KGB agents who made sure that the Sunday faithful were fed the Party line. They may have been thoroughly propagandized each week, but they did have their Sunday service, if such it could be called.
I often wonder, after a few of the churches we've attended over the years, how much difference there really is. When it comes to what happens out in the world most Christians are totally naive, couldn't care less, and are happy to have it so. No real responsibility for the culture that way except to complain when it gets so anti-Christian they can't stand it anymore. That they might have done something to prevent that never once occurs to them. Churches in this country have been feeding on the tainted bread of cultural Marxism since the end of the War of Northern Aggression and the task of the cultural Marxists in the seminaries and among the clergy has been to make sure they learned to like it. They have mostly succeeded. And so the decision of the SBC regarding the Confederate battle flag comes as no real surprise. I would have been pleasantly surprised had they voted to leave it alone, but in my heart of hearts I guess I realized that would not happen.
An article in The Dallas Morning News by Hannah Wise, on June 14th, said: "The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism that should not be used, Southern Baptists declared in a resolution approved Tuesday at their national meeting." The original proposal did stir some debate and prompted one call for the withdrawal of the proposal, but that wasn't going to happen. A milder version was floated later on and according to the Morning News it was "...not as strongly worded as the original and calls for Christians to 'discontinue' the flag's display." So the SBC calls for Christians to "discontinue the flag's display." Let them speak for themselves. Whatever Confederate flags I have, and I have several, will not be taken down to satisfy the whims of the cultural Marxist crowd that has as its agenda the total destruction of all Southern, Confederate, and Christian culture, and those Christians that give in to them in the name of "inclusiveness" are helping to seal the destruction of their culture and that of their children and grandchildren. And they will live to regret it someday, but by the time they wake up and realize what they have done it may well be way too late and they will discover that they have sold their heritage for a mess of socialist pottage which quite frankly, turns the stomach and sickens the soul.
I recall, years ago now, that I read where Richard Land, one of the leaders in the SBC at that time had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier One World Government organization in this country. I have often wondered if what Mr. Land did as a member of the CFR had any effect on his denominational affiliation and its program. You all be the judges of that.
I can't speak for others, but if I belonged to the SBC I would seriously think of looking for another church, one that was willing to leave the symbols of my culture alone--most especially when those symbols have their foundation in Christianity. One has to wonder, given the intellectual and historic softness so apparent in most churches today, when some cultural Marxist person or group will come along and, with a little persuasive language, get Christians to denounce the cross of Christ because of its "non-inclusiveness" in the society around it.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Southern Baptist Convention To Vote Next Week On Resolution To Condemn Confederate Battle Flag
by Al Benson Jr.
That was the headline on the article that a friend sent me just this morning (June 10th). The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest denomination in the country, right behind the Roman Catholics.
My friend, who is Baptist, is urging all those that are Southern Baptists to contact their ministers and tell them to oppose this resolution. My friend stated that this resolution is: "straight from the NAACP handbook." I don't doubt him for a minute. He has had past experience dealing with the NAACP and realizes that trying to talk reasonably with them is an exercise in futility. They have a cultural Marxist agenda and being reasonable with those whose culture they are trying to destroy is not part of that agenda.
This resolution to have the Southern Baptists condemn the Confederate battle flag has been couched in terminology that is supposed to promote "inclusiveness and healing." Anyone who has read any of these "resolutions" before knows what a farce that is and that racial healing is the absolute last thing all of this promotes--and it was never intended to. That's basically cultural Marxist language for the church to cave in and give into the desires of a small minority of dedicated leftists. This has nothing whatever to do with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and with what the church is supposed to be doing.
This sort of thing has been done before in other smaller denominations where leftist radicals try to get churches to condemn a part of their heritage and to completely omit the use of words like "Confederation" because they are deemed too "hurtful" to offended parties. Once the flags or offending terms are done away with the "offended" parties move on to other churches to promote the same cultural Marxist shell game somewhere else. Sadly, most Christians never seem to get it!
So I pray that our Baptist brethren will make a point of contacting their ministers now and tell them to oppose this--as the meeting where this is to be done will be held on June 14-15. Let's hope that enough people will do this that it will make a difference.
That was the headline on the article that a friend sent me just this morning (June 10th). The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest denomination in the country, right behind the Roman Catholics.
My friend, who is Baptist, is urging all those that are Southern Baptists to contact their ministers and tell them to oppose this resolution. My friend stated that this resolution is: "straight from the NAACP handbook." I don't doubt him for a minute. He has had past experience dealing with the NAACP and realizes that trying to talk reasonably with them is an exercise in futility. They have a cultural Marxist agenda and being reasonable with those whose culture they are trying to destroy is not part of that agenda.
This resolution to have the Southern Baptists condemn the Confederate battle flag has been couched in terminology that is supposed to promote "inclusiveness and healing." Anyone who has read any of these "resolutions" before knows what a farce that is and that racial healing is the absolute last thing all of this promotes--and it was never intended to. That's basically cultural Marxist language for the church to cave in and give into the desires of a small minority of dedicated leftists. This has nothing whatever to do with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and with what the church is supposed to be doing.
This sort of thing has been done before in other smaller denominations where leftist radicals try to get churches to condemn a part of their heritage and to completely omit the use of words like "Confederation" because they are deemed too "hurtful" to offended parties. Once the flags or offending terms are done away with the "offended" parties move on to other churches to promote the same cultural Marxist shell game somewhere else. Sadly, most Christians never seem to get it!
So I pray that our Baptist brethren will make a point of contacting their ministers now and tell them to oppose this--as the meeting where this is to be done will be held on June 14-15. Let's hope that enough people will do this that it will make a difference.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
When It Comes To Global Warming We Don't Need No Stinkin' First Amendment
by Al Benson Jr.
I expect there may be a "climate change" advocate or two that will not like what I have to say here. In my honest opinion the entire "global warming" scenario is fraudulent. Thank heavens I don't live in California after having just said that--i might be liable to imprisonment for that statement. I have dared to question the theology of the global warming faith. Oh horrors! While I am far from an expert on the subject, I have read enough over the past few years from reputable scientists that have the same doubts that I have about the theology of global warming. To paraphrase--There is one god, the state, and the global warming scientists are his prophets.
What makes me have even graver doubts is that this is not a subject open to debate by its adherents. They are almost unanimous in their desire to stifle all dissent and when I see someone trying to silence all debate on any given subject my first inclination is to doubt their position because, if they were honest, they would not fear healthy debate. The fact that the climate change crowd wants to silence any and all dissent from their dogmatic views leads me to believe that their position will not stand up to any real scrutiny and that is the reason they seek to silence their opposition. The adherents of global warming (climate change) want no voices out there on this subject but theirs, which fact, by itself, shows that their position is not legitimate.
And in the state of California they are taking legislative steps to insure that no position but theirs is heard--even to the violation of the First Amendment. But then, as long as they get to promote their agenda, who cares is someone else's First Amendment rights to publicly and openly disagree are abrogated?
According to an article on http://www.patdollard.com "The first-of-its-kind legislation--Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016--is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May. The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the states Unfair Competition Law...While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a 'totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead'."
So, in California, if you support any group in favor of using all forms of energy, including oil, or even if you have written a letter to the editor of your local paper favoring drilling for oil, you may well have broken this potential new law and the CCP (Climate Change Patrol) will be out to nail your hide to the wall. That would violate your First Amendment rights, you say? Do you honestly think that the people that run Washington (the ones behind your elected officials--the "shadow government" really give a rip about your rights? Disabuse yourself of that fantasy right now. We are currently living in Soviet Amerika where your "rights" are what the feds say they are, until they change their minds, which could happen momentarily. So what is okay today could land you in the slammer tomorrow. If they pull this off in California you can bet the farm it will be tried in other places too.
Never forget, we now have a president whose avowed (although he's not real "transparent" about it) agenda is the destruction of the Second Amendment. If he can manage to gut that, or even if he can't and Hillary has to finish the job when she ascends the royal throne, how will you protect any rights you have? Lose the right to defend yourselves and your families and all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights become little more than words on a piece of old parchment and you can light your cigar with the Bill of Rights, (if you are even allowed to smoke anymore) because, after all cigar smoke might contribute to global warming.
People had better start turning off those reality shows and start keeping an eye on what their state legislators are doing because, and let's don't kid ourselves here, lots of our legislators would sell out our rights in a New York minute for a mess of socialist pottage. So wake up and learn to be vigilant. The liberties you preserve may be your childrens'.
I expect there may be a "climate change" advocate or two that will not like what I have to say here. In my honest opinion the entire "global warming" scenario is fraudulent. Thank heavens I don't live in California after having just said that--i might be liable to imprisonment for that statement. I have dared to question the theology of the global warming faith. Oh horrors! While I am far from an expert on the subject, I have read enough over the past few years from reputable scientists that have the same doubts that I have about the theology of global warming. To paraphrase--There is one god, the state, and the global warming scientists are his prophets.
What makes me have even graver doubts is that this is not a subject open to debate by its adherents. They are almost unanimous in their desire to stifle all dissent and when I see someone trying to silence all debate on any given subject my first inclination is to doubt their position because, if they were honest, they would not fear healthy debate. The fact that the climate change crowd wants to silence any and all dissent from their dogmatic views leads me to believe that their position will not stand up to any real scrutiny and that is the reason they seek to silence their opposition. The adherents of global warming (climate change) want no voices out there on this subject but theirs, which fact, by itself, shows that their position is not legitimate.
And in the state of California they are taking legislative steps to insure that no position but theirs is heard--even to the violation of the First Amendment. But then, as long as they get to promote their agenda, who cares is someone else's First Amendment rights to publicly and openly disagree are abrogated?
According to an article on http://www.patdollard.com "The first-of-its-kind legislation--Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016--is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May. The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the states Unfair Competition Law...While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a 'totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead'."
So, in California, if you support any group in favor of using all forms of energy, including oil, or even if you have written a letter to the editor of your local paper favoring drilling for oil, you may well have broken this potential new law and the CCP (Climate Change Patrol) will be out to nail your hide to the wall. That would violate your First Amendment rights, you say? Do you honestly think that the people that run Washington (the ones behind your elected officials--the "shadow government" really give a rip about your rights? Disabuse yourself of that fantasy right now. We are currently living in Soviet Amerika where your "rights" are what the feds say they are, until they change their minds, which could happen momentarily. So what is okay today could land you in the slammer tomorrow. If they pull this off in California you can bet the farm it will be tried in other places too.
Never forget, we now have a president whose avowed (although he's not real "transparent" about it) agenda is the destruction of the Second Amendment. If he can manage to gut that, or even if he can't and Hillary has to finish the job when she ascends the royal throne, how will you protect any rights you have? Lose the right to defend yourselves and your families and all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights become little more than words on a piece of old parchment and you can light your cigar with the Bill of Rights, (if you are even allowed to smoke anymore) because, after all cigar smoke might contribute to global warming.
People had better start turning off those reality shows and start keeping an eye on what their state legislators are doing because, and let's don't kid ourselves here, lots of our legislators would sell out our rights in a New York minute for a mess of socialist pottage. So wake up and learn to be vigilant. The liberties you preserve may be your childrens'.
Monday, May 23, 2016
They Want Your Votes But Leave Your Flags At Home Please!
by Al Benson Jr.
Well, just last week the "conservative" House in Sodom on the Potomac voted to ban Confederate flags from flag poles in national cemeteries even on days when they had heretofore been allowed. The vote was 265-159. The promoter of this choice bit of cultural Marxism pontificated on the passage of his bill, observing that the flag represents "racism, slavery and division." Now where do you suppose he came up with that mouthful? Sounds like he's been reading the NAACP playbook on how to destroy Southern heritage in one easy lesson.
And you thought the ethnic cleansing was all over! Haven't figured out the game plan yet have you?
Last year some of us told you this would happen, that when the cultural Marxists got enough resistance they would back off for awhile until your ardor cooled and you took down your Confederate flags that you had put up in protest last summer. Well, lots of you all cooled down, took your flags down, and proceeded to go back to sleep. Eternal vigilance you didn't have and the cultural Marxists realized that and knew all they had to do was wait until you fell asleep at the switch again and they could then clobber you anew and it would be that much harder for you to get back up and fight back again now like you did then. Folks, they have got this kind of thing down to a science while we're still playing games!
We have yet to begin to discern their tenacity and their agenda, but they already know that, after a certain amount of time we will tuck tail and go home, thinking it's all over, thinking we did our bit last year and now we can go back to the ball game or the bass fishing or whatever. Welcome to Round Two!
I've noticed here in North Louisiana that the number of Confederate flags flying has been drastically reduced in the past few months. The leftists backed off and we sat down and turned the boob tube back on and once we got fixated on it again they snuck up on us and kicked us in the stomach when our back was turned.
Now we are wondering what happened. We thought we'd done all this last year and now we've got to do it all over again you're telling us? That's what I am saying and not only that, we've got to do it all over again and keep on doing it! That's part of our problem--no sticktoativity. They've got it--we don't! And until we start to get it they are always going to win because they keep on with their agenda and after awhile we get tired and go home thinking we've done our bit, so lets let Leon (Trotsky) do it for awhile--and he does and then we find out we don't like that.
So the flags came down. So let's put them back up again this year--and this time leave them up! And let's start checking out those House critters that voted for this monstrosity. How many came from the South? Get a list of them and how they voted. I got one off http://www.gopusa.com for May 19th. It's probably still up. Find our what your House critter did, how he/she/it, voted and if they voted for this horrendous bill then start informing people you know and start working to defeat them in the next election they have to run in. Expose their vote in letters to the editor, on Facebook, however you can. And keep on opposing and exposing what the cultural Marxists are trying to do to your culture. Don't get halfway through the Summer, stop to watch the All-Star game and then forget to get up again. The cultural Marxists in Washington and elsewhere are counting on your doing that, so learn to throw them a curve ball and keep up your resistance to what they are trying to do. The culture you save, with a bit of persistence might just be your own--and that of your children and grandchildren. They always have to be taken into the equation.
The cultural Marxists understand only one thing--resistance. So lets start giving them some--on an ongoing basis.
Well, just last week the "conservative" House in Sodom on the Potomac voted to ban Confederate flags from flag poles in national cemeteries even on days when they had heretofore been allowed. The vote was 265-159. The promoter of this choice bit of cultural Marxism pontificated on the passage of his bill, observing that the flag represents "racism, slavery and division." Now where do you suppose he came up with that mouthful? Sounds like he's been reading the NAACP playbook on how to destroy Southern heritage in one easy lesson.
And you thought the ethnic cleansing was all over! Haven't figured out the game plan yet have you?
Last year some of us told you this would happen, that when the cultural Marxists got enough resistance they would back off for awhile until your ardor cooled and you took down your Confederate flags that you had put up in protest last summer. Well, lots of you all cooled down, took your flags down, and proceeded to go back to sleep. Eternal vigilance you didn't have and the cultural Marxists realized that and knew all they had to do was wait until you fell asleep at the switch again and they could then clobber you anew and it would be that much harder for you to get back up and fight back again now like you did then. Folks, they have got this kind of thing down to a science while we're still playing games!
We have yet to begin to discern their tenacity and their agenda, but they already know that, after a certain amount of time we will tuck tail and go home, thinking it's all over, thinking we did our bit last year and now we can go back to the ball game or the bass fishing or whatever. Welcome to Round Two!
I've noticed here in North Louisiana that the number of Confederate flags flying has been drastically reduced in the past few months. The leftists backed off and we sat down and turned the boob tube back on and once we got fixated on it again they snuck up on us and kicked us in the stomach when our back was turned.
Now we are wondering what happened. We thought we'd done all this last year and now we've got to do it all over again you're telling us? That's what I am saying and not only that, we've got to do it all over again and keep on doing it! That's part of our problem--no sticktoativity. They've got it--we don't! And until we start to get it they are always going to win because they keep on with their agenda and after awhile we get tired and go home thinking we've done our bit, so lets let Leon (Trotsky) do it for awhile--and he does and then we find out we don't like that.
So the flags came down. So let's put them back up again this year--and this time leave them up! And let's start checking out those House critters that voted for this monstrosity. How many came from the South? Get a list of them and how they voted. I got one off http://www.gopusa.com for May 19th. It's probably still up. Find our what your House critter did, how he/she/it, voted and if they voted for this horrendous bill then start informing people you know and start working to defeat them in the next election they have to run in. Expose their vote in letters to the editor, on Facebook, however you can. And keep on opposing and exposing what the cultural Marxists are trying to do to your culture. Don't get halfway through the Summer, stop to watch the All-Star game and then forget to get up again. The cultural Marxists in Washington and elsewhere are counting on your doing that, so learn to throw them a curve ball and keep up your resistance to what they are trying to do. The culture you save, with a bit of persistence might just be your own--and that of your children and grandchildren. They always have to be taken into the equation.
The cultural Marxists understand only one thing--resistance. So lets start giving them some--on an ongoing basis.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Trump Doesn't Need Gingrich--He might as well have Hillary!
by Al Benson Jr.
Donald Trump has become hugely popular with ordinary folks because he has been saying things that they know need to be said and because he has proposed solutions to problems that they realize need solutions other than those given by the Ruling Establishment. Trump has positioned himself as an anti-Establishment candidate and the voting public is thoroughly fed up with the "business as usual" attitude of the Republican/Democratic Establishment because they realize those people are out to stiff them. In the final analysis what's the real difference between Hillary, Bernie, Jeb or Marco, or even Cruz for that matter?
The only difference is the rhetoric--they say different things but DO the same things!
It looked like Trump might actually be a breath of fresh air and try to do something other than pursue the Ruling Establishment's agenda. I say "looked like" because it now appears, after talking up a big anti-Establishment crusade, he is now about to pick one of the Establishment's major players as his vice-president--Newt Gingrich. For those folks desiring real change in the direction of government this is bad news.
A few years back I did a couple articles about Newt Gingrich for blog spots that are no longer on the Internet and so they are not readily available. However there is a very relevant article presently on the Internet on http://newswithviews.com written by Kelleigh Nelson on May 11th of this year. Mrs. Nelson presents several important facts about Gingrich that people should be aware of--and that Donald Trump should be aware of if he isn't. I will pass along a few of Mrs. Nelson's concerns here.
She noted that, in 1968 Gingrich campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller. She also observed that: "In 1990, he became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. If you've never read Richard N. Gardner's April 1974 article in CFR's World Affairs, Gardner called for an end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece. The CFR was founded in 1921 for world government and eliminating national independence. Henry Kissinger is also a CFR member and actually schooled Newt, and both claim they're conservatives..." So it seems that Kissinger tutored Mr. Gingrich and anyone who knows anything about anything knows that Kissinger is no more a conservative than was Mao Tse Tung! The CFR is diametrically opposed to what Mr. Trump says he stands for--America first.
While he was in the Senate Gingrich voted for the creation of the Department of Education and Mrs. Nelson also observed that "William Z. Foster called for a federal Department of Education in his book Towards Soviet America..." And Gingrich also voted to designate 68 million acres as Federal protected wilderness. Mrs. Nelson also noted that ":Federal land grabs today are huge percentages of the 13 western states that are not federally owned." If Mr. Trump really believes in property rights as he claims then this should be a major concern to him. Gingrich voted for $1.2 billion for UN "peacekeeping." That's a direct slap in the face to anyone advocating national sovereignty. And he wanted Most Favored Nation status for Red China and he was strongly pro-amnestly--right along with Jeb Bush. These are things Mr. Trump has claimed to be opposed to, yet here he is looking at a man for vice-president who is in favor of all the things Trump says he wants to straighten out.
I can't go into everything in Mrs. Nelson's article but suffice it to say that she points out key areas where Gingrich, over the years, has taken the exact opposite position from the one Trump advocates. So what goes on here??? Does Trump really not know where Gingrich is coming from on all these issues? If that's the case then Mr. Trump needs a fast education before he picks a running mate. If that's not the case, then does the public have a right, in view of all that has gone on, to question whether they are being lied to yet one more time?
If Mr. Trump is really sincere in his positions, and up to now I felt he was, and yet he picks Gingrich as his running mate, then I have one more question. If the Bilderbergers who have ordained that Hillary should be the next president decide, for some reason at this late date, to throw her under the bus and Trump ends up getting elected, then what happens if down the road a few months, something "happens" to Trump so that Gingrich ends up being president?
Why, folks, if that happens, then we are back to Square One and once again it will be "business as usual in Sodom on the Potomac" as the Ruling Elite tighten their control. They will get richer and more powerful and us ordinary folks will continue to get stiffed and who knows where it will all end? Another French Revolution? At some point the public will revolt and there will be a bloody mess. I think the Lord's people need to pray for guidance to know what they will need to do when it all hits the fan because it's not a questions of whether it will, but only a question of when.
Donald Trump has become hugely popular with ordinary folks because he has been saying things that they know need to be said and because he has proposed solutions to problems that they realize need solutions other than those given by the Ruling Establishment. Trump has positioned himself as an anti-Establishment candidate and the voting public is thoroughly fed up with the "business as usual" attitude of the Republican/Democratic Establishment because they realize those people are out to stiff them. In the final analysis what's the real difference between Hillary, Bernie, Jeb or Marco, or even Cruz for that matter?
The only difference is the rhetoric--they say different things but DO the same things!
It looked like Trump might actually be a breath of fresh air and try to do something other than pursue the Ruling Establishment's agenda. I say "looked like" because it now appears, after talking up a big anti-Establishment crusade, he is now about to pick one of the Establishment's major players as his vice-president--Newt Gingrich. For those folks desiring real change in the direction of government this is bad news.
A few years back I did a couple articles about Newt Gingrich for blog spots that are no longer on the Internet and so they are not readily available. However there is a very relevant article presently on the Internet on http://newswithviews.com written by Kelleigh Nelson on May 11th of this year. Mrs. Nelson presents several important facts about Gingrich that people should be aware of--and that Donald Trump should be aware of if he isn't. I will pass along a few of Mrs. Nelson's concerns here.
She noted that, in 1968 Gingrich campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller. She also observed that: "In 1990, he became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. If you've never read Richard N. Gardner's April 1974 article in CFR's World Affairs, Gardner called for an end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece. The CFR was founded in 1921 for world government and eliminating national independence. Henry Kissinger is also a CFR member and actually schooled Newt, and both claim they're conservatives..." So it seems that Kissinger tutored Mr. Gingrich and anyone who knows anything about anything knows that Kissinger is no more a conservative than was Mao Tse Tung! The CFR is diametrically opposed to what Mr. Trump says he stands for--America first.
While he was in the Senate Gingrich voted for the creation of the Department of Education and Mrs. Nelson also observed that "William Z. Foster called for a federal Department of Education in his book Towards Soviet America..." And Gingrich also voted to designate 68 million acres as Federal protected wilderness. Mrs. Nelson also noted that ":Federal land grabs today are huge percentages of the 13 western states that are not federally owned." If Mr. Trump really believes in property rights as he claims then this should be a major concern to him. Gingrich voted for $1.2 billion for UN "peacekeeping." That's a direct slap in the face to anyone advocating national sovereignty. And he wanted Most Favored Nation status for Red China and he was strongly pro-amnestly--right along with Jeb Bush. These are things Mr. Trump has claimed to be opposed to, yet here he is looking at a man for vice-president who is in favor of all the things Trump says he wants to straighten out.
I can't go into everything in Mrs. Nelson's article but suffice it to say that she points out key areas where Gingrich, over the years, has taken the exact opposite position from the one Trump advocates. So what goes on here??? Does Trump really not know where Gingrich is coming from on all these issues? If that's the case then Mr. Trump needs a fast education before he picks a running mate. If that's not the case, then does the public have a right, in view of all that has gone on, to question whether they are being lied to yet one more time?
If Mr. Trump is really sincere in his positions, and up to now I felt he was, and yet he picks Gingrich as his running mate, then I have one more question. If the Bilderbergers who have ordained that Hillary should be the next president decide, for some reason at this late date, to throw her under the bus and Trump ends up getting elected, then what happens if down the road a few months, something "happens" to Trump so that Gingrich ends up being president?
Why, folks, if that happens, then we are back to Square One and once again it will be "business as usual in Sodom on the Potomac" as the Ruling Elite tighten their control. They will get richer and more powerful and us ordinary folks will continue to get stiffed and who knows where it will all end? Another French Revolution? At some point the public will revolt and there will be a bloody mess. I think the Lord's people need to pray for guidance to know what they will need to do when it all hits the fan because it's not a questions of whether it will, but only a question of when.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Let the Boys Into the Girl's Bathrooms in Public Schools--Or Else!!!
by Al Benson Jr.
This if for all those who thought they had seen everything. Guess what folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet! There was an "interesting" article on http://conservativefiringline.com for May 13th (Friday the 13th) about Comrade Obama ordering public schools to let the boys into the girls' bathrooms. I mean, why not? Don't their "civil rights" entitle them to that, and vice-versa? All you "civil rights" advocates have helped to bring us here. Is this what you really wanted? Maybe it is, who knows?
The Conservative Firing Line article, written by Joe Newby, states that: "On Thursday, news broke that the Obama regime is ordering schools nationwide to let students use whichever bathroom that corresponds to whatever gender they think they might be at that moment in time, essentially saying that schools must let boys use the girls restroom." Our all-inclusive Attorney General has said: "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex." And the article notes that keeping boys out of the girls restrooms just might lead to schools losing their federal funding.
Governor Abbott of Texas says that Obama is not a dictator and he says he will fight the edict. I hope he is able to, but after all the talking is done, let's wait and see what happens and check that out against what has been said. The governor of North Carolina is fighting this same battle and I wish him well, too. However, again, in spite of all the rhetoric, lets take a brief look at a couple things.
No matter how you want to slice the bread or cut the mustard, public schools ARE Government Schools. You can't really get away from that. You may have parent teacher groups that give the illusion of parental involvement and you may even elect your local school board members, yet with all this cleverly-packaged window dressing, in the final analysis these are still government schools. Why else do you have a federal Department of Education? Folks, begin to get it through your heads--these schools do not belong to you or to the local community--they belong to the government, and as long as the government is paying for them, even though they soak you for part of the price via your property taxes, they will get to decide what these schools do or don't do and how they do or don't do it. Simple as that! Local control of public schools is a myth--always has been and always will be, except now with some of what's going on the myth is getting a little more difficult to peddle, but they're still working at it and they are still fooling too many people.
If some conservative school district here in the South decides they don't want to play this game the will lose their federal funding. The only way to fight this is for local (and I use that word carefully) school districts all across the country, hundreds of them, to flat out refuse to comply and for them to start withholding whatever money they have been sending to Washington to help pay for local kids "education." And in all reality, you know that isn't going to happen because when push comes to shove, you will find that many of those you have elected to school boards nationwide have the same worldview as the One World Government people in Washington. They just didn't bother to tell you that when they ran for office. If you want a perfect example of how this works take a look back at the school board in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s when all the rotten textbooks were being implemented in public schools there. How well did that school board reflect the real concerns of parents? One member of that board, Alice Moore, did. She had a genuine concern about what they were feeding the kids that passed for "education" and she did her best to fight against it. She was a minority of one! But you have to give her credit. She did try.
To take this a step further, once Obama's multi-sexual worldview on bathrooms in public schools is fully implemented, how many Christians will remove their children from those schools in protest over this? The governors of Texas and North Carolina have vowed to fight Obama on this and I do wish them well. They will be in need of our prayers because the feds will try to slice them up and have them for supper. Again, how many Christians will be willing to remove their kids from public schools over this? Admittedly, some can't given their family situations. But what about those who can if they are willing to make a little sacrifice for their kids' well being, both physically and emotionally? How many will make that move and do it? Let's just say that it'd be nice to have a dollar for everyone that just won't be bothered.
And if Obama manages to pull this off, might he even dare to take it a step further? Might there possibly be a federal thrust in the direction of Christian churches? Is it just possible that churches that are not willing to go along with multi-sex bathrooms in their buildings might be denied their 501c3 tax exemptions unless they are willing to knuckle under and comply? If the feds can withhold federal funding for public schools then why can't they play the same game with churches and start denying them their 501c3 tax breaks if they will not legitimize the transgender lifestyle? You think that sounds far out? Don't kid yourself. He who pays the piper plays the tune.
The present federal agenda calls for the dismantling of any residual Christian morality left in this country, particularly in the South. This is what Obama's "fundamental transformation" was and is really all about. Now it's up to us, our churches, and our States to decide how we are going to respond to all this.
This if for all those who thought they had seen everything. Guess what folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet! There was an "interesting" article on http://conservativefiringline.com for May 13th (Friday the 13th) about Comrade Obama ordering public schools to let the boys into the girls' bathrooms. I mean, why not? Don't their "civil rights" entitle them to that, and vice-versa? All you "civil rights" advocates have helped to bring us here. Is this what you really wanted? Maybe it is, who knows?
The Conservative Firing Line article, written by Joe Newby, states that: "On Thursday, news broke that the Obama regime is ordering schools nationwide to let students use whichever bathroom that corresponds to whatever gender they think they might be at that moment in time, essentially saying that schools must let boys use the girls restroom." Our all-inclusive Attorney General has said: "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex." And the article notes that keeping boys out of the girls restrooms just might lead to schools losing their federal funding.
Governor Abbott of Texas says that Obama is not a dictator and he says he will fight the edict. I hope he is able to, but after all the talking is done, let's wait and see what happens and check that out against what has been said. The governor of North Carolina is fighting this same battle and I wish him well, too. However, again, in spite of all the rhetoric, lets take a brief look at a couple things.
No matter how you want to slice the bread or cut the mustard, public schools ARE Government Schools. You can't really get away from that. You may have parent teacher groups that give the illusion of parental involvement and you may even elect your local school board members, yet with all this cleverly-packaged window dressing, in the final analysis these are still government schools. Why else do you have a federal Department of Education? Folks, begin to get it through your heads--these schools do not belong to you or to the local community--they belong to the government, and as long as the government is paying for them, even though they soak you for part of the price via your property taxes, they will get to decide what these schools do or don't do and how they do or don't do it. Simple as that! Local control of public schools is a myth--always has been and always will be, except now with some of what's going on the myth is getting a little more difficult to peddle, but they're still working at it and they are still fooling too many people.
If some conservative school district here in the South decides they don't want to play this game the will lose their federal funding. The only way to fight this is for local (and I use that word carefully) school districts all across the country, hundreds of them, to flat out refuse to comply and for them to start withholding whatever money they have been sending to Washington to help pay for local kids "education." And in all reality, you know that isn't going to happen because when push comes to shove, you will find that many of those you have elected to school boards nationwide have the same worldview as the One World Government people in Washington. They just didn't bother to tell you that when they ran for office. If you want a perfect example of how this works take a look back at the school board in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s when all the rotten textbooks were being implemented in public schools there. How well did that school board reflect the real concerns of parents? One member of that board, Alice Moore, did. She had a genuine concern about what they were feeding the kids that passed for "education" and she did her best to fight against it. She was a minority of one! But you have to give her credit. She did try.
To take this a step further, once Obama's multi-sexual worldview on bathrooms in public schools is fully implemented, how many Christians will remove their children from those schools in protest over this? The governors of Texas and North Carolina have vowed to fight Obama on this and I do wish them well. They will be in need of our prayers because the feds will try to slice them up and have them for supper. Again, how many Christians will be willing to remove their kids from public schools over this? Admittedly, some can't given their family situations. But what about those who can if they are willing to make a little sacrifice for their kids' well being, both physically and emotionally? How many will make that move and do it? Let's just say that it'd be nice to have a dollar for everyone that just won't be bothered.
And if Obama manages to pull this off, might he even dare to take it a step further? Might there possibly be a federal thrust in the direction of Christian churches? Is it just possible that churches that are not willing to go along with multi-sex bathrooms in their buildings might be denied their 501c3 tax exemptions unless they are willing to knuckle under and comply? If the feds can withhold federal funding for public schools then why can't they play the same game with churches and start denying them their 501c3 tax breaks if they will not legitimize the transgender lifestyle? You think that sounds far out? Don't kid yourself. He who pays the piper plays the tune.
The present federal agenda calls for the dismantling of any residual Christian morality left in this country, particularly in the South. This is what Obama's "fundamental transformation" was and is really all about. Now it's up to us, our churches, and our States to decide how we are going to respond to all this.
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
Taking a Picture of a Confederate Flag Gets You Suspended From Your Public School For Two Days
by Al Benson Jr.
One of the major places where our next generation is being conditioned to accept the premises of cultural Marxism is the public school campus--and this holds true especially in the South.
An article I read just recently on http://freedomoutpost.com noted that the Ridgeview Middle School, which is part of the Round Rock Independent School District (that's in Texas, folks) has suspended seven students for what they feel is a horrendous crime, almost too terrible to mention. They took pictures of a Confederate flag, some of them selfies--at school no less. Folks, this has to be the crime of the century! Why every public school administrator in the state of Texas should go into immediate shock at the commission of a criminal act of such gigantic proportions. How dare they! This is simply beyond the pale. These students have just gone too far. Should prison sentences be meted out???
Andrew Birdwell, father of one of the students was slightly ticked off. He said the school had no right to suspend his son for two days and that he and his son deserve an apology from the school. But Mr. Birdwell, you just don't understand! You son had his picture taken with a CONFEDERATE FLAG! Do you understand the magnitude of such a crime? Obviously not or you wouldn't be asking for a well-deserved apology. And by the way, don't hold your breath waiting for one!
The school district released a statement, according to the Freedom Outpost article, that said there "were a series of incidents at school involving a group of students posing with a Confederate flag and speaking 'hateful language.' The district would not comment any further..." It's probably a good thing for them they didn't. Turns out that school officials had to admit that Birdwell's son didn't say anything hateful. He and the other students were currently learning "whatever version of Civil War history that school decides to teach its students." I thought that was an astute observation by Freedom Outpost. Seems that they might recognize that "whatever version of Civil War history" is being taught may not be altogether accurate.
The Freedom Outpost article duly noted Mr. Birdwell's reaction. He said "I called up there yesterday asking for a copy of the disciplinary action and (the principal's) was to me that the boys were holding up a Confederate flag and that is a sign of slavery." Really? Who taught the principal that? Did he learn it in teachers' college? Who says it's a sign of slavery--Al Sharpton, Je$$e Jackson, the kids' "history" textbook? Who? The article concluded with this thought: "What do you think these kids will learn from this event?" Interesting question. What will they learn? What will the other kids in their class learn? What will they all learn from their school principal?
They'll learn that Confederate flags can get you in trouble, so you are best to avoid them, no matter what they are all about. That's the cultural Marxist "history" lesson that's being taught here.
And what lesson should Anthony Birdwell learn from this "experience?" He should learn that there is no freedom of thought or expression at public schools and that if his son shows any streak of independence of thought in coming years he will always be in trouble for thinking outside of the cultural Marxist box. Such is not permitted, and those that do will pay the price. Act or think differently from the rest of the sheeple and you will pay the price. I speak from experience.
Cultural Marxism, as practiced in public schools limits your field of thought and endeavor to those areas pre-approved by the cultural Marxist worldview. If you slip those traces you will have problems. He should also learn that, since this is the case, his son would be much better off in a private educational setting where state approved attitudes are not the only thing tolerated and where students can ask honest questions and get honest answers rather than politically correct dogma such as "the Confederate flag is a flag of slavery." No one who has done any real history homework honestly believes that, but if you repeat a lie often enough most folks who won't bother doing the homework will just unthinkingly grab onto it and rattle it off as gospel truth, which it ain't! Doing the homework should be encouraged. This is why Christian and home schooling efforts should be promoted.
If you really want to learn the truth about Confederate history you won't get it in public school, unless you happen to be one of the fortunate few to run across a dedicated history teacher who has been there so long that he has tenure and they can't get rid of him so they have to leave him alone. But you can bet the farm that after he's gone no more real history will be taught there and the person that replaces him will be into "social studies" rather than history.
We in the South (and other places as well) must begin to learn that our history and heritage will not be preserved for the next generation by sending our kids to public schools. That is a lesson for all of us. Let us pray God that enough will learn it to make a difference.
One of the major places where our next generation is being conditioned to accept the premises of cultural Marxism is the public school campus--and this holds true especially in the South.
An article I read just recently on http://freedomoutpost.com noted that the Ridgeview Middle School, which is part of the Round Rock Independent School District (that's in Texas, folks) has suspended seven students for what they feel is a horrendous crime, almost too terrible to mention. They took pictures of a Confederate flag, some of them selfies--at school no less. Folks, this has to be the crime of the century! Why every public school administrator in the state of Texas should go into immediate shock at the commission of a criminal act of such gigantic proportions. How dare they! This is simply beyond the pale. These students have just gone too far. Should prison sentences be meted out???
Andrew Birdwell, father of one of the students was slightly ticked off. He said the school had no right to suspend his son for two days and that he and his son deserve an apology from the school. But Mr. Birdwell, you just don't understand! You son had his picture taken with a CONFEDERATE FLAG! Do you understand the magnitude of such a crime? Obviously not or you wouldn't be asking for a well-deserved apology. And by the way, don't hold your breath waiting for one!
The school district released a statement, according to the Freedom Outpost article, that said there "were a series of incidents at school involving a group of students posing with a Confederate flag and speaking 'hateful language.' The district would not comment any further..." It's probably a good thing for them they didn't. Turns out that school officials had to admit that Birdwell's son didn't say anything hateful. He and the other students were currently learning "whatever version of Civil War history that school decides to teach its students." I thought that was an astute observation by Freedom Outpost. Seems that they might recognize that "whatever version of Civil War history" is being taught may not be altogether accurate.
The Freedom Outpost article duly noted Mr. Birdwell's reaction. He said "I called up there yesterday asking for a copy of the disciplinary action and (the principal's) was to me that the boys were holding up a Confederate flag and that is a sign of slavery." Really? Who taught the principal that? Did he learn it in teachers' college? Who says it's a sign of slavery--Al Sharpton, Je$$e Jackson, the kids' "history" textbook? Who? The article concluded with this thought: "What do you think these kids will learn from this event?" Interesting question. What will they learn? What will the other kids in their class learn? What will they all learn from their school principal?
They'll learn that Confederate flags can get you in trouble, so you are best to avoid them, no matter what they are all about. That's the cultural Marxist "history" lesson that's being taught here.
And what lesson should Anthony Birdwell learn from this "experience?" He should learn that there is no freedom of thought or expression at public schools and that if his son shows any streak of independence of thought in coming years he will always be in trouble for thinking outside of the cultural Marxist box. Such is not permitted, and those that do will pay the price. Act or think differently from the rest of the sheeple and you will pay the price. I speak from experience.
Cultural Marxism, as practiced in public schools limits your field of thought and endeavor to those areas pre-approved by the cultural Marxist worldview. If you slip those traces you will have problems. He should also learn that, since this is the case, his son would be much better off in a private educational setting where state approved attitudes are not the only thing tolerated and where students can ask honest questions and get honest answers rather than politically correct dogma such as "the Confederate flag is a flag of slavery." No one who has done any real history homework honestly believes that, but if you repeat a lie often enough most folks who won't bother doing the homework will just unthinkingly grab onto it and rattle it off as gospel truth, which it ain't! Doing the homework should be encouraged. This is why Christian and home schooling efforts should be promoted.
If you really want to learn the truth about Confederate history you won't get it in public school, unless you happen to be one of the fortunate few to run across a dedicated history teacher who has been there so long that he has tenure and they can't get rid of him so they have to leave him alone. But you can bet the farm that after he's gone no more real history will be taught there and the person that replaces him will be into "social studies" rather than history.
We in the South (and other places as well) must begin to learn that our history and heritage will not be preserved for the next generation by sending our kids to public schools. That is a lesson for all of us. Let us pray God that enough will learn it to make a difference.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Now--Culturally Marxist Currency!
by Al Benson Jr.
Right after he was awarded the presidency of this country Obama said that he was going to "fundamentally transform" the United States. People could only guess what he meant by that, but those that knew anything of Obama's real background had deep suspicions that whatever he was going to do, it wasn't going to be good. Their suspicions have been more than justified. His transformation agenda (the agenda of his handlers) has been at work transforming the culture of this country. In fact, you could say that American culture has been emotionally and physically assaulted under "his" regime.
Now he and his handlers will further assault the culture by changing the design of the country's currency. You all have read by now about the new design of the twenty dollar bill and other bills that will be undergoing the Obamaite "transformation." The new currency designs to be foisted off on the public in the near future are living proof that the cultural Marxists will literally push their agenda in every area of our lives in an attempt to convert the sleeping public into accepting their pernicious theology.
A main "cornerstone" of their theology is an abolitionism morphing into a "civil rights" movement. And it's all part of Karl Marx's "reconstruction of a social world" that Donnie Kennedy and I took note of in our book Lincoln's Marxists.
Our august Secretary of the Treasury has dutifully informed us that the picture of Andy Jackson on our twenty dollar fiat currency bills will soon be replaced with a simply glowing portrait of Harriet Tubman, one of the movers and shakers in the "underground railway" before the War of Northern Aggression.
The Underground Railway, we have been told, was a system of "safe houses" from places in the South leading all the way up through the Northern states and into Canada. Supposedly friendly Southern abolitionists helped the escaping slaves to go north where a friendly, virtuous Northern population awaited their arrival with open arms. They teach some of this in many of the country's public school "history" texts.
Suffice it to say that "it ain't quite so." Writer Michael B. Chesson is a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and he specializes in the history of the American "Civil War." He wrote an authoritative article for The Textbook League which appeared in their newsletter, Volume 12, Number One. Check out http://www.textbookleague.org Professor Chesson noted several history books that promote this line about the Underground Railway and he noted the inaccuracies in all this regarding Harriet Tubman.
Suffice it to say there are culture-changing reasons why Ms Tubman is about to replace Andy Jackson on the twenty. Andy Jackson is not politically correct (culturally Marxist) and Ms. Tubman is. But they are going to keep Alexander Hamilton on the ten dollar bill. He is politically correct as the promoter of the first national bank, so the feds don't really want to remove him.
But even for that, they plan on making some changes to the ten spot, and to the five dollar bill as well, although I don't expect they will remove from the five dollar bill the portrait of the president who was a favorite of the Marxists and socialists.
The Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, has said, in part: "The new $10 bill will honor the story and the heroes of the women's suffrage movement against the backdrop of the Treasury Building...The new $10 design will depict that historic march and honor Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul for their contributions to the suffrage movement.?
It's interesting that Mr. Lew neglected to mention the connections of Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton with the Spiritualist Movement during the latter part of the nineteenth century. If you can find a copy of the book Radical Spirits by Ann Braude that will give you some insight into the Spiritualist Movement and its connections with the "women's rights" movement. The early feminist movement was riddled with Spiritualism. This is something else the "history" books have mostly forgotten to mention.
After neglecting to mention all that, Mr. Lew moved on to inform us that the new five dollar bill, in addition to keeping the portrait of the Marxist's favorite president, "will depict the historic events that have occurred at the Lincoln Memorial." Lew noted that, in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave us his "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Lew noted that, on the back of the five dollar bill, they will start featuring leaders of the civil rights movement. That should be interesting. I wonder which ones they will pick--they can't go too far in hardly any direction without bumping into someone with Communist connections, not that this would bother them, as long as the public at large can be kept in total ignorance about it. With our current public education system that should be no problem.
So we have finally gotten to the point where all the culturally Marxist leftist aberrations will now be commemorated as healthy and normal on our currency. Former history will be erased and some of the prize agendas of the cultural Marxist Movement will be enshrined on the currency, complete with anti-counterfeit strips. What more could you ask for?
I just wonder what they will end up doing with the one dollar bill. After all, George Washington WAS a slave owner. Maybe, they can find some way to get someone like Pol Pot, the great Cambodian "liberator" onto the one dollar bill. Undoubtedly he would be quite acceptable to the cultural Marxist crowd and they could then get rid of that picture of that nasty old Southern slave owner. After all, we have had presidential candidates whose citizenship in this country has not been beyond question, so why not a known Communist on the one dollar bill? Our currency (notice I have not called it money) has become a major propaganda tool for the One World government crowd. Unfortunately, most people probably will not even notice. Unfortunately, their children and grandchildren will--and the knowledge won't be positive.
Right after he was awarded the presidency of this country Obama said that he was going to "fundamentally transform" the United States. People could only guess what he meant by that, but those that knew anything of Obama's real background had deep suspicions that whatever he was going to do, it wasn't going to be good. Their suspicions have been more than justified. His transformation agenda (the agenda of his handlers) has been at work transforming the culture of this country. In fact, you could say that American culture has been emotionally and physically assaulted under "his" regime.
Now he and his handlers will further assault the culture by changing the design of the country's currency. You all have read by now about the new design of the twenty dollar bill and other bills that will be undergoing the Obamaite "transformation." The new currency designs to be foisted off on the public in the near future are living proof that the cultural Marxists will literally push their agenda in every area of our lives in an attempt to convert the sleeping public into accepting their pernicious theology.
A main "cornerstone" of their theology is an abolitionism morphing into a "civil rights" movement. And it's all part of Karl Marx's "reconstruction of a social world" that Donnie Kennedy and I took note of in our book Lincoln's Marxists.
Our august Secretary of the Treasury has dutifully informed us that the picture of Andy Jackson on our twenty dollar fiat currency bills will soon be replaced with a simply glowing portrait of Harriet Tubman, one of the movers and shakers in the "underground railway" before the War of Northern Aggression.
The Underground Railway, we have been told, was a system of "safe houses" from places in the South leading all the way up through the Northern states and into Canada. Supposedly friendly Southern abolitionists helped the escaping slaves to go north where a friendly, virtuous Northern population awaited their arrival with open arms. They teach some of this in many of the country's public school "history" texts.
Suffice it to say that "it ain't quite so." Writer Michael B. Chesson is a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and he specializes in the history of the American "Civil War." He wrote an authoritative article for The Textbook League which appeared in their newsletter, Volume 12, Number One. Check out http://www.textbookleague.org Professor Chesson noted several history books that promote this line about the Underground Railway and he noted the inaccuracies in all this regarding Harriet Tubman.
Suffice it to say there are culture-changing reasons why Ms Tubman is about to replace Andy Jackson on the twenty. Andy Jackson is not politically correct (culturally Marxist) and Ms. Tubman is. But they are going to keep Alexander Hamilton on the ten dollar bill. He is politically correct as the promoter of the first national bank, so the feds don't really want to remove him.
But even for that, they plan on making some changes to the ten spot, and to the five dollar bill as well, although I don't expect they will remove from the five dollar bill the portrait of the president who was a favorite of the Marxists and socialists.
The Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, has said, in part: "The new $10 bill will honor the story and the heroes of the women's suffrage movement against the backdrop of the Treasury Building...The new $10 design will depict that historic march and honor Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul for their contributions to the suffrage movement.?
It's interesting that Mr. Lew neglected to mention the connections of Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton with the Spiritualist Movement during the latter part of the nineteenth century. If you can find a copy of the book Radical Spirits by Ann Braude that will give you some insight into the Spiritualist Movement and its connections with the "women's rights" movement. The early feminist movement was riddled with Spiritualism. This is something else the "history" books have mostly forgotten to mention.
After neglecting to mention all that, Mr. Lew moved on to inform us that the new five dollar bill, in addition to keeping the portrait of the Marxist's favorite president, "will depict the historic events that have occurred at the Lincoln Memorial." Lew noted that, in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave us his "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Lew noted that, on the back of the five dollar bill, they will start featuring leaders of the civil rights movement. That should be interesting. I wonder which ones they will pick--they can't go too far in hardly any direction without bumping into someone with Communist connections, not that this would bother them, as long as the public at large can be kept in total ignorance about it. With our current public education system that should be no problem.
So we have finally gotten to the point where all the culturally Marxist leftist aberrations will now be commemorated as healthy and normal on our currency. Former history will be erased and some of the prize agendas of the cultural Marxist Movement will be enshrined on the currency, complete with anti-counterfeit strips. What more could you ask for?
I just wonder what they will end up doing with the one dollar bill. After all, George Washington WAS a slave owner. Maybe, they can find some way to get someone like Pol Pot, the great Cambodian "liberator" onto the one dollar bill. Undoubtedly he would be quite acceptable to the cultural Marxist crowd and they could then get rid of that picture of that nasty old Southern slave owner. After all, we have had presidential candidates whose citizenship in this country has not been beyond question, so why not a known Communist on the one dollar bill? Our currency (notice I have not called it money) has become a major propaganda tool for the One World government crowd. Unfortunately, most people probably will not even notice. Unfortunately, their children and grandchildren will--and the knowledge won't be positive.
Monday, April 11, 2016
The Republican Party--Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?
by Al Benson Jr.
By no stretch of the wildest imagination can the Republican Party be considered truly conservative and/or patriotic. I realize such a statement will shock some folks who grew up with the myth that the Republican Party was the "party of small government."
If you doubt, just go back and look at the history of the GOP. Who was its first presidential candidate back in 1856? Anyone know? It was John Charles (Pathfinder) Fremont. Actually Fremont didn't find too many of the paths--Kit Carson, his scout found most of them, but Fremont got the credit. Fremont was, by any accurate definition, a radical that leaned hard left in his political views. When the War of Northern Aggression broke out Fremont, who had a command in Missouri, ended up with a whole cadre of socialist Forty-eighters (Lincoln's Marxists) in his command.
When Fremont had run for president in 1856, Frederick Hassaurek, one of the socialist Forty-eighters campaigned all over the Midwest for him. That fact established a relationship between Fremont and the Forty-eighters. And when Fremont didn't make the cut in 1856 the Forty-eighters had to wait another four years until Abraham Lincoln came along and, as they had done for Fremont, so they did for Lincoln. They worked for his election and when the war started they thronged to serve in his armies, and some of them served in the early Republican Party. A couple of Forty-eighters even helped to write the Republican Party platform in 1860--hardly what you would call an auspicious "conservative" beginning for the party.
Real conservatism has seldom been part of the Republican Party agenda. Perceived conservatism has though. Perceived conservatism is great for getting conservative support from people who have not done the homework, and they serve as good window dressing to make others think conservatism thrives where it really doesn't. For some background material on the early Republican Party and the Forty-eighters, read the book Lincoln's Marxists.
So, over the years, the Republican Party has worked to fool the voting public into thinking it is something it is not--patriotic and conservative! You might be tempted to say "well that was then but this is now." Okay--show me the difference between what they did then and what they are doing now. In 2012 you had Ron Paul running for president, and he had won several states, one of them Louisiana where I live. I went to the party caucus in Monroe in 2012 and Ron Paul got 80% of the vote there. Romney got 20%. It was the same in most other Louisiana cities that we checked. However, when the state caucus was held in Shreveport shortly after, with Ron Paul having 80% of the delegates statewide, the state Republican Establishment decided it was not going to seat Ron Paul's 80%--it was going to seat and recognize Romney's 20%. When the 80% of legitimate delegates complained the Republican Establishment called the police in and they made sure the illegitimate 20% were the delegates that were recognized. Lots of folks have forgotten this. I haven't. The Republican Establishment in Louisiana (and several other states) stole their state from Ron Paul and handed it to Mitt Romney. Why? Because they realized that Romney was not going to beat Obama and Obama was supposed to get a second term. Romney was the weakest Republican they could have nominated--same as in 2008 when McCain got the nod. Everyone knew he wasn't going to beat Obama, wasn't supposed to beat Obama. If I had a suspicious mind I'd be tempted to say "the fix was in." But far be it from me to think such thoughts. The Republicans are noted for putting up weak candidates in years the Democrats are supposed to win.
And 2016 is no different. One of the stable of Establishment candidates was supposed to win and then lose to Hillary in the general election. So far it hasn't worked out that way, but it will eventually if the "conservative" Republicans can figure out a way to deep six Donald Trump. He was the real spoiler in their plan and he has hung on to the bitter end. If he gets enough delegates to take the nomination then the Republican Establishment will have to find a way to deny him the nomination--because he is not supposed to win--Hillary is! And you can tell the way the Republican Establishment is acting that this is the game plan. They are bending over backwards to smear Trump. Conservatives--so called--are stating openly that if Trump wins the nomination they will not support him. They are howling that Trump is not a real conservative. The question then arises--are they??? Not hardly.
One thing you have to realize--at the national level and most state levels, the Republican and Democratic parties share the same socialist worldview and so they scratch one another's backs because they promote identical socialist agendas and they don't want some rank outsider coming along to upset the apple cart they have worked at filling for the last several decades.. Both parties, working together, have moved this country a long way down the road to One World government. That's their real agenda.
Doug Parris wrote an interesting article that appeared on http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com on April 8th. Mr. Parris noted some of the less-than-conservative actions of the "party of small government" in recent years. He said: "...from 1988 to 2012 the Party elites successfully rebuffed the candidacies and enormous grassroots movements of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul, all of whom were treated as hostile invaders and their millions of supporters as vermin, despised and rejected. And the odd candidates the Party occasionally elected in their stead loyally compromised away the principles that animated their supporters." In other words, they sold out!
So Mr. Parris feels that the Republican Party is on its last legs, that it's almost finished whether they end up stopping Trump or not. Parris describes the GOP bosses as "flexible." Is that a good description or what? So we end up with a Republican Party that tries to convince people it is conservative when all it is at this point is irrelevant. And as long as they can fool the voters they don't really care. It's all a game, a charade, a political scam if you will to make people think you have two different parties with two different worldviews when all you really have is one internationalist, socialist party with two names.
By no stretch of the wildest imagination can the Republican Party be considered truly conservative and/or patriotic. I realize such a statement will shock some folks who grew up with the myth that the Republican Party was the "party of small government."
If you doubt, just go back and look at the history of the GOP. Who was its first presidential candidate back in 1856? Anyone know? It was John Charles (Pathfinder) Fremont. Actually Fremont didn't find too many of the paths--Kit Carson, his scout found most of them, but Fremont got the credit. Fremont was, by any accurate definition, a radical that leaned hard left in his political views. When the War of Northern Aggression broke out Fremont, who had a command in Missouri, ended up with a whole cadre of socialist Forty-eighters (Lincoln's Marxists) in his command.
When Fremont had run for president in 1856, Frederick Hassaurek, one of the socialist Forty-eighters campaigned all over the Midwest for him. That fact established a relationship between Fremont and the Forty-eighters. And when Fremont didn't make the cut in 1856 the Forty-eighters had to wait another four years until Abraham Lincoln came along and, as they had done for Fremont, so they did for Lincoln. They worked for his election and when the war started they thronged to serve in his armies, and some of them served in the early Republican Party. A couple of Forty-eighters even helped to write the Republican Party platform in 1860--hardly what you would call an auspicious "conservative" beginning for the party.
Real conservatism has seldom been part of the Republican Party agenda. Perceived conservatism has though. Perceived conservatism is great for getting conservative support from people who have not done the homework, and they serve as good window dressing to make others think conservatism thrives where it really doesn't. For some background material on the early Republican Party and the Forty-eighters, read the book Lincoln's Marxists.
So, over the years, the Republican Party has worked to fool the voting public into thinking it is something it is not--patriotic and conservative! You might be tempted to say "well that was then but this is now." Okay--show me the difference between what they did then and what they are doing now. In 2012 you had Ron Paul running for president, and he had won several states, one of them Louisiana where I live. I went to the party caucus in Monroe in 2012 and Ron Paul got 80% of the vote there. Romney got 20%. It was the same in most other Louisiana cities that we checked. However, when the state caucus was held in Shreveport shortly after, with Ron Paul having 80% of the delegates statewide, the state Republican Establishment decided it was not going to seat Ron Paul's 80%--it was going to seat and recognize Romney's 20%. When the 80% of legitimate delegates complained the Republican Establishment called the police in and they made sure the illegitimate 20% were the delegates that were recognized. Lots of folks have forgotten this. I haven't. The Republican Establishment in Louisiana (and several other states) stole their state from Ron Paul and handed it to Mitt Romney. Why? Because they realized that Romney was not going to beat Obama and Obama was supposed to get a second term. Romney was the weakest Republican they could have nominated--same as in 2008 when McCain got the nod. Everyone knew he wasn't going to beat Obama, wasn't supposed to beat Obama. If I had a suspicious mind I'd be tempted to say "the fix was in." But far be it from me to think such thoughts. The Republicans are noted for putting up weak candidates in years the Democrats are supposed to win.
And 2016 is no different. One of the stable of Establishment candidates was supposed to win and then lose to Hillary in the general election. So far it hasn't worked out that way, but it will eventually if the "conservative" Republicans can figure out a way to deep six Donald Trump. He was the real spoiler in their plan and he has hung on to the bitter end. If he gets enough delegates to take the nomination then the Republican Establishment will have to find a way to deny him the nomination--because he is not supposed to win--Hillary is! And you can tell the way the Republican Establishment is acting that this is the game plan. They are bending over backwards to smear Trump. Conservatives--so called--are stating openly that if Trump wins the nomination they will not support him. They are howling that Trump is not a real conservative. The question then arises--are they??? Not hardly.
One thing you have to realize--at the national level and most state levels, the Republican and Democratic parties share the same socialist worldview and so they scratch one another's backs because they promote identical socialist agendas and they don't want some rank outsider coming along to upset the apple cart they have worked at filling for the last several decades.. Both parties, working together, have moved this country a long way down the road to One World government. That's their real agenda.
Doug Parris wrote an interesting article that appeared on http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com on April 8th. Mr. Parris noted some of the less-than-conservative actions of the "party of small government" in recent years. He said: "...from 1988 to 2012 the Party elites successfully rebuffed the candidacies and enormous grassroots movements of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul, all of whom were treated as hostile invaders and their millions of supporters as vermin, despised and rejected. And the odd candidates the Party occasionally elected in their stead loyally compromised away the principles that animated their supporters." In other words, they sold out!
So Mr. Parris feels that the Republican Party is on its last legs, that it's almost finished whether they end up stopping Trump or not. Parris describes the GOP bosses as "flexible." Is that a good description or what? So we end up with a Republican Party that tries to convince people it is conservative when all it is at this point is irrelevant. And as long as they can fool the voters they don't really care. It's all a game, a charade, a political scam if you will to make people think you have two different parties with two different worldviews when all you really have is one internationalist, socialist party with two names.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)