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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No Wonder the Left Usually Wins--the Right is Nothing But a Hollow Shell

by Al Benson Jr.

I have been watching, this weekend, all the fuss over the Communist groups that managed to break up Trump's rally in Chicago. From Communist groups you expect this sort of thing. Since they can't intelligently debate their corrupt points their only alternative is to shout down their adversaries and try to shut them down and them blame their adversaries for it. This is the standard bill of fare for the lefties, proving that they really have nothing worthwhile to contribute and can get by with blaming the opposition for that fact.

What surprised me, though, was the people over on the right who spouted the exact same line the lefties did. Communist groups broke up Trump's rally and it was all Trump's fault according to many that are supposed to be "right-wingers." Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were among the headliners in this dog and pony show and when you begin to see "conservative" candidates pushing the same line at Hillary and Bernie you have to know something is wrong, dreadfully wrong.

I can come up with no other conclusion than this; that much of what we consider to be the conservative, patriotic movement is really nothing more than a hollow shell, geared to fool honest, patriotic Americans with its blather about "small government" when what they are really doing is providing cover for the left without appearing to do so. And they do fool lots of folks who lack the discernment to figure out what they are doing.

It's a given than both Republican and Democratic Parties are nothing more than two wings on the same socialist, One World vulture and anyone who really trusts the Republicans to deliver the country from the clutches of the "liberal Democrats" is whistling Yankee/Marxist Doodle because that's all the Republicans will ever give him--doodle!

I'm thinking of going through my email list and deleting a batch of those sites I have been getting mail from for years so because, as I watch what they say more and more, I find many of them seem to be nothing more than foils for the Marxists. Now I will admit that Donald Trump is far from the perfect candidate. He has issues I don't agree with, such as his position on eminent domain. But on the other hand, I can't disagree with  him on the Second Amendment--as long as he sticks to what he's said so far. What amazes me is that he draws fire from both left and right and, on some reflection, that says to me that left and right really agree on many things when push comes to shove and they only let us know about it when someone like Trump comes along that they are forced to say something about because his positions attack the left/right coalition they are really part of.

So, it seems to me that lots of folks who have claimed to be on the right and to be patriotic with their "America first" messages have really been lying to us, which probably siphons money and support away from those groups that are genuinely conservative and patriotic. That would be a Marxist goal too.

I'm thinking that it might be a good idea for us to start reassessing some of these "patriotic" groups to see what they really are doing for us, if anything, and how much of their supposed effort in our behalf amounts to little more than meaningless blather that directs real opposition away from the left. When Cruz and Rubio reach the point where they become indistinguishable from Hillary and Bernie then we better start realizing we have homework to do. A good start might be to check the Internet and find a membership list for the Council on Foreign Relations and check out any members of Congress who might be members or have family members who belong or have belonged. Then check out "news" media people who belong. Once you have done that you will know why you get the slanted media coverage so prevalent on the six o' clock news and in the daily fishwrapper you still refer to as a newspaper.

Unfortunately the advocates of One World Government are alive and well on both the left and the right. It should be our bounden duty to expose the ones on the right.

The Republican Establishment--Is It Really a Criminal Conspiracy?

by Al Benson Jr.

After having watched the political gyrations the Republican Party is going through in their efforts to reject the candidacy of Donald Trump I have to come to the conclusion that all that many have said about them over the years is correct. They really are no different than the Democrats. The Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission really does give them their marching orders and the only difference between them and the Democrats is that they have been directed to hide their socialist proclivities where the Democrats have been allowed to let them all hang out. The two political parties really are nothing more than two different wings on the same socialist turkey and, as usual, and by design, it is flying in the wrong direction.

The American people are being stiffed by the Internationalists and it is on purpose and with the consent of all three branches of the government. As I have said before, the Constitution is no protection whatever for the public when all three branches of government are in collusion to ignore it and are aided and abetted by a prostitute media.

If the Republicans were really "conservative" they would not be having the problem they are with Donald Trump. If the other Republican candidates were really as conservative as they claim they would not all be looking for ways to dump him. You have to come to the conclusion with Trump, that if the left and the so-called right both hate his guts then he must be doing something right! And the fact that both left and "right" are so anxious to deep six him tells you that, at root, they have the same socialist agenda. The left is left. The "right" is really left and the American public has no one in government to defend it. All they want to do is to make sure they get your guns before you start to realize this.

I think all this talk about "indicting" Hillary is a big joke. Does anyone honestly think the Loretta Lynch's "Just Us Department" of which the FBI is a part will ever have her indicted? Come on folks, you have to be kidding! The only way she will ever get indicted is if, for some reason, the CFR/Trilateralist/Bilderburger group decides she is too much of a liability to become president and they decide to throw her under the bus. Other than that, she's a shoo-in, no matter how many votes she does or doesn't get. After all, we all know it's who counts them, not who votes that makes the difference.

And the Republicans are heartily trying to resurrect that tired old retread, Mitt Romney so he can take support away from Trump. They are also looking for another weak Republican candidate that will not be able to beat Hillary and if Romney couldn't beat Obama then Hillary will have him for lunch--and it's all according to plan.

The Ruling Establishment knows the public is fed up. They couldn't care less! They figure whatever they shove down our throats we'll take it. We're too stupid to do anything else!  One of these days they may be in for a rude awakening and when that happens it may get messy--but they don't realize that yet so they will keep on pushing.

If the Republican Party were going to stand up for conservative and patriotic values they would have done it when they got a majority in Congress. Instead they just continued to cave in to Obama. When conservatives arose in protest over John Boehner's caving in they finally, reluctantly, removed him and gave us Paul Ryan who is nothing more than Boehner-Lite, so nothing changed. And nothing will change no matter who we get for president either. They will find some way to sidetrack Trump and we will get the weakest possible Republican candidate to run against Hillary and it will be business as usual in the "District of Corruption."

Our "Pre-Revolutionary" Mood

by Al Benson Jr.

In my "huntin' and peckin' on the Internet this week I came across an interesting article on www.zerohedge.com  which observed that the vast majority of Americans now believe that both political parties  are so hopelessly corrupt that they are unable to change anything for the better. The article, published on 2/8/16 stated that "This, in fact, is a revolution."

The article continued: "We've previously noted that polls show that Americans are in a 'pre-revolutionary' mood, that less than 1 in 5 Americans think that the government has the 'consent of the governed,' that government corruption tops the list of American fears (gee, we wonder why), and that 3 times as many Americans supported King George during the Revolutionary War than support our OWN Congress today." That statement, in itself, speaks volumes as to where the country is as I write this. As for King George looking better than Congress today--why not. At present Congress is busy stiffing the American public who pays their fat salaries and thanks to groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission the Republican and Democratic parties are in bed with each other committing political fornication.

Republican and Democratic pollsters as well as independent political strategists have been reviewing polling date recently and they came up with some interesting results.

The zerohedge articled noted: "84% of all Americans believe political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right. 81% believe the power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day as politicians of both parties fight to protect their own power and privilege...78% believe that the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing anything because both political parties are too beholden to special interests to create any meaningful change...74% see the biased and slanted coverage of the media as part of the problem...70% believe the government in Washington  does not govern with the consent of the people...They concluded: The country is in a pre-revolutionary moment. This election could mark the beginning of the end two-party duopoly in the United States." This is not the entire list by any means. There was more but I cannot reproduce all of it here. Check out the zerohedge article for yourselves.

I am not sure most folks totally grasp the truth that their government and both political parties, the media, many universities and other organizations, including some church denominations have all been infiltrated by the minions of One World Government. I would encourage folks to get on the Internet and check out the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Check out their origins, who is part and parcel of them, what connections they have to the United Nations. In that regard, check out Alger Hiss who was part of Roosevelt's State Department as well as a Communist Party member, all of which bothered Roosevelt not one little bit. There is a wealth of information out there IF you are willing to make the effort to check it out. It will begin to show you why we are in the mess we are in. There is an old book out there (old being 1962) by Dan Smoot called The Invisible Government.  I believe it's on the Internet. Check it out. If it's on there you can read it for free, along with Gary Allen's book None Dare Call It Conspiracy which is also on the Internet.

These books will give you insight into why neither political party will ever do anything to change the status quo. The American public is finally beginning to wake up, stretch and yawn, and wonder why they are being taken by those they elect to office to represent them and which don't, but rather represent those in favor of One World Government, which means, for Americans, the destruction of their God-given liberty. If we are not willing, or just too lazy, to defend and protect what God has given us then we deserve to lose it. And because we've been too lazy up to now all this has been happening. Maybe the "pre-revolutionary moment" we are experiencing right now is by the grace of God, giving us yet one more chance to repent of our national as well as our personal sins and seeking His guidance as to how we turn this situation around. And make no mistake, we will NOT do it in our own strength, but only with His help and guidance.

I know today many Christians will tell you because the Lord is in control just sit back and don't worry about it. Respectfully, I disagree with the part about sitting back and not worrying. The Lord is in control and quite probably He wants to exercise some of that control using us to do it. But if we won't have any of that, then He will find someone else to do it and we may not like the results.

Is the Next Presidential Election Nothing More Than a Fixed Political Horse Race?

by Al Benson Jr.


Just read an article on Newsmax.com today telling about how a Zogby Poll shows that the voters think Donald Trump would do a better job as president than would Hillary Clinton, otherwise referred to as "Hillary the un-indicted." Lots of polls have shown Trump in the lead as of late and I have to admit that he is saying lots of things many of us agree with, not all, but many.  He is an excellent barometer to reflect how much of the American public has come to feel, accurately so, that the Ruling Elite is stiffing us today. And the Ruling Elite--the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group realize how dissatisfied  the public has become with what passes for real government in our day.

Only problem is, "those people" have spent lots of money and literally generations of time diligently getting us into the sorry shape we are now in and they are not about to let someone like Trump, if he really is a lone wolf, win an election that will set their timetable back.  Ron Paul would have sought to do that back in 2012 and they made sure that didn't happen. If Trump is really on the level they will do the same thing on this go-round. They can't afford to let him get in there and gum up the agenda they and their fathers and grandfathers have worked so diligently to put in place.

Back on April 14, 2015 I did an article on my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com  which I entitled Has the Next President Already Been Chosen--and is the election just going through the motions?  I noted in that article that radio talk show host Michael Savage had stated that: "The Bilderbergs met in Davos,  and the decision was made that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.  Romney was doing too well in the polls, so they threw him out. They want to make sure that another Bush--or an incompetent moron like Rubio--will be chosen to lead the Republicans, to ensure that Hillary becomes president." My April 14, 2015 article must have struck a responsive chord somewhere, because a year and eight months after I wrote it, it is still getting a bunch of views every week, many more than some of the other articles that have come and gone since then.

What brought all this to mind again was an article I just read on www.infowars.com  on January 26th for this year. The headline for this one was: Insider: It Doesn't Matter About Trump, 'Hillary Will Win.'
The article began with this: "Highly influential CEO Martin Sorrell suggests that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has already been decided, remarking, 'It doesn't matter who the Republicans put up..Hillary will win'." Infowars noted that: "Sorrell's comments are in line with similar sentiments expressed by globalists at the recent Davos confab...According to a Reuters report, financial elitists are 'alarmed' at the prospect of Trump being the Republican nominee, although they still expect his campaign to falter. Harvard University's Niall Ferguson told Reuters that Trump's chances 'could be over before Super Tuesday'." Now how would he know something like that? Some little bird been chirping in his ear?

Author and columnist Ann Coulter, in a column on January 20th wrote that: "We never had total war against a candidate like we're seeing with Donald Trump. All the elements of national media are uniting to stop him. Look for a fake Trump scandal  to break--probably from a conservative news outlet--right before the Iowa caucus."

As a candidate, I hadn't thought all that much about Trump one way or the other. I had figured he was just part of the Establishment's stable of candidates like all the rest. Maybe inserted in there to give the primaries a little pzazz, to possibly enthrall a voting public that's getting a little tired of all this and that is finally beginning to realize that, no matter who wins, they lose! However, he has stuck in there longer than I thought he would, and the fact that everybody, both socialists (Democrats) and conservatives seem to hate his guts, including the "news" media, both socialist and conservative, does make one wonder. If he's really genuine (I love his stands on illegal aliens and Middle-Eastern terrorists and the Second Amendment) what does that say about the moral bankruptcy  of what we mistakenly refer to as the "conservative" movement in this country? What it says is that, in reality the same people control the "conservatives" that control the socialists--the CFR, the Trilateralists, and Bilderbergers. No matter what party label they wear they all work for the same bosses!

The main point to this is that, in my opinion, many of our elections are a sham, a game played to fool the public so they will not realize that the Ruling Elite in Washington, New York and London is screwing them and that the elitist One World Government agenda will go forward no matter who gets into the White House. The presidential elections are a farce anymore and the people taking part in these "debates" ought to get Oscars--oh, sorry, I forget, the Oscars are too "white" anymore. Maybe we should start handing out "Barack Obama Diversity Awards" instead. That might appease the perpetually offended--for awhile.

I would encourage people to start doing a bit of homework on some of these candidates. You can find enough on the Internet if you "hunt and peck" around a little to make you shudder at where they are really coming from. You might just find enough to cause you to question if a vote for president  is really even worth the effort.

Hey Bernie--Don't Apologize For Me!

by Al Benson Jr.

Just read an interesting article earlier this week on www.godfatherpolitics.com  that mentioned how that lovable old socialist Bernie Sanders wants all of us white folks to apologize for slavery in America. You have to wonder if he's looking to steal black votes from Hillary or exactly what his game is.

Seems like the blame whitey for everything game hasn't been doing real well lately so maybe he feels as though he has to help it along. Some white folks are beginning to get a little ticked off at seeing the flags and symbols of their culture and heritage being constantly attacked and smeared and they are responding with Confederate flags on their flag poles and on the backs of their trucks and with rallies where everyone carries a Confederate flag of some kind.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the vast majority of the politicians in both parties hate our guts but they can't come right out and say it. How it must agitate them to have to bite their tongues when they are forced to give speeches or attend town meetings where they actually have to talk to us rubes in flyover country because, even with some of the "creative voting" we now have they still need our votes to get back in so they can continue to feed at the trough that we pay to keep full for them.

So when they can't tell us what they really think, the only thing left for them to do is to get back at us by trying to lay a guilt trip on us. We haven't been "compassionate" enough to minorities or we haven't grovelled sufficiently at the foot of the gods of political correctness (cultural Marxists) and we haven't gladly volunteered to pay unending "reparations" for slavery, and on and on, the socialists and Marxists continue the litany of our shortcomings! It all gets a little tedious after awhile.

Now Bernie wants all of us white Americans to apologize for slavery (again). Bernie, if you'll humbly pardon my saying it, you are, as the British say "right 'round the bend." My ancestors came here, most of them, from North England and Scotland, in the 1880s so we never owned slaves during the War of Northern Aggression--not that it would have made any difference anyway. So, Bernie, you'll have to pardon me if I don't feel real guilty about the slavery issue.  As long as you are spreading the guilt around, what about those black African chiefs that sold their own people to slave traders? Or what about free blacks in this country that owned slaves? Any guilt for them? I didn't think so, just for us white folks, right?

So now you want us to feel guilty because  some black folks don't have as much as we do right? Tell you something, Bernie, my wife and I drive around in a 17 year old car because that's all we can afford. Most of the blacks I know here in North Louisiana have got much newer and better cars than the one we have. And the few that I run into that try to talk to me about "white privilege"  are a little put off when I tell them how old our car is compared to what they are driving. At that point they don't have much more to say. They work at changing the subject, which, somehow, doesn't solve the problem.

So let's look briefly at some of these downtrodden black folks. What about Oprah? She's got to be one of the wealthiest people in the world. If we are going to abide by your old socialist credo about redistribution of the wealth then maybe she should give some of us poor white folks some of what she's got. We don't always have all we could use and she's got more than she needs by a long shot--so what about a little redistribution of the wealth there? Oh, I see, it doesn't work that way does it?

When you and your socialist and Marxist friends finish with your anti-white diatribes we are all contritely supposed to line up with silver in our palms right?  Well, Bernie, you're white, at least from the photos I have seen you look white, and you've got more than most of us have got. So if we are going to play the "redistribution of the wealth" game it seems to me that you should get at the head of the line because you've got much more wealth to be redistributed than most of us have.

In fact, as a good socialist, you should be out there thinking about where you can give most of yours away, because if you want equal income redistribution for us, then you, as a good socialist, should lead by example shouldn't you? You and Hillary and most of the people in this current regime are all socialists and/or Marxists of one stripe or another and yet it seems to me that you all have lots more money than us poor folks. So why aren't you all spreading your wealth around to help the poor and needy--and I don't mean by passing another welfare bill in Congress that we, not you, will be paying for, I mean by reaching down into your own pockets and really digging deep to enable the poor and downtrodden to lift themselves up by your bootstraps. Isn't that what good socialists do?

You could start off by giving up those fat congressional pay raises that are always voted for at 1 a.m. in the morning, by voice votes, so that we don't know how many of you have "appropriated" money from us to keep your standard of living way, way above ours. How about passing up those big congressional vacations that we the people end up paying for? How about doing away with all those congressional perks that we pay for? If I didn't know better it would seem to me that your socialist "redistribution of the wealth" program is a one-way street. We pay and you "redistribute" to your friends and business colleagues.

Bernie, I don't know how to break it to you any gentler than this--I am not about to feel guilty over slavery I had nothing to do with. I am not about to be ashamed of the culture and heritage of the part of the country I live in.  I won't play that game--and neither should anyone else. However, if you want to play it, let me ask you a question. Since you are from New England, and just about all the ships that carried slaves to this country originated in New England, do you feel guilty enough to be willing to take your fat bankroll out of your pocket and hand it to the race-baiters so you can assuage your personal guilt for the slave trade?  I didn't think so!

Our Would-be Dictator Wants to Confiscate Your Guns ASAP

by Al Benson Jr.

Toward the end of last year our Marxist-in-Chief warned us that he was coming after the guns in 2016. For once he didn't obfuscate or prevaricate. He told us the truth. Such a novelty! Oh, he didn't couch it in quite those terms but the meaning was clear. He's talking now about how to prevent more "gun violence" when there are already laws on the books covering all the situations he is supposedly concerned about. He gave a news conference today (1/5/16) where he shed alligator tears for the camera about all those poor kids killed by guns. Apparently, though, he has no tears for all those unborn kids killed by abortion. After all, that's not on the leftist agenda. His performance was so convincing he even fooled Donald Trump, who said he thought Obama was sincere with his tears. Maybe Mr. Trump doesn't fully understand the Marxist mindset.

Supposedly all Obama wants to do is implement background checks so your guns will now have to be registered with the feds, no matter how, when, or where you got them. Folks, lets quit trying to kid everybody and cut to the chase! He wants to confiscate the guns, ALL the guns. In essence he wants to nullify the Second Amendment. Something else the "news" media hasn't seen fit to inform you of showed up on an Infowars.com article, also on January 5th is the real possibility that, according to Obama's new executive orders on guns "Americans critical of government can lose gun rights due to executive order." The Infowars article noted that: "Americans critical of government could have their Second Amendment rights restricted if psychologists diagnose them with 'Oppositional Defiant Disorder' or a similar diagnosis as a result of Obama's new gun control executive action." Not only is he working at gutting the Second Amendment but he is also working at gutting the First Amendment.

House Speaker Paul Ryan sounded oh so good when he said that Obama was again exceeding his authority. He said: "While we don't yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will." I just wonder, Mr. Ryan, if all this ever gets to some kind of vote in the House, will you end up caving in like you did on the last funding bill, you remember, where the Republicans promised to defund Planned Parenthood and then gave Obama the money for it anyway? If that's your idea of opposition I can hardly wait to see what you will do with an Obama gun control/confiscation bill.

After watching the political scene for over 40 years now I have figured out that there are really no accidents in politics and  very few coincidences. The "coincidence" of Obama's new gun control/confiscation initiative  coming right on the heels of this militia takeover of government property out in Oregon really makes me wonder if that situation, regardless of the sincerity of most of the militia folks, hasn't been, somehow, false-flagged to give the president some added ammunition for his latest confiscation effort.  After all, the killings in all those gun-free zones didn't seem to be doing it. So how about something like this Oregon situation where you get to promote gun control, take a healthy slash at both the First and Second Amendments, and knock the militia folks down a peg or two. This has to be a situation that would make any Marxist would-be dictator absolutely salivate!

The Gun Owners of America will probably take this to court. I wish them well. I know with them that you will at least get a decent effort to preserve Second Amendment rights. Some other groups I am not quite so sure of. I got a petition online from some Republican committee wanting me to sign a petition telling Obama we disapprove of what he's doing here. There's your "loyal opposition" for you. Do those people actually think a petition will make any difference to Obama? Well, not really, but getting people to do that siphons off lots of potential resistance that might be more effectively used in some other area.

We need to inundate our Congressmen with calls and letters and emails letting them know how really ticked off we are at this power grab and do the same with letters to the editors of your local papers. They'll never print them all but they will be aware that there is a groundswell of opposition  out there and they need to be reminded that the American people are still somewhat awake and haven't all bought the BF (bovine fertilizer) that Washington and many of our state capitals keep trying to throw in our faces. As for the folks with guns, I'm not going to tell them what to do--they should already know. The Governor of Texas has already told Obama what to do. Let's hope the rest of the States, at least in the South and West, will do the same.

Deleting History Is Now More Important Than Making It

by Al Benson Jr.

Just this evening I saw a sign from someone's Facebook page that read: "Deleting history is now more important than making it." In the context of today's politically correct (cultural Marxist) climate I could not do other than to agree with that sentiment. It so completely fits the attempted ethnic cleaning campaign now being perpetrated in this country, most particularly in the South.

Many of those who were responsible for making history in the South have been denounced by the cultural Marxists (who ARE Marxists) and their disciples are busily engaged in deleting any memory of them, their culture, their symbols and seeking to replace these with creatures of their own leftist trinity--liberals, socialists, and communists. I've heard talk, don't how accurate it is, that they now want to take Andrew Jackson off the twenty dollar bill and one possible replacement for him that has been suggested is Rosa Parks. Before the women of America cheer about that I would suggest they do  a little homework as to the background of Rose Parks. You can find info about her on the Internet. It hasn't all been removed yet and thrown down the memory hole. To say that Ms. Parks is a creature of the left is putting it mildly.

I just read an article in Chronicles magazine for June, 2015 written by Corresponding editor Wayne Allensworth which dealt with some of our recent past. Toward the end of the article Mr. Allensworth made a couple of  penetrating comments about the past (which in many instances really isn't the past).

In referring to the magazine he is writing for he says: "But Chronicles is not about simple nostalgia, for a remembered past is the only basis any of us can have for thinking about the future...The past, or the best of it, is our guide, for it is the only guide we can have, and informed by that past, we stand at least a chance of hanging on to some things of great value that should be kept and remembered, cultivated, and used again as the ongoing disaster in progress plays out."

Think about it this way--if the cultural Marxists manage, here in the South, to take away your real past and substitute for it some Marxist appendage you would never recognize, how will that affect your children and grandchildren when what they need to know about their past is no longer available? You see there is a generational aspect to all this ethnic cleansing that most folks, even Christians, have not been trained or taught to think about. If the past is part of your guide to the future and you have no real past except what has been foisted upon you by the leftist culture-benders, where do you or your children go from there?

This question is applicable in the theological realm also (since all things are theological). How long will it be before the cultural Marxists get around to preaching that, since the Bible has a past they can't agree with, that it needs to be "reinterpreted?" Those commandments about no stealing and not coveting what belongs to your neighbor are really outdated in this new modern society where "redistribution of the wealth" has become the new "commandment." Actually the cultural and theological Marxists have already been at work in the Church inserting the premises of the left into current evangelical thinking and labeling it "compassionate Christianity." They can get by with this because most Christians have so little real grasp of history that they don't know the difference. And if the Marxist dresses up his agenda with biblical terminology then they never catch on. Will they end up "reinterpreting" Jesus as some sort of leftist revolutionary who came to take from the rich and give to the poor, rather than how He is Scripturally defined in John 14:6? If you've heard some of the sermons I have over the years you will be forced to conclude that they have been working on this project, slowly and quietly, for decades. Does that fact begin to give you any indication as to why the Church is often in the chaotic confusion that parts of it displays today?

When your view of the past is faulty then you have no guide by which to get the future right. They can change your history, your theology, all of it, and you won't know the difference!

Christians today need to stand up, start doing the homework, and learn to resist and expose this. Christians in the South need to do the same in regard to the flags and symbols that are both part of their faith and culture, because if you let them change your history, what do you pass on to your descendants? You may think I'm off the wall, but you had better start thinking and praying about this because it's happening right now, and how will you account to the Lord for having done nothing?

The Shootings Will Continue Until Public's Attitude on Gun Control/Confiscation Changes

by Al Benson Jr.

Another shooting, this time in California, and according to the World Net Daily article I read there are 14 dead and another 14 wounded. Our Marxist president has, naturally called for more gun control and says such shootings are not normal. He's right there. They are not normal--but they will continue until the American public appears to see things his way and caves in to more, and eventually complete gun control/confiscation because that's what it's all about.

The minute Congress is willing to give the president the prerogative to dismantle the Second Amendment the shootings will cease, the media will never mention them again and, supposedly, we will have happiness and "peace" in Amerika--Marxist peace" which is really nothing more than the absence of resistant to the president and his Marxist policies.

This is what it's really all about, folks--the old "pressure from above and pressure from below" game that the Marxists have been playing on us for years and they keep on doing it successfully because we never seem to get it. Maybe we'll get it once the guns are confiscated (because that's what it's really all about) and no one can defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

The president has fairly howled in recent weeks about how gun control is going to be one of his main priorities next year and you better believe  him because he means it. In this instance he is telling us the truth--if he can find some way to accomplish it he will disarm the public before he leaves office. We had all better stay on our congress critter's cases in this coming year because the president (and his handlers) will pressure them to enact some kind of gun control/confiscation measure before he leaves office and what he starts in this area then Hillary or whoever the Establishment puts into the White (Red) House will finish.

I would recommend that folks get in touch with the Gun Owners of America, the one no compromise anti-gun control group out there, and find ways to support their efforts, whether through joining up or contributing or both. Don't be naive enough to think "it can't happen here." It's happening! The question is--what are we willing to do to combat it?

Update: Guess what, now we find out that two of the shooters, (naturally both dead) were what has been termed "radicalized Muslims." That being the case I seriously doubt that they would have obeyed all those new gun restrictions that Obama wants to impose on honest citizens.It also shows that his misplaced gun control efforts are nothing but a sham to enable him to disarm the American public. Well, many of us knew that from the beginning, and so did he despite all his platitudes about not being after our guns. That's exactly what he was and is after so let's don't be gulled by his bovine fertilizer.

Next Update:  The gun grabbers have wasted no time. Already today there was a move in the Senate to try to expand background checks on those buying guns at gun shows and through intrastate internet transactions. Senate Democrats (socialists) tried to push this but there was enough Republican opposition for the present to stall any action, but I don't doubt there are lots of Republicans that would dearly love to push it along with their Democratic brethren, because, at heart, they really believe in what Obama stands for and his agenda no matter how much they deny it.

The news release I read said "The FBI is trying to determine whether a couple suspected of the shootings at a workplace in Southern California on Wednesday had links to Islamic militant groups." How much do you want to bet this will turn out to be yet another hackneyed cases of "workplace" violence? That way the media can take the heat off whatever Islamic terrorists might be involved and just try to get Congress to go along with more gun control/confiscation, because that's what this is really all about.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said: "Congress is complicit in these mass murders when it fails to act. That has to be the biggest pile of fertilizer since the Oklahoma City bombings back in the 90s. Some Islamic terrorists kill a batch of people and it's the Congress' fault because they failed to enact gun confiscation measures! Give me a break! However, with recent shootings in Paris, Colorado and now in California the socialists in Congress are fervently praying (to whatever god they believe in) that the public will suddenly repent of its support for the Second Amendment and turn to the instant panacea of fedeal gun control/confiscation. A recent poll also noted that 63% of those polled believed that gun violence can often be blamed on mental health problems while only 23% felt that it was due to inadequate gun control.

With those kinds of statistics it looks as if the shootings will continue...

Ahh, Those Refugees--Just let them all in, right? Wrong!

by Al Benson Jr.
Supposedly, the Syrian "refugee crisis" has gotten to the point where hundreds of thousands of refugees are now fleeing the country (you wonder if there;s anyone left there) and those that can't find a comfortable home in Europe must all be admitted to the US in the name of love and humanity.  The current regime in Sodom on the Potomac says so and so the beneficent (to Muslims) dictator in the White House wants to start moving as many of them as possible into our various states. A couple state governors welcome this. Several do not. When several state governors have complained about this the "president" has blithely informed them that he can basically put aliens and foreigners where he wants them and the state governors don't have diddly to say about it. I tell you, folks, that's real "democracy" in action, and I'm not kidding. That's how democracy works--it always ends up in dictatorship of some form.

But not to worry--the officials in Sodom, er, sorry, I meant Washington, have informed us that all refugees will be thoroughly vetted and so we will only get the cream of the crop--no terrorists in this bunch--just the best shots!  You will have to pardon me if I think that all this federal assurance is BF (bovine fertilizer). This regime has lied to us so often about so much why should we believe anything they tell us. All I can say is that their "transparency" is slipping just a bit like their halos.

I recently read an article by Shawn Meyer, a small-town pastor in the Midwest. He had some comments worth considering, especially for Christians who are tempted to buy just anything the government tells them because, after all "your government wouldn't lie to you." Pastor Meyer noted that: "For most of our history, Christianity was embraced by men and women who applied wisdom to love.  They were realists who understood the world in which they lived and naturally processed events  in light of the ideologies that drove them. Christianity wasn't a philosophical refuge to spiritual utopians...'Turning the other cheek, doing unto others, and loving your enemies'  represented general principles for personal relationships. Applying a hermeneutic of common sense and with Jesus' intentions in mind, these principles were understood to have little or nothing to do with foreign policy or national security." Such understanding seems almost totally lacking today in many instances, especially in the Church.

Pastor Meyer noted that Christians want to help those who are truly in need and that we should have a place in our hearts for refugees, especially for the women and children and he stated that the question isn't  whether we should help but how.  And he asked, as he should, "How do we distinguish between real refugees and ISIS operatives posing as refugees? How do we help some without jeopardizing others? I submit the administration's current policy is highly dubious and, while apparently loving toward those claiming to be refugees, will, WILL result in the deaths of innocent American men, women, and children. A staff person for my Senator assured me this week 'the Senator supports measures to vet all refugees prior to accepting them'." Most Christians in our lack-of-discernment day would buy that and not even think to go any further. Pastor Meyer, wisely, didn't buy it.  He said: "I couldn't hide my contempt for such naivet'e. Assad isn't giving us their background files. There are millions of Mohammedans in Syria. All mention of vetting is pure stupidity. We are talking about the same people who renewed the visas  of the 9/11 hijackers months after the attacks. There is no way to vet these people." Interestingly, in a moment of candor, the person Pastor Meyer talked to on the phone, admitted that. But the regime will go through the motions anyway because that will fool and bemuse most of the public--Christians who should know better included.

Pastor Meyer made several other cogent comments but I can't cover them all here. And to conclude his comments he said: "To acquiesce to Islam and welcome their Trojan horses into our streets is not only the opposite of wisdom, it is truly the opposite of love. It is to increase their confidence in a damning theology. It is to harden them in their ways. If we set aside sentimentalism and apply wisdom to love, we can help those in genuine need while protecting our children and our homeland.  Pastor Meyer's commentary appeared on http://clashdaily.com 

I have no doubt that the current regime doesn't want the public to consider any of this--just open the flood gates and let the refugees (and the terrorists) come streaming in, and if there ends up being so many of them that our culture becomes more Muslim than Christian, well, ain't that a pity?  But, then, isn't that the real name of the game?

In the Old Testament, Israel was enjoined to welcome foreigners and not to oppress them.In return those foreigners were to do something that is a dirty word today--ASSIMILATE!  They were to live, as long as they were in Israel, by Israel's laws (no Sharia law in Israel) and they were not to bring in and set up their pagan temples. If they were uncomfortable with Israel's law system they needed to move on.  Coming into someone else's country and expecting them to embrace your culture, and getting :offended" if they won't was, and is, an act of supreme ingratitude and quite frankly, in this country today, we should refuse to put up with it. I realize that the unwritten law in this country today is "everyone gets a free pass except white Christians"  and some of us white Christians are getting just a might fed up with it. Helping those truly in need is one thing. Surrendering your faith and culture so the terrorists won't be "offended" isn't part of the game.

Houston Voters Didn't Want Guys In the Gal's Bathroom

by Al Benson Jr.

The article on www.bbc.com  stated: "Houston's mayoral election has turned into a national battleground for LGBT rights  after a non-discrimination ordinance was added to the ballot. The city is the fourth largest city in the US and the biggest not to have such an ordinance." Does that mean that most other cities in this country of comparable size to Houston already sport such an ordinance? That's something most people probably have not even thought about or been aware of.

Thankfully, in Houston, conservative Christian pastors and other conservatives took a stand against this attempted perversion in their city and it was defeated by something like 60-40% The original ordinance was passed last year. I assume either the mayor, who is an open lesbian, either did it by decree, the same way our current resident in the White (Red) House tries to do these things, or the city council passed it as an ordinance. If the city council passed it the good citizens of Houston might want to think about electing a new city council in the next election. However it was done, a court said it either had to be placed on a ballot or repealed. At least that gave voters a fighting chance.

The mayor who is strongly in favor of this is the same mayor who sought last year to censor the sermons of several Houston pastors to make sure they hadn't said anything about sexual perversion she didn't like. Legally she wasn't able to do that--yet--but she sure gave it the old college try.

That might be a subtle warning to Christians as to what we can expect not too far down the line. The collectivist administration in Washington supports this sort of thing and goes out of their way to promote it. Their agenda is to, as completely as possible, dismantle as much of our Christian culture as we let them get away with as they work to move this country down the road toward a One World socialist regime.

Up to now, most Christians haven't bothered to get involved too much--lots easier for us if we just sit back and "let the Lord do it all so I don't have to do anything"--and that's one major problem today with the Church. We have become fat, happy and complacent and it's just too much of an effort for us to do much of anything anymore--especially if it might "offend" anyone or be perceived as "negative." We have been conditioned to avoid these like the plague. And it's so much easier just to sit and do nothing. It doesn't begin to occur to us that we have allowed ourselves to be placed in bondage to Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism).

Seeing that this mayor in Houston is such an open lesbian, I wonder where the Christians were when she ran for office. Had they  been awake she never should have gotten where she is.

Naturally the supporters of this "boys in the girls' bathroom" bill were disappointed that it lost. Some of them spent big bucks pushing it. You have to wonder why. But don't worry. They will be back again somewhere down the line. One thing you learn about those people after you've been around awhile is that they never quit--and I mean never! The Christians and other good folks in Houston won this one, but they can't just go home and sit on their laurels. They've won one battle, not the war. They will have to be "eternally vigilant" because this will come up again and if they fail to watch for it they will get caught the next time.

Some Flags Are "More Equal" Than Others

by Al Benson Jr.

I recall how, that after the June shootings in Charleston, there were pages and pages on the Internet that contained images of Dylan Roof sitting there with that goofy look on his face and the Confederate flag in his hand, the picture that some have said was photoshopped. However, that situation didn't accomplish quite everything it was supposed to and there has, thankfully, been some backlash and so, unfortunately, the psy ops agenda with shootings at schools and in other gun free zones seems to be increasing. Hardly a week goes by that you don't hear about one or two somewhere--and always in those gun free zones.

It seems that every time Comrade Obama goes on one of his gun control/confiscation tangents there has to be another batch of school shootings to give him enough leverage to keep talking about how horrible guns are and about how much better off we'd all be if only the government had them. He doesn't say it in quite those words but that's what it all amounts to. The media almost never questions why passing more gun control laws concerning areas that guns are already illegal in will do any good. It won't. But, you see, that doesn't matter, because in the final analysis, gun confiscation, not safety, is the real agenda--and the media pundits realize that. Their job is to make sure you don't.

Some of the good folks in Roseburg, Oregon have figured that out when they got out and protested Obama's appearance in their town after the recent shootings at their community college. They knew why he was there, the real reason, and they basically told him to go home and sharpen up his golf game. The media said there were a couple hundred protesters. Knowing how the media plays the numbers game from personal experience at events I've been at, I'd be willing to bet there were at least twice that many and probably more.

So now the recent shootings in Northern Arizona have given the gun control fanatics a new lease on life, but this event also shows the manner in which the Cultural Genocide folks ply their trade.  They make some flags and symbols "more equal" than others to use George Orwell's terminology. 

As I said earlier, after the Charleston shootings the Internet was simply crawling with images of Roof and his Confederate flag, as well as with articles about how truly evil Confederate flags were and how we need to abandon them wholesale and drive a stake into the heart of Southern culture that no one will ever be able to pull out!

Now there are article on the Internet, and no doubt other places, about Steven Jones and his shooting of four people in Flagstaff, Arizona. There are also pictures, not too many naturally, of Steven Jones with a United States flag that looks like its stuck on the back of his hat. It's about the same size as the Confederate flag that Dylan Roof was supposedly holding. But I notice there doesn't seem to be all that much media commentary about the US flag that seems to be part of Jones' getup.

Just out of curiousity, I did a Google search "picture of shooter in Northern Arizona posing with American flag." On the first two pages of the articles I checked out there were two articles each about Dylan Roof with his Confederate flag and on the third page was yet another. What, pray tell, did these have to do with this shooter in Northern Arizona? It seems that our attention is still supposed to be directed at Dylan Roof and his Confederate flag even more so than to this guy with the US flag.

It seems that the media is not all that anxious to talk about Jones and his US flag. One article I read on www.latimes.com  said: "One Instagram photo from 13 weeks ago showed Jones wearing 'American flag attire' and holding a shotgun over his shoulder."  That's the only mention of anything about flags in the entire article.  When we read articles about Dylan Roof they were shoving the "evil" Confederate flag down our throats, but now, with Jones, the US flag deserves barely a line. Notice a pattern here?

In my Internet search I was referenced to a New York Times  article that was supposed to have a picture of Jones with the US flag. However, when I clicked onto the link, and I did it more than once, all I got was a message that said this picture "is not available." If they linked to it for this article, why is it "no longer available?"

I finally did locate a picture of Jones with his US flag on something called freakoutnation.com  and even on that I was treated to yet more pictures of Roof and his Confederate flag while getting only one picture of Jones with his US flag.

So I have a couple questions. If the Confederate flag is evil because of a picture of Roof holding it after he has allegedly shot nine people, then doesn't that make the US flag also evil because it is on the hat of Steven Jones who has also, allegedly just shot four people? And why so much fuss over Roof's Confederate flag while only a bare mention of Jones' US flag?

Truly, these two tragic shootings do point to the fact that there is an agenda out there to culturally destroy the South and its heritage while not being overly concerned about the identical situation in another part of the country except to use it as fodder for the anti-gunners' agenda.

Why is one flag splashed all over the media as being totally evil, while the other one, in an identical situation barely rates a mention? Folks, stop and think about it.  Between Obama's gun confiscation game and the Cultural Genocide being practiced on us, especially here in the South,  we've been had. Sadly, most of us don't have the sense to realize that yet.

If Boehner Was Obama-Lite then McCarthy is Boehner-Lite

by Al Benson Jr.

Earlier this week I did an article for my other blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com about the resignation of John Boehner as Speaker of the House. This was something many conservatives had been working for and I am sure many viewed it as a significant conservative victory.

You might want to rethink that.

While Boehner was no loss, what ends up replacing him will probably not be any gain but only the preservation of the Establishment status quo with a different name. That's the plan. So they suckered the conservatives when they got rid of Boehner and they plan to replace him with someone that will do exactly what he would have done and many conservatives will think they won a tremendous victory with Boehner gone.

On her web site, www.debbieschlussel.com  Debbie Schlussel stated on September 25th that: "Those applauding John Boehner's resignation beware. Replacement Kevin McCarthy is Boehner minus the fake tan and the real tears." She also stated: "Beware, John Boehner's replacement Kevin McCarthy is pro-amnesty pal of Facebook Zuckerberg, is a complete RINO just like Boehner."

Debbie also noted: "Last year, McCarthy's pro-amnesty statements were front and center in a Fwd. Us pro-amnesty video add...The cheers from the right about Boehner remind me of the cheers when the GOP retook both the House and the Senate a couple years ago. I told you then that nothing would change because the respective houses of Congress would be run by Boehner and Mitch McConman. And I was right. Well, I have news for you again. Kevin McCarthy will be a seamless transition from Boehner. He's the same guy minus the orange-y skin tint." Over his time in Congress he has only voted conservative 53% of the time. So how is this any better than Boehner? It isn't, but we are all supposed to be conned into thinking this is a major improvement.

It has been suggested by the Gun Owners of America that people contact  their members of Congress and demand that they vote for a speaker that will "Defund any and all of Obama's anti-gun Executive Orders and refuse to allow any votes on any of Obama's anti-gun agenda." And while we are at it lets let them know that we do not want another Boehner clone to replace him. If that's what you end up with what have you gained? Yet I understand that's the game plan. If the Ruling Establishment can't stick it to us with Tweedle-dum then they will stick it to us with Tweedle dee. And they need to know we are wise to the game. And this is a two-party con game because both parties are controlled by the same people. Let us never forget that.

Refugee Doublemindedness?

by Al Benson Jr.

It seems that the current Syrian "refugee" crisis has produced a strangely doubleminded attitude in both Europe and this country.

For months now we have been hearing about how Muslim immigrants have been gaining strength in Europe and how Europeans have finally begun to get concerned about this unassimilable group in their midst.It almost seems as if Muslims are literally taking over in some European cities as the native populations cringe in fear.

And we definitely  had and have a problem with illegal immigrants at our Southern border, some of whom are from locales more closely akin to Cairo or Baghdad than to Mexico City.

Just about the time people in this country are getting fed up with illegals overwhelming our Southern border and the Europeans are finally beginning to awaken to the Muslim threat in their countries, along comes this Syrian "refugee" problem and all of a sudden, thousands need to leave Syria, immediately if not sooner, and "resettle" in Europe--and now the Europeans are welcoming them with open arms!  Knowing the way the current rogue regime in Washington operates can there be any doubt that it will not be overly long before the invitation to the "refugees" to come here will be extended by Washington, at least officially. Unofficially it has probably already been planned out to bring as many here as the traffic will bear. Even some of the Republican presidential candidates are saying we need to open the doors to them. And these guys are conservatives?

Some are saying that among the refugees are many ISIS militants who are not really refugees at all, but terrorists. Not everyone agrees with this, but you have to admit it is a definite possibility. After all, what better way to get terrorists into your country than to admit them as "refugees?" Tyler Durden, writing on www.zerohedge.com  has commented on this and said: "...Because just like the US Patriot Act which allowed a massive expansion of the US government apparatus while obliterating civil and privacy rights...confirmed a decade later by Edward Snowden, was a regulation in search of a terrorist event, so Europe's next superstate expansion will require a comparable anti-terrorism ;'rush' in which the population voluntarily hands Europe's supra-government even more rights to centrally plan as it sees fit."  Durden feels it's only a matter of time before terrorists are "discovered" among the refugees and this will lead to an expansion of Europe's version of our Patriot Act. He could have a point. I wouldn't put it past the scions of big government, whether here or in Europe, to pull such a stunt.

Supposedly most of these refugees are fleeing the havoc of a civil war in Syria--and neither side in that war is wearing any halos.

However, knowing the One World Government mindset and how it works it wouldn't surprise me if they played both ends against the middle--the middle being the middle class. Recently an article on www.infowars.com  noted that the United Nations figures show that 72% of these "refugees" are men, with only 13% being women and 15% being children. The infowars article stated: "Many of these people have nothing whatsoever to do with the Syrian refugee crisis. Once they reach the safety of countries that refuse to shower them with free cash, they head straight for welfare havens like Sweden and Germany." If 72% of these "refugees" are men it sure doesn't sound like a family affair to me. And infowars noted: "Why is the media ordering us to accept these people in the name of 'feelings' and humanitarianism when most of them aren't even fleeing war, they're fleeing to a higher standard of living--which will be funded by European taxpayers." Sound familiar? I wonder how many of these folks have any sort of documentation to even prove they are Syrians. Fifty per cent, ninety per cent?

The more you look at this situation the more it starts to look like the classic Marxist "pressure from above and pressure from below" approach, where the Ruling Elite (the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers or whoever) create a situation that will allow them to grab more power than they presently have (eventually they want it all) while looking like they have no control over the situation.  Then, the people in the middle (the middle class) get squeezed by the "refugees" and by some of the atrocities they commit and they go to the government to get some relief--and the government will gladly give it--at the price of more regulations and the loss of more liberties, which was the real name of the game to begin with. This game works the same in Europe as it does in this country, and don't kid yourselves--the game will soon be played on us here, with some of the "conservative" Republicans already calling for more "humanitarian" aid. This pathetic Republican Congress might as well rename itself the "Cheerleaders for Obama" section because they are little more than that

It seems that almost any excuse will do to import more people with cultures alien to our own so they can arrive here and, intentionally or not, begin to dilute our culture into something we will not even recognize in a decade or two. And it is working. i can no longer identify what we now have as the country I grew up in.

As long as we continue to elect Marxists and other One World mentalities to high offices this is what we will get. It's long past time the voting public woke up and started checking out what runs for political offices nowadays. With the Internet it can now be done. For far too long we have voted for someone mindlessly because they belong to the right ethnic group or have the right skin color, or belong to the right party. Oh I realize that having to do some research on these candidates will cut into your Tuesday night poker sessions or your reality show time--but, what these people are doing to you just may cut into the liberties remaining for you and your children. Think about that.