Obama As Marxist

by Al Benson Jr.

Since shortly after his election, I have contended that Barack Obama was a Marxist. Some commentators have labeled him a socialist, but not as many as should have. Mostly, with what we refer to as the :”news” media, his leftist politics gets a pass. They didn’t expose him during his election campaign and they will seek to cover up any allegations dealing with his Marxism as the ranting of “low-level terrorists and right-wing extremists.” One writer, in a paper in Illinois put forth the assertion that Obama was not a socialist but a centrist. if you can honestly look at his actions and his associations and label him a centrist you really have blinders on. Welcome to the land of Polyanna.

There has been a small handful of folks out there that have sought to warn the populace about his Marxism but they have been mostly shut out. After all, Obama was the “dream candidate,” the “candidate for hope and change” and so no one wanted to hear anything “negative” about him–and what the media knew they were not about to reveal. So the American electorate, fat, dumb and bemused with “Reality shows” on television, elected a Marxist as president and most of them still don’t realize it. Most of them don’t even know what a Marxist is. They can tell you (by reading the supermarket tabloids) who slept with who last week and who is breaking up with who this week, but the leftist political views of the man they elected president is something that is way over their heads. Mind you, it’s not that they are apathetic, it’s just that they don’t know and they don’t care.

One of those that has been trying to warn the public about Obama’s Marxism is a man named John Drew. Bet you never heard of him. The media is not too keen on giving him and coverage, so that’s not by accident. Mr. Drew is an award-winning political scientist who earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College.

He recently wrote an article for http:www.americanthinker.com in which he stated: “I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I formed the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist Party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.” Here is a man who knew Obama in college when they were both Marxists. Isnt it interesting that no one who was supposedly looking for information on Obama’s college days ever found this man?

Mr. Drew further continued: “When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S….which would occur in his lifetime, through a potentially violent Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.”

On another blog spot a writer sought to take Mr. Drew to task for not passing this information along until Obama was almost through the first term of his presidency (let’s hope his first term is his last). Mr. Drew responded: “I tried to get my story into the mainstream media in 2008. I left e-mails for Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. I posted all about young Obama’s Marxist ideology at the NYT The Caucus Blog Site. I tried contacting the Swift Boat people.” It seems that many of the mainstream “conservatives” were just not that interested in a Democratic presidential candidate that was a Marxist. Unfortunately, if you stop to reflect on it, this tells us a lot about where the leadership of the “conservative” movement is really at. And it doesn’t seem to be where the average American conservative thinks it is. The shabby way the “conservative” leadership is treating Ron Paul is ample evidence of that. What they really want in the White House is another establishment (RINO) Republican–another big government “conservative” and if they can’t get that they’d rather have Obama back than Ron Paul. They realize that Obama is a proponent of big government just like they are.

I have mentioned in a previous article http://www.theobamafile.com which deals with Obama’s Marxist background. The author of that file wrote: “Barack Obama was born of Marxists; mentored by a communist writer and activist; spent his college days hanging around radical activists; worked as a radical community organizer, learning the radical tactics of the communist, Saul Alinsky; attended a radical church; was introduced to Chicago politics by a communist in the home of another communist…and had radicals working on his campaign and in his administration. The fact is, Obama has been around Marxists, of one kind of another, since the age of 12.” So what else can you expect out of him but what you’re getting? There are 93 pages of documentation in the Obama File detailing Obama’s Marxist and socialist activities and associations. I would invite any skeptics to check it out on the Internet. It’s probably one of the reasons Obama wants to cencor the Internet, so this kind of documentation will be unavailable to anyone checking out his background.

Still another blogger commented “How Obama ever got elected is beyond me. It’s more than just the media covering up for him, it’s the pure laziness of the electorate…” This man may have a valid point about the laziness of the electorate. How many voters today are willing to do the homework to find out who these candidates really are and where they are coming from? It’s much easier just to go to the polls and pull the lever down that you’ve been told to pull down. That is consistent with the public school educations of most people today–jus go and do what you’re told like a good little socialist robot. Don’t think and don’t ask too many questions–a nation of programmed sheep!

Well folks, for those of you who have computers, there is lots of material out there now that will tell you about Obama and his Marxist background and proclivities, so don’ t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. Do a Google search on Obama/Marxist and see what you come up with.

Christmas as War

by Al Benson Jr.

It is an observable fact, that for several years now, there has been a subtle effort underway to de-Christianize Christmas. Those who dwell in the environs of political correctness would never dare utter those forbidden words “Merry Christmas.” Utterly unthinkable! We must all now be programmed to say “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” but never Merry Christmas. To openly acknowledge Christ and the Christmas Season is now beyond the pale–just not socially acceptable in the “right” circles anymore. And so the liberal/Marxist mindset is at war with Christ and Christmas. For them, the memory of Christ and Christmas must be stamped out every bit as surely as Confederate symbols must be stamped out in the South.

For years outfits like the Anti-Defamation League and others have railed against a Christ-centered Christmas season. Now it seems, in the name of both making money and not “offending” anyone (except Christians) they have managed to get many of the big retail outlets on their side. No one sells Christmas trees anymore. Now they sell “holiday trees.” And government schools no longer have Christmas vacations; now they have “winterbreak.” Many Christians feel distressed about this, as they should. They feel as if they are under cultural attack, which they are.

But let’s look at the whole scenario a little differently. Actually, if we approach it correctly, Christmas is war against the world system. Their attacks against Jesus Christ and Christmas are not really new. They have gone on since King Herod had all the children in Bethlehem under two years old slain in hopes of killing Christ. The lunatics that inspired and ran the French Revolution thought to rid themselves of Christ by obliterating His memory from their country and starting over with the year one. And many public school systems in this country today fire a teacher if he or she dares utter Jesus’ name in a classroom. All these ludicrous and pathetic attempts failed, and those attempts going forward today in this direction will ultimately fail also.

One thing can be said, though, for these anti-Christ revolutionaries–they recognize the true meaning of Christmas where many culture-blind westerners do not anymore. They know what Christmas means for them–ultimate defeat! They were not able to rid the world of Jesus in His own time and they will not be able to now or in the future. As long as Christians continue to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ in a Christian manner they are, in actuality, committing an act of war against the world, the flesh, and the devil–and try as he might, the devil is powerless to stop them. Christian worship is an act of war. It says to Satan “you did your best to eradicate Jesus Christ and you failed. The empty tomb at Easter is proof of that, and we, weekly, celebrate His victory over you, and even though final victory is not yet attained on this earth, someday it will be and even those who hate Christ will be forced to bow the knee to Him.” That is what Christmas commemorates–Christ’s first coming into this world that His ultimate victory might be made known and celebrated–and that fact grates on His enemies to no end.

The official Christmas Season does not end until January 6th, which is Epiphany–the revealing of Jesus Christ to the gentiles. So, until then, let us not hesitate to celebrate His birth, His ultimate victory over the world system, whether we live to see it or not, and make sure we all wish various and sundry people a resounding Merry Christmas!

Socialist Teachers Unions–Part Two

by Al Benson Jr.

As you dig further into the socialist origins of both the public school system and the National Education Association you learn more and more about the socialist direction public education has always taken in this country–if you are willing to look.

If folks want to check some of this out on their own rather than just taking my word for it, do a Google search on “The National Education Association and Socialism.” You will find a batch of sites that will give you more information than I ever could. You won’t enjoy reading much of it, especially if your kids are in public schools and you begin to realize what is being done to them in the name of “education” but maybe, just maybe, you will learn enough to begin to ask the Lord what different direction you should take with educating your children. Their education is, after all, your responsibility, not that of a government “school” system.

Many of you have heard of John Dewey, one of the giants of public education in the 20th century. His name is to 20th century public education what Horace Mann’s name was to 19th century public education. But, as most folks didn’t have a clue that Horace Mann was a Unitarian (and still don’t) so most folks didn’t and still don’t have a clue that John Dewey was an atheist, a socialist, and just happened to belong to fifteen different Marxist front organizations, as well as being a co-author of the Humanist Manifesto. Dewey had an “interesting” education philosophy which should give parents no comfort. He said: “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society, which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.” Look at what he said. With a statement like that do you wonder why the minions of both the NEA and the government school system hate homeschoolers so much? Most homeschoolers learn to think independently, at least to some degree. Therefore, they will ask questions; they will even question authority where they feel it is right to do so. So they won’t fit easily into the socialist collective that public education and big government are planning for us. They will not go easily into the New World Order, but will question and resist–therefore they must be suppressed at every opportunity that the “socialist collective” may flourish.

Back in 1936 the NEA stated a position from which it has never retreated. It said: “We stand for socializing the individual…The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual…Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.” Notice that this statement did not say that education was a major function of the public school. because it never has been, but rather “social orientation.” That statement, alone, should tell you what the public school system is really all about, and folks, it ain’t education!

If you think the public schools will be responsive to your desires for your kids’ education then you may be a prime candidate for belief in either the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or both. Paul Haubner, an NEA specialist, has informed us that “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kinds of values-education their children receive in school…that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.” This is a main reason why the public school system and the various levels of government in Kanawha County, West Virginia reacted so violently toward the parents who protested their use of mind-bending curriculum in the public schools there. The parents wanted to preserve, for their children, their Christian ideals and worldview–it was the public school system’s job to destroy that, and when the parents protested, the system reacted, often with violence, which they then tried to blame on the protesters. Christian ideals are not in line with what the schools have for an agenda and so must be put down in whatever way possible.

If you think you will get any help in this area from the politicians, think again. Years ago now, former Nebraska state senator Peter Hoagland said that: “Fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.” Neither will the homeschoolers–thank the Lord! Government will not help you. With your kids’ education, it is your adversary. It is part of the One-World problem. The public schools are, after all, government schools. The Biographical Dictionary of the Left , was published in 1971. It has a list of leftist organizations in it. One of them is the National Education Association. Their article on the NEA states: “The 1954 House Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations called attention to the NEA;s sponsorship of the “Building America” series of textbooks. The “Building America” series was written by Harold O. Rugg, one of the most prominent disciples of John Dewey. Rugg’s pro-socialist bias had been plainly evidenced in his 1933 “The Great Technology” a guide for teachers. Rugg advised teachers that the United States must have a government with all-pervading powers to plan and run the lives of the people and the nation’s economy. The teachers’ role would be to prepare ‘a new public mind’ for ‘a new social order’.” Rugg was financed with Rockefeller money to help accomplish this.

I hope you have noticed that, through all of this, there is almost no emphasis on real education, but every emphasis on changing the values of the students away from what their parents have taught them. I think, in their minds, these people are “god” and they actually believe you have no right to teach your kids your values–when the Scriptures plainly command you to do so. In their thinking the Humanist Manifesto is the new “revealed truth” and your Holy Scriptures and your God are out of date.

Folks, the solution to this situation is obvious–it isn’t to join the PTA and work to “reform the schools.” That will never happen. Don’t kid yourself. You need to get your kids out of these humanist seminaries. The statements their own people make should convince you where they are trying to take your kids, and I don’t know about you, but where they wanted to take our kids we didn’t want our kids to go and so they got private Christian education both in Christian schools and at home–much to the consternation of some of the people who attended the church we went to at the time. After seeing much of what happened in West Virginia, the idea of public school “reform” is a sick joke.

The NEA fits comfortably into this educational pantheon of leftist gods. They are, after all, one group that has donated money to such groups as The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition and the National Council of La Raza (the race)–all leftist groups.

I would urge people to check out the web site for Exodus Mandate and find out about their new DVD IndoctriNation, which shows you up close and personal what is really going on in public schools and the NEA, and why it is imperative that you get your kids out.

Socialist Teachers Unions

by Al Benson Jr.

The National Education Association meets every year for a big national convention in some city or other and teachers from all over the country show up for this event.

An agenda is usually presented showing all the things nationally that the NEA is either for or against. In the past several years they have presented agendas that Hugo Chavez, Marxist dictator of Venezuela, would love. Many of the issues they choose to address have little or nothing to do with education, but everything to do with their leftist worldview.

While many have heard of the NEA they don’t have any idea of how long it has been around or what it really does, only that many of their kids’ teachers belong to it, and the compliant media, when it reports on NEA conventions, is not about to give out anymore real information than it has to. In all fairness to public school teachers, there are some that are not in favor of what this “teachers union” does, but their opposition is generally ignored or ridiculed.

I knew a man in Indiana several years ago that was a public school teachers, one that really tried to educate kids. He was not in favor of a strike the teachers union wanted to engage in, and so when they struck he continued to go to school and attempt to teach. His fellow teachers, in characteristic acts of teacher-union charity, splashed black paint all over his white car and when that didn’t keep him away they slashed his four new tires for him. These are the kinds of things about teachers unions you won’t read about in the papers or hear on the nightly “news.” The media usually tries to paint the teachers unions as champions of “quality education” for the young and downtrodden. That assessment of teachers unions has about as much validity as that black paint they splashed all over my friend’s white car.

Samuel Blumenfeld, in his informative book NEA–Trojan Horse in American Education has given us a view of the NEA that is seldom presented in other places and is almost never available to the American public at large. Blumenfeld noted on page 13 of his book that: “It was…in 1829 that Josiah Holbrook launched the Lyceum movement to organize the educators of America into a powerful lobby for public education. Was Holbrook a covert Owenite? (disciple of socialist Robert Owen). Circumstantial evidence seems to indicate that he was. And if the socialists decided to further their cause through the instrument of public education, we can then understand why the system has had such a pro-socialist bias for as long as anyone can remember. Indeed, public education was to become the socialists’ primary instrument for promoting socialism.”

Also, in 1829, radical socialist and feminist Frances Wright lectured in this country. She spoke in favor of a national system of education–and who was to be the beneficiary of that system? The students? Hardly! In speaking of public education Ms. Wright said, quite forthrightly “That measure–you know it. It is national, rational, republican education, free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the state, at the expense of the state, for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state.” That’s quite a mouthful of socialist dogma. Karl Marx would have loved it. Maybe he did. Frances Wright, after all, was a little ahead of him in promoting “Free education for all children in public schools.”

Remember now, we are talking about events that happened in 1829–not 1929, but 1829–a mere forty-two years after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. That’s a pretty early date for subversion in this country when most folks have been taught to believe this country never had any real problems in that area until FDR got into office. We need to go back and revise our historical calendars by about a century.

Blumenfeld has informed us that: “The NEA was founded in 1857 at a meeting in Philadelphia called by the presidents of ten state teachers associations…Thomas W. Valentine, president of the New York Teachers Association, told the gathering…’I trust the time will come when our government will have its educational department, just as it now has one for agriculture, for the interior, for the navy, etc.’.” Blumenfeld continued: “Thus it should come as no surprise that the call for a federal department of education was made at the very first organizational meeting.” The socialists didn’t get what they wanted right away, but they never quit working toward it and planning for it. Jimmy Carter finally gave it to them during his one-term presidency in the late 1970s as a payback for teacher union support during his election. Ronald Reagan claimed he wanted to disband it, but, somehow, he never quite got around to it. Trouble is, the Constitution, as flawed as it is, gave the federal government absolutely NO role to play in education in this country, so the feds just usurped the power and did it anyway. Few people dared to complain. After all, it was “for the kids” right? Right? Well, not exactly.

Originally the organization was called the National Teachers Association but, according to Blumenfeld, in 1870 the name was chanted to the National Education Association and membership was opened to include “any person in any way connected with the work of education.” Shortly, the NEA became the “forum” where all the educational issues of the day were dealt with–public vs.private education, the role of government in education, religious educations vs. secular (humanist) education and others. And Blumenfeld has noted that these problems remain with us even today “just as insoluble now as they were then.”

To be continued.

Why Osawatomie?

by Al Benson Jr.

Recently “President” Obama gave a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas about the economy. He roundly denounced capitalism, saying “It doesn’t work. It has never worked.” After a statement such as that, you might be tempted to ask him–What would you replace capitalism with–“compassionate Communism?” And, were he honest enough to tell you the truth (don’t hold your breath) he would have to admit that Communism is exactly what he wants to replace capitalism with. But there is capitalism and there is capitalism. There is monopoly capitalism, which isn’t really that much different than what Obama wants, and there is free enterprise capitalism which is something close to what we started out with in this country and is worth preserving.

Columnist Alan Caruba noted on December 11th in a column posted on http://www.renewamerica.com that “In a December 8 Washington Times commentary, Jeffrey T. Kuhner wrote: ‘There is only one problem with the White House’s narrative: It’s completely false. Mr. Obama is not a defender of the middle-class but has been its mortal enemy. His policies have impoverished working-and-middle-class Americans…Obamacare suffocates businesses, stifles job creation, and adds another unsustainable entitlement. It is creeping socialized medicine, which is wrecking the world’s finest health care system.” And in my opinion that is exactly what it is supposed to do. Obama’s economic program is trashing the country’s economy–as it is supposed to do. That is Obama’s agenda.

Obama’s Marxist proclivities should be apparent to most people by now. Sadly, probably due in large part to our public school “educations” most of us don’t have a clue. The American public is probably about as politically clueless as Charley Brown, expecting Lucy to leave the football in place so he can kick it. She never does; and he always falls on his face, but thinks it will be different next time. We continue to elect people to office that promise us the same old programs that have never worked before, but, somehow, they will work this time, and we continue to believe it. Discernment we ain’t got!

When I heard about Obama’s “economic” speech and that it was given at Osawatomie, Kansas, a little warning bell went off in the back of my mind, and my first thought was “why Osawatomie?” It’s a little town in the middle of nowhere in eastern Kansas, but then realization began to sink in and I knew “why Osawatomie.”

For anyone who has been able to get beyond his public school “history” books and actually read a little history, the name Osawatomie should jar your memory just a little. Osawatomie, Kansas was the place where terrorist John Brown (of Harpers Ferry fame) made his headquarters in 1856 as he worked out his terrorist agenda against white Southerners in Kansas. Brown’s brother-in-law, Rev. Samuel Adair, lived in Osawatomie. It was an abolitionist town. In May of 1856 Brown and his men killed five “pro-slavery” men along Pottawatomie Creek by hacking them to death with swords while their families were forced to stand by and watch. Osawatomie played a continuing role throughout the War of Northern Aggression, as a center for Jayhawker (legalized thievery) activity. So the area was hardly pristine. White Southerners in the Osawatomie area were far from safe. Even today they are looked down on. I remember traveling through eastern Kansas one year, where I happened to get into a spirited conversation with a local “historian” who worked at some college in the area. She informed me that John Brown was a hero, while Jeb Stuart was a terrorist. That’s what passes for “history” in eastern Kansas even now.

Now, let’s jump ahead several decades to the era of the Viet Nam War and check out an outfit called the Weather Underground. This organization was peopled by such compassionate souls as William Ayres, Obama’s good buddy, and Bernadine Dohrn and other 20th century terrorists and bomb-throwers. This terrorist organization published a revolutionary newspaper by the name of (guess what?) “Osawatomie.” Now why do you suppose they named it that? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that these 20th century terrorists were identifying with John Brown and his brand of 19th century terrorism, which was not really much different than their own.

Back on November 2, 2008, columnist Judi McLeod wrote a column about the upcoming election on http://www.canadafreepress.com in which she said: “The long road to Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency was laid back in 1975. With infinite patience, it was laid step by step by radicals working from the inside, in a strategy that promised its adherents in writing, “the certainty that we will see revolution in our lifetime.” The Revolution begins November 4, 2008 without a shot being fired. More than to anyone else, the long road to turn the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave over to socialism/Marxism belongs to the twisted-with-hatred-for-America William Ayres and his radical wife Bernadine Dohrn.” McLeod also noted that: “Obama’s Election 08 logo and the logo of Osawatomie, the newspaper of the Weather Underground are one in the same.” And you do have to admit, looking at the two logos side by side, there is an amazing similarity. Just an accident, the liberal elite who support terrorism today, just as they did in John Brown’s day, will say, but I am reminded of FDR’s statement that “in politics nothing happens by accident.”

About three years ago now I wrote on article on my website http://www.albensonjr.com called “The Communization of a President” in which I quoted material from an Internet site called The Obama File. It’s still out there, theobamafile.com The man who compiled this file did an amazing amount of work. His section of Obama’s political background, alone, was 93 pages long. Obama was raised in a Marxist environment from when he was a youngster, and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a known Communist.

As revolutionaries, Marxists have never been opposed to using terrorism when and wherever it would serve their agenda. So that they would willingly identify with someone like John Brown should come as no surprise. Nor should it come as any surprise that Obama would choose to give his “economic” speech attacking capitalism in Brown’s abolitionist stronghold.

Folks, just connect the dots and you have a line from terrorist John Brown, through the terrorist Weather Underground of the 1970s to our current president, who, if he is not a Marxist, is so close to being one that it’s not funny. And the electorate did not have the discernment to realize any of this?

I guess you could say there is some benefit to a public school education and a managed media blackout after all–a benefit to the left-wing radicals–but, then, don’t they run some of the school systems too?

No Sense Of Real History

by Al Benson Jr.

It is no secret among those who understand the rationale for public, or government, schooling, that the teaching of real and accurate American history is not something that is a real high priority. In fact, in most cases, what passes for American history today in public schools is little more than politically correct propaganda.

One of the most important and critical periods of our history is that period embracing the War of Northern Aggression, the real reasons for it, and the horrendous period following it which has euphemistically been labeled as “reconstruction” a favorite term of Karl Marx’s.

For our youngsters to correctly interpret and understand our history, what happened during that time period must be understood by them. If they are unable to grasp what happened at that point, none of the rest of it will make any sense to them and we will wind up with the skewed version of “Americanism” that floods the land in our day.

Most public school history texts claim the War was fought to free the slaves in the South. Seldom mentioned is the fact, up until a few years before the War, slavery also existed in the North. Archaeologists are finding evidence of slave-holding plantations in Northern states–in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, which give the lie to the idea that only the Southern states engaged in this practice.

Cheryl LaRoche, a historical archaeologist from the University of Maryland has noted: “America was a slaveholding country–North and South…Over the years that reality has been lost, stolen, or just strayed from the history books.” Don’t you just wonder how that happened?

Even some historians, journalists, and lecturers don’t seem to know much of the truth nowadays. Author Douglas Harper has written: “I had written one book on Pennsylvania history and started a second before I learned that William Penn had been a slaveowner.” The historian Joanne Pope Mellish, who has written a perceptive book on race relations in ante-bellum New England recalls how it was possible to read American history at the high school level and never know there was such a thing as a slave north of the Mason-Dixon line…

Mr. Harper started a website dealing with slavery in the North, and noticed, after awhile, one of the major search engines had, somehow “lost” all his references to slavery in the Northern states. It had, miraculously managed to preserve his comments about slavery in the South, but his comments about slavery in the North went missing. He contacted them about this and soon his comments about Northern slavery reappeared–only to disappear again in a few days. Seems the search engine had a selective memory. The memory hole is a convenient place for such disturbing facts. If our children are only taught that the War was over slavery, they will never have any real grasp of the other important issues involved–tariffs, cultural differences, even theological differences–which separated the two regions of the country.

They will not begin to understand the important concept of the rights of the individual states within the framework of a confederated union. Unfortunately, many of the history books for the home school and Christian school market do not seem to deal with any of these issues to any meaningful extent either. These issues are glossed over, given a little lip service, like the lying politicians give us when they want our votes at election time, only to forget what they said if they make it into office.

Our children are never taught that the War of Northern Aggression changed how this country was run. We went from a confederation of states to a centralized national union, thanks to Karl Marx’s friend, Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, most public school-educated people today don’t know the difference between what we had before the War and what we have today–much in the same way they don’t know the difference between a republic and a democracy–and their “history” books ain’t about to tell them!

This is not all by accident. Here in Louisiana (I don’t know how it works in other states) the last time the students learn the history of the War of Northern Aggression and “reconstruction” is in the seventh grade! Nothing about it in high school at all! In all honesty, how much of what you learned in the seventh grade do you remember? Off the top of my head I can’t recall anything I learned in the seventh grade that has stuck with me. What sort grasp of this critically important period of our history–where our system of government was, for all intents and purposes, changed–will these kids even have when the leave high school? In most cases they will remember little, or nothing at all. And, as previously stated, this is not by accident. An ignorant people doesn’t know what questions to ask.

The War of Northern Aggression was America’s French Revolution, from which we have never recovered. Until our children are taught to understand that, we never will.

If our view of the past is faulty (and mostly it is) then our vision for the future will be also–and our children and grandchildren will be forced to live with the results.

A few books that deal with this critical subject are “The War Between the States–America’s Uncivil War” by John J. Dwyer, published by Blue Bonnet Press in Denton, Texas; “The South Under Siege 1830-2000″ by Frank Conner, published by Collard’s Publishing Co. Newman, Georgia; and “Lincoln’s Marxists” by Al Benson Jr. and Walter D. Kennedy, published by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana. These should be enough to give you a basic foundation of what the War was really all about and the results of it that we live with today.

Private Property in America–that glittering illusion

by Al Benson Jr.

Once upon a time in this country Americans had the right to own their own property, free from government interference at just about any level. A man’s home was, truly, his castle, and in it he and his papers and possessions were secure.

Supposedly, on paper, we still have that right, but in light of history and recent events it has become nothing more than a glittering illusion–sort of like cotton candy–you go to take a big bite and there’s really nothing there.

In the old John Wayne movie “The Alamo” John Wayne had a great bit of dialogue in which he said something like: “Republic, I like the sound of the word. It means a man can live free, come or go, buy or sell…however he chooses.” That was a great sentiment–back in 1836, but it won’t hold water today. Oh, on paper this country is still a republic, but in reality, we have since the time of the War of Northern Aggression, become a centralized, collectivist democracy. The Founders, for all their problems, viewed democracy as one of the worst possible forms of government. They felt it eventually leads to dictatorship. Looking at where we are today, who can honestly doubt that assessment? All the politicians today rant about out “democracy” and yet the more democracy we have the less freedom we seem to have, and no one seems to pick up on this.

The War of Northern Aggression set the tone for the government’s regard for private property and if that property just happened to belong to Southerners then it was fair game for the socialist thugs in many of Lincoln’s armies. “Steal what you want and destroy the rest” was the order of the day,  during the War and in the socialist charade called “reconstruction” that followed it. The concept has now been widened to include all private property, both North and South, just as “reconstruction” has now been expanded to cover the whole country.

If you are still naive enough to think “your” property belongs to you, try not paying your property taxes (your yearly rent) to the government and you will find out who really owns your property. Your John Hancock might be on the deed and you might even have a receipt from the bank saying your note is all paid up, but in the final analysis, all that is meaningless. He who can take it is the real owner, not you.

For decades after the War the facade of private property was maintained, so most folks wouldn’t catch onto the game, and it pretty much worked, thanks to the mis-education of a dutiful public (government) school system that taught its captive audiences much about nothing.

However, the Supreme Court, those nine blind judges and judgettes, have now figured out that we have come far enough down the road to serfdom that they can now remove the velvet glove, stick the mailed fist in our faces and show us the real name of the game, and there just isn’t much we can do about it anymore. And they could be right. Americans in all areas of the country have been allowed just enough material comforts, bass boats, and beer, to keep them mostly obese and happy–and they just might not give a rip anymore, as long as its not their house or bass boat that’s being threatened–yet.

A few years ago we finally had the glittering illusion of property rights shattered. The death knell came, in, of all places, New London, Connecticut, which just proves that “reconstruction” is alive and well in the North as it has been in the South for decades. The Supreme Court ruled that the city has the right to seize people’s homes to make way for a business complex for “public use.”

According to an article at the time in “The Washington Post”: “The city had argued that the project served a public use within the means of the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase the tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy,” Isn’t that convenient? Anytime a town or city decides it can get more out of your property by removing you and your neighbors and putting up a business complex there, then you and your neighbors are gone in a New York minute. The bulldozer operators eagerly await the opportunity to knock down your house, whether you desire to move or not, because, you see, what you want doesn’t really matter to the city. If your property is a usable commodity to them you will be removed, one way or the other. End of argument! Maybe we begin to have some idea of how the Indians felt, and maybe what goes around comes around.

If I recall correctly, the Tenth Commandment says something about covetousness, about not coveting your neighbor’s house, (and by implication, his land) or his servants, nor his livestock, nor anything that is his. Of course everyone know that doesn’t apply to cities or towns, right? Isn’t government above all that? Well, no, actually they are not. The Commandment applies to governments as well as to individuals and the government that steals will be judged every bit as much as the individual that steals.

That Commandment was written, as part of God’s Law, for a society that was supposed to value private property. That would, automatically, seem to exclude us anymore.

Welcome to “the land of the freeloader and the home of (thanks to public education) the brain dead.”