Confused History–Fascism and Secession

by Al Benson Jr.

The other night I ran across some sort of forum on the Internet, and one of the contributors to it asked the question: What if? Abraham Lincoln goes Fascist instead of socialist. At this point, I can’t recall what the entire forum was all about and I only printed off the one page that had that comment on it. The person who asked the question seemed willing to acknowledge that Mr. Lincoln could fall into the socialist camp, which is more than many are willing to do. But they also considered the possibility that he might end up in the Fascist camp. This might seem an interesting argument to some folks, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those debating this possibility, but I do have a problem with their conclusions, in that, from my understanding of the political spectrum Fascism is not a rightist, but rather a leftist position–therefore it belongs over there on the left next to socialism and communism.

Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.

So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on LewRockwell.com back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.

Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.

Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat
for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism).

Also quoted by Professor DiLorenzo was an editorial from the Washington, D.C. States and Union
newspaper for March 21, 1861, which said: “The people are the ruling judges, the States independent sovereigns. Where the people chose to change their political condition, as our own Declaration of Independence first promulgated, they have a right to do so. If the doctrine was good then, it is good now. Call that by whatever name you please, secession or revolution, it makes no sort of difference.”

And then DiLorenzo carefully noted: “This last sentence was in response to the Republican Party propaganda machine of the day that invented the theory that the Declaration allows for a ‘right of revoluton’ but not a right of ‘secession.’ The States and Union recognized immediately that this non-distinction was nothing more than a rhetorical flimflam designed to deceive the public about the meaning of their own Declaration of Independence. It is a piece of lying propaganda that is repeated to this day by apologists for the American welfare/warfare’police state, especially the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at National Revue, the Claremont Institute, and other appendages of the Republican Party.”

That’s a pretty telling analysis of something that has been used since the days of “Father Abraham” right up to and including our day, when we are informed that we have a “right to revolution” but no right to secession. I’m sorry, but I have to consider that rationale to be a pile of high-grade cow chips.

“Father Abraham” Thought Secession Was Great For the Forty-Eighters

by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860, according to Abraham Lincoln, the Southern states did not possess the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln’s view of the Union was that it had actually predated the Constitution, and that, once in the Union, a state basically had no right not granted to it by Big Brother in Washington. Although he would not have couched it in exactly those terms, that was where he was really coming from. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt with this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

However, in light of his own remarks, Mr. Lincoln’s anti-secession sentiments were very selectively applied, just like the edicts of the present Regime are today. Lincoln was opposed to Southern states seceding from the Union to preserve their Christian heritage and the rights of the individual states according to the Constitution and he was also opposed to their secession because they paid the major portion of the country’s tariffs and to have them gone would cost the Northern states big tariff bucks that the South had heretofore paid. In Lincoln’s mind, these were not good enough reasons for secession, but he did view secession as a viable option if the reasons for it were chaos and revolution.

On January 12, 1848, Lincoln, while in Congress, made a speech in which he stated the following: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right–a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. Supposedly, Lincoln was applying this to Texas in 1848, after their late unpleasantness with Mexico. Even were such the case, Lincoln should have been honor-bound to recognize, for other states, what he seems to have recognized for Texas.

However, with my suspicious mind, my personal contention is that, while Lincoln may have referred these remarks to Texas in a secondary way, his prime target for these sentiments was the socialist revolutionary movement that was soon to erupt in several countries in Europe in early 1848. That was the year the socialist and communist revolutionaries plunged Europe into chaos with bloody revolts in several countries. This activity began shortly after Lincoln gave his secession speech in Congress.

The carefully crafted persona of “Honest Abe the railsplitter,” the hayseed from the Illinois prairies, is one that has been carefully nurtured by our politically correct, Cultural Marxist, historic spin doctors. They definitely can’t afford to let us know what “Father Abraham” really was, a sharp, politically astute lawyer and lobbyist for the big railroads, as well as a thoroughly pragmatic politician with his own leftward-leaning agenda.

Lincoln was hardly the country bumpkin that biographers and “historians” have made him out to be. He was conscious of world events and had his own ideas and opinions regarding them. He was acquainted with what went on in Europe. By the same token, many in Europe kept tabs on what was happening over here. Lincoln’s 1848 speech in favor of secession (although the historians won’t admit that’s what it was) was well-timed to give European socialists the kind of American support for their endeavors that many of them could only have dreamed about. It let them know that there were American politicians that supported their socialist agenda.

In his book Lincoln And The Emperors A. R. Tyrner-Trynauer stated on page 32: The sympathy of the United States in general and Lincoln’s Republicans in particular for the revolutionaries of Europe was a long-established fact. That was written in 1962. More recently, in 1991, historian James McPherson, revealing a bit more about Lincoln, told us that: Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutiion of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions–Karl Marx–praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘a single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world’. Look at and analyze what McPherson is telling you there. The “reconstruction of a social world” is supposed to be the death knell for the old Christian South, for private property, and of real Christian culture. That’s what it was really all about. Why else do you suppose that, when the Northern radicals (socialists) in Congress sought to destroy the culture of the South they called that program “Reconstruction?” That was Marx’s terminology.

Worth noting again, as Donnie Kennedy and I stress in our book, is the fact that socialist revolutionaries from the 1848 European debacle flocked to join the Union armies as the War of Northern Aggression got under way. Lincoln had the verbal support of Marx and Engels, as well as that of the Russian revolutionary Bakunin. Socialist and communist personalities ended up with high-ranking positions in Lincoln’s armies and also ended up in positions of influence in journalism, education, politics, and the list goes on. The fact that European socialists so lopsidedly supported the Union cause should give people pause to consider the true nature of the Union cause. Was Karl Marx really concerned about Lincoln freeing an “enchained race” of blacks? Hardly! Marx’s own personal comments show that he was prejudiced against blacks, and so was Lincoln for that matter. If you don’t think so, scrounge through the Lincoln Douglas Debates and see what you find. For both Marx and Lincoln the blacks were nothing more than cannon fodder for the socialist world revolution–and nothing has changed since then.

In the final analysis you have to ask, were Lincoln and Marx really that far apart? Such a question today will, no doubt, shock some tender souls who have been taught that Lincoln was, in effect, a secular messiah–the apotheosis of a mere man into a “god.” But, then, today, some feel that way about Obama. A noted television journalist, awhile back, said of her and her colleagues regarding Obama, “We thought he was the messiah.” I can only assume, at this point, that she has had her rude awakening. That same rude awakening needs to take place in regard to “Father Abraham” and his socialist and communist friends in the early Republican Party (and in the same party today along with the Democrats).

Secession the “History” Books Neglect to Mention

by Al Benson Jr.

After posting my last article on secession a reader informed me that I had left out the most important part–the fact that secession in this country went all the way back to 1776. It was never my intention to neglect that, but he felt that I did. I have to agree with him–it did go back that far, though most historians today never bother to label what the 13 colonies did in regard to England as secession. By the same token, we are never informed by the “historians” that the New England states threatened secession in the early 1800s no less than three times, one of those times being over the War of 1812, which interrupted the Northeast’s commerce with England. The fact that British troops were torching Washington was of little consequence to the New Englanders if it caused commerce to be stalled.

However, one writer, James McClellan, in a book called Liberty, Order and Justice published by the Center for Judicial Studies in Washington in 1989. McClellan wrote, on page 65, that: “In any event, 1763 marks an important turning point in Anglo-American relations, for this is the year when the mother country embarked upon a bold new course of action to increase revenue, tighten restrictions on colonial commerce, and require the Americans to assume a greater share of the imperial tax burden. In response to Parliament’s abrupt change of colonial policy, the Americans began to question the constitutional basis of parliamentary statues designed to impose a new economic relationship between the colonies and England. Reaffirming and at the same time reinterpreting their ancient rights and privileges, they turned in the final stages of resistance to thoughts about the nature of free government. In the end, they came reluctantly to the conclusion that secession was their only recourse.” And they had tried a lot of other options first. Secession had not been their first choice, as today it should not be the first choice, but should rather be the one measure to protect the liberties of the people when all other legitimate choices have been tried and failed. When you are in the position of trying to deal honorably with a rogue government and nothing else will work, what other choice to you have except bondage?

And so the Declaration of Independence was written and it listed all the problems the colonists had with England as the reasons for their secession from England. I had not always realized that the Declaration was a secession document. One day, several years ago now, I was rereading it and looking at all the reason the colonists gave for their action and the thought just struck me “The Declaration of Independence is really a secession document.” That was a new thought to me and I wondered if I had, as the English say, gone “a little bit around the bend.” But in subsequent reading in the months after that I found that several other writers had come up with the same conclusion, and so I felt I was not all that far out of line.

Back in June of 1992, Lew Rockwell Jr. wrote an article for “Free Market” in which he said: “In the U.S., meanwhile, the central government gets more tyrannical and expensive by the day. Is it time to think about bidding it adieu? Certainly, secession from Britain made a lot of sense.” And Rockwell quoted Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration where he said: whenever “any Form of Government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to instutute a new Government.” When a “long train of abuses and usurpations” shows “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” And to really do that, you need to secede.

Back in 1994, Columnist Sam Francis did a column noting that Professor Walter Williams had argued in favor of secession, and Francis agreed with him. And then Francis went on to mention a couple little tidbits that, for some reason, hardly seem to make it into most “history” textbooks in our day. He said: “The Confederates of yore were hardly the first to uphold the right of states to secede. In 1815 the Hartford Convention seriously discussed the secession of New England. Later, some abolitionists proposed secession because they just couldn’t stand being part of the same country with slaveholders, a sentiment the slaveholders reciprocated. Confederate General George Pickett, who opposed secession on grounds of ‘expediency’ never doubted the right to secede and noted that the textbook on constitutional law he used as a cadet at West Point acknowledged secession’s legality.” I believe that book was written by William Rawle, LL.D and entitled A View of the Constitution Secession is dealt with in Rawle’s book on pages 238-239. So the concept of secession was taught in a book used at West Point, and some future Confederate leaders got their view of secession from a book used at the United States Military Academy. That being the case, you have to wonder at what point secession became treasonous. Today’s “historians” will never tell!

Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states.”

So secession was not just a “Southern Thang.” The spirit of secession manifested itself in New England and the Middle Atlantic states and it was evident, to those who are willing to look, even in the Declaration of Independence. So those that scream that secession is treason either are totally ignorant of U.S. history or they fervently hope their audience is.

Secession Wasn’t Treason. It Still Isn’t

by Al Benson Jr.

Secession and the knee-jerk reactions to it have been of interest to me ever since I started doing historical research. Yankee/Marxist politicians, in 1861, sought to portray secession by the Southern states as the most monstrous of crimes ever perpetrated on the human race. The fact that some Northern states had threatened secession and actually sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the issue was a historical fact that was lost on them, and they hoped on everyone else too. Somehow, when the Northern states considered it, it was not treason. That was only the case when Southern states did it.

Between 1814 and 1860, secession went from being a favored possibility to a horrendous crime, most notably if the South did it. Even, and especially, in our day, many of our crop of “historians” absolutely howl about how secession was treason and how the Confederate States were seeking to overthrow the United States government–all of which is complete bovine fertilizer–and don’t think they don’t know it. All the Southern states wanted were to be able to go in peace. They had no interest whatever in overthrowing the federal government in Washington; they just wanted to depart and set up their own government. However, Mr. Lincoln and his erstwhile collectivist friends couldn’t allow that, as the Southern states paid the lion’s share of the tariff for the whole country and if they were allowed to depart, why the Northern states might have to start ponying up their share of the tariff because the South would no longer be there to pay over 80% of it.

When the shooting part of the War of Northern Aggression was over and the Confederate States, which never officially surrendered, by the way, were in ruins, the benevolent Yankee/Marxist government took Jeff Davis, who, with his cabinet, had fled rather than surrender, and they tossed him into prison at Fortress Monroe in Virginia for two years, planning at the outset to bring him to trial for treason and secession, which they claimed were one in the same. After two years of prisoner abuse and political horseplay, the Union government finally decided, rather reluctantly, that it could not afford to bring Davis to trial because, should that event transpire, it might well be proven in court that Davis and the South had been right–secession was not at all illegal, nor was it unconstitutional. After all, what did they think the Declaration of Independence was other than a secession document?

Several years back now, 1995 I think it was, I wrote a short 26 page booklet on secession. It has since become one of the booklets I offer in my home school mini-history course. In that booklet I quoted an author, James Street, who had written a book entitled simply “The Civil War.” Mr. Street had a few comments about what happened to Jeff Davis at the end of the War. He said: “The North didn’t dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no ‘rebellion’ and that the South had got a raw deal.” You can’t say it much plainer than that.

Later, I picked up another book, written by Burke Davis (no relative to Jeff that I know of), entitled “The Long Surrender.” It dealt with much of what happened with the people involved during the final days of the Confederacy, when Richmond fell, and Jeff Davis and the Confederate government fled the city and tried to set up somewhere else in order that they might carry on the struggle.

After Jeff Davis was captured, the vindictive and radical Yankee/Marxist Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, (who many feel may have known more about the Lincoln assassination than is admitted) wanted to implicate Davis both as a co-conspirator in Lincoln’s assassination and as a traitor for being the head of the secessionist government in Richmond, even though secession had not been original with Davis. Try as they might, the radical leftist Republicans in Washington couldn’t quite bring it off. Burke Davis noted, on page 204 of his book, a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, telling Stanton “If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion…His (Jeff Davis’) capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.” Only it wasn’t–and isn’t. Burke Davis continued on page 214 of his book, noting that a congressional committee proposed a special court for Davis’ trial, headed by Franz Lieber. Again, Davis noted: “After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents seeking evidence against Davis, this court discouraged the War Department: ‘Davis will be found not guilty,’ Lieber reported, ‘and we shall stand there completely beaten’.”

What the radical, Yankee/Marxist politicians were admitting among themselves (they’d never say it anywhere else) was that they had just fought a “civil war” that had taken or maimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans, both North and South, and that they had no constitutional justification whatever for having done so, nor had they any constitutional right to have impeded the Southern states when they chose to withdraw from the constitutional compact. They had fought solely for the right to keep an empire together. Call is “Manifest Destiny” or whatever noble-sounding euphemism you want to tack onto it, either way, they had been wrong. Now they could ill afford to let Jeff Davis go to trial, else their grievous crime would become public knowledge and beget them even more problems in the future, and that would have given them problems as they sought to redistribute among their friends whatever wealth remained in the South.

Needless to say, you probably have not read about any of this in what passes for “history” books in the last 150 years. As the narrator at the beginning of the movie “Braveheart” so correctly stated: “History is written by those who’ve hanged heroes.”

Real human rights in both North and South had been trampled on, and have continued to be up until and including today. What the Lincoln administration and early Marxist Republicans started and kept up during “reconstruction” has finally come to full fruition in our day, with such legislation as the “Patriot Act” and Obamacare, which effectively cancel out much of the Bill of Rights–as was intended and still is.

The War of Northern Aggression started the trend in this country in which leftist politicians have ever sought to usurp the rights of individual Americans, and to rule over us rather than to represent us as they were originally delegated to do. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. And now, with secessionist sentiment running rampant all over the world, the politicians are getting a bit nervous.

If you want some of the real history of that period in this country I would recommend James and Walter Kennedy’s book “The South Was Right,” Frank Conner’s book “The South Under Siege–1830-2000,” and Walter Kennedy’s and my book “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

The Scottish Secession Vote, Election Fraud, and Secession

by Al Benson

Well, the vote on Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom has come and gone, and has gone pretty much as I expected. I could not honestly picture England letting Scotland go, but it had to at least look like a legitimate vote and so, as with American elections, they went through the charade.

I have read several accounts of how there was vote fraud in this secession vote, how lots of “yes” votes ended up on the “no” side of the column, and what I have read is plausible enough that, let’s just say, I don’t doubt it. The One World Ruling Elite didn’t want this to happen so it didn’t. However you look at it, though, 45% of the Scottish voters, at least (and maybe more) voted for secession. That’s a pretty good chunk of the population.

As far as vote fraud goes though, England has a long way to go before they will match some of what we have done in this country. We are the nation where the dead resurrect every election day and they vote early and often. Our last two presidential elections had such creative voting that they will have to go down in history as among the most creative elections known to man. I’ve often wondered how, in 2012, Obama got 140% of the vote in some places and 100% of it in many other places. Almost no Romney voters many places north of the Ohio river I guess. I have also wondered why the Republicans never seemed to have any problems with those numbers, but, then, if you can manage to steal ten states off Ron Paul so your weak sister, Romney, can get in there and lose to Obama then I guess nothing surprises you anymore. But, 140% of the vote some places and the Republicans never complained above the roar of a church mouse! That says something to me and it should to you. It’s called “creative voting.” Sounds like the kind of numbers that would be part of a “Commie Core” math problem. How can 140% of anything be 100%? And after the kid gives an answer the teacher says “he might have gotten it wrong but he gave a beautiful explanation as to how he got his answer, and besides, he only missed the right answer by 20!” But I digress.

But the Scottish vote will give you some inkling of how future secession votes will go, even in this country. They will go the same way our presidential races go–even if a candidate ends up with 75% of the vote, if he is not the right candidate, then his opposition will win with 25%.

But secession is an issue that just won’t go away. From time to time it rears its head and scares the living daylights out of the Establishment, and the numbers are increasing. When I first started talking about secession back when we lived in Illinois about nineteen years ago people laughed in my face. They thought the idea was ridiculous and told me so in no uncertain terms. A poll at that time revealed that about 9% of the public would be open to secession–and given 150 years of anti-secession propaganda posing as history, I thought even that was pretty good.

Since then there has been a close secession vote in Quebec and parts of several other countries, notably Spain recently, want to secede. There seems to be a growing opposition in many areas to being part of a Leviathan state, even if it is not the world’s biggest Leviathan. People feel their cultures, their identities, and their heritages all tend to get lost when they are part of the Leviathan state and they don’t want to lose all that. And I can’t blame them. I don’t want the various parts of this country to lose their cultural distinctives either. We should not all be just one huge glob of “pop culture.” That’s what the elites want us to be and we should resist that, especially since their pop culture leaves no place for the Christian faith or any place for any cultural differences between Yankees and Southern folks or between Northeasterners and Westerners. The present Regime here is trying to squeeze all of us into a “one size fits all” mentality. Again, we should resist.

Last evening someone sent me an article from Reuters in England. The title of it was “Exclusive: Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession.” The article noted, in part, “Some 23.9% of American polled from Aug. 23 through Sept 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of a state breaking away, while 53.3%…strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion. The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll…others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own…”

And some folks are starting to wake up. Some favor secession because they are starting to realize that, no matter which party is in office, nothing gets done and the agenda doesn’t seem to change all that much. Although most of these folks don’t yet realize it, they are beginning to ascertain that both parties are controlled by one elite cabal and nothing will change until that changes. One man said “I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever.”

Interestingly, secession sentiment was highest in the Southwest, where 34.1% of poll respondents backed the idea. So 34% in the West would support secession. That’s a big jump from 9% almost 20 years ago. Given the One World socialist worldview of those that control both major parties, if they continue on their present course for another 20 years, what percentage will favor secession at that point?

Of course by that time they may figure they will have the country all sewed up and potential resistance all taken care of–and I don’t doubt, with all that ammunition the feds have bought, they will try. But what if they can’t–quite? What if the Lord won’t let them pull it off–quite? There are some folks out here that are praying to the Lord that He will restrain their enemies and His from doing all they want to do. If you believe in the power of prayer, then why not join us?

Republicans (tweedle-dum) and Democrats (tweedle-dee)

by Al Benson Jr.
Back in 1968 when George Wallace ran for president on the American Independent Party ticket he made a statement that was so true it ought to be remembered. In commenting on the two major parties, Wallace said they were “Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee and there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two.” I have often wondered if Mr. Wallace knew just how right he really was.

There is no real, substantial difference between the two. Whatever differences there seem to be are shallow to say the least. Oh to be sure the rhetoric is different but it seems that no matter which party runs the federal government the agenda always seems to be the same and the results are the same—less liberty and less economic prosperity and the group presently at the helm shouts at us about how much better off we are with them than with the loyal opposition. It all sounds so canned anymore that I think both parties hire the same script writers, and they might as well, because both parties pursue the same agenda—forcing this country eventually to become part of a One World socialist government.

I watch some of this foolishness going on in both the regular “news” media and on the Internet. The polls abound—will Hillary beat Romney; will Rand Paul beat Hillary; will Huckabee do better than both of them? It’s all a charade, folks. It keeps you from doing any really serious thinking about what is happening to us and keeps you focused on the ephemeral stuff, the stuff that really makes no difference in the long run and so you never get to ask any serious questions about what really goes on—questions like “who really controls both political parties” and what is the agenda of those who control both political parties?

For instance, if I mentioned the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group, who among the public has ever even heard of these organizations? When was the last time your newspaper or the six o’clock news broadcast on the tube mentioned these groups and the influence they wield on both political parties? Can’t remember when? Neither can I. The fact is that these groups are our real “shadow government” in this country. These are the people that get to decide who runs for office and how the agenda is presented and what this country does in regard to our foreign affairs—the whole nine yards!

On July 18th of this year Pastor Chuck Baldwin had an article on http://libertycrier.com entitled The CFR Has Controlled Both Major Parties In Washington For Decades. You might think that some up and coming young journalist would love to sink his teeth into doing an article like that, but don’t hold your breath. It will never happen. The media people know all of this and they will never tell. And since so many of them are part and parcel of this, they figure you are better off not knowing about it. “He who knows nothing questions nothing (at least nothing worthwhile).”

Admiral Chester Ward, a former CFR member until he realized what the game was and got out, has written: “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups (such as CFR, Trilateral Commission, et al) have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States…The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all-powerful one world government.”

Pastor Baldwin’s article gave a fair-sized list of some of the prominent CFR and Trilateral Commission members—people you’ve all heard of before but you’ve never been told what they are really all about. Some of the names on the list, and you can check them out for yourself, are: George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, Sandra Day O’Connor, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Jesse Jackson, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Cyrus Vance, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Dianne Feinstein, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Jay Rockefeller, Fred Thompson, Richard Nixon, Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry. This isn’t the whole list but it gives you and idea of the influence the CFR/Trilateral Commission cabal exerts on both political parties.

Pastor Baldwin has correctly noted that: “The globalists within the two major parties will do anything to make sure that a non-globalist is not elected President of the United States or given a too-powerful position of congressional leadership. Hence the GOP leadership is pouncing on Rand Paul early to try to kill any momentum he might garner going into the 2016 presidential race. Virtually everything the global elite plan to do hinges on America engaging in perpetual war. Perpetual war is the linchpin that holds the entire globalist agenda intact. Anyone who threatens that linchpin is declared an enemy by the establishment and is slated for political destruction.” This should be obvious. Look at what they did to Ron Paul in 2012 and if his son manages to have even half the perseverance in the direction of peace and truth that his dad did they will do the same to him in 2016, or thereafter if they have to. If he doesn’t realize that by now, it will dawn on him shortly. Any truly honest man need not apply for the position of President because if he does his own CFR-controlled party will make sure whoever runs in the “other party” gets the nod.

Back in 2006, Mordechai Zember did an article for http://www.newswithviews.com the title of which was Council on Foreign Relations Is An Elite Cabal. Should you wonder why you have never heard of these folks, Mr. Zember explains: “Of course, the people know almost nothing about the Council on Foreign Relations because many propagandists, I mean journalists, themselves are members of this elite organization.” And then he went on to list some of the same people that Pastor Baldwin mentioned. And he also said: “In fact the CFR owns and controls the television stations, radio stations, and newspapers such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, Time, U.S.News & World Report, and Newsweek. Sadly, some of the Internet newssites ‘remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities’.” He did mention the John Birch Society being one group that has spent considerable effort trying to expose the CFR for what it really is, but many other “conservative” groups just seem to ignore it and what it does. Makes you wonder just how “conservative” some of them really are.

The global elite also has a vested interest in making sure we elect ignorant people to Congress, people that have no real grasp of what they should be doing or what to look out for. I recently talked to a man here in Louisiana that chanced to have lunch with a Congressman from here in Louisiana. He asked the Congressman what he knew about the United Nations Agenda 21 program and its implications for this country. The Congressman had never even heard of Agenda 21 and knew nothing about it. Suffice it to say he should have. Needless to say I will look elsewhere when I cast my vote in November. Seeing that congressmen take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution then they should be aware of those that are out to subvert the Constitution so they can resist all such efforts. If they are not even aware of our adversaries how can they protect us from anything? But, then, when it comes right down to it I suppose for most, just getting re-elected and staying on the gravy train is what’s really important. What these politicians fail to realize is that if the CFR and the other one world government groups have their way Congress will probably no longer be needed and there may no longer be a gravy train for them unless they are willing to sell their souls to the Devil—but then, maybe a lot of them have already done that.

If you ever get to go to a town meeting it might not hurt to ask your congressman what he knows about the CFR. How he answers that question may well determine if he is worth voting for again or if you should work for some other candidate.

I posted an article on 9/15 on http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com called “C’mon Joe, Wake Up and Smell the Coffee” that could easily have been a companion piece to this article as they both deal with the same situation, and in that article there are several books mentioned that you can read online if you are willing to educate yourself as to what is really going on and has been going on for decades now.

Cockroaches Have Rights Too!

By Al Benson Jr.

I was on my way out the door one morning last week when I saw a van from the Federal Police Department parked in front of my neighbor John’s house. This caught my interest, as John is a pretty quiet guy who lives alone, plays chess, and pretty much never bothers anybody.

As I watched, out John’s front door came two federal policemen, dragging John along with them in handcuffs. Risking possible arrest, I went over to John and asked him what he had done that warranted this kind of treatment. His answer was “I killed a field mouse two nights ago with a mouse trap. Now it turns out that I am in violation of Federal Statute XXX501P3, which delineates exactly how and when field mice may be trapped.” The policemen, probably figuring I was no threat, let John talk to me, probably figuring that I might learn something from him that would frighten me into towing the line when it came to the trapping of field mice. As the federal officers dragged John into their van he asked if I might be able to stop and see him at some point and bring him a peanut butter sandwich (even though potentially “racist” they haven’t been outlawed yet) and I said I would try.

As I am the owner and writer of a small Internet blog spot I call “Right Turn” (although I have been urged to change its name to Left Turn), I thought I’d check out this federal statute that John had supposedly violated. I went to the local branch of the People’s Federal Records Bureau to look up the statute in question. The statute in question was 19 pages in length, longer than the Epistle of Hebrews in the Bible. Turns out it was not a law enacted by the People’s Congress, rather it was a federal executive order promulgated by the Obummer Administration and it covered not only field mice, but also cockroaches, mosquitoes, hornets, scorpions, horned toads and a whole series of species, collectively referred to as “creeping wildlife.” The statute specified that, within all residences, ant trails, mouse trails, and anyplace that might possibly contain any form of creeping wildlife had to have signs posted, in three languages,although it had since been amended to include Arabic along with the original three, warning the creeping wildlife that they were now in a human environment and that they had best be careful within that environment or the nasty humans there might swat, stomp or otherwise maim them for life. Of course such horrendous human responses to these poor and oppressed creatures was, unfortunately, normal, hence the signs had to be posted to warn them. To not post these signs within your domicile could earn you a prison sentence of up to five years. Tragic though it was, most of these creatures never seemed to be able to read these government mandated signs. Maybe they all went to public schools. I don’t know what the problem was, or is, but they just don’t read the signs put in homes for their benefit and so lots of folks end up in the slammer for inadvertently stepping on a cockroach or two. Of course no one gets away with such a high crime because the video cameras in our homes record everything–just everything! Apparently John had forgotten to put out his warning signs for the creeping wildlife and the video camera in his house noted that lack.

This federal statute had been originally introduced to our current political messiah by one Crass (Crassius) Sunnspotte, Mr. Obummer’s Neglected Animal Czar. Mr. Sunnspotte is the head of the cabinet level Department of Creeping Wildlife Agency (DeCreep for short). There were once some people that made the statement that Mr. Sunnspotte was the perfect choice for such a sensitive post, as, of all of Obummer’s czars, he most resembled the creeping wildlife he sought to protect. Unfortunately, those people were found guilty of “speech crime” and are now locked away in federal detention centers where they have plenty of creeping wildlife for company–but there are signs warning the creeping wildlife about contact with humans in all their cells, so the federal laws are being observed. Mr. Sunnspotte has assured all and sundry that his department will not hesitate to prosecute anyone caught swatting a mosquito or a house fly. In fact he has become one of the Regime’s leading advocates for “flyswatter control” legislation.

I had thought of possibly doing an article for my blog on creeping wildlife terrorism and so I did some Internet research on Mr. Sunnspotte. Turns out he did a television interview about a year ago in which he outlined his thoughts about human population reduction. Seems he felt that with less humans around there would be more possibilities for the creeping wildlife to proliferate nationwide. One of the interviewers asked him about his thoughts on abortion and he noted that he had no problem with that. He felt the compassionate thing to do was to reduce the number of human “useless eaters” to provide more breeding areas for his varmint charges. He felt that humans had evolved about as far as they were going to in the 60 trillion years of human history–from the goo, to the zoo, to you–and since mice, bugs, and other related entities had not yet reached the evolutionary status man had, why it was time to get as many men as possible out of the way so as to make the continuing evolution of his lower forms of friends more viable.

Someone reminded Sunnspotte of the Scripture verses commanding man to subdue the earth and to have dominion over it. Sunnspotte sneered at this thought and questioned the notion of a God that would be so merciless that He would put man in charge of everything. Sunnspotte was reminded that he was a man and that, as such, he was trying to take dominion over the lives of everyone with his rules about preserving insect life. He responded that he was different than other men, that he was special, and so the rules that applied to the rest of us peons did not and do not apply to him as one of the saviors of the universe. He is exempt from the rules he makes for the rest of us, and we should understand that because he is, after all, more “enlightened” than we are. And the administration he serves in is a glowing example of the purity, integrity, and transparency to which we should all aspire.

After looking up these statutes and all this information about Mr. Sunnspotte and his pure-as-the-driven-snow administration, I had planned to do an article on this for my blog spot. However, when I got it all written and went to post it I found that the Obummer Administration had just shut down the Internet in a compassionate move to protect the people from themselves, and so I never got to post my article. Maybe someday.

In the meantime, I will be content to contemplate upon Psalm 2 and consider the implications of that Scripture in regard to Messrs Obummer, Sunnspotte, and the rest of their bug-loving cronies.