Old Blue and the Global Warming/Great Birdseed Caper

By Al Benson Jr.

While out shopping recently, I stopped at the local wild bird center to pick up some birdseed so that, between monsoons, our backyard birds could catch a snack. The wild bird center was closed–gone. Well, I thought, I’ll just stop at the local market on the way home and get birdseed. I stopped, but the market was plumb out of birdseed. Not a stray seed to be found anywhere. I stopped at one other place I’ve bought birdseed at before and the story was the same–zero, zilch, nada. Not a seed in sight. When I asked the clerk what the deal was with birdseed, or lack thereof, he said he’s heard something about some government agency sending spooks around to buy up birdseed. I always knew this government was for the birds but I didn’t think they had finally realized it too.

So, seedless, I headed for home. Along the roadside, fishing in one of the ditches, I saw Old Blue. He looked kind of blue and forlorn so I stopped for a minute to try to cheer him up–at least as much as a human critter can cheer up a great blue heron. As we visited, I mentioned the birdseed incident and, leave it to Old Blue, he knew what was transpiring while us human critters hadn’t a clue yet. Like many of us, Old Blue has become extremely distrusting of the “news” media, so he has started (wisely) getting his news off the Internet. Often he picks up a website called HeronSquawk.com which is operated by a tough old buzzard somewhere to the west of us, maybe in West Texas. Lots of tough old buzzards in West Texas and that’s not all bad. Anyway, Ol’ Buzzard seems to have come up with the lowdown on the disappearing birdseed syndrome this area, and others, are experiencing.

It seems that the Obummer Administration has a new animal rights czar named Crassius (Crass for short) Sunnspott. Mr. Sunnspott believes that animals should be suing people for hunting, fishing, keeping pets and all manner of things. Mr. Sunnspott is also a fanatic proponent of the global warming scam, er, sorry about that I meant theory, and like many of the current scientists of that persuasion, he is more than willing to help out his pet theory anyway he can. Real scientific data makes no difference–promoting the theory is everything, no matter how it’s done.

Mr. Sunnspott is also the head of a new federal agency called the Collective Regional Avian Project (CRAP). As the head of that group he has major concerns about bird migration, bird feeding and the like. According to Old Blue, Crass has a new bill in Congress to register and license all birdfeeders in the country to make sure they only contain quality birdseed, though if no one can get any birdseed because the feds are buying it all up, you begin to wonder how that will work. Though, it seems, Mr. Sunnspott has that figured out. He would like to levy a tax on all empty birdfeeders nationwide for failing to provide the birds with promised provisions. Leave it to the political turkeys to explore all the angles. Sort of like the people that believe the best way, short of confiscation, to promote gun control is to make sure no one can buy any ammo.

So, according to what Old Blue got from Ol’ Buzzard’s website, Sunnspott’s agency, CRAP, has been sending out people all over the country to buy up all the birdseed possible, especially in the South. It seems that the plan is to interrupt the migrations of Northern birds toward the Southern climes they usually head for in the winter by providing tons and tons of birdseed for them to eat in the Northern states so they won’t be tempted to head south for the winter. The rationale for this, according to Ol’ Buzzard, is that most people can be conned into thinking that global warming is a big problem if it stays so warm in the North that the birds can feed up there all winter and don’t have to come south to get a square meal. The fact that this past winter has been the coldest winter, both North and South, for thirty years matters not at all. Sunnspott’s federal agency will still push the line that it’s so warm in the North that the birds don’t have to migrate south for the winter anymore. If anyone dares to question that assumption they can be touted as racists, low-level terrorists, or some sort of right-wing extremists by the media, who, like the good lap dogs they are, eagerly await every opportunity to fulfill the desires of the Obummer Administration.

I don’t pretend to know just how this will all work out. In the North, CRAP is spending billions renting silos to store all that birdseed until they can use it and who knows if CRAP can prevail on the various species of birds to remain in the frigid North all winter while their propaganda paints it as an area that has totally succumbed to global warming. Besides, I’ve recently seen a few goldfinches, white-throated sparrows and other Northern varieties that seem to be sneaking down to the sunny South for the winter anyway, so CRAP’s program has not been entirely successful. But not to worry, it will continue anyway because it just might fool a few people into thinking that global warming is a real problem. And if it fools even a handful, ain’t it worth the billions the feds have spent? If anyone doubts all this, the feds will promote the old Orwellian theory—cold is warm!

Anyway, after conversing with Old Blue for awhile I went home to my bird feeders and prayed fervently that thousands of goldfinches will decide on the morrow that they don’t want CRAP’s birdseed and will head South for the winter after all, proving that the global warming theory was the bovine fertilizer sensible people knew it was from the beginning.

I also found out one reason that Old Blue was so forlorn looking the day I talked to him. He was cold! We’ve had some of the coldest weather here in North Louisiana for the past couple winters that we’ve ever seen here and Old Blue is already concerned because of the reports that this coming winter will be a cold one, which of course, the feds will blame on global warming.

Old Blue and Political Ornithology

By Al Benson Jr.

Having not seen Old Blue for sometime I was a bit surprised when he flew by the bayou the other day and flapped his right wing, indicating he wanted to stop and visit a spell. Since I am independently wealthy (not hardly) I do spend some time out at the bayou enjoying God’s creation. Heaven knows there’s not much to enjoy on the television “news” anymore.

As Old Blue glided in, he informed me he had taken up the hobby of political ornithology–the art of watching the various birds that infest the political realm. Now I’ve enjoyed watching birds over the years in various parts of the country, but the political variety tends to be of the sort that gives me indigestion. Though I’ve watched them over the years, I take no pleasure in it. They remind me of the cowbirds we have here in Louisiana. These birds are too lazy to build nests and so they deposit their eggs in the nests of other birds. The cowbird eggs hatch somewhat faster than the other eggs and soon the baby cowbirds push the other eggs out of the nest and commandeer it for themselves and the other birds end up feeding the baby cowbirds. Although they are parasites, they, in no way, are able to compare with the parasites that are omnipresent in the political bird world.

Political birds, as a species, have several characteristics. They are, like the cowbirds, parasites–gathering where they have not sown and feeding where they have not hunted. For them, every lunch is a free lunch. Then, too, their left wings are significantly overdeveloped, resulting in their always flying in a leftward direction no matter what. Even when they need to fly straight ahead or to the right, the always veer to the left. It almost seems they would rather fly into a building that is on their left than to fly into the unrestricted airspace that may be on their right.

These birds mostly nest in urban areas. There are flocks of them in the Washington D.C. area, where they nest in droves and mess up everything they come into contact with, inside or out. And flocks of them have been sighted in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. Wherever there are bones to be picked clean, swarms of them descend from the clouds like the locusts in Egypt.

In his ornithological observations, Old Blue has pointed out several subspecies in this gaggle that are of interest. While in Washington recently he saw a Tweaking Obommabird (Tweakus Obommanatus). This is a bird that has never sought its own food but has always survived on those scraps thrown at it from the people that inhabit those buildings over on the left that the political birds are always flying into. The Obommabird has learned to avoid crashing into those buildings on the left only so it can continue to fly further to the left. Were this bird a human he would, no doubt, be trying to suck people’s IRA accounts dry so he could redistribute your wealth to his friends.

Believe it or not, this bird is related to the infamous Blue Bush Wren, which nested in Washington before it. Old Blue didn’t know if the two subspecies couldn’t get along with each other or what, but most of the Blue Bush Wrens (Bushicus Neoconnicus) have presently moved their nests to other areas. The cry of the Blue Bush Wren sounds a bit like a human being shouting “Miss me yet? Miss me yet?”

There was one other subspecies Old Blue took note of in Washington. It was the Pelozzian Left-Winged Dingbat, (Pelozzicus Dingbatticus) so named because many in the ornithological world have not really been able to make up their minds whether this one is a bat or a bird. It seems to fly around some of the buildings Congress meets in at the midnight hour, which seems to be its favourite time. When Congress is about to enact some of its most pernicious late-night legislation (the stuff we are not supposed to know about) this bird sits on the rafters of the Congressional Building and screeches at the top of its lungs, a call that sounds oddly like “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Were this bird human it would undoubtedly be a charter member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Old Blue mentioned several other subspecies in this avian grouping, but by the time he had gotten through he was turning green, a bad colour for a Blue Heron, and I had heard almost enough to make me want to swear off bird watching for the foreseeable future. It would be nice if, come this November, all these parasitic birds would fly south (way south, like Argentina) and stay there permanently.

They claim many of these birds are allergic to tea, so what I might suggest is that cities like Washington sponsor giant tea parties and in the process, clean out the nesting places for this fowl species.

This article was originally published on the old FireEater.org website but I felt that, with November just around the corner and us about to re-enter the mid-term political charade once again, it was appropriate. These birds or their close relatives still infest the body politic and I don’t expect we will have relief from them anytime soon.

Old Blue Studies Yankee/Marxist Legalisms

 

 

By Al Benson Jr.

 One thing you have to say about Old Blue, my great blue heron friend, he is a died-in-the-wool Confederate heron. He likes to tell the story about his heron ancestor that flew over the battlefield while the Battle of Mansfield was being fought here in Louisiana, squawking at the Yankee soldiers that they should go back where they belonged.

 He claimed that one of the Yankees shot at him, and missed, and he mused that, mostly, the Yankees were poor shots. The only thing they had going for them in the war was men, lots and lots of men, some of them socialists and communists.

 Old Blue has spent some of his time recently, in a library that is mostly peopled by human folks, but when the librarian found he was sociable, she let him stay and poke around in some of the books. She was surprised that he possessed such an amount of erudition when some of the public high school students that used her library were barely able to master “Captain Marvel” or “Superman.”

 At any rate, one day Old Blue happened across a book dealing with legal terms and court cases. At first, this was a little deep for him, but being a heron of considerable perseverance, he endeavored to work his way through it.

 He came across a court case, Texas vs. White, in the years after the War of Northern Aggression. Although technically a dispute over the payment of US bonds, the case has much more interesting results. As it turned out, the state of Texas filed suit in the Yankee/Marxist Supreme Court, trying to get back the bonds sold to White and his partner, Chiles. White argued that the state of Texas had no right to bring this lawsuit partly because the Supreme Court didn’t have any jurisdiction to hear the case because Texas’ status as a state had changed because of the secession during the War of Northern Aggression.

 But the Supreme Court, in typical Yankee fashion, rejected White’s arguments. And that bastion of Yankee integrity, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, stated, in his majority opinion that the Constitution “in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”  In other words, once a state got into the Union its membership was perpetual and “indissoluble” unless it was ended by a revolution or the consent of the other states. According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com “Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were all citizens of the United States.”

 Old Blue found that quite interesting, in light of the fact that he had read somewhere else that the state of Texas has been readmitted to the Union on March 30, 1870. He also read: “The United States government has never recognized the right of states to secede, and considers the states to never have left the Union during the American Civil War.”

 Naturally, after reading all the legal gobbledygook, Blue’s first question was “If these Southern states were never out of the Union, why did they have to be readmitted to a Union they were never out of? That’s a good question. Even some more intelligent humans might be tempted to wonder about that. Unfortunately, we’ve never really gotten a good answer from the powers that be in Sodom on the Potomac.

 Wanting a better source for his information,  than Yankee lawyers, Old Blue turned to the Kennedy Brothers’ authoritative book The South Was Right. In their book, on page 171, they begin a discussion of the fraudulent 14th Amendment. On the following page they note: “To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following:

  1. Declare the Southern States outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union.
  2. Deny majority rule in the Southern States by the disenfranchisement

             of large numbers of the white population.

  1. Require the Southern States to ratify the amendment as the price of

            Getting back into the Union from which heretofore they had been

            Denied the right to secede.”

 After Blue read all that he scratched his head with his right wing and said “Let me get this all straight. The Yankee Supreme Court says the Southern states never left the Union, they only thought they did, and now to get back into the Union they never left they are forced to ratify an amendment that is shaky at best and possibly fraudulent at worst.” Then he asked the next logical question. “If these states needed to get back into the Union, how could they ratify the 14th Amendment before they were readmitted to the Union?  Good question. When Old Blue asked that question of a college professor at one point   he was informed that “Blue Herons are not supposed to be able to ask those kinds of questions. Even people shouldn’t ask such questions. Are you serious? Are you really serious?

 The only possible answer to Blue’s question was in the Kennedy’s book. On page 172-173 Blue found the answer. The Kennedy’s wrote: “The North, in 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same Union now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede) it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union, by ratifying an amendment that previously, as states in the Union it had legally rejected! Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic.” How does all that grab you?

 In retrospect, Old Blue considered this whole charade to be an exercise in “legal” legerdemain.  His parting comment on this whole scenario was “If this was the way those people in Washington thought almost 150 years ago, no wonder we have the problems we have with today’s politicians. It’s almost enough to make a self-respecting Confederate heron retreat back into the bayou and weep.”

 Almost, but not quite, and why not? Because in spite of it all, there is a God in Heaven who still, through His Spirit,  governs in the affairs of men (and herons) and when the time comes, as long as His people are faithful, He will put all this to rights.

This was originally published on the old FireEater website awhile back but I thought in light of the upcoming secession vote in Scotland on September 18th it was sort of appropriate.

Rand and Walter Don’t See Eye to Eye

by Al Benson Jr.

After having watched Rand Paul, who is supposed to be the conservative of all conservatives, of late, I’m not exactly sure where he is going.

Back in April, when the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada was accelerating, Rand Paul came out in support of Cliven Bundy, which I had no problem with and agreed with. However, as soon as Mr. Bundy’s supposed “racist” statements were made, Rand Paul did double-time in back-peddling away from him. He released a statement condemning Bundy’s “racist” (actually if you heard them all, they weren’t) comments as loudly as anyone in the Obama Regime would have. In fact, he almost sounded like a closet Democrat in his denunciations. It would appear that he didn’t even bother to take the time to listen to everything Mr. Bundy really said, he just bought the media’s version of it, which as it turned out had been “photo-shopped” a bit as far as content. I was disappointed with his reaction, when a friend reminded me that “Rand is not his dad.”

The truth of my friend’s statement came back to haunt me, duly reinforced by comments from Rand Paul that were quoted on http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com for September 5th. Mr. Paul made some statements regarding the situation in Ferguson, Missouri and about the race question in general. He said, in part, “Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel their own government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African Americans not to feel their government is particularly targeting them.” This in the face of the fact that we now have a man who claims to be black as president and we have a black Attorney General.  And given what the current “Justice” Department has been doing you really have to ask just who is being discriminated against. But I digress.

Paul also stated: “Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.” Such a statement sounds typically Democratic and liberal. Rand’s name is one that has been touted for a possible presidential run in 2016, as a “conservative” Republican. I don’t know if he’s trying to sound “inclusive” enough so that he can reach beyond the conservative vote or not, but if he is he should know better. Most of the Democrats are not going to vote for anyone that is not an avowed socialist, and lots of those calling themselves Republicans won’t either, in spite of the Republican Party spouting all that drivel about being the “party of small government.” To give the lie to all that foolishness all you have to do is look back at Abraham Lincoln–and the socialists and Marxists that had his support.

Rand’s little diatribe sounds almost like the old “racist” line that “It’s all whitey’s fault that I’ve got all these problems, not my fault.” Suffice it to say that Walter Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist, has a little different take on it.

Professor Williams, in a column that appeared on http://www.lewrockwell.com on August 26th wrote: “Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn’t, then effective solutions will be elusive forever.” Dr. Williams puts his finger on something almost no one else will venture to deal with–personal responsibility.

He noted that a study in 1880 of family structure in Philadelphia showed that three quarters of black families were “nuclear families” which means that there were both a mother and father in the home. He also noted the fact that, in 1925, in New York City, 85% of black households were two-parent households. And he quoted from something written by Herbert Gutman, who was the author of The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925  where Gutman said: “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” Dr. Williams also stated: “Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.” Bear in mind that this is a black professor saying this.

But then Dr. Williams cuts to the chase when he notes: “The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask the question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what the experts call the ‘legacy of slavery’ wait several generations to victimize today’s blacks?” And Dr. Williams notes on statistic  that, again, no one bothers to mention, that the poverty rate among intact black families is, and has been, in single digits for more than two decades, while the poverty rate among other blacks is presently at 28.1%.

Dr. Williams then addresses an issue you can’t “blame whitey” for–weak family structures in the black community. He says: “Each year roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered.  Ninety-four percent of the time the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims.” Kind of hard to “blame whitey” for blacks killing other blacks–although I’m sure there are some who will labor mightily trying to find a way.

Dr. Williams puts forth a statement that black “civil rights” leaders, and those who continue to play the race card so well, fervently hope most folks will miss or ignore. He says: “If it is assumed that problems that have a devastating impact on black well-being are a result of racial discrimination and a ‘legacy of slavery’ when they are not, resources spent pursuing a civil rights strategy will yield.disappointing results.” He is right on the money there. Deal with something that is not the real problem and you will literally get nowhere, but then, that will give lots of folks in the “racial discrimination” business an excuse to ask for even more money to be spent on their sacred cow. Who cares if it doesn’t work–they’re walking in high cotton.

Too bad Rand Paul didn’t read what Walter Williams had to say about all this before making his pitch for Democratic values to those listening to him.  I, for one, will really watch what Mr. Paul says in the future, as well as what he does, as I think we all should–watch and evaluate.

Republicans Play the Weak Sister Scenario

by Al Benson Jr.

I don’t know if things will end up turning out this way or not, I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but, at this point, it wouldn’t surprise me. Watching the last two presidential elections in this country, I have come to the conclusion that the whole presidential election charade is just that, a charade to fool the general public into thinking that they have actually elected a president when all they have really done is to choose one of the two candidates picked for them by the major political parties–both of which are under the control of a clique of One World Government elitists, many of whom belong to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, or the Bilderberg Group, or to all three.

In 2008 the Republican Establishment picked John McCain to run against King Barack the First. McCain was probably the worst candidate they could have picked. Posing as a “conservative Republican”  he was actually a raving liberal and still is, especially when he loses his temper. His Vice-Presidential running mate would probably have done better than he did had she gotten the nomination, but that wasn’t supposed to happen and the Republican Establishment (identical to the Democratic Establishment in all but rhetoric) was supposed to make sure Obama had no real opposition or competition. He didn’t, and probably could not have stood up to it if he had, so the Republicans gave him McCain to run against, and after the Bush years that was a fait accompli.

Then along came the 2012 election and it was the same game all over again. Obama was supposed to get back in again and so, in Romney, the Republicans picked the weakest possible sister they could in a candidate. Not that any of the rest of them were all that great–except for Ron Paul–the one honest candidate in the entire presidential election. The fact that he was  honest, and popular, more popular than the “news” media ever let on, was a problem. So the Republican Establishment had to deep six him at all costs. The very last thing they wanted was an honest man in the White House, and besides, Ron might have given King Barack the First a real run for his money, even with the creative voting techniques employed in that election–and that couldn’t happen. Ron Paul had to go, and the Establishment made sure he went. One of the states they redistributed his votes to Romney in was Louisiana, where I live. The caucuses in Louisiana gave Ron Paul 80% of the vote. I was at one of them. And I knew people that went to the state convention in Shreveport, where Ron Paul had 80% of the delegates and the Republican Establishment ended up seating the 20% that Romney had and throwing out Ron Paul’s 80%. That’s Republican politics, not only in the South, but everywhere. The same game is being played right now in Mississippi, where Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniels ran against the Establishment candidate and it went into a run-off. McDaniels probably won legitimately, but they will make sure he doesn’t get it because his opponent is willing to play ball with the Establishment in both parties. And that’s what they really want–a brown-noser! At any rate, Romney was supposed to win at all costs, because the Establishment in both major parties already knew that Obama had been okayed for a second term and they knew Romney could be depended on to be the “loyal (losing) opposition.”

After the election Romney seemed almost relieved that he hadn’t won, but then he wasn’t supposed to and I think he knew that. He was just glad the charade was over so he could move on to other things. I think he was tired of playing the (intentional) loser.

Now, as 2016 approaches, and it appears that King Barack probably won’t be granted a third term as Dictator of the Proletariat by his handlers, which he’d dearly love (unless the Establishment changes its mind for some reason) the Republicans are again casting about for another weak sister to run against Hillary Clinton, or as some folks call her “St. Hillary” or “Hitlery.”

Months ago it was rumored that the Bilderberg Group  had already picked Hillary to be the next president. Again, if it were known, the Establishment and not the public really get to choose who runs. If it turns out that Hillary “runs” then she would be the logical choice of the Establishment to complete the work of entirely socializing the country that King Barack  was not able to complete (after all, those golfing holidays do slow down the process). At this point it may well be that the Establishment wants Hillary in there, but they can’t just appoint her in the same manner that Obama writes out executive orders, because that would give the game away, and so we are forced to participate in another sham election, the outcome of which has probably already been determined. 

So, when I began seeing subtle rumors on the Internet that Romney just might be “considering” another presidential run, I was not all that surprised. Although, if I was Romney, I’d probably be getting tired of being picked to lose to whatever Democratic candidate the Establishment has predetermined will be the next president. But, if nothing else, Romney is a team player, so if they tell him to run he will run, whether he wants to or not.

It has been reported that, in 2008, Hillary was told by the Establishment to stand down and Let King Barack “win” the election, and she ended up being appointed Secretary of State for her compliance. But playing second fiddle is not enough for Hillary. She wants all the marbles, and this time they may be ready to give them to her and to spring her on the country as the first woman president.  One has to wonder then, if we will all be told that we are “anti-feminist” if we don’t vote for Hillary. After all, if the race card worked for Obama, why not the Women’s Lib card for Hillary? And there is stuff out there on the Internet asking folks to work to draft Hillary for president, though if she has already been chosen by the Establishment, all that is just window dressing to make it look  like a “spontaneous” movement of the people.

And, if for some reason the game plan changes and it doesn’t work out that way and they decide to let the Republican nominee win this go-round, remember that you will still be getting the Establishment’s candidate, the “lesser of the two evils” as it were. Please don’t be gulled into believing that old saw about the Democrats being the liberals and the Republicans being the conservatives. That’s hogwash. They are both socialist–and both controlled by the same people–the CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberg triad.

If you are willing to read, which fewer and fewer seem to be anymore, check out None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. It’s on the Internet, and I think his book The Rockefeller File is also. And if you want a little of the history of the “conservative” Republican Party, then check out Thomas DiLorenzo’s books The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, and Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists.    

Abolitionism, Spiritualism, and Women’s Lib

by Al Benson Jr.

The radical Abolitionist Movement in the North (separate from the conservative abolitionist movement in the South) in the years from the 1830s through “reconstruction” at the end of the War of Northern Aggression, was the cause of many problems that we are still faced with today, two of which are the modern “Women’s Liberation Movement.” and the “Civil Rights Movement.”

Many in our day, without a correct understanding of the real intent of the Abolitionist Movement, have sought to draw a parallel between it and today’s Pro-Life Movement. This is something that should never be done. The contemporary Pro-Life Movement is able to stand on its own without resorting to the apostate underpinnings of 19th century radical abolitionism.  Radical abolitionism in the 1800s produced men of the stripe of abolitionist/terrorist John Brown. His solution to the slavery problem was to execute slave owners, or even potential slave owners during late night visits to their homes while their wives and children were forced to stand by and watch the executions. Should the present Pro-Life Movement ally itself with such a history? If it does so then it will be to its own hurt one day.

Although there were undoubtedly some Christian people in the Abolitionist Movement, by and large, it was an experiment in rank apostasy. Many of its adherents had become enamored of the strange doctrines of Spiritualism  that so permeated mid-19th century America.  Yet others had become devotees of Unitarianism–yet another form of apostasy from Christian truth.

In her book Radical Spirits author Ann Braude  observed that: “Every notably progressive family of the nineteenth century had its advocate of Spiritualism, some of them more than one…The ubiquitous  Beecher family contributed Charles Beecher  and Isabella Beecher to the ranks, while Harriet Beecher Stowe became a serious investigator…As already noted, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was an early convert and remained loyal to the movement until his death. The famous Grimke sisters,  Sarah and Angelina talked to spirits.” All of these people were abolitionists and all, according to Braude, were involved in Spiritualism. Every wonder why your history books forgot to mention any of this?

Braude’s book, on page 60, noted that: “Radical abolitionists, in turn, found in Spiritualism a religion of harmony with their individualist principles. Abolitionists’ interests in both  women’s rights and Spiritualism derived from their fierce loyalty to the principles of individualism. Radical abolitionists agreed with Romantics and Transcendentalists that the church, the clergy, and the Bible were so many enslavers of the human spirit. They also believed that individualist principles required constant agitation in order to effect the transformation of society.” Braude here has come out and admitted what many of us have been saying for years, that radical abolitionism was about much more than freeing slaves–it was about the transformation of our society. In other words, those people were the practitioners of the Marxist “Critical Theory” agenda in their day, even though that term had yet to be coined. They wanted no interference from the Christian Church as they sought to denigrate the Christian culture around them and replace it with their own. Their agenda was to remake American society in their own image–a not-so-subtle form of idolatry.  Is this really any different from what is going on today?

One of the leaders in the 19th century Women’s Lib Movement was Susan B. Anthony. They put a postage stamp out with her picture on it several years ago. Another author, Kathleen Berry, in her book Susan B. Anthony took a little different tack on Anthony’s worldview. She noted that: “In her autobiography, Elizabeth Cady Stanton described Susan’s spirituality as that of an agnostic. Susan never denied the existence of God, but her beliefs were secularized and lodged in the world around her. Her father, who had grown increasingly frustrated with the limited world view of the Quakers…turned to the Unitarian Church. Susan was also sympathetic to Unitarian beliefs.” So, however you take it, Spiritualist or Unitarian, Anthony’s beliefs were a radical departure from orthodox Christianity–and this was the foundation for Women’s Lib!

Braude, in Radical Spirits has identified Spiritualism as being present at the Women’s Rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. She has stated, quite plainly, that: “From this time on, Spiritualism and Women’s Rights intertwined repeatedly  as both became mass movements that challenged the existing norms of American life.  The two movements shared many leaders and activists.”

It is worth noting, coincidentally, that the Spiritualist Movement in this country began to make its inroads right around 1848, the same year that the socialist and communist revolts began in Europe. In fact, one of the female “Forty-Eighters,” Mathilda Franziska Anneke, wife of socialist agitator Fritz Anneke, once she came to America, became one of the leading lights in the Women’s Rights Movement.  Walter Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists document quite a bit of this. Anneke worked closely with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton  and even lobbied in Washington in behalf of Women’s Rights.

This gives you a brief overview of the connections between the radical abolitionists, the Spiritualists, the Unitarians, and some of the Forty-Eighters, and the Women’s libbers. Just for a moment, stop and reflect on what these people have done to our once-Christian culture while the church-at-large has continued to slumber.

Writer Henry Makow Ph.D. noted, in an article published back in 2010 that: “The Women’s Liberation Movement was patterned on the Civil Rights Movement.  They are off-the-shelf Communist psycho-social operations. To be effective, they must appear to reflect a popular groundswell rather than an elite agenda from above.” Makow felt these movements might have rectified some genuine injustices, but then said “…their hidden purpose is to destabliize American society.” He’s right. Undoubtedly he is referring here to the contemporary version of the Women’s Rights Movement rathen than the 19th century one, but no matter how you look at it, it’s all of one fabric and it all has, as the main agenda, the destruction of Christian culture in this country. We need to begin to wake up and understand this.