Romney Is Not Really Trying

By Al Benson Jr.

On July 14th of this year I wrote an article for this blog spot in which I stated that I felt Mitt Romney was planning on pulling a “John McCain” on us and losing the next election to Comrade Obama. At the top levels of the two major parties, which are both controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission group I have the feeling that this is what’s going on. We have to have an “election” to keep the average person in the dark as to what is happening to his freedoms and so we stage this “election” in which two people seems to be running for the same office but in reality it has already been decided who will get the office in smoke-filled back rooms and the public is given the illusion that both candidates are really running when the result has already been determined.

That’s what 2008 was. They know Obama was going to get into office but somebody among the Republicans had to run against him to make it all look legitimate and so John McCain went through the motions. This year it is Romney’s turn to go through the motions, and like McCain, he already looks like he is getting tired of it. After all, for a politician, intentionally being told to play second fiddle can’t be much fun.

For awhile they made it look like there might actually be a horse race. They had to deep six Ron Paul first, but they managed that by shutting out all his delegates and changing the rules—again and again until they finally got it right. No problem with Romney. He knew the game plan and would go along, even if he wasn’t real happy.

Now, as the election is less than two months away they have begun to pull out the stops. All of a sudden the polls are showing Obama gaining strength and Romney weakening. Romney has been made to look less than desirable with his “47%” comment and his record at Bain. Obama has made some missteps also, but the media has taken pains to avoid mentioning any of those, just as they did the last time out. When it comes to Obama and his foibles the media is the original brass monkey—hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, but they are well paid so what can you expect?

As I said in the July 14th WordPress article, I hope I am wrong, but the signs don’t look promising.

All of a sudden George Soros has dumped a cool million dollars into the Democratic campaign. All year he sat quietly on the sidelines, probably waiting for directions on which way to jump and now he’s been told. Some might say the Democrats are getting desperate, but Soros is above all that. He operates on a plane above the political parties—the One World Government level—where political parties are superfluous. But I imagine even he has a boss and his boss has told him where to put his million bucks.

Another indicator just recently has been an article by Cliff Kincaid which appeared on

Mr. Kincaid has long seemed to me to be a pretty astute writer who can read between the lines and see what is going on. His comments about Romney’s efforts to win are not favorable.

Kincaid observed: “It is possible that Romney, despite his liabilities, could turn the campaign around if he took the fight to Obama and directly branded him a socialist. Although he is not an ideological conservative, he could try to make the campaign into a stark choice. But Romney is being advised not to do this by Karl Rove and others. They are telling Romney he has to move to the left and get the votes of those who backed Obama in 2008…” Fat chance! This is lousy advice and they all know it. You have a country where traditional patriotic Americans are crying out for leadership after four years of Obama and the Republican hierarchy is telling Romney to move to the left! Kincaid noted that Romney’s choice of Ryan as a running mate was a disaster. The AARP booed Ryan at their recent national convention because he called for the repeal of Obamacare, which will never happen no matter who sits in the White House.

Kincaid closed his article out by saying: “Incredibly, Romney advisers had to have told Ryan to go to the AARP convention, where he earned the headlines about being booed by seniors. Again, as I argued in a previous column, it is as if the Romney campaign is trying to lose.” You are on the money Mr. Kincaid—that is exactly what they are doing—by alienating the conservative voters and chasing after those illusive ‘votes” from the left which they will never get.

Obama did a good job of beginning to dismantle the country in his first term. The powers that be have decided to let him have one more term to finish the job so that life in the United States can be comfortably merged with that of the other banana republics in the third world. And, with the level of discernment we seem to display in this country, maybe we have it coming.


Cultural Marxists Win First Round in Selma—more to come

By Al Benson Jr.

The city council in Selma, Alabama had their meeting on Tuesday evening, September 25th and voted 4-0 to suspend work on the Forrest Monument. There were 2 abstentions. Is anyone really surprised? After years of watching this sort of thing you begin to get a feel for it and you can almost predict how politically correct politicians will vote on a given issue. And thanks to the rantings of black extremists this is a politically charged issue.

I have been checking with some folks in that area and found out that Confederate Circle, where the monument is belongs to Selma Chapter 53 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy by virtue of the fact that on April 17, 1877, the Selma City Council donated the land to the Ladies Memorial Association, of which Chapter 53 of the UDC is an outgrowth. The city of Selma  bought the land from the Sallie Jones estate in 1877…the deed did not get recorded until 1896…Selma Chapter 53 of the UDC was chartered on April 26, 1896. The folks involved with this do not know why the deed was not recorded until 1896 for the city of Selma but think it was an oversight, not found until 20 years afterward. Unless they find the recording of the deed they assume its not being recorded was merely an oversight.

At this point, Confederate Circle where the monument is has been surveyed by a local surveyor. Interestingly enough, in the process of all this, it has been discovered that each of the city schools in Selma do not have a deed to the property they are on, which they thought they owned. The city of Selma is currently preparing deeds for them to correct that slight oversight.

A lawyer has been hired by those wanting to keep the Forrest Monument and this will all eventually go to court.

Rose Sanders, mother of Malika Sanders-Fortier made a statement at the City Council meeting that “people could get hurt” unless the City Council voted to suspend the legally obtained building permit for the monument and the court now has to rule on the ownership of Confederate Circle which was deeded to the predecessor of the UDC by the Selma City Council way back in 1877. It almost sounds like the deed to your property doesn’t mean all that much if someone doesn’t like what you might use that property for. You also have to ask just what Rose Sanders meant when she said “people could get hurt” unless the monument was stopped. Was that a threat?

Rose Sanders, chief hater of the Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument travels in some “interesting” circles which I don’t expect the media to point out to anyone. However, a little digging on the Internet will turn up some interesting stuff for those who care to do the homework.
Lee Stranahan, commenting on  on October 13, 2011 made note of a press conference having to do with the Pigford Farm settlement. I won’t go into all the details of that, but some of the people at the news conference were of interest. Mr. Stranahan stated: “The press conference was held by a ragtag group of self-styled black leaders. The most notorious presence was Malik Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party. Also in attendance was Ridgley Muhammed, the Minister of Agriculture for Nation of Islam…The star of the show, however, was Selma, Alabama based semi-retired lawyer Rose Sanders. Mrs. Sanders arrived late—to applause from the audience and the panel—but her presence was significant not only for what she said but who she is….She’s fiercely and famously outspoken against her perceived enemies, including the Tea Party.”

Mr. Stranahan continued: “Mrs. Sanders sitting down with leaders from the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party isn’t an accident due to improper vetting. She has a history with both the NOI and its crazier, violence preaching offshoot. This past year, Sanders was sitting in the front row for a speech by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. In the late 1990s when the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center named the Nation of Islam as a ‘hate group’ Sanders sprang to the defense of the Nation with an editorial implying that the SPLC were white Jewish racists.” The extreme left wingers arguing among themselves—now that would have been worth the price of admission. That’s usually something you don’t see. They may hate each other’s guts but before the world they will put on a front of solidarity. For Mrs. Sanders to break that leftist tradition she must really be a vehement white-hater.

Stranahan also observed that: “When Andrew Breitbart published photos earlier this week showing the New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz speaking at the same podium with Barak Obama during an event commemorating Selma’s ‘Bloody Sunday’, Rose Sanders is clearly visible on the podium only a couple feet away next to both Obama and Shabazz. Sanders is no stranger to the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panther Party, nor does she seem to be above their anti-Semitic or anti-white rhetoric. She’s also prone to make wild, scattershot accusations of racism…”

Mr. Stranahan’s article was picked up by someone who apparently knows Rose Sanders and was posted also on  with the following commentary, in part, and dated 4/9/12. “…What we find difficult to comprehend is her almost insane hatred of someone who has been dead for 135 years—Nathan Bedford Forrest. Even more incomprehensible is her hatred toward a piece of marble in a city cemetery. If someone who has been dead for more than a century or a slab of marble could hurt Rose, we might understand her obsessive compulsive hatred of them…Because Rose is always with us, we might not have an objective view of her considering her misplaced priorities in cursing, hating and disliking a dead person and a slab of marble;…” It sounds like it was written by someone who knows or at least is familiar with Mrs. Sanders.

This will give you some idea of where the people who are opposed to reconstruction of the Bedford Forrest Monument are coming from. They accuse white Southerners of being racists and hate-mongers, yet they are the most ethnocentric people around. For them everything revolves around race and perceived victim hood.

If you can still find it, I would recommend getting a copy of a book by Alan Stang called It’s Very Simple–The true story of Civil Rights. This will explain to you what the whole game is really all about.

More Leftists in Selma

By Al Benson Jr.

As the situation in Selma continues we find that more leftists are coming to the aid of those that wish to remove the Forrest monument. Now they claim the monument in on public property. All along I have been informed that it is on private property, land that is owned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. So which is it? If it’s on private property they should not be able to touch it. If it’s on public property they will do whatever they want, any way they can.

It has been reported that the Selma City Council will meet this Tuesday evening, September 25th. It has also been reported that the president of the City Council is in favor of keeping the monument, which means he can expect to be bombarded with a cacophony of harangues by the political and religious left to change his opinion. Unless he is a man of unusually strong convictions (and many politicians aren’t) they will eventually shout him down and he will cave in rather than stand for what he believes is right. I don’t know anything about the gentleman personally so I can’t say. Some of the folks reading this may know him and where he truly stands.

You can depend on Malika Sanders-Fortier getting lots of help from the left. I can only hope and pray that the Southern and Confederate heritage folks in and near Selma will get some help from likeminded folks in their area.

Supposedly Ms. Sanders-Fortier has a petition to get rid of the Forrest Monument that has 300,000 signatures on it and they plan to march Tuesday and present it to the City Council. There has been an alternate petition to keep the monument presented by the Southern heritage folks. I don’t know how many have signed that—a whole batch I hope.

Reportedly: “Partners including Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Rainbow/PUSH will be joining Malika for the March and delivery” and Ms. Sanders-Fortier wants as many as can be on hand to help with the March and delivery. It is worth noting  that many of those that turn up at these “civil rights” demonstrations have their way paid for them so they will be on hand to create the illusion of “solidarity.” When we Southern heritage folks go to a march or demonstration we have to pay our own way. It costs us, and though I have gone to many of these events over the years all across the South, my wife and I are now at the point where we can no longer get to that many of them. Health problems and Obama’s robust economy have taken their toll. I can only pray that younger folks will be willing to take our places.

So now we have Rainbow/PUSH involved too. I’ve already dealt a little with the leftist foundations of the SCLC in a previous article which you all can read on this blog spot.

So let’s look briefly at Rainbow/PUSH. According to  “Rainbow/PUSH is the result of a 1996 merger between two groups founded by Jesse Jackson. One was People United to Serve Humanity (PUSH), established in 1971, which advocated race preferences in the form of affirmative action. PUSH also helped sponsor a massive June 12, 1982 rally, organized by the Communist Party USA and the Soviet-supported U.S. Peace Council, advocating the dismantling of America’s military arsenal. The other organization was the Rainbow Coalition, formed in 1985 to counter policies enacted during President Reagan’s second term which Jackson deemed discriminatory against African Americans.” Rainbow/PUSH has its national headquarters in Chicago—the city where staunch Republicans vote Republican until they die, after which time they begin to vote Democratic, early, and often.

Rainbow/PUSH tactics include the usually frivolous complaint about “racism” which they then follow up by public marches and protests and if that doesn’t get them their way they will threaten strikes, boycotts, etc. After all, the end justifies the means you know—at least in the Marxist mindset.

So if the council meeting this week does not get these people what they want—the destruction of yet one more bit of Southern history and culture, you can begin to get some idea of where they will go from here.

Make no mistake. These people are not going away. Even if they get the Forrest Monument removed, they will find something else in Selma or its environs that they don’t like and they will then use the same tactics to get whatever that is removed or its name changed. These people aim to neutralize your Southern culture and history and replace it with the mindset currently emanating from Washington.

It remains to see what the Southern response will be. As the man says of Southern heritage and culture “fight for it or lose it.”

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Selma

By Al Benson Jr.

The plot thickens in Selma, Alabama as leftist black activists seek to stop construction of a new monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest in Selma. Most sources have noted that the monument is on property owned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Will they speak up and defend their right to have the Forrest monument on their own property? I guess time will tell. If they have said anything in the monument’s defense I have not heard of it. Maybe others have. If they haven’t, then all I can say is that it’s too bad to turn the field over to the left-wingers by default.

Now we have been informed via in an article by Ashley Johnson that: “The Southern Christian Leadership Conference president emeritus, Charles Steele Jr. arrived at the foot of the construction site for the Nathan B. Forrest monument in Old Live Oak Cemetery on Friday. Steele spoke on behalf of the SCLC, saying he is willing to make sacrifices to stop the monument’s construction. ‘I am ready to be arrested for freedom,’ Steele, who traveled from Atlanta to be with the protesters of the monument, said. ‘We are about to make this a national march.’” Sounds just like Jena, Louisiana and the infamous Jena 6 all over again. Bring in the marchers and the protesters, get ‘em all fired up and make sure they get their pictures takes with Je$$e Jackson and Rev. Al for $30 a throw. Steele says he is ready to be arrested for freedom. What he really means is that he is ready to be arrested trying to deny others the freedom to celebrate their heritage and history.

Supposedly the SCLC’s executive board has given their approval for their organization to come to Selma and have a national march. They think they can get 400,000 people there. Well, they probably won’t get nearly that many but the media will tell you they did.

So let’s look at this organization that plans to inundate Selma, Alabama with 400,000 “civil rights” protesters.

The first president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was, as everyone knows, Martin Luther King. That’s common knowledge. What is not common knowledge is that the vice-president of the SCLC was Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth. The media probably never gave out too much information on Rev. Shuttlesworth—and for good reasons. Shuttlesworth later became the new president of something called the Southern Conference Educational Fund, an organization described by three different government agencies as a Communist front group. The late Alan Stang, who was a real investigative reporter, far different from what passes for investigators today, said of the Southern Conference Educational Fund: “It was organized by Communists, is run by Communists and is the most important Communist organization in the South. Mr. Carl Braden has served as field director and has been named under oath as a Communist Party member. His wife Anne, an SCEF official, has also been named under oath as a Communist.”

Mr. Stang also noted: “Mr. Aubrey Williams was SCEF president until 1963. In April, 1954 he was named under oath as a Communist. It was Williams, a Communist, whom Shuttlesworth—King’s vice president—replaced as president of SCEF, a Communist organization…On October 7, 1958, Dr. King wrote a letter to Anne Braden, in which he urged her and her husband Carl—both already well known as Communists—to become permanently associated with his SCLC.” You have to wonder why King wanted two people already identified as Communists to become “permanently associated” with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Back in 1963 and 64 Louisiana Committee on Un-American Activities said the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which Martin Luther King founded was “…substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of the Southern Conference Educational Fund and the Communists who manage it.” Someone should check on Google to see if any copies of the Louisiana Report are still out there.

And while we are looking at all these delightful Marxist creatures let us not overlook Hunter Pitts O’Dell. Comrade. O’Dell was exposed as a Communist Party member in 1956. By 1962 he had worked his way up to being a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party. With that background, in the summer of 1963 O’Dell was still being used by MLK to help run the SCLC.

It should be plain to anyone willing to take the trouble to look, where the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is coming from and where it has come from—way out in far left field! This is the group, with its far-left beginnings and organizers that is coming to Selma, so they tell us, to fight against putting the Forrest monument back up.

Folks, I submit that the SCLC needs all the exposure it can be given.

The Cultural Genocide Mess In Selma

By Al Benson Jr.

Selma, Alabama has been the scene of yet another attempt at cultural genocide in the South recently. The situation is still ongoing and the cultural Marxists are having a field day, thanks to a compliant “news” media.

There was a monument, with a bust of General Nathan Bedford Forrest on it in Selma. Last March the bust was stolen off the monument. However, efforts are now underway to restore and improve the monument. And here is an important point, according to  “The site on which the monument stands is owned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and is private property, but open to the public.” So the bust was stolen off private property, not property that belonged to the city.

The same article noted: “The monument featuring an impressive bust of the general quickly proved controversial. It suffered three attacks by vandals, including one attempt to completely topple it. Many citizens of Selma also objected to the placement of the monument, considering it an affront to the city’s role in the Civil Rights movement.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans quickly pointed out that Bedford Forrest had also commanded Confederate troops in the Battle of Selma, and that “all the proper channels had been followed in the placement of the monument.” In other words, it was all done legally and above board. The monument not only commemorates Forrest, but also the Battle of Selma. Or do the “civil rights” folks think that no history is important before they came on the scene? Do they want no version of history imparted to people other than their own? You better believe it! That’s part of what cultural genocide is all about—your version of history gets its throat cut while my version dances on your grave.

According to  “Todd Kiscaden of the Friends of Forrest, told WSFA-TV ‘I’d recommend this man for any young people to model their life after. He always led from the front. He did what he said he was going to do. He took care of his people, and his people included both races. And this article also noted that “While the city government is in charge of the Live Oak Cemetery, the United Daughters of the Confederacy owns the land where the monument actually sits.” Private property, folks, you have no legal right to bother it—not that this will stop you!

State Senator Hank Sanders also told the television station “Here’s a man who killed African-Americans who had surrendered, who were not a threat to anybody, formed the Ku Klux Klan, and yet we are talking about a monument to him.” How many monuments to Martin Luther King Jr. do we have around the country? And yet he was a friend of identified Communists and even had some working for his organization.

Actually, some of the history dealing with Bedford Forrest is a little hazier than the “civil rights” folks make out. There is some question as to whether he actually formed the Klan or had a major leadership position in it.

In 2010, Pelican Publishing of Gretna, Louisiana published a book by Shane E. Kastler, a Southern Baptist minister who has devoted his life to preaching the truth of Jesus Christ’s salvation to sinners. The book was called Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Redemption  and Rev. Kastler gives you information about Bedford Forrest you are guaranteed not ever to see in cultural Marxist circles or in your “news” media (are the two identical?). A review of the book observes: “Revealing an unfamiliar side of the feared Civil War general, the book details Forrest’s meeting and marriage to a pious Presbyterian who likely influenced his later devotion to faith. He briefly served as a leader of the Ku Klux Klan but later called for its disbandment. Afterward he became an advocate for African Americans.”

In an article on  the following is noted: “The Ku Klux Klan is a secret organization that has always been shrouded in mystery. Even its early beginnings are sketchy. It is known that six former Confederate officers at Pulaski, Tennessee, approached Forrest with the idea of a “police force” for the blessings of Forrest, who held the respect of the people. Forrest gave his blessings, and for it, he was appointed their first leader. The controversy stems in whether Forrest actually played an active part in the organization.” Anyone who has read honest “reconstruction” history knows that the Southern folks in the late 1860s and 70s needed something to help them fend off the gentle persuasions of the would-be robber barons that our “history” books refer to as carpetbaggers. If you want to know why the original Klan existed look at what went on during “reconstruction” in the South. It ain’t pretty but maybe you need to acquaint yourself with the truth. Read a book called The Tragic Era  by Claude Bowers, a Northerner who told the ugly truth about “reconstruction.”

And now the opposition to the Forrest monument in Selma. Much of the opposition is being led by a Malika Sanders-Fortier who is involved with the Grassroots Democracy Commission, the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement, and the Slavery and Civil War Museum.

If you look up Grassroots Democracy on the Internet, it looks like it is pretty much composed of Malika Sanders-Fortier and her husband, Franklin. Their site  carries several little blurbs about what they are trying to do in Selma by blocking any further work on the Forrest monument, even though two different sources I have cited in this article say the monument is on private property. One of the blurbs on their sites states: “In just a few days Malika has recruited thousands of people around the world to oppose what’s happening in Selma said Campaigner William Winters.” For any of you not familiar with them, is a big leftist outfit with their collectivist fingers in a lot of political pies.

Malika Sanders-Fortier’s parents played a large role in the Civil Rights movement and she started in with her political activism at age 15. Her parents were Harvard-educated lawyers and her father became a state senator in Alabama. Remember that Hank Sanders who complained about Forrest purposely killing African-Americans? That’s her father.

It would seem that much of the opposition in Selma started out with this one family and they have contacted their friends on the political left to help them push their agenda on Selma. This is the kind of leftist networking that goes on when someone, anyone on the left has a project they want to push. They all jump in and help one another. They may hate each other’s guts, but they’ll all get on board and support each other because they have a common enemy—us!

It’s too bad some of our Southern and Confederate heritage groups couldn’t take a page from their book and start learning to try to help each other out when something like this arises instead of taking part in all the infighting we seem so fond of getting into. Maybe there is a lesson in Selma for us and we had better start trying to learn it while we still have some Confederate heritage left.

The Lord’s Prayer As Holy War

By Al Benson Jr.

Over the past couple years I have done a couple articles dealing with Christian warfare. Awhile back I did one called “Christmas as War” and just recently I did one called “Worship as Holy War.”

Christian warfare (spiritual warfare) is something Christians need to become more aware of and more willing to participate in.

For far too many decades now we have bought into the “gentle Jesus meek and mild” fable which, basically, emasculates Christian warriors to the point where they feel they dare not fight back against anything anti-Christian, lest they “offend” some unbeliever out there. The picture of Jesus making a whip of cords and overturning the tables of the moneychangers that were set up in the court of the gentiles in the temple and chasing them out is one many Christians would prefer to ignore, or better yet pretend it never happened.

The Jesus that so strongly denounced the Pharisees and Scribes in Matthew 23 is one that is seldom mentioned and I don’t doubt that there are some Christians out there that might be tempted to feel that He offended the “chosen people” and should not have denounced them for their hypocrisy because, after all, they were Jews, and some believers think that you have to support the Jews no matter what. If you look at the majority of the opposition to Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels you have to conclude that it came from the Jewish religious leaders, and the same for the Book of Acts. These are historical accounts of Jesus’ life and the beginnings of the Church, and when they say that the Jewish religious establishment opposed Jesus and His ministry they are telling you the truth. Christians need to quit apologizing for Pharisees and Zionists!

So, to add to what, by now, some will have considered a negative commentary on my part, let me put fourth the thought that the Lord’s Prayer was, indeed, holy war. Just some of the wording leads me to this conclusion.

For instance, we are to pray: Our Father which are in heaven, hallowed be thy name. In other words, the God of Heaven and earth is to be revered and honored above all other “gods”—be they the false gods of other religions or the false gods of the New World Order or the men who finance and promote the New World Order. All of these false gods are to submit to the rule of the One True God—and even though they refuse to do it now, they will some day. Read Psalm 2.

And then Jesus taught his disciples to pray Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.. I have sometimes wondered if we realize the true impact of what we are asking for. We know the Lord’s will is done in heaven, but we are asking Him to also do it here, where we are. I wonder if, in our asking for that, we begin to realize that, in part, we are asking Him to use us to help complete that task. We are asking Him to use us to expose and combat evil and evil men (Ephesians 5:11). The Lord will accomplish His will on the earth, but he will use His people to do much of that through the Holy Spirit, because that’s the only possible way we can do it. In our own strength we’d be less than useless, but we are told “greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.” Sometimes I don’t think we believe that. The church seems content, in many cases, to remain a little sub-culture somewhere rather than attempting to contend for the faith “once delivered to the saints.” Our adversaries have, in many cases, neutralized us to the point where we think all we should be doing is passing out Gospel tracts and telling people about John 3:16. Now I’m not knocking Gospel tracts. I’ve passed them out myself, sent them to people who subscribed to my newsletter at times, and I am certainly not knocking John 3:16, but there is more to contending for the faith than that. If we stop there it’s like quitting after the first round of the fight. There’s more to come but we ain’t there for it.

We are asking the Lord to use us to help bring in His Kingdom in on earth and part of that might involve us having to get involved in “dirty” politics or promoting Christian education and exposing anti-Christian education for what it is and where it comes from. The textbook protest in Kanawha County, West Virginia over thirty six years ago now was a good example of this. Some Christians stood up and did what they should have. Others sat it out.

Part of helping to bring in His Kingdom and doing His will on earth could involve us having to learn enough real history about our foundations and culture so that we are able to stand up and combat those prevaricators who lie to us about where we came from and why. We might have to learn some unpleasant truths about some of the wars this country has fought in and the real reasons for them, because, believe it or not, they still impact where we live today. History has consequences and if we refuse to learn from the gross errors committed in the past we are condemned to repeat many of them and they wonder why. This may fluster some folks, but I’m going to say it anyway. Part of the reason Christians in this country are not helping to build God’s Kingdom more effectively is because we don’t know our history. Our vision of our past is foggy and so we have a hazy idea of where we as Christians should be going and we are often bemused by slick talkers into wanting government at various levels to do what we should be doing.

And we ask the Lord to deliver us from evil.. We don’t realize the implications of that either.What are we asking for deliverance from? That’s something we need to think and learn about and it’s a lot more serious than being delivered from the problems with gossipy old Mrs. Jones down the street. Are we asking the Lord to deliver us from the present World System when we are not willing to contend for our Christian culture against that world system?

And then, at the end of the prayer we say For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. We are affirming the truth that God’s Kingdom is above and will prevail over all the machinations of the New World Order, the CFR/Trilateral Commission, all the Romneys, Obamas, Kissingers, Rockefellers, Lincolns, and all the rest. But He will often use us to make some of that happen, even if we don’t live to see the results of what He had us do. He expects us to do something with the truth He has shown us in so many areas.

I just noticed today that someone had sent me an article from that was titled: “Rockefellers Preside Over Creation Of Global Journalist Group To ‘Advance Reporting On Religion.’” Supposedly the Rockefeller Foundation is concerned that religious issues are not being reported on in an unbiased manner and so they will help to resolve that thorny issue—supposedly. So you’ll probably get more “unbiased” reporting on Muslim issues and those of other infidel groups and stories about how Christians need to be more “multicultural” in their approach to dealing with others. You’ve all heard it before.

You’d better believe that the apostates and One Worlders realize the implications of For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory  better than most Christians do and they are working to make sure that a bemused and confused Christendom learns to apply that prayer to them rather than to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So the church needs to get off its “rapture” couch or out of its “God is in control so I don’t have to do anything” chair and get busy. Sure the Lord is in control and sure He will return one day, but in the meantime He expects His church to be out there contending with the world in all areas of life and looking at the possible implications of the prayer He gave us to pray.

Another Look At Obama’s Marxism

By Al Benson Jr.

Over the years I have read quite a bit of material written by Gary North. I usually find myself in agreement with much of what he says. Last year when I wrote my seventeen part series on why the Constitution was inimical to states rights on  I quoted several passages from his informative book Conspiracy In Philadelphia Origins of the United States Constitution in those articles. For any that are interested, this book can be found on the Internet.

Dr. North recently wrote an article that appeared on entitled Obama’s Brand of Marxism. Dr. North seems to feel that Obama’s brand of Marxism is somewhat of a hybrid and would not be completely in keeping with Karl Marx’s purist views, and he might be correct there. His article demonstrates why he feels this way, and I can’t totally disagree.

However, the extreme far left environment he was raised in, including his time under his mentor, Communist Frank Marshall Davis and his conscious associations with those on the far left in his early years certainly shaped him into what he is today. Whether he’s a hybrid Marxist or not I believe the Marxist worldview has definitely shaped him and continues to permeate his thinking even if he does not fully act out all of Marx’s personal whims.

However, the purpose of this is not to try to argue with Dr. North over how orthodox Obama’s Marxism is or isn’t. As the years have passed I have learned much from reading what Dr. North has written and his article on the Tea Party Economist has several interesting insights in it that are worth looking at.

North makes an interesting statement when he says “The key to understanding Obama is not Marxism. The key is that he and his wife both lost their licenses to practice law in Illinois.” He notes that the Obamas were “both social climbers from early in their lives.” He observed that their time on campus “allowed liberal academia to fill its mandated, self-imposed quota system. They are both a lot like Al Sharpton, but their original market was academia, not the media.”

North continued: “They got to the top socially by getting certified by way of Columbia University, Princeton University, and law school. They had it made. And then…whammo! No more certification. They had learned to manipulate academia, but they failed to manipulate the Illinois Bar Association. First it was Michelle in 1994. Then Obama in 2008. The mainstream media have, of course, covered this up, but Google uncovers it. ( From the day that he surrendered his license in January, 2008, his handlers had him on a tight leash. They still do. He has a deep-set need: to keep concealed the reason for his retroactive de-certification.” So he has something to hide, which should be obvious from the dearth of any possible records for the public to look at pertaining to any aspect of his life, from his compromised birth certificate forward.

Widespread speculation on the Internet is noted by Dr. North as to why Obama will not release his undergraduate transcripts. North observes that the “name on these records cannot be successfully altered retroactively. It was not the name he told the Illinois Bar Association was his. He was asked if he had ever used a different name. He said yes. Academia did not care. The Bar Association does.” And so his handlers can hold this over his head. He does what they want—or else. North has said that Obama had done nothing that the pro-oil, pro-banking Establishment is not happy with. In other words, for all his “hope and change” rhetoric he must stifle his Marxist tendencies to do what the big boys want done or he’s in trouble. He knows where his bread is buttered. Dr. North notes the bi-partisan nature of the Establishment’s “welfare-warfare state” and he feels that labeling Obama as a Marxist detracts from that. I have to agree with him that the Establishment’s whole collectivist effort is bi-partisan, which is why I label both Democrats and Republicans as Marxist. In fact the Republicans have probably been in that camp longer than the Democrats have. Read Lincoln’s Marxists (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana.)

Dr. North closes out his article by saying that: “They key to understanding the next four years of Obama is his desire to get a lifetime of speaking engagements at $100,000 each. He is a professional politician. If he does not go beyond what his handlers demand, he is set for life. If he does go beyond this, the whole story of his career—his two names, and his refusal to admit that other name when he applied to colleges and also to the Illinois Bar—somehow will be leaked. No more speaking engagements.” Many, me included, have contended over the past few years that, should Obama ever slip the traces and think he can do his own thing, all the muck that the media has so carefully concealed from us will come flying out and hit the fan big time. After all, remember what happened to Richard Nixon? At some point he decided that he would do his own thing rather than what the Rockefellers and Kissinger wanted him to do. The result was Watergate. If Obama strays too far from the corral you might just see Obamagate.

Interestingly enough, after his appearance at the Republican convention in Tampa, Clint Eastwood was quoted in an article written by Paul Miller that appeared in The Carmel Pine Cone, the local paper where Eastwood lives. The article quotes Eastwood as saying that “President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Based on the information contained in Gary North’s recent article such an assessment is not all that far off the target. I still contend that Obama is a Marxist, whether a totally doctrinaire one or not I don’t think matters in the long run. Whether he will be able to stifle his Marxist tendencies and continue to play along with the agenda the Establishment has set for him will be interesting to see.

I noted in an earlier article about the possibility of an “October Surprise” should Obama think he might lose the election. I think his Marxist side would definitely lean in that direction. Whether his puppet masters would be willing to let him do something like that and how that would affect their agenda is another question. Stay tuned!

The Party of Lincoln Shows its True Colors

By Al Benson Jr.

You thought the Republican Party was conservative, right? After all you heard all those folks at this recent convention making all those “conservative” noises, right? Problem is that noises are all it is—no substance, just noises, but some of the noises you don’t hear in public are fascist noises. You have to remember that this is the “Party of Lincoln” and Mr. Lincoln had a socialist worldview. Those in both his administration and his armies amply proved that. And after all, fascism is just another facet of the total socialist worldview.

The Republican National Committee is tightening up its rules so as to be able to exclude any future “grassroots” candidates. Ron Paul really scared them this time and they could see his popularity with voters, especially young voters. They will now make sure that no future Ron Paul’s ever get as far as he did this year. Naturally there had to be a little chicanery involved, but, hey, if you want an omelet you have to break some eggs don’t you? If you don’t want Ron Paul to have a chance then you have to break and change some of your own rules. That shouldn’t bother anyone—after all the agenda is what’s important and the ends justify the means, or so the RNC believes.

According to  “Six states filed to put Ron Paul into nomination while the rules said it only took five states. Realizing this the RNC met early Tuesday morning to change the rules in order to make the minimum needed as eight states, which Ron also would have had if the RNC had not decided to take the Ron Paul delegates away from Louisiana and Maine.”

Charleston Voice continued: “Rather than taking proper vote counts or listening to objections, several votes were clearly not unanimous, but this didn’t stop the RNC “leaders” from ignoring the dissent. Video surfaced…but a link is in the video showing that the teleprompter already had pre-approved results before the public vote was taken”. In other words, someone running this show was dishonest. The “conservative” Republican agenda called for Romney to be nominated no matter what and nothing and no one, no matter how legitimate, was going to get in the way of that.

I would seriously hope that Ron Paul supporters and independent voters around the country would start to consider third party alternatives, even to forming a new party, which they would then have to work constantly to make sure was not co-opted by the Republican and Democratic establishment—if we have an election.

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that both major parties are controlled by the same CFR/Trilateral group and that you have about as much chance of working from within to reform the Republican Party as you have of reforming the public school system.

Karen Kwiatkowski, writing on  for 9/1 observed that: “As Doug Wead so delightfully put it, the party has been reduced to ‘ten fat men sitting in a room.’ One of the fat men was John Sununu.” Kwiatkowski said that what he did on Tuesday afternoon was to “…steamroll the wishes of half of the delegate floor, and destroy what was left of the integrity of the GOP…John Sununu’s totalitarianism was on display, and his goal seemed obvious: the literal and figurative lobotomy of the constitutional and liberty movement within the party.” The Tea Party folks had better figure this out. There is no place in the Republican Party for them unless they are willing to sell their souls.

Lest we think it’s only the Republicans an article on has commented about the upcoming convention for socialist party B (the Democrats). It states in part: “But the sweeping security already in place throughout Charlotte’s central business district could find protesters running afoul of the law by carrying water bottles, hair spray, socks or magic markers. It would take a strict reading of the rules for someone to be arrested simply for possessing one of these items, but the possibility exists—which worries protesters and free speech advocates who fear authorities could violate people’s constitutional rights.” Arrested for carrying a water bottle—in the “land of the free?” You better believe it.

So both parties are in the process of deciding what they will and will not allow the public or delegates to do. After all, if they are both controlled by the same clique, then why not? Everyone in both parties marches in lockstep and the whole thing is scripted for both before the bread and circuses begin.

The pity is that more people can’t grasp this, that they can’t see what should by now be blatantly obvious.

I still have a gut feeling that Romney will end up doing what McCain did by providing a dummy for Obama’s ventriloquist. I still hope I am in error, but right now, if we do have an election I am concerned that this is what will happen. But either way, Obama or Romney, both of them will play the game. Ron Paul would not have and that’s why he had to be removed at all cost and why the Republicans are working to make sure no more candidates like him ever surface in the Republican Party.

How many remember George Wallace in 1968 (ancient history now). That year he ran on the American Independent Party ticket and won five Southern states. Old George shook the establishment that year. He didn’t have enough electoral votes from those Southern states to really do anything with but he kept the establishment hacks hanging for awhile before he released his delegates. Wallace ran again as a Democrat in 1972 and the establishment was concerned about him as he was doing well in the primaries so the usual “lone, deranged gunman” was trotted out and he, after stalking Wallace through several cities, finally got his chance and Wallace was out of the picture–not dead, but out. Mission accomplished!  Now Ron Paul is out of the picture. I guess we should thank the good Lord that he got out alive and in one piece.