CNN Writer Has No Grasp Of Real History

By Al Benson Jr.

If you always thought the Cable News Network (CNN) was typical of the “news” media that hewed the leftist line you were on target. Too many naively think that the “news” media exists to give us real news. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of the “news” media exists to promote the government line in whatever subject they deal with—politics, economics, history, religion—you name it. Truth is the last thing that concerns them.

This was amply demonstrated on October 25th by a CNN article by Dean Obeidallah, the title of which, on http://www.cnn.com was “Confederate flag was the flag of traitors.” In this article Mr. Obeidallah proved that his grasp of history was like the Platte River—a mile wide and an inch deep. The article lists him as a “former attorney” and a “political comedian.” I would suggest that whatever his day job is he keep it, unless it is besmirching Southerners, at which he seems to be adept. Wikipedia has listed Obeidalla as “…part of a small but growing number of Arab-American comedians” that uses comedy “to both entertain and dispel negative stereotypes of Arab-Americans and Muslims.” He was born and grew up in New Jersey.

His missive starts out with: “You can debate whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism. But one thing you can’t dispute: The Confederate flag was flown by traitors to the United States of America who slaughtered more than 110,000 U.S. soldiers. I know some will take issue with my calling the Confederacy a band of traitors, but let’s be blunt—that’s what they were. They broke from the United States and created their own nation…” The United States did the same thing in 1776 from Great Britain. Was that treason? If so we all better apologize and crawl back to London begging forgiveness, right?

Obeidallah makes the same classic mistake all liberals seem to make. He can’t tell the difference between secession and treason. To him it’s all the same. I could give him a brief history lesson here, though I doubt if he would listen, but I will try anyway. If he doesn’t get it maybe some other ultra-liberal or socialist will read this and lights will go on—maybe.

The Southern states did not, I repeat, did not, commit treason. They seceded. There is no place in the Constitution that forbids secession. In fact when some of the states ratified the Constitution they did so with the provision that, should this new government not work out for them they reserved the right to secede and go their own ways. Their ratifications were accepted with that language in them. How then is it “treason” to secede? It’s only “treason” if you have a socialist mentality that demands that all political power be centralized.

As for secession being treasonous, even some in Lincoln’s own cabinet argued that this was foolishness. In his book An Honorable Defeat William C. Davis, no real friend of the South, observed, on page 385 that: “The Constitution failed specifically to define what they (the Confederate leaders) had done as treason. They had not attempted to overthrow the United States government, nor had any of them been leaders in the separatist movement that resulted from secession. Rather, Davis and Stephens had been elected without seeking office, and the rest were simply appointees.” Davis noted, on page 386 that: “Influential Union editors called for leniency, especially when authorities failed to link him (Jefferson Davis) to the Lincoln assassination, even after employing perjured witnesses.” Would “our” government employ lying witnesses? You bet they would—and still do. I’m sorry, but Obeidallah’s charge of treason for Confederates falls flat on its face.

He gets one thing right. He notes that the Confederate Battle Flag was the battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia, but he thinks that’s even worse because “…this was the flag carried on battlefields by Confederate troops during the Civil War as they killed U.S. soldiers.” For one thing, the Union soldiers were mostly on Southern soil. They had invaded the Southern states and so the Confederates resisted. One Confederate soldier was reported to have said, (when he was asked why the Confederates resisted,) “because you’re here.” And if you want to know further reasons why the Confederates resisted I suggest you read War Crimes Against Southern Civilians. It is one book, among many, that documents Northern atrocities in the South. I wonder if Obeidallah would justify those atrocities because, after all, those nasty Southerners were traitors and so whatever is done to them is okay. If that was his mindset I would not be surprised. It’s the typical Yankee/Marxist mindset which prevailed among much of the Northern leadership, as documented by Donnie Kennedy and I in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Obeidallah is trying, by his “historical” argument to persuade people not to carry or display the Confederate flag and he finally gets around to making the obligatory appeal to Southern “racism” as his clincher. I am not persuaded. He mentions Alexander Stephens much talked about “slavery is the cornerstone” speech. He doesn’t tell you that Stephens made that remark from a hotel balcony in an impromptu speech he was asked to give with no preparation time allowed for what he was to say. He also doesn’t tell you that the white attitude toward blacks was the same in the North as in the South, and in some cases, a little worse. Maybe he doesn’t know that. If he is going to comment on all this he should.

He has no problem with Confederate flags being displayed in history museums. How magnanimous of him but he doesn’t think anyone should carry or display one anywhere else because, after all, the people that carried that flag were shooting at U.S. soldiers. What does he think those U.S. soldiers were doing in the South—handing out lollypops?

The record of Northern atrocities in the South is there for anyone who is willing to do the research. I would suggest to Mr. Obeidallah that before he writes anymore about Southern “treason” he do a little more homework. For starters I would suggest these books: The South Was Right; The North Against The South–The American Iliad-1848-1877; Was Jefferson Davis Right?; Sherman’s March; The South Under Siege 1830-2000, and The Coming of the Glory. If he will read these in addition to the books already mentioned in this article then he might have enough knowledge to make some accurate commentary about the South and the War.

Barring that, his slanted commentary about the South’s “treason” is little more than a noxious rant.

Evangelical Preachers And “Right Wing Stuff”

By Al Benson Jr.

You don’t tend to get what some call “right wing” preaching in most churches. I’ve been in some churches over the years where, in an attempt to stay “neutral” the preacher almost leans to the left. Of course the 501-C3 status of many churches only encourages that.

There seems to be a trend, in parts of the evangelical community, to want to embrace messages and personalities that lean left while looking down their noses and anything and anyone that is perceived leaning to the right. I recall, several years ago now, that Billy Graham made a statement that “the hard right has no interest in spiritual things” or something to that effect. Does Billy think the hard left has any interest in spiritual things? He never addressed that, and so, for many, the implication is there—distrust the right and leave the left alone.

I recall sitting in a church service several years ago  where they had a guest student preacher who was attending Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His sermon consisted of a number of strung-together left of center assumptions and he concluded it by playing a tape of part of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech.” Not wanting to disrupt a church service I sat in my chair and gritted my teeth, but I would dearly have loved to have gotten up and walked out and taken my family with me. I thought “If this is what they teach their seminary students at Calvin College then I wouldn’t let my dog attend there.” This kid was slightly to the right of Ho Chi Minh, but not by much.

Yet the congregation tolerated his sermon. To her credit, one lady talked to the guest preacher afterward and attempted to straighten out his socialistic concepts, but she was the only one.

Sometime later, in this same church, they had a guest preacher who came from a different persuasion. I don’t recall at this point what his sermon was specifically about but he did deal with the political situation in the country at that time and at a certain point in his sermon he said “I could quit at this point and be safe.” He did not do that however. He went on to name names of both people and groups that were taking the country in the wrong direction, one of them being the Council on Foreign Relations, and as he went along you could feel the tension mounting in the congregation. They sat through his sermon, which I thought was quite informative, but barely. As I was on the way out I shook the preacher’s hand and said “I agree with everything you said, but you didn’t make any friends here today.” One of the other church members, when he got out the door, said “I don’t need to listen to this right wing stuff.” No, you don’t “have” to listen to it, but maybe you should. The preacher was not trying to present “right wing” material to the congregation. All he was trying to do was to let them know about certain people and groups that affected their lives adversely  and that they, as Christians, should have been aware of, but weren’t, and apparently had no interest in being aware of.

This seems to be a major problem in some evangelical circles. Most evangelicals don’t seem to know their history and so when they go to deal with political issues they respond to the hot button issues promoted by liberals and socialists and they come down on the wrong side of most political questions and end up promoting a liberal, socialist line in the name of love and compassion. To a lesser degree they follow the rationale of the liberal National Council of Churches and end up supporting what can only be considered leftist causes because, somewhere along the line, they seem to have imbibed the “kool aid” that those on the left are really caring and compassionate while those on the right are all just fascists, and, not knowing history, they don’t even perceive how incorrect that is. Fascists are not on the right, they are over on the left along with the Communists. But don’t try to tell some of the evangelicals that—they ain’t buying it. They just know the fascists are part of the “hard right.” Hollywood says so!

There are definitely people on the “hard right” that have no interest in spiritual things, just like there are people on the hard left and in the middle that have no interest in spiritual things. So why do many evangelicals pick on those on the right and just ignore all the others? I’ve been privileged to know some preachers that don’t fit this mold and that don’t hesitate to call a spade a spade and to let the chips fall where they will. Unfortunately, such preachers are in the minority.

I fear, in some instances, there is a soft underbelly in parts of the evangelical community that leans to the left and leans quite hard in many cases. They don’t seem to grasp that the anti-Christ left is not their friend and that they ought to be opposed to the leftist agenda. Rather, they make common cause with much of it—in the name of “love.” Interesting though that their “love” seldom extends to those on the right. Maybe they ought to question why that is.

Evangelical “love” seldom extends to those that revere Southern history and Southern symbols such as Confederate flags. I once heard a well-intentioned evangelical say, regarding the Confederate flag “I hate that flag.” Why? Do you have any inclination whatever as to its real history? Probably not. You saw some KKK member or some skinhead with one sometime and that’s the only thing you associate it with. Evangelicals seldom bother to do the homework. Had they bothered, they would have found numerous photos of KKK rallies where the United States flag was carried in glorious abundance with nary a Confederate flag in sight. That’s if they bothered to do any looking. Many evangelicals don’t research, they respond to all the inflammatory rhetoric thrown in their faces by the anti-Christ theological and political left, and, having done no real homework, they come down on the wrong side of the issue.

Several years ago I went to a march in Washington where there were lots of Confederate flags along with other types of American flags (yes the Confederate flag IS an American flag) and, as we were living in New England at the time, some of the people on the bus I traveled on questioned whether Confederate flags were appropriate for such a gathering. I never forgot this. A little (short in stature but not in knowledge) lawyer from Uxbridge, Massachusetts stood up and told them flat out “That (Confederate) flag is a Christian flag” and he explained to them why. At that time I had not known anything about what he said. As time went on and I learned, I found that he was right on the money. It was and is, indeed, a Christian flag and it is seen in many places around the world, especially in Eastern Europe, as a symbol of resistance to oppression and tyranny. That’s not all that hard to figure out so why don’t more of the evangelicals get it? It has come to a pretty pass when Eastern Europeans know more about the history of the Confederate flag than Americans do.

Some evangelicals are concerned with racial prejudice in the South. Do they think that doesn’t exist in the North or never existed in the North? Come on folks, wake up. You are dreaming if you think that. You think the North never had Jim Crow laws? Do some homework! You’ve bought into the media lies about the South and its culture and you don’t have the wherewithal to look beyond that and find out for yourselves.

Most of those the revere Confederate symbols are not “racists.” That’s not where they are coming from. Many of them are Christians, just like you, only hopefully with a little more knowledge of history.

Until more evangelicals begin to learn how to do a little historical research and begin to learn some of the truth on their own this sad situation will continue and they will continue to look askance at those on the right while embracing the subtle anti-Christianity of many on the far left. Let us pray that the Lord will give them eyes to see and a willingness to exercise their vision.

To Preserve Your Confederate Heritage Homeschool Your Kids

By Al Benson Jr.

Just today I received a short article from the Southern Legal Resource Center http://slrc-csa.org
which dealt with what goes on in public schools in regard to Confederate Heritage. The article stated, in part: “With little more than the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court of the US has denied Certiorari in the Candice Hardwick Case. Thus ends 10 years of the struggle to vindicate the right of South Carolina Government School Students to peaceably wear Confederate emblems. The 4th Circuit Decision, which the Supreme Court has let stand, affirms the school’s prerogative to trample student rights. This decision affects students in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia. Anti-student free speech decisions involving Confederate symbols in the 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 11th Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals are left standing by the Supreme Court Hardwick denial.

And so the Southern Legal Resource Center has some sound advice for families that want to protect and preserve their Southern heritage—get the kids out of public school—homeschool them!

It’s good to see some group in the Confederate Movement standing up and advocating what desperately needs to be said to families that want to protect their Confederate heritage and maybe display it now and again by wearing a t-shirt with a Confederate flag on it. I don’t know how many people in the Confederate and Southern Heritage movements I have talked to over the years that hate what the public schools are doing to their kids, but when you suggest to them that one solution might be to remove the kids from public schools they stare at you as if you had three heads or had finally found a way to make Obamacare work. The concept of taking the kids out of public school totally eludes them and for the life of me I can’t see why, but it does.

Oh they will gripe and moan about what the schools are doing to deep-six their heritage but they will not take the kids out and so after twelve years of anti-Confederate indoctrination the kids end up hating their heritage and calling it “racist” and the parents stare wide-eyed and wonder what happened. You let anti-Christ educate your kids that’s what happened and now you live with the results and you don’t like it. Maybe you should have done something when you could. Depending on your family situation, it still might not be too late to help your grandchildren.

Chief Trial Councel Kirk D. Lyons has observed: “The school and the courts will not respect your children’s inalienable right to proclaim and be proud of their Southern Heritage, and in all areas of traditional culture it will only get worse. Get your kids out of the Government schools, and encourage others to do so. Whatever your inadequacies as a teacher, in most cases you will do a better job at teaching your kids, and they can wear Dixie Outfitter shirts and have Robert E. Lee’s Birthday off as a school holiday.”

The SLRC is planning on developing some on-line resources for those families who choose to homeschool their kids. There are other private organizations doing the same thing. I believe that Ron Paul’s organization is planning a homeschool curriculum and I’ve heard about others that I can’t call to mind right now. And there are all sorts of homeschool organizations and co-ops in many states that will help and work with parents. When my wife and I homeschooled our kids back in the late 1980s you didn’t have too much of that. I remember one lady that said to me “You homeschooled before homeschooling was cool.” I guess we did. I had never thought of it in those terms. It was what we did when we could no longer afford Christian schools because public schools were never, and I repeat, never, an option, much to the chagrin of the church we attended at the time.

Neill H. Payne, Board Chairman of the SLRC has noted: “It says something for the state of this country when Candice Hardwick peaceably displays a Confederate Flag over 4 years in situations that do not cause a single act of disruption (facts conceded by the school) and the rule of law fails to protect or even respect her rights.” Let’s face it, those who defend and protect Confederate heritage have no rights. As H. K. Edgerton said: “For Confederate kids the rule of law doesn’t exist.” He’s right. Everybody else get protection but the white, Christian kid who happens to believe in his Southern heritage and culture has no protection. He’s hung out to dry so the Je$$e Jacksons and Al Sharptons and the rest of the race-baiters can use him for journalistic and scholastic target practice.

And even with homeschooling you have to be careful with what you use, especially for history. My wife and I used to go to homeschool fairs and the first thing I would check out was what the different companies had for history material. A good deal of it was abysmal—little more than public school material with a few Bible verses sprinkled over it. At that point I worked at developing a mini-history series of booklets with tests that dealt with the period of the War of Northern Aggression. I ended up with five booklets in the series and I still have a few copies in my office. I wanted homeschooled kids to be confronted with a Southern view of the War and what it was really all about because what I saw in the homeschooling history books I viewed was not giving them that. Unwittingly or not, much of the “history” that was presented in some of these homeschool history books was little more than Yankee/Marxist propaganda. It would have been nice if the writers had done some homework as to accurate history, but it seems that, in many cases, they did not.

I am glad that the SLRC is advocating that people take their kids out of public schools and teach them at home. It would truly be great if every time some youngster’s Southern heritage is violated in his public school his parents would lodge a protest with the school and then inform them “My child will not be back here again for you to kick around with your anti-Southern agenda.” This is what we need to start doing. May the Lord help us to do it.

Is The Regime Afraid Of Its Subjects And Ultimately Of God?

By Al Benson Jr.

You have to look at all that the current Marxist regime in Washington is involved in and wonder if it is afraid of the American people, and ultimately of God and His judgment.

We have Homeland Security with its amoured vehicles and the NSA which seems to be busy checking the emails of just about everyone in the country to see what’s being said. They claim they are doing this to “combat terrorism.” Balderdash! You have a situation where the federal government has bought up millions and millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition. Who are they afraid of?  Who do they plan to use all that on? If you are realistic you know full well it is to be used on the American public, not some terrorist group in Pakistan.

And the government is also busily redefining the use of the word terrorist. Now this term includes such people as Christians, home schoolers, Second Amendment advocates, those who want the government to follow the Constitution, veterans, etc. The list of honest, patriotic people this regime is now defining as terrorists could go on, but this regime is now trying to give aid and comfort to the terrorists we have been (supposedly) fighting in Afghanistan and the Middle East and to redefine thinking Americans as terrorists.

Anyone who dares to disagree with this Marxist regime is a potential terrorist just like all those people that didn’t vote for Obama and his Marxism are all “racists.” If this regime were only fulfilling its constitutional duties why would it have to fear its subjects? And let’s don’t kid ourselves—we are no longer free and independent citizens in a Republic—we are subjects. When a regime can compel you to buy health insurance you are no longer free.

The current Marxist regime tries to tell us that a majority of Americans are in favor of strict gun control/confiscation and their paid political prostitutes in the “news” media parrot the same lie. This past weekend there was an armed, yes armed, pro-Second Amendment rally in San Antonio, at the Alamo, the cradle of Texas liberty. Depending on who you listen to, it was attended by anywhere between 500-1000 armed citizens. The police thought about trying to disarm them and then decided maybe they’d better back off. A few blocks away there was an anti-gun rally—which was attended by about twenty people. Had they managed to get fifty people out the “news” media probably would have given them a thousand. That’s the kind of thing the “news” media does—for the right (left) people.

This regime fears the First and Second Amendments and it is paranoid about the Tenth Amendment, which it hopes can be severely constricted by the 14th Amendment. The regime is concerned about “Christian” terrorists much more than it is about Muslim terrorists. They will deny this but their actions belie their words—especially with Christians on the potential terrorist list and groups like the American Family Association, Don Wildmon’s group, now being classified as a “hate group.” The Southern Poverty Law Center now prowls around, probably at federal behest, “seeking whom it can devour” with the “hate group” label. After all, they went after the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a few years back. And the UDC is no more a hate group than the man in the moon. The regime doesn’t come right out and use the word “Christian” but they use the term “fundamentalist” and they tell us they are referring to Muslim fundamentalists. Yeah, right. Most people in this country, when they hear the term “fundamentalist” think of Christians, so the regime’s use of this word is not accidental when linking it with potential terrorists.

So, if this regime (I use this term rather than calling it an administration because it really is a regime, replete with 923 Executive Orders) is that concerned about Christians, then I wonder if it has a problem with God also, outside of trying to usurp His place and replace Him with themselves.

You have to wonder about the shallowness and smallness of those who try to remove God from His rightful place as Sovereign over all creation, including themselves. I think that’s where the rub is. These small people don’t want to be accountable to the Lord or to be accountable for their own sins, which they are and will be. The thought of judgment scares them because, deep down, most of them really know what they are doing and they know it is sin, and they don’t want to have to answer for it. If they can just convince themselves there is no God and that man and the state are really “god” and they can run the state and the world, then they can convince themselves that they are absolved from all sin because sin, as such, does not exist. It’s interesting, because those revolutionaries that started the French Revolution felt the same way. They hated the truth about original sin found in the Scriptures. Why they weren’t “sinners.” They were too busy saving the world to be sinners. I think most of them are a lot wiser today, wherever they are. So these modern day revolutionaries have come up with nothing new. They are busily repeating the same gross errors of their spiritual ancestors.

What was it Psalm 14 said—“The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” That pretty much tells you where those people are—fools! You can be a big, high mucky-muck in the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission or any of the other One World Government groups and still be a fool. In fact, if you refuse to accept the reality of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, then you almost certainly, unless you repent, earn yourself a place in fool’s paradise (they call it Hell).

That’s where this current regime, and all others like it, is headed if they refuse to reverse direction.

Public Schools and the Destruction of America

by Al Benson Jr.

Contrary to popular myths, public education in this country has never been “necessary.” Years ago Samuel Blumenfeld wrote a book called Is Public Education Necessary? Mr. Blumenfeld, who was an education expert, concluded that, no, it was not. Rather it was introduced by people (Unitarians and socialists) who had an agenda and that agenda was the removal of Christian education, to be replaced by an educational system run by the state (government). It was to be a thoroughly humanist system. Humanism is a system of theology completely alien to and opposed to the Christian faith and the truth about Jesus Christ and Scripture. This was the foundation of public education in this country and, sad to say, most Christians bought into it and continue to buy into it and when their kids leave the faith after high school they wonder why. The idea that the public school worked for twelve years to eradicate the faith of their children never occurs to them, and what’s more, they get really ticked at anyone who tries to explain this to them. They don’t want to hear it—end of conversation!

However, the public school agenda presently is becoming so blatant I don’t see how they can ignore it much longer without willingly admitting that they don’t want the responsibility for their children’s education and therefore are willing to turn the kids over to apostates and anti-Christs for their “education.”

The information that comes across my desk about the continuing destruction of real education by the public schools is so voluminous that I can hardly keep up with it all, much less comment on it all. But here and there items turn up that cry out to be dealt with and you get the feeling that the Lord would have you try, just one more time, to warn Christian parents about what is going on, even though most of them don’t want to hear it and would just as soon you shut up so they could continue on in their theological dreamland where everything is fine and they don’t have to do anything about anything. I guess I’m just enough of an agitator that I don’t want them to be able to say “nobody ever told me.”

So here are a few tidbits that should make Christian parents with kids in public brain laundries think and wonder if, possibly, just possibly, their kids might be better off in a different educational environment, like the home or the Christian school. An article that appeared on http://www.digitaljournal.com  for October 5th was headlined: Worksheet asks children to remove parts of the Bill of rights. The author, Justin King wrote: “A student in Bryant School District in Arkansas brought home a worksheet that presented her with a scenario that referred to the Bill of rights as ‘outdated’ and that as part of a special committee she would need to throw out two of the amendments. The worksheet was handed out to Sixth grade students in a History class…According to the girl’s mother, she has not received any government or civics classes and this was the first assignment dealing with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The school district is participating in the embattled Common Core curriculum.” So these kids are supposed to meet in some sort of a committee and decide, since the Bill of Rights is “outdated” what two amendments need to go. And this in the sixth grade with no previous civics classes? How much do you want to bet, with the teacher’s “gentle persuasion” this totally inexperienced sixth grade committee ends up recommending that the two amendments that are outdated and should be removed are the Second and Tenth Amendments? This is history? Well, no, actually its propaganda, but they’ll never tell.

And there’s this one from Tennessee on the same day, October 5th. It appeared on http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com  which stated: “Tennessee School Posts 5 Pillars of Islam On Walls Adds Islam to Curriculum.” The article starts off “Springfield High School didn’t miss an opportunity to display and essentially express their desire to show their tolerance for an ever growing diverse community at a recent open house for parents and returning public school children. On display on the freshman hall wall of the Robertson County, TN school, the 5 Pillars of Islam were pasted ‘up and down’ the hallway, proclaiming the rules to be a good student of Islam, much in the way the 10 Commandment direct Christians.” Only problem with all of this is that the Ten Commandments probably would have “offended” someone and would have had to be taken down while no one will dare touch the Islamic stuff for fear of “offending” those who are offended by Christianity. In fact the article ended up with “The only problem to date, is the 5 Pillars stayed and the 10 Commandments came down.” Folks, that’s what it was all about! Islam will be paraded and Christianity will be removed as quickly as possible. This is your public education system in living color folks, get used to it. This is where it’s headed. And don’t think you can “reform” it. That will never happen.

Then there was the article that came from The Daily Sheeple  http://www.thedailysheeple.com  that appeared on http://www.lewrockwell.com  which observed: “Critics of the public school system will be pleased to know that St. Joseph-Ogden High School in Illinois is preparing kids for the future by teaching them practical skills. That’s right—15 and 16 year olds just had an assignment on how to distribute limited medical resources amongst a small sampling of the population. They got to pick who deserves to live and who deserves to die.” Turns out the lesson deals with ten people who need kidney dialysis when there are only enough resources to care for six of them and the students have to decide who lives and who dies. This is a different spin on the old one they used to pull with values clarification courses I think it was. There were ten people who were in the water after the ship sank but the rowboat only had room for six and so the kids had to decide which six lived.

The Lew Rockwell article continued: “At least these students will leave high school job-ready. They’ll be all set to serve on the much-speculated Obamacare Death Panels.” The school principal hastened to mention that this was not a “death panel” assignment and he blathered on about how the assignment was to educate kids about “social values.” Hogwash! After listening to some of these guys on and off for years and sitting in school board meetings in West Virginia where some of the school board members lied outright to parents and then laughed when caught at it, you’ll pardon me if I just don’t believe much of what they say. These people have an agenda and that agenda is the destruction of your kid’s Christian faith and replacing it with another faith and another “god.”

The one I’ll finish off with comes from http://www.kirotv.com  for October 10th and the headline reads: “Students suspended for carrying Confederate flags”. This one took place at a high school in Maple Valley, Washington. Two students were suspended because they wore Confederate flags around their necks, which they did to make an anti-sodomite statement. The school district really didn’t want to say too much about this but it turned out that a 10th grade student had been displaying a sodomite-pride flag for the past two weeks. The kids with the Confederate flags were protesting that and this was how they did it. However they got suspended and the kid with the sodomite flag didn’t. It seems that many were “offended” by the Confederate flags but it seems that no one was offended by the sodomite flag, at least no one we’ve been told about. That just might tell you something about the public school climate in Washington State—and if so, why is it that way? The not-so-subtle message is there; “In this school the homosexual lifestyle is accepted and welcomed but leave your Confederate flags and the Christian culture they represent at home–they are not welcome here.

It seems that the one group it is perfectly okay to offend is white Christians, particularly those from the South—in fact it’s almost required behavior anymore to offend white Christians—and heaven help them if they dare to resist the politically correct garbage that’s floating in most public school rivers today.

I’m not about to suggest that Christians invade public school campuses with mass demonstrations. What I am suggesting, however, is that Christians learn what is going on and have the intestinal fortitude (spelled g u t s) to stage a mass EXODUS from the public school system. This is the last thing most Christians want to do and the first thing they should do. Check out Exodus Mandate on the Internet.

I’m not indicting every public school teacher. I realize there have been and are some good ones, but the system as a whole, especially at the top, is anti-Christ to the core, even down to the Common Core.

The socialists, Marxists, and apostates who run the government and the public schools are at war with the Christian faith and its adherents.  They are winning at this point because most of the Christians, not aware that the war is entering its crucial stage, or even going on, for that matter, are still asleep.

“Love Lincoln” Propaganda For Fifth Graders

By Al Benson Jr.

How do you create Lincoln lovers at the fifth grade level and thereby assure that most of them will continue to believe the pro-Lincoln propaganda that the public school system will continually throw in their faces up through high school and on into the college level? You do it by making Lincoln look like an underdog, because most people, adults as well as kids, will feel automatic sympathy for the underdog. An outfit called Scholastic Teaching Resources has done this for fifth graders in the state of Georgia and, I’m sure, for others around the country.

They publish a one-page summary on Lincoln, to be read before taking a “bubble test” on the content of that one page. The one page is a mélange of partial truths about Lincoln and the slavery issue, which as most of us know, is the reason educators tout as being the cause of the “Civil War.”

They start off by noting that Lincoln was not always considered to be a heroic person (the implication there being that he should have been). The summary states that: “Lincoln was hated in the South because he wanted to free the slaves.” Actually, Lincoln had very little concern for the slaves. He was a decided “racist” as his comments during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858 conclusively show. He was a supporter of the Corwin Amendment, (read The Lincoln-Corwin Keep Your Slaves article on this blog spot) which, had it been enacted, would have been the original 13th Amendment. The Corwin Amendment, introduced by Thomas Corwin of Ohio, of all places, would have allowed for slavery to be continued in perpetuity and this amendment had Lincoln’s support. And Lincoln readily admitted that his main concern was to keep the Union preserved (under a strong central government) and that if he could free half the slaves to do that he would, if he could do that by freeing none of the slaves he would. Contrary to the drivel our kids are fed in public schools, Lincoln’s concern for the slaves was, at best, minimal.

The summary continues: “On the other hand, many in the North thought that Lincoln was a coward for not having freed the slaves already.” Another partial truth! Most in the North couldn’t have cared less about the slavery issue. They were just as “racist” in their own way as any Southerner and they, quite frankly, did not want a lot of blacks living amongst them. Many northern states, Lincoln’s Illinois included, had laws on the books to restrict black immigration into their states and to limit the time blacks could stay there. This is a little-known fact that the so-called “history” books almost never deal with. Since this would make the North accurately look as “racist” as the South it is just ignored. The fifth graders just don’t need to know this—anymore than the college students do—and brainwashed fifth graders make easy-to-fool college students.

The summary states that: “In 1862 he (Lincoln) signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves in the Southern states. This is another of those infamous half-truths that, for some reason, the “educators” never seem to get right. The kids are almost always taught that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the South. If the truth be known, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. You read that right. Lincoln, or whoever, wrote it so that it would free only those slaves in areas of the South that were still under the control of the Confederate States of America. Since Lincoln had no authority in the Confederate States of America to free anyone or do anything, it was, in the truest sense, nothing more than a war propaganda measure. And there were exceptions. Any parts of the Confederate States that had been captured by the Union and were, henceforth, under Union control, got to keep their slaves, as did the Southern states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri which had all remained in the Union. What Lincoln did with his infamous proclamation was to free slaves where he had no authority to do so and leave them in bondage where he had the authority to free them. I would suggest that concerned people get a copy of the proclamation and read what it really says in its entirety.

What passes for history in public schools nowadays, and for decades now, never deals with this. Down the memory hole! I’ve read other public school material in years past about Lincoln’s proclamation and this is the way it’s always presented—that it freed all the slaves in the South. A subtle half truth if the kids don’t know their history.

And the summary states, near its conclusion that: “Finally on April 9, 1864, the South surrendered and the Civil War finally ended. Outside of getting the year wrong, another half truth appears. On April 9, 1865 Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia—and that’s all he surrendered. As commander of all the Confederate forces at that point he could have surrendered them all but he didn’t. There were still Confederate armies in the field so the war was not officially over. In fact the Confederate government never officially surrendered. The only surrenders that took place were by armies in the field. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States cabinet fled rather than surrender. Most of them were eventually caught, but the Confederate States government never issued a surrender document—and this is something else they don’t discuss.

What they do with this fifth grade material is to attempt to make Lincoln look like the underdog and thereby create sympathy for him and the Union cause, which deserves no sympathy if you understand the issues. Lincoln was much more concerned with collecting tariffs than he was with freeing slaves, but they are not about to tell the fifth graders that. It would dilute the “love Lincoln” image they are trying to pass off on these unknowing kids as “education.” It’s all part of the ongoing “hate the South” campaign that we see so vividly portrayed in Hollyweird, the media, and Washington. And part of this campaign is to get the kids to hate their own history and heritage and to feel guilty about being Southerners. I wonder if they will ever bother to tell the kids that slavery existed in the North, too; they just got rid of it a little earlier than the South did, or if they will inform them about the Northern folks who took the major part in the slave trade. You’ll have to pardon me if I tend to doubt that such will ever happen.

Southern kids, and others too, need to get out of these establishment propaganda mills and begin to learn real history from alternative sources. It can be found if you are willing to look.

The House Agenda—Fund Obamacare—but make it look like you didn’t want to

By Al Benson Jr.

The whole House of Representatives fuss over funding Obamacare is one more charade the federal government is putting over on the public—just like public schools and elections. I’m not saying there is no one in the House that wants to defund this socialist monstrosity—there are many, but the House leadership wants Obamacare just as much as Obama and his agenda-setters want it. However, they must give the illusion of opposition, just like Romney did in the last election.

In an article on http://www.examiner.com for October 2nd, Christopher Collins stated: “When the House passed legislation to defund Obamacare but would keep the government running through mid-December, the Senate, led by Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid stated that they would not budge on Obamacare and the legislation was defeated. On Monday, Dr. Harold Pease, an expert on the United States Constitution, stated that the authority in dealing with Obamacare funding belongs in the U.S. House, not the U.S. Senate and that the House is doing this all wrong.”

Knowing the way the political hucksters in Washington operate can anyone honestly believe this is by accident? Folks, in spite of all their conservative rhetoric about defunding Obamacare the House leadership is just as much in favor of forcing it down our throats as the Democratic socialists are. The only difference is the House leadership doesn’t want us to know this and so they give us this facade of opposition.

Pease went on to note: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives. If that does not happen taxpayer money cannot be spent…”

The article said: “When the House attached Obamacare to the legislation in funding the government, it made a mistake in doing so and the funding of Obamacare should have been separate, thereby giving the Senate no power in denying the Houses’ request to defund Obamacare.”

Pease observed that: “House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a ‘stand alone’ bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. ‘Stand alone’ having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile. Obamacare is merely defunded.”

And the article concludes “If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House. If that is the case, then the Senate and the President has no constitutional authority to override the Houses’ decision.”

Will the House leadership allow such a move? Don’t hold your breath, baby! It ain’t gonna happen. The House leadership works for the same Council on Foreign Relations elitist leadership in Washington and New York that the Democratic leadership works for. They all have the same agenda. Party labels and differences are little more than a subterfuge. They all want Obamacare because it is, as one man I know who writes, has labeled it,  RED Medicine.

If you want an interesting exercise try writing your Congressperson and asking them to introduce a bill in the House dealing with defunding Obamacare as a “stand alone” bill as it should have been done in the first place. See what kind of response you get. You might find a handful of Congressmen that would be willing to do this, but I’d be willing to bet that 90-% of the replies you get back, if they even bother, will be to explain to you in lofty political jargon why “we can’t do that.”

Folks, the “fix” has been in for a long time and you’re supposed to get Obamacare no matter what. If 95% of the populace hates it, makes no difference at all. Obamacare is part of the Marxist agenda folks, no matter which “party” is in office.