Secret Police and Military Prisons—Edwin Stanton Sets the Precedent—Part Two

By Al Benson Jr.

Author Nathaniel Weyl has agreed with Otto Eisenschiml’s view of what Edwin M. Stanton and company were all about. In The Battle Against Disloyalty  he wrote: “In the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, the United States War Department bore some traces of resemblance to the Soviet Secret Police. It’s leaders were zealots who believe that, if the ends didn’t justify the means, nothing else could.” To have your country’s security forces compared to the Soviet Secret Police, the infamous KGB—what a compliment! So very appropriate for the Yankee/Marxist worldview that was prevalent in Washington for the Obama—oops, pardon me, I meant the Lincoln administration

That bastion of moral integrity, Colonel Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detectives, has been described by Weyl as “…an enormously vain and unscrupulous person, Baker was also a congenital liar, intriguer, and twister.” This sounds like just about the right qualifications for an agent in the Lincoln administration. His boss, the venerable Stanton, has been pictured as “A rude, rough, vigorous Oliver Cromwell sort of man, incapable of generosity to a prostrate foe, arbitrary, bad tempered and impulsive, double-faced, tyrannical, with an inordinate desire for office.” Makes you wonder if those were his good points. But, again, they were sterling qualities for a Lincoln administration member. In mentioning the Lincoln assassins, (at least the ones we’ve been told about), Weyl observed that their trial “served as an opening move in deeply calculated positional play for something akin to a military dictatorship.” Something else our “history” books never bother to deal with. William Tecumseh Sherman would have loved it!

In regard to the conspirators Weyl has told us that Eisenschiml pointed out that the government used torture on them, not to obtain confessions, but rather to keep them quiet. The conclusion Eisenschiml drew from that was that “…War Secretary Stanton not only knew of the murder plans and allowed them to mature, but may have been in guilty communication with Booth…Certainly as far as the radicals were concerned, Lincoln’s political usefulness ceased the moment the war was won. His clashes with Stanton on policy matters were becoming more and more frequent. Since he had the support of the people, there was no legal means of removing him.” Weyl also noted that there were some problems with this theory, and even today, it is still argued, quite vehemently in some circles.

Stanton was more than anxious to lay the blame for the assassination upon Richmond. Yet his only two links there were Booth, who we have been told was killed (there’s another whole story involved with that), and John Surrat, who had gotten to Canada, and eventually to Europe. It was felt that those arrested for the assassination would have denied any conspiratorial connections with the Confederacy—should they have been allowed to talk freely. So Weyl stated: “It was therefore essential to the grand political design that they be silenced—by torture if necessary. To prove the great conspiracy, Stanton relied on his crony, Judge Advocate General Holt, and on his creature, General Lafayette Baker. The latter bustled off to Canada where he collected the most preposterous herd of witnesses ever for a political trial…Meanwhile Judge Holt ran a school for perjury in Washington.”

No way was Stanton going to do this on the up and up—so he did it down and dirty. So much for “justice” in Amerika in 1865. Is it any better now? Had he been alive back then, Eric Holder would have been Stanton’s kissin’ cousin. Their minds wallowed in the same convoluted legal chicanery. Stanton would have loved “fast and furious” too!

Even establishment historians have had to admit that there was a torture policy in Yankeedom (though Lincoln’s administration officially denied it and hid behind the Lieber Code). In mentioning torture, Mark Neely Jr., in The Fate of Liberty–Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties  has told us that the likeliest torture victims were not even Southerners, rather, “They were Northerners suspected of deserting from the United States Army.” Neely also noted that military authorities often arrested some suspects who turned out not to be deserters, but were, in fact, innocent of anything. He noted six men who were arrested as Union Army deserters in 1864 who, were in fact, innocent because they were British subjects. And he said: “In 1864 the complaints of these prisoners to British authorities in the United States began to include descriptions of torture.” When even establishment historians have to fess up to the fact that torture was employed by the Yankees, you have to realize it was probably a lot worse than they have told you it was. They are showing you the merest tip of the iceberg and fervently hoping you don’t check to see how big the whole thing really is.

In updating what is essentially the identical situation, columnist Charlie Reese said, several years ago: “Who could have guessed that George W. Bush, who seemed to be a genial good old boy, would turn out to be a tyrant, launching wars of aggression, arresting and confining people without charges or access to a lawyer, condoning torture and lying to the American people? A government that can without trial destroy you by simply putting your name on a list, or the name of an organization with which you are associated, is a tyranny.” How different is this from what Stanton did in 1865? As with Lincoln, so with Bush, Cheney, and Obama—after all, they all work for the same people. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

Making these comparisons would, hopefully, make some people begin to sit up and wonder what the deal is. Unfortunately, it probably won’t. Too many generations of public school indoctrination have finally paid off with Orwell’s 1984. We have become a nation of proles.

Advertisements

Secret Police and Military Prisons—Edwin Stanton Sets the Precedent

By Al Benson Jr.

About five years ago now there was a big flap over Abu Ghraib, an Iraqi prison where American soldiers practiced various forms of torture, both emotional and physical, on various Iraqi prisoners. It was all a part of George Bush’s “experiment” in “democracy” in Iraq. Some people were shocked when they read about this. They wondered how Americans could do such things—after all, aren’t we the moral leadership of the world? Sorry to say we are not. With what we have elected to the presidency for the last four or five terms, how can we claim any kind of moral leadership anywhere? You’d be surprised, but I have had Christians to defend torturing terrorists to me. They seem to feel that because they are terrorists, or have been accused of being terrorists, that to torture them is okay. My response to this is that, as Christians, if we engage in this sort of thing then we are no better than they are. I have a hard time believing that the Lord Jesus would endorse torture.

But is the concept of torture, secret police and military prisons something new in our day and age in America? Again, sorry to say it isn’t. Americans have been partaking of torture and the secret police syndrome, in one form or another at least since the advent of the Lincoln administration. Mr. Lincoln and his associated seem to have had a paranoid fear of disloyalty to the federal government (most dictators have this) to the point where thousands upon thousands of Northern civilians were arrested and hauled off to prisons on the basis of nothing more than vague suspicion or some grumpy neighbor’s hearsay accusation.

In his book In The Shadow Of Lincoln’s Death Otto Eisenschiml noted: “In his vast arsenal of power Stanton had one weapon which was formidable beyond any other: the military prisons. Within their silent walls he could bury his enemies with no fear of consequences.” Given today’s political climate, does that sound familiar? I’m sure those FEMA camps are not being built for foreign dignitaries.

After the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended, which was a writ guaranteeing a judicial hearing to anyone arrested, according to Eisenschiml: “…those whom the military chose to arrest could be held without recourse to the courts and even without charges being preferred against them.”

Military prisoners were almost never allowed to see a lawyer to seek legal counsel. Their whereabouts was usually not even known to their families or friends and many were informed that should they attempt to seek legal counsel, such an action would go against them. In other words, defending yourself legally was out of the question. Such efforts would, according to Eisenschiml, result in “quick reprisals.” Now many will, no doubt, be tempted to think that Edwin Stanton did all this on his own—a rogue government employee. However, Eisenschiml has observed that “On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation giving Stanton’s promiscuous incarcerations his full backing.” So Lincoln didn’t even try, much like the head of our current Marxist regime does, to claim he had no knowledge of what was going on. That seems to be the increasing cop-out with our current Chief Commissar—all these rogue employees running around doing their thing and he knows nothing about any of it. With as little knowledge about the happenings in his administration as he seems to have you almost have to wonder why he should be president.

And Stanton, in order to solidify his control, organized a Secret Police system. Yes, folks, you read that right—secret police during the Lincoln administration. While it started out small, it grew rather quickly, as do all totalitarian schemes and eventually it morphed into something called the “National Detectives” which came under the control of one Colonel Lafayette C. Baker, another rather unsavory character. This force eventually grew to number about 2,000, and when Baker was appointed Provost Marshal of the War Department, this gave him almost unlimited and uncontrolled power. “Secret Police” in America in the 1860s! When was the last time you read about this in your “history” books? I read lots of history in my younger years and I never came across this. It almost sounds like a scenario out of some old Cold War movie about the Soviet Union. Unfortunately it isn’t. It was real and it happened right here in the United States of Amerika! And it set a precedent for what our present regime is doing in regard to our civil liberties, or rather the lack of them. If you are wondering why your “history” books never bother to mention any of this, you should (wonder). And if this slight omission leads you to do a little research to find out what other “slight omissions” have occurred in our “history’ books, so much the better.

Forty-eighter socialist Carl Schurz, one of the leading lights dealt with in our book Lincoln’s Marxists (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) even felt called upon to apologize for the Lincoln administration’s usurpations against U.S. citizens’ God-given rights when he wrote: “The government was under the stress of circumstances, doing things highly obnoxious to the fundamental principles of constitutional liberty. It incarcerated without warrant or due process of law, men suspected of aiding the rebellion…On the plea of urgent necessity…it adopted methods…familiar to despotic rule…” Leave it to a socialist to apologize for Lincoln’s high-handed treatment of American citizens. The leftists will always apologize for government usurpations, claiming that, due to the current situation they are “necessary.” Bovine fertilizer!

Probably one of the most infamous prisons in the federal system at that time was Old Capital prison in Washington. In 1869 a Washington resident wrote that: “Stanton was an able and true man, and a good Secretary, but he was a despot also, and too hasty to arrest men upon every slight proof; …Ex-Chief Detective Baker sent, perhaps, the majority of prisoners to this institution. He had reduced blackmailing and intimidation to a science, and those who would not comply with his unlawful demands were moderately sure of a residence in this place. These arbitrary acts are a blight upon the country…” A condemnation of the activities of Baker and Stanton, even if a moderate one.

As we go along and learn more it becomes more and more clear that the true Yankee/Marxist mindset is one with a totalitarian, collectivist worldview, where the central government is supreme in all things and all citizens are merely “cogs in the wheel” of the Yankee/Marxist empire—to be used until they wear out, and then tossed away and replaced with more government-educated cogs. Needless to say, when Northerners, mostly Democrats, protested Stanton’s dictatorial actions, Mr. Lincoln, also with a dictatorial mindset, took pains to defend those actions.

To be continued.

(The Homeschool Mini-History Series is still available. History may be written by the victors but the truth does not change.)

Conspiracies Do Exist (in spite of what the government tells you)

By Al Benson Jr.

The history of conspiracies in this country is fascinating, and the results of government “investigations” into these conspiracies is likewise fascinating, even though often ludicrous.

There seems to be a standard, pat answer given by investigators for the feds regarding political assassinations. According to the government’s “investigators” few real conspiracies exist and most political assassinations involve lone, crazed gunmen who keep diaries , of which the last several pages are often missing. I have often wondered if Hilary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” would have fit into this somewhere. But I digress.

Take the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas back on November 22, 1963. The Warren Commission issued a report of that, stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and that no one but him was involved. However, in all honesty, anyone who doesn’t have mush for brains has never bought into the conclusions of the Warren Commission, knowing how the government lies, who can blame them? I can remember, watching on television the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby (I think Rubenstein was his real name). When Ruby stepped out with the gun in his hand the look on Oswald’s face was revelatory indeed. He knew why Ruby was there and what was going to happen to him. Lone gunman indeed! What hogwash.

By the same token, so many conspiracy theories about Kennedy’s assassination have appeared in the following years, both in the movies and in print, that who knows which one to believe? I’ve read at least three myself, all agreeing in some aspects and wildly disagreeing in others. How does the average man know which one was true? There have been about a dozen or so theories tossed out there regarding Kennedy’s death and I’d be willing to bet that there is a bit of truth in several of them along with the wild speculation. But it’s so confusing to the average guy that he has no idea of what to believe, or how such things affect his life, which they do. And I think the government likes it that way. The only conspiracies the “news” media (I have to laugh every time I call them that, because news is the last thing they are about) is willing to entertain is those possibly committed by the “right-wingers.” And that might depend on who you consider “the right” to be. Some people consider the CIA to be “on the right.” I don’t.

The same thing is true regarding the Lincoln assassination. There have been at least seven conspiracy theories regarding that which I have read about, and who, at large, really knows? Here again, the “official” version of Lincoln’s assassination is that it was done by John Wilkes Booth and his merry band of co-conspirators, some of whom seemed to have about as much intelligence as a flea. Supposedly no one other than Booth and his happy group was involved. However, if you are one of those who choose to believe the government’s “official version” you will, as Khrushchev said, “wait for a shrimp to whistle.”

Government “investigators” in Lincoln’s day were not one whit more reliable than they are today. It all depends on who is doing the investigating and what their agenda is—and giving the American public the actual truth is never part of the agenda, I repeat, never! Giving them cleverly devised fables to get them mad at those you wish to defame is always part of the agenda. And that principal has not changed from Lincoln’s day right up to Sandy Hook in Connecticut. (The shootings will continue until the public has the right attitude on gun confiscation.)

Thus, getting the Northern public mad at Jeff Davis and that nasty old Confederacy by trying to throw the blame on them for the assassination was very much a part of the federal program. So the government “investigators” (and again, I use that term very loosely) worked to sling enough mud against Jeff Davis’ wall so that it stuck. Fortunately, the mud was not thick enough, and their lies were not convincing enough, except in the fevered brains of some of our current “historians” (actually, hysterians might be a more accurate word) so that most folks have not bought it.

There have been several books over the years dealing with the Lincoln assassination, one of which is Otto Eisenschiml’s Why Was Lincoln Murdered?  published in 1937. Viewing material not previously accessible, Eisenschiml strongly felt that Edwin M. Stanton and a cohort of his Radical Republican abolitionist friends had a lot to do with it. And believe me, folks, these guys were not on the political right. They had major problems with Lincoln over how “reconstruction” was to be administered to a beaten and battered South. Lincoln wanted to administer “reconstruction” in his own way, partly because he would benefit from the patronage involved, while the radicals wanted to treat the South as vindictively as possible and have “reconstruction” run by Congress so they could loot and plunder what was left of the South and make sure all their buddies got in on the goodies. It was the supreme case of two dictators (or buzzards) fighting over the same carcase.

Three years later, in 1940, Eisenschiml also wrote In The Shadow Of Lincoln’s Death  which continued on the same track. Eisenschiml’s books sold well enough that they were fervently attacked by professional historians as being “rambling and disconnected implication and innuendo.” It’s interesting, though, that Eisenschiml’s books have asked several questions that have really never been satisfactorily dealt with. I guess if you just smear the guy enough you never really have to deal with what he says.

In 1951 Nathaniel Weyl wrote a book called The Battle Against Disloyalty. In that book he had a chapter, chapter 6, dealing with Edwin Stanton and his high-handed methods and his secret police. That’s right folks, we had secret police in this country too, distasteful though the thought is.

In the late 1950s Theodore Roscoe wrote a book called The Web Of Conspiracy  which dealt with this same subject. Roscoe’s book went through at least two printings that I know of. He dealt with the definite possibility that Colonel Lafayette Baker, the head of the country’s first secret service, was probably involved, with his boss, Stanton, in the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Interestingly enough, Colonel Baker died in 1868—of arsenic poisoning. Seems someone laced his beer with the stuff. Do you wonder why? Dead men tell no tales do they? Mr. Roscoe’s book was even attacked by the Secret Service during what has been referred to as the “your government always tells the truth era.” Folks, I hate to have to be the one to say it (actually lots of other folks have said it also) but anyone that really believes that this government tells us the truth has got to be a prime candidate for a weekend trip to the planet Venus, on a space ship piloted by the Easter Bunny.

By the late 1970s yet another book had come out which built upon all these earlier ones. It was called The Lincoln Conspiracy  and was written by David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier Jr. Again, this book dealt with the real probability that Edwin M. Stanton and the radical abolitionist Republicans had something to do with Lincoln’s death because of the potential “reconstruction” issue.

In regard to conspiracies, they are almost as old as mankind. They are nothing new, nothing peculiar to this generation. They are mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. Go back and look at John 11:53 and Matthew 26:3-4, where the Pharisees “take counsel” together on how they might put Jesus to death. And this from the so-called “religious leaders” of Israel! They are truly a fitting example of how apostate and truly revolutionary Israel had become at that point in history. And yet, even with their evil conspiracies, those men ended up doing God’s will. With their plotting and treachery they managed to have Jesus crucified, only to have Him arise from the dead on the third day, and in so doing He made total shipwreck of all their well-laid conspiracies and machinations.

The question arises then, should we fear conspiracies? Today many do, and they tremble at the power those evil men seem to hold. But, if God is sovereign then we need not fear mens evil conspiracies, for they cannot go beyond what the Lord will allow them to do no matter how powerful they seem to be.

However, it is well that the Lord’s people be aware of these conspiracies and that we expose them (Ephesians 5:11) and oppose them wherever possible, ultimately trusting in the Lord for our defense and discernment.

The work of building God’s Kingdom requires that we be discerning and knowledgeable to the best of our ability and so we should seek to learn as much as the Lord allows us to, and to use that knowledge as He directs. This is what Donnie Kennedy and I sought to do with our book Lincoln’s Marxists. We took a subject historians have only toyed with in passing and have tried to bring the information to the public at large, especially the folks in the Southern Movement.

There is much out there dealing with Lincoln’s assassination and those times in our history that needs to be aired, because all the problems of that era remain with us today in exaggerated form. If we are ignorant about our true history then we will be ignorant about what to do in our future.

U N Treaty to Become Law in United States ?

By Al Benson Jr.

Mike Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association just recently testified at a hearing of the U S Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. He testified against the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Mr. Farris noted in his comments that “…the Democrat Senators of the committee weren’t interested in hearing how this dangerous United Nations treaty could harm our freedoms. Instead, this hearing showed that the senators leading the charge to ratify this treaty have decided to take a page from the far left’s playbook and will stop at nothing to vilify and destroy anyone who has concerns with the UNCRPD.”

Mr. Farris and another lady were the only two that testified against this treaty, while five others beat the drums to get it enacted and Mr. Farris noted that the Democratic senators on the committee spent more time personally attacking him than they were willing to spend dealing with the testimony he presented. This is ever how the leftists work—condemn others while elevating yourself, particularly if you have no real rebuttal to the points your opposition has brought up.

According to http://www.hslda.org  “Promoting equal rights and protection for disabled persons around the world sounds like a great idea. But let’s take a look at what the treaty actually says and how it would impact the United States. Here are some of our most serious concerns: The CRPD could threaten homeschooling rights and parental rights. It would surrender parents and caregivers’ decision-making ability on behalf of their disabled children to unelected and unaccountable UN bureaucrats. The CRPD would override existing state laws, seriously damaging states rights. The CRPD would surrender our nation’s sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats.” Of course it would. Surrendering US sovereignty to UN bureaucrats is the name of this game. We currently have a regime in Washington that would dearly love to turn over control of this country to the United Nations. It’s hard to determine which is more pro-Communist—our current regime in Washington or the United Nations.

HSLDA has noted ten important and specific objections to this UN treaty. I can’t list them all here but will mention a few. “Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.”

“Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.” Did you get that last one—complete disarmament of all people? The first two were horrendous enough, the last one will disarm America—one of the main objectives of this Marxist regime since its inception.

The HSLDA are not the only folks justifiably concerned about the UN Treaty becoming law in this country. On http://www.parentalrights.org  it has been duly noted that “The structure of this Convention is troubling because it would grant to a United Nations body an ongoing supervisory role over more than 25 distinct areas of American domestic law. Every four years the United States—which already leads the world in legal protections for persons with disabilities—would have to appear before the United Nations to be scrutinized and criticized by nations which do not match our standard, but who condemn our society for other reasons…The treaty also replaces parental rights with the ‘best interest of the child’ standard, which makes government actors and not parents, ultimately responsible to make final decisions in the care of any child.” In other words, some UN bureaucrat from Lower Slobovia will get to tell you what you can and can’t do with your kids—naturally in the kids “best interest.” Yeah, right!

If the US Senate votes to ratify this monstrosity they will be selling out their constituents. Of course they’ve already done that with Obamacare, so what’s one more sellout, more or less.

We all need to contact our senators and tell them they should, under NO circumstances ratify this thing. Next year is an election year and some of these people will have to run again. Any who seem inclined to vote for this thing should be actively campaigned against. So contact your senators. Write letters to the editor of your local papers. If enough people are willing to do this kind of thing the senators will have to take note–even if they would rather not–especially those running for re-election next year.

Here in Louisiana one of our senators will probably vote the right way on this, though I plan on contacting him about it anyway. Our other “senator” a lady from South Louisiana would dearly love to vote for anything Obama was in favor of, no matter what. She’d strip parental rights from folks in a heartbeat if she thought it would endear her to the One World Government crowd. I think she has to run next year so she may need some reminding about who she is really supposed to work for—and it isn’t the United Nations.

The Feds Get To Decide What He Eats As Well As What He Thinks—More Public School Dictatorship

By Al Benson Jr.

So much material about outright public school abuses comes across my desk it is impossible to cover it all. Someone suggested I write another book but at my age I am not sure if I have the energy.

What I will do is to try to continue to comment on some of the more egregious abuses the government school system heaps on parents in the hope that if some folks read enough of this they might just be led to take their kids out of public schools and give them a Christian education.

I read an article on the fourth of November that was on http://www.libertynews.com  that was a real gem. The headline read “Feds Tell Virginia Mom Her Child Needs A Doctor’s Note to Bring A Bagged Lunch from Home!” It noted a lady in Richmond, Virginia whose youngster attends a federally funded Head Start preschool program. The article by Joe Calandra Jr. states: “…the federal government gets to decide what her child learns and what her child eats too! Mrs. Brooks was informed she can no longer send her child to school with a brown bag lunch unless a doctor says the school lunch would be unsafe for her child to consume. Unless Mrs. Brooks: A—finds a sympathetic doctor, B—decides to homeschool, or C—sends her child to a private school, the state says, they alone, will control what her child eats!” The feds even sent a note home with the kids to make sure Mom gets the message.

You have to wonder why the feds are so concerned with what these kids eat—or is there something in the food they plan to serve these kids that they want to make double-sure they get and they won’t get it if they brown bag their lunches? Now that may sound far out, but with these government schools nowadays you really have to wonder. We know they want to change the kids’ thinking and poison much of what their parents have taught them. Some “educators” have even stated that most children enter the public school in some state of insanity and it’s up to a beneficent government school system to straighten them out but, to my knowledge, up to now they have not complained about what the kids eat. Or does this whole scenario teach both kids and parents that the government is in total control over all they do—that the government is, in fact, the real “god” in their lives? That wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

Back in 1985, theologian and historian R. J. Rushdoony wrote: “To control the future requires the control of education and of the child. Hence, for Christians to tolerate statist education, or to allow their children to be trained thereby, means to renounce power in society, to renounce their children, and to deny Christ’s lordship over all of life.” Rushdoony also observed: “Education is thus the power area in the modern world and the arena for the struggle between Christianity and humanism.”

Rushdoony recognized the critical importance of who controls your children’s education—you or the state. Thus, when you arrive at the point where the state even feels it has the right to tell you what your kids will and will not eat, we have gotten pretty far along the road to total dictatorship.

Sinful man always seeks to dethrone God and install himself in His place and for the last 150 years or so, in this country, sinful man has sought to use public education as one of his major vehicles for doing this. It never ceases to amaze me how many compliant Christians are willing to go along with this and never question it. Almost makes you wonder what they had in their school lunches.

Think of the implications for all of society in this. If Christians renounce their power in society then what happens to society? In Genesis God told His people to be fruitful, to multiply, and to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28). This was a dominion mandate. Nowadays most Christians treat it as if it were maybe a suggestion, but nothing they have to get really excited about.

Lee Duigon, in an article originally published on http://www.newswithviews.com and reproduced in The Chalcedon Report  for October/November 2013, has stated “The only way to protect your children from ‘public school culture’ is not to put them in the public schools. If you think you can protect them from gender coaches, King and King, and subtler messages like ‘The Bible is hate speech’ and ‘Communism has a lot of good ideas’ by having a nice, civil chin-wag with a teacher or a principal who’s going to think you’re just another homophobic Christian moron—well, you really need to think again But this is precisely the kind of fruitless drivel regularly indulged in by the pro-family movement. They dive for minnows in a pool of sharks. They babble away about nine-year-olds being ‘salt and light’ in schools run by adult immoralists.” They don’t get it—maybe they will never get it.

What we need is more organizations like Exodus Mandate that will tell people right up front that they need to pull their kids out of public schools and give them a Christian education, however they choose to do that.

There are a lot of home school curriculums mentioned on the Internet. Do some homework and check some of them out. When my wife and I started homeschooling there wasn’t that much on the Internet, if it even existed in the late 1980s.I’m not sure whether Al Gore had invented it yet or not. We looked around and found a book by Mary Pride called The Big Book of Home Learning. You can still find it on Amazon.com. It was, literally, a homeschooling encyclopedia and we learned much from it.

It can be done. My wife and I homeschooled our two and we both worked full time. Admittedly our two were a little older, but there are many home school co-op type programs out there if folks are willing to look for them. Although, in some cases, there are folks that absolutely are not able to homeschool, there are many that could if they tried to work at it. And it isn’t always that expensive. For your childrens’ sakes please check it out and see what you can do to avoid the public school dictatorship over your lives and your kids’ lives.

Don’t You Get It Yet? This Is What Public Schools Are All About

By Al Benson Jr.

You sometimes wonder just how much it takes to get people’s attention With all the accurate information out there on the Internet about public schools (along with a certain amount of liberal drivel) people still don’t seem to be able to grasp where the public schools have been going for the last 150 or so years. And when I say that I am not criticizing every public school teacher out there, but rather the system they are, unfortunately, a part of.

It’s not that difficult anymore to trace where public education has been going in this country, and elsewhere, since its inception. Its founders and promoters in the United States were Unitarians and socialists of the stripe of Horace Mann, Robert Owen, and later, John Dewey. These folks all love public education because (they hope) it takes kids out of Christian and home schools and works to make them mere cogs in the machinery of the New World Order, incapable of discernment, and therefore, incapable of resistance to tyranny.

Once in awhile the anti-Christ One World crowd shoots from the hip and messes up like they did in Kanawha County, West Virginia back in the 1970s and what they are trying to do in the schools gets out around the country and so they are forced to enact “damage control” any way they have to. In West Virginia in 1975 they did it with “law enforcement” officers with billy clubs. When all else failed in that situation the billy clubs were brutal, but effective. Will they ever be used again? Will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?

Next year it will be forty years since the textbook protest started in Kanawha County, West Virginia, and parents who have never been told about it still flock to the public schools to submit their kids in a chaotic sort of child sacrifice ritual every year. What’s sacrificed is their souls and minds and they are, mostly, never quite the same afterwards.

I won’t call the public school system anti-god because it isn’t, but it is anti-Christ. Any other “god’ will do, including “omnipotent” man, who is the “god” of secular humanism. This account of what is now going on in Volusia County, Florida will bear this out. Someone sent me this article from http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com  and the headline reads: “Florida Parents Protest pro-Islam Textbook in Volusia County.”
The article started off: “Concerned parents of Volusia County, Florida last night stood in protest against a textbook used to teach world history to public high school students across the state.” According to the article this book is World History  published by Prentiss Hall, which the Florida Department of Education has adopted. The main parental complaint about this book is that it devotes a full chapter to Islam, “while failing to offer the same attention to any other world religion.” To those who understand where the public school system is coming from this will be no surprise. Right now Islam is the politically correct “religion of choice” to be pushed in this country in public schools. After all, hasn’t our President stated plainly that this is not a Christian country and hasn’t he listed all the contributions to our national culture that have been handed to us by Muslims? If you follow his radical rationale we should all have asked for the adoption of Sharia Law on his second day in office.

Apparently there were lots of people that protested the use of this book because the article noted: “Due to the number of protesters, the Volusia County School Board cancelled yesterday’s scheduled meeting for the interest of ‘public safety’ according to Wftv9news. “ In the interest of “public safety” probably could be translated to mean that the county Board of Education did not want to have to deal with all the protesters so they just cancelled the meeting in the hope that most of them would cool down before the next meeting. Does any of this scenario sound familiar? To anyone that has ever protested lousy public school texts it should. A commissioner from Deltona observed that parents just want some balance when it comes to their kids’ books. In fact, he asked the question: “Why relegate Christianity to a footnote in an entire history book, and you give an entire chapter on the teachings of Islam?” Well, yes, if, again, you understand where the public school system is coming from, this is entirely consistent with their agenda.

You denigrate the Christian faith and promote whatever else happens to be handy at the moment—just as long as it has no connection to anything remotely Christian. They use the exact same principle in regard to Confederate flags and symbols, some of which are Christian in origin.
Parents, especially Christian parents, have got to start rethinking their love affair with an anti-Christ public school system. They have got to begin to grasp the concept that their children need a Christian education and they have got to start realizing that they won’t get that in the public school system—even if little Johnny has a teacher that is a Christian. Little Johnny’s teacher won’t dare talk about her Christian faith for fear of losing her job. Now if she were a Muslim Imam that would be fine—she could proselytize in class and the school system would laud her for her contribution to “diversity” but as a Christian to speak out is to forfeit your job. That’s what you are dealing with in public school folks. Get used to the idea.

And if at all possible, pray and ask the Lord to help you find a viable alternative to public schools. There are many out there for those willing to look. It will be interesting to see what happens in Volusia County, Florida—if the “news” media is allowed to deal with it.

If you want to find out what happens when parents in a particular county start resisting anti-Christ curriculum in public schools read Karl Priest’s book Protester Voices–The 1974 Textbook Tea Party which is on Amazon.com or you can order it directly from Karl at 141 Karmel Lane, Poca, West Virginia 25159. The book costs $14.95 plus about $5.00 for shipping.

Are They Going After Mississippi’s State Flag Again?

By Al Benson Jr.

It should be common knowledge by now that when liberals, socialists, and communists have something on their agenda they seldom quit until they get what they want. Much as I hate to do it, I have to credit them for their tenacity in pursuing their agendas and I could wish our folks on the right had a little more of that tenacity. When the communists and their buddies lose a fight they come back next year, and next year, and so on until they wear their opposition down. And their “opposition”—in many cases, like the judge in Luke 18 that feared neither God nor man, will end up giving them what they want just so that they will no longer trouble them. Christians and patriotic folks have not yet learned that lesson. Most of our folks fight one battle, lose it, and tuck tail and run home and we don’t even think about coming back next year—and so the leftists win by default.

Several years back there was a big fuss in Mississippi over the state flag. The “progressives” (liberals, socialists and communists) claimed the flag represented “racism” and slavery and they wanted to replace it with some watered-down rag that had no cultural or regional significance whatever—the same game they play in all the Southern states—replace yet another Southern symbol with cultural genocide on a piece of cloth.

Some of the good folks in Mississippi resisted their efforts and traveled around the state to rallies and meetings educating the public (because they sure didn’t get it in public school) as to what was going on and who was doing it. There was finally a referendum put up that allowed Mississippians to vote on whether to keep their current state flag with the St. Andrews cross on it or to adopt the proposed politically correct and insipid rag.

When the folks in Mississippi had the chance to vote they voted 67% or right around there, to keep their current flag. There were some black folks that voted to keep the current flag. So the far left lost that particular battle. Now, after nursing their wounds and planning new strategy for a decade and a half, they seem to be drifting back.

There was an article by a Donna Ladd on http://www.jacksonfreepress.com for October 30th which had several comments about the state flag—none of them good. She started out her article saying: “Ah, the flag. The Mississippi State flag is like that obnoxious relative at a family gathering. He’s offensive, disrespectful and not representative of your family’s values at all—one hopes—but he’s not going anywhere anytime soon. So you put up with him.”

Ms. Ladd complained about the state’s “racist” past, about slavery and about how blacks were treated and all the usual litany of leftist complaints. You’d think, reading what she said, that no place but the deep South ever had any slaves. If she was educated in public school that may be exactly what she believes. However, as much as she probably would not be willing to believe it, all of the original states, both North and South, had the institution of slavery at some point and many of the Northern states didn’t get rid of it as early as she probably would have liked. She probably would also not be willing to believe that just about all the slave trading ships in this country came out of New England and were captained by New Englanders.

If Ms. Ladd would like to do a little homework on the subject other than the liberal twaddle she has been fed I would recommend Donnie Kennedy’s book Myths of American Slavery  ( Pelican Publishing) and another one, written by three Northern reporters who worked at the Hartford Courant newspaper in Hartford, Connecticut. The name of it is Complicity–How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery  (Ballantine Books, New York). I’m sure both of these would be a real shocker for Ms. Ladd.

She complains about Mississippians who don’t seem to have a problem with the flag. She rants “So? Rights have always been about that of the individual, not the majority, by necessity. And what might have happened if more people were educated about the flag’s true origins, not to mention what the dang secession declaration proves about slavery?” In truth, if more people understood what the St. Andrews cross on the flag really meant we wouldn’t even be having this debate again, in fact we would not have had it the first time.

She complains about Mississippi playing the age old “game of defiance” in regard to keeping the flag. I wonder if Ms. Ladd ever really did any checking into what went on in Mississippi during what is euphemistically called “reconstruction.” If she did, which I doubt, she might understand the feeling of Mississippi’s people toward federal tyranny, both yesterday and today. I’ll bet she is a big proponent of Obamacare. If she is like most leftists then federal tyranny to her is security and safety, and we are all “racists” because we don’t want to bow down to it. If she wants to understand why Mississippi folks revere their State flag I would also suggest that she read Claude Bowers The Tragic Era.  Ms. Ladd doesn’t seem to realize that racial attitudes in the North were about the same as they were in Mississippi. If she has bought into the fable that, in the North, racial attitudes were all as pure as the driven snow, then reading some real history would give her a rude awakening!

I am wondering if her article is a trial balloon to try to gauge how much sentiment there is for trying to pull another attempt at getting rid of Mississippi’s State flag. With a new far-left mayor in Jackson, one that had help with his election all the way from New York, you can be sure they would love to do away with Mississippi’s state flag as part of their cultural genocide agenda.