How About Nullification In 2014?

by Al Benson Jr.
As we approach the year 2014 there are dire predictions all around about what’s coming. One I recently read said, of 2014, “More of the same, only worse.” I can understand the rationale for that. Comrade Obama will only be through half of his last (so we are told) term in office by 2014 and he has lots of damage left to do yet. His handlers over at the Council on Foreign Relations expect him to have our economy and most of the middle class totally incapacitated before he leaves office to be replaced by Ms. Hitlery Clinton in 2016. If he accomplishes that then Comrade Klinton will not have to work too hard to preside over the ruins of what was once America but has now become Amerika—The United Socialist States of Amerika—the “People’s Republic.”

Congress, for the most part, with a few exceptions, is bought and paid for by the same crowd that pulls Comrade Obama’s puppet strings, so you can’t expect much help there. The Supreme Court justices, most of which are so concerned how future generations of socialists will view them, will be no help to ordinary Americans (remember their vote on Obamacare?).

The whole thing has been set up so that most Americans will be so beset by the futility of what they see around them that they will just cave in and offer no resistance to the One World government crowd.

But, as well as the CFR/Trilateral/Bilderburg consortium has planned our demise, there is still resistance. They have not been able to shut it all down, and it’s very possible they never will. After all, there is still a God in Heaven and He does rule in the affairs of men, even when they do not choose to realize it.

I  just read an article published on  which noted, on 12/12/13, that the State of South Carolina was about to pass a bill to nullify Obamacare. The article started off: “While we all know that the disaster that is Obamacare is extremely unpopular throughout the country, South Carolina is leading the charge to actually nullify the legislation. House Bill 3101 already passed the state House back in April by a wide margin, and is set to be voted on in the state Senate in January. It is widely expected to pass and then be signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley. If that happens it would set up a huge states rights victory and likely encourage other states to follow suit. It will be extremely interesting to see how the feds respond to this…” It will, indeed, and you can bet they will respond.

More resistance—an article on in which Ron Paul has suggested that states should nullify Obamacare. Mr. Paul said: “I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come. It’s going to be a de facto nullification if it’s not legalized. Because pretty soon things are going to get so bad that were just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states. Why should we grant this authority to a few thugs who want to take over the government to make all our decisions for us?”

Then there was the article written for the New American  magazine by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. which appeared on for December 28, 2013, which stated, in part, “Four Georgia state legislators are listening to the crescendo of constituent opposition to Obamacare…At their press conference, the lawmakers sought not only to explain their proposal, but to drum up support for it among like-minded Georgians…Representative Stover denounced the federal government’s usurpation of unconstitutional power. ‘To tax someone for simply being alive is anti-American, anti-Constitutional and anti-common sense…The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.’ Stover’s analysis of the Constitution is right. Understanding that the states created the federal government will help state legislators and citizens appreciate the constitutional propriety and potency of the principles of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798.” Now that’s a subject I’d be willing to bet your public school “history” books have not spent too much time dwelling on. The less you know about that, the better—for them!

There will be an election in 2014, provided Comrade Obama does not get the order from his bosses to just seize power. Americans should now direct their attention to ousting from office every single excuse-for-a-congressperson that voted in favor of Obamacare. But, then, how successful that will be may well depend on who gets to count the votes after the election.

An article on the Capitalism Institute website, has recently noted that the One World government types will blithely tell us that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution trumps all state efforts to do anything the feds find offensive. The articles observes: “However, those at the Tenth Amendment Center disagree…The major argument used by those that oppose Nullification is the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But in fact, the arguments for the supremacy clause ARE the arguments for nullification. The major architects of the Constitution, and those that led the fight for its adoption, laid down what the supremacy clause meant during the ratifying conventions. By doing so, they defended state sovereignty, and set the stage for the negation of unconstitutional  actions.”

Even that would-be monarchist, Alexander Hamilton, was forced to admit: “…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” Again, something the “history” books no longer mention—what I call “memory-hole material.” And then, there is that list of 27 states that have filed suits over the constitutionality of Obamacare as of 2011. Can Comrade Holder just call all these state suits null and void? He will if he can. The Justice Department today is hardly about anything remotely approaching justice and it is more about “just us—and our friends”—a little crony capitalism for the good old boys in Washington and New York.

And, for someone who would like to read a little more about all this in depth, I would recommend the book by the Kennedy Brothers, Nullifying Tyranny. This is a book that should be used in every civics or political science class in every high school in the country and in colleges, too.

On page 10 of their book the Kennedy Brothers state: “The central theme of this book is that the political system devised by the founding fathers and handed down to ‘we the people’ has been perverted and distorted by special interest groups. These special interest groups now use the power of the federal government to advance their social agenda while at the same time enacting laws that repress traditional Christian morality and are destructive of traditional family values…We believe that America’s current political system is broken, and, if Christian moral values are to survive in the United States, there must be a radical restoration of America’s political institutions—back to the form and functions intended by the founding fathers when they gave ‘we the people’ a constitutionally limited republic of republics.”

So, if things do, indeed, get worse in 2014, at least let it not be because the majority of Americans just decided to complain and after that to sit it out. Do some homework. Read the Kennedy Brothers book and find out what you can do to help remedy our tragic situation. And work to support those legislators in your various states that seek to protect you from federal thugs via the nullification process.fer no resistance to the One World government crowd.

he futility of what they see around them that they w


Sodomites War Against Christianity


By Al Benson Jr.

The Holy Scriptures speak out strongly against sodomy, lesbianism and related sexual perversions. Those that take part in these activities most generally hate the God of the Bible and have, in His place, substituted a “god” of their own,  who they claim has no problem with what they do.  They hate what the Bible has to say about what they do and so they engage in vocal and literary convolutions which claim that where the Bible condemns their actions, it isn’t really doing that, we only think it is. The thought that God loves them enough to condemn their activities that they might repent and He can save them is one most of them would just as soon not deal with. They want God to accept them with their sin intact, with no repentance involved,  and that He cannot do. We are all sinners and we must come to God, confess those sins and ask that Jesus Christ might forgive us and give us a fresh start. After all, He went to the cross to do that.

Genesis 19:1-13 tells us specifically about sodomite activity and its unnatural desires. There are several places in the Scriptures where sodomite activity is noted and this Genesis passage is one of them. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sodomy and other wickedness. There wasn’t even a flicker of repentance in these folks and so with the destruction of their cities, they reaped what they had sown. Leviticus 18:22 states that man shall not lie with man as with a woman. It is an abomination. The following verses list several other abominations along the same line and God says, in verse 24: “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these things the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:” God noted that because of these things the land was defiled. Will it be any different here? If Israel could be defiled by these perverse acts, why not America? Leviticus 20:13 says the same thing.

The New Testament continues on in the same vein. Check out Romans 1:25-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8:10. These all condemn sodomy and related perversions, even though sodomites today have “reinterpreted” them in their own minds so they say something else. For all of that, if these folks will turn away from this sin, God in His love, will forgive. But without repentance there can be no forgiveness. Some sodomites and lesbians do repent and  become Christians. Sadly, most continue in their rebellion and expect all of society to embrace and endorse their lifestyle—and they proceed to get angry when we don’t.

There was a big fuss this past week when the Commander of Duck Dynasty told the truth about sodomy and related sins. The sodomites claimed he was being vile and hateful. He wasn’t. He was just telling the truth, and I think he did it in love. But they can’t accept that, so unless he is willing to grovel and endorse their sin they will try to destroy his career. It hasn’t quite worked out the way they had hoped and they have found out there are lots of folks out there that will not endorse their lifestyle—and it galls them no end.

In fact, one of their main groups, GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defmation) has claimed the credit for getting the A & E Network to suspend the Duck Commander from his show, although now A & E has gotten enough of a backlash from its constituency that they are having second thoughts and Cracker Barrel Restaurants got the same backlash when they decided to play the politically correct game and start pulling some Duck Dynasty material from their shelves. They have since changed their minds.

Cliff Kincaid, in an article on for December 23rd  stated that: “Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth said GLAAD represents the ‘Gay Thought Police’  and that the organization ‘has a long history of attempting to shut down speech critical of homosexuality—and demonizing as haters, bigots and homophones those (usually Christians)  who speak out against homosexualism or affirm the truth that homosexuals can change and leave the lifestyle.” Homosexuals changing and leaving the lifestyle is information that GLAAD definitely does not want being spread around.

Kincaid also observed that: “Janet Porter of the pro-family group Faith2Action has argued that the homosexual movement aims at nothing less than the criminalization of Christianity,…GLAAD describes itself this way: ‘Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative.  Changing the culture. That’s GLAAD at work.” Mr. Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, so he knows whereof he speaks. He has done the homework.

Look at what GLAAD claims. They claim to be leading the conversation. No they’re not. They are trying to shut the conversation down for anyone who dares to disagree with them. They may well be shaping the media narrative, as most of the media are definitely in sympathy with what they do. But then, most of us long ago realized the media people were anti-Christian to the bone. In fact, A & E has funded GLAAD in the past, and, according to Cliff Kincaid, NBC Universal, Comcast, Time Warner, CNN, CBS, Bloomberg, TBS, HBO, and Warner Brothers Entertainment have all, at some point sponsored GLAAD events. So you can see where the media people are—firmly in the sodomite camp—and they ain’t about to give Christians any kind of forum to oppose what they so dearly love—sexual perversion.

Perhaps Christians need to heed what Janet Porter says—that the sodomite movement is out to criminalize the Christian faith. I have no doubt this is true, just as I have no doubt that there are legislators out there that would love to help them accomplish that. I’m sure the current administration in Washington would love to help with that project given the chance. The church had better wake up and realize she is in a culture war and, at this point, the other side are the only ones fighting it. Just telling everyone “the Lord’s in control so don’t worry” won’t cut it anymore.

How do Christians love their enemies? They do it by opposing the evil that the anti-Christs seek to perpetuate and then by calling them to repentance. If the sodomite crowd is “offended” by the truth, we need to give it to them anyway and not let them shut us up. We will never help those that need God’s truth by sitting on the sidelines and saying nothing.

Media Unable to Grasp Duck Commander’s Faith

By Al Benson Jr.

The Duck Commander, Phil Robertson, has had an interesting week. Suspended (or fired) from his A & E series because he dared to speak the truth about sodomy, he has not backed down from what he said. Nor should he. When telling the truth, particularly biblical truth, becomes a crime then we are all in big trouble.

The managed media just cannot grasp why he takes so strong a stand. They don’t get it, and most of them probably never will. The Daily Mail reported that Phil had been called an ignoramus, even though he has a degree from Louisiana Tech. And someone said to him, according to “Well, do you invite yourself to go and get your Bible and tell people what you are now sharing with us?” To which Phil replied “No, they are inviting me.”

According to the media, Phil made “…several homophobic and racially-charged remarks in an interview…” So now if you tell folks the scriptural truth about sodomy you are “homophobic.” The Apostle Paul told the truth about sodomy in some of his epistles in the New Testament, so I guess that qualifies him for the “homophobic” label, too. And I saw nothing in Phil’s comments about black folks that I could consider “racially charged.”

Now, it appears, after all the hoopla that what really talks for A & E is the big bucks. They’ve made lots of dinero off the Duck Dynasty show and if it goes off the air because of the suspension (with the rest of Phil’s family supporting him) they’re going to lose those big bucks. So word has now been leaked that Phil will be appearing in some episodes next year. I guess these had already been filmed and are just sitting, waiting to be released. To the Robertsons I don’t think it would make a difference one way or the other, but to A & E it seems that the bottom line is what’s really important. I think A & E is trying to recover some of the probable revenue they may lose by suspending Phil. As I said in my last article on this, I think they opened a can of worms for themselves with this ploy. I know, after reading their statement of glowing support for the sodomite/transgender community, I will never bother to watch anything on A & E again and I suspect many other folks won’t either.

And Cracker Barrel, just yesterday announced they were planning on pulling lots of Duck Dynasty things off their shelves so part of their clientele wouldn’t be “offended.” What part of Cracker Barrel’s clientele would the Duck Dynasty material “offend?” And what about all the good folks that eat at these restaurants that will be offended if Duck Dynasty material is removed? It seems that Cracker Barrel didn’t bother to think about them before they announced their decision. They should have. According to a Cracker Barrel spokesman said: “When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done,…You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened.” I still wonder who Cracker Barrel was afraid of offending with Duck Dynasty material. No one ever said. Is Cracker Barrel enamoured of the sodomite/lesbian/transgender crowd too?

It seems, in our politically correct age, that so many far-left, far out groups are constantly “offended” by normal, traditional values and ideas and the current rationale seems to be that because all these off-the-wall groups are offended that the rest of us should just cave in to whatever they want and grovel at their feet while offering profuse and continuing apologies because we have dared to offend their tender sensibilities. This is just so much hogwash. Most folks don’t really buy it but are afraid of “offending” someone if they say it.

Even the so-called conservatives don’t seem to get it. Bill O’Reilly, on his program the other night, made a statement that showed where he is really at—and it’s an unenviable position. He said “Mr. Robertson, I believe, made a mistake by the condemnation line. It’s not about the Bible, or believing or not believing in the Bible.” Wrong Mr. O’Reilly! At base that is exactly what it’s about. You either believe what the Bible states about sodomy and related perversions or you don’t. It’s as simple as that. And Phil Robertson didn’t “condemn” anyone. He only stated what the scripture said about this particular sin, among several others.

A very recent article on written by Larry Alex Taunton made some truthful observations about this situation. A statement at the very beginning of the article makes a truthful statement as to what this is really all about. It says: “An evangelical Christian points out that there is, in fact, a tension between orthodox Christianity and homosexuality. Saying otherwise robs American society of an honest debate about how to reconcile sexual tolerance with religious tolerance.” As for the lesbian/gay crowd, a real honest debate about this is the last thing they want. They want to parade their offended sensibilities down Main Street all over America and force the rest of us to give credibility to their perverse lifestyle. I’m sorry, but when the Bible condemns their lifestyle then Christians cannot endorse it. That doesn’t mean that Christians all hate them or look down their noses at them. It simply means that Christian can’t go along with what Scripture condemns.

Another interesting article showed up on for December 21st. It was written by Will Payne, and stated: “Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson and his family believe they have been ‘hung out to dry’ by TV network A & E after he was suspended for homophobic comments made in a magazine interview,…” There’s that word “homophobic” rearing its ugly head again. The article continues—and here it gets interesting—stating that: “Sources within the close-knit Louisiana clan say they are convinced A&E are manipulating the controversial situation to bring them—and particularly Robertson—back into line after Television executives grew tired of the family pushing their deeply-held Christian beliefs. They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch Robertson 67.” The article continued: “A source close to the family, who asked not to be named, told MailOnline: ‘You have to ask yourself, why this interview happened and why it ever became public. Someone from A&E was there and was aware of the kind of answers Phil was giving. But despite that, they didn’t ever try to stop it or control it. Instead, they let it hit the headlines and then released a statement condemning it.”

It seems, from that this article said, that when the TV executives and Madison Avenue types originated their concept for this show it was supposed to be one where people would get their kicks by “laughing at a bunch of backward rednecks.” The usual Southern cultural genocide ploy that’s been going on now for years. But it didn’t happen that way. People started to identify with the Robertsons, didn’t laugh at them, but rather laughed with them. The TV executives now became uncomfortable. This didn’t set too well in New York. The “ignorant rednecks were being identified with, not made fun of and that wasn’t what it was supposed to be all about. What’s more, the “ignorant rednecks” were Christians, and they were not hesitant to express their faith in Jesus Christ and their total belief in the Bible. That kind of a situation is just too much for these media people. They want no positive images of Christianity to be put forth—in fact making Christians look foolish and stupid is a major part of their agenda, and the Robertson family was not about to play that game—hence this suspension.

I don’t think A&E ever anticipated the protest all this would cause or the amount of support around the country that the Robertsons would get. I don’t think the TV executives are real happy with how this turned out. Thousands of Christians all across the country ended up supporting the Robertsons. That wasn’t supposed to happen, but, in the Lord’s providence it has. It’s one of the few bright spots in a holiday season that has drawn attention to the Christian faith in a positive way. Sometimes the Lord even makes the wrath of men against Him to rebound to His praise and I’ll bet there are media types in New York that are experiencing “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” because the Lord is praised and they are left with egg on their faces. Glory to God in the highest!

A & E Displays the Media’s Anti-Christian Bias

by Al Benson Jr.
Literally for decades many have sought to expose the anti-Christian bias and direction of the establishment media. Most people, Christians included, couldn’t have cared less. They had their heads firmly buried in the sand and they just didn’t want to be bothered with anything. “The Lord’s in control” they’d say, which translated into everyday language means “Let Him take care of all this stuff so I don’t have to do anything.” Unfortunately, this is where much of the church in our day is at. They have bought into the “Let the Lord handle it all syndrome.” That way there’s no personal action or responsibility required except to get mad at those who are willing to take some action and do something about our horrendous national situation.

Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty was recently interviewed by a magazine and during that interview he committed a horrendous error—he told the truth. He stated that sodomy/lesbianism was a sin—a position backed up by Holy Scripture. He didn’t do this in a hateful way. He just stated the truth. The fact that he had the courage to tell the truth was enough to unleash the Hounds of Hades that work for the “news” media upon him. When it comes to sodomy you just don’t tell the truth where it can be read or heard. That’s almost a capital offense. You just don’t do that. It’s alright to prattle endlessly on about how narrow and intolerant Christianity is, but you never tell the truth about sodomy—that it is a sin. That’s simply beyond the media pale and they will do everything in their power to destroy you if you do.

Phil Robertson told the truth. He didn’t try to make a big deal out of it—he just spoke the truth. Now A & E has suspended (or fired him) depending on which version you read, from his show. And it has created quite a fuss. There are petitions all over Facebook that people can sign showing their support for Phil. A & E may have opened a can of worms they would just as soon forget.

But, then, as you read a little about A & E you begin to get a picture of where they are really at. A post of  noted that “Phil Robertson Was Fired Because A & E Caters To The LGBT Mafia.” For those who may not know that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The post continued: “This man’s response reveals the real reason why Phil Robertson was fired from A&E’s ‘Duck Dynasty.’ Finally someone has enough balls to call it like we see it. Why is it that when someone caters to the LGBT mafia they are praised all over the media, but when a conservative voices their opinion against such beliefs they are criticized and cut down by the media?” Simple answer to that—the media, at all levels, is so thoroughly anti-Christian that it can permit no expression of Christian truth at all—and I mean none! So A & E caters to the deviant sex crowd, a small but whiny minority of their viewing audience and to curry favor with this deviant crowd they are willing to sacrifice the majority of their viewing audience—hoping that most of them won’t bother to look at what’s going on.

From the same website we have another article about how the Duck Dynasty folks were told to stop praying in Jesus’ name so it would not offend Muslims. Apparently Phil was not willing to go along with this. Mind you, he is not out there trying to offend anyone, but he does take a stand for the truth and in this world there will always be many who will be offended at the truth. The question you have to ask yourself is—who would you rather offend—God or the anti-Christ leftists? Because you will offend someone either way. The pastor of our church states, quite forthrightly, that if no one at all is mad at you then you aren’t doing anything. Any Christian action you take will offend someone in the anti-Christ crowd so the idea is that Christians should just shut up and never do or say anything so they won’t “offend” anyone. Anyone who reads any of the stuff I write knows how I feel about that. If anti-Christ is offended by Christian truth and action, I’m sorry, that’s just tough. Christian truth and action will not cease.

Phil noted, during some of his programs, that there were fake bleeps inserted into some of the shows, giving the impression that he was using profanity. Phil said “They inserted face bleeps…like someone had used profanity, but no one had used profanity. I asked the guys that produce the show…What’s the point of the fake bleeps? If we are not using profanity, why make it look like we are using profanity?” Because you are Christian, that’s why, and they have got to work to make you look like less than what you profess to be.

There has even been such a fuss over this that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has come out and defended the Duck Dynasty. According to  Governor Jindal said: “Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the state of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints , except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of the stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive…It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson get suspended.”

My personal opinion is that either A & E should apologize to Phil Robertson for trying to punish him for telling the truth, or Christians should begin to cease to support or watch A & E. There is nothing in the world wrong with Christians boycotting something that is blatantly offensive and anti-Christian. In fact they should not consider doing anything less.

Impatience, Power Politics, and God’s Kingdom

by Al Benson Jr.

I remember, years ago now, at one of the first meetings of the Confederate Society of America that I attended, there was a young man present that was incredibly impatient because he felt the Confederate Movement was not accomplishing more right now. He just couldn’t see why everything had to take so long and why the Movement wasn’t more busy exerting power and influence right now! After all, we had the truth–why weren’t we out there exerting political power and influence right now–why weren’t we out there shouting the truth from the housetops so everyone could soak it up immediately? I doubt if he would have listened if someone told him it just doesn’t work this way–at least it hasn’t in the over four decades I’ve been writing and talking to people.

He brought this question up in one of the sessions that had a guest speaker, and the speaker asked him pointedly if he really wanted to exert some power and influence.  The impatient young man said definitely yes. Whereupon the visiting speaker told him to go out, get married, and raise a family. That was not the reply he wanted.  He was seeking some magic formula that he could work to make happen right now, today, immediately if not sooner. The long-term concept of marriage and raising a family and taking the time to instruct them in the history and culture of the South was totally unappealing to him–all that just takes too long. He wanted his results now, or, at least, before noon tomorrow. He had not yet grasped the fact that life doesn’t work that way. God’s Kingdom, of which all Christians are a part, doesn’t work that way. Of course this young man made no pretentions to Christianity–if anything, he was hostile toward it. Later on when someone mentioned the Christian culture of the Old South to him he stated: “I’m fighting for a flag, not a religion.” Little did he realize that the flag he was fighting for had its foundations in the Christian faith. He didn’t want to hear that.

How many are there in the Confederate and Southern Movements today that suffer from the “instant gratification syndrome?” They want Southern independence no later than tomorrow afternoon (morning would be better) at the latest. Many of these folks seek Southern salvation in political candidates and political programs.  Just get the right pro-South politicians in place and move your agenda right along–as soon as they are sworn into office. Again, neither secular life or God’s Kingdom work this way.

Let’s be honest. The vast majority of politicians exist only to get elected and re-elected.  Once they find out how good it is to feed at the public trough, they get to liking it and they want more (all at our expense). So if we think politicians are going to be the salvation of the Confederate Movement we will, as Khrushchev said, years ago, “wait for a shrimp to whistle.” Folks, as the man says “it ain’t gonna happen. In the first place, politicians are no one’s salvation. The only salvation there is comes through Jesus Christ, who truly said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, No man comes to the Father but by me.” That includes the politician, who needs Jesus Christ every bit as much as anyone else.

If the Confederate and Southern Movements are going to be preserved, we must start with the culture, not with lying politicians. In all honesty, how can anyone look at these lying charlatans in Washington and many of our state capitals and believe anything they say? They will promise you anything to get your vote–even to the point of telling you if you like your current health insurance you can keep it, when they know it’s all hogwash. We’ve had too many years of all that and yet we don’t seem to learn. Our public school “educations” have not been noted for bestowing discernment on those forced to participate in them.

We have, with the Lord’s help and guidance, got to rebuild our own Southern (and Christian) culture, and in the economy of God’s Kingdom, that won’t be done overnight.  If we are faithful and persevere with what we need to do daily, our grandchildren may live to see some benefit, but we, ourselves, will live to see precious little of the fruits of our efforts. Doesn’t sound overly glamorous does it? No adventurous cavalry charges or hoards of grey-uniformed men marching in the streets of our Southern capitals. God’s Kingdom seldom works that way. The Lord works a little at a time, often in ways we don’t even notice, but if we are faithful each day with what He gives us to do then we are helping to construct a foundation that others can build upon. If we hadn’t done that, they would have nothing to build upon, so what we do in God’s Kingdom is important even though it may seem small and we don’t see results. That doesn’t mean the results aren’t there. It often means we are too impatient to recognize them.

However, there are certain things we can do as individuals and families and know that what we do is right for our families.  We can begin to secede from the Yankee culture around us. There is a lot there, from the drivel on television to other things we can flat-out refuse to take part in. We don’t need television for the “news.” We don’t get it there anyway! You can get the weather report on a local radio station and we can begin to search out alternate news sources, some of which will give us some accuracy. This may require a bit of discernment, but if you work at it you can learn how to do it, and how to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what you see. There are excellent publications out there that will give you real news and valid opinions rather than watching Walter Crankcase or Dan Rather-biased. And without television you can actually teach your kids to read good books, and there are a lot of them out there today.

Even more importantly, you can begin removing your children from the educationally lobotomizing programs that pass for “education” in the government indoctrination centers we charitably refer to as public schools. Teach your children at home (it’s not all that difficult. We did it) or find a good Christian school, one that reflects your worldview.  Search out good history material to teach them from. There is more good material out there now than there was when we home schooled. The last year we home schooled our daughter, I used Rev. Steve Wilkins’ excellent tape series America–the first 350 years for her American history course that year. I believe this series is now available on MP3.  Our daughter learned solid American history and last year, taught that same course to her children. That is a covenantal, biblical approach. This is how you exert influence for God’s Kingdom–one student and one family at a time. It takes longer, and there are no instant rewards except the knowledge that you have been faithful to the best of your ability. By doing this work diligently, both your faith and Southern Christian culture are preserved and God’s Kingdom is extended–even if you fail to notice it.

Chicago–Communist Paradise of the Midwest

By Al Benson Jr.

This is a reprint of an article I published on another blog spot in early 2010, however it seems that the other blog spot has chosen to remove my articles–without even notifying me. I am not sure what the deal is at this point–maybe someone complained about something I wrote that was not politically correct and so they just took it all down, I don’t know. But this particular article was, I felt, one of the more important pieces on the blog spot so I wanted to get it up somewhere else asap. The one site I could find that had republished it in its entirety was and I am glad they reprinted the whole thing rather than just linking to it as most others did.

It seems that the “Windy City” has had a love affair with communism that goes back a long time. Originally, you
can trace it back to 1860 when the Republican Party convention was held there–the convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln to run for president on the Republican ticket that year. There were several “Forty-Eighter” socialists, refugees from the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe, there that year for the convention and some of these socialists, such as Carl Schurz, actually helped to write the Republican Party platform in 1860. In our book  Lincoln’s Marxists  Walter Kennedy and I have noted this. We stated: “In chapter one we noted the close ties between radical European socialists/communists and Lincoln. In that chapter we pointed out that we are not suggesting that Lincoln was a communist, only that for some
reason, these early American socialists/communists found the new Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln very attractive.” So Lincoln was nominated, ran, and won, with the help of these Forty-Eighter socialists/communists–and it started in Chicago. How fitting. You can check out information about  Lincoln’s Marxists on

Unfortunately for Chicago, that was not the last they saw of the communists. A dispatch from Chicago to the New York Times for April 24, 1878 noted: “The Police report that the communist element here already numbers
several thousands, and that many drilling places are almost nightly frequented by armed men. There are three halls on the North Side having facilities for drilling purposes, and the Superintendent of Police reports that about 4000 men drill in them every week…Superintendent of Police Hickey says that the arms used by the organizations are mostly Springfield rifles of the old and new patterns.” The dispatch also noted that the communists had sent an agent from Chicago to New York to purchase more arms and ammunition. Sounds typically communist–a little intimidation to attempt to dampen potential resistance. The Russian tanks in the streets of Budapest in 1956
accomplished the same purpose.

Another New York Times article, this one for April 21, 1879, observed: “Chicago, April 20–About 1100 Communists paraded the streets to-day, and displayed inflammatory banners. About 400 of them were armed. No disturbance occurred.” These articles definitely let you know that the Communists were busy strutting their stuff in Chicago in the 1870s. With the paranoia of Chicago’s present politicians about people in that
city having firearms, (except for the criminals of course) it makes you wonder where the gun control freaks were in the late 1870s. Of course since those carrying the weapons were communists, I suppose it was

And they continued to do so as the years progressed. The American Communist Party originated in Chicago in 1919. It stayed there until 1927, when Communist Party headquarters and their newspaper, the Daily Worker, relocated in New York. During the 1930s the Communist Party in Chicago managed to reach their biggest audiences. They organized the unemployed and protested evictions. They built alliances with people like Saul Alinsky the infamous “community organizer.” By the end of the 1930s they had influenced cultural organizations, writers, and various intellectuals who should have known better but didn’t. They even started their own newspaper, the Midwest Daily Record. As long as they could agitate among minorities, the unemployed, and other seemingly disaffected groups they had a fertile field for their class struggle techniques in Chicago. By the 1950s their influence had decreased somewhat, but they never really went away and in the 1960s their
radicalism appeared afresh, only under new and different groups and not under their own name.In fact, Harold Lasswell and Dorothy Blumenstock wrote: “From the birth of the American Communist Party in Chicago in 1919, Chicago has been one of the chief radiating
centers for Communist propaganda in the United States.” Even as the Party itself seemed to wane, its influence never really did.

Trevor Loudon, an anti-Communist political activist in New Zealand was interviewed in September, 2009 and made some interesting observations. Mr. Loudon stated that: “Chicago was the birthplace of US communism–the party was founded there in 1919. Chicago and Detroit were the centers of Midwest
communism into the 1930s. The communist influenced ‘Black renaissance’ movement was centered in two places–Harlem and Chicago’s South Side. Chicago’s advantage in communist terms, was that of the industrial South Side with its large working class white, black, and Latino populations was bordered by the more affluent Hyde Park area, and the thoroughly communist infiltrated University of Chicago. The Marxist academics of
the UC had half a city of proletarians on their doorstep to experiment with and practice on.” Mr. Loudon noted that the goals of communists in this country were, and still are, a socialist/communist America and that the Communist Party put a strong emphasis on infiltrating labor unions, the Democratic Party, and both the US government and the “civil rights” movement. All the evidence that I’ve seen over the years tends to agree with Mr. Loudon’s assessment.
Mr. Loudon also mentioned Vernon Jarrett, a black Chicago journalist who, with his columns, promoted Barack Obama during his run for the Illinois Senate in 2004. Loudon was also asked to identify prominent African-Americans were part of the “Chicago (Communist) network.” He observed: “In the 40s they included William and Louise Patterson, Ishmael Flory, Claude Lightfoot, Frank Marshall Davis and Oscar Brown. Vernon Jarrett
(father-in-law of Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett) and future Chicago mayor Harold Washington were close to the network as was future Obama friend Timuel Black and close Obama associates, former Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer and one term Illinois Senator Carol Mosely
Braun.” Sounds like lots of well-known folks in the Chicago area in earlier days had noted Marxist proclivities and those that were not outright part of
the Party network were “close” to it. Note that one of those mentioned was Frank Marshall Davis, the man who was not only Obama’s mentor but a Communist Party member in both Chicago and Hawaii. Some of this information can be checked out on
for those interested in Mr. Loudon’s observations.

And  has noted: “Manning Marable, a leader of the Communist Party offshoot
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism claims that Obama ‘understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or
as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years’.” Frank Marshall Davis was quite active in the Chicago Communist Party–until he moved to Hawaii in 1948.

It has been postulated in some quarters that Frank Marshall Davis may well have known “left-wing journalist Vernon Jarrett” in post-World War 2 Chicago. This is because the Jarrett family seems to have played a role
in Barack Obama’s rise to power. Both Jarrett and Davis worked for the communist-influenced Chicago Defender newspaper in Chicago in the late 1940s. As you can see, what went on in Communist circles in Chicago in the 1930s and 40s has had a very definite effect on the
lives of all Americans in our own day.

It has also been noted on  in an article by Cliff Kinkaid for February 15, 2008 that: “Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat…Obama’s stint as a
‘community organizer’ in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored… DSA describes itself as the largest socialist
organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.” This socialist group has “consultative status” with the United Nations. Is anyone really surprised? Given the
leftist record of the UN, should we expect anything else?

Kinkaid gives us one more bit of information regarding Chicago. He says: “It is not surprising that Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA,” Gee, a Chicago politician who was loved by the socialists? Don’t go away, there are more to come.

I can remember, when we lived in Northern Illinois, we often saw Chicago politicians on the television
spouting their agendas, but, of course the media never bothered to inform anyone just where on the political spectrum they were coming from. Those who had done some homework could usually spot the
left-wingers among them, but most folks, educated in government schools and never taught to think, didn’t have a clue. One of them I remembered seeing quite often was Danny K. Davis. He always seemed to be shouting at someone in the sound bytes he was shown
in. Usually his diatribes were reserved for anyone to the political right of Che Guevara.

According to  for December 17, 2008: “The left’s ‘long march’ through the US
government, has since the recent election, broken into a jog. A good example is the appointment of long time Barack Obama friend and ally, Illinois congressman Danny K. Davis to the United States House Committee
on Ways & Means–arguably the most powerful organ of the US Congress.” It seems that this committee is the one that has jurisdiction over all tariffs, taxation, and not only that, but they also oversee such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment benefits. The article continues: “Ways & Means is
already heavily influenced by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)–a grouping of leftist Democratic congressmen, many of whomhave ties to Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Communist
Party USA (CPUSA) or both.” It seems that Obama and Davis hark back to when they were both members of the New Party in Illinois during the mid 1990s. The New Party was formed by more leftist activists, some from ACORN, some from the DSA, and some from the Committees of Correspondence, that breakaway from the Communist Party.

The article noted of Davis that: “Davis was then and still is a DSA member,one of the few semi-open socialists in the U.S. Congress.” Davis remained close to the Communist Party in Chicago and in 1990 he attended
a fund raiser for the Communist newspaper the Peoples Weekly World. Davis applauded those at this fund raiser, who, he said, are “steadfast in the fight for justice.” Yeah, right. Show me a Communist anywhere really concerned for justice and I’ll show you a purple cow
jumping over a moon made of green cheese!

It seems as if the previously mentioned Vernon Jarrett had quite a bit to do with getting Harold
Washington to run for mayor in Chicago. According to  for 6/1/2009 it is noted that: “He (Jarrett) stoked the political members in Chicago that led to the 1983 election of the city’s first
African American mayor, Harold Washington. Vernon Jarrett was a key influence in Washington’s decision to run for the Chicago mayoralty and remained a key supporter thought his four year tenure. Harold Washington defeated
the Daley machine to win the mayoralty backed by a coalition led by Chicago’s Communist Party and the local branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)…Washington was actively involved in Communist Party fronts such as the US Peace Council and the Chicago Committee on Southern Africa, right up to winning the mayoralty–with Party support. The article went on to note that after his election, Washington went on to pad his administration with a full complement of socialists, communists, and various other fellow-travelers and in so
doing he ended up with “the most far left administration in US history. This bacchanalia of leftism was only cut short by his premature death.

Interestingly enough, Harold Washington, that darling of the Chicago left, also won a spot in the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame  Although this doesn’t necessarily add up to his being a sodomite it shows that he was friendly to and supportive of their cause and he worked politically to further it.

Then, there were William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, who were both terrorists in the Weather Underground during the 1960s. Were they ever prosecuted for their terrorism? Not really, and now Mr. Ayers is a professor at the University of Chicago. They are a prime case of terrorists who followed the advice of “getting haircuts, joining the establishment and running for Congress.” Ayers joined the establishment and gained a position whereby he could help to tear down what this country was founded upon–and he is a close friend of Barack Obama. In fact, Ayers and Dohrn hosted Obama’s first known political gathering in their home back in 1995.

And lets not forget David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign strategist. According to  for October 30, 2008: “Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, once worked for a man who was an identified member of the Communist Party USA, a registered agent of the Soviet Union and a paid
disseminator of Soviet black propaganda. This man went on to become a chief Chicago political fixer who helped elect communist linked politicians including the late Chicago mayor Harold Washington and former US Senator Carol Mosely Braun. The individual in question was the late Chicago lawyer David Simon Canter (1923/2004). Cantor was born in Boston, and his father, Harry J. Cantor was an activist with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The next step for him, naturally,was to become secretary of the Boston Communist Party.

Axelrod seems to have learned from his former Communist boss. He worked in the
political campaigns of such leftist worthies as John Edwards, Chris
Dodd, and the inestimable Rahm Emanuel, yet another Obama henchman.
Axelrod’s strategy was to market to the public a persona rather than
dealing with substantive issues–in other words, all blow and no
show–and who, honestly, would want to show the public where the left
was really coming from. That kind of information needed to be kept under
wraps and slathered over with lots of political glitz. Which is just
what he did with Obama. He promoted “change” without telling you what
the change was going to be all about (the removal of whatever freedoms
you had left). Axelrod’s family was certifiably leftist. His mother,
Myril, had been a writer for PM, a left-wing tabloid-type publication
that was published in New York from 1940-48.

An article on  for March 5, 2008 accurately observed that: “Clearly, Chicago has been a
hotbed of leftist political activities for decades. Saul Alinksy
successfully trained hundreds of radicals who are now in positions of
power–including both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. Chicago was also a hotbed of Marxist Black Power
activities during World War 2
…Chicago is also an area heavily influenced by Nation of Islam
leader Minister Louis Farrakhan, who had personally endorsed the
candidacy of Barack Obama to become our next president…” Under pressure,
Obama later rejected the endorsement, but only for political reasons,
not personal ones. I’d be willing to bet he has no real problems with
Farrakhan personally.

There has even been a book written about all this–Red Chicago, by Randi Storch, who is an associate
professor of history at the State University of New York College at
Cortland. It was published by the University of Illinois Press. I have
not read this book, having only seem a short review of it, but I had the
feeling from that review that Ms. Storch had written a book that sought
to present a more “human” face to Chicago Communists for her readers.

If so, I’m glad she wrote it and not me. I would not have quite been up
to such a thorny task. But the fact that she even wrote it displays how
much the Marxist mindset had and has permeated the city of Chicago.

I could go on and on with this. There is, literally, enough material out
there to write at least one more book on this and there is no way I can
cover it all in this article. At best, I have touched a few high
spots–not nearly enough, but enough to give readers some idea of how
much Marxism and its leftist cousins have influenced Chicago and the
country–all the way from Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama. Chicago has, indeed, been the Communist paradise of the Midwest and the
country is much worse off for that sorry situation.

Hopefully, this will give new readers somewhat of a grasp of how long communism has been a problem in this country–going all the way back to Lincoln. It’s a lot worse than you thought it was. Should that make us afraid? To use the Apostle Paul’s term from the Scripture–“May it never be.” Communism and all its far left cousins, including fascism, are all evil and Christians don’t cower in front of it–they resist it!

The Hanging Of Mary Surratt–Judicial murder and government dirty linen–part two

by Al Benson Jr.

The “trial” of Mary Surratt and the Lincoln conspirators is still something that is debated about even today. If you want to see some of the arguments, check out the Internet. I read several articles awhile back about the involvement of Dr. Samuel Mudd, the man who set John Wilkes Booth’s broken leg. Mudd claimed he did not know Booth. He was still sent to the Dry Torgugas as a prisoner. Others have claimed that Mudd “was in it up to his eyeballs.” So the argument is anything but settled.

The question has arisen–was it even a legal trial or not?  Reverdy Johnson, Mrs. Surratt’s first attorney, had contended that the military court that tried the conspirators was without proper authority to do so as long as the civil courts were sitting.  This is something that was argued for nearly a century and I’ll bet you could get a heated debate about it still going in some quarters. In my opinion, Reverdy Johnson was correct. The war was over and the civil courts in the Union were all functioning and intact, so there was no reason to try this as a military case–unless it had been decided from on high that the real facts in this case should never be made public to the American people. We have already noted that Stanton wanted to make sure that Mrs. Surratt communicated with no one before she was hung. Great lengths were gone to in order to prevent that. It has also been contended in some circles that, had the trial taken place in a civil court, Mrs. Surratt would have been exonerated. You had a regime in Washington under Stanton and the revolutionary radicals in Congress that, basically, did whatever it wanted to–just like today. The Marxist regime currently in power does what it wants to. If Congress won’t pass Obama’s radical legislation he just writes an executive order and does an end run around the Congress while they sit there apparently stupified after he has presented them a fait accompli. Congress rails and complains about it–all for public consumption–because they know they will not fight it but they want to give the appearance of having done so–after all, there’s an election coming up next year.

Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham argued against this rationale and for what amounted to Stanton’s rationale for  a military trial: the “rebellion” itself was considered to be a gigantic conspiracy, (a vast right-wing conspiracy?), with Jefferson Davis as the arch-conspirator.  The official Washington line was that Lincoln, the Commander-in-Chief, had been assassinated by people directly connected to Jeff Davis and the Confederacy, and so on and so forth, blah, blah, blah. Current establishment “historians” are busily attempting to resurrect this 19th century attempt at political correctness. Many “historians” love a good myth parading as fact.

Theodore Roscoe in The Web of Conspiracy took note of historical opinion when he said: “By and large, history’s consensus is that Mrs. Surratt was not guilty as charged. Which is to say she knew nothing of the assassination plot and was in no way an active participant or intentional accessory. Did she carry messages from (John Wilkes) Booth to innkeeper Lloyd, and deliver to the Surratt tavern Booth’s binoculars? Possibly, even probably. But she could have done so in all innocence, merely to oblige Mr. Booth. And even if one assumes she suspected some underground project were afoot, nothing in the trial evidence proved she knew the project involved an assassination strike. A few historians concede she may have known about the abduction plot.  On the surface of it, such knowledge seems likely.” In an article dealing with the authenticity of the Dahlgren Papers, historian Stephen Sears noted that: “…by the generally accepted rules of civilized warfare of the 1860s, the capture of an opposing head of state and his chief advisors  was a legitimate wartime objective, and no doubt was discussed as openly in Richmond as it was in Washington. Assassination of civilian leaders, on the other hand, was regarded as beyond the pale.” At least it was for Southern leaders, as for some of the Yankees, influenced by the socialists from Europe, well, for some of them, the ends justified the means.

One of the two people chiefly responsible for testimony that was damaging to Mary Surratt was Louis Wiechmann, a government clerk who knew her son, John, and who lived at the Surratt boarding house.  Lloyd Lewis, in The Assassination of Lincoln–History and Myth, wrote: “Except for two witnesses there was no case against Mrs. Surratt, but those two hanged her. One was John M. Lloyd…the other was a boarder in her own home, Louis J. Wiechmann.” There was a picture with one of the articles I read that spelled his name “Weichmann.” Note the two different spellings of the man’s last name. According to Roscoe: “Official records on Wiechmann are confusing. One might well believe them deliberately confused. In them his name is spelled at least five different ways. Dates are curiously juggled.  Wiechmann’s testimony is garbled, vaguely worded, often contradictory.”  And, on the other hand, Mrs. Surratt’s lawyers felt Wiechmann was way too glib and too ready to hang former associates.  You have to wonder which one was the real Wiechmann, just as, according to some sources, you might have to wonder if the man in John Wilkes Booth’s grave is the real Booth.

And yet, Wiechmann may have testified as he did out of a certain amount of fear. Benjamin P. Thomas and Harold M. Hyman wrote in the standard work Stanton: The Life and Times of Lincoln’s Secretary of War that: “Weichmann, too, might very well have been accused of complicity in the plot, and two years later, at the trial of John Surratt, Lloyd not only contradicted some of the statements he had made at the conspiracy trial but admitted that he had been subjected to both promises and threats. That Weichmann was subjected to the same sort of intimidation by Stanton, in the private cross-examination seems likely from the statement made by John T. Ford, owner of the celebrated theater. Ford, imprisoned with  Lloyd and Weichmann, became convinced from what they told him that Mrs. Surratt was innocent and that the two witnesses had been coerced.” Really? Would “our” government do such an underhanded thing? If they felt they had a good enough reason you better believe they would!

When Wiechmann testified at the trial of John Surratt in 1867 he said he had been “nervous” at the trial of the conspirators, and proceeded to contradict some of his former statements, “thereby putting Mrs. Surratt in a more favorable light.” It was, however, a tad bit late for that to do Mrs. Surratt any good. But Roscoe has noted that: “At the second trial, which in some respects amounted to a rehearing of Mrs. Surratt’s case, Louis Carland, a former customer at Ford’s Theater, testified that Weichmann had told him in 1865 that if he had  been let alone…it would have been quite a different affair with Mrs. Surratt than it was” that his statements had been written out for him and that he had been threatened with prosecution as an accessory if he refused to swear to them. Wiechmann, when examined again, denied he ever made this confession, although he did admit talking with Mr. Carland. If this tale were false, one must wonder what Mr. Carland would have had to gain by telling it.

Roscoe also observed that: “John W. Clampitt, one of Mrs. Surratt’s lawyers, a number of years after the trial wrote that Weichmann, after testifying, had been stung with remorse because he had committed perjury in implicating Mrs. Surratt in Lincoln’s murder. Certain ‘authorities’ in the War Department had threatened to prosecute him as an accomplice in the conspiracy against Lincoln if he refused to offer testimony.  Weichmann claimed, according to Clampitt, Holt had rejected the first statement Weichmann prepared with the remark that ‘it was not strong enough,’ whereupon, still under threat of prosecution, Weichmann had written a second and stronger statement, the substance of which he subsequently swore to on the witness stand. The man to whom Weichmann made this confession, wrote Clampitt, was refused permission to testify.” Almost sounds as if Wiechmann was indulged with a little “friendly persuasion”  to make sure he said what the Judge Advocate and Mr. Stanton wanted him to say.  And then, on his deathbed, Wiechmann signed a statement saying that all he had said at the original conspiracy trial was true after all.  Will the real Louis Wiechmann (Weichmann) please stand up?

Judge Advocate Joseph Holt summed up the preconceived sentiment of the Yankee/Marxist government when he said: “There have not been enough Southern women hanged in this war.” Thus, the great compassion of the Yankee/Marxist mindset was put on display for all the world to see–and it is this same “compassion” that we still live with today–thanks to the Lincoln administration. That this is the identical mindset  displayed by socialists and Communists, both in Mr. Lincoln’s government and in his rampaging armies, is one of the overriding factors that cause Donnie Kennedy and myself to write the book Lincoln’s Marxists. People need to become aware that this socialist, anti-Christ mindset is what the Lincoln administration gave us and that it has been passed down since then to us today. Now we have a Marxist in the White House that doesn’t even bother to deny his Marxism. Lincoln would be proud of him!

The Hanging of Mary Surratt–Judicial murder and government dirty linen–part one

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back Robert Redford made a movie about the hanging of Mary Surratt which was called The Conspirator. Although I have not seen it, I have been told it was fairly good. Redford, I guess, didn’t get it all right, but he got some of it right–almost a first from someone from Hollyweird. Redford has never been one of my favorite movie entertainers. I’ve always felt he was a bit left of center and I am curious as to why he chose the topic of Mary Surratt’s demise by the U.S. government to make a movie out of. When the DVD gets down to an affordable price, if I can find it, I will pick one up to see exactly what he did with Mary Surratt and her tragic story.

After the assassination of Obama’s spiritual ancestor, Abraham Lincoln, eight people were put on trial and found guilty–four sentenced to long prison terms and the other four sentenced to hang. One of those sentenced to be hung was Mary Eugenia Jenkins Surratt, the first woman ever to be hung in the United States.  John Wilkes Booth had supposedly been shot (that’s another whole story in itself) and John Surratt, Mary’s son, had escaped to Canada. Eventually he would make his way to Europe. These eight seemingly were all that were left and the government wanted to make sure they talked as little as possible to anyone.

Historical opinions have been divided as to whether Mary Surratt was really guilty as one of the Lincoln assassins. Author Nathaniel Weyl has called Mary Surratt “…an innocent woman hanged for conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln.” My own opinion is that this is pretty close to the truth. That doesn’t mean that Mrs. Surratt was totally without knowledge of all that went on. She may well have been aware of the proposed attempts to abduct Mr. Lincoln. After all, they were discussed in her rooming house. But, as far as assassination went, I don’t think she had a clue.

When it came to the conspirators’ “trial” (if such it can really be called) Mrs. Surratt had a good lawyer to start out with, Reverdy Johnson, a former U.S. senator and, in 1849, U.S. Attorney General, and at the time of her trial, a Maryland Senator. According to the book The Lincoln Conspiracy: “He was such a formidable opponent, it was immediately apparent to the prosecution that he must be removed. Johnson was to be assisted by Frederick  Aiken and John W. Clampitt, each in practice only one year and each trying his first big case. Clampitt was 24 and Aiken even younger.” After some judicial maneuverings, the prosecution succeeded in getting Johnson to remove himself and so Mrs. Surratt was stuck with the two younger, more inexperienced lawyers.  While they did the best the could, they were no match for the legal scalawags the federal prosecution  brought forth to handle them.

The way the federal government dealt with Mrs. Surratt was strongly reminiscent of the way it would later deal with the Plains Indians in the far West–it flat out broke its word, but then, what else have we come to expect from government? In our own day “our” government (it’s not really ours) has lied to us, through the president or various other federal stooges, about Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative political groups, the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal, how much the NSA spies on its own citizens, Obamacare, and the list goes on–and on, and on.

Otto Eisenschiml wrote in The Shadow of Lincoln’s Death  “When the Washington authorities put hoods over the heads of the men accused of conspiracy against Lincoln’s life, they committed a strange act. When they added stiff shackles–manacles which made writing impossible–and forbade all intercourse with the outside world, there arose a misgiving that the purpose was not punishment, but the enforcement of silence.” Eisenschiml also duly noted that the government changed the prison locations  of those not hung from Albany, New York to the far-out Dry Tortugas, where the convicted men were confined,literally for years in solitary cells and were prevented from conversing with any outsiders. You really have to wonder what the government was afraid these men would have to say, and whatever that might have been, they were going to make darn sure no one ever heard it.

One man on Edwin Stanton’s staff was Colonel William P. Wood, the man who ran Old Capitol Prison. Though he worked for the federal government, it appears that Colonel Wood still had some modicum of conscience left. In 1883 he wrote a series of articles for the Washington Sunday Gazette, in which he sought to tell all he knew about the conspiracy trial, most of which, he said, had never been revealed to the public. Again, what else is new? Even today all we get are sanitized versions of everything from who killed Kennedy (it was that “lone gunman, Oswald, don’t you know”) to the War in Iraq.

Wood wrote of Mrs. Surratt that: “…there were guarantees made to her brother by the writer, upon authority of Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, that she should not be executed.” Wood hinted that such guarantees were given “…in exchange for information by Mrs. Surratt’s brother regarding  (John Wilkes) Booth’s probable  course of flight. The fact that the War Minister made such a promise gives food for thought. Very likely he had, at no time, intended to live up to his promise.” And Wood, calling attention to this rank betrayal, said: “…those conditions were violated, and…this deplorable execution of an innocent woman (followed).”

The court announced the guilty verdict on the morning of July 6th.  Mrs. Surratt was not informed of it until the middle of the day, at which time she found out she was to be hung at noon the following day.  Eisenschiml observed that “Such a short space of time between a sentence and its execution is practically unheard of.”  Apparently what Mrs. Surratt and the others knew, the government was going to make sure they had no chance to pass it on to others.

John T. Ford, the owner of Ford’s Theater, followed all these events as long as he lived.  I guess you could say he had somewhat of a consuming interest, so he gathered what facts he was able to. In 1889 he revealed something most people had never heard. He said that: “The very man of God who shrived her soul for eternity was said to be constrained to promise that she should not communicate with the world. Mr. Clampitt, one of her lawyers, confirmed what Ford stated. Mrs. Surratt pleaded with the priest to be allowed to tell people before she died that she was innocent of the crime of which she had been convicted. The priest refused her. It seems he had been made to tell her, after absolution and the sacrament, that she should be prevented from making any declaration as to her innocence.  The priest later denied this.  If Stanton and the government had nothing to cover up, allowing her to make a last statement would have hurt nothing and no one.

However, Eisenschiml has noted that: “What was vital was this: the condemned woman must not be permitted to harangue the crowd from the scaffold. There she might go beyond the mere question of her guilt, and every one of her words would be broadcast by news-hungry journalists.” The powers that be at that time could not allow that to happen. How interesting that our so-called “history” books never reveal any of this. The winners of the War of Northern Aggression have deemed that all of this is information we are much better off knowing nothing about. “Nothing to see here, folks, move along.” If the public has no clue about any of this then they can’t ask embarrassing questions about it can they? And that’s the goal of many of today’s educator/change agents–a population that knows nothing about nothing but has been taught that they are brilliant.

To be continued.