Liberal “Love” Says “Decimate” the Tea Party

by Al Benson Jr.

It never ceases to amaze me how those on the religious and political Left continually try to delude people by claiming to be loving and compassionate and concerned for “diversity.” They use these terms in the same way the Marxists use them in that they sound like one thing and mean entirely something else. For the leftist, “Love” is really hate and good is really evil. And they hate people that point this out.

I just read an interesting story on which showed where those liberal “lovers” really are. The article noted: “Virginia Democrat Mike Dickinson has said that he wants to ‘decimate’ Christians, NRA supporters, members of the Tea Party, and those who watch Fox News. In a series of tweets sent in early April, his stance was overwhelmingly clear. Using Twitter as his outlet, Dickinson sent targeted vitriol towards those in the Tea Party wishing that he could ‘eradicate’ all those affiliated with the rising movement.”

One of the tweets stated: “Said it proudly! Want to decimate the tea party, the NRA, bible thumpers, and Fox News zombies? Vote for me.” What an expression of liberal love and compassion! What a statement of his commitment to diversity, as long as it’s leftist diversity while rightist diversity is being “decimated.”

This particular tweet was deleted. In fact Dickinson was so vitriolic that Twitter even suspended his account for awhile, but they’ve let him back now.

It would be interesting to know how Mr. Dickinson defines the terms “decimate” and “eradicate” when referring to Tea Partiers, Christians, Second Amendment supporters and the like. He needs to be pinned down and asked specifically what he means by the use of such terms. If someone on the right had used such terminology he’d be in jail by now. However, in defining his adversaries, Dickinson obviously places himself on the left and so, naturally, he gets a pass. Totally unacceptable behavior is okay for left-wingers who are fronted for by what used to pass for the “news” media. More and more the so-called “news” media has become recognized by a good portion of the public as little more than the Ministry of Propaganda.

The article stated, in regard to Dickinson, that “He has recently fallen under fire for suspected illegal activity against  Tea Party members by asking his followers to violate DMV laws and reveal private information about Tea Party supporters. He’s even gone as far as to post the license plates of suspected members of the Tea Party for targeted harassment and is now being investigated for these illegal activities.”

Needless to say, the people in Virginia would not be well served by having such a man in Congress. He’s running against Eric Cantor, who I don’t think much of either. He’s a typical RINO and useless as a real conservative. Sounds like the people in this particular district in Virginia are between a rock and a hard place. They better look for a third party candidate.

But Mr. Dickinson is a perfect example of liberal “love” in that he would love to “decimate” or “eradicate” anyone he remotely perceives as being on the right. The voters need to ask Dickinson exactly what he means by the use of these terms. He probably wouldn’t admit the truth but he should be pushed to do so anyway.

Many of these liberal/left demagogues need to be pushed into the spotlight and to be made to admit that they are really nothing more than hatemongers and apologists for Marxism.


Political Correctness Reigns—Even in Archaeology—Part three


By Al Benson Jr.

Just last week, in my Internet ramblings, I came across an article on written by Christopher Nyerges, about some interesting rocks he found several years ago in the Angeles National Forest while he was out leading a “birthday outing” for a ten-year-old and some of his friends. The rock had markings on it that Mr. Nyerges said “…bore an uncanny resemblance to Ogam. I pointed it out to everyone and explained ogam to the adults, who seemed underwhelmed at what such a rock might mean. Some years earlier I spent some time learning about Ogam, a method that was used to write on stones approximately 1500+ years ago, primarily in the British Isles, though examples can be found further afield. Ogam is not to be confused with the more ornate runic writing.”

As Mr. Nyerges started to study this rock (he made several return trips to the area, even bringing a photographer with him, and getting sketches), he found that most of the scientific people he talked to about it couldn’t have cared less what he found. He stated: “So I then sent photos and sketches to perhaps 50 ‘experts’ in ogam, linguistics, archaeology, and other fields and eagerly awaited their response about my exciting discovery.” Good thing he didn’t hold his breath.

Gloria Farley responded positively, saying what he sent certainly looked like ogam, but she couldn’t tell what it said because all the ogam she had found had been translated by Barry Fell, and he had passed away. And I understand, from one source I talked to once, that there are those out there trying to negate the work Fell did, which, somehow, does not surprise me. Nyerges said that most of the “world experts” ignored him.

Finally, he decided to do the research on his own, almost the only way you will get any real answers today in the politically correct archaeological field. He developed a five-step method to see if he could determine what the ogam on the rock said. He noted that he got hold of a copy of Dwelley’s “Illustrated Gaelic-English Dictionary” and spent hours going through it page by page as he searched for letter combinations that might have some meaning. He observed: “All the letters I had to work with were consonants. There were no vowels, suggestive of an older or earlier linguistic form, akin to several of the Middle Eastern alphabets written without vowels.” He finally came up with a likely translation.

He came across two different geologists, one a PhD, who told him these kinds of inscriptions were hard to pin a definitive date on, but that taking an educated guess, he’d say it was between 1500 and 2500 years ago, and he admitted to the fact that that he felt 95% certain the marks were made by man and not by natural forces.

The big problem some seemed to have was that this had all been “Indian territory.” Well, so what? All of North America, to one extent or another, was “Indian territory.” That didn’t stop people from coming anymore than it stopped the westward migration in the 1700-1800s.

Nyerges invited several archaeologists to come and see the rock. They all declined. A local newspaper sent a reporter out to do a story on it and he also included an interview with someone from the Southwest Museum and a representative of a local Indian tribe, both of whom Nyerges had contacted earlier and who had expressed no interest whatever in going out to see what he had found. The newspaper article said he’d made “fanciful claims.” The Indian again stated the obvious—this was all “Indian territory” and he couldn’t see how other people could possibly have gotten in there. To this Nyerges replied: “Since the site of the rock is in a canyon that was one of the major passageways from the ocean to the desert by past Indian peoples, I asked my friend in a letter if he had ever heard of boats.” He noted Thor Heyerdahl’s trips across oceans in boats made exactly the way people thousands of years ago made them. But then, most archaeologists hate Heyerdahl because his trips have proven what they do not want to admit—that people could set sail in small boats on the coast of Africa and make it all the way to Brazil, or they could set sail from the coast of Peru and get to the South Sea islands.

The archaeological people Mr. Nyerges brought to his site were just not interested in the stone he’d found with the ogam writing on it. They wanted something more. If there wasn’t anything more they didn’t care about the site. Quite possibly the discovery of a village of live, bronze-age Celts still living there today might have piqued their imagination—but only if they could claim that, somehow, the Celts were related to the American Indians and whose ancestors had, even though they were Celts, never come from Europe.

Nyerges stated in summation: “Though the final chapter of this rock has not been written, it has enforced the belief that our history is not as we’ve been taught in school. Indeed the schools are often the official gurgitators of the best that academia has been able to collectively come up with. They get a lot of it right, but they fail to see their own blindnesses and prejudices…My rewards for taking all this time on this multi-faceted research: I have been called a fraud numerous times. I have been listed on a college web-site as an example of ‘fringe archaeology’ and explained away as a fraud. A few of my Native American friends stopped talking to me.” And so it goes. Those hunting for the truth in most areas can expect no less. Because, if the truth were known, many academics in some fields are more interested in protecting their reputations and biases than they are in truth. If the truth puts their agendas in jeopardy, then the truth must be treated as a fake and those that try to put it forth must be subject to ridicule. So goes the pursuit of knowledge in academia anymore.

I have a friend in Illinois who once showed me a piece he had found in Wisconsin with ogam writing all over one side of it. It was about 6 inches long and made of some sort of baked clay, or so it looked to us. My friend, as I recall, never bothered showing it to any of the “professionals” because he already knew it would be labeled as a fake, however he did show it to a teaching colleague at one point and he immediately recognized it as ogam. We’ve gotten to the point now where those who find antiquities in this country are, in many cases, just not reporting any of it to the “professional archaeologists” or asking their help with it because they already know what the response will be and who wants to go through an archeological kangaroo court where they seek to make you a laughing stock?

Also, this past week, I read about something called the “Solutrean hypothesis.” This is a theory, and I think it has some validity, that says Europeans might have gotten to America before the arrival of those we call American Indians. Boy, you can bet that’s one they will have to cover up, and no doubt one of the ways it will be attempted is to prove that such a theory is “racist.” One article I read on Metapedia said: “The hypothesis rests upon particular similarities in Solutrean and Clovis technology that have no known counterparts in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia, areas from which or through which early Americans are known to have migreated.” I do not agree with some of their dates for all this, but otherwise the information seems plausible.

More on this as information becomes available.

Political Correctness Reigns—Even in Archaeology—Part two

By Al Benson Jr.

While I was still an amateur archaeologist, back in the early 1960s, I came across a book that gave me a whole new perspective on early American history. It was written by a Charles Michael Boland and was called “They All Discovered America.” Along with the Indians, Mr. Boland also stated that Phoenicians, Romans, Celts, Irish Monks, Welch explorers, Vikings and others had discovered America. Last of all came Columbus. I picked up Mr. Boland’s book off the book rack at the local drug store in 1962. It is a paperback, now dog-eared almost beyond belief, but I have hung onto it all these years.

At the time I first read it you didn’t discuss what Mr. Boland wrote about in politically correct archaeological circles. To do so was considered heresy of the first order and a sure way to gain yourself the status of a pariah. So I read Boland and kept my mouth shut.

I can remember going to archaeological meetings in Attleboro, Massachusetts back in those days and hearing people discuss, and in the process laugh at, a man named Frederick Pohl, who often attended some of the same meetings where he was being ridiculed. His crime? He was hunting for “mooring holes” for Viking ships along the Southern New England coast, and everybody just knew such things didn’t exist because they would have had to have been here before Columbus showed up and no one, absolutely no one from Europe was here before Columbus—everybody knew that—it was the first commandment in American archaeological orthodoxy—Thou Shalt Not Ever Admit Any White Presence in America Before Columbus. That was archaeological holy writ, and it was writ large on the American archaeological scene.

In retrospect, I wish, at the time, I had had the presence of mind to go and talk to Mr. Pohl to see just what he had to say. I read some of his comments in books in later years, but there’s nothing quite like talking to the original source, as I was able to do with Gloria Farley briefly.

As time passed, I came across more books dealing with this, usually found at library book sales or in used book stores. I’ve already mentioned Barry Fell’s two books. Others I came across in the same vein were “Riddles in History” by Cyrus H. Gordon, published by Crown Publishers in New York in 1974; “The Rediscovery of Lost America” by Arlington Mallery and Mary Roberts Harrison, published by E. P. Dutton of New York in 1979, originally published way back in 1951; and one called “Conquest By Man”, written by Paul Herrmann, originally published in German, but published in this country by Harper Brothers in 1954. I have a couple others floating around in my library but these are the best of the lot. I have read some of them 3 or 4 times.

Boland, in his book, mentioned a place in Salem, New Hampshire called Pattee’s Caves. Later it was called Mystery Hill and I think today they call it America’s Stonehenge. My wife and I stopped there several years ago on our way back to the Midwest. I’d read so much about it that I wanted to see it. It’s quite a spot, covering several acres and having an interesting history.

Unfortunately the first man that owned it in modern times didn’t have much idea of how to excavate and so he didn’t help those who came later to find the real history as well as they might otherwise have. But the professional archaeologists almost all claim it is of “colonial origin.” All you have to do is look at it to realize what a farce that is. It is set up in such a way as to be sort of an astronomical site, with specific rocks set in place so they can catch the summer and winter equinoxes. What colonist, struggling to survive on the rocky New Hampshire ground in the early days, had time to do all that on the scale that it is done there? Whoever constructed the site, and there may have been more than one occupation, did it long before the colonists arrived, not that the professionals will ever admit that. Undoubtedly some colonists eventually lived on part of the site, but they were not the first folks there.

I’m not the only one to notice the archaeological orthodoxy of the “No whites before Columbus” doctrine

I came across an interesting website, which carried an article published in May-June 1994 and entitled The Spirit Pond Inscription Stone. The author noted some of the same things I have. He wrote: “As with the 12,000 BP barrier across the Bering Strait, establishment archaeologists have erected another barrier which researchers cross at their peril. This time, the line is drawn at L’Anse aux Meadows, in Newfoundland, where a Viking presence has been officially acknowledged. Any Viking innuendoes south of this point in North America are verboten. Nevertheless, tantalizing Viking traces are found along the New England coast and, even more anomalously in interior North America. One of these traces is the famous and infamous Spirit Pond Inscription Stone, found in Maine. It is covered with Norse runes. This inscribed stone was found by W. Elliott in May, 1971, while he was paddling around Spirit Pond in a little rubber boat. Actually, Elliott discovered three stones with markings, but here we attend to the so-called Inscription Stone. It bears ten lines on one side and six on the other. Since Spirit Pond is well south of the Viking “barrier”, the Inscription Stone has been declared a hoax, like the even more infamous Kensington Stone. But this classification has not deterred out-of-the-mainstream archaeologists from studying it. After all, the Viking “barrier” was once located in Greenland.”

To be continued.

Political Correctness Reigns–Even In Archaeology

by Al Benson Jr.

Several years ago when my wife and I were traveling in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas,  we stopped over for part of a day in Heavener, Oklahoma. There is a state park there that contains a very large rock with runic writing on it, carved there by Vikings or Norsemen, probably sometime in the 9th century. It is down in a canyon and is quite a sight.

I had been interested in this particular place because I felt, and still feel, that what passes for “prehistory” in America is yet one more subject we have been lied to about. If we understand that God created the world then there is no such thing as “prehistory.” The closest we might come to that is “recorded history” or “unrecorded history” but there is no time before history. However, in regard to what is considered “prehistory”, most professional archaeologists, and even many of the amateur archaeologists, which once I was one of, will admit to no white man being in America before Columbus. This was the tune I heard played often back during the 1950s as a young amateur archaeologist. However, shortly after that, a small Viking settlement was unearthed in Newfoundland and the archaeological world had to admit, reluctantly, that in this one instance they had been wrong. However, even today, they will admit to nothing else.

In my earlier years, I belonged to two amateur archaeological societies on the East Coast and I took part in “digs” with one of those groups for several seasons.  Although I have not done any of that for decades now, I never lost interest in it and we have visited several Indian ruins around the country over the years. Even today, I find myself looking at rocks and stones anyplace I happen to be where there are rocks and stones.

However, I guess I strayed from the paths of the archaeologically politically correct rather early. I started reading politically incorrect literature on this subject in the early 1960s, which enabled me to believe that there were all sorts of people here, contemporary to our American Indians at various times–Vikings, Celts, Egyptians, Phoenicians, even Chinese. These different groups, probably in relatively small numbers, co-existed or fought with our Indians at one point or another for thousands of years, and yet the professional “scientists” virtually ignore their presence and are unwilling to check out any evidence of their presence that goes against their politically correct preconceived biases.

Why is this seemingly remote subject even of interest, you might ask? Because it is yet one more glaring example of the suppressed history we are never told about, are never even supposed to hear about or be aware of–like the real truth about World War 2 or the War of Northern Aggression, or the Federal Reserve System, or any number of other things you could name. Our anti-Christian government (public) schools, at any level, will never touch any history that contains real truth.  So we were, and are,  all fed “cunningly devised fables” which are supposed to pass for history (Honest Abe the rail splitter and all that drivel).

When evidence of pre-Columbian European, or even Asian, occupation of America by anyone except American Indians is approached, it is most studiously ignored (the same treatment given Lincoln and his Marxist friends) or it is quickly labeled as a fake, or a forgery by our professional “historians” and others of their ilk. Unfortunately, there are some fakes and forgeries out there and they contribute to the problem and muddy the waters.

Yet there is evidence of other people besides Indians being here, scattered all across the country, and a fair bit of it found in North Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, much of it in those areas discovered by a lady named Gloria Farley, who spent over fifty years tramping all over the Southwest digging up and discovering such evidence. She amassed an amazing body of evidence of all manner of people being here from across the Atlantic before Columbus made the trip. Yet her work is ignored by the “professionals”–all in the interest of “science” of course.  Or could it possibly have had to do with protecting reputations? Wouldn’t be the first time such was done and I doubt it will be the last.

The year we stopped to view the Heavener Runestone, I was privileged to get to spend part of the afternoon with Mrs. Farley, who, at the time, was 84 years old. Like me, her time of climbing in and out of canyons had passed, but the interest and concern for the truth were still there. She has since passed away, but her work remains, much to the chagrin of professional archaeologists and their friends who work mightily to see it ignored.  Mrs. Farley told me when we talked, that professional archaeologists had really been nasty toward her. I can believe it. Anyone who dares to deviate from the politically correct “norm” will be in for rough sledding.

Before she passed away, Mrs. Farley had written a good-sized book called In Plain Sight dealing with much of what she found over the years, and much of it was in plain sight if people knew what to look for and were willing to look. Mrs. Farley’s book is still available from, although they are asking $80 for it. For anyone really interested, you might check out the Heavener Runestone State Park in Heavener, Oklahoma which is where I got my copy and when I bought it they were asking $37 for it. I don’t know what it would cost now, but it wouldn’t hurt to check with the state park in Heavener.

There have been several books published about this subject. For those interested, you might check out two by Barry Fell, Saga America and America B.C. I’ve read both and there is definitely food for thought there for those who have never thought in this area. As I am going to do at least one more article on this subject, I will list a few more books in the next installment. The two books by Barry Fell mentioned here are both available on

To be continued.

A Mouse, a Mouse—My Kingdom For a Mouse—the Sagebrush Rebellion Continues

By Al Benson Jr.

We’ve all heard about the federal officers in Nevada trampling on the rights of Cliven Bundy and his family and trying to steal his cattle, while at the same time roughing up members of his family. Who knows what wonders those federalized thugs may have performed had there not been a bit of opposition to them on hand to protect the Bundy family. That situation is far from over. The BLM may have backed off for now, but if they don’t come back some other group of federalized thugs will—when they figure there are not too many witnesses around.

There has also been an incident in Recapture Canyon in Utah, not far from Blanding, where a group of citizens protested what they felt were severe restrictions on the use of public land. My wife and I have been through Blanding on several occasions. There is a state park there called Edge of the Cedars that has part of an old Indian ruin in it. We’ve stopped there a couple times. It makes you wonder if the various states where there are Indian ruins wouldn’t be better off if the state cared for the ruins instead of the feds doing it—but that would mean the states would have to control and possess the land the ruins were on and the feds wouldn’t like that—too much decentralization involved.

Now we have yet another situation, this one in Otero County, New Mexico. According to an article on for May 12th, written by Valerie Richardson: “A New Mexico county board on Monday instructed the local sheriff to open the Forest Service gates blocking thirsty cattle from reaching water, setting up a clash with federal agents over state water rights and endangered species. The Otero County Commission voted 2-0, with one commissioner absent, to ‘immediately take steps to remove or open gates that are unlawfully denying citizens access to their private property rights.” The article noted that this situation comes while ranchers and others in many places in the West complain about what they describe as the federal government’s tightening control over public land. In the neighborhood of 52% of the land in Western states is owned by the federal government. In other words, over half of the West still belongs to the feds even after statehood has been given to all the states there. State sovereignty in the West is a myth, folks. Since many of these states came into the “glorious Union” either during or after the War of Northern Aggression, it would seem that the feds were not going to allow a situation where the states out there had any real rights in regard to secession or anything else. They were going to make sure they stayed in control and that the new Western states remained mere vassals of an overreaching federal Empire in Washington.
This is the way empire’s work—giving the illusion of “freedom” but denying the real article.

The situation in New Mexico became alarming to the ranchers in Otero County this year when Forest Service officials would not open gates that allowed cattle to reach a creek in the Lincoln National Forest. When asked about it, rangers stated that they are “…trying to protest the riparian area, which is considered habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.” Come June, this mouse is expected to be listed as an endangered species and this shutting down and listing would include something like 190 miles of “critical habitat in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico,…after a settlement with WildEarth Guardians in 2011.” So it seems like the feds are doing this because they had a “settlement” with this group. Did the group sue the federal government over the New Mexico jumping meadow mouse and the feds are doing their part by denying ranchers the right to water their cattle? Seems like this is the deal.

The ranchers argue that they own the water rights to the creek in Lincoln National Forest, and, according to New Mexico law they do. But since the creek is on “public” land they will be denied, even though they are part of the public. You see, with the feds, all of the public is equal but some, like these radical environmental groups, are more equal than others.

This group, WildEarth Guardians, has quite a track record. According to an article on for June 20, 2012 and written by Steffi Porter: “Between 2007 and 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services gave $680,492 in tax money to the Wild Earth Guardians, according to the testimony of congress members partaking in the hearing. They said that the Wild Earth Guardians sued U.S. Fish and Wildlife 76 times.” This particular article had to do with another “endangered species” the sand dune lizard in Texas. Anyway, it seems that this and other leftist environmental groups make big bucks suing the federal government over “endangered species” and to settle these lawsuits, the feds just start shutting down all kinds of land that local folks need to survive. But who cares about the local folks anyway? They are only ordinary people, and the feds would really like to have them off the land anyway.

It would be much easier for them to begin to implement Agenda 21’s “Rewilding Project” in the West if they could just get the people off the land so the UN could turn the American West (and other places too) into one vast animal reserve, off limits to ordinary folks, but usable for the ruling elite.

There’s a lot going on with the federal “War on the West” that we haven’t been told about. The ranchers haven’t been told about all this either. They are just the victims at this point, but they need to begin to start researching to find out what is really going on and putting the pieces together. Marxist “reconstruction” is alive and well in the West, just like it is in the South, the North, all over. This government has declared war on its people and it will wage that war any way it has to, no matter how many people are injured, ruined, or become “collateral damage.”

Louisiana’s Landrieu: “Getting Rid of Me Wouldn’t Be Good For the Country”

by Al Benson Jr.

A brief article recently appeared on dealing with a statement by Louisiana’s Senator Mary Landrieu where she said that getting rid of her would not be good for the country. You might almost be led to wonder, the way it was worded, if it was meant as a veiled threat.

According to the article: “Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) suggested yesterday that it would not be ‘good for the country and its future’ if she were beaten in the 2014 midterm elections because she is one of the few Senators left who tries to find ‘common ground and compromise’.”

Well, she’s right about the “compromise” part and has shown more than once that she is willing to compromise what the voters in Louisiana want if it goes against the grain of what the Obama Regime desires.  She has proven that she is an Obama clone just about all the way, and she proves it by the fact that she doesn’t even bother to answer letters from her constituents with positions she and Comrade Obama don’t agree with. Obama doesn’t want the Keystone Pipeline project to go forward, partly because it would benefit the South and the West–the two parts of the country that refused to vote for his foolishness. We’ll see where Landrieu comes down on that issue when the chips are down. Right now she claims to disagree with Obama. Let’s wait and see. And she can’t be seen agreeing with him on the Second Amendment because that would be the kiss of death in Louisiana, so she has to appear to disagree there. We’ll see.

However, when the health care debate (debacle) was going on in Congress, I wrote, more than once, both by letters and emails, to all my elected representatives in Louisiana asking that they please vote against this monstrosity. I got responses back from all of them, more than once, in answer to my communications–except Ms Landrieu. I never heard the first word back from her at any point. I could appreciate, given her liberal background, why she might disagree with me on this issue, but I would have thought courtesy would have at least dictated a reply of some kind from her. Guess I thought wrong.

The only time I finally heard anything from her was when she sent out a generic email to people here, telling us all that she had just voted for Obamacare and how wonderful it was going to be for Louisiana. So much for input from your constituents! But, then, when you already know ahead what you’re going to do and you know your constituents won’t like it, why trouble yourself with opposing opinions, right?

So, now Landrieu is concerned she might not make it in the midterm elections–and with her almost total disregard for what her constituents want–she shouldn’t.  I don’t know if she will be able to trick enough people in South Louisiana into voting for her if she promises enough goodies or not, but she hasn’t got a prayer in North Louisiana–if we have an honest election, and I think she knows it. So now we are being told it won’t be “good for the country” if she isn’t returned to office. Actually, I think it would be very good for both the country and Louisiana if she were requested to vacate her legislative premises.

And to top off this already dismal record, I recent read an article on entitled “Is your Congressman registered as a Paid Foreign Policy Lobbyist for Israel?” This informative article noted: “AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) channels millions of dollars in campaign contributions to candidates for federal office through a network of political action committees established throughout the United States by members of AIPAC’s national board of directors.” The article then went on to list campaign contributions to congresspersons in both major parties.

Turns out AIPAC contributed $291,609 to Mary Landrieu’s campaign. That’s a pretty hefty chunk of change. Why do you suppose an outfit like AIPAC was willing to contribute over a quarter of a million dollars to Ms. Landrieu?  They must have figured on getting something for their money. Outfits like AIPAC don’t just throw money around. If they contribute big money to someone’s campaign they expect something back. And with AIPAC, they expect pro-Israel votes in Congress for their money. So what does the Israel First lobby expect back from our august senator from South Louisiana? You’d have to ask the question–just whose interests is she really voting for with that kind of money involved–the interests of her constituents in Louisiana or the interests of someone in Tel Aviv? Enquiring minds would like to know–and don’t try to tell us that the interests of Louisiana and Israel are identical. Some Christian Zionists who should know better might buy that but no one else will.

No wonder Ms. Landrieu wants to stay in the Senate. If she gets voted down this time there won’t be anymore campaign contributions from  AIPAC will there? Just to be fair to Ms. Landrieu, there were some in Congress that got more AIPAC money than she did. Good old “Honest” John McCain got $750,368 from AIPAC, and Mitch McConnell got $415,710 from them. There were several in both House and Senate that pulled down hefty AIPAC checks, so it really makes you wonder in whose interests these people are casting some of their votes.

Through all this you have to realize one thing–those people don’t give a “Tinker’s Damn” (I know it’s spelled wrong) about the American people. They are here for the big bucks and the totalitarian ideology that Washington so loves, and we are here to pay their fat paychecks and to submit to their totalitarianism. As long as we are willing to do that, they couldn’t care less about our welfare.

So I am forced to disagree with Ms. Landrieu–getting rid of her by voting her out of office would be very good for the country–and good for the people of Louisiana–provided they don’t elect another one just like her.



“The Church of Global Warming”—Is it really the First Church of Lenin?

By Al Benson Jr.

Decades ago now, I remember when the first “Earth Day” was celebrated and all kinds of bogus “scientists” crawled out of the woodwork and from beneath various rocks and informed us that we would have to be regulated to death to “save the earth.” We would have to begin to give up life as we knew it, surrender the liberty to do this or that or to go here or there because we were just leaving too much of a carbon footprint on the earth’s surface, so we’d all have to learn to do with a little less freedom and a lot more regulation of our daily lives, surrendering our liberties to those benevolent dictatorships we refer to as governments for the good of the world. Oh, it all sounded so noble, so completely altruistic—and the first “Earth Day” just, by the sheerest of coincidences, happened to be celebrated on the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birthday. How amazing! Really? No, not amazing, it was all orchestrated that way and we have been living with this socialist blather ever since.

First, we were treated to the “Nuclear Winter” theory where, if we didn’t cease trying to use nuclear power we would destroy the world and be living in concrete caves we used to call apartments when we were still able to heat them. There were questions asked about the Soviet Union’s use of nuclear power. We were told not to be concerned about that, to just be concerned that we made sure we didn’t use too much or have enough nuclear capability to defend ourselves because if we couldn’t defend ourselves the Soviets would never attack us. They were much too honorable for that. Befuddled liberals actually believed this twaddle. But it never seemed to catch on all that much with other folks and so we had to have a new bugaboo to scare people with—global warming. This soon became the new theology in liberal land—cut those greenhouse gases, regulate industry out of business in this country. Get the United Nations involved—now there’s a winner!

It seemed, a few years ago, that the high priests of global warming were about to sweep their opponents off the battlefield—until all those emails from the research facility in Great Britain turned up that showed that the high priests there were, basically, “cooking the books” when it came to how dastardly global warming really was. Turned out that real science didn’t have as much to do with it as globalist (one world) theology did. After that, and one of the coldest winters on record, the Global Warming High Priests took a little sabbatical and we didn’t hear much from them for awhile. In the last year or so they’ve returned with a vengeance, surpassed only by Comrade Obama’s desire to pass whatever legislation they want.

At the end of April, an article by John Hayward, who writes for several conservative publications, appeared on in which Mr. Hayward plainly stated: “If the Church of Global Warming still had any real credibility, the bombshell revelations by Harvard professor Robert Stavins in an open letter published Friday would be devastating. As it is, the fanatics will probably scream that Stavins has become a Nazi-like ‘climate denier’ or tool of Big Oil or something.”

Hayward noted: “It was already known that the summary of the latest U.N. climate report was substantially edited by political interests. Very few media figures or politicians are going to read the full report—they generally make do with the summary. In this case the summary wasn’t merely ‘sexed up’ to fool gullible reporters and politicians; it actually directly contradicts the full U.N. report in places.’”

And Hayward continued: “Science was bludgeoned into submission with a hockey stick graph long ago; the Church of Global Warming is pure politics now. Climate change hysteria provides a perfect excuse for higher taxes and more regulations, combined with a pseudo-religious cause around which left-wingers can rally with a sense of supreme righteousness. They even feel confident in outlawing dissent, because if you try to debate the latest climate-change fatwa, you’re threatening the very survival of the Earth. Sure, every single one of their doomsday predictions has been wrong thus far, but we can’t take the chance they’ll be wrong with the next twenty predictions, so shut up and pay up.”

This thesis is backed up by George Will, who I don’t always agree with, but this time he has got it right. This time he really called it. In an article on Courtney Coren, on April 28th noted: “Conservative columnist George Will says global warming is just another way for liberals to get what liberals want: more government power. ‘Global warming is socialism by the back door’ Will told the Daily Caller. ‘I mean, the whole point of global warming is it is a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive power in independent czars and agencies, to micromanage the lives of the American people’.” Will also noted that one thing that makes global warming so hard to refute is that it “is essentially a religion.”

An article on quotes Dr. David Kear, former Director-General of New Zealand Scientific Research, who says that global warming, basically, “is NOT.” Dr. Kear has noted that “An innocent gas, CO2, has been demonized and criminalized…The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible” and he bemoans the “Astronomical cost of major measures to combat a non-existent threat.” In other words the government is prepared to spend more billions on programs that may make some of their corporate friends even more wealthy and average Americans even poorer, and according to Dr. Kear, it is all over a non-existent threat. So what else is new in Washington? George Will has got it right. It’s “back-door socialism” and it’s also lousy environmental theology posing as “science.” It’s past time we contacted our Congresspersons and told them flat out to vote against anymore of Obama’s environmental schemes that will enrich his friends and shaft the American public, no matter how good and necessary they are made to sound. It’s all hogwash, folks, and nothing more than a not-so-subtle excuse to redistribute your wealth to their buddies. Business as usual in Sodom on the Potomac.