Is The Fix In For The Republican Senate Run-off In Mississippi?

by Al Benson Jr.

That question might seem like an unseemly one to ask, but given the nature of today’s political system, I don’t feel it’s out of line at all. In fact, I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t ask it.

I just read an article on that had this headline: McDaniel Supporters Barred From Reviewing Voter Rolls in Nine Mississippi Counties  and this article was posted on June 27th by Jim Hoft.

Mississippi law says that the county clerk is required to allow public viewing “of the documentation from the election, including who voted.”  It would seem that the one unwritten exception to that is “except when workers for Chris McDaniel turn up and want to check the records to make sure it’s all on the up and up.” That unwritten exception seems to be in full force right now in Mississippi, as, according to the above listed website McDaniel supporters are being kept from reviewing voter records in nine Mississippi counties.

The article observed: “Lindsay Krout, a volunteer working in Mississippi, was barred from reviewing voter rolls in Lafayette County Mississippi Friday morning. Lindsay said when she went to the Lafayette County courthouse this morning (June 27th) and was forced to wait for an hour. Then the County Clerk told her the Secretary of State’s  office said the county had to redact the social security numbers and addresses from the voter rolls. The clerk said it will take until Wednesday to redact the information. And the county will charge McDaniel supporters for the extra work. Lindsay said McDaniel supporters in Lowndes County and Lauderdale County faced similar pushback from local officials.” The same game seems to be going on in Stone County, Marshall County, Quitman County, Forrest and Smith Countys.  And the Governor would like to certify the election on Monday. That way all those “loose ends” about who really won will be all neatly tied up and shoved down the memory hole and none of it will make any difference.

Whatever they plan on doing in Washington when Congress reconvenes they must need Thad Cochran’s vote for and they know they won’t have it if McDaniel is declared the winner because of vote fraud, which from what I have read, there seems to be quite a bit of in this election.

If they find evidence of vote fraud after the election has been certified, will it make any difference then, or will that just be swept under the electoral rug with the rest of the garbage? Mr. McDaniel says he has evidence of around 1000 votes in Hinds County where the voter voted twice. How many more are there in these nine counties where his workers are getting the bum’s rush because the County Clerks won’t let his workers check the voting records–at least until after the election is “certified.” Something smells rotten here, folks, and it ain’t all in the State of Denmark. Most of it is in the State of Mississippi–and you can’t even blame the Democrats for it. You have to blame the “conservative” (what a laugh) Republicans.

Don’t forget to check out some of those websites on the Internet that deal with Republican and Democratic involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations. I realize it will take time away from the ballgame, but you DO need to be aware of this.


In Mississippi Republican and Democratic Establishments are Identical

by Al Benson Jr.

For the Republican Party establishment it’s business as usual. All the blather about “fighting liberals” is just that–blather. When push comes to shove the Republican and Democratic Party establishments are in bed with one another and have been for decades. Each one scratches the other one’s back and what goes on in politics in this country today should be ample demonstration to fed-up voters that while the establishment gets the gold mine they get the shaft. As time goes on it becomes more and more apparent that many elections are nothing more than a farce that is gone through to fool the public while the ruling elite that controls both parties really decides who will get into office.

What the Republican establishment did to Ron Paul in 2012 should have been a wake-up call. Ron was the only Republican candidate with any integrity and that was the one reason they couldn’t let him get within a thousand miles of the White House. No honest man gets to be president anymore and it’s getting more and more obvious that not too many honest ones even get into Congress anymore. You’re a shoo-in if you are willing to sell your soul and play the game. Otherwise, forget it. Honest ain’t the best policy in Washington, subtlety and deceit are.

On June 3rd this year they had a Senate Primary in Mississippi. It was a nail biter. But Chris McDaniel, who was supported by the Tea Party folks ended up with about 49.6 % of the vote and Thad (play along to get along) Cochran, who has been in the Senate forever, ended up with something like 48.6 % of the vote. This insured a run-off election, since neither candidate got 50%. The run-off was held on June 24th and, guess what, Chris McDaniel, who some polls had said had an 8 point lead, lost to Mr. Cochran by 7,000 votes or thereabouts. I must say I wasn’t really surprised. I had hoped it would be different, but in my heart of hearts, knowing how the Republican establishment works, I felt this was how it would turn out. The Republican establishment wants Mr. Cochran back there because he is a sure vote in favor of whatever the Republican/Democratic establishment wants to push while Chris McDaniel isn’t.

In fact, one of the ways the Republican establishment got Cochran back into the running was to court Democratic votes, especially in liberal and black areas. Only problem is, it seems that some of these Democratic voters may already have voted in previous primaries, which would make their votes on this go-round ineligible. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the Republican establishment in Mississippi to complain about that. It seems that they are partly responsible for that happening in the first place.

McDaniel observed: “They say they’re going to fight the liberals in Washington, but they embraced the liberals in Mississippi just to win the election. It’s the worst style of politicking I can imagine.” In fact, the voting “irregularities were so egregious that the McDaniel campaign is looking into the possibility of whether a challenge is warranted. Personally, I hope the McDaniel campaign issues a challenge. Unfortunately, all I can say to Mr. McDaniel is “Welcome to the realities of Republican Party politics where hypocrisy runs amok and honesty is a rarely seen commodity.”

We need to remember that this is the party of Lincoln–this is the party that socialists and Marxists helped to found back in the late 1850s. This is the party that ran both Fremont and Lincoln as presidential candidates–both men about as far left as you can get. Those who think of the Republican Party as “conservative” or “patriotic” only know the history back as far as the 1940s and 50s, when the Party was trying to present a conservative image, they don’t know this history back to day one. In the 1800s the Republican Party was every bit as radical and leftist as the Democrats are today. In the middle of the 1900s they slid a little to the right in order to give the voting public something they could perceive as “conservative”–the perception being very illusory.

When push comes to shove, the Republican/Democratic establishment is really made up of ultra-liberals, with a few conservative Republicans paraded before the public as window dressing. However, the window dressing will never decorate the White House, but the RINO’s will.

If you’d like to do a little homework and research, check out on the Internet, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and look to see how many Republicans have been involved with those two groups over the decades. Read Gary Allen’s book None Dare Call it Conspiracy online. It’s there and you can read it for nothing. I’m not sure if it’s online or not, but check out Gary Allen’s other book The Rockefeller File. And check for a book called The Invisible Government  by Dan Smoot. That might be online also. All these will give you a definite idea as to who really runs things in this country and how both Republicans and Democrats are totally controlled by our unelected rulers.

So Chris McDaniel in Mississippi shouldn’t really be surprised. He got what most honest Republicans get from their party–a stick in the eye. Hopefully, he may be able to grasp what “his” party did to him if he can connect the dots and look back at what they did to Ron Paul in 2012.

Restoring Some Foundations

by Al Benson Jr.

In order to protect our future (if such is still possible) and to pass on to our grandchildren truth and accurate history, we must have an understanding of our past much beyond that which the “good old boys” of revisionist/humanist “history” will ever be willing to give us. Let us briefly examine a few truths that will never flow from the pens of James McPherson and his Cultural Marxist clique.

The War for Southern Independence was mainly theological in nature. It was partly cultural, but that was based on theology as all culture is based on theology. It was partly economic and partly political, but the theological issues were the main issues, even though “historians” today will never address that just as they are extremely reluctant to address the amount of Marxist penetration in the early Republican Party and in Lincoln’s armies. It’s almost as if they take the position that “what you don’t know can’t hurt us.”

However, a true understanding of history must subordinate other causes to the theological cause. In Webster’s 1828 Dictionary a confederacy is defined as a league or covenant. Even in Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary it is defined as a “league or compact” which is pretty close. Now “covenant” is a religious term, a biblical term. At its root, our “Civil” War was fought over the definition of that term “covenant.” The South saw that term in a biblical context and sought to revive (confoedus revivo) the old national covenent which the states made when they created a very limited federal government.

The North held an opposing view. Many of them, like “Honest Abe” thought the “Union” was something perpetual, that it had even existed before the states. They, therefore, took the view of Thomas Hobbs that, basically, the king (government) had the absolute right to do whatever it wished, something like what we have in Washington today. Contrary to what he might admit to publicly, that was the position adhered to by the railsplitter/lobbyist from Illinois.

Webster’s Dictionary also defined the United States by stating that the United States ARE a confederacy.  Webster used the plural term, which was and is correct. That was the term predominantly in use until the railsplitter/lobbyist began saying “The United States is a great nation.” Abe’s emphasis was always, ever, on centralism (expressed in bad grammar) and not on truth. That’s why the Marxists loved him. He was a kindred collectivist spirit.

The North, due to its shifting theologies, Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, deism, spiritualism, socialism, and eventually Arminianism, saw the concept of “covenant” in an unbiblical context.  As the War geared up, in terms of becoming long and protracted, the North thought more in terms of a bloody apocalypse that was necessary to cleanse the land of the “evil” of slavery.

Unitarianism and deism were the driving forces in the North promoting this view. Julia Ward Howe, in her Unitarian-inspired “Battle Hymn of the Republic” which is in many Christian hymnals and doesn’t belong there, saw the Yankee/Marxist armies slicing up the evil serpent of the South with their “terrible swift sword!” You can talk about your economics and all the rest all you want, but that kind of Northern mindset reflected a distinctly anti-Christian Northern theology.

There were, to be sure, sincere evangelical Christians in the North.  But, in the main, they no longer thought covenantally as did most Reformed Scots-Irish Christians in the South. The influence of radical Arminians  like Charles Finney had infected many of them in terms of thinking only individually rather than in terms of the continuity of the Faith over a period of generations. Everything revolved around their individual salvation and nothing before they came along seemed relevant to their lives. Now I’m not saying that folks shouldn’t be saved. What I’m saying is that this needs to be in the context of a church. The Arminian concepts of extreme free will and “free moral agency” had permeated Northern Christianity, leading many to believe that they actually had a hand in their own salvation. They lost their historical frame of reference and could only think in terms of “here and now.”

Most Southerners did not just go mindlessly to defend their country and region. They were no more jingoistic than anyone else. The Southern clergy supported the Confederate war effort only so long as they felt their country was about doing the Lord’s will. There was notable Christian revival in the Southern armies–indeed the Confederate army may well have been the last Christian army on the face of the earth. It has been compared, in that regard, to Oliver Cromwell’s army by some historians.

It has been reported by some that, in the Union armies, chaplains gave out both evangelical and Unitarian-oriented material to troops. Many in the Union identified their invasion of the South as bringing in the Kingdom of God. This myth has carried forward even to our day. If you happen to have viewed the Ted Turner video Gettysburg and watched carefully, you were probably able to pick out strains of this in the dialogue of the Northern soldiers. It’s subtle, but it’s there.

The driving force in the destruction of any Christian culture has always been envy. What depraved and fallen human nature can not imitate it sets out to destroy. Look at the wanton destruction that the Northern armies perpetrated on the South, much of it needless. Churches were burned and desecrated and libraries and schools were destroyed. Most of it was needless. You have to admit that the Marxists in many of the Union armies destroyed Southern property because they hated the idea of private property, which is also a biblical concept.

Lincoln had a radical view of the nature of true union, as previously mentioned, and as Donnie Kennedy and I noted in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. His was not a biblically-based view, but rather one that was totally man-centered. In his efforts to promote his peculiar view of the Union, the railspllitter/lobbyist from Illinois took pains to superimpose his view back onto previous history.  Therefore, history had to be redefined so as to conform to the man-centered Northern viewpoint. This is still being done in our day, with secular saints such as James McPherson and Ken Burns frantically running to and fro striving to instill in future generations the liberal myth that the “Civil War” was totally fought over slavery and nothing else. They are so persistent in their efforts it almost seems that they, somehow, realize their time is short. However, God will always vindicate His truth. “Deo Vindice.”

Why Marxists Can’t Govern

by Al Benson Jr.

In his book Law and Liberty the late R. J. Rushdoony had a chapter entitled The flight from life. It was about people who, unable to deal with the world as it really is, escape into flight of unrealistic fantasy, and this is what they build their lives on.

He mentioned perpetual students at universities that are ever studying but never quite able to get it all together enough to graduate and get out into the real world to work for a living.

He also mentioned Marxists, which might surprise some folks, but it really shouldn’t. Rushdoony made a cogent statement about Marx, himself, when he said: “Marx had a religious belief in the power of revolution to create a paradise on earth. The result of the destruction of the old order would be the birth of a new order.” A “New World Order?” Actually, yes, which is what today’s well-dressed Marxists have opted to call what they are trying to do (to us).

But, in spite of all the chaos and misery they have created (and still plan to create) the Marxists have failed. This is the one thing they are good at (failing) besides making life miserable for those they rule. In their vain attempt to escape reality, the Marxists may even think they are “helping” people because, after all, who could fail to be helped by their gentle ministrations–and for those that dare to refuse their help there is always the machine gun mowing down the “counter-revolutionaries”  lined up against the wall.

Rev. Rushdoony made a telling point when he said: “The root cause of the failure of the Marxist dream is that it represents a flight from reality. Marxism denies the biblical doctrine of original sin. Instead of dealing realistically with man as sinner,it holds to the neutral or even good nature of man everywhere. He lives under the illusion that his Marxist dream represents inevitable historical truth instead of error. As a result his mental perspective is no different than that of the insane;…as a consequence his government can produce only chaos and destruction;…” He is much like some of the politicians in this country who continue to pursue foolish economic policies like “stimulus packages” believing  that the results will be different this time than they were the last two times. They never are–so what’s the solution–another stimulus package. The fact that these all handsomely reward their friends has absolutely nothing to do with it–so they tell us. So the Marxists deny the biblical truth of original sin. This truth was also anathema to those children of the Enlightenment that gave us the French Revolution. And look what wonders they wrought in their improvement of the world–18th century terrorism and the guillotine! How can we fail to appreciate such great contributions to humanity?

And partly because of their flat denial of biblical truth the Marxists lack the ability to govern. Oh, they can rule alright, by fear and intimidation, they do a splendid job at that, but they are unable to govern. Look at all those countries in Africa that had previously been colonies of the European countries. Turned loose to do their own thing they, almost without exception, became one-party Marxist states as well as economic basket cases. Rhodesia is a perfect example. It used to be a country with a good living standard that actually exported food to other places. Now that the Marxists have taken over they can’t even feed themselves. Of course their policy of confiscating the land of productive white farmers and turning it over to lazy black Marxists who will not farm doesn’t help them too much. It’s yet another example of the Marxist’s flight from reality. And how much foreign aid over the decades did the West have to pour into the Soviet Union to continue to prop it up? Marxism doesn’t work, folks, it never has and never will.

How can you expect an “economic” system (really a  religious system) to work when one of its founders (Karl Marx) was so lazy he couldn’t even take the trouble to feed his family? He was so busy making the world safe for violent revolution that he didn’t have time or energy to help to put bread on his family’s table. Had it not been for his friend Engels, a spoiled, rich capitalist, no doubt Marx and his family would have starved. What a shining example for the world!

Actually, Marxism is more religious than economic because what the Marxist really wants to do is to replace God with himself. Rushdoony has observed that: “In effect, what the advocates of this socialist world demand is the right to become gods and rule over all other men.”

Unfortunately, there are many in our churches that, not having a true understanding of real history, nor a clue as to what Marxism is really all about, are all too willing to let them do that. They have no idea as to the true agenda of the Marxists and so they embrace both them and their Marxist tenets in the name of “love.”

Those in the church that understand where Marxism really comes from need to stand up and oppose and expose it for what it really is to their sleeping brethren. The Lord is in control, but He usually exercises that control through His people, and right now, they’re not much interested in the exercise. Another “Egyptian captivity” might be in view unless they start to wake up.

In 1860 It Was Really Cultural Marxism

By Al Benson Jr.

In our day many of us have become aware of the prevalence of something called “Cultural Marxism.” We have a vague idea of what that means and we realize it is something that is not good, for this country or any country—and we are not the only ones who have imbibed it. Yet many do not really realize how it works to destabilize a society.

Recently, I read an interesting book called Saints and Scoundrels, written by Robin Phillips and published by Canon Press in Moscow, Idaho. Starting on page 272, Mr. Phillips gives as good a critique on Cultural Marxism and how it works as anything I have seen anywhere. It’s written in layman’s terms, not difficult to understand, and I believe he wrote it that way on purpose. John Q. Average, reading this, will be able to grasp how Cultural Marxism is affecting our society and culture today. If this book ever gets any kind of following in our day I can just imagine the response of the church-at-large. That response will be “The Lord’s in control, so don’t worry about any of this stuff.”

In dealing with Cultural Marxism, Mr. Phillips naturally had to deal with Antonio Gramsci, who, unfortunately for the world, was two steps ahead of some of his communist predecessors in the promotion of their evil ideology. Gramsci understood what they did not—that you had to insert your Marxist ideology into contemporary society not by means of economics, but by means of culture. Phlillips noted: “The real way to accomplish the Marxist revolution, therefore, was not first through economic adjustments, but cultural and institutional change. What was needed in particular was to undermine the institutional hegemonies rooted in years of civil and ecclesial ideologies. This involved an attack on the very root of Western civilization: Christianity itself…More crucially, Christianity attached importance to transcendent truths and values, in direct opposition to Marxism’s insistence that everything valuable in life can be attained by tinkering with man’s external environment.”

And Phillips also duly observed that: “What this meant in practice was that power did not rest only with those who controlled the means of production; rather it depended on those that controlled the institutions and disciplines of culture, including philosophy, politics, art, literature, media, religion, and most importantly, the educational systems from elementary school to university.” Look at what Mr. Phillips has told us and you will begin to be able to gauge just how successful Cultural Marxism has been in our day.

As the advocates of Cultural Marxism gained positions of influence in all these disciplines they began to exert their influence. This is not something new, folks, this has been going on for decades while most of the church slept on in total ignorance. Unfortunately, most of the church is still willing to sleep on in ignorance. They don’t know and they don’t want to know—just give me that “pie in the sky by and by” and that’s all I care about. Dare I say that we will live to regret our spiritual indolence? No doubt if I say that, someone will accuse me of being too “negative.”

That being the case, I might as well go all the way and make the connection with Cultural Marxism and what went on in this country in the 1860s. That was Cultural Marxism, too, only we just didn’t call it that yet. Gramsci hadn’t come along to annunciate just how the Marxists should insert themselves into our culture yet, but many of them were doing it anyway. You will get a good estimate of how they were doing it by reading Lincoln’s Marxists, written by Donnie Kennedy and myself. We deal quite a bit with how Cultural Marxism operated in this country from 1860 onward. Many of the infamous “forty-eighters” from Europe, when they got here, insinuated themselves into the fields of journalism, education, trade unionism, the military, and politics. Whether they appreciated fully the implications of what Gramsci would promote in later years or not, they were out to influence the people in this country toward a socialist worldview and they worked at it, again, while the church slept.

You might say that the “forty-eighters” that came here after 1848 were pretty much responsible for the first major wave of Cultural Marxism to hit this country, and their efforts bore fruit right into the early 1900s. Gramsci’s ideas, forwarded in this country by the Frankfurt School people who came here in the 1930s carried on after that.

For anyone wanting a little background on the Frankfurt School, I did four articles that dealt with those people in 2012 on this blog spot. Please go back and check the articles for 1/31/12, 2/2/12, 2/4/12, and 2/7/12. These deal largely with the impact of Cultural Marxism on American education, an impact that has, if anything, been strengthened and increased in recent years.

The Textbook Protest situation in West Virginia in the mid-1970s was an exercise in Cultural Marxism, although most of us who were involved in protesting the rotten books did not realize that at the time. The textbooks put forth by the school board in Kanawha County, West Virginia, against the protests of Mrs. Alice Moore and the protest leaders, were designed to water down the influence of parents and churches and to make the kids question what their parents and churches had taught them and to doubt it, replacing those eternal values with something much less desirable, even vulgar. That’s how Cultural Marxism works. The fact that the proponents of Cultural Marxism (and some of them may not even realize what they are, though some do) blew it in their initial attempt in Kanawha County did not keep them from coming right back and “keepin’ on truckin’” with their insidious agenda. These people can’t stop—they have a Christian culture to destroy—and they hope to do it before the church wakes up!

Christians and other patriotic folks have got to get it through their heads that the Marxists don’t quit, not ever. If this or that doesn’t work and they get slammed, all you have won is one battle, not the whole war. Who knows, if the church could bring itself to awake from its spiritual sloth, we might even win this war, but to do that, we have to get into the fight. And we’ll never do that as long as we have been programmed to believe that as long as the Lord is in control, (which He is) we don’t need to do anything.

I remember the bumper sticker that an evangelist talked about having on the front of his vehicle years ago which said “God so loved the world that He DID SOMETHING!” Maybe there’s a lesson for us in that thought.


Confederate Flag In Citadel Chapel Has To Go Or NAACP Will “Intervene”

by Al Benson Jr.

By now most of you have probably read about the big fuss over the Confederate Navel Jack that has been hanging in the Summerall Chapel at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. It’s been hanging there for several years, with never a problem, until Charleston councilman Henry Darby decided it had to come down.

Supposedly, Mr. Darby was approached several months ago by two of his constituents who were concerned about a Confederate flag hanging in the chapel at the Citadel. It seems that neither Mr. Darby nor his constituents feel that flag should be in a chapel. Why in Heaven’s name not? It is, after all, with its Cross of St. Andrew, a Christian flag.

But, we have the usual “reasons” thrown out there–well you know it’s “racist” and all that, and after all the KKK carried it in parades, and so on and so forth. The KKK carried the US flag in lots more big parades than they ever carried the Confederate flag in, so, by this reasoning, we should also ban the US flag, right? Well, not quite. We have to be selective in what we ban. In other words, if it represents Southern heritage and culture, then let’s get rid of it. All else gets an automatic pass.

Turns out that the state’s attorney general has stated that the Confederate flag in the chapel is protected under state law, in its present location, by the Heritage Act, as a “monument or memorial erected on public property of the state.” The attorney general has ruled as much.

Mr. Darby had proposed cutting $975,000 from the money given to the Citadel to help pay for the restoration of their sports stadium.  Looks like with the attorney general’s ruling in favor of the flag, the Citadel will get that money.

Darby said he was afraid this would happen, and so he said if it did, he would then be forced to ask the South Carolina division of the NAACP to step in.  The NAACP has had its long nose wrapped around the Confederate flag in South Carolina for over a decade now. It hasn’t, thankfully, done them as much good as they hoped it would, but it seems that they just don’t know how to quit. There may be a lesson there for Southern Heritage activists and other patriots. Too often some of us tuck tail and run after the first time we lose a skirmish. The Left doesn’t. If they lose they just keep on keeping on until they wear down their opposition.

Mr. Darby claimed he didn’t want the Confederate flag totally taken down, just moved out of the chapel and into a museum. The question then should be asked–how long will it remain in the “museum” before someone comes along and complains about seeing it there? Then those ethnocentrists who hate the flag will say “We don’t want you to get rid of it, just put it down in the basement where no one is forced to see it.” This is the same game they played with the Confederate flag over the State House–just get it down where no one can see it. So it came off the flagpole atop the State House and was put on a much lower flag pole elsewhere, which the complainers agreed do, and after awhile they complained about the new location too. What they really want is for all Confederate flags to come down everywhere, but they are willing to take a Fabian approach with that and do it gradually because they count on our short memories.

At some point, you are forced to ask the question–who are the real “racists”? Seems to be that those who are not willing to let others display the symbols of their culture and heritage, but want them all removed, are much more “racist” than those who don’t. But let’s don’t kid ourselves. This is nothing more than Cultural Marxism being used to attack the South and its heritage and it’s long past time that we started to fight back.

Some Thoughts On Education

by Al Benson Jr.

Looking at our past and present situation in America we can say with some certainty that what was or is good in what is left of this republic is solely the result of the Christian Gospel, Christian education, and a Christian worldview. Some, not wanting to appear “religious” may dispute that statement, but a correct study of American history will only prove the point.

For anyone wanting evidence of this I would recommend Rev. Steve Wilkins American history lectures entitled America the First 350 Years which is available on MP3. I have listened to Rev. Wilkins’ series three or four times over the years and the bibliography of books he gives to support his thesis is impressive.

Also, we have been informed (falsely so) by many “historians” who seek to convey the impression that the public school played a key role in the shaping of our national character in our early days. Many supposedly knowledgeable conservatives  have fallen for this line and I have heard it parroted in many quarters by people who ought to know better.

In actuality, the more public education gained a serious foothold in this country the more God was left out. As this trend continued, more noticeably in recent years, there was no place to turn for a remedy except to Christian education, both in Christian schools and at home (home schooling). The public education Leviathan, in its march toward complete de-christianization  and collectivization of American society,  was and is not about to be reformed from that which it was created to accomplish. A good book to read on this subject is R. J. Rushdoony’s The Messianic Character of American Education.

Zach Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, wrote a book published way back in 1886 called The School Question. The book contained Montgomery’s views on public education based on a study he had done. From his statistical study Montgomery proved that there was a definite link between the rise of “statist education” (public schools) and the rise in delinquency, suicide, and criminality.

From this, and other research that has been done since, as well as from Marxist penetration of the public school system over many years, we must conclude that TRUE education is a personal and religious responsibility. True education cannot be rightly delegated by Christians to the state.

How can true education in the biblical context take place in a “public” institution, many of whose educators are dedicated to antibiblical  presuppositions? If you think such a question is absurd, take a look at the number of educators in leading universities that signed the Humanist Manifesto. Take a good look at the ten points of the Communist Manifesto, where Marx advocated “Free education for all children in public schools…” The anti-Christ philosophy of such men, along with the Unitarianism of Horace Mann, is what has shaped “our” public school system. So we must ask–when will Christian parents, if ever, get around to asking themselves–how can my children be truly educated in an environment that is hostile to the faith I profess? Already knowing the answer, many just ignore the question. It’s easier that way.

Many Christians who continue to expose their children to the public schools (and then wonder why they have trouble with them) have come up with the fatuous notion that they can keep their kids in public schools to teach them to “critique the culture” around them. In other words, the kids are supposed to study the public school culture around them and pick out what’s good and what’s bad. Honestly now, can you just picture the average 7 or 8-year old busily critiquing  the culture in his or her public school? In all too many cases this faulty rationale has become a subtle cop-out for the Christian parent who does not want to shoulder the responsibility for the Christian education of his children! Does that sound hard?  If it does, then maybe parents ought to start checking out where they are in this critical area. The future of their kids might depend on it.

In the opinion of many, the only TRUE education is privately supported Christian education. Education that is not God-centered simply misses the mark. Therefore it is not education in the true sense of that word, or we might label it miseducation. Biblically speaking, education should be in the private sphere. The state doesn’t belong, even though they have usurped the prerogative.

And a final thought I hope you will prayerfully consider–Christian education, if it is truly Christian, should impart the concept of God-given liberty and self-government.

The true role of public education is to condition children (and their parents) to accept their manipulation by the state. Public education is an experiment (with your kids as the guinea pigs) in STATE SOCIALISM. It will ever end up lowering standards morally, intellectually, socially, and in just about any way you care to name. What has gone on in public schools in just the past few recent years should convince people of that even if they haven’t read any of the history, and if you’ve read the history, then it’s hard to argue with.

Many look at the direction this country is headed in and hold their noses, and rightfully so. The sewer awaits America unless we reverse direction. The place we need to start reversing direction is in how we educate our kids. Pray about it, because it is vitally important for the next generation–and then take your kids and secede from the public school system. You can’t reform it, but you can get your kids out of it.

What Other Problem Does the Bergdahl Debacle Cover Up?

by Al Benson Jr.

By now everyone in the country who can read and even some who can’t, have heard about Comrade Obama’s infamous horse trade where he garnered for this country one probable deserter to the Taliban in return for five of the worse terrorists at Guantanamo. Such a deal he made, and, as usual, someone else got the goldmine and America got the shaft. That’s usually what happens with Obama’s “deals.” You have to conclude that he does this stuff on purpose because if it were accidental then he’d make a mistake in America’s favor once in awhile, and that never happens.

Bergdahl is truly an unknown quantity–what else would Obama give us? A real US fighting man would have been left to rot. And let’s don’t kid ourselves. All this heroic blather about “no fighting men left behind” is unmitigated hogwash. You can find cases all the way back to World War 2 where Americans have been “left behind.” This government doesn’t care and, quite frankly, when they tell you they do, it is, shall we say, a slight prevarication. So Obama’s Marxist administration has traded five top terrorists for one man who has been called a deserter by many of the men he served alongside–and you know what this administration says? All those soldiers are liars–that’s what they say. You have to wonder if, when they are through serving and come home, these men who called Bergdahl a deserter will all be labeled as “potential terrorists.” After all, Obama labels anyone disagreeing with his Marxist agenda as a potential terrorist, so why not these guys unless they relent.

If Obama was willing to turn five of the worst that Guantanamo has to offer loose, then you have to ask, why are we putting these guys in there to begin with? So more of them can be traded for deserters we don’t yet know about? There has been a big fuss over this deal, and rightfully so. But it’s so typical of this Marxist administration that it should really surprise no one. Everything Obama does plays to the Hard Left. When he has to nominate a federal judge or a cabinet member or whatever, he invariably picks someone that is far to the left of Fidel Castro. Some of them are so far to the left even the Senate is forced to turn them down, at which point Obama nominates someone not quite as far to the left and the Senate accepts that nomination. This is an old game and it has been played for as long as I have watched the political scene. So the Bergdahl deal is nothing new.

According to one Republican (RINO) pundit, the White House is in panic mode over the fallout from this deal. We’ll see. In an article on talk show host Joe Scarborough made the statement: “This is the strangest thing I have ever seen coming out of a White House. I mean this is so monumentally bad. There has to be something else behind the scenes.” I’m surprised that statement even made it into the article. But it’s a good statement and it deserves, maybe, just a little investigation.

There is such an odor to this caper that even Bergdahl’s  home town in Idaho has cancelled a homecoming celebration because of the possibility that people on both sides of this question might show up and they would have a riot on their hands. I’d say cancellation at this point was a wise move.

A friend in Florida, just today, emailed me and asked the question–what is all the fuss over the Bergdahl situation being used as a diversion for? He’s asked the same question that Mr. Scarborough did. So what might be going on that the  commissars in Washington want to divert our attention from–a newly sped-up agenda for declaring martial law? We won’t know until it happens, but you can bet nothing in Washington happens by accident.

My friend, David Sauls, in Georgia has an article up on dealing with this horse trade which I would recommend to those reading this article. Of one thing you can be sure, this administration is at war with the American people and they are not about to give us the straight dope on anything.


Hear Anything About the “Grass March”?

By Al Benson Jr.

The “Sagebrush Rebellion” continues in the Far West, but you are not hearing much about it around the rest of the country now. The BLM got a national black eye over the Cliven Bundy situation in April and so, almost as if by agreement, the “news” media seems to have backed off so they can do what they want with no media coverage, or as little as they can get by with. Should we expect anything else? The last thing the media is about is real news. They avoid it like the plague. The media is all about propaganda and spin. Real news doesn’t even enter into their equation.

A friend in Nevada sent me a clipping from the Las Vegas Review for May 18th. It was an article written by Sherman Frederick called A righteous protest of BLM. Mr. Frederick wrote about an event called the “Grass March” which was to take place on Memorial Day weekend in Nevada.

Mr. Frederick wrote: “Now comes the ‘Grass March’ from a group of Nevada ranchers looking to take their plight to the range of Northern Nevada in the form of a 70-mile horseback journey from Elko to Battle Mountain. The march will be a public protest highlighting the plight of ranchers under the yoke of federal oppression. It’s a smart move on the part of Westerners, especially in the aftermath of the confrontation between the BLM and Cliven Bundy in Bunkerville…But the cowboys in Elko, Ely, Eureka and Battle Mountain have a better idea. To draw attention to how the BLM has run roughshod over sane management of public lands, they will protest by riding horseback over public grasslands between Elko and Battle Mountain over Memorial Day weekend. Hopefully, Nevada’s newspapers and the nation’s large newspapers and television stations will come along and tell the story. Ranchers in 2014 are to the BLM what the people of India were to the British Empire in the 1930s—a subjugated people forced to live by the whims of a government that neither understands the people nor cares about the land.”

It was a good idea, but I don’t recall hearing much of anything about it over the Memorial Day weekend where I am in North Louisiana. Most of the papers that carried anything about it at all were small local papers in Nevada, although the Kansas City Star did carry an article and papers in Houston and Seattle had articles, but there was nothing of what I would call national coverage. Anything that would have made the BLM look bad or told the truth about how they bullied ranchers was to be avoided by the media. Now had a few militia members showed up to ride with the cowboys the “news” media would have crawled out from under their collectivist rocks and showed up in droves, and you can just imagine the headlines there would have been—“Extremist, Right-wing Militia Rides with Cowboys to Denigrate the BLM.” That’s how the “news” game is played in this country nowadays.

As you take a look at this whole game (and it is a game, the intent of which is to push ranchers and farmers off the land so the government can more effectively “manage” it) you find that there is a pattern to all of this BLM “concern” for the land.

There was an article in Imprimis, which is published by Hillsdale College, in April, 2014. It was written by William Perry Pendley, President of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Mr. Pendley’s article was quite straightforward. He wrote: “…the Obama administration has picked up where the Carter and Clinton administrations left off, adopting the no-use policies promoted by environmental groups who view all federal lands as off limits to productive human activity. A typical way these policies get implemented is for environmental interest groups to sue a government agency under either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and for the agency then to settle the lawsuit in the interest group’s favor.” So the radical environmental groups and the government agencies work hand in glove to get what they want—ordinary people off the land so it can be locked up. Mr. Pendly mentioned a group I have referred to before as being active in this landlocking game, Wild Earth Guardians. This group has attempted to restrict land use for agriculture, gas and oil drilling and wind farms in a five state area—Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas because of certain areas inhabited by the lesser prairie chicken. All of this restricts use of the land by ranchers, oil and gas drillers and others. If the use of this land will, in any way, help the economic outlook for ordinary folks then that use must be suppressed. What else would you expect from a government at war with its own people? This is one reason they will try to delay work on the Keystone Pipeline project. That project will help people in the South and West, the most independent parts of the country, the people that voted against Obama’s Marxist policies. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to proceed. It must be stopped, delayed, or, if possible, shut down so that’s what they will do.

An article on pretty well spells out what’s going on. It states: “President Obama this past week announced the creation of a national monument in southern New Mexico—the 500,000 acre Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, which contains hiking trails, Native American ruins and Outlaw Rock, where Billy the Kid inscribed his name…Obama’s action looks suspiciously like an opening round in a bid to carry out a plan—first outlined in a secret Bureau of Land Management memo in 2010—that would lock up an area about the size of Colorado and Wyoming combined or about half of the BLM’s 264 million acres..The Congressional Western Caucus released a copy of the 2010 memo—which is headed ‘Internal Draft—NOT FOR RELEASE’ and labeled ‘Treasured Landscapes.’ The memo lists more than two dozen specific areas from which the BLM seeks to lock out most human activity. Three of those are in Nevada…The Western Caucus described the 2010 memo as a plan to grab millions of acres of Western land: ‘The President is going down the list, and sealing off vast swaths of the West on behalf of his special interest allies, who view our states as their personal playground.” That about says it all—their personal playground—and in order for them to enjoy it and to reap the financial benefits from it, ordinary folks, ranchers, farmers, and others, need to be removed.

Again, I have to ask, how much of this is tied into the United Nations Agenda 21 Program and Agenda 21’s “Rewilding Project” whereby most of the land is set aside for the animals and humans are reduced to living in sardine can-sized “apartments” and crowded together in huge megacities which they are not allowed to travel outside of? I’d be willing to bet there is, at least, an eventual connection to all of this with Agenda 21.

You can’t honestly tell me that Obama is concerned about all this natural habitat for animals. I doubt if he even knows where New Mexico or Oklahoma are situated. Although he does claim that he’s been in all 57 states!

Can anyone spell LAND GRAB?