Is “Pressure From Above and Pressure From Below” Operative in Ferguson?

by Al Benson Jr.

Many of my readers will recall that I did an article awhile back in which I noted a program many call “pressure from above and pressure from below.” It’s basically a situation where the ruling elite want more power or have some agenda to pursue which will give them more power and restrict our liberty and so they use this operation–they find a way to use the radicals, arsonists, etc. at the street level to rob, loot, and burn so that the ordinary citizens are scared out of their wits over what is happening, much like what is now going on in Ferguson. In trying to find a way to keep themselves and their families safe they go to the ruling authorities and ask for protection. And the authorities are more than willing, after awhile, to grant them this protection–all it will cost them to be safe is a little of their freedom.

So the people that instigated the problem in the first place now come up with the magic “solution” to the problem–for safer streets, less freedom.

I’ve been watching what’s going on in Ferguson and you can see from the photos available, the looters for “justice” running around with their pants down halfway to their knees (I wonder if anyone has ever told them how ludicrous they look) as they loot and burn “for justice”. I heard that the church Michael Brown’s family attended was burned, but not to worry, they blamed that one on “white supremacists.” Can you imagine any “white supremacists” running around now in Ferguson with all those black looters all over the place? Honestly!

Ferguson is the classic “pressure from above and pressure from below” situation and the result will be loss of liberty for those in Ferguson as well as loss of property.

You almost have to wonder if this situation, if it can be magnified, could be used as a reason to justify martial law, not only in Ferguson but also around the country, which would naturally engender the call from the feds for gun confiscation. They’ve never given up on that one even though you haven’t heard much about it of late. It’s still a main part of their agenda and if you think even with a Republican Congress with Obama in the White House that would change then you are prone to delusion. If a Republican Congress balked, Obama would just issue another “executive order” and while Congress mulled over how to respond, Obama would just start gun confiscation.

I’ve said in several recent articles that when different branches of government work in collusion to usurp our liberties than constitutional checks and balances just do not work.

With people like “Rev.” Sharpton and Comrade Eric Holder spending time in Ferguson how much of an interest do you think the feds have in what goes on there?

When I did my previous article on pressure from above and pressure from below I noted comments from a book called “The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary” where the author, a college radical, talked about the leftist radicals being offered :”Rockefeller money” to make certain people look like they were politically in the center while they actually moved to the left.  The radicals could do that if they acted radical enough and caused enough problems–and it was all a bought and paid for act. Keep your eyes on Ferguson and see if we end up with more of the same.


A Decision In Ferguson

by Al Benson Jr.

Just about an hour ago the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri reached their decision in the Michael Brown case and it would seem that, for once, a grand jury decided the right way. The police officer, Darren Wilson, will not be indicted for any of the degrees of murder or manslaughter that were definite possibilities.

Naturally, the crowd wasn’t really ecstatic about this decision as many of them probably wanted the police officer lynched, one way or another, for the shooting. But it seemed like the grand jury had been pretty thorough in their evaluation of what took place and there were even black witnesses that testified that it happened the way the police officer said it did and not the way other witnesses had previously testified it did.

Naturally you had the usual race-baiters from Comrade Obama and “Rev.” Al Sharpton putting in their gentle jabs to encourage civil unrest, but, hey, that’s what they get paid for so could you expect anything else?

Whether there will be anymore rioting and chaos or not remains to be seen, and it may well depend on whether the potential agent-provocateurs there are instructed to start any trouble or not. We will have to stay tuned.

I saw an article on the Internet just this afternoon that mentioned an altercation between Michael Brown’s mother and grandmother having to do with the sale of material that would promote Michael Brown’s cause. Seems the grandmother was selling this stuff and the mother got after her for doing it, telling her she had no business doing it. Guess the “news” media sort of missed that one. Thank Heaven for the alternative media. If not for it the American public would know nothing about anything. The alternative media has been a real thorn in the side of the shadow government that really runs this country–the CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberg triad that controls both major political parties and the Washington establishment. No, I guess I should say that differently–they ARE the Washington establishment.

Part of their agenda is to promote division among the races in this country to the point that they will be at each other’s throats and therefore not be paying any attention to what the establishment is doing to all of them until it’s too late.

No one argues against the fact that there is police brutality in this country, and the Homeland Security’s militarization of local police has contributed to that. Where police officers genuinely treat people with brutality they should be brought to justice for it. But let’s not blame every officer who is out there just doing his job because the person he happens to arrest is of a difference race. I have often wondered how much fuss there would have been in Ferguson if the victim had been white and the police officer black. I’d be willing to bet there would have been no fuss whatever and it would have been ignored just like the intimidation of white voters in Philadelphia by Black Panthers was ignored.

Let’s hope the cooler heads in Ferguson will prevail and the race-baiters there, finding no fertile ground to tear up, will go back and crawl under their collectivist rocks.

No Gringos Need To Watch Obama’s Speech

by Al Benson Jr.

Well, Comrade Obama, the Washington Caudillo, has given his speech on how he plans to usurp the authority of Congress to allow 5 million illegal immigrants to stay in this country. It was full of flowery phrases about how he plans to only allow the brightest  and the   best of the illegal immigrants to stay, the ones that are prone to being future entrepreneurs and that will be major contributors to our society  and how he plans to deport those among the illegals that are part of the criminal class, and on and on. Based on the past veracity of this administration, it all sounds like a pile of West Texas cow chips in August–and probably smells just as bad.

Tlhe high-class people he describes here would hardly be the ones to be showing up at our Southern border begging to get across. You have to wonder if the people he’s describing would even have any need to try to get into this country illegally. The highly skilled people he’s painting a picture of would probably still be able to make a decent living in Mexico or wherever.

Obama stated that his deferred deportations do not apply to those who recently came into the country illegally or those who plan to do such in the future. Yeah, right, just like all those criminals he’s going to deport, uh huh. Homeland Security will now focus on apprehending any would-be illegals at our Southern border and keeping a weather eye out for gang members and any potential terrorists. Right! It all sounds so great you have to know it’s total hogwash.

Interesting is the fact that Obama’s speech was not aimed at ordinary Americans, the White House didn’t even ask the major networks for time.  The web site American Thinker in an article by Thomas Lifson, noted: “President Obama’s speech tonight on his immigration amnesty diktat isn’t aimed at you, if English is your primary language. The White House didn’t even ask tlhe Big Three broadcast networks…for time. We’re in the midst of the November sweeps and in all likelihood they would have turned him down. But that doesn’t matter–he would just as soon that Gringo-Americans not even hear about his decree.”

The article continued: “Obama and the Democrats base their strategy on fragmenting, not uniting Americans, and the speech tonight is aimed at Spanish-speakers, who will see the speech broadcast live on the other big broadcast network, Univision, which is for Spanish-speakers.  And the audience will be huge among Spanish-speakers because the speech is timed to coincide with the Latin Grammys, one of the highest rated programs of the year on Univision.” Timing is everything and Obama was aiming at a big Hispanic audience and a minimal Gringo audience. And that’s because he knew all along what the “Gringo” reaction would be. His wide-open immigration policy has not been popular with most Americans and you can tell that from the reactions he has gotten over his border policies of allowing these people in and shipping batches of their kids around the country. Nobody likes what he’s been doing except that small coterie of internationalists whose agenda is to destroy this country and its culture.

The web site  also observed that “The world’s largest Spanish language media corporation Univision plans to interrupt one of their most popular shows to carry Obama’s Mexican Revolution Day message to hundreds of millions of Spanish-speakers in the USA, Central and South America, and around the globe, while only a narrow band of Americans will see Obama’s speech live on TV.”

Only it didn’t quite work out as well as Obama’s administration planned because one of the major headlines on World Net Daily this morning stated: “Americans ‘mad at government’ melt phones on Capital Hill.” Several senators confirmed that their phones had been ringing off the hook with calls from constituents who are now beginning to realize that the beneficent Obama regime has given them the shaft–again! You’re going to have all these illegals in the country competing for jobs Americans need–and Obama loves it! How long will it take most Americas to realize that this guy just loves sticking it to us. He lives for that. The people that voted this Marxist into office should hang their heads in shame, better yet, maybe they should repent! And so far, what has been Congress’ response? The House has sued Obama over Obamacare. Seems to be they’ve done that before a few times and nothing has ever come of it.

In my previous article on this subject I noted what Michael Savage had said was the proper solution for Congress to use in this situation. He didn’t think they would and I don’t either. They will waffle and wiggle and try to find some way to get off the hook while giving in to Obama without appearing to do so. Don’t look for much of anything from any of them that will do us much good. Their first allegiance is to the internationalists and their agenda. The American people are sheep to be sheared–by both socialist parties. So how much have the “checks and balances” and the “separation of powers” they tell us are in the Constitution to protect us done for us up until now? Don’t everybody answer at once.

Amnesty And Checks And Balances–We are being had by both parties

by Al Benson Jr.

In case anyone hasn’t figured it out by now, let me say it as politely as I can and still keep it printable. The American citizens are being played for suckers by both political parties. The Republicans won the mid-term elections. So what? The Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission/Bilderberger triad is still in full control of both parties and with their One World Government agenda why should we actually think a Republican victory will make any real difference? Do we have any bold new leadership being chosen by Republicans for either the House or Senate? Hardly. We’ve got John Boehner–again, and he is sided by Mitch McConnell in the Senate. These guys have been in the political arena so long you can’t even classify them as retreads, and for the record, let’s not kid ourselves, neither one will do a blessed thing to help regain liberty for the American people. They will both play political parlor games with Comrade Obama and it will all continue to be cutesy poo as usual.

A glaring exmmple of this is the illegal alien issue. Obama, in outrageous socialist mode, wants the illegals rewarded for being illegal and he wants it right now. No messing around with even the parlor games! He has basically threatened Congress with a “do it my way or it’s the highway” approach and the Republican “leadership” (if you can call it that) is in the process of respectfully requesting of him how far he wants them to jump on the way up! That’s life in Sodom on the Potomac, folks. Get used to it.

There was an article on the World Net Daily website today that carried comments from an interview with Michael Savage that was quite revealing. Regarding illegal alien amnesty, Savage told his audience that if Obama issues an executive order to amnesty the illegals then “If the executive order is based on a statute, Congress can change the statute, thereby nullifying the order.” Savage advised Congress that, instead of all the first day ceremony they should “…go to power, go to the mats and change the statute. Day One.”

He noted that: “…the only instance in which Congress could not nullify an order is if the president is acting according to an executive power granted to him by the Constitution. But Obama’s executive order on immigration is not such a case. It is not constitutionally based. Congress has the power to repeal a presidential order or terminate the underlying authority on which the action is predicated.” Savage cited a Congressional Research Report from December of 2011 which outlined the authority that Congress possesses to stop an executive order. So it can be done under the proper circumstances.

Savage then asked: “Do I have to teach McConnell and Boehner what they can do? No. They know it. They just don’t want to do it.” That’s the whole situation right there. They know what they can and should do to head off Obama’s tyranny–but they’re not going to be bothered–which means one of two things. Either they are, for some reason, afraid to do the right thing or they really have no problem with Obama giving amnesty to the illegals, but they don’t dare admit that in public, so they’ll pretend the real solution doesn’t exist and will instead issue a stream of political pontification on “how hard they tried” but they just couldn’t stop the Obama steamroller on this one issue. (There will be more they won’t be able to stop him on either–or at least more they won’t really try on). It’s all such a pile of bovine fertilizer I’m surprised they don’t suffocate in it, but then after you’ve been inhaling that stuff for decades I guess you get used to it.

If the Constitutional “checks and balances” I’ve been writing about are really supposed to function (and I strongly doubt that) then, as I’ve said before, how can they ever work when there is rank collusion between the different branches of government?

When one branch has the ability to stop another branch from unconstitutional activity and refuses to do it or pretends it can’t do it, how is this system ever supposed to work?

Shouldn’t we demand from our legislators that they do what they can to stop this? Will it make any difference? If there is already an agenda in place to amnesty these millions of illegals and both president and Congress are just playing out the game, about all we can do, so it would seem, is to protest and let them know we know what’s going on and that we know it is a political game–one whose goal is the destruction of our culture. But, we can also pray and ask the Lord to expose what they are doing and to put an end to their playing the American public for suckers. Will American Christians be concerned enough to do even this much? I am not optimistic. I do hope I am wrong, but based on past performances…..

Checks And Balances? I Don’t Gotta Pay Attention To No Stinkin’ Checks And Balances

by Al Benson Jr.

The title of this article is a paraphrase of the words spoken by the Mexican bandit in the movie Sierra Madre. I used this as a title because it displays that checks and balances in the Constitution sounds really great to the unitiated , but let’s face it, they don’t really work. And the question I closed my most recent article with was “If the checks and balances in the Constitution don’t really work, then what else in the Constitution doesn’t really work either?” That is a question we really need to start to grapple with.

That checks and balances don’t really work has been amply demonstrated by the activities of recent presidents who, basically, do just what they want and almost no one dares to call any attention to it in such a way as to make any difference.

Back in 2006 writer Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe noted that George W. Bush “has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress if it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.” If you or I disobeyed all these laws we’d find ourselves in the slammer for life, but for the president, if he doesn’t happen to agree with them, it’s perfectly okay to ignore or disobey them. Do we have a situation here where all the animals in the barnyard or equal, only some are much more equal than others? Guess you could say that. Where was Congress and the balance of powers while all this went on? The article I took that fact from was written by a Louis Fisher, and he asked: “Does the United States have two sets of laws, one publicly performed by Congress and the other conducted after the fact by executive officials? Is the second superior to the first?” That’s a good question. Most people don’t think to ask it. But the answer is; of course it is. Anyone who knows how this country is run anymore knows that. It may not be legally superior but in practice it’s superior.

As an aside, look at how much the Christians supported Bush both times he ran. His candidacy both times was a big “lovefest” for the Christians. Bush could do no wrong. He was our secular messiah par excellence and most of the church loved him. Of course they, as usual, didn’t bother to do any homework; they just bought the propaganda, and I have to admit, I bought some of it too, in regard to his cabinet member, John Ashcroft, who was supposed to be a Christian. I wrote an article defending him, but as time went on and I watched him grabbing for more and more power, I was forced to write another article stating that I had been wrong about him and that he had succumbed to the lure of government power. Checks and balances didn’t stop Ashcroft from grabbing for all the power he could get.

Recently I also read an article by Rick Santorum, published on back in July of 2012 and labeled Abuse of Power. There are times that I don’t agree with Mr. Santorum. I think his practice of conservatism is not always up to the par of his rhetorical conservatism. But having said that, I think that what he wrote in this particular article was pretty much on target.

Santorum noted several things. He observed: “While the Constitution is quite clear about the distinct and separate rolls for each of these branches, President Obama has shown difficulty in remembering that his role as President is, by design, quite limited. His administration has a tendency to ignore the law, circumvent the Constitution and checks and balances, and outright defy Congress.” So what does Congress do about this? Outside of some political hot air, mostly nothing. If Obama has the slightest concept of the president’s actual role he has willingly put it aside to fulfill the wishes of the ruling elite that engineered his way to the White House. Checks and balances? That’s for the rubes that don’t know how the system really works!

Continuing on, Santorum noted: “After signing Obamacare into law in 2010, the Obama administration immediately began circumventing checks and balances. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began to wield legislative authority, granting waivers to companies and establishing new bureaucracies. Secretary Sebelius has set new budgets and new guidelines for implementing Obamacare, wholly without Congressional oversight.” Why didn’t Congress speak up? The Executive Branch just routinely by-passed Congress and Congress just sat it out? How does checks and balances work properly when one branch of the federal government is in collusion with the other to do what they basically both want?

Then there was that Supreme Court decision that said Obamacare was legal and legitimate and that it was really okay for the feds to force the public to buy something from a third party whether they wanted it or not. In April of 2012 Obama started to issue subtle warnings to the Supreme Court that they “should not” overturn his health care law. Unfortunately, in an egregious violation of the supposed checks and balances, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did an about face and suddenly sided with the four liberals (socialists) on the court and handed down a “decision” that told us Obamacare was, indeed, constitutional. Folks, I submit that this is all “checks and balances” in living color! This is how it works out in practice, and it’s a whole different ballgame than what the “history” books have told us. The feds get to further whatever their current agenda is because all branches of the federal government work in collusion with one another–and the public gets a stick in the eye–as usual.

And then Santorum noted a situation that I followed when it occurred. He said: “In July of 2010, President Obama’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws rather than partnering with Arizona and other states to enforce federal immigration laws already on the books. Arizona was just enforcing the law that Obama refused to enforce. We need our congressional leaders to bravely stand up to the President and remind him of the basic Constitutional principle that was designed to protect our freedoms.” But was it? Or are we only supposed to be under the illusion that it does? Again, where was Congress to enforce the proper checks and balances?

Supposedly in the next week or so, El Presidente will unveil his thrilling new agenda to legalize millions of illegal aliens who are in violation of federal law by simply being here. Do I think he will try to amnesty them? I do. It will be his reward to them for being illegal. Do I think Congress will try to stop him? The House might. The Senate under “Dirty Harry” Reid will totally ignore the law and give Obama carte blanche to just do whatever he wants. Another shining example of how checks and balances really doesn’t work.

A Chance To Test the “Balance of Power” Theory

by Al Benson Jr.

In this current series I have been working on one of my main contentions has been that the so-called Constitutional checks and balances between the different branches of the government has not ever really worked the way it was supposed to or that we have been told it did.

In my last article I noted the situation in regard to the illegal immigrants in this country and how the head of the current Marxist Regime plans an end run around Congress so he can take “executive action” to make most of them “legal” with nothing more than the swirl of his mighty pen. Obama has no concept of how constitutional government is supposed to work and, frankly, he couldn’t care less. He will do as he has been instructed to do regardless of whether it breaks the law or not.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has commented on this in an article that appeared on on November 13th. Senator Sessions originally made his comments on a show, The Kelly File on Fox News.

The Town Hall article stated that: “Sessions explained that President Obama not only lacks the authority to do what is outlined in a released plan, but it’s against the law.” Sessions said: “Fundamentally the President has no authority to do this, it’s against the law.” And Sessions also said: “Congress can stop it and must stop it. It’s really a threat to constitutional order.”

Sessions duly noted the warnings from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers that if Obama continues on and follows through with his “executive order” it will be well-nigh impossible to enforce immigration laws that are already on the books and it will encourage and set the stage for even more illegality in the future. Folks, that’s what it’s supposed to do. Further, Sessions stressed that there would be extreme economic consequences from this action on the poor and middle classes in this country. You know something? That doesn’t concern Obama in the least. That’s part of his agenda and the agenda of those that made sure he got into office–destruction of the middle class and the reduction of this country to third world status. And you do have to admit, he’s done a remarkable job of it. Even Slick Willy couldn’t have done any better, nor could Bush Jr., and they both had a crack at it.

Sessions has suggested that Congress cut off the funding for such things as identification cards and other things that are necessary for “executive amnesty” to go forward. He said: “It would be a big, strong step and it would make this almost impossible to accomplish. It would reflect the will of the American people.” Know what? Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s dam about the will of the American people. If he can find ways to circumvent that will he is most happy to do it. It makes his day! Comments from those in his administration display quite graphically what he actually thinks of real Americans. He thinks we are all stupid, all potential terrorists, and we’re just not real bright because we fail to share his Marxist version of a socialist utopia for America. How could we be so dumb as to reject the totalitarian society he and his handlers have planned for us. We should all know better and, therefore, he will do whatever he has to do to us to show us the error of our ways. His absolute last concern is for the real welfare of the country. Anyone who hasn’t figured that out after six years of his imperious regime just isn’t trying.

Having said that, let’s look at what Senator Sessions has said. He says Obama “lacks the authority” to do what he wants to do for the illegal aliens, basically to reward their illegality. He says “…it’s against the law. Congress can stop it and must stop it. It’s really a threat to constitutional order.” That all sounds good and I applaud Senator Sessions’ sentiments, but, in the final analysis, you know what? Congress will probably not stop it. Though it infringes on their area of legislative expertise they will probably not really do much of anything except what I said in my last article–lots of loud protests to make it look like they plan to do something when what they will really end up doing is caving in and letting Obama do what he wants to do, with maybe a couple very minor changes.

Sessions says that Congress should cut off funding for identification cards for illegal aliens. Sounds good. Anyone really think Obama cares? He’ll just amnesty them without any cards–he’d probably rather not have to mess with the cards anyway. After all, in many places now you don’t have to show any ID to go and vote so what difference will an identity card make? American citizens have to show an ID when they go into a store to buy something and write out a check for it. When I go to vote I have to show a photo ID. When we went just recently to vote in the mid-term elections I quipped to the ladies who were checking our identification that “Just think, if I was an illegal alien I wouldn’t have to worry about showing any ID at all. I could just wank in and vote.” No one answered me. Either they disagreed and were polite enough not to say so, or I was closer than anyone wanted to say anything about.

The concluding paragraph of the article said: “Earlier this year, liberal George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley warned about President Obama’s executive overreach, saying we will reach a constitutional tipping point if Congress doesn’t do something to restore the balance of power between the legislative and the executive branches of government.”

This is exactly the same problem we have been dealing with since 1787, and here we sit now in 2014 and it’s still not solved. In the interim, Lincoln did the same thing when he invaded Virginia while Congress was not in session and started the War of Northern Aggression. In the book The War Between the States: America’s Uncivil War it is noted on page 207 that: “On April 13, he (Lincoln) declared the seceding states in a state of rebellion and called for 75,000 troops to deal with them–a declaration expressly reserved to Congress by the Constitution…” So you can see that, even back in 1861, the so-called ‘balance of power” between the branches of government was being treated as a farce. Lincoln did what he wanted to do–he wanted a war–and Congress and the country be damned! Is this situation with Obama and the illegal aliens that much different? I don’t think so.

So we might just ask, in light of history, how’s that “balance of power” thingy working out for you? It’s working just great for those that abuse it because the simple fact is–it doesn’t work. We only think it does because that’s what we’ve been taught in our “educational” facilities–and if it doesn’t really work, then what else in the Constitution doesn’t really work either?

Was Liberty the Real End? Not Hardly!

by Al Benson Jr.

Gary M. Galles has been a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. Awhile back he wrote an article for which was entitled The Anti-Federalists Were Right. Galles noted in his article that: “Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the ‘general welfare’ (which could be claimed with every law) and the ‘all laws necessary and proper’ clause (which could be used to override limits on delegated federal powers), creating a federal government with unwarranted and undefeated powers that were bound to be abused.” In the light of subsequent history it’s hard to argue with that analysis. Can anyone say “Obamacare”?

Gary North, in an article on wrote quite plainly that: “The Constitution was deliberately designed to centralize power vastly beyond what the legitimate constitution–the Articles of Confederation–allowed. The Federal government in 1787 was weak. In 1788 it was vastly stronger. The newly created Federal government immediately did two things. It accepted responsibility to pay off state debts. This was Alexander Hamilton’s proposal. He proposed it specifically to centralize the government by granting enormous profits to the investment class that had bought state debts for practically nothing. The Wikipedia article on this consolidation of federal debt is accurate in its discussion of Hamilton’s motives.” Sounds as if Hamilton had more than real liberty as the “direct end” of his agenda.

It was noted that: “Hamilton’s economic plan had multiple goals. First, the debts and honor of the nation would be secured…By selling bonds to pay the debt, bondholders would have a direct financial interest to help the new United States government survive and thrive…The plan would also create a bureaucracy of agents across the country who would be tied to the Federal government instead of the individual states. Assuming the debts of the states would likewise couple financial elites in those states to the national government and less to state governments, thereby reducing the risk of secession. Hamilton’s plan was called the ‘debt assumption plan,’ and it was a radical idea in 1790.” You can see from this one paragraph that Hamilton, from the beginning, was always the consummate collectivist and centralist, trying to tie everyone’s interests to the Federal government instead of to the states. And he sought to reduce the risk of secession, so he must have felt that secession was a legitimate option which he wanted to steer the states away from.

Madison and Jefferson initially opposed this, but, as Gary North observed: “When Madison and Jefferson opposed the plan, Hamilton bought them off by promising to support the swamp today known as Washington D.C. as the nation’s capitol. This was done at a private dinner with only the three in attendance. Jefferson later wrote about it.” I read one account that noted that, while Madison was still opposed to the idea, and might speak out against it, he would not do such very strenuously. How little has changed in Washington since 1790! Covert “dinners,” midnight voice votes in Congress, it was and is always the same game, and the public is always on the receiving end of the shaft.

Gary North noted the outcome of this grand bargain. “The Treasury Department quickly grew in stature and personnel, encompassing the United States Customs Service, the United States Revenue Cutter Service, and the network of Treasury agents Hamilton had foreseen. Hamilton immediately followed up his success with the Second Report on Public Credit, containing his plan for the Bank of the United States–a national, privately-operated bank owned in part by the government, which became the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System.” Do you begin to see where Hamilton was going now? The Bank of the United States–privately operated, owned “in part” by the government. One with a suspicious mind might be led to ask who owned the part the government didn’t. And since much of this is not included in the “history” books, are we forced to conclude that this is a question some would prefer not to be asked? After all, if you can’t trust your government… But you can see from this that our problems with bankers did not begin in 1913. That was chapter two.

As to Hamilton’s motives, North observed: “By 1791 Hamilton had created a vast Federal debt and the nation’s first central bank, owned privately. He had planned it from the beginning. That was why he promoted the Constitution. This is why he wrote most of The Federalist Papers. The anti-Federalists predicted accurately what was coming in 1787. It came. There was a conspiracy in Philadelphia in 1787. It was successful…To understand the expansion of Federal power in 1788, consider this. In 1786, the Federal government’s total army was 1,200 men. It was too small to come to the rescue of the state of Massachusetts in putting down Shay’s rebellion. This was a rebellion by rural counties against the state government’s decision in 1786 to pay off state debts in silver, collected from the counties. The governor and most of the members of the legislature had bought these debts for pennies in fiat currency. Now they were about to get very rich at the expense of rural taxpayers, who had little silver. A lot of counties revolted. That was the trigger that got George Washington to attend the (Constitutional) Convention, which he had previously refused to agree to attend. He had been completely misinformed about the motives of the protest. A former general of his sent him letters that concealed the politics of the revolt.” So Washington had no idea that the real reason for the rebellion was that the state government was stealing from its citizens. North continued: “In 1794, Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to crush a tax revolt in Western Pennsylvania…Because so few men volunteered, the Federal government imposed a draft. This was the whiskey rebellion. The revolt was against Hamilton’s 1791 tax on whiskey–a tax used to raise revenue to pay off Federal debts at face value–debts that the holders had purchased for pennies…Do you begin to see a pattern here? Centralized power? I guess you could say that. Seems the new Federal power was being used to help make the big money boys even richer at the expense of the rural farmers. I suppose you could label that as the 1794 version of redistribution of the wealth. And Hamilton was in on the ground floor. Beginning to connect the dots here?

And North has told us that what Hamilton could not accomplish on his own, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who was also a Federalist, did manage. Among his other “accomplishments” he managed to find time to squeeze in the writing of the opinion for McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. This was an authorization for the privately-owned Second Bank of the United States to exercise a government-granted monopoly over our monetary system. The last half of chapter one!

North began the conclusion of his article with this: “The Constitution was from day one an instrument to consolidate Federal power and expand it. The Constitution has proven to be a weak reed in every attempt to slow down the expansion of Federal power. It has proven utterly impotent to roll Federal power back as little as a decade, ever.” Mr. North is pointing out the exact same thing I have been saying in regard to the fact that the checks and balances in the Constitution that are supposed to keep one branch of the government from overreaching and acting in the affairs of another branch just simply do not work. They are not effective and, given North’s analysis, you have to wonder if they were ever meant to be effective, or if they were only ever meant to be a cover seeming to do what they are not really doing.

Obama is now threatening Congress that if they refuse to legalize millions of illegal immigrants then he will just take executive action and do it himself. After all, he has a pen and a phone. It’s up to Congress to deal with this, not the dictator, (excuse me, I meant president–a slip of the fingers on the keyboard). For him to usurp the power of Congress goes against the vaunted “checks and balances” between branches of government that are supposed to be there for our protection. Suppose Obama just unilaterally decides to go and do this “because he can?” Do you know what Congress will do? Nothing!!! Oh, they’ll make a little fuss, a little political bloviation to try to save face, and that will be the end of it. Obama will do what he wants to do because, in the end, the Constitution won’t stop him.

Folks, we’ve been had since way back in 1787 and it’s about time we woke and and realized it. Do I think that will happen? Maybe in a couple hundred years, if we can rear up enough Christian-schooled and home schooled kids with the truth. Maybe.

If Liberty Was the Object, Why Did They Give Us Centralism?

by Al Benson Jr.

The issue seemed clearer to some (but not all) in 1787. When the Constitution was presented for ratification in Virginia the issues were much better understood than they are today. Of course people back then had not had the dubious “benefit” of our government school system with its obfuscations and omittances regarding our history. It was pretty well understood in Virginia, as well as in other areas, that the issue was a strong federalism, or centralism, as opposed to a loose confederacy of state governments where states rights were to be the rule–the dreaded (by historians) Compact Theory!

In his speeches against ratification Patrick Henry noted that the delegates in Philadelphia had overstepped their bounds in that they had not been sent there with power to create a central government, but only to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, in light of the results of that convention it does seem that some went with other motives in mind. Henry warned the Virginia delegates that they were not to consider how they could increase trade nor how they could become a great nation, but rather how their liberty could be secured. Henry said, and quite accurately, “…for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” He made another prescient statement in this regard when he said: “If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power today, you cannot retake it tomorrow, for tomorrow will never come for for that.” In light of the direction this government has gone in from 1787 until now, does any sane person wish to argue with Mr. Henry’s logic?

Author, economist and columnist Gary North wrote a book almost twenty years ago now called Political Polytheism which dealt with much of this. For starters he noted that: “…The Constitution removed Christian religious tests as the judicial requirement of the judges and officers of the new national government. That, in and of itself, delivered the republic into the hands of the humanists. Nothing else was necessary after that. From that point on the secularization of America was a mopping-up operation.” That’s a much different assessment than most of us have been fed regarding the Constitution, even in Christian circles, or might I say, especially in Christian circles? I have to admit that when I first saw North’s book and skimmed it, I was a little hesitant about his thesis. As the years have passed I have become much less so.

And he made another trenchant observation, one that many of us, myself included, had not even thought of at the time. I since have come to where I can see his logic. He said: “The sought-for Constitutional balance of the one and the many, apart from the Bible and Old Testament case laws, is unattainable.” In other words you cannot have the proper relationship between a central government and the state governments apart from Scripture. So the further this country departs from Scripture and God’s law the more impossible it will be for us to really do anything right, especially in the area of differing governmental jurisdictions. By the same token, the “checks and balances” we have been told will keep the different branches of the national government in their proper spheres won’t work either.

North also noted that: “Like Newton’s universe apart from God’s constant, active providence, the ‘balanced Constitution’ will eventually move toward centralized tyranny (the fear of the Anti-Federalists) or toward dissolution (the fear of the Federalists). Both movements took place in 1861-65.” The Anti-Federalists feared tyranny; the Federalists feared secession. North’s comments add a whole different perspective to the question of the Constitution and what it really says.

Back in August of 2004, Gary North wrote an article called Conspiracy In Philadelphia. He also wrote a book by the same name. He observed: “In 1787 the states, with one exception (Rhode Island) were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new constitution made all such oaths illegal for federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso vs. Watkins (1961). I told this story fifteen years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening.” Mr. North, like many of us over the years, has learned that the movers and shakers, the ruling elite, the country’s “other masters” will simply ignore what they do not want dealt with, and they press their lackeys in the “news” media to do the same, and the media bombards us with sports extravaganzas and “reality shows” to the point where we do not have the time or inclination for any serious reflection. If the truth can be out there and almost totally ignored by the general populace, Christians included, they don’t even have to bother shoving it down the “memory hole” anymore. Most people today will gaze at the plans for their own destruction and that of their kids–and yawn.

However, for the unusual few that may be concerned about the truth and how it might affect their children and grandchildren, Mr. North has posted his book Conspiracy In Philadelphia on the Internet, from which it can be downloaded. My son downloaded it for me and for a friend of mine at church. It can be found at and I would encourage those who have genuine concerns about our “founding document” and its background to download North’s book and see what he has to say. Knowing about Mr. North, I am sure his analysis will be penetrating and worth your time.

Centralism Trumps “Checks and Balances”

by Al Benson

Well, we’ve just had an election and it looks to most people like the good guys won for a change. However, voters need to be discerning enough to realize that not all those who appear to be good guys (Republicans) really are. Some of them are no better than the Democratic socialists, the only difference being the party label. Remember that the first two Republican candidates for president in this country, John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, were both socialists in their worldviews even if they may not have officially belonged to any socialist ” Party.” You can check out the backgrounds of both of these individuals in the book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Now that we have a Republican majority in both houses Comrade Obama has stated that he will just take “executive action” in regard to making illegal immigrants part of the national culture. Will the checks and balances that are supposed to operate with our current Constitution be enough to stop him. Will Congress do what it should do or will Obama just continue to get away with his lawlessness? Most of us know the answer and it’s not pretty. Congress will fume and fuss and make great pontifications about who should do what and that will be it.

The checks and balances that one branch of government is supposed to employ under the Constitution to check the usurpations of another branch will amount to nothing. It’s all, as one Christian pastor once said–“meaningless drivel.” Always has been.

Interestingly, one of the most insightful of the Anti-Federalists in the beginning was Robert Yates, a judge from New York who was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. At some point Judge Yates withdrew because he felt the convention was exceeding the instructions it had been given. Yates later wrote as “Brutus” about the debates over the Constitution. Given that he had expertise as a judge he claimed that the Supreme Court was destined to become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching, and his insight in this area has proven correct.

As “Brutus,” he observed that the Supreme Court, as envisioned under the Constitution, would end up becoming a source of growing abuse because they were beyond the control of both legislatures and ordinary citizens and they were in no way subject to being “corrected by any power above them.” Who is there out there that will correct them regarding their farcial ruling that Obamacare is constitutional? Where are the checks and balances in this situation? If any are present they are hidden under the political rug, never to be seen. Yates thought that the power the Court would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law. Gee, when has that ever happened? (Let us count the times).

That being the case, the Court could then proceed to interpret the Constitution according to the “spirit” of the law rather than the letter of the law. Looking at some of the “decisions” the Court has handed down in our lifetime, can anyone seriously doubt the concerns that Robert Yates had? In fact, if anything, his concerns could have been labeled as optimistic, because in his day, he could have had no possible concept of just how far the Court would go in promoting the agendas of radical, activist judges who would shamelessly promote their version of what they wished the Constitution had really said.

I can recall author and columnist, the late Joseph Sobran, writing on this subject years ago when he noted that the Court had found many “enumerated penumbras” in the Constitution that justified abortion, the murder of unborn babies. Many folks will ask “what’s a penumbra?” Good question. For want of being able to explain it legally, I will note that it is nothing more than the judicial version of “seeing through a glass darkly.” The lawyers see “rights” there that are never spelled out anywhere, except in their own minds. So there are no real checks and balances in play regarding the Supreme Court. It is truly a law unto itself.

Back in 2008, Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an article called Nathaniel Macon and The Way Things Should Be in which he dealt with the career of Nathaniel Macon, the man that Macon, Georgia was named after. Macon and others in his family were quite discerning. He served with North Carolina troops in the War for Independence. Dr. Wilson noted of him that: “He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting…In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined. It is noteworthy that his brother, John, voted against ratification of the new U.S. Constitution in both conventions of the sovereign people of North Carolina to consider that question; and that our State did not ratify until the first ten amendments, especially the 9th and 10th, were in place to limit the federal government.” And he commented on the new government, saying “As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of ‘good government’ began to turn the government into a centralized power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress.” However, Dr. Wilson noted that “By the end of his life Macon had realized that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use ‘nullification,’ state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told his friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession–…” These folks had it figured out by the 1830s that the Constitution was not going to work because no one was staying within the sphere of authority that was delegated to them. The checks and balances that were supposed to keep everyone where they belonged were just not being practiced. Each branch of the new government was doing what it wanted to do with no resistance from the other branches save a little breast-beating. It was only to get worse during the Lincoln administration, and worse yet during the “reconstruction” period, when Congress basically just did whatever they wanted. Johnson vetoed their indiscretions but they overrode that while the Supreme Court did little. Now we have a president (a would-be dictator for life if he could get away with it) who doesn’t even bother to consult Congress anymore. He just issues “executive orders” and rules like a Muslim potentate, so where are the checks and balances?

It’s all rhetoric, folks, that’s all it is. We have been lied to by so many for so long about so much, we wouldn’t recognize the truth if we saw it floating amongst all the political swill out there.

Three years ago, Mike Crane of Morganton, Georgia did a series in six parts called What Is States Rights? which you can still find on the Internet. Check out the website for the Southern Party of Georgia and read his comments. If that one is gone you can still find these articles on the League of the South website, probably in their archive. He observed: “In the very early days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, the framers of the Constitution, made a deliberate and conscious decision to discontinue a federated form of government and to replace it…let me emphasize…REPLACE IT…with a national form of government in their deliberations. Let me emphasize what this means for the concept of States Rights…By the votes of May 30, 1787 the framers of the Constitution began debating the ultimate elimination of States Rights.”

There’s a lot more to all this and I would encourage everyone to check out Mike’s articles and see what he has to say. You can bet the farm that you will never get this material from what passes for history books today.

Christian Opposition, Checks & Balances, Etc.

by Al Benson Jr.

Having read several insightful articles by Al Cronkrite, a freelance Reformed Christian writer who lives in Florida, I usually pay attention when I see his name on an article because I know I will get something that goes beyond the usual “patriotic” chatter that is so prevalent on the Internet. Mind you, I am not against patriotism, but lots of what floats around out there today is not real patriotism but merely a shallow brand of nationalism–sort of like “My country, right or wrong–rah, rah, rah.” In its own way it’s just as bad as liberalism because it leads sincere Americans down the garden path to Nowheresville when they should be on the cultural path removing the thorns.

Having said that, I recall reading an article by Mr. Cronkrite in The Covenant News back in July of 2009 where he observed that most folks today view our founders as mostly Christian men “…who produced documents that, if they were not expressly Christian, contained Christian principles. Others find it strange that Christian men would fail to encode the name of the Savior or refer to His dominion.” Regarding the Constitution that brings a different dimension to the topic, one that Gary North has referred to more than once in his writings.

Mr. Cronkrite, along with others, also observed that: “The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in the Summer of 1787, was a secret gathering convened for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. It was an elite group that Jefferson described as ‘demigods’. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and probably President George Washington had no intentions of abiding by the instructions from congress to revise the Articles. Their intention was to form a new federal government which they believed the states would accept in order to solve the problems they were having in conducting their inter-state affairs. They were conspiratorial and dishonest in their actions but right in their political assessment…Patrick Henry of Virginia claimed he ‘smelled a rat’ and refused to attend.” Time has shown how foul the rat Henry smelled really was, and is.

It has been duly noted by Mr. Cronkrite that almost nothing has been written about Christian opposition to the final results of the Constitutional Convention. And I have to admit that none of the history I have come across has mentioned any of this, even the home school material. He observed that: “The shift from a reformation to a substitution was successful and in the exuberant pride that characterized the birth of a new nation the still small voice of the Creator was drowned out and a grave error was made. Several prominent clergymen expressed their dissatisfaction. Rev. John Mason of New York wrote, ‘Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity, by a people anymore than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck’.”

Also, “Rev. Samuel Austin said, the Constitution ‘is entirely disconnected from Christianity. It is not founded on the Christian religion.’ Rev. Samuel Taggart lamented the lack of Christian reference to be a national evil of great magnitude.’ ‘It is a great sin to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument and not have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body,’ lamented Rev. George Duffield. Rev. Jedediah Morse thought that the secular Constitution meant that America, like ancient Israel was doomed. Rev. James Wilson considered its creation ‘a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without parallel’.”

Now, folks, stop and reflect for a minute. How much about this Christian opposition to the Constitution have you ever read about in “history” books? I’ll wager that about all you ever read what just about what I read–that almost no one was opposed to it but Patrick Henry and a mere handful of his friends, who must all surely have had charter memberships in the Flat Earth Society. Those folks were supposedly anachronisms that just couldn’t see the pressing need for consolidation–Henry and his dwindling number of friends were a bit shortsighted, so it’s a good thing no one listened to them (or Leviathan wouldn’t be where it is today) and that’s about all you get, if that. The anti-Federalist arguments against ratification are seldom, if ever, mentioned–and as anachronistic as I guess I must be, the ones I’ve read about I’ve agreed with.

Mr. Cronkrite informed his readers that one of the big selling points for the new Constitution was that old, mythical “separation of church and state” story–the so-called government “neutrality” in regard to religion. All you have to do is look at where we are today in this regard and ask yourself–how’s that “government neutrality” in regard to religion working out for you nowadays? Anything even remotely Christian is now constantly under attack, while all the other pagan faiths seem to be getting a poss. Folks, this is not by accident. I put that in bold letters because we need to grasp that. Muslims will get to do in many educational institutions what Christians couldn’t even dream about. Any perversion today is accepted, no matter how gross, as long as it flies in the face of Christian culture. It’s all “protected” except Christianity and it’s open season on us and that’s not by accident.

I read an article on for October 30th written by Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics, in which he noted a raid in Texas by a SWAT team on a community in which there was no probable cause. The inhabitants had done nothing wrong, did not use drugs; no weapons or anything illegal was found, but the SWAT team handcuffed people, destroyed their crops, and pretty much did what they wanted because they could.

In his article Mr. Armstrong observed: “Raiding such a community without probable cause is totally unconstitutional. This is my point about the Constitution–it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope. The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect. Government agents can do as they like and it is the BURDEN of the citizen to prove that they violated the Constitution.” I might not have said it quite the way he did, but he does have a point.

There are no real restraints upon government, no real checks and balances so that if one branch oversteps its bounds the others will bring it to heel. They all collude with one another to quash whatever rights the citizens have, all the while telling us we live in a “free country”–the freest on earth they tell us–and it’s all just so much bovine fertilizer. This government has gone rogue–it went that way noticeably when the Lincoln administration started, but it had been showing signs of major slippage before that. John C. Calhoun noticed it before he died in 1850.

It really appears to me that we have a government that is one thing when we have been told it was something else. Most of us who have followed the political situation realize that we have been shamelessly lied to by “our” government about just about everything in our lifetime. But what about our ancestors? Were they lied to in the same way about what went on in their day? What about the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish-American War, World Wars 1 and 2, Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Kennedy Assassinaton, and a plethora of other things I could spend paragraphs on just listing? Where, in all of this and more, has there been “constitutional” protection for our citizens–from their own government?

We had better start grappling with some of this folks, before the gates to the FEMA camps open wide and we all become “memory hole” material–naturally under the protection of the US Constitution, replete with its “checks and balances.”