Where Was the Church All This Time?

By Al Benson Jr.

Back during the 1970s and 80s Francis Schaeffer wrote a whole series of books that catered to a broadly evangelical audience. I didn’t read all of them but I did read a few, and some of them, to be honest, left me a little flat. Dr. Schaeffer passed away in 1984, I believe, but toward the end of his writing career (which was only one part of his ministry) he wrote a couple books that seemed to me to indicate that something had awakened him to where the country and the church in this country were really at.

He wrote A Christian Manifesto in which he noted through biblical history how many people that the Lord had blessed had disobeyed their rulers because their rulers were acting in open defiance of God’s will. One Bible verse he noted in this aspect was Acts 5:29. This was in reference to Peter and the other apostles preaching about Jesus and His resurrection in Jerusalem. They had been forbidden by the Jewish religious establishment from doing this. They were dragged in front of the high priest and the council for this and the high priest asked them directly, as noted in Acts 5:28 “Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” How conveniently they forgot their own statements, uttered in Matthew 27:25, when, after Pilate had washed his hands, they stated: “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” Remember that statement guys? Oh I realize you got the multitude to shout it, but it was your sentiment. Has it ever occurred to you that you got only what you asked for?

But in reply to the religious establishment’s command to stop preaching in Jesus’ name, Peter said: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The Bible sets a precedent, regardless of how Romans 13 is misrepresented, that says there are certain places where it is the bounden duty of believers to resist and disobey government. If government commands you to do that which is contrary to God’s will, then you have to obey God rather than man.

Another interesting book that Dr. Schaeffer wrote toward the end of his life was The Great Evangelical Disaster. I had this on my shelf for years and never got to it, but in recent weeks I pulled it down and opened it and was surprised at how accurately Dr. Schaeffer had described what is going on in this country, and others, in our own day.

He wrote, in 1984 (the year is interesting) that: “Something happened during the last sixty years—something which cut the moral foundation out from under our culture. Devastating things have come in every area of our culture, whether it be law or government, whether it is in the schools, our local communities or in the family. And these have happened within the lifetime of many who are reading this book. Our culture has been squandered and lost, and largely thrown away. Indeed, to call it a moral breakdown puts it mildly. Morality itself has been turned on its head with every form of moral perversion being praised and glorified in the media and the world of entertainment.” And, at this point in time, you could add the federal government to that list. Sounds just like today doesn’t it? And this was written over thirty years ago. While I might not totally agree with Schaeffer’s timeline for all this (I think it started earlier) the thing is that he has seen the problem. He noted the great burst of freedom brought about by the Protestant Reformation, and he said: “The freedoms which grew out of this were tremendous; and yet, with the forms grounded in a biblical consensus or ethos, the freedoms did not lead to chaos” as much of our so-called “freedom” today does.

And Schaeffer noted, quite accurately, that: “Sixty years ago could we have imagined that unborn children would be killed by the millions here in our own country? Or that we would have no freedom of speech when it comes to speaking of God and biblical truth in our public schools? Or that every form of sexual perversion would be promoted by the entertainment media? Or that marriage, raising children, and family life would be objects of attack? Sadly we must say that very few Christians have understood the battle we are in. Very few have taken a strong and courageous stand against the world spirit of this age as it destroys our culture and the Christian ethos that once shaped our country.” He noted that this is a “life and death struggle over life on this earth.” He asked also “Why has the Christian ethos in our culture been squandered? Why do we have so little impact upon the world today? Is it not because we have failed to take the primary battle seriously?” He asked penetrating questions—questions that most Christians today do not even begin to want to deal with. Having to wrestle with these things would require Christian responsibility and much of the church today is not having any of that. Years ago I spent a goodly amount of time in an evangelical church and looking at the things those folks didn’t want to deal with was an exercise in futility. In most cases, for some of them, it was much easier to just put the messenger out of his misery than it was to deal with anything he said. I recall, one time, they had a guest preacher for one Sunday morning (he never got an invite to come back) and he told the congregation, quite plainly, some of the issues they needed, as Christians, to be aware of and he named names as to people and organizations that were contributing to the neutralization of Christianity. You could feel the discomfort in the congregation. They didn’t want to hear it. One man said, on the way out, “we don’t need any of this right wing stuff.” Yes, you did need it, but you didn’t want it and it wasn’t “right wing stuff” it was the truth! I told the preacher as I was leaving “You didn’t make any friends here today.” I agreed with his comments and there was one other lady there that was not unsympathetic, but his sermon covered territory evangelicals should have known about and didn’t want to be bothered with. The rest couldn’t get out fast enough!

Sadly, this is where most of the church is today. If you try to give them any truth you are some kind of a “right winger” or even worse yet, you are being “negative.” And that’s the most cardinal sin in evangelicalism today—being “negative.” Many Christians would much prefer a lot of “lovey-dovey” nonsense than having to deal with the truth—because the truth is often negative and history is often a real mess, and yet we have to deal with what is, not what we’d like to have.

What Dr. Schaeffer may not have recognized, (at least he didn’t write about it) is that much of the horrible downturn in our culture has not been by accident or by natural degeneration, though that has occurred.

Look at the history of the public school system in this country since its inception. It was the creation of Unitarians and socialists and they had a worldview that contributed to the cultural downturn due to their anti-Christian worldviews. I have always found it interesting that one of the first things the federal government did in the South after they were victorious in the shooting part of the War of Northern Aggression was to bring the public education system, replete with Yankee/Marxist teachers, into the South to “educate” the “rebels’ children.” This was cultural genocide, still being practiced today, and it’s a real downer when it comes to uplifting the culture. This was not by accident.

And even in the 20th century, when the Frankfurt School and John Dewey were putting the final socialist touches on American public education—where was the Church? Why didn’t they have some clue as to what was going on? Did they even care? Because it seems that they had no clue, we have the educational mess we have today and sadly, many Christians rush to defend that against such “primitive” concepts at Christian education and home schooling. Yet another example of many Christians coming down on the wrong side of history. Instead of defending what the Church was doing, though the Church didn’t do it perfectly, they opposed it and stood up for what Marx’s disciples were planning for their children. When the pastor of your church comes to your house and tries to talk you into putting your kids in public school instead of giving them a Christian education at home, then you have to realize that the Church has major problems!

So you will have to pardon me if I ask “where was the Church all this time?” It seems we’ve mostly been out to lunch for the past 150 years! Please understand, there are exceptions to this, but unfortunately, not enough. Not what there should be. The leadership in this country, in just about all areas, is at war with the Christian faith and their agenda is to destroy it—and maybe replace it with the Muslim faith. I have to wonder when the Christians will wake up and smell the coffee.

Please Don’t Awaken the Sleeping Church

By Al Benson Jr.

Recently on http://www.thedailybeast.com I read an article entitled: A Global Slaughter of Christians, but America’s Churches Stay Silent. It was written by a Kirsten Powers. I don’t know anything about this lady but she did posit some thoughts that American Christians should be thinking about and probably haven’t a clue about.

Anyone who has read my material in recent years realizes that I have grave questions about what the Church in this country is doing (and isn’t doing). The Church today seems to be submerged in what I would call a wait for the rapture, just be nice, the Lord’s in control and so we do nothing theology. That’s about the briefest way I can describe it and keep it civil.

Powers states in her article: “Christians in the Middle East and Africa are being slaughtered, tortured, raped, kidnapped, beheaded, and forced to flee the birthplace of Christianity. One would think this horror might be consuming the pulpits and pews of American churches. Not so. The silence has been nearly deafening.” She noted further down in the article an event that took place in Nairobi, Kenya that killed more than 70 people. She said: “The Associated Press reported that the Somali Islamic militant group al-Shabab ‘confirmed witness accounts that gunmen separated Muslims from other people and let the Muslims go free.’ The captives were asked questions about Islam. If they couldn’t answer, they were shot…In Syria, Christians are under attack by Islamist rebels and fear extinction if Bashar al-Assad falls.” It’s interesting that weve been told what a bad guy Assad in Syria is and yet Christians, it seems, have been safe under his government and they realize that if he goes, then their safety net is gone.

It’s the same game they played in Iraq a couple decades ago. We were all told what a scumbag Saddam Hussein was, and I will agree, he was no Sunday school teacher, but yet under his regime, Christians in Iraq were left alone. You can’t say that has been the case since. Christians in Iraq now are an endangered species. I find it interesting that in these instances, regimes that have not harassed Christians are the ones that our government has targeted. Any pattern here?

Powers has observed that: “American Christians are quite able to organize around issues that concern them. Yet religious persecution appears not to have grabbed their attention, despite worldwide media coverage of the atrocities against Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.”

So what’s the problem with America’s churches? And what “issues” do they organize around that are so important that they easily overlook what happens to their brethren in other areas? Some organize to combat abortion. That’s good. No problem there except that not enough are doing it and not enough are concerned.

I am a Reformed Christian and so I expect I will make some folks mad with my comments, but I feel I have to say what I am saying here. This is a subject I have struggled with. Many churches and Christians today, and for over a century have been caught up in what I call “the rapture cult” (there was a book written by that same name around 30 years ago). The main idea is that the Lord could come back anytime now and so why be involved in anything political, educational, or culture changing because we won’t be here anyway—so just sit back and do nothing and don’t worry about it. You have to wonder where the rapture was for those poor folks getting slaughtered in the Middle East, or for all the martyrs over the centuries that have died for their faith, some of which are still dying for it. It almost seems that this rapture concept was invented for American Christians to keep them on the couch, and therefore doing nothing. Now understand, when I question the “rapture cult” I am not questioning the Lord’s second coming. Scripture says He will return and I believe that. I just don’t think it will happen in the next ten minutes like some of these folks do. Their belief in this neutralizes them.

Then there are the “just be nice” folks who don’t want to offend anyone, anywhere, at anytime and to call sin by its real name they’d have to do that, and so they don’t—anytime. Now admittedly, Christians shouldn’t run around trying to be ornery, but stop and think a bit. Obviously Jesus “offended” the Jewish religious establishment or they would not have schemed to get the Romans to nail Him to the cross. If you read the Gospels, Jesus spent quite a bit of time offending the Jewish religious establishment—and He did it not only by healing and helping people, often on the Sabbath, but He did it by telling that establishment the truth about Himself. They weren’t having any of that. Three years after He started His ministry they proved it. And they continued to prove it all the way through the Book of Acts if you care to read about it. Jesus told them that their religious establishment had become apostate and revolutionary and that He had come to inaugurate God’s Kingdom and do away with their religious establishment and that really ticked them off. It ticks off some Christians today, too, who feel that Christians ought to support political Zionism no matter what. This is a complicated subject and I will try to do another article on it later.

And, last but not least, at least for me, come the folks, many of them Reformed, who say “The Lord’s in control of it all, so why worry or get upset, just let Him take care of it all.” Again, let me state that I have never said the Lord wasn’t in control of all things. I don’t doubt He is, but, again, lots of folks use this as an excuse for doing nothing. If the Lord’s in control then He will sort it all out and I don’t have to do anything except go along for the ride. Another great neutralizer! The Lord’s in control, therefore, I don’t gotta do nothin’. I’ve talked with some of these folks and put forth the novel concept that, while the Lord is in control, maybe, just maybe, He wants to exercise some of that control through His people. That doesn’t go over real well. They don’t like that idea anymore than the Pharisees liked the idea of Jesus healing someone on the Sabbath.

I recently heard a minister say that maybe God is allowing Islam to do what it’s doing in this country and in Europe because the church is basically asleep, or so concerned about non-essential issues that it doesn’t have any time for what’s important. That might explain the great big yawn American Christians give when they hear about horrendous atrocities being committed against their brethren in the Middle East and Africa.

Somehow, American Christians seem to have been neutralized to the point where they really think “it can’t happen here.” They don’t realize that as long as they sit and do nothing about anything it will happen here and is happening while they enjoy spiritual slumber.

Between the Scofield Bible Notes, bland evangelicalism, and unconcerned “Reformers” the Church is in serious trouble in this country and in others as well.

Spiritualists, Abolitionists, and Socialists—An unholy trinity

By Al Benson Jr.

Contrary to the politically correct of our era, there are some things the Lord sees as an abomination besides the supposed sin of “white racism.” Deuteronomy 18:10-12 gives us a small sampling. Scripture says: “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.”

An Encyclopedia of Religion published by the Philosophical Library in New York in 1945 says of Spiritualism that it is: “A religious-philosophical cult which is given to the study of psychic phenomena and which holds that these are to be explained in terms of discarnate spirits who have a lively interest in the living. Spiritualism was formerly inaugurated (at least in this country) in 1848,…” In 1848, gee, what a surprise! It seems that 1848 was a banner year for all sorts of apostate goings on, from the socialist revolts in Europe that gave us “Lincoln’s Marxists” to the advent of Spiritualism here. Don’t supposed there are any connections do you? Naw, all sheer coincidence—nothing to see here folks, just move along.

I recently came across an interesting site on the Internet (another reason it has to be “regulated” for our own safety and good) called http://www.alternatehistory.com that gives a brief overview of Spiritualism for many of the years in the 19th century. For 1848 it states: “Failed revolutions in Germany and other parts of Europe. The 48’ers, as they are called, are settlers from Germany across the Mid-west. Mostly leftist in their views, some out right Communist, they are open to conversion to the Spiritualist movement, except for the extreme Communists who view all religious ideas as evil. In 1860, they will vote for Lincoln and, some say, turn Iowa, Illinois and Indiana from Douglas to Lincoln, winning the election for him.” Then they go on to 1858: “The Spiritualists support Lincoln in the state election, although he still loses. It is greatly rumored, correctly, that Lincoln is a member of the Spiritualists. Most Abolitionists are Spiritualists, or share some views with them. Mainstream Churches have begun to be influenced by the Spiritualists, mostly in ideas of Mediumship…1859—Spiritualist John Brown leads a revolt of slaves at Harper’s Ferry. It fails.” Brown was an abolitionist/terrorist, but I’ve never heard of him being a Spiritualist up to this point. But the article continues: “1860—American Civil War. Volunteers from the Midwest introduce ideas of Spiritualism to other groups of people. 1 out of 4 Union soldiers are foreign born, a majority of which are German Spiritualists. One such German Spiritualist is Charles Schurz.” I think, here, the author must be referring to Carl Schurz because I couldn’t find a Charles Schurz anywhere having to do with that time period. Although I did find one reference which mentioned that he had a sister in Chicago that was into Spiritualism. And in researching for this article I came across a book, The Psychic Life of Abraham Lincoln written by a Susan B. Martinez, and it listed some of Lincoln’s friends who were Spiritualists—and on the list were Robert Dale Owen, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglas, and Carl Schurz. This is the first I ever heard of Schurz being a Spiritualist—if this is accurate. When Donnie Kennedy and I did our research for Lincoln’s Marxists we came across a ton of information on Carl Schurz. We still have it, filed along with documentation on all the 48’ers we wrote about in our book, and I don’t recall seeing anything about Schurz having a connection with Spiritualism. Author Ann Braude in her book Radical Spirits doesn’t mention Carl Schurz either, and she pretty well covered the Spiritualist Movement in this country during the 19th century—from a positive viewpoint.

Braude noted that: “Radical abolitionists, in turn, found in Spiritualism a religion in harmony with their individualist principles. Abolitionist’s interest in both woman’s rights and Spiritualism derived from their fierce loyalty to the principle of individualism.” This goes along with what I stated about the Abolitionists in an earlier article, that they had an agenda that encompassed far more than the slavery issue. They were, in fact, the change agents of the 19th century. And Braude observed, on page 27 of her book: “As already noted, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was an early convert and remained loyal to the movement until his death. The famous Grimke sisters, Sarah and Angelina, talked to spirits…Mary Todd Lincoln spoke with her dead son, Willie, and brought mediums into the White House, where they conducted séances for senators and cabinet members.” And Lydia Maria Child wrote in 1862 that “Spiritualism is undermining the authority of the Bible in the minds of what are called the common people faster than all other causes put together.” That also from Braude’s book on page 28. Take a look at what Child was saying. The aim of Spiritualism was to undermine the authority of Scripture. The Abolitionists often did the same thing and the Socialists had this as a main part of their agenda. If you don’t think so, then read The Communist Manifesto.

If you look at all of this together, it would seem that the Confederacy was combating much more than just the Union armies, as bad as they were. There were spiritual issues involved in the War of Northern Aggression that are never brought up in the “history” books. All they ever prattle about is the slavery issue and the Abolitionist’s own leaders admit that, over and above that, they had other agendas in mind, some closely paralleling those of the Marxists.

The “late unpleasantness” was, at its core, a war of theologies every bit as much as one of economic issues. And because it was a theological war it was also a culture war—and this is why it has never really ended for the Yankee/Marxist mindset—they only told us it did, and unfortunately, we took their word for it.

We have got to get it through our heads that “those people” are still at war with us and they will be until they manage to destroy our culture, with its Christian roots, and our heritage. Folks, we have got to learn to start fighting back and not be content to just lay prostrate with the dictator’s boot on our necks. There are some ways you can fight back.

Take your kids out of their propaganda mills and if you can’t afford a good Christian school then teach them at home. It’s not as hard as most of you have been led to believe it is. Start educating yourselves while you still have the Internet so you realize what’s going on in the country. That takes a little bit of work but it can be done, and when you do start to learn some truth, put it in letters to the editor of your local paper. They haven’t been totally censored yet. I know lots of folks that write letters to the editor and get them printed. And start seceding from the Sodom on the Potomac culture around you. I realize this all flies in the face of the Reality Show mentality you are bombarded with, but be willing to forego that rather dubious pleasure for the sake of your children and grandchildren because, in the final analysis, you are doing this for them, not yourself. And if you are a Christian, then you should be doing all this to further the Kingdom of God, because, in the end, that is the Kingdom that will triumph and it would be nice to be able to say that, by God’s grace, you had even a small part in that victory.

The NRA and the KKK—Do we get the history straight?

By Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back someone sent me so information about how the National Rifle Association was started up so the Union army generals that founded it could arm ex-slaves in the South so they could fend off attacks by the Ku Klux Klan. I checked the information out and couldn’t find anything to substantiate it. It seems that the information came from a conservative Internet commentator. I heard nothing more about it until last week when someone from Texas contacted me informing me that this same commentator was again saying the same thing. And supposedly he now named Albert Pike as the founder of the KKK and took the trouble to mention that Albert Pike was a Confederate general. I don’t know if this was supposed to be guilt by association or not, but out of curiosity, I did just a little checking on General Pike.

I’ve got a set of books called The Confederate General in six volumes, published by the National Historical Society and Albert Pike is noted in Volume 5. Seems General Pike had a rather colorful career. He was not noted as a man that got along with other Confederate commanders in the Trans-Mississippi area. The book noted: “A bitter feud with Brigadier General Thomas C. Hindman resulted in Pike’s resignation on July 12, 1862. But Pike was not finished; he wrote a circular accusing the Confederate government of treating the Indians unfairly. Colonel Douglas Cooper called the document the work of someone who was either ‘insane or a traitor.’” Cooper regarded Pike as “partially deranged, and a dangerous person.” The Confederate government accepted his resignation in November of 1862. The point here being that he wasn’t a Confederate general all that long, about a year and a half or so. Stewart Sifakis in his book Who Was Who in the Civil War says about the same thing. No mention of Pike having had anything to do with the KKK. I also came across another book in my library, Hooded Americanism by David M. Chalmers, which is a history of the KKK. No mention of Albert Pike that I can find in that one either. So, as much as I might disagree with ex-General Pike’s worldview, I don’t see him as the founder of the KKK.

Nor do I see the NRA as having been founded to help Southern blacks defend themselves against whites during “reconstruction.” I came across an article on http://www.patheos.com by Warren Throckmorton, a professor of psychology at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania that was published on 1/17/13 where Professor Throckmorton noted several incorrect quotes from David Barton regarding the NRA. He noted one of Barton’s quotes: “In addition, Barton addressed the founding of the NRA. While some like to demonize (this) pro-Second Amendment group and even call it prejudiced, it turns out the powerful group was in fact started by two Union generals in 1871 as a means to driving out the Ku Klux Klan and ensuring that blacks, who although then-free were not allowed the means with which to defend themselves—could in fact legally own a gun.” In a video Barton came up with a story that the NRA rose up because the Southern leaders were not policing the KKK. Sounds so noble, but you have to remember that in 1871 the South was still under “reconstruction.” The “Southern leaders” had almost nothing to say about what went on in their states—the Yankee military took care of all that. Whites in the South had been disenfranchised. In effect, they had no rights. This was one of the reasons for the KKK to begin with.

Throckmorton has observed, and quite correctly I think, that: “If Barton’s claim was true, this would be admirable and perhaps improve the image of NRA. One would think the NRA would include this fact on their website, as (Glenn) Beck wondered. However, they do not.” He then goes on to give a brief history of the NRA, which was granted a charter by the state of New York in 1871 and they purchased a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, for the purpose of building a rifle range.

And Throckmorton duly notes that, in the NRA’s history: “…there is nothing there about the KKK or getting guns in the hands of newly freed slaves. The reason the NRA doesn’t include (this) is probably because there is no evidence for it. At least I can’t find any evidence in the early charter of the NRA, or the biographies of the founders…I have looked through early NRA annual reports, biographies of the founders, and other documents looking for any support of Barton’s claim. Any reference to the claim on the web is unsourced. If Barton has a source for his claim, he should bring it up.”

In regard to arming the blacks, maybe Barton should go back and read Claude Bowers’ book The Tragic Era, originally published in 1929. Bowers, a Northerner, wrote about “reconstruction” policies on a state-by-state basis and noted all that the Yankee/Marxist “reconstruction” governments did in each Southern state. And this included the arming of black “militias” to serve the “reconstruction” governors in each Southern state. Bowers goes into how these black militias often went far beyond their “reconstruction” responsibilities, to the point where white women were often afraid to be out on the streets in many Southern locales even during the day.

This was one reason for the first Ku Klux Klan. Metapedia has noted that “The first Klan originated during 1866 as a guerilla band of former Confederates following the American Civil War. The ‘Radical Republicans’ during Reconstruction had attempted to undermine European American hegemony in the South.” That’s a fancy way of saying that they were practicing Cultural Genocide on white Southerners…”The first Ku Klux Klan was an American secret organization of Southern whites united for self-protection…” And that’s what the first Klan was all about—self-protection for them and their families. It was in essence, a self-defense organization. Now the Klans that came after that, starting in the early 1900s were a whole different animal, but the first and original Klan was formed for the protection of kith and kin.

I expect that may bother some folks who just lump all the various KKK groups into one mass conglomeration, but the Metapedia article divides the Klans into five different eras and the first one is the one I am writing about here. The others were something else.

With all the I read on the Internet doing historical research, I come across material such as that I mentioned at the beginning of this article. It seems there are some “conservatives” out there, whether through ignorance or design, that seek to make the South look evil and bad. You might excuse it once because we all make mistakes. But when it keeps happening you have to start to wonder if it’s all just coincidence—and with my suspicious mind, I rather doubt that.

Republicans No Different In 2015 Than In 1860

By Al Benson Jr.

I continue to be amazed at the number of patriotic and “conservative” sites on the Internet that express shock that the Republican Party seems to be playing along with Comrade Obama’s socialist agenda for this country. They seem to feel that the Republican Party is some great bastion of conservatism that will step up to do battle with the “liberal Democrats” in the name of God and country. Folks, that outdated notion is hogwash. Get over it! It has never been that way and it never will be. The Republican Party is almost as far to the left as today’s Democratic Party is. They are just better at hiding it. This is nothing new.

In our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, Walter D. Kennedy and I noted, on page 48, that: “The very foundation for modern-day liberalism/socialism was laid by the many and various utopian ideologues of the nineteenth century. The fact that these utopian socialists/communists found Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party to be objects worthy of their zeal and efforts speaks volumes as to why post-Appomattox America has adopted most, if not all of the early American socialist/communist goals. Universal suffrage was a dream of every socialist/communist movement in Europe and America; even Karl Marx spoke in favor of universal suffrage. The same can be said about a progressive income tax, abolition of the rights of inheritance, a system of national education, centralized banking and many other such socialist/communist measures.” And on page 50 we also noted: “The thought of Lincoln as the first American president to have had a communist sympathizer working in a key part of his administration is, and should be, shocking to all Americans. Charles Dana, who visited Marx in 1848, was an associate of Horace Greeley and an early convert to the communistic Fourierist movement. Dana served as assistant secretary of war under Edwin Stanton during the Lincoln administration, thus becoming the first communist, or at least the first communist sympathizer, to serve in a high position within the government of the United States.” And this was in a Republican administration and it was only the beginning. Then there were the socialists, notably Carl Schurz among them, who helped to write the Republican Party Platform in 1860.

There are some who inform us that the Republican Party is the party of small government. Though many of them may be sincere, they are sincerely in error—grave error, and we shouldn’t believe it. Walter Kennedy has also observed, in his recently released book Rekilling Lincoln that: “While often characterized as the homely rail-splitting lawyer from backwoods Illinois, Lincoln was in reality a high-pressure, well-connected corporate lawyer of the largest corporation in America during the early part of the nineteenth century. Although Lincoln is often depicted as a meek and humble friend of the common people and the downtrodden, in actuality Lincoln had a close association with numerous railroad barons. These railroad barons were some of the richest and most powerful men in America at that time.” Both Lincoln and his mentor, Henry Clay, were men who believed in the use of governmental power to protect special industries. And Donnie Kennedy has noted that: “…this system establishes a means whereby well-placed persons could leverage their position in government and finance for personal advantage.” Does that sound any different from today? Republicans and Democrats alike play this game and one hand washes the other.

For those still under the illusion that the Republican Establishment will combat Comrade Obama’s rampant socialism all you have to do to disabuse yourselves of that fantasy is to read an article that appeared on http://townhall.com for March 7, 2015, which was written by John Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins presents some very cogent points folks need to begin to consider. He says: “How do you think Republicans would have done in the 2014 elections if they had told the truth about what they intended to do when they took over the Senate? What if they had campaigned on working hand-in-hand with Obama to enact his illegal alien amnesty while supporting his budget priorities, confirming a new Attorney General who thinks everything Obama is doing is fine and promised they would do nothing while he illegally bans ammo, cripples the Internet, and lets the EPA run wild? Republicans are even gearing up to SAVE OBAMACARE if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies…What’s left unsaid is that he’s only able to do it because Republicans in the House and Senate are standing by impotently and allowing him to do whatever he wants.” Hawkins accuses the Republicans of “rank cowardice” in all their confrontations with Obama. Up to now, he’s called it right, but here I have to disagree with him. It’s not cowardice on their part. The problem is that the Republicans are just as much socialists as Obama is and they really have no problem with any of what he is doing. Doesn’t that thought give you the warm fuzzies? We have a Congress, no matter which party is in power, that really has no problem with socialism and they will do whatever it takes to protect Obama’s socialist agenda, all the while loudly complaining about how much they are opposed to it. Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, your names are really Republican and Democrat, and you both work together to give this country the socialism most of us don’t want—but we’ll get it from you anyway, no matter the party label.

The legislative branch of government has sold out to the executive branch, and all of this will soon be “legitimized” by the judicial branch when they again okay Obamacare as they have done in the past, and again, the supposed system of “checks and balances” we are supposed to have with the Constitution has gone by the boards. It has gone by the boards so much in my lifetime I am beginning to wonder if it really ever existed except on paper.

We have got to begin to rethink the fable that the Republican and Democratic Parties are different than one another, that they have different worldviews and goals. It just ain’t so. They both have a One World socialist viewpoint and that’s where they are both trying to take us. You can’t depend on the Republican Party or its minions to combat Obama’s socialism/Marxism. The Republican Party exists to lead you into it without your being aware of it.

Thanks to our government “education system” the average American citizen is being rendered unfit to govern himself and he is being recreated as nothing more than a mindless zombie who is just one more cog in the government/socialist wheel. And as long as you continue to “educate” your kids in this system all you are doing is helping them to create junior socialist cogs for their One World wheel. We have got to start thinking outside of that box. We don’t have much time left. Maybe we had best start asking the Lord to remove the scales from our eyes so we can begin to see what we need to do.

What Was the Abolitionist’s REAL Game?

By Al Benson Jr.

The radical Northern abolitionists before the War of Northern Aggression have always been painted in what passes for history books as a noble, self-sacrificing breed who would sacrifice even their lives to free the black man from slavery in the South. The South, in these same “history” (and I used that term loosely) books is portrayed as a land of benighted darkness which only the sacrifice of the dedicated abolitionist can penetrate—men of the caliber of 19th century terrorist John Brown. The “history” books look with favor on such men. So do those who write communist propaganda—and you often have to wonder if the two are the same. Interestingly enough, there were abolitionist societies in the South but these are never mentioned in the history books, at least not any I ever read.

The conclusion I draw from that fact is that the Southern abolitionists were not really radicals of the leftist stripe but the Northern abolitionists leaned in that direction. Hence they get good press while all others are ignored.

If you think that statement is a bit strong, all you need do is to look at some of the comments of William Lloyd Garrison, one of the foremost of the radical Northern abolitionists.

Garrison, writing in his newspaper The Liberator in 1837 stated: “The motto of our banner has been, from the commencement of our moral warfare, ‘our country is the world—our countrymen are all mankind.’ We trust that will be our only epitaph.” You have to admit that such a statement sounds strongly internationalist in character, but then Garrison goes on to say that, next to the overthrow of slavery, the cause of peace will command his attention. And he sums up by stating: “As our object is universal emancipation—to redeem woman as well as man from a servile to an equal condition,–we shall go for the rights of woman to their utmost extent.” So he goes from slavery, to “peace” to “women’s rights (feminism)” and all these are areas that, even today, are a fertile breeding ground for Marxist endeavor and propaganda.

In his book Wendell Phillips author Carlos Martyn has observed, in regard to abolitionism that: “Thus it was that the crusade against slavery inevitably led first to the movement in behalf of woman and then to the movement in behalf of labor.” And of course abolitionist (and apostate) Wendell Phillips was in the thick of all this. And Mr. Martyn also noted of Garrison that: “There were those among the Garrisonians, too, who had adopted every ism of the day. These they sifted into their Anti-Slavery utterances, and thus produced the impression that Abolitionism was the nucleus of every scatter-brain theory and Utopian enterprise. Mr. Garrison himself was a sinner in this respect.” Whether the abolitionists adopted some oddball ideas or not, there were those among their number who seemed to be guiding them in the same direction that the Marxists were taking—from slavery to feminism and “womens’ rights” to involvement in the labor movement to “peace.” Of course your average run of the mill “historian” today would say that this was all totally coincidental—no collusion here on anyone’s part at all. It all just “happens.” Interestingly enough, Mr. Martyn noted Wendell Phillips’ comments regarding the South. Wendell Phillips said, in a speech We have not only an army to conquer, but we have a state of mind to annihilate…When England conquered the Highlands, she held them—held them until she could educate them,–and it took a generation. That is just what we have to do with the South; annihilate the old South, and put a new one there. You do not just annihilate a thing by abolishing it. You must supply the vacancy. I don’t know about anyone else, but to me, it sounds like Wendell Phillips was advocating that Cultural Genocide be practiced on the South.

So, as you can see, the Cultural Genocide problem here in the South is not new. It’s been going on since before the War of Northern Aggression in some form or other, but intensified more after that war because that’s when the real push came, via “reconstruction” to change the South from the Old South to NO South!

What’s just as bad is that it seems that Northern abolitionists almost practiced a form of the class struggle technique on Southern folks in kind of a reverse form. By their blatant attacks on Southern slavery what they really managed to do was to unite Southerners, both slave owners and those who would never own a slave, into one solid group who felt, with justification, that their section of the country was being attacked. Donnie Kennedy has noted in his informative book Rekilling Lincoln that: “…even nineteenth century historians have noted the fact that the vicious attacks upon Southern slavery by radical abolitionists had a harsh, negative impact on the Southern abolition movement. In 1866, George Lunt of Massachusetts noted this negative consequence of radical abolition agitation: The States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee were earnestly engaged in practical movements for the gradual emancipation of their slaves. This movement continued until it was arrested by the aggressions of the abolitionists upon their voluntary actions. .. The abolitionists, however, refused to accept as impending fact, and insisted upon convicting as criminals those who were so well disposed to bring about the very result at which they themselves professed to aim. The consequences were such as might have been reasonably expected. Promised emancipation refused to submit itself to hateful abolition.”

So, basically, the radical Northern abolitionist movement deep-sixed the Southern abolitionist movement that was working toward gradual emancipation and pushed all Southern folks into a mode of self-protection over concern for what the radical Northerners had planned for them—and what they had planned for them was Cultural Genocide. So I have asked myself, given the leftist nature of Northern abolitionism, if that was the real game of the Northern abolitionist movement. They weren’t so much interested in really getting rid of Southern slavery as they were in getting rid of any potential competition to their movement—because when the slavery question was settled—they had “other plans” for their movement. Donnie noted in Rekilling Lincoln, on page 65, that: “The radical abolitionists crying ‘freedom from slavery’ and denouncing the South as ‘defenders’ of slavery were, by design or by ignorance, completely overlooking the efforts of Southerners to reduce and ultimately end slavery.” In my opinion, it was by design. At least some of the leadership on the Northern abolitionist movement knew what they were doing and the effect it would have and they went ahead anyway because portraying the South as a nation of slaveholders, when 80% of them never owned a slave fit in with their agenda.

And, as historian Otto Scott noted, most people think that abolitionism died with the end of the War of Northern Aggression, but it didn’t because many of the Republicans in Washington were really abolitionists and all the historians did was to change their name from Radical Abolitionists to Radical Republicans. But the same Marxist worldview was still there—world “peace” the feminist movement, the labor union movement—it was all still in place, much of it to be worked out in the 20th century, and much of it still being pushed now.

“Reconstruction” is still in place. Now they call it Political Correctness. Cultural Genocide is still emphatically in place in the South. Now they call it the “new South” or “cultural diversity” or some other high-sounding title to cover up what it really is. And most people don’t realize what’s being done to them. The next phase of this game is to put down white folks and make them feel guilty for being white and this is going on all over the country. It’s part of national “reconstruction.” So stay tuned, folks, if you thought it couldn’t get any worse, you haven’t seen anything yet.

“Rekilling Lincoln”

by Al Benson Jr.

Walter Donald (Donnie) Kennedy, co-author with me of Lincoln’s Marxists a major expose of Lincoln and his leftist legions, has authored another book that explodes many of the Lincoln Cult’s fabulous “historical myths” and straightens out the historical record for those that wish to know the truth.

The title of Donnie’s new book is Rekilling Lincoln and it is published by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana. There have been several good books in the last decade or so dealing with what Mr. Lincoln really was instead of what we have been told he was. I have read some of them and they are good and necessary to poke holes in the Lincoln myth. I have said, in the past, that what Lincoln’s apologists really sought to do was to enthrone Lincoln as the fourth person of the Trinity and change it to a quartet. Their object has not changed, hence books like Donnie’s new one are increasingly necessary to combat the continued apotheosis of the sainted Mr. Lincoln.

What Donnie does in this new book is to explode some of the myths surrounding Mr. Lincoln in major areas. One of these has to do with the Emancipation Proclamation, a much misquoted document which has often had major parts deleted when being presented to high school students as “evidence” that Lincoln “freed the slaves.” This is the type of twisted history we have come to expect from establishment “historians” whose agendas are more important than the truth. But folks wanting to learn the truth, be they young or old, deserve better, and Donnie, in this book, gives them better.

He has several pointed comments about this famous proclamation and he points out serious defects. He notes: The first defect is seen in the date of the first official publication of the proclamation, which was issued in September of 1862. The original document allowed time for Southern slaveholders to save their slave property by returning to the Union. By rejecting the right of secession and allowing the power of the United States to be resumed in their states, Southern slaveholders were assured that the Emancipation Proclamation was to be null and void in their state. Lincoln’s proclamation clearly stated that unless those states that were in rebellion against the United States returned to the Union by January 1, 1863, freedom would be granted to all slaves within those states.

So basically what Lincoln was saying to slave owners was “If you will only come back into the Union you can keep your slaves.” So much for the vaunted Lincolnian “compassion” for black folks! Lincoln had previously stated that his main object was to preserve the Union and if he could do it by freeing some slaves he’d do it; if he could do it by leaving the slaves in bondage he’d do it, but that was his main thrust either way. And I guess, at this point, I have a question. If the Union has to be preserved only by force, with troops and bayonets, is it worth preserving? People like Patrick Henry didn’t think so, but Lincoln did. To paraphrase what Ronald Reagan said once to a political opponent, in regard to Lincoln, “You’re no Patrick Henry.”

And Donnie continues: The second defect in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln states that the declaration is not a measure to promote freedom by destroying slavery but rather a ‘fit and necessary war measure.’ It should be remembered that, at the time this proclamation was issued, the United States had suffered numerous serious defeats at the hands of the Confederate army. From the first major battle of the war, Manassas, in 1861, to Fredericksburg in 1862, the South had stunned the United States and the world with its ability to defend its independence. Lincoln’s war effort was in shambles, and the one great fear that ran through Washington–other than a Confederate army marching down Pennsylvania Avenue–was the recognition of the Confederacy by European nations…Having lost the advantage on the battlefield, Lincoln was forced to engage in political subterfuge to prevent one or more European nations from recognizing the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation…The Proclamation gave the appearance that by supporting the Confederate States of America, a nation would be ‘defending slavery.’

Lincoln’s own words, in his First Inaugural Address gave the lie to what he was about to do. In that address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Even the Republican Party platform for 1860 said the same thing. It stated: “That the maintainance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions (this is a pseudonym for slavery) according to its own judgment exclusively is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed forces of the soil of any State or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” Wonder if he included the invasion of the South after Fort Sumpter in that catagory.

I will do more with Rekilling Lincoln as the Lord allows, but this was a good starting point. You can begin to see that “Honest” Abe’s attitude toward slavery and slaves ain’t quite what you were taught in school that it was. If you want more of the truth of the reasons behind the “Civil War” then get this book.

Giuliani Tells the Truth About Obama—why now?

By Al Benson Jr.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently ignited a media firestorm when he made the comment that he didn’t think Barack Obama really loved America. From the reaction of the “news” media as well as all the other useful idiots out there you’d have thought he had accused the Pope of blasphemy when all he did was to state a simple truth. Even one of the anchor persons on Fox News took him to task, which shows you how far to the left Fox News is now willing to go to prove its “relevance.”

And I think most Americans that give Giuliani’s statement any serious thought will be forced to conclude that he is right. The president does not love America. He really hates both America and its people, especially the middle class that he claims to embrace. What Obama really loves is his socialist vision for America and the thought of what he really wants to fundamentally transform this country into. That’s where his real affection lies. He seeks to transform us into a society where the community organizers and their buddies in big government will run the show and we will have no say at all.

Thomas Sowell, in a column that appeared on http://spectator.org on February 24th noted that: “Barack Obama’s campaign promise to ‘fundamentally change the United States of America’ hardly suggests love. Nor did his international speaking tour in 2009, telling foreign audiences that America was to blame for problems on the world stage…Some people who are denouncing former mayor Rudolh Giuliani seem to be saying that it is just not right to accuse a President of the United States of being unpatriotic. But when Barack Obama was a Senator, that is precisely what he said about President George W. Bush. Where was the outrage then?” Good question, but with today’s media double standard, don’t hold your breath waiting for an intelligent answer.

Another article on http://www.nypost.com for February 21st observed: “Rudy Giuliani doubled down on his claims that President Obama doesn’t ‘love America’ in an interview with the Post Friday—claiming the commander-in-chief has been influenced by communists since his birth.” And Giuliani continued: “From the time he was 9 years old, he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist” and Giuliani noted that Obama’s own grandfather had introduced him to Davis.

A writer for http://www.junkscience.com says it all much more bluntly, but no less accurately, when he writes: “Frank Marshall Davis was a college graduate, card carrying, writing, organizing, advocate member of the commie party, a self-admitted bisexual, pornographer and pedophile. Nice guy to mentor a future POTUS, right…I knew about Frank years ago from reading many books and essays. I have a background file and books that measure a foot or more. I learned early and well during the run up to the 2008 election from David Freddoso, Jerome Corsi, Jack Cashill, Stanley Kurtz, Paul Kengor, David Horowitz, and many essayists…Did you know that he succeeded a commie in the Illinois Legislature, Alice Palmer?—commies in the black community are common, particularly in the urban militant race grievance cultures of places like Philly, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit. Name any major city that doesn’t have it’s share of aggrieved angry racialist commies who want to bring down the man. Obama was steeped in commie culture.” Blunt, but true, in spite of Fox News! I’ve read some of the stuff this writer refers to and he’s right on the money. Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-In-Chief provides excellent in-depth coverage of Obama’s deep ties to what can only be described as the network of the socialist underground in this country. It’s all out there and it’s all functioning to change the country into something we will not even recognize, and yet most people are totally unaware of its existence.

Writer Cliff Kincaid, in an article on http://www.NewsWithViews.com stated on February 23rd that “Giuliani’s public identification of Davis and discussion of his role in grooming a young Barack Obama marks the first time, in my memory, that a top Republican has ever mentioned the Davis-Obama relationship. It was done in the context of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly of questioning how Giuliani could dare ask whether Obama loves America.” Why shouldn’t he ask? Are such questions somehow “forbidden?” You can bet when “net neutrality” kicks in they will be, but they should be asked before that unhappy event occurs.

Thing is, lots of folks knew before Obama was elected that he has socialist connections. Kincaid noted that Republican operative Karl Rove had been running around telling Republicans not to accuse Obama of being a socialist. Why not? Which means that Rove already was aware of Obama’s background and didn’t want it spread around before the election. I have contended that, at the leadership levels, both Republicans and Democrats were fully aware of Obama’s Marxist proclivities and neither had any problems with them—except they wanted to make sure the man on the street wasn’t aware of them? In other words, they covered his leftism when they should have exposed it. No surprise there.

Kincaid continued: “Even more of the story was put together by Paul Kengor in his authoritative book on Davis, The Communist. It appears that Davis was an influence over Obama for about nine full years, until Obama was 18 and went off to college and, by his own admission, would attend socialist conferences and pick Marxist professors as his friends…When former Obama advisor David Axelrod talks about Obama being free from major scandals, he is ignoring the biggest scandal of all—how Obama concealed his Marxist upbringing and relationship with Davis. Axelrod, of course, was part of the cover-up.”

Now I’m glad that Giuliani has said what he said and that he “shocked” a decadent “news” media that really knew all about most of this and kept it from the American people. But my question is—why now? The Republican establishment knew all this stuff before the 2008 election and chose to say nothing that would aid their candidate in the presidential election and you can bet that if they all knew this, then Giuliani knew it back then, too. So why is he telling us now? What’s the reason for this “sudden revelation?” The people that pointed all of this out over six years ago were all painted as nuts and “conspiracy theorists” and the public was told to ignore them. Yet now, a member of the Republican Establishment (and Giuliani IS a member of it) is publicly admitting what many of us said back before the 2008 “election.” So, why now? Has Obama’s Marxism gotten so blatant that even part of the Establishment can’t stomach it? I almost find that hard to believe. The Establishment, of which the leadership of both parties belongs to, has no problem with anything, no matter how vile, that will further their One World agenda. For them, like Marx, the end truly justifies the means.

So stay tuned folks, if something is forthcoming before the Net is “neutralized” then we might find out. If not, it will continue to be business as usual in Sodom on the Potomac.