Another Golden Opportunity For Hogg(wash) In Texas?

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

Well, here we go  again. Yet another school shooting in another gun free zone. If you get the feeling that you have heard it all before, it’s because you have—on many occasions in the past few years. I have said before that the shootings will continue until the general public has gotten the “correct” attitude on the Second Amendment (total gun confiscation) because that is  what these shootings are really all about—a bloody prelude to grabbing the guns. And if hundreds of students have to be shot in the process, the gun grabbers couldn’t care less! It’s just the collateral damage necessary to achieve their agenda.

In this most recent case in Santa Fe, Texas the shooter is a 17-year old student that they have actually captured instead of killed. That doesn’t happen often. He is supposed  to have killed 10 people and wounded more than a dozen others. He was a student at the school he shot up.

According to https://www.zerohedge.com “CNN shared a screenshot of the shooter’s Facebook page before it was taken down. According to Cassandra Fairbanks, Dimitrios Pagourtzis was a ‘Columbiner’: he had the same button that Dylaln Klebold wore on his shoe during the columbine massacre.” I wasn’t exactly sure what a “Columbiner” was so I looked for a definition. I found one on www.urbandictionary.com that said: “Someone who has a profound interest in the April 20th Columbine High School massacre. They may also be obsessed with two of the victims that committed suicide, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris…”

Whatever this kid was, he admired all the wrong  people. Zerohedge continued: “The Daily Caller reported that social media pages…reveal he was obsessed with guns, knives and animal torture. They also show that he owned a trench coat with USSR and Nazi symbols on it…His Facebook page also appeared  ‘to suggest an obsession with Satanism’.”

Supposedly the shooter wore a black trench coat and carried a sawed-off shotgun. Can you hear the new cries now for “shotgun control?” No AR15 for this kid—he did it the old-fashioned way—which will probably trigger a new call for ALL guns of any kind to be banned!

I wondered as I read about this—where will David Hogg(wash) fit into this situation? I’m sure they can find a spot for him somewhere. With the shooting  in Parkland, Florida Hogg(wash) had his “15 minutes of fame” well, maybe 14 & ½ minutes of it, and now he seems to  be on the downside of that. Maybe this new shooting in South Texas will give him another chance at yet another 15 minutes of fame; one more chance to excoriate us “old dumb (expletive deleted)” because we didn’t have the good sense to do what needed to be done  and left it to his generation to ‘’’save” the world. I expect more of that  sort of drivel from Comrade Hogg in this current situation. It’s my fervent hope that he will just stay seated and keep his trap shut, but I think he is too enamored of his leftist talking points to grace us with his silence!

And this current shooter, with the communist and fascist medals on his coat—well—would you believe the useful idiots on the left are quickly blaming the NRA for him! Somehow,  it’s the NRA’s fault this guy is out there! Can they really be that stupid? Some can, but many of them, as you get to the  upper levels of their organizations, really know better and they hope we don’t!

If this new shooting ain’t a false flag, it’s the second cousin to one and before we are done with this we will again be subjected to the classic “pressure from above and pressure from below” scenario that I and others have written about so often. When it comes to contacting your “elected representatives” about opposing new and upcoming attempts at  gun control measures,  you all know what to do.

Update–5/21–David Hogg(wash’s) latest commentary on the Texas gun free zone school shooting is to encourage all graduating students across the country to paint their graduation caps orange. This will, somehow, magically increase the gun control sentiment among graduating high school seniors nationwide. And if it doesn’t, you can bet the farm the prostitute press will make it sound like it did.

There is an interesting article up on http://www.infowars.com for today, 5/21, that details how George Soros funded that Women’s March that ended up supporting Hogg(wash) and his radical anti-gun buddies. Check it out. And I ask again–is anyone really surprised???

Advertisements

Karl Marx—Deadbeat Daddy

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

On May 5th of this year many celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. You’d think from some of the articles  I read, mostly on the internet, that  Marx was a daring, bold economic visionary who had come up with a new economic system that proved to be a boon to mankind. Of course that’s the line today’s current crop of Marxist professors have been programmed to parrot. Unfortunately they parrot it to a whole batch of college students who, thanks to inadequate economic education at the high school level, really don’t have a clue and if the professor is good enough he can,  as they say, “baffle them with his BS.”

Supposedly, Marx’s economic vision was put forth for the benefit of the  poor working  people. That that idea was a total charade has been proven by the millions of poor working people that have  perished under various Marxist regimes around the  world. Anyone who believes that hogwash truly has to have spiritual and economic blinders on.

Steve Byas, writing on https://www.thenewamerican.com for May 5th wrote: “While Marx is certainly a central figure in the history of communism, he was by no means the lone originator of communism. And his background demonstrates  that communism did not  spring from the toiling masses of the working class. The reality is that Marx, like almost all socialist revolutionaries, was a product of academia and self-proclaimed intellectual secret societies.” It has been reported that Marx didn’t write The Communist Manifesto on his  own, but rather he wrote it for a group called The League of the Just  (Illuminati) and his name does not even appear on the cover of the first edition.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, noted that Charles A. Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune hired Marx to write columns for the paper, which was owned and published by utopian socialist Horace Greeley. From 1851 to 1862 Marx contributed about 500 articles to Greeley’s paper—his associate Friedrich Engles probably wrote about a quarter of them. He was more well versed in English than Marx was, and besides, Marx was a bit on the lazy side. It seems, though, that he had no trouble taking pay for the articles Engels wrote.

Leopold Schwarzschild, in his book The Red Prussian published in 1947 by Charles Scribner’s Sons noted of Marx that: “In all this there was nothing to indicate that from now on collections, subscriptions and charity were to be this brilliant young man’s sole means  of support. Nobody could have imagined it, and yet so it was. With the collections and subscriptions of 1844 he embarked on a life which was never again, in all the long decades, to have any other basis.” In other words, for all his supposed economic prowess, Marx and his family mostly lived on charity—and a lot of that came from his friend Engels.

Recently I ran across an article from 2010 on https://hubpages.com entitled Karl Marx Lived in Filth and Neglected His Children. The article observed that: “When an educated man chooses to live in poverty , and raise his children in poverty, that is abuse. When Marx and his wife and children were living in London, a visitor wrote a description of  their lifestyle in their 3-room flat. Not only did the Marx children have to endure the hunger of  poverty, they were raised in filth, or what his friend described as ‘a pig-sty’….Both Marx and his wife came from comfortable homes, hers more prominent. Her father was a Prussian baron. And she, Jenny, was an educated woman when she married Marx. Together they had seven children. Four of those children died young. Only three survived to achieve adulthood. Every biography of Marx reports that his four children who died  young died because of the poverty they had to endure…Marx occasionally wrote articles for newspapers and he wrote his long papers and books full of his philosophies about the ‘struggle’ of workers, but he never worked a day in his life”

He also fathered an illegitimate son, but you don’t hear much about that little indiscretion. The hub pages article observed, in closing, that “By any standard, Marx’ life was a failure, as a husband,  as a father, as a provider.” But, hey, Marx didn’t have time for any of that bourgeois stuff.  He and his fellow socialist revolutionaries/terrorists had  an agenda to push onto the world. They just didn’t have any time available for being good fathers and good providers and good husbands. That was for the plebes, not them. They were above all that!

So all those useful idiots that want to enthuse over Karl Marx should take a step back and realize that, when push came to shove, Marx was little more than just another Deadbeat Dad!

4/9/65

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well, today is the 153rd anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House in Virginia.

This event, so we are told, ended the “Civil War.” As far as the professional “historians” and their appendages in the Fake News Media are concerned, that was it, the end. The South fought to preserve her right to keep slaves and lost–end of story. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t.

Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia did not end the War. There were still two armies in the field, Joe Johnston’s army in North Carolina, and Kirby Smith’s army of the Trans-Mississippi in Louisiana. Though these would eventually surrender, they hadn’t yet, and the lawful government of the Confederate States of America would never surrender. To this day they have never surrendered. The surrender of Lee’s army was interpreted as being the surrender of the Confederate States of America. It wasn’t!

Jeff Davis had no intention of surrendering the Confederate government. He put it all, records, and cabinet members, on the train to Danville, Virginia and sought to operate the Confederate government as the train moved South. Davis and many in the government were finally caught–and the Yankee/Marxists even lied about the events surrounding that. Be that as it may, the Confederate government never officially surrendered. Clifford Dowdey wrote about that in his book The History of the Confederacy–1832-1865, pages 411, 414.

The Yankee/Marxists, due to having more men, money, and material, overwhelmed us on the battle field–but they never forced a surrender out of us in the end!

So I guess, to satisfy the historians (hysterians) it has been promulgated abroad that the “Civil War” ended at Appomattox on April 9th. That way no one will ever be tempted to ask to see the documents showing the surrender of the Confederate States, with official signatures.

Of course, most astute followers of our history realize that the War really solved nothing and that even though the shooting part of the War has abated for now, the cultural phase of the War has been cranking up since the advent of “reconstruction” and has now reached almost fever pitch, as the Yankee/Marxists now feel they have us down for the count along with most of our monuments and flags. It will be up to us, with God’s help and our grit, as to how far down they have us, but I have the sneaky feeling it ain’t as far down and they think it should be or would like it to be. So it will be up to us, and those we educate for the future, as to how far down we are. Kind of like the picture of the heron trying to swallow the frog–except the frog has got a grip on his throat so he can’t swallow anything and the caption at the top of the picture says “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” That’s where we are right now–so happy Appomattox Day!

Did Lincoln’s Theological Views Reflect His Political Actions?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The title of this article is a legitimate question–not only for Lincoln, but for the rest of us as well. Do our political actions reflect our theology? If you look today at some of these Democrats and RINO’s that hate Trump and will do or say anything to hurt his agenda, true or not, (and most of the time it isn’t) you have to ask if what they are doing reflects their theology–and if it does–then what does it say about the god they serve?

Similar questions were not always asked about Abraham Lincoln because back then most people didn’t equate a man’s theological perspective with what he did politically. Then, as today, they should have. There is more connection there than most people realize.

I’ve dealt with Mr. Lincoln’s religious views in the past, but not for awhile, so it might not hurt to go back and refresh our memories about them. Ward H. Lamon wrote a book, published in 1872–The Life of Abraham Lincoln: from his birth to his inauguation as president. Lamon probably knew Lincoln as well as anyone. And Mr. Lamon quoted, in his book, another man who knew Lincoln as well as anyone, his law partner for years, William H. Herndon. Herndon said of Lincoln: “As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was, in short, an infidel-atheist. He did not believe that Jesus was God, nor the Son of God–was a fatalist, denied the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times, that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of God, as the Christian world contends.”

With a world view like that, how do you think he would deal with his political adversaries? Does the word “treacherously” come to mind?

Lew Rockwell wrote an article back in May of 2000 called The Genesis of the Civil War in which he made some interesting observations. Mr. Rockwell took pains to note that the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s was not really a “civil war” as a civil war is one where two opposing groups are fighting for control of the same country–and that was never the South’s objective. The North wanted total control if it all–the South just wanted to separate and go its own way. Mr. Rockwell deals with that by saying: “But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing  their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.  In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the ‘tariff of abominations.’  Thirty years later, with the South paying for 87% of federal tarff revenue while having their livelihoods being threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to slave status, with the federal government as its master.”  Do you think no one in the North realized this? The average man may not have, but the Northern politicians and political thinkers did. What do you suppose their theological world view was? Three guesses!

And obviously Mr. Lincoln understood this. He was no dummy and, as a lobbyist for Northern railroads he would have known how this system worked. When someone asked him at one point why he did not just let the South go, his reply was “What then will become of my tariff?” So Lincoln realized the South was getting shafted–and that was okay with him, but if they seceded then he wouldn’t be getting their tariff money anymore and the North couldn’t continue to stiff them anymore and so Lincoln had to prevent that. In other words, legalized theft of Southern resources had to continue so Northern industrial interests could benefit. Whose theological persuasion do you suppose that benefited?

Lincoln made it clear his main intent was to get that Southern tariff money–no matter what. He said “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…” There was no proof Lincoln ever declared war to abolish slavery, it was always to “preserve the Union.” One might well ask,  For who?

Of course if Lincoln did not believe in the Bible and the truth about Jesus Christ, that means that he served another god who had an opposing theology to that found in the Scriptures. Do you think Lincoln realized all this. Commentary from his era would lead us to believe that, to some extent, he did.

Unfortunately for the North, the concept of legalized theft via the tariff, was reflected in their culture, whether they realized it or not, and some did. The rise of Unitarianism in the North and after that, the spread of socialism there, reflected a Northern theology that was justifiably repugnant to orthodox Christians in the South. Over the years, I have mentioned the theological implications of the War of Northern Aggression. Most don’t want to hear it. I have gotten reactions ranging from a stopping of the ears to outright laughter–and some of this from Christians.

But, the theological implications of that War will have to be dealt with, one way or another because, in the final analysis, the theological implications of that War will prove to be more important than the supposed slavery issue. And Lincoln’s theological world view is part and parcel of it all.

Belated Birthday Comments on Lincoln the Empire Builder

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Well, we are now into February–the beginning of Black History Month, which should end sometime around the latter part of Spring. Yesterday was Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, with all the attendant legends and myths posing as history that always accompany that. As always we will be fed all the historical bovine fertilizer that goes along with that notable event.

This brief commentary would normally have been posted on the “Great Emancipator’s” birthday. I roughed it out the previous evening, only to discover that, when I went to print it off, the printer attached to my computer had suddenly developed a case of IDS (ink deficiency syndrome). Having been able to obtain another print cartridge late on the day of his birth I am now posting this, but the date on it will be tomorrow, the 13th. In this case a day doesn’t make that much difference, seeing that we all have already been treated to 150 plus years of historic swill.

We have been informed that Lincoln inaugurated and fought a war “to free other men” and that this was the noble task of the Army of the Potomac. This romantic psychobabble was presented to us years ago in the movie Gettysburg. Actually. Lincoln inaugurated  and promoted this war to preserve the Union (under Republican control) and he really didn’t give a flip about freeing the slaves. If that happened, even partially, that was alright, but if it didn’t that was alright with him too. He said as much. And just exactly why did he want to preserve the Union? Well, because there was big tariff money to be made off the Southern states, thus forcing them to pay for the lion’s share of running the federal government so internal improvements could be made–in the North!

Although Lincoln was not a big fan of slavery, he didn’t really climb on the Emancipation Gravy Train until it was politically advantageous for him to do so. When the emancipation gig could be used to promote his (and his backer’s) agenda then Lincoln assumed the mantle of “the Great Emancipator” and the Lincoln Cult historians have made sure it was draped over his shoulders for the last 150 years. He was buried in it. I’ve seen all manner of articles over the years about how Lincoln ‘matured” in his view of blacks. It’s all rubbish! Lincoln was a flaming racist when he started out and he remained one up to and including the day Booth pulled the trigger.

Gregg Loren Durand, in his informative book America’s Caesar–Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire,  originally published in 2000, noted, on page 95 that: “Lincoln’s former political opponent, Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, had also warned the American people a month earlier that the Republican leaders who put Lincoln into office ‘are striving to break up the Union under the pretense of preserving it’  and that ‘they are struggling to overthrow the Constitution while professing undying attachment to it…and are trying to plunge the country into a cruel war as the surest means of destroying the Union upon the plea of enforcing the laws and protecting public property’.” A typically cultural Marxist approach–claim you are doing the exact opposite of what you are really doing, and if you can convince enough “useful idiots” to go along with you, then you can claim a mandate to destroy the country and create “Post-America.” While you claim to preserve, you instead destroy.

Mr. Durand noted, on page 87, that: “When at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in February of 1865,  President Davis offered to have the Southern states return to the Union on the condition that they be allowed to exercise their rightful domestic powers, Lincoln refused saying, ‘No. Submit to me or the war goes on.’ Thus he revealed his rightful masters to be, not the American people, but the private financial interests and political aristocrats which controlled him from behind the cover of the slavery agitation. Clearly, the true purpose of the war was, as Luther Martin had warned over seventy years before, ‘the total abolition and destruction of all state governments’.” The Deep State in action in 1865! And this was to be done so that state’s rights could be replaced by one, consolidated “democracy” which “historians” have seen fit not to tell us about. But if you will observe today, the term ‘democracy” gets tossed around out there lots more than the term “republic” does. Most folks think there is no difference. So did I once. I learned I was wrong.

In other words, “Father Abraham” the “saviour of the Union” was a political fraud! Not so unlike so many of today’s politicians!  And a consolidated democracy  would fit very well into the plans  of the New World Order crowd of Lincoln’s day–and don’t think they didn’t exist, because they did. And having some of those “Forty-Eighter” generals in Lincoln’s armies fit right in with the general scheme of things. The headquarters of the NWO at the time might have been London, rather than Washington or New York, but they existed–as they still do, and their agenda for us has not changed.

I don’t know about you all, but I made no plans to celebrate Mr. Lincoln’s birth. And should there be any plans to commemorate it later this month, then let this article by my contribution to that–and if, for some reason, it is not appreciated, well, I won’t be a bit surprised.

How “History” Professors View the “Civil War”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many who will read this are already aware of how our current crop of “historians”–so called, view the War of Northern Aggression. However, some who read it may not be all that aware, and so this is written for those unaware ones who still labor under the naive delusion that the War was fought over slavery and that communism did not rear its ugly head in America until at least the 1930s. Well, it did rear its ugly head in the 30s–but it was the 1830s, not the 1930s. By the 1930s communism was already well established here. It’s just that no one bothered to inform the American public.

I spend considerable time on the internet scrounging around for information in those areas that concern me, and one of those areas is the record of communist and socialist infiltration in this country, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I recently ran across an article by Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of history at George Washington University. The article was written back in July of 2013 and, at that time, Professor Zimmerman was working on an international history of the American War of Northern Aggression. Of course he didn’t call it that.

He had some interesting commentary in his article that backed up what Donnie Kennedy and I said in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.  The title of his article was The Civil War Was a Victory for Marx and Working-Class Radicals. When I read that I thought “I wonder what some of the students in high school and college history classes would think of Zimmerman’s viewpoint if it were presented to their classes in this manner.” of course, thanks to decades of government school indoctrination that might not bother all of them, but it might bother some–and that “some” might ask embarrassing questions of their “history” teachers. To counteract that possibility the War is usually presented to our students as a noble Northern crusade to eradicate slavery in that mean old, racist, South. The fact that four slave states remained in the Union is seldom touched upon.

Zimmerman couches it in this manner, quite revelatory in its own way.  He says: “For revolutionary socialists, the Civil War was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.” The communists are really high on “democracy.” It’s one of their favorite euphemisms, but they don’t mean the same thing by it you have been taught to believe it is.

Professor Roy Colby, in his book A Communese-English Dictionary notes the communist understanding of democracy as: “a collectivistic dictatorship; a totalitarian state.” It’s interesting that the Founding Fathers all had a very dim view of Democracy. They felt it eventually led to tyranny. So what Professor Zimmerman is telling us, whether he even realizes it or not, is that the Civil War was a victory for the totalitarian state against the concept of private property. You folks that have never thought of it in those terms need to start trying to wrap your minds around that concept.

And Zimmerman, again, back up what Donnie Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists when he says: “Marx also followed the progress of the Civil War closely because so many of his fellow exiled European revolutionaries fought in the ranks of the Union Army. Defeated and sent into American exile after a wave of European revolutions in 1848-49, many discovered the struggle against slavery a more hopeful strategy than they have previously pursued. Revolutionary socialists were thus one of the many groups that won the Civil War. For them it was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.

How many of you have ever seen the results of the War of Northern Aggression presented in this fashion? Not many I’ll wager. What Zimmerman is telling you here, if you can begin to grasp it, is that the result of the War of Northern Aggression was a victory for communism against the right of private property–and by private property I don’t just mean slaves. Anyone who has read about Sherman’s March through Georgia and South Carolina knows the utter contempt Sherman and his “bummers” had for private property–all private property. They expended lots of time and effort destroying as much as they could in their gentle ministrations to an almost prostrate Confederacy. And they were especially hard on Christian Churches. Does that tell you anything? It should!

So communism, in one form or another, has been alive and well in this country for longer than most people care to think about. Zimmerman is probably not even aware of Donnie’s and my book, but his commentary in this article backs up just about everything we said in it, only in a little less detail.

I don’t know Professor Zimmerman, but from the way he writes I would assume he is a graduate of the University of Political Correctness. And, in his honesty,  he admits to the same things Donnie and I have written about. Seems I have read a passage in Scripture about something being confirmed in the mouths of two or three witnesses.

Has Anyone Noticed?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have watched all this fuss over Roy Moore in Alabama recently. For all the allegations (and no proof yet) everyone is just supposed to walk away from Roy Moore and vote for the liberal (socialist) Democrat. If Roy Moore manages to pull off this election in Alabama and become Alabama’s senator then he will be subject to the exact same treatment that Donald Trump has been getting for almost a year now as president. The pattern in both cases is clear. Why if I had a suspicious mind I’d almost be tempted to think that the same people had planned both campaigns against both men.

If Roy Moore manages to win and they can’t find a way to steal it from him, all he has to do is look at Donald Trump and he has to know what he is in store for–every day he is in office.

He will be yet one more vote for Donald Trump’s agenda, which Trump’s adversaries don’t want and he will also be yet another vote against any possible impeachment proceeding that may be brought against Trump for his infamous “Russian collusion nothingburger.”

The Deep State is giving Roy Moore the same treatment with all these women he is supposed to have chased as they gave Trump with his “Russian dossier.” A whole lot of hype by the prostitute press with nothing to back it up, and they realize they have nothing, so they keep picking up the same mud they threw against the wall already and slinging it against the wall again, hoping at least some of it might stick this time. They hope against hope that if they toss this hogwash enough times then enough people will believe it to make a difference.

But the media is having a problem. They have been so thoroughly discredited in the last year with out and out falsehoods and spin that almost no one except the Leftist “useful idiots” believes them anymore. Many of us haven’t believed them for decades now, seeing how they work, but they have become so transparent recently they just aren’t fooling hardly anyone anymore and people are flocking to the alternative media to get some real news.

One instance comes to mind that I have always remembered. In 1999 my wife and I attended a Confederate Alliance conference in Charleston, South Carolina. This was an attempt to get a batch of Confederate and Southern Heritage groups together so they could start to work together in certain areas where they all had a common interest and concern. I gave one of the speeches at this conference, only one among several, and I agreed with the concept being put forward.

The man who worked hard to put all this together was Craig Maus, who, like me, was a Northerner who threw his lot in with the Cause of the South.

At the end of the first day’s speeches a couple “news” people strayed in looking for someone to interview about the conference and they grabbed Craig Maus for an interview. They immediately started asking questions about race and the conference’s relationship to racial issues. Craig told them right up front that this conference had nothing to do with race, that the KKK, the Skinheads, and other such groups were not there and were not welcome there. He made it very plain.

But that wasn’t enough for them. They moved on to a couple other questions and then circled back to the race issue. Craig explained to them again that, for this group, there was no “race” issue.  That did not enter into what we were there for. And so the media people veered off again for another couple questions and then came back to the race issue from a little different angle. By this time Craig knew what these people were after and just quit playing the game. They were not going to get what they came for, or what their editors had sent them for, and so they left. But their article in the next day’s paper was loaded with innuendo–because that’s all they had; no proof or evidence of what they had come to get, just innuendo. But for our “news” media that’s often enough. It doesn’t have to be true. All the media has to do is make people think it’s true, but if you learn to read between the lines you can see that most times the “news” media really has nothing that they try to make sound like something.

They’ve done that for over a year now with Trump and they are in the process of playing the same game with Roy Moore. I hope if Roy Moore wins he senate race he realizes this because the media and their bosses will make his life a hell on earth if they can–every day he is there. Remember one thing–the media and those that pay them to do what they do don’t want “America First” they want America last. And they want YOU last!