“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.

The Guilt Complex Industry

by Al Benson Jr.

Marxist Cultural Genocide takes many forms, everything from destroying the cultural symbols of a people to making them feel guilty about who they are, making them ashamed to be what they are so they long to be something else.

Ever since the supposed end of the War of Northern Aggression (it never truly ended because it was a culture war) in 1865 it has been the main chore of the Yankee/Marxist propaganda mills to make sure the Southern people never felt good enough about themselves or their Cause that they would stand up and defend either their Cause or themselves. These subversive tactics ranged everywhere (and they are blatantly apparent in our day) from the removal of Confederate flags, statues and even street and park names to trying to make Southern folks feel guilty about their Southern accents. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I once talked to a couple of nurses in a doctor’s office I visited. They noted the difference between my accent and theirs and they told me “we sound stupid.” I tried to disabuse them of such foolishness and asked them right out “who told you that you sound stupid?” No reply, but they were convinced that their Southern accents made them sound dumb, ignorant, or whatever and I could not convince them otherwise.

They even have courses in some colleges to help Southern young folks “get rid” of their Southern accents and sound just like those cookie-cutter models you see on the network “news” programs. Yuk!!! Give me a good Southern accent anytime! I guess one way to promote egalitarianism is to try to make everyone sound alike. Again, yuk! No matter what noble sounding reasons they attempt to give for this kind of thing, it is still cultural genocide. You are consciously tearing down Southern cultures and speech patterns and what are you replacing them with–a New Jersey accent? Heaven help us!

I’ve been watching much of what has gone on in Lexington and Charlottesville, Virginia recently, where Confederate flags are being removed, not allowed to fly anywhere except maybe on one day a year, or where holidays commemorating Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are being “removed” so they are no longer celebrated–but you’ll notice they are quick to celebrate Martin Luther King day or Black History month. You have to wonder in these towns what holiday will replace Lee-Jackson Day, the celebration of Che Guevarra’s birthday maybe or Fred Shuttlesworth Day? If you don’t know who these last two names are, look them up while you can still find them on the Internet, before it is “neutralized.”

One major thing guaranteed to make Southern folks ashamed of who they are is the slavery question. This has been trotted out for so long by so many that it has finally gotten old. Southerners are constantly having the slavery issue thrown in their faces. Like they never had slaves in the North? Again, do a little homework. There is still evidence on the Internet (though it may disappear shortly) that shows that slavery was a going concern in the North. Most of you have probably heard of the state of Rhode Island, but how many of you know the full name of the state? It is the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Want three guesses as to why they named it that? Anyone that informs you that they never had any slaves in the North really hopes you are dumb, and if you are that dumb, maybe he can sell you a gold brick–genuine gold at bargain basement rates! Just give him your bank account number and he’ll deposit it in your account immediately if not sooner. The major difference between slavery in the North and in the South was that the Northern folks did away with it a few years earlier than the South did. And many Northerners that had slaves sold them South and after they’d got paid for them, told Southern folks that having those slaves was a sin and they should get rid of them. If it had been such a sin then why didn’t the Northerners emancipate them instead of selling them? You see, guilt often depends on whose ox gets gored (or who makes the profit).

One way the Yankee/Marxists have been able to instill guilt into Southern folks is via the public school system. You train three or four generations of public school kids with the idea that what their ancestors fought for was inherently evil and eventually, believe it or not, you are going to come up with a batch of kids that really believes that, and they end up feeling guilty because of who they are and not because of anything they ever did. I recall talking to a pastor once who told me that “after the War Between the States the South was the most heavily brainwashed part of the country.” He was right. Having lived down here for several years (and even before that) I have seen examples of it. Iv’e met Southerners who feel so much guilt over being born in the South that they feel this compelling need to atone for that sin by embracing Abraham Lincoln and the Union flag and denouncing as traitors anyone who will not do that. Someone from Georgia did that to me once and I replied with Patrick Henry’s famous quote “If this be treason then make the most of it.” I found it ironic that he, born and raised in the South felt the compelling need to wrap himself in Lincoln and his collectivist cause while I, born and raised in the North, felt, in the words of my friend, Donnie Kennedy that “the South was right.”

This kind of cultural genocide continues today, even as I write this. There are Marxist mentalities in Washington, New York, and other environs around the country that are working overtime to destroy the culture of the South, a culture more biblically based than anything they ever grew up in. I have long contended that the Christian base of Southern culture is really what they are trying to destroy. I haven’t yet seen anything to make me change my mind. The Christian faith is really hated by those people and those people actively work at trying to destroy it.

The Cultural Genocide Marxists are at war with the Christian faith and it’s time more of the Christians woke up and realized that.

Marxist Environmentalism

by Al Benson Jr.

That what we call today environmentalism or the environmentalist movement is a creature of the far left is beyond doubt. All you have to do is connect the dots and you never have to worry about any of them being on the right side of the page. And the United Nations is at the very heart of leftist environmentalism.

There was an article on http://www.foxnews.com on April 18, 2011 by Jonathan Wachtel which stated: “United Nations diplomats on Wednesday will set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of ‘Mother Earth.’ A bloc of mostly socialist government led by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature. Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community—plants, animals, and terrain.” In other words, folks, rocks have rights, and if you dare violate the “rights” of any rock, boulder, stone or pebble, you just might be in big trouble with the U.N. Same goes for lizards, spiders, and other creeping wildlife! Or as someone so clearly stated: “Just to make sure we understand, human babies in the womb do NOT deserve human rights. But that tree over there, those bugs under that rock, do.” That about sums up the worldview of many in both the United Nations and the (dis)United States.

The goal of the Environmentalist Movement actually has been quite clearly stated by the U.N.’s Executive Secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica. In an article by Burt Prelutsky on http://www.BurtPrelutsky.com Ms. Figueres has, in a very straightforward manner noted that “the primary goal of environmentalists, of which she is one, is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. Go back and read that last line one more time. This lady is telling you what the environmentalist move really is all about! She doesn’t mince words. She says, right up front, as quoted on http://www.lucianne.com “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.” The website http://www.12160.info has headlined the article about this: “U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare—Destruction Of Capitalism.” That’s an accurate headline. However, I doubt that your local evening “news” paper or your television network news program will ever mention anything about this. They wouldn’t dare. This is the sort of news they get paid to conceal, to pretend it doesn’t exist, it never happened, and if you should dare to have read enough to be able to quote this “lady” at the U.N., why then you are a “conspiracy theorist” because anyone who really knows what goes on just knows she didn’t really mean it the way it sounded. Problem is, she did. She meant it exactly the way it sounded, which shows that the ruling establishment in this country figures that, by now, our public “education” system has so dumbed us down that we won’t grasp the enormity of what was said. Sadly, in some cases, they may be right. I know some folks, some who are even Christians, hearing her statement and responding with a loud yawn as they wonder when the next “reality show” will show up on the tube.

I have always had my doubts about the global warming scam. I saw a statement just last night from some “news” source that said that this winter has, so far, been the second warmest on record. I thought to myself, who are you trying to kid? Both last year and so far this year we have had two of the coldest, most miserable winters here in the Deep South that we’ve had since we moved here and you are telling me this has been a warm winter! In fact, last year, when it got so cold here we actually had newscasters with the gall to tell us that the cold weather we were experiencing was caused by global warming. In other words it’s colder because it’s warmer! This sounds like logic that only a Yankee/Marxist could come up with!

One of the websites I checked out before doing this article had this comment: “For a moment the mask dropped, and the real face of Big Green could be seen. Is their goal a cooler, cleaner earth? No, it’s the destruction of capitalism. Future generations will consider efforts to control ‘climate change’ to have been political insanity.”

Does anyone remember the big fuss in England a few short years ago when the climate change people over there were caught “cooking the books” as it were in regard to global warming? After that little episode you didn’t hear much about global warming for almost a year. But, when they figured the furor had died down and folks had forgotten all about it, they started right up again with the same old global warming shell game. So we need to start asking ourselves—who controls those that are pushing the global warming agenda? And who will make money off the global warming agenda and who will be harmed by it?

They’ve already told us their intent is to destroy capitalism. What do they intend to replace it with? I don’t think you really want to know. Now I’m not a big fan of monopoly capitalism or crony capitalism, which is really a form of industrial fascism, but I think genuine free enterprise capitalism is a pretty good idea. It certainly has raised living standards in many places, here among them. So what are we going to replace capitalism with—a system where rocks and trees have “rights”? Rights for rocks and none for man? That’s where those people are really headed.

If you want to start connecting the dots, then go back to the first “Earth Day” back on April 22, 1970, which by the sheerest of coincidences, just happened to be the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birth. Follow that down and you will see that the Environmental Movement has, since then, sought to regulate and control what industry did and even what went on in rural areas. Why the big fuss over the desert tortoise in Nevada or the medfly in California? All these so-called crises work against the productivity of capitalism and in doing that they put unreasonable controls on how someone may use his property. It may be in his name but the government will tell him what he can and can’t do with it. Then go read The Communist Manifesto where Marx says: “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Or where he says “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes; Abolition of all rights of inheritance; Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels;” or yet, in the face of the soon-coming regulation of the Internet “Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.” And the one they are accomplishing this all by, even in our day “Free education for all children in public schools…”

Years ago someone aptly labeled the environmentalists “The watermelon gang” because they were “green on the outside and Red inside.” The woman at the U.N. told us very plainly what the global warming scenario and the environmental movement as a whole was and is all about—the destruction of capitalism—and with it the destruction of our way of life in this country. Does that bother anyone—or will most just yawn again as they seek to tune in the next “reality show”?

Goodbye Internet

By Al Benson Jr.

For several months now I have been seeing tidbits on the Internet about internet regulation, a little something here and a little something there. Some articles have said it’s really bad and others have sought to paint it as the last best hope for man. When anything is supposed to be that “good” for us, I get suspicious. I begin to wonder who it will really be “good” for, us, the unwashed masses, or the One World elitists in Washington who claim they represent us. Usually it ends up being good for them and bad for us and Internet regulation, like Obamacare, is no exception to this rule.

Most of us realize that the Internet is the one remaining source of real information out there that the federal government has not, until now, been able to muzzle. I imagine there are countless thousands like me who get their news off the Internet rather than from the federally-approved and controlled “news” media.

I notice that, on the 26th of this month, the FCC will vote on implementing a new “net neutrality” regulation. That sounds so nice and “neutral” doesn’t it—no sides taken, just a nice neutral approach to all issues and questions, right? Folks, in all honesty, if the feds are running it you have to know it ain’t gonna work out that way. The real aim of this regulation is to neutralize all the information the feds don’t want on the Internet so it will be unavailable to the public.

And that’s not only my opinion. Author Fred Reed, http://www.fredoneverything.net has stated, quite accurately that: “Today the internet is the only free press we have, all that stands against total control of information. Consider how relentlessly the media impose political correctness, how the slightest offense to the protected groups—we all know who they are—or to sacred policies leads to firing of reporters and groveling by politicians. The wars are buried and serious criticism of Washington suppressed. That leaves the net, only the net, without which we would know nothing. Which is why it must and will be censored, sooner if Washington can get away with it and later if not…” Thanks to the Internet, ordinary folks have finally been able to learn how their benevolent government has been stiffing them for generations. Many are not real enchanted with what they have found out, which is one reason there is so much discontent across the country. People are sick and tired of government lies and the feds realize this so they need to devise a way to make sure the truth about their lies will be covered up as it was in the days before the Internet. So, in order to cover up their duplicity, truth will have to be regulated off the Internet—and this will apply to all areas of truth, from theological to historical to economic.

In an article on http://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com for February 12th, 2015, Neil Stevens noted: “Critics who don’t want to debate the merits of expanded government like to portray the Net Neutrality debate as activists vs Cable Companies, but this isn’t that at all. This is the people vs. the Obama administration, as it is with EPA, NLRB, and every other overreaching regulator. Don’t take my word for it. (FCC) Commissioner Ajit Pai says ‘The American people are being misled about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet.’ He’s seen the plan, folks. He’s in a position to know who’s lying and who isn’t.” And on the same blog spot, for February 12th are comments by Judi McLeod. McLeod stated, quite forthrightly that “With public attention riveted on 50 Shades of Grey and NBC’s ‘lyin Brian’ Williams, the proletariat is about to lose its most reliable form of communication: the Internet…Big Government takeover of the Internet will become a fait accompli by February 26, 2015, with a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote. By the time the public becomes aware of it, the Internet will already belong to Obama. Suffering in silence with no means of communication to others is exactly what Obama wants on his mission for his ever-expanding Fundamental Transformation of the Free West…Community organizers running governments always hide their dirty tricks behind innocuous sounding names. ObamaCare was first the Affordable Health Care Act. Hijacking the information highway sounds so much less lethal when it’s introduced to the masses as ‘Net Neutrality’.”

Now, let me bring this a little closer to home for those with an interest in real history and Southern/Confederate history and heritage. “Net Neutrality” probably will mean that you can no longer use the Internet to discuss the real reasons for the War of Northern Aggression or to make the very real case for secession that needs to continue to be made in our day. Oh, you will still be able to talk about the War, who won which battles on which dates or which generals had tea and crumpets with General McClellan on July 5th, 1862, but anything meatier than this will probably be “neutralized” off the Internet and you will be reduced to trying to circulate your information via photocopied newsletters, the way many of us had to do it before the Internet came along. The Net Neutrality Act is truly a step backward—as it is intended to be. Socialist community organizers do, indeed, want to make sure their opposition has no voice on the Internet and their agenda is to silence their opposition almost to the point of non-existence. This is what it’s all about, folks, regardless of the lies you’ve been fed to the contrary. You may not see many more articles like this from me or anyone else once the Internet has been successfully “neutralized.” Maybe something for a little sober reflection.

Liberation (Marxist) Theology

By Al Benson Jr.
Who says the Devil isn’t interested in theology? It’s one of those things, like history, that he enjoys getting in there and monkeying with, that he might twist its meaning and message to suit his own agenda and thereby fool a lot of undiscerning people who should know better but apparently don’t seem to.

One thing he enjoys immensely is taking an anti-Christ thought system like Marxism and making it over just enough so that totalitarianism is made to sound compassionate and rank humanism is made to sound like Christian love. He can’t fool everyone with this theological sleight-of-hand, but he can fool enough that it makes the effort worthwhile in his truncated sight.

One of his main efforts has been to dress up Marxism with enough of a veneer that it sounds downright Christian—until you take a good close look at it, and if you do that, with prayer, you can often see the Red showing through. Otherwise you miss it.
Several years ago now, the John Birch Society published an informative booklet entitled Apostasy and the National Council of Churches. This dealt with how Marxists had infiltrated and influenced much of what the National Council of Churches in this country had done and it backed up the old truth that “not many ministers become Communists, but a lot of Communists become ministers.”

An article on Discoverthenetworks.org gave a few examples of this: “One notable religious leftist who embraced communist and socialist causes was the late Rev. Lucius Walker Jr. In the 1960s Walker was a sponsor of the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee, a Communist Party front group…and from 1973-78 he served as Associate General Secretary for the National Council of Churches. A longtime critic of American policy toward Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Walker in 1994 was an initiator of the International Peace for Cuba Appeal (IPCA), which called for normalized trade relations with Castro’s island nation. IPCA was an affiliate of the International Action Center, which was itself a front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.” Almost seemed like Walker lived in the Communist front group world.

Another “minister” that falls into this group is Rev. Je$$e Jackson. Jackson’s leftist views have long been known to anyone who takes the trouble to look and one of the farthest to-the-left ideas he ever came up with was the one where, in return for the $600 billion that blacks spend each year, black business owners ought to be guaranteed an equal share of the service and manufacturing contracts awarded by U.S. companies. In other words you get your service contract because of your skin color. No “white privilege” here, just a bit of “black privilege.”

Then there is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the president’s (former) pastor. His church, Trinity United Church of Christ, has a “ten point vision” which seeks the cultivation of “economic parity and the eradication of America’s economic mal-distribution.” In other words, redistribution of the wealth, Marxist-style.

And let us not forget James Cone, who wrote the book Black Theology and Black Power. In yet another http://www.discoverthenetworks.org article Cone is quoted as saying: “What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” How’s that for man telling God what to do? And Cone further advocates and calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” Not only that, Cone advocates Marxism as a tool for social analysis to enable Christians to see “how things really are.” How many of you were ever told any of this about Liberation Theology in any article you ever read about it? Its Marxist origins and intent have ever been glossed over whenever the “news” media touches any of this and all you are ever told about is their “compassion for the poor and suffering of the world.” That’s all a lot of horse radish! The only concern the Marxists have relating to the genuine poor and oppressed is to figure you how to use them to promote their own agendas. In other words, the poor and downtrodden are cannon fodder for the Marxist program.

Back in 2008 Anthony B. Bradley, a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and an assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, published an article on http://www.acton.org entitled The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology. Although he almost seems to soft peddle in some areas, yet he does make some worthwhile observations regarding Black Liberation Theology. He notes: “Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks…Reducing black identity to ‘victimhood’ distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of ‘rich white people’ before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did ‘rich white people’ keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! “

Bradley mentions a book by John McWhorter called Losing the Race, in which McWhorter says that “Victimology is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one’s identity.” And Bradley continues: “McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns.” In other words, “I committed this crime, but it’s all Whitey’s fault, not mine. I’m not responsible.”

It is stated by Bradley that: “Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks). Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People Cone explains that ‘the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are’.” So what he’s saying is that in order for Christians to begin to grasp where the rubber meets the road, they need the assistance of Marxist thought and critique. No longer is the Bible your guideline. Now Marxist thought becomes the way to go.

When you strip all the fancy jargon away from all this, it amounts to nothing more than a theological excuse for promoting the old Marxist class struggle technique. And of course the Devil is downright ecstatic when Christians buy into that lie because he realizes that this subverts the real meaning and reason for the Christian church. In truth it is Marxism that oppresses people, not Christianity.

You have to question, with these modern “liberation” theologians, just who their master really is.

Bill and Barack—Two Marxist Peas From the Same Pod

By Al Benson Jr.

Back in 2008 when Barack Obama co-opted the office of President with the help of the ruling establishment, both Republican and Democrat, there was a slight fuss over his association with (former) Marxist terrorist William Ayers, unrepentant former leader of the Weather Underground, an organization even Wikipedia was forced to label as “a radical left organization.”

This allegation was, supposedly, investigated by both CNN and The New York Times as well as others. They all concluded that the allegations were without foundation and that the two barely knew one another, barely recognized each other on the street. With that conclusion I have to question just where all those “investigative” reporters spend their time investigating—was it in the local corner bar or was it back in their editorial offices where they were told what not to write?

Wikipedia noted: “Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn hosted a gathering at their home in 1995, where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate. Obama and Ayres’ nine years of service on the board of directiors of the Woods Fund of Chicago overlapped for three years from 1999 to 2002.” Yep, barely knew one another! In a Breitbart article on the Internet for June 4, 2012, it was stated that: “Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers, like his connection to Jeremiah Wright, briefly became a campaign issue in 2008. The Obama campaign was quick to distance the candidate from the 60’s domestic terrorist, even as blogs continued to dig up evidence connecting the two men.” The issue became enough of an impediment to Obama’s campaign that author Scott Shane had to do a story on it which was entitled Obama and 60’s Bomber: a look into crossed paths. Suffice it to say, Scott Shane “missed” or overlooked significant connections between these two who barely knew one another, and these connections might have raised the red flag for some voters—which is probably why they were overlooked. The “news” media did what it usually does—hid the real news and concentrated on the fluff.

The Breitbart article continued: “However, Shane overlooks the more obvious…connection. Various boards on which Obama sat in the late 90s granted nearly $2 million dollars to Bill Ayers’ Small School’s Workshop…In addition to donations to Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop, the same foundations donated $761,100 to a related group run by Ayres’ brother, John Ayers. In fact, in 2001, Obama would join the ‘leadership council’ of a successor to the CAC called the Chicago Public Education Fund. Also on the leadership council of the group was Bill Ayers’ brother John. You have to wonder how Shane Scott missed all this. When confronted with the issue, Obama was forced to say that he repudiated Ayres’ terrorist actions of 40 years ago. Well, he was running for office, what else would you expect him to say? He couldn’t admit he didn’t have any problem with them. That would have been the kiss of death for his campaign even with the establishment help he got. However, it’s worth noting that he only repudiated Ayers’ “detestable acts” of four decades earlier. He never said anything about Ayers’ mindset in the here and now. That subject was left untouched. Had Ayers been repentant for his terrorist acts you might overlook some things, but he wasn’t and isn’t to this day. In a piece by The New York Times published on September 11, 2001, Ayres was quoted as saying: “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough…Just two months ago (2012) Ayers was in Union Square telling anyone who would listen ‘I get up every morning thinking today…I’m going to end capitalism’.” This from a man Obama claimed to have barely known, a man who Obama said was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

In an article in The American Spectator by Alfred S. Regnery in Septemer, 2011 it was observed: “The Obama campaign at once launched a crusade to distance Obama from Ayres. It went so far as to actually defend the man who had implicated himself in terror bombings in his own 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. …In fact, Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were radical Marxist revolutionaries in the Viet Nam War era. ..Both were eventually indicted in federal court, and Dohrn by the State of Illinois. Rather than face trial they jumped bail and disappeared into the underground in 1970. After they resurfaced 11 years later, both were admitted into the halls of academia. Ayers became a Distinguished Professor of Education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Incredibly, Dohrn befame a law professor at Northwestern.” Do you think that kind of thing would have happened for most ordinary folks who might have been terrorists? From unrepentant terrorists to professors. That tells you something about our higher education system today.

And then http://www.theobamafile.com which is always a good source for the nitty gritty, goes even further. The relationship between Bill and Barack, and their wives, is pretty well fleshed out. The Obama File stated: “It is a fact that in 1989, Bernadine Dohrn and Michelle Obama were associates at the Chicago law firm of Sidney & Austin, when Obama joined the firm as a summer intern. Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for eight years, starting in 1995, the year the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge. And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Why, Barack Obama, of course. Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.” What a coincidence! And Obama stayed on the board for eight years until the Challenge finally ended in 2003. Ayers was definitely involved with the Challenge in this same time period, “raising and spending at least $110 million in an effort to bolster a ‘radical’ reform program in the Chicago Public Schools from 1994 to 2001.”

This Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an interesting animal and, knowing how the socialist mentality works, you can just bet that it was never formed to do what it had supposedly been formed to do. Stanley Kurtz, in his book, which we have mentioned previously, Radical-In-Chief has dealt with this organization and his observations are worth noting. Kurtz noted: “By ordinary standards, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an expensive failure. Together Obama, as head of CAC’s money-dispensing board, and Ayers, as head of its policy-making ‘collaborative’ spent well over $100 million, with no discernable improvement in the test scores of low-performing schools.” But then, you have to ask—was improving test scores what they really spent all this dinero on? Turns out the answer is no. But if you follow this stuff, you knew that already. Instead of directly funding public schools, Kurtz observed that “CAC required schools to affiliate with ‘external partners,’ which actually got the money. Proposals from prospective external partners committed to teaching traditional math and science skills were rejected. Community organizers like ACORN and Obama’s own Developing Communities Project got the money instead. Programs established by these groups focused more on political consciousness, Afro-centricity, and bilingualism than traditional education. Ayers’ ‘small schools’ projects were perfect examples of the type. One of Ayers’ creations was a ‘peace school,’ where students celebrated United Nations-themed events instead of traditional American holidays. As part of his rhetorical makeover, Ayers has soft-peddled his overt anti-Americanism…In his education work, Ayers inculcates loyalty to ‘the world’ as a substitute for overt anti-Americanism.” So you can see, even by this brief excerpt the kind of One World drivel they have been feeding into the public school system.

To sum up, from The Obama File: “The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s…Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’ and Dohrn’s home , Obama has dismissed Ayers as just ‘a guy who lives in my neighborhood’…For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.” If you didn’t know why before you do now. The two men did share an office and you can bet the farm that Obama knew quite well who he was associating with. The terrorist and the Marxist have a long record of collaboration with one another—well, actually they are both Marxists so this should surprise no one except those that have not bothered to do the homework. This is what ignorant voters, a compliant bought and paid for media, and our ruling establishment have made sure we are forced to live with. Is this a wonderful Kountry or what???