The Marxist President, the War Criminal, and Slave Reparations

By Al Benson Jr.

There was an article posted on www.thefederalistpapers.org  for April 19th  about how our Marxist president wants to punish all Americans (at least all white Americans) for slavery. I have been watching over the years as various race-baiters have sought to find a way to scam more Americans out of what little money they may have left. The slavery reparations game is just one more Marxist “redistribute the wealth” campaign. Does anyone honestly think that any of the ordinary black folks in this country will ever see a thin dime of “reparations” money if they manage to pull this off? Hardly! The Je$$e Jacksons and Al Sharptons and their organizations will be the ones to benefit from this scam, not ordinary black folks, so let’s don’t try to kid anyone as to what this is really all about.

The Federalist Papers article was written by Russ Helper, and he noted: “Every decade or so, the radical left mentions paying reparations to African-Americans for pre-Civil War slavery. The idea is that even though slavery was abolished over 150 years ago, many in the black community are still suffering from its effects. But now a report has come to light that the President is seriously considering forcing all Americans to pay reparations to descendants of slaves.”

Now I have to admit, I’m not a real big fan of that idea. My family didn’t come here until the early 1880s, from England and Scotland, so they didn’t own any slaves before the War of Northern Aggression—but, then, I forgot. They were white, so they were automatically guilty of “racism” and therefore, I, who am white, should feel guilty over that (I don’t. Sorry!) and I should be willing to shell out big bucks for slaves my family never owned to someone who has never been a slave. That’s the way this game is played in case you hadn’t figured that out yet.

So now the next installment of the reparations game is in full swing. Charles Payne, who is black, and works for Fox News has predicted that we will soon see an apology for slavery from the Red (White) House, and also the possibility of “massive sums of money doled out in reparations for slavery.” He says “There’s going to be a major push to get cash, and I’m talking LOTS of cash.”

All the slaves are dead, as are all the slaveowners, so how will Obama justify trying to pilfer the wallets of present day Americans with his reparations scheme? Well, he’s checked that out, and Mr. Helper’s article noted: “He cites a special field order from Union General William Tecumseh Sherman in which he confiscated 400,000 acres of land along the Atlantic Coast for division into the 40 acre lots to house the tens of thousands of freed slave refugees who had joined his march. Sherman’s intentions are disputed, though many believe it was meant to be only a temporary fix for an immediate problem. According to Payne, that order will be seen as an unfulfilled promise by the federal government, and that it could very well be a driving force behind the push for reparations…On the surface, some people could make the argument that this is only just and the right thing to do, but is it really? The truth is that 90% of those living in the south prior to the Civil War never owned slaves. Why should any of their descendants be forced to pay for something their ancestors didn’t do?” Because they are white, that’s why.

The special field order under discussion here is Special Field Orders Number 15. According to Michael Fellman in his book Citizen Sherman, “Sherman then recalled that he had then sat down and drafted his Special Field Orders Number 15, which he issued after (Edwin) Stanton had edited them carefully. Other historians have stressed Stanton’s role in the authorship, as well as that of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War. Whatever their exact genesis, these orders were an extremely radical proposal for redistribution of land confiscated from slaveholders to the newly freed slaves…’abandoned’ plantations (from which the owners had fled on the approach of Union troops)  were to be distributed in plots of ‘not more than forty acres of tillable ground’ to black heads of families’.” Fellman continued: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war…The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be distributed to Northern white colonists.” And Sherman continued: “…it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population…If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place…Many people with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.”

So it would appear that Comrade Obama and his socialist cadre plan to use this approach as their excuse to gouge the American public for reparations money. However, is this claim really legitimate?  Fellman noted on page 169 of his book that: “After the war, Sherman would claim that he intended his Special Field Orderss Number 15 only as an emergency war measure, and he did not protest when Andrew Johnson revoked it in 1866. So if Andrew Johnson revoked it that means it no longer had any binding authority after his revocation. Of course Obama and his minions have not bothered to mention Johnson’s revocation—at least not that I’ve read about and you can bet the farm that if the “news” media is aware of it they are not about to mention it either.

This whole scenario aptly illustrates why I call those people Yankee/Marxists. The Northern political and military industrial complex had a decided Marxist bent to it even that early.

In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx, writing at the behest of the League of the Just  (Illuminati) listed ten points that Communists should employ in their seizure of various countries. Number One was: “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” Number Four was: “Confiscation of the property of all émigrés and rebels.” So, basically what Sherman sought to do in confiscating thousands of acres and redistributing them to ex-slaves was an exercise in pure Marxism—but that wouldn’t bother Comrade Obama. That’d be right up his alley, just the like the reparations scam will be right up his alley—redistribution of the wealth is another Marxist tenet and you can bet the wealth always gets “redistributed” to their friends, their corporate fascist buddies.

I don’t know if he will try to push something like this through Congress, although many of them wouldn’t be averse to it, or if he will try to do it through yet another “executive order.” The gutless wonders in Congress, in both parties, would probably love to give him this, but there is an election coming up next year, farce though it is and some of these turkeys do want to get voted back in so they can keep feeding at the trough. But keep your eyes open either way. This Marxist scheme needs to be resisted.

Those Teachers’ Unions—What’s their real game?

Loc

By Al Benson Jr.

Probably most of us have seen those sweet and subtle adds on television about the National Education Association and their supposed dedication to educating the children of America. I hate to be the bearer of negative news—but they are all hogwash!

Most folks who believe this drivel do so uncritically, never even having considered that any of this could be subtle propaganda to encourage them to keep their kids in the government school system which mal-nourishes them educationally but keeps the teachers’ unions fat and happy.

The NEA has been around a long time—founded at a meeting in Philadelphia in 1857—that’s even before the start of the War of Northern Aggression, so the propagandizing of students is hardly a new thing in this country. It’s been in vogue since your great granddaddy was alive. According to Sam Blumenfeld in NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education Thomas W. Valentine, president of the New York Teachers Association, told people at a meeting that: “What we want is an association that shall embrace all the teachers of our whole country…I trust the time will come when our government will have its educational department just as it now has one for agriculture, for the interior, for the navy, etc.” Blumenfeld noted “Thus it should come as no surprise that the call for a federal department of education was made at the very first organizational meeting. The Prussians had a Ministry of Education, so why shouldn’t Americans have one as well?” This was the mindset in 1857. So where were those “good old days” that people so fondly talk about with public education? Let’s be honest and start to admit they didn’t exist.

And let’s don’t kid ourselves that the NEA or any of these teachers unions really has the educational interests of families at heart. Thomas Sowell in Inside American Education has observed that: “At both the national and state and local levels, the NEA has vast sums of money available for political purposes and for propaganda campaigns to get the public to see the world as the NEA sees it—for example, to equate bigger school budgets with better education…As NEA President Mary Hatwood Futrell put it: ‘The Nation’s students today are threatened only by the failure of policymakers to give education the money it deserves.’ In pursuit of that money, the NEA has become a political power, as well as the largest labor union in the country. In Minnesota, for example, the state affiliates of the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers together often contribute more money to politicians running for statewide office than all other political organizations in the state put together.” So, when push comes to shove, for the teachers unions, it’s not really about education—it’s about money and political power, and anyone telling you different is just throwing fairy dust in your eyes!

Recently, I picked up a book called Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind written by Mallory Factor, a professor of International Politics and American Government at The Citadel. On page 120 of the book is a section called Teachers Unions Dominate Politics. Professor Factor says here, in part, “If you are surprised by the connections between teachers unions and politics, don’t be.  Teachers unions, like all government employee unions, survive only by putting their loyal friends in our government.  The degree to which teachers unions influence state politics is so extreme that in many states ‘the legislatures, no less than the educational bureaucracies, function as wholly owned subsidiary  of the teacher’s union’ according to one education commentator. Nationally, teachers unions have political operatives in every congressional district in the United States…These operatives are the backbone of the Democrat Party machine.  They manage turn-out-the-vote efforts in local school board elections and Presidential elections alike…Because few local taxpayers pay close attention to school board elections, for example, teachers unions elect their candidates almost every time.” So what chance to parents have that are really concerned about valid educational issues and public school agendas they are in disagreement with? About as much chance as a snowball in hell!

And Professor Factor has noted that: “The teachers unions even set up front groups ‘to give the impression of public support of NEA policies,’ reports Phyllis Schlafly. Often these faux-independent educational associations are funded by teachers union funds and staffed by current or former teachers union officials, but present themselves as nonpartisan, pro-education groups.” This is the same  principle used by many Communist front groups, operated exactly the same way.

So what are those people teaching your kids in government schools? Well, a former governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, signed into law a bill that required “labor history and collective bargaining” be taught in public schools in Wisconsin. The kids can barely read and write in some cases, but they will be taught how to bargain collectively. How enlightening! And then, in California, the teachers unions have what is called a Labor in the Schools Committee and that worthy group promotes “educating K-12 students about the role and contributions of unions and the labor movement to American society.”

Professor Factor stated,  on page 130 that: “Late Socialist and leftist historian Howard Zinn was a huge proponent of just this sort of indoctrination of schoolchildren.  ‘If teacher unions want to be strong and well-supported’ he wrote, ‘it’s essential that they not only be teacher-unionists but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement of teachers for their rights.” And Factor noted “What a great self-serving idea—and the teachers unions have taken it to heart.” Have any of you all noted, in recent years, pictures on the television “news” of teachers on strike for better pay (just before school starts in the Fall) and the fact that many students are out there supporting what the teachers want? I’ve noted it on newscasts from several cities. Socialist Howard Zinn’s agenda in action by teachers!

This is a big part of what your kids are being propagandized with in government schools, along with the Death Education, Sex Education, Global Warming propaganda and anti-Second Amendment propaganda. This is what passes for education in the government school system.

And the only way for Christian people to really deal with this is to remove their kids from the government school system. If you try to fight them by “reforming” the schools or some other such program you are wasting your time, effort, and your kids’ souls. The people in Kanawha County, West Virginia found that out forty years ago. Only by removing your kids from that system and either finding Christian schools you can support or by teaching them at home will you avoid your kids being caught up in this propagandized meat grinder we call public education. Here again, I am not knocking every public school teacher out there—there are and have been some good ones—but the system they are part of his been anti-Christian and socialist since the 1830s not 1930s but 1830s!  Let that date begin to sink in.

Margaret Sanger, the KKK, and a socialist worldview

By Al Benson Jr.

In the past few days I have read and heard commentary about Margaret Sanger and her ties to Planned Parenthood, the KKK, and some elusive thing called “the Southern Strategy” which, as I gather from the commentary is supposed to be some sort of a Southern agenda to eliminate black people. I probably wouldn’t have paid attention to it all that much except for the  comments about a “Southern Strategy” which is supposed to indicate some sort of Southern program for racial genocide against blacks.

As far a Margaret Sanger goes, it seems as if she was somewhat your typical run-of-the-mill leftist. Born in Corning, New York, she would hardly qualify as a Southern Belle and her politics definitely were not Southern. Wikipedia noted of her: “Already imbued with William Sanger’s (her husband) leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War 1 Greenwich Village bohemia, where she joined the Women’s Committee of the New York Socialist party. She took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World…” And she was involved with such noted left-wingers as John Reed, Upton Sinclair, and “Red Emma” Goldman.

As most folks know, she was one of the leading lights in the Planned Parenthood movement. In 1914 Sanger started publishing a monthly newsletter called The Woman Rebel. That promoted birth control and in which she used the slogan “No Gods, No Masters.” In that, she amply demonstrated, according to Proverbs 8:36, where she placed herself: “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.”

I also recently read an article by Paul Kengor from The American Spectator which was entitled: Reflections on Roe: When Margaret Sanger Spoke to the KKK. Dr. Kengor is a professor of political science and the executive director of The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. Dr. Kengor noted in his article that Margaret Sanger, a darling of the Left, spoke to a women’s branch of the KKK in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She even admitted this in her 1938 biography, on pages  366 and 367 according to Dr. Kengor. I didn’t get the impression she spent too much time with the KKK other than that, but she did see this speaking engagement as a means to reaching out to other “similar groups.”

It’s really surprising that the Left is so enamored of Sanger and Planned Parenthood because Comrade Sanger was really big  on racial eugenics. In other words, she was what the leftists today call a “racist.” Yet she was one of them.

Kengor had an interesting comment in his article when he said: “Progressives today dare not raise the alarming spector of Sanger’s ‘Negro Project’ or her correspondence with Dr. Clarence Gamble, one of her Negro Project collaborators.  In a remarkable December 10, 1939 letter today held in the Sanger archives at Smith College (I have a photocopy), Sanger urged Gamble: ‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population’.” Now this was something the KKK might have been able to go along with.

However, in regard to the KKK here being discussed we have to remember one thing. This was not the KKK supposedly founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest sometime after the “Late Unpleasantness”—that was long gone before this. And whether Bedford Forrest had anything to do with its founding is really open to question. The Klan that surfaced in the early 1900s had nothing to do with the Klan in the South after the War. This new Klan was big and most numerous in the Midwest—Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and, apparently according to Ms. Sanger’s speaking engagement with them, in New Jersey.

So, in light of all this, I wonder how you blame all this on some “Southern Strategy” when the Klan’s biggest operation area was the Midwest. Some will say, “well, the Democrats founded the Klan.” So what? You mean to tell me that there were no Democrats anywhere in the country but the South? If you go back and read your history you will find that there was lots of Democratic opposition to Lincoln in the Midwest before and during the War. You going to blame them on the South too?

And another question—if Sanger and her organization were that interested in reducing the number of blacks in the country, then why do the blacks, especially in Congress, so warmly endorse them? Why does Obama love Planned Parenthood—and how much federal money does that group get while we are trying to blame all this leftist activity on some “Southern Strategy?” Come on folks, do the homework. Don’t just buy what the commentators say, no matter where on the spectrum they seem to be coming from. Look at the contradictions and start asking the hard questions. You’ll be surprised at how quick the subject gets changed or you are branded a “racist” for even daring to raise the questions.

More Admissions to Early Socialism In America

By Al Benson Jr.

Those who have finally been forced to admit that there was socialism and Marxism prevalent in this country before the advent of FDR have done so quite reluctantly. Before Donnie Kennedy and I wrote our book Lincoln’s Marxists several years ago this was a subject that was generally ignored. There was information out there before we wrote the book, but it was pretty generally submerged and the professional “historians” who wrote books dedicated to the Lincoln Cult preferred it that way. Our book, by God’s grace, helped to bring some of it to the surface and you can find more out there now than you could before we wrote the book.

I just ran across an article on www.u-s-history.com entitled “Socialism in America.” It gives a brief history of socialism in this country and, interestingly enough, it starts off with: “The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began, such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters in 1856, and Iron Moulders’ Union of North America in 1859.” Have any of you ever read history books that mentioned any  “Marxian socialist unions” at any point in our history, let alone that early? Over the years I’ve heard some say that the labor unions in this country were all communist. Can you begin to see why some folks thought that way? Who knew that you had such groups in this country even before the start of the War of Northern Aggression? And how many of those Forty-Eighters who fought for Lincoln’s “holy cause” may have belonged to those unions? Joseph Weydemeyer,  who was a personal friend of Karl Marx, and who had been a Union officer during  the War has hailed in a Communist newspaper as a “trade union organizer” among his many other dubious talents, so you do have to wonder.

Recently, I read comments by John Nichols, who writes for The Nation magazine, which is hardly a publication that has the endorsement of those on the right. Someone was interviewing Mr. Nichols and he made a couple revelatory comments. He said: “To give you an example, Eugene Victor Debs frequently referenced Paine and Lincoln as folks who had inspired him toward socialism. So it’s not that this is something that we have just discovered, but it is something that has been sort of lost in recent decades.” Interesting comment. I don’t doubt for a minute that this sort of information has “been lost” in recent decades because it is a very inconvenient truth that, for the political left in this country, in both major political parties,  is better off forgotten or ignored.

And Nichols emphasizes this again when he says: “So again this is not hidden history—it’s there, it’s findable, but it’s not a history that has been emphasized. More significantly you bring up Lincoln, and the history of Lincoln is absolutely fascinating, because when you go back to the founding of the Republican Party, there is simply no question that the party was founded by a broad array of folks from many different ideological perspectives and backgrounds,  but some of the founders of the Republican Party, in fact key founders, people who called the initial meetings, were socialists and communists. A friend of Karl Marx was one of the key players in the founding of the Republican Party. That is not a debatable point—the history is there—but it is something that has not been emphasized, it’s almost been pushed aside.” Mr. Nichols’ comments here are quite accurate. This is truth that has been purposely ignored, swept under the historical rug, de-emphasized—however you want to say it. How do you think it would look in young folks’ history books if the fact were admitted that socialists and communists played a large part in the founding of the Republican Party? With truth like that floating around, how could Republican candidates go to the public during elections claiming to be the “party of small government?” With truth like that available, they would, if they were honest, have a admit that they were the party of total government and that, in that capacity, the Democrats were only laboring to catch up to them  in that quest.

Judging by what I have read of Mr. Nichols’ comments here and there, I don’t believe I would be comfortable with his political ideology. However, I have to admit that, in this case, he has done us a real service by noting these facts. I wish we had had this quote when we wrote Lincoln’s Marxists because it’s a real gem. His comments were published in www.thecoli.com  in November, 2013, over two years after Donnie Kennedy and I had the second edition of Lincoln’s Marxists published.

Those who still, ignorantly or otherwise, claim the Republican Party is the party of conservatives, patriots, and “small government” should start doing the homework to discern just how accurate their assertions really are. Some of them would be shocked, but they might be shocked into starting to do some real digging to determine if all they have been told is truth or farce. At that point they could begin to inform others and begin to position the Republican Establishment where it really belongs—in the total government column!

Wet-nosed College Students and Critical Theory

By Al Benson Jr.

My comments in this article are not intended to be a blanket condemnation of all college students, but rather those college students that, thinking they are absolutely brilliant, really don’t know much of anything. I have run across several like this over the years, kids who think they have all the answers for everybody and that the world would be so much better off if it just absorbed the ageless wisdom they have to impart.

I recall talking to one student who told me seriously that he thought folks in this country should just listen to what students had to say about politics, the economy, and the world because the students are the ones that have the time to do all the research in these areas. This kid was one of many I knew that blindly swallowed the blather spewed by his leftist professors with no critical questioning or comment. And he was going to teach the rest of us how to live. I almost said to him “Junior, you’re not even dry behind the ears yet and you’re going to impart political wisdom to us older folks? Wait until you’ve lived  a few more decades and lets see how much political wisdom you have then.” But this seems to be the attitude of many (not all) young folks at this age level. They seem to “know it all” already, so one wonders why they even need college.

What led me to this line of thinking now was an article I just read on the San Antonio Express-News webpage about the student government at the University of Texas in Austin wanting to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis from the campus supposedly because Davis was a “racist.” The head of the NAACP for Texas, Gary Bledsoe, said “I think its offensive that you exalt Jefferson Davis but you don’t exalt Abraham Lincoln.” Another case of a leftist that just doesn’t know his history. Lincoln’s history of “racism” is apparently unknown to this man, or does he just hope it’s unknown to the rest of us? So he’d replace the “racist” Davis with the “racist” Lincoln and think he’d done something noble! What a farce!

However, the agenda of removing the Jefferson Davis statue at the University of Texas goes a little deeper than that. It seems that it just might be part of the Marxist Critical Theory program.

The students at the University of Texas recently elected, as the head of their student government, two sterling individuals named Xavier Rotnofsky and Rohit Mandalapu. I don’t know if the selection of these two worthies was a tribute to student diversity or what, but they ran what some have called a “humerous” campaign and I can see that, by some adolescent standards it might be considered so. This pair, as part of their platform, promised to “increase transparency in student government by mandating everyone in student government wear only cellophane so that they can be perfectly see-through.” Also they promised to “…reduce the hours that the PCL and FAC are open because less study time means more party time, baby!” They had a couple other farcial ideas to put forward, but sandwiched in amongst all this foolishness was “…we plan on taking down the Jefferson Davis statue…” One serious piece of cultural genocide hidden among all the foolishness!

Rotnofsky told a local radio station that “Jefferson Davis stood for some things that are pretty abominable today; Slavery, racism. They’re just not in line with the university’s core values.” And so, yet another attempt to remake history into what we think it ought to be rather than what it was. Unfortunately, these kids are not yet old enough to have any sense of history—and history is usually not what you would like it to be. You need to take it as it is rather than trying to make it into what you wish it was. But, then, in all honesty, slavery isn’t the real issue here. Cultural genocide is.

So we take a brief look at Rotnofsky’s running mate, Rohit Mandalapu. According to www.academia.edu  Mandalapu’s  research interests are “…Globalization, Transnationalism , Business, and Critical Theory.” So Mandalapu is into Marxist Critical Theory. Suppose that minor coincidence has anything to do with the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue, which has already been vandalized, from the university campus?

Awhile back, December 16, 2014 to be exact, I quoted from an article on http://www.discoverthenetworks.org  that dealt with Critical Theory. The article said, in part, “Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, the family…morality, tradition…patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism,…Critical theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced with a ‘new thinking’ that would become as much a part of the elementary consciousness as the old one had been.” Stop and read that again and begin to grasp what is being said. They plan to replace everything with their “new thinking” so that nothing will remain of Christianity, Western culture, honor, patriotism,–nothing. This seems to be where Mandalapu, at least, is coming from. I watched a video of these two students on one of the sites I looked up while checking into this. Mandalapu seems, to me, to be much more the vocal of the two.

So it seems, unless the rest of the students at the University of Texas suddenly wake up, which hardly seems likely, that the Jefferson Davis statue on campus will become yet one more victim of the Marxist Critical Theory technique as it is being applied all across this country. Just remember—in order for Marxist Critical Theory to succeed, all that came previously, Christianity, Western civilization, Southern history and heritage—must all be destroyed so the “new thinking” can be implemented.  This is where we are at today in the South and across the country as well. And the shocking leftist condition of many, many of our college campuses is something that really needs to be researched and exposed. Exposure might be a good place to start—if anyone is even interested anymore.

That URDU Dictionary Found at Texas Border

by Al Benson Jr.

Should anyone be naive enough to inquire of our federal government if there are any Muslim terrorists in Mexico, close to the US border they would be informed that such people do not exist. There are no Muslim terrorists any closer to our Southern border than the remote regions of Argentina or Chile, and anyway, everybody knows that the average American is much more dangerous than any Muslim terrorist could ever be. The world at large will not be safe until all Americans are stripped of their Second Amendment rights so whoever decides he wants to cross our Southern border can do so without the risk of being shot. That seems to be the position of the feds, although they don’t quite phrase it that way. The federal idea of protecting American citizens in the Southern reaches of their own country is to put up signs warning them to beware of smugglers at the border. As for trying to keep the smugglers out–forget that!

However, in contradiction to the federal position, I read an interesting article just today (5/9/15) on http://www.qpolitical.com about a Texas rancher who found and URDU dictionary on his property. Well, you might say, that’s interesting. so what? How many folks in this country have even heard of URDU?  Probably about the same number that can’t tell you what century the War of Northern Aggression was fought in or who Hitler was.

According to Wikipedia: “Urdu is historically associated with the Muslims of the region  of Hindustan. It is the national language and lingua franca  of Pakistan and an official language in six Indian states…” So if Urdu is a language used in Pakistan and that region of the world, how come this Texas rancher found an Urdu dictionary on his land, near the border? Oh, I know, it was dropped by a Japanese on the Mexican side who just happened to look over the fence and it fell out of his pocket–right? That’s about the kind of explanation you’d get from the feds. So the writer of the qpolitical article, Ronak Kallianpur, asked the question: “…how many Muslims are there exactly in Mexico? Surely there can’t be that many…”

Turns out, awhile back, there was an article on latino.foxnews.com about exactly this topic. It stated: “Islam Builds Muscle in Mexico. Many Mexicans ended up converting to Islam after the 9-11 attacks drew their attention to the religion, piquing their interest. According to the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, today there are approximately 110,000 Muslims living in Mexico.” That figure was released in July of 2013.

I’ve read all kinds of articles in the past couple years about Muslim prayer rugs, copies of the Koran and other such material being found just inside our Southern border. Of course you have to remember that all this was accidentally dropped by German tourists just out for a walk in the desert. Muslim terrorists in our Southwest? Why perish the thought! The government tells us our Southern border is safer now that it has ever been and, I mean, if you can’t trust your government, then who can you trust, right?

Just because they’ve been telling the public baldfaced lies for 150 years is no reason we shouldn’t believe what they tell us is it?  I never forgot the bumper sticker I saw on the back of a car in Tennessee several years ago that said “I trust my president and my government.” And you have to realize that “the brainwashed (in public schools) never wonder.”

So there are over 100,000 Muslims in Mexico. You think none of them ever got up here to cross our border illegally? Pancho Villa with a Koran in his left hand, speaking Urdu with a Mexican accent! Bet that sounds interesting!

If it ever gets to the point where those people decide to invade the Southern US in wholesale numbers I can just picture the Border Patrol, Homeland Security, and all the other federal agencies showing up on the border to arrest and detain any Americans who have the gall to resist the invasion–if we have any guns left by then! Is this a great Kountry or what?

Baltimore And Hillary–Two birds with one stone

by Al Benson Jr.

Those who have studied the MO (method of operation) for the Marxists for years have noted that one of their most productive agendas is to be able to undertake the orchestration of two seemingly unrelated events and work them out so that two different purposes are worked out and accomplished at the same time. They often, if all goes right, manage to kill two birds with one stone, and, as I said in an earlier article, many on the right are not even aware there are birds out there. As I check out some of these “conservative” websites on the Internet I have become convinced that many of them don’t have a clue while others–well, enough said.

Many have watched the purposeful escalation of racial tensions in Ferguson and Baltimore and can see how these situations are being worked out to serve the purpose of the One World Government clique. Part of this has been what we call the “Black Privilege” agenda. For so long we have had our “White Privilege” shoved down our throats that many, if not most, have not even had time to consider that such a thing as black privilege also exists–and that’s also part of the program.

Recently someone sent me and email entitled What Is Black Privilege? It contained some interesting observations, a couple of which I will pass along because they are so appropriate to where we find ourselves today with the riots, disruptions, propaganda, etc. One noted: Black privilege is being able to make insensitive comments about other races and not being called out for it (as white folks are). Another noted: Black privilege is having the establishment lie to cover up problems in your community or protect you from criticism (part of the Establishment being the “news” media). There were more, but you get the idea, and sadly, most of these happen.

Just yesterday morning (5/4/15) I read an article on http://www.theeconomiccollapseblog.com by Michael Snyder which stated in part: One of the things that is being ignored by many in the mainstream media is the fact that one of the key organizers of the Baltimore protests is a former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party named Malik Shabazz. These days he is president of an organization known as Black Lawyers for Justice, but he is still definitely up to his old tricks. Why didn’t the “news” media see fit to tell us that? You can bet the farm that if some white guy was out organizing protests and he had been a former member of the KKK it would have been all over the front pages of the papers from Bangor to East Porkchop! But because Comrade Shabazz is a former member of the Marxist Black Panthers, that fact just gets omitted. Of course to tell people that would give the game away and that’s the absolute last thing the “news” media is interested in.

Shabazz was interviewed by the New York Times. No surprise there. And in that interview he prattled on about how he was only trying to encourage civil disobedience and not violence, but then he wasn’t surprised when the violence happened because people here haven’t received justice. To which Mr. Snyder replied in his article: If you are marching for justice you don’t throw objects at random bystanders, loot stores or attack vehicles that are just driving through the area. But all those things happened on Saturday night. So all of this wasn’t really about “justice”–it was about exercising your “black privilege” because you know you are not going to be called on the carpet for anything you have done. You’ve got a free pass–“Don’t collect the $200, but don’t go to jail either–just raise hell!” “Burn baby, burn!” Snyder noted that even some of the pastors were inflaming the tensions, and when you take the trouble to check out the backgrounds of some of the pastors who have been part of the “civil rights” movement you can see why. If some of these so-called “shepherds of the flock” are not Red, then they are very deep pink.

So we have the usual leftist black radicals (and some white ones who wear coats and ties that we are not being told about) causing the same racial conflagration they have been pushing for decades. Part of the Marxist class struggle technique is the division of the races (classes) and they have become quite adept at exploiting that. And so, on the street level we have this concern, but at the Ruling Elite level, they have yet another concern.

Hillary Clinton is supposed to be the next president and they have to make sure that little endeavor goes forward, lest their agenda be knocked into the proverbial cocked hat. However, Hillary has gotten lots of negative publicity of late. It’s been so bad that even the prostitute press can’t cover it all up and so it sits out there–like a rotten egg on the national stomach–presently souring what is supposed to be a smashing success for Hillary next year and it isn’t at all possible to sweep all of it under the media rug. The pile under the media rug would be as big as the Matterhorn, and even with media complicity it would be obvious. So, what to do?

What’s a good way to get people’s minds off Hillary and on to other things so they’re not still meditating on Benghazi or cattle futures? Anyone remember those cattle futures?  Someone must, because there’s lots of really negative stuff out there about Hillary and what dubious “benefits” her presidency would provide (much of it all too true). Be thankful for the alternate media. Again, what to do?

How about a few riots? You know–the whole nine yards–destruction of property, looting, some black “martyr” who has been offed (if you don’t look too close) by the police and then some marches, demonstrations, lots of racialist rhetoric (and black privilege exercised) and you go from there. You just get people all worked up about this and who even remembers Hillary and what a disaster for the American people she will be as president. A long time until the election you say? Who says the riots and demonstrations are all over now? Who says all this destruction will not continue in other venues for the next eighteen months and who says that Hitlery (oops, Hillary) won’t by then have been fed by the Establishment the “wonder solution” to all this that she can use as a campaign promise? “Elect me and you won’t have to wait for your pie in the sky by and by, you can have it now. Those nasty Republicans only want you to eat cake, but I’ll feed you the real goods–a bigger slice of the national pie.”

And so the Marxist mentalities that run Sodom on the Potomac (who are not all Communist Party members) are killing two birds with one stone–promoting racial animosity that will give them the opportunity to eventually restrict our liberties even more, while at the same time running interference for Hillary so she can quietly slide into the White House in the next election with most of the negative publicity all but forgotten. Black privilege will have been massaged and white culture will have had yet another nail driven into its coffin. Hey, Comrades–is this a plan or what???