The Lincoln Assassination Deception

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Recently I borrowed a book from the local library by David O. Stewart called The Lincoln Deception. It was historical fiction about the circumstances involving the Lincoln assassination and I thought it might be interesting reading. I enjoy good historical fiction once in awhile as long as it stays relatively close to the historical facts.

Well, Stewart’s book did that, for the most part, but it was still a disappointment. It ended up being yet another of those “blame the Confederacy for Lincoln’s assassination” books.

Stewart usually writes historical books. I don’t always agree with his take on some of them, but maybe he should stick to history. I have his book Impeached which is the story of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial and subsequent acquittal, and while I don’t think it’s great, it’s not too bad either.

Stewart notes that he got his idea for the Lincoln Deception book from one of his footnotes in Impeached. In chapter 4, beginning on page 36, Stewart notes, in a note on John Bingham, taken from page 40 (the footnote is on page 357 at the back of the book) that: “…Bingham had a complex relationship with the Lincoln assassination. On his deathbed, the Ohio congressman claimed he experienced a vision, as Lincoln was being shot, of the tragic event. Also, while on his deathbed, Bingham supposedly told his doctor that Mrs. Mary Surratt–one of the executed conspirators–had revealed to him and Secretary of War Stanton certain information ‘so shocking that its publication would threaten the Republic.’ Bingham and Stanton agreed it should not be disclosed, and Stanton on his own deathbed made Bingham swear to preserve the confidence. Bingham took the secret to his grave with him, saying, ‘The truth must remain sealed’.”

To the best of my knowledge no one has ever discovered what the secret that “would threaten the Republic” was. Whatever it might have been, it may have been potent enough that it sealed Mrs. Surratt’s fate for good and all. Supposedly this was taken from a book by Erving E. Beauregard, Bingham of the Hills: Politician and Diplomat Extraordinary, published in 1989. I had never even heard of this book, much less seen it.

It seems hard to believe that Mrs. Surratt would have had such a secret that she would have shared with both Bingham and Stanton. Of course  Stewart posits that the secret may have been that the Confederate government really planned Lincoln’s assassination. I suppose I shouldn’t have been all that surprised that that is where Stewart came from. This is the establishment’s favorite pipe dream–the way they really wish it was and, knowing how the establishment works, they will find ways to promote this falsehood even though it is a falsehood.

No real evidence to promote this has ever turned up. In fact I have written about some of this over the years. It’s on about the same level as the attempt to prove Jeff Davis was guilty of treason when even some of the Deep State Republicans of his day noted that it would be next to impossible to convict him of treason. That’s the reason they finally turned him loose. Davis wanted a trial and they knew if they gave him  one and he won in court, their whole entire rationale for having fought the War of Northern Aggression would be open to questions and so rather than have the public begin to question their omnipotence, they just shoved Davis out the back door and told him to go home.

Davis. to his credit, never sought a pardon for anything he did, even though some Union officials hinted that one would be forthcoming should he only request it. Why ask for a pardon when you have committed no crime?

So why Mrs. Surratt’s “secret”? Did she really know who was responsible for Lincoln’s assassination and it wasn’t the Confederate government? Did she really,  somehow, know that those who wanted Lincoln dead were Northerners, some of them in Lincoln’s own administration? That alone would make sure she hung. Dead women tell no tales. Bingham didn’t die until sometime around 1900. Was Mrs. Surratt’s “secret” so potent that, even at that late date, it would have threatened the republic? Or rather, would it have threatened the reputations of some of those in Lincoln’s own administration? To me, that seems much more likely.

The same holds true in our day for the Kennedy assassinations. Do you think we will ever see the real evidence of what happened in Dallas on that November day in 1963? There will always be some “compelling” reason why the public is not allowed to see this stuff. Will the truth threaten the “republic’? That’s long gone anyway. It might, however, threaten the reputations of some very highly placed  politicians, even though many of them are now dead–and the history books would have to be rewritten–someday–probably later than sooner. Same with the Lincoln assassination!

Advertisements

Is The Demoncrat Agenda Even More Devious Than We Imagined?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

James Howard Kunstler had an interesting article on http://www.lewrockwell.com on June 25th. Mr. Kunstler observed: “The week’s doings left the impression that the Democratic Party has turned into one big race hustle, with reparations for slavery as the centerpiece on the banquet table and recriminations for ‘white privilege’ as the main course. Senator Warren added a gender hustle…to the menu over the weekend with demands for ‘reparations for gay and lesbian couples’  who had to file income taxes as individuals  in the pre gay marriage days.” Seems as if one of the main agendas for the Demoncrats, outside of impeaching Trump, is to try to “outreparate” one another. I know that’s not a real word, but it fits here.

Kunstler notes that black Americans comprise about 12.3 percent of the population and the sodomite/lesbian, transgender crowd amounts to about 4.5 percent of the population. So the Demoncrat agenda panders to about 17 present of the population. The rest of us they’d probably shoot if they could get away with it, but they can’t, not yet.

So I ask myself, do they really think they can win in 2020 with a platform that is so far outside of absolute reality? I know they will get a batch of goofy white liberals to vote for them, but how much of a chance do they really have, even with that? You can see why they want  so badly to sack the electoral college. Most of their fruits and nuts are in Commiefornia and New York and they’d love it if those two “states” could elect Demoncrat presidents for the next century or so while the rest of us were forced to live with the results of that–if they were not able to shoot us!

I watched a video interview with Joel Skousen the other night. For those who might not know him, Mr. Skousen is a political analyst and researcher. One of his relatives, W. Cleon Skousen wrote the book The Naked Communist several years back now. So Mr. Skousen has grown up in the research arena. He knows whereof he speaks.

Mr. Skousen posited an interesting theory in this video that most of us, myself included, had not considered. He stated that, what if, the Demoncrats had already concluded that, with what they had running for president, any of them, they could not beat Trump in 2020? What would they do in that case? Might they not concede 2020 to Trump because they know they do not have what it would take to defeat him?  However, in doing that, they could continue to bog him down with endless stop-gaps to his agenda as they have done for the past three years.  Every time Trump has sought to do something with the immigration situation some Obama-appointed judge somewhere has issued a ruling that says “Sorry, Donald, you can’t do that.” No matter what Trump has tried to do the Demoncrats have opposed him. Now you expect some of that, but these people have been nearly demonic in their opposition. They want to do the Mueller investigation all over again, and again if necessary, because Mueller couldn’t give them what they wanted, although he tried mightily, up to and including that post-investigation “new conference” he gave.

In 2020 you will see more impeachment malarkey and subpoenas from Congress until they are coming out your ears. All this, and more, slows down Trumps implementation of his agenda, just like the Mueller investigation did. If the Demoncrats can continue this stalling of the Trump agenda long and hard enough they will render Trump, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water. Though he may end up occupying the White House for four more years, if they can tie him down enough that he can’t do what he promised his base he would do, then how much chance does any honest Republican (and there are a few, not many, but a few) have in 2024? Stop and think about this for awhile. Once you grasp where this is going, it makes a Satanic kind of sense.

Trump has himself to blame for some of this. He has picked people to staff his administration that hate both his guts and his agenda and until he figures this out and gets rid of them he will continue to have problems.

Pompeo and Bolton are determined to get him into the war he wants to avoid, but yet there they sit, working to undermine his  agenda. He revoked John Brennan’s security clearance, only to find out, four months later, that whoever was supposed to do that little chore had not bothered. So Brennan still has top security clearance. Has  he followed up on this? Why hasn’t whoever was supposed to do this been  fired? Trump has so much on his plate he has probably forgotten about it. How many other such orders has he given that have been routinely ignored by those in his own administration who wish him anything but well?

If he doesn’t get some of these housekeeping chores taken care of there are some folks that are going to start to wonder if he really cares, and that will not bode well for him. If the Demoncrats can keep Trump “otherwise occupied” for the next three years or so they can basically shut down his agenda, and I am beginning to think, along with Joel Skousen, that, at this point, this may be their game plan.

 

Sometimes Even The Well-Intentioned Get It Wrong!

by Al Benson Jr.
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have followed InfoWars for quite awhile now and I agree with their efforts to present news the mainstream media ignores or misinterprets. I have noted the efforts of “Big Tech” to suppress and censor them and I totally disagree with that. They are a legitimate news forum that needs to be heard whether Leftist politicians agree with them or not. In fact they need to be heard because Leftist politicians and other assorted liars disagree with them.

Having said that, what I am going to deal with now is meant as constructive criticism and not as a put-down.

I read Jon Bowne’s article about reparations for slavery on their site on June 22nd and, in principle, I agree with his position. What I don’t agree with is his interpretation of history. Mr. Bowne noted that his ancestors were New York abolitionists and so he feels he should not have to pay reparations for slavery. He won’t get any argument from me on that–but he should have stopped there.

He went on to state that 360,000 Union soldiers fought a war to emancipate the slaves. Of course, if that were actually true then, supposedly, all those who fought for the Confederacy were fighting to keep the slaves in bondage–particularly if they were Democrats. Actually, neither premise is true. I am not accusing Mr. Bowne of intentional falsehood here. I am saying that the history he has picked up and accepted is very faulty.

Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” notwithstanding, most Union soldiers did not fight to free the slaves. Most of them didn’t care about slavery one way or the other. Most of them fought to preserve the Union, which was what Lincoln had initially said the war was all about. Only in late 1862, when the North was losing the war, did Lincoln begin casting around for another reason for his invasion of the South, and in so doing, he landed squarely on the “emancipation” bubble, and, as that seemed to work for him, he ran with it.

It didn’t work for many Union soldiers, however, and there were many desertions in the Union Army when it was discovered that the reason for the war was undergoing some revisions. In fact, if you stop and think about it, the idea that the North fought to free the slaves is downright ludicrous. If such had been the case, then why didn’t the Lincoln administration first free the slaves in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri? All those states, though Southern in character, remained in the Union! They would have been the logical place for the Union to have begun the process of emancipation–if that’s what it had really been all about.

So Lincoln, if he was serious about emancipation, should have issued a proclamation that would have emancipated Northern slaves first. Instead he issued one that freed Southern slaves in territory he had no authority over and that left Northern slaves in bondage. Seems like kind of a backwards way of doing it, but then, the federal government is noted for doing things backwards so I guess we should expect as much.

Mr. Bowne needs to do a bit of homework as to what the War Between the States was really all about and a Northern war to free the slaves just doesn’t cut the historical mustard no matter how sharp your knife might be in other areas.

Mr. Bowne will probably never read what I write here, but, if by some wild chance he does see it, I would like to suggest a little reading he could do on the subject of the Northern “crusade” to free the slaves. I will list three books here he should be able to locate.

They are: Slavery Was Not The Cause Of The War Between The States  by Gene Kizer Jr. Published by Charleston Athenaeum Press, Charleston, South Carolina in 2014. Myths Of American Slavery  by Walter D. Kennedy. Published by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana. Slavery And The Civil War by Garry Bowers, M. Ed. Published by Shotwell Publishing in Columbia, South Carolina in 2019.

These books should give Mr. Bowne, or anyone else who may read them, the truth about what the War Between the States was really all about. Subtle hint–it wasn’t slavery!

The Reparations Scam De Jour

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The reparations scam is like the proverbial bad penny–it keeps on coming back and back and back. And now we have a batch of Demoncrat congresspersons that want to try to foist it upon us yet again.

Do you think they know it’s a scam? Of course they do. They are trying to shaft the public, particularly the white public and they hope we are too stupid to realize that. Well, some are and some aren’t. The ones that are will just go along with it in the name of “racial equality” (which really has nothing to do with it) and the ones that aren’t will just be labeled as “racists” by the mainstream media. They think that labeling us all racists will automatically shut us up. It won’t, but in their omniscient wisdom they haven’t quite figured that out yet.

One of the sponsors of this pernicious legislation is Rep. Jerrold Nadler from New York. That fact alone should tell you that this bill has to be a project of the far left in the Demoncrat Party (although you have to wonder if there’s anything other than the far left amongst the Democrats anymore. Any Democrat who is not part of the far left is probably in hiding!

So this bill is supposed to create a commission to study slavery in the US all the way back to 1565 through the end of the War of Northern Aggression. Anyone want to bet that most of their main effort will cover the years from 1860-65 in the South? I didn’t think so.

So supposedly this commission will study the whole slavery banana. I hope that means they will take account of all the slavery that went on in the Northern states up until  around 1830 or so–states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and wherever else up there that slavery existed. It will be interesting to see how this commission goes about finding the descendants of slaves in Massachusetts in 1800. I could be wrong, but I’d bet they will end up deciding that is a non-starter and they will go to concentrating on slavery in the South after 1860.

Mitch McConnell in the Senate will supposedly ignore this bill. We’ll see. It’s easy to see how some of these elastic congresspersons end up getting “persuaded” to change their minds at the midnight hour.

Just so you all realize it, any reparations bill that ends up getting passed will be a bill that redistributes your wealth to some other group for a situation that, in our day, neither you nor they had any  part in. Like so much legislation that gets passed in our day, it is little more than legalized theft.

I’ve asked these questions before, but I will ask them again because I have never heard a satisfactory answer to them. Will descendants of black slave owners have to pay reparations also?

What about people whose ancestors were not here during the slave days? Will they have to pay too, and if so, why? And please don’t tell me they also benefitted from slavery too. That’s a croc and we both know it. And what about whites that were slaves in this country? There were some–and we are not talking indentured servants here we are talking slaves. Do their descendants get reparations too? Bet they don’t. Bet they are not even mentioned or considered. And what about American Indians that were slaves–particularly in the North? Do their descendants get reparations? Bet they don’t!

If I had a suspicious mind, I might be tempted to  think a reparations bill being introduced at this time might just be a crude Demoncrat attempt at buying the black vote for the 2020 election. Of course we all realize such would never happen–would it? Next question!

Discerning black folks need to be aware of smiling Demoncrat legislators bearing reparations gifts that leave lots of unanswered questions.

Scripture And The “Chosen”

by Al Benson Jr.

This will be one of those articles guaranteed to make some folks mad. I don’t pick these things to make people angry, but somehow, they seem to turn up anyway. And. let’s face it, the truth always makes some people angry because they don’t want to believe it. Many would much rather believe the lie, and so truth angers them. You might say, in today’s current terminology, that it “offends” them. Well, for those it “offends” their “safe spaces” and “crying rooms” await.

I want to look at a few passages of Scripture here. Lets start with 1st John 2:18. It says “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist will come, even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” The last time John is referring to is the first century, not the 21st century. In the first century John notes that there were many antichrists, not just one big one at the end of the world, which is what is taught in so many churches in our day.

Look at 1st John 4:1-3. It’s a bit long to print out here, but it points to those that deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. John talks of false prophets. So, implicit here is the idea of false teaching. Second John, verse 7, bears this out. It says: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” John is warning those in his own day who to look out for

Now we turn back to the lightning rod of verses, Genesis 12:3, where God tells Abraham: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” This verse has been wildly misinterpreted in the last 150 years. We have been told that God will bless all of Abraham’s physical descendants, including the modern state of Israel, many of whose present inhabitants are not physical descendants of Abraham in any way, shape or form, but because they have, somewhere along the line, embraced the religion of Judaism, we are told this verse also applies to them. Sorry, folks, but it doesn’t! This verse does not say what people attribute to it today. The verse only says God will bless or curse people dependent upon how they treat Abraham, not how they react to the modern state if Israel!

Now, look at Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed (singular) were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” The promise made to Abraham referred to Jesus Christ, not any future glory for the state of Israel, which is how it is taken in our day. The next few verses note that the law was a “schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Faith in Christ, not faith in the law, not faith in the nation of Israel, but faith in Christ, to whom, alone, we must come for salvation.

And he says in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” And Galatians 3:29 is the clincher, or at least should be, though many today try to get around it. It says “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Then Paul drops a bomb in Romans 2:28-29, when he says “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter (of the law). He goes on in chapter 3 to note that no man, Jew or Gentile, is better than another because we are all under sin. In verse 10 he says that “There is none righteous, no, not one.” We all need Christ’s righteousness, otherwise we are not saved and there is no “different” salvation for Jews than there is for Gentiles.

Check out Romans 9:6-8, where it says “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

Charles D. Provan, in his book The Church Is Israel Now  commented on Romans 9:6-7 and said: “Yet God stated to Abraham that the descendants of Abraham would be reckoned through Isaac, the child born to Abraham through faith in God. Paul says that this fact demonstrates that the true children of Abraham are reckoned as those who have the faith of Abraham, not those who can trace their physical descent from Abraham.”

Mr. Provan states, in the forward for his book: “The privileges and responsibilities of ‘Racial Israel’ now belong to believers in Christ. a verse which demonstrates the transition quite clearly is Matthew 21:43, which reads “Therefore, I say unto you,, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” The results of Jesus comments here to the Jews was that they “sought to lay hands on him” to do Him physical violence for what He told them. The parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 is a good example of this, particularly Jesus’ explanation of it in Matthew 21:43.

Maybe, in light of some of this, Christians in our day need to begin to rethink some of the questionable theology we have been fed for the past 150 years that has so neutralized much of the church that we can’t seem to do much of anything except castigate those who will not offer unswerving support to the state of Israel, no matter what they do.

Paul Craig Roberts and the Attack On the USS Liberty

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Back on June 11th of this year I did an article on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty back in 1967, a subject I felt was legitimate to comment on since there is still stuff floating around on the internet about it.

I got flack from fellow Christians who seem to feel that no one is supposed to ever say anything against Israel, no matter what. It seems that is an unspoken 11th commandment that has been added to the first Ten which states: “Thou shalt never speak a word against the government of the state of Israel, no matter what!”

I received a comment back from one man which asked “Are we now supposed to hate all Jews?” Who said anything about hating Jews? Does being critical of the government of Israel automatically mean we hate all Jews? If so, then, I suppose, being critical of our own government in Washington must mean we automatically hate all Americans!

Unfortunately, whether they realize it or not, many American Christians have been placing their loyalty to the state of Israel over their loyalty to Jesus Christ. This is the result of generations of bad theology. This bad theology is now coming back to haunt us, of which I will say more in future articles. Having said that, and possibly making more of the brethren angry at me, I will now deal with Paul Craig Roberts’ commentary on the attack on the USS Liberty.

I just recently ran across an article by Paul Craig Roberts on the internet for July 26, 2016 https://www.paulcraigroberts.org in which Dr. Roberts made many statements that should make thinking Americans take a second look at a large part of our foreign policy.

For those who know nothing about Dr. Roberts, he has a doctorate from the University of Virginia. He has taught at Stanford University and the University of New Mexico. Later, he became an analyst and advisor “…at the United States Congress where he was credited as the primary author of the original draft of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. He was the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan…A former associate editor at The Wall Street Journal…and he is the author of more than a dozen books…” So Dr. Roberts has been around the barn a couple times and knows what the game is.

Dr. Roberts noted, in his July, 2016 article that: “For a number of years Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International Studies…expressed to me his concern that US politics and foreign policy was in the clutches of Israel and that America was being led into war with the Arab Middle East. Admiral Moorer and the State
Department and Pentagon at that time did not think that war with the Arab countries served the interests of the United States. However, Admiral Moorer thought that the war could not be avoided because of the hold Israel has over the US government. What convinced him of this was Washington’s coverup of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty which resulted in 208 killed and wounded Americans…I raised the issue of the USS Liberty eight or nine years ago in a syndicated newspaper column, which, as I suspected would be the case, only a few news sources dared to publish. However, the article editor at Hustler magazine saw the article and contacted me. He said that Hustler was popular among US sailors…Would I write the USS Liberty story for the sailors so they would be aware or the betrayal that might await them?”

It’s a pity that, to find out some of what the government is doing to people, you are forced to read something like Hustler.

Here are some of Dr. Roberts’ comments from the Hustler article. “The Liberty was an intelligence ship. Its purpose was to monitor Soviet and Arab communications in order to warn both Israel and Washington should the Soviets enter the war on behalf of its Arab allies. The Liberty was armed with only four machine guns to repel boarders. It’s request for a destroyer escort had been denied. The assault on the Liberty is well documented. With no warning, the Liberty was attacked by successive waves of unmarked jets using cannon, rockets and napalm. The attacking jets jammed all of the US communications frequencies, an indication they knew the Liberty was an American ship. The air attack failed to sink the Liberty. About 30 minutes into the attack three torpedo boats appeared flying the Star of David. The Israeli boats were not on a rescue mission. They attacked the Liberty with cannon, machine guns and torpedoes. One torpedo struck the Liberty mid-ship, instantly killing 25 Americans while flooding the lower decks. The Israeli torpedo boats destroyed the life rafts the Liberty launched when the crew prepared to abandon ship, sending the message there would be no survivors.” If this is what a supposed ally does, one can only imagine what an enemy would do!

Roberts continued: “The US government’s official position on the USS Liberty corresponds with Israel’s: The attack was unintentional and a result of Israeli blunders. This is the official position despite the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State Lucius Battle, and a long list of US Navy officers and Liberty survivors are on record saying the Israeli attack was intentional.

So the question has been asked by Roberts “Why did Israel attack the Liberty? Was something super secret going on that is so damaging it must be protected at all cost?”

Apparently, Dr. Roberts has spoken with survivors of the attack because he wrote: “Survivors with whom I spoke said the attack was the easy part of the experience. The hard part has been living with 40 years of official cover-up and betrayal by the US government.” This next comment, I felt, displayed where a significant part of the Christian church in America is really at regarding Israel. Dr. Roberts noted: “One survivor said he was asked to leave his Baptist church when he spoke about the Liberty, because the minister and fellow church-goers felt more loyalty to Israel than to a member of the congregation who had served his country. His church’s position was that if our government believed Israel, the survivors should also.” As I read that, I thought How sick is this??? A Christian man asked to leave his church because, as a survivor of the attack, what he experienced on the scene dared to differ with what Israel said about the attack! I thought–how many other churches in America would have done exactly the same thing? Dare to question anything the state of Israel does and, buddy, you are out of here!

This is a sad, sad, commentary on the state of many of our churches. What the state of Israel says is really law in these churches–in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And we dare to talk about “revival” in this country? Who are we kidding? As long as our churches are in such a state that will be no revival, and that’s something we really need to think about.

Another False Flag–This Time Iran

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The Shadow Government wants us in a war against Iran. No telling how many of Israel’s chestnuts this will pull out of the fire or how many American boys will have to spill their blood.  If it helps Israel, well then, it’s worth spilling American blood for–isn’t it? Some of those who read my recent article on the USS Liberty seem to feel that it is. The thought of asking Israel to fight its own battles when it has demonstrated that it is more than capable of doing so never seems to occur to them.

This perpetual idea of expecting the US to clean up the mess in the Middle East no matter who makes the mess is getting more disgusting.

So now someone has attacked an oil tanker in the Middle East and our Shadow Government oligarchs, Pompeo and Bolton, have rushed in where angels fear to tread and said it looks, naturally, like Iran did the dirty deed. What would Iran have had to gain by this? Well, they don’t tell us that. We aren’t supposed to be bright enough to even ask–just take their word for us and get the American boys ready to ship over there to fight for God knows what.

Columnist Caitlin Johnstone had some interesting comments about this on https:medium.com  She noted that: “In a move that surprised exactly zero people, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has wasted no time scrambling to blame Iran for damage done to two sea vessels in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, citing exactly zero evidence.” I mean, who needs evidence? If the Shadow Government tells us what is supposed to have happened, isn’t that enough? As I’ve asked before–if you can’t trust your government, then who can you trust? Nobody ever answers that one.

Caitlin Johnstone noted: “Pompeo is a known liar, especially when it comes to Iran. Pompeo has a well-established history of circulating blatant lies about Iran and the behavior of the Iranian government, and he recently told an audience at Texas A & M University that when he was leading the CIA, ‘We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses’.” And Johnstone noted that “The US empire  is known to use lies and false flags to start wars.” Should you wonder where–how about the USS Maine in Havana, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, weapons of “mass destruction” in Iraq? And these are just for starters!

Johnstone observed that “The US-centralized power alliance  has an extensive and well-documented history of advancing preexisting military agendas  using lies, false flags and psyops to make targeted governments appear to be aggressors. This is such a well-established pattern that ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ briefly trended on Twitter after the Gulf of Oman incident. Any number of government agencies could have been involved from any number of the nations in this alliance, including the US, the UK, the KSA, the UAE, or Israel.”

Ms. Johnstone also observed that John Bolton has openly endorse lying to advance military agendas. Watching Bolton operate over the years, I have come to the conclusion that he never saw a war anywhere he didn’t love if he could find some way to get the United States involved in it. I think it’s what he lives for!

These people never stop to consider the tragedy they inflict on Americans who have to get involved in their agendas of Empire. Either that or they just don’t give a rip. After all, it’s our young folks that end up bleeding, not theirs!

So polish off your rifles, dust off your artillery pieces and get ready for a war with Iran, whether it’s really warranted or not makes no difference. They want it and so we’ll have it, and that’s all there is to it!