Media Manipulators–Lying Since the 1850s

By Al Benson Jr.

Those who manipulate the news, the spin masters, and those who shape news events to fit their own political agendas have been alive and well in this country at least since the 1850s, and probably before. These are the people who take news events and reshape them so that they say what they want them to say. For them truth is a by-word, to be pushed aside whenever it happens to get in the way of their pet agendas. They are journalistic Marxists—using the “news” they have created to justify the ends they promote.

One of the most famous (or infamous) of these was James Redpath. Early in his career he wrote anti-slavery articles under the pseudonym of “Berwick” and later worked as a reporter for Utopian Socialist Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. According to Wikipedia: “An early assignment at the Tribune involved compiling ‘Facts of Slavery,’ a regular series of articles gathered from Southern newspaper exchanges. Beginning in March 1854, he traveled in the South to examine slavery for himself, interviewing slaves and collecting material published in 1859 as The Roving Editor: or, Talks with Slaves in the Southern States. The book’s production costs were covered by prominent antislavery philanthropist Gerrit Smith.” That was the Gerrit Smith of “Secret Six” fame, who got himself admitted to a sanitarium after the John Brown affair at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.

According to dlib.nyu.edu “Redpath inaugurated a ‘Facts of Slavery’ column for the New York Tribune, curating slave trade information from the Southern press, and later went South to interview slaves so they could have a forum for relating their experiences in their own words. He later took jobs at Southern newspapers and surreptitiously sent reports back north in the guise of letters to relatives in Minnesota. They, in turn, under prior arrangement, forwarded the reports to editors.” He was later a war correspondent with Sherman’s army. If he was in Georgia with them I’ll bet he had a ball whitewashing what “Sherman’s bummers” did there.

By 1855 Redpath had showed up on the Kansas-Missouri border and was writing for a Free Soil newspaper, the Missouri Democrat, on the problems in “Bleeding Kansas.” For yet another three years he continued to stick his “news media” nose into the situation in Kansas. He had involvement in politics and he continued to write “dispatches” in which he tried to gain support in New England for Free State settlers in Kansas. In 1856 he interviewed terrorist  John Brown, supposedly just days after he and his gang had murdered five pro-slavery men at Pottawatomie Creek by hacking them to death with broadswords while their families were forced to stand by and watch the gruesome scene. Folks, I submit, this was 19th century terrorism in living color! After that event Redpath became John Brown’s “most fervent publicist.”

Otto Scott, in his informative book The Secret Six: The Fool As Martyr said of Redpath “One of the magicians of confusion, expert at misdirecting attention, was the journalist James Redpath, who appeared in John Brown’s camp on the afternoon of May 29, 1856. How he found the camp remains a mystery. What he and John Brown discussed remains essentially unknown, except for a fable that Redpath wrote three years later, in a mendacious book about the scene. Here he described Brown as both a Cromwellian figure, all Biblical quotes and stern rules for clean living and high thinking and as chief of noble outlaws sequestered in the forest.” And so we see the “news media” of the 1850s hard at work, turning the terrorist into a saint for the dubious benefit of his Eastern readers.

You do have to wonder, along with Otto Scott, how Redpath located the terrorist camp, and Redpath never really tells. That would be giving out too much news that the public is not supposed to be aware of. However, Otto Scott made an interesting connection here, another one the “historians” don’t really want you to know about. He noted: “At the time Redpath met Brown in his camp, however, there could well have been more than journalistic curiosity involved. Redpath was a friend of the unscrupulous Jim Lane—the Free Soil leader who had escaped the treason dragnet cast out by the territorial government–…Brown, who Redpath and everyone else in the territory by now knew to be responsible for the Pottawatomie murders, was a man who seemed worth contacting, and Lane—according to Charles Robinson later—was in favor of using terror as a means of gaining power and property.” Anyone who has ever read any of the history of the Kansas-Missouri border problems and the “Civil War” in that area is familiar with Jim Lane. If you are not, then do a Google search on him. Lots of stuff out there on old “mad dog” Jim Lane!

However, Lane’s connection to “journalist” Redpath is never mentioned, but in looking at it as Scott has done you can begin to see the connection between terrorist Jim Lane and terrorist John Brown, and the conduit is news media pundit James Redpath.

And Scott has also noted something else the “historians” don’t comment much on. He said: “But it was clear that the murders in the Pottawatomie area had coincided with a series of organizing moves to drive Southern settlers out of Kansas, to destroy Southern settlements…The appearance of such deliberate and coordinated violence, however, could not have been possible, nor could it have proceeded, without a covering legend by Northern newspapermen, who shrouded its significance from the nation.”

So you can see that the “news media” today has a really checkered inheritance to live up to. They are still doing what the media back in the 1850s did—prevarication, waffling, obfuscation (I’m trying to find a nice way to say they were liars). Nothing has changed. But if you begin to get some faint glimmer of what they did back then you might begin to grasp what they are still doing today.

Lying Leftist “News” Media Trashes Anything Confederate or Southern

By Al Benson Jr.

Recently a friend lent me an informative book called Death by Journalism? written by Jerry Bledsoe. This is not a new book. It was published back in 2002 but as we were in the process of getting ready to move to Louisiana at that time, I never got to see it.

Reading it now, even though I am familiar with some of what it dealt with is still a shock. It displays the almost utter moral depravity of what we continue to call the news media. We should long ago have dropped that euphemism and realized that real news is the last thing those people are all about. It was informative to watch how the “news” media people in this book operated, in that I have seen them do the exact same thing in other areas. To label them the “prostitute press” would either be a compliment to them or an insult to prostitutes.

The book is about some folks in an SCV camp in North Carolina that sought to present the truth about the War of Northern Aggression to an adult  class at the Archdale satellite of Randolph Community College. The class was called “North Carolina History: Our Role  in the War for Southern Independence.” It cost $40 to sign up for the class, which amount paid for the entire course. It was not mandatory; it cost the college and the taxpayers nothing and it was not presented for the students at the college.

The man who started the class, Jack Perdue, said of the SCV: “We are a heritage organization. We are not a hate group and will not knowingly accept members who belong to hate groups. Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans served honorably in Confederate service and their descendents are welcome in the SCV.” And then he said something that most people today choose to forget. He said “It is important that we try to look at this subject from the viewpoint of the eighteen-sixties and not from the dawn of the twenty-first century.  It’s easy to say with twenty-twenty hindsight  that a lot of what went on back then was wrong. But you need to look at what went on back then from the times back then and not judge what people did in the eighteen hundreds by the way we live now…” Yet when it came to the “news” media, they totally ignored that admonition—as expected. After all they had an agenda—the cultural destruction of Southern heritage and culture—and nothing, but nothing, could be allowed to get in the way of that, least of all the truth!

Once the class started it was not long before it was visited by a hostile reporter. I’m not sure I even want to dignify him by giving his name. He wrote a series of horrible articles about the class but hadn’t bothered to attend the class sessions. So you wonder where he got his information. He wrote in his articles that the class taught that slaves in North Carolina were happy and content with their lot—only problem is, that was not what went on during the class sessions. Nothing like that was ever said in the class sessions, which were all taped, but that little problem didn’t bother the reporter—he just fabricated the dialogue he wished had taken place in the class and reported it in his articles as fact. The people who put on the class sessions tried to explain to him what it was all about. He wasn’t interested. He couldn’t have cared less.  Again, truth could not be allowed to get in the way of the leftist agenda.

When he talked with someone in the class and asked them questions, the fact that he had a preconceived agenda was openly apparent.  The lady he talked with said: “I knew right from the first question that the man was trying to create a controversy, it was the way he asked it.  I knew he was fishing for something, anything he could find to create what he wanted.” Another person he questioned noted that: “Every question had to do with slavery, it was the only issue of the Civil War he wanted to talk about…Nothing we tried to say to him seemed to make any impression. We were trying to tell him how much we’d learned about the role of North Carolina in the war.  It was like he would briefly listen to what we were saying, then go right back to the same thing. I didn’t feel he was there to find out what the class was about. He had some kind of agenda. He certainly didn’t want the information I was trying to convey to him.” You are right. He didn’t. He had no interest in that. He had no intention of conveying any truth about the class to anyone who read his diatribes.

And what was worse, his editor back at the paper he worked for defended all his inaccuracies as truth and the paper as a whole defended all this. They never retreated from that position. Much like the global warming crowd today, when they are presented with the truth of how they have fudged the figures to come up with their preconceived conclusions they pay no attention. They just continue on with their charade (agenda).

This “reporter” if you can even call him that, operated much like other leftist luminaries I have seen in the media. Several years ago now, my wife and I attended a Confederate Alliance Conference, sponsored by the Confederate Society of America, in Charleston, South Carolina. After the first day of speeches a couple people from the local “news” media ambled in and started to talk to the man who had organized the conference. As expected, they quickly brought up the race issue (nothing like playing the race card early). The man they were interviewing told them explicitly that race had nothing to do with what we were there for; that  people like the KKK and skinheads were not welcome at our conference and that we wanted nothing to do with that sort of thing. They asked him a couple more questions and then came back to the race issue. He told them again that race was not an issue there. Again they backed off and a couple questions later they tried to introduce it yet again. They couldn’t afford to leave the race issue alone because they were not really there to write about what had actually transpired—they were there to make everybody look like a group of closet Klansmen. That was their agenda, their only agenda. When they couldn’t come up with anything in that area they issued a story that was chock full of innuendo—but no real facts.

On page 231 of the book Mr. Bledsoe pointed out that the newspaper, the News and Record was not interested in fairness or truth. The SCV was the intended victim of what I and others call Cultural Genocide, presented under the false cover of “fighting racism.” The editors had to approve all this tripe and they did.

Another lady in the class said of the “news” media “They wouldn’t listen no matter what you said. They didn’t want to hear the truth. They were going to make it the way they wanted it and that was that.” You’ve got that right lady. Like good little Marxists, the news media today has an agenda and that is what they will present—no matter what, particularly when it comes to Confederate or Southern heritage and culture.

Southern Christian culture is slated for destruction by those people. It’s about time their intended victims woke up and read the handwriting on the wall—which you can believe—as long as someone in the “news” media didn’t write it!

The Confederate Government Never Surrendered–and “Reconstruction” Continues

by Al Benson Jr.

On Saturday, May 30, AD 2015, my wife and I attended a ceremony sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Shreveport, Louisiana. It was to commemorate the fact that Shreveport, as the headquarters of the Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi, was the last Southern city to surrender when the shooting part of the War of Northern Aggression had concluded. The ceremony took place at the Caddo Parish Court House in Shreveport, in front of which stands a beautiful Confederate monument.

Quite naturally, the politically correct and professionally offended do not like this monument. It “offends” their progressive sensibilities. Had they been able to do so they would have carted it off to the historical trash heap long ago. However, the small piece of land the monument is on was given to the United Daughters of the Confederacy by the Caddo Parish Police Jury back in 1903 and so there isn’t much they can do about it. They did make a fuss over the Third National Confederate flag that flew there several years back when they claimed that the flag, being in front of the court house was an incentive for jurors to find black people guilty of crimes. I mean, really people, can’t you do better than that? But they raised enough of a fuss that the flag finally got taken down but the beautiful monument remains, to their everlasting chagrin. So the monument is not on “public property” as such and I’ve been told it’s now listed in the National Historic Register, so I guess the offended classes will just have to live with it. Poor babies!

Anyway, the ceremony on Saturday was attended by around 200 people, many of them in period dress, including Confederate uniforms and they carried their flags, which they had marched with from about four blocks away right up to the court house. There is something about a long line of columns of men in gray marching with their flags that sends a chill up your spine, (and I mean that in a positive sense) especially when you march with them.

There were several speakers at the ceremony who spoke briefly but the keynote speaker was past Commander of the SCV’s Louisiana Division, Charles McMichael.

Commander McMichael  gave a rousing speech dealing with how it was the duty of the SCV to protect and promote Southern heritage and to make sure future generations know what the Confederate soldiers fought for and why. That means the SCV has to stand and oppose political correctness–also known as Cultural Marxism to those that have done the homework.

During his speech Commander McMichael made a couple noteworthy comments you have not always heard among many Southern heritage groups in our day. He noted that, in a real sense, the War goes on because the Confederate government never officially surrendered. The various armies were surrendered, but not the government. No surrender document was ever issued, unilke Germany or Japan after World War 2. Even after Viet Nam, there was the impression of a surrender issued by our government to the North Vietnamese. Henry Kissinger, who engineered it, called it “Peace with honor” but it was a surrender.

Another  thing noted by Commander McMichael that is critically important for us to realize in our day is that what he termed “Phase two of reconstruction” still continues. So many today, thanks to the faulty “history” taught in our institutions of learning, think that “reconstruction” ended in 1877. It didn’t. We are now in Phase two and you can tell this by the increasing and vitriolic attempts to remove from public view anything even remotely perceived as being Confederate–flags, statues, monuments, school names, street names–you name it and if it sounds Southern or Confederate you can bet it has been or will be under assault at some point. This is a fact that many, if not most, Southerners fail to perceive. Your history and heritage will rewritten and redefined into some monstrosity  you would never recognize if you do not stand up and resist.

The Cultural Marxists are not about to just go home and leave you alone because you try to be “nice” to them. They will perceive that as a sign of weakness and will step up their offensive against your history and culture. Their agenda is their muddy boot on your face, flag, and heritage.so you have got to stand up and learn to resist.

Ultimately, your Christian faith and your Southern heritage are their targets for destruction. You need to realize this and begin to fight back. The War is not over and they have not totally won until we quit–so let’s make sure we don’t ever quit!

Soft-peddling Socialsm During the War of Northern Aggression

By Al Benson Jr.

Over the years I have picked up some historical fiction books about the War of Northern Aggression. Though not completely accurate historically they often do contain a large measure of truth if you know what to look for. Some do briefly hint at certain truths, but usually not enough to catch the attention of the average reader.

I am reading one now, which I have read previously, called The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara. It was a New York Times bestseller, which may explain why some of the history has been soft-peddled. If Mr. Shaara had told his readers more about some of what he hinted at it probably would not have gotten published by his publisher, Ballantine Books and it might have interfered with the New York Times picking it as a best seller.

I’ve read several of Mr. Shaara’s books and they are entertaining and readable and he does give you some accurate history, but he also leaves out some things that the regular history books leave out, and if he did research for the books he has written on the War of Northern Aggression I can’t believe he didn’t run across some of this.

On page 2, in his introduction, he talks about some of the people that fought the war on both sides. He says: “From the North came farmers and fishermen, lumberjacks and shopkeepers, old veterans and young idealists. Some are barely Americans at all, expatriates and immigrants from Europe, led by officers who do not speak English.” You would have thought his finding of this kind of information would have piqued his interest enough to give at least brief commentary on who these officers in the Union army were that could not speak English—but no, he says not a word more. If you know the accurate history you have to realize that “those people” he refers to are, in the main, the Forty-Eighter socialists that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists.

On page 88 he makes another rather trite comment about Franz Sigel, one of the more notable of the Forty Eighters.  He comments on Sigel’s defeat in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 (Sigel was far from the greatest general in the world) and he says of Sigel that: “He was a graduate of the German Military Academy, an experienced fighter who had emigrated himself because he happened to pick the wrong side in a brief revolution.” Oh come on, Mr. Shaara—there’s a lot more to Franz Sigel than that and I’m sure you realize it. The 1848 socialist revolts in Europe may have been brief, in that they only lasted  a bit more than a year, but they were hardly insignificant. Revolts during that time went on in something like fifteen different countries and they shook all of Europe, plus they had lasting ramifications that went beyond that time, not only in Europe but also here. Many of the leaders and regular participants in those revolts ended up in this country, in the Republican Party and in the Union armies because they recognized that they could readily identify with what Lincoln was promoting—centralism and collectivism. I would have thought Mr. Shaara could have devoted at least a brief paragraph to those people, but no, nothing more than what I have quoted. Again, this is history the general public is not supposed to be aware of.

He did make an interesting comment about the Yankee general Joshua Chamberlain which is generally not mentioned, so I wonder if he let something slip here unawares. He said on page 7 that: “…Chamberlain accepts a prestigious Chair at Bowdoin, formerly held by the renowned Calvin Stowe, husband of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her controversial book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, inspires Chamberlain.” I’ve heard over the years that Chamberlain wasn’t a abolitionist. He may not have been, but he was inspired by one of the movers and shakers of the Abolitionist Movement. Interestingly enough, when Ms. Stowe wrote her book she had no firsthand personal knowledge of the South or of conditions in the South. She was a Unitarian who had been dabbling in spiritualism. Of course Shaara didn’t mention that—another no-no!

I wouldn’t discourage folks from reading Shaara’s books. They are entertaining and, as I said, very readable and you will get some history from them. You just won’t get everything you need to give you an accurate picture of what the War was really all about. Admittedly they are fiction, though I’ve seen some “history” books that have about the same amount of truth in them. I would, however, encourage people reading them to do some homework yourselves to find out just what has been emphasized and what has been mostly left out. That might be an interesting exercise.

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.