The Elder Sibling Is Watching You

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Around thirty years ago, a man who followed the political scene in this country told me that the Central Intelligence Agency owned or controlled the National Enquirer newspaper. Somehow, the thought didn’t surprise me. Now I can’t say if he was accurate  or not. At that time I had no way of checking that out. However, other things he told me did pan out  as he said. So let’s just leave it at that.

Recently, I watched a video of a speech by Jerome Corsi. Many of you probably know who Mr. Corsi is. He used to work for World Net Daily and he has written several books over the years. At present, he is a correspondent for http://www.infowars.com and he has a new book out called Killing the Deep State–the Fight to Save President Trump. Check it  out. Mr. Corsi is a good journalist and researcher.

Anyway, in this video I watched, Mr. Corsi mentioned Facebook, Twitter, Google, and one other entity (I’m not sure if it was Amazon or not) and he said that these had all been, in their origins, creatures of the CIA.  I think his speech was on You Tube, so if it hasn’t been removed by now you can probably find it with a little “huntin’ and peckin.” I usually agree with most of what  Mr. Corsi says because he is such a good researcher, with lots of good  sources.

I wouldn’t have thought all that much about his speech except, that on the same day I heard it, I chanced  to read an  article by Luis P. Almeida that had originally been on http://www.LewRockwell.com and had been picked up by https://flyoverpress.wordpress.com  I don’t know much about  Mr. Almeida, but parts of his article caught my attention after having listened to Mr. Corsi’s speech.

Mr. Almeida wrote: “…but I was aware of the privacy issue since Sun Microsystem’s Scott McNealy warned us about it way back in 1999. I have been aware for years that Facebook was  funded by the CIA’s venture capital arm called In-Q-Tel and that the NSA had tapped into our telecommunications network and was sucking up all voice and date traffic for analysis. In the 80s Brzezinski stated in his book, that soon the government would have a database containing everything there is to know about each and every one of us. I did not need a congressional hearing to make me aware that the day he spoke of had long arrived.” And incidentally,  the Brzezinski he is referring to, a longtime member of the Trilateral Commission, who passed away recently, was the father of Mika Brzezinski who is a “news” anchor for CNN.

So what Mr Almeida is telling  us is that Facebook is basically in the business of gathering any and  all info they can on all of us. When confronted with this their usual reply is that this is strictly for “commercial” purposes–advertising, etc. That’s a pile of cow chips, to use a polite term. These people are gathering intelligence on all Americans of all ages that use social media. They want to make sure they have the goods on any and all Americans who might, someday, become “persons of interest” to the feds. Whether this is warranted or not makes not an iota of  difference. They do it because they can!

And if you should be naive enough to ask about your First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights I would have to reply–“Surely you jest!”

Advertisement

Can You Begin To See Where “Civil Rights” Is Taking Us?

by Al Benson Jr.

Decades ago now we were told by some in government and in the “news”media that we needed civil rights for blacks to end segregation in the South and so that blacks could begin to be able to vote. So, after multitudinous marches, demonstrations, sit-ins and other media-driven events blacks finally achieved some of those “civil rights” everyone was told they needed. If, at this point, you are going to ask me if I have a problem sitting next to a black family in a restaurant, I don’t. I have no problem with folks all being treated equally. Problem is, that some folks have gotten to the point where they feel they are entitled to be treated more equally than the rest of us, and, as usual, the ruling Marxist Regime in Washington totally agrees with them.

In fact, let’s be rather blunt.  When it comes to equal treatment in this Kountry anymore, white Southern Christians are at the absolute bottom of the totem pole and everyone else is supposed to denigrate them and their accomplishments with equal abandon as history is erased, reconstituted, and historical memory  is obliterated, to be replaced with–well, you don’t want to know with what. That will spoil your supper.

Several months ago, per request, I did an article that appeared in The Free Magnolia, a newspaper put out by the League of the South. The title of the article was The Marxist Side of Civil Rights. For those who have bothered to do any research on the “Civil Rights Movement” they will realize that it had (and has) a Marxist side. The “news” media just doesn’t bother to tell you about that because they and their bosses feel their agenda is better off if you are not aware of that. If you want some good background on this see if you can find Alan Stang’s old book It’s Very Simple–The True Story of Civil Rights.  should be able to locate it on Amazon.com I found it and there are old, used copies for sale. Mr. Stang was a truly investigative researcher and reporter and he researched where media “angels” had been told never to tread.

In our day we have finally reached the point (probably predetermined years ago) where the cultural Marxists have so absorbed and controlled the Civil Rights Movement that it is little more than a living memorial to their efforts to change our society from its Christian base to one that could only be loved by the Sodomite and Transsexual Movements. In fact the Sodomite, Lesbian and Transgender Movements have become the new civil rights! You have to start beginning to realize  that these people now possess all the “civil rights”  and you don’t really have any anymore. What you now have is the “right” to give in to their demands or face government prosecution (persecution) and that’s the only “right” you have left. If that’s too rich for you, then just take a good look at what’s going on around you. People are losing their jobs and their businesses because they refuse to cater to the whims of these people. So, tell me, where are the “civil rights” of those that do not, for Scriptural reasons, choose to go along with all of this? Such rights no longer exist. Somehow, the vaunted Constitution is not protecting us from all this. But, then, does that really surprise you? In spite of all the “conservative” bloviation Congress spreads out there, they, somehow, always manage to go along with whatever perversion the current administration comes up with.

I recently read an article by a New York Times columnist which said that “Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality.” So who will be entrusted with that sacred mission? Exactly who is slated to make  Christian churches “affirm homosexuality”? Will the federal government do that?  And if so, exactly where are the “civil rights” of those in those churches that refuse to go along with what Scripture clearly condemns? Exactly who is going to force us? I’d like a detailed answer to this one. The Times article noted: “Bruni quoted furniture tycoon Mitchell Gold, who has used millions to found a liberal pressure group Faith in America, writing that Gold believes Christian churches ‘must be made’ to take homosexuality off the sin list.” Such statements from Gold lead me to inquire just where Mr. Gold is regarding religion.

In all honesty, you know who is going to pursue this agenda–the federal government, and they will pressure their minions in many state capitols to push the same agenda.  They will probably start with “suggestions” to the churches about this in their respective areas, then maybe a little subtle pressure, and finally, if some churches refuse to play this game the feds will seek to remove their 501c3 non-tax status until such time as they decide to comply with the federal program. For those that refuse flat out to do this, well, there is always prison–for violating the “civil rights” of the sexual perversion crowd–because, after all, they have “civil rights” and you don’t! Get used to it, folks, this IS the future–unless a goodly number of Christians and churches wake up and resist–and with what I have seen in churches in the last four decades, I really don’t expect that to happen. Oh, some will resist, to their credit, but not enough, and either jail of the FEMA Camp awaits those that do resist.

This is where the “Civil Rights Movement” has taken you folks. Do you like it? While you’ve been sitting in your churches on Sunday listen to your preacher tell you how close the “rapture” is, that it could happen any minute, or that “revival is just around the corner” (I heard that one thirty years ago, and it seems like it’s a long way to the corner) the “Civil Rights” crowd has been slipping the noose around your necks and you haven’t started to feel it until just recently.  They plan to make sure you feel it more before it’s all over.

It seems like it’s about time for a thorough re-evaluation of the “Civil Rights Movement” and just where it has been taking us.

Centralism Trumps “Checks and Balances”

by Al Benson

Well, we’ve just had an election and it looks to most people like the good guys won for a change. However, voters need to be discerning enough to realize that not all those who appear to be good guys (Republicans) really are. Some of them are no better than the Democratic socialists, the only difference being the party label. Remember that the first two Republican candidates for president in this country, John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, were both socialists in their worldviews even if they may not have officially belonged to any socialist ” Party.” You can check out the backgrounds of both of these individuals in the book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Now that we have a Republican majority in both houses Comrade Obama has stated that he will just take “executive action” in regard to making illegal immigrants part of the national culture. Will the checks and balances that are supposed to operate with our current Constitution be enough to stop him. Will Congress do what it should do or will Obama just continue to get away with his lawlessness? Most of us know the answer and it’s not pretty. Congress will fume and fuss and make great pontifications about who should do what and that will be it.

The checks and balances that one branch of government is supposed to employ under the Constitution to check the usurpations of another branch will amount to nothing. It’s all, as one Christian pastor once said–“meaningless drivel.” Always has been.

Interestingly, one of the most insightful of the Anti-Federalists in the beginning was Robert Yates, a judge from New York who was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. At some point Judge Yates withdrew because he felt the convention was exceeding the instructions it had been given. Yates later wrote as “Brutus” about the debates over the Constitution. Given that he had expertise as a judge he claimed that the Supreme Court was destined to become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching, and his insight in this area has proven correct.

As “Brutus,” he observed that the Supreme Court, as envisioned under the Constitution, would end up becoming a source of growing abuse because they were beyond the control of both legislatures and ordinary citizens and they were in no way subject to being “corrected by any power above them.” Who is there out there that will correct them regarding their farcial ruling that Obamacare is constitutional? Where are the checks and balances in this situation? If any are present they are hidden under the political rug, never to be seen. Yates thought that the power the Court would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law. Gee, when has that ever happened? (Let us count the times).

That being the case, the Court could then proceed to interpret the Constitution according to the “spirit” of the law rather than the letter of the law. Looking at some of the “decisions” the Court has handed down in our lifetime, can anyone seriously doubt the concerns that Robert Yates had? In fact, if anything, his concerns could have been labeled as optimistic, because in his day, he could have had no possible concept of just how far the Court would go in promoting the agendas of radical, activist judges who would shamelessly promote their version of what they wished the Constitution had really said.

I can recall author and columnist, the late Joseph Sobran, writing on this subject years ago when he noted that the Court had found many “enumerated penumbras” in the Constitution that justified abortion, the murder of unborn babies. Many folks will ask “what’s a penumbra?” Good question. For want of being able to explain it legally, I will note that it is nothing more than the judicial version of “seeing through a glass darkly.” The lawyers see “rights” there that are never spelled out anywhere, except in their own minds. So there are no real checks and balances in play regarding the Supreme Court. It is truly a law unto itself.

Back in 2008, Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an article called Nathaniel Macon and The Way Things Should Be in which he dealt with the career of Nathaniel Macon, the man that Macon, Georgia was named after. Macon and others in his family were quite discerning. He served with North Carolina troops in the War for Independence. Dr. Wilson noted of him that: “He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting…In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined. It is noteworthy that his brother, John, voted against ratification of the new U.S. Constitution in both conventions of the sovereign people of North Carolina to consider that question; and that our State did not ratify until the first ten amendments, especially the 9th and 10th, were in place to limit the federal government.” And he commented on the new government, saying “As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of ‘good government’ began to turn the government into a centralized power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress.” However, Dr. Wilson noted that “By the end of his life Macon had realized that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use ‘nullification,’ state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told his friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession–…” These folks had it figured out by the 1830s that the Constitution was not going to work because no one was staying within the sphere of authority that was delegated to them. The checks and balances that were supposed to keep everyone where they belonged were just not being practiced. Each branch of the new government was doing what it wanted to do with no resistance from the other branches save a little breast-beating. It was only to get worse during the Lincoln administration, and worse yet during the “reconstruction” period, when Congress basically just did whatever they wanted. Johnson vetoed their indiscretions but they overrode that while the Supreme Court did little. Now we have a president (a would-be dictator for life if he could get away with it) who doesn’t even bother to consult Congress anymore. He just issues “executive orders” and rules like a Muslim potentate, so where are the checks and balances?

It’s all rhetoric, folks, that’s all it is. We have been lied to by so many for so long about so much, we wouldn’t recognize the truth if we saw it floating amongst all the political swill out there.

Three years ago, Mike Crane of Morganton, Georgia did a series in six parts called What Is States Rights? which you can still find on the Internet. Check out the website for the Southern Party of Georgia and read his comments. If that one is gone you can still find these articles on the League of the South website, probably in their archive. He observed: “In the very early days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, the framers of the Constitution, made a deliberate and conscious decision to discontinue a federated form of government and to replace it…let me emphasize…REPLACE IT…with a national form of government in their deliberations. Let me emphasize what this means for the concept of States Rights…By the votes of May 30, 1787 the framers of the Constitution began debating the ultimate elimination of States Rights.”

There’s a lot more to all this and I would encourage everyone to check out Mike’s articles and see what he has to say. You can bet the farm that you will never get this material from what passes for history books today.

Christian Opposition, Checks & Balances, Etc.

by Al Benson Jr.

Having read several insightful articles by Al Cronkrite, a freelance Reformed Christian writer who lives in Florida, I usually pay attention when I see his name on an article because I know I will get something that goes beyond the usual “patriotic” chatter that is so prevalent on the Internet. Mind you, I am not against patriotism, but lots of what floats around out there today is not real patriotism but merely a shallow brand of nationalism–sort of like “My country, right or wrong–rah, rah, rah.” In its own way it’s just as bad as liberalism because it leads sincere Americans down the garden path to Nowheresville when they should be on the cultural path removing the thorns.

Having said that, I recall reading an article by Mr. Cronkrite in The Covenant News back in July of 2009 where he observed that most folks today view our founders as mostly Christian men “…who produced documents that, if they were not expressly Christian, contained Christian principles. Others find it strange that Christian men would fail to encode the name of the Savior or refer to His dominion.” Regarding the Constitution that brings a different dimension to the topic, one that Gary North has referred to more than once in his writings.

Mr. Cronkrite, along with others, also observed that: “The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in the Summer of 1787, was a secret gathering convened for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. It was an elite group that Jefferson described as ‘demigods’. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and probably President George Washington had no intentions of abiding by the instructions from congress to revise the Articles. Their intention was to form a new federal government which they believed the states would accept in order to solve the problems they were having in conducting their inter-state affairs. They were conspiratorial and dishonest in their actions but right in their political assessment…Patrick Henry of Virginia claimed he ‘smelled a rat’ and refused to attend.” Time has shown how foul the rat Henry smelled really was, and is.

It has been duly noted by Mr. Cronkrite that almost nothing has been written about Christian opposition to the final results of the Constitutional Convention. And I have to admit that none of the history I have come across has mentioned any of this, even the home school material. He observed that: “The shift from a reformation to a substitution was successful and in the exuberant pride that characterized the birth of a new nation the still small voice of the Creator was drowned out and a grave error was made. Several prominent clergymen expressed their dissatisfaction. Rev. John Mason of New York wrote, ‘Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity, by a people anymore than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck’.”

Also, “Rev. Samuel Austin said, the Constitution ‘is entirely disconnected from Christianity. It is not founded on the Christian religion.’ Rev. Samuel Taggart lamented the lack of Christian reference to be a national evil of great magnitude.’ ‘It is a great sin to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument and not have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body,’ lamented Rev. George Duffield. Rev. Jedediah Morse thought that the secular Constitution meant that America, like ancient Israel was doomed. Rev. James Wilson considered its creation ‘a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without parallel’.”

Now, folks, stop and reflect for a minute. How much about this Christian opposition to the Constitution have you ever read about in “history” books? I’ll wager that about all you ever read what just about what I read–that almost no one was opposed to it but Patrick Henry and a mere handful of his friends, who must all surely have had charter memberships in the Flat Earth Society. Those folks were supposedly anachronisms that just couldn’t see the pressing need for consolidation–Henry and his dwindling number of friends were a bit shortsighted, so it’s a good thing no one listened to them (or Leviathan wouldn’t be where it is today) and that’s about all you get, if that. The anti-Federalist arguments against ratification are seldom, if ever, mentioned–and as anachronistic as I guess I must be, the ones I’ve read about I’ve agreed with.

Mr. Cronkrite informed his readers that one of the big selling points for the new Constitution was that old, mythical “separation of church and state” story–the so-called government “neutrality” in regard to religion. All you have to do is look at where we are today in this regard and ask yourself–how’s that “government neutrality” in regard to religion working out for you nowadays? Anything even remotely Christian is now constantly under attack, while all the other pagan faiths seem to be getting a poss. Folks, this is not by accident. I put that in bold letters because we need to grasp that. Muslims will get to do in many educational institutions what Christians couldn’t even dream about. Any perversion today is accepted, no matter how gross, as long as it flies in the face of Christian culture. It’s all “protected” except Christianity and it’s open season on us and that’s not by accident.

I read an article on LewRockwell.com for October 30th written by Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics, in which he noted a raid in Texas by a SWAT team on a community in which there was no probable cause. The inhabitants had done nothing wrong, did not use drugs; no weapons or anything illegal was found, but the SWAT team handcuffed people, destroyed their crops, and pretty much did what they wanted because they could.

In his article Mr. Armstrong observed: “Raiding such a community without probable cause is totally unconstitutional. This is my point about the Constitution–it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope. The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect. Government agents can do as they like and it is the BURDEN of the citizen to prove that they violated the Constitution.” I might not have said it quite the way he did, but he does have a point.

There are no real restraints upon government, no real checks and balances so that if one branch oversteps its bounds the others will bring it to heel. They all collude with one another to quash whatever rights the citizens have, all the while telling us we live in a “free country”–the freest on earth they tell us–and it’s all just so much bovine fertilizer. This government has gone rogue–it went that way noticeably when the Lincoln administration started, but it had been showing signs of major slippage before that. John C. Calhoun noticed it before he died in 1850.

It really appears to me that we have a government that is one thing when we have been told it was something else. Most of us who have followed the political situation realize that we have been shamelessly lied to by “our” government about just about everything in our lifetime. But what about our ancestors? Were they lied to in the same way about what went on in their day? What about the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish-American War, World Wars 1 and 2, Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Kennedy Assassinaton, and a plethora of other things I could spend paragraphs on just listing? Where, in all of this and more, has there been “constitutional” protection for our citizens–from their own government?

We had better start grappling with some of this folks, before the gates to the FEMA camps open wide and we all become “memory hole” material–naturally under the protection of the US Constitution, replete with its “checks and balances.”