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.

Advertisements

More Admissions to Early Socialism In America

By Al Benson Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans No Different In 2015 Than In 1860

By Al Benson Jr.

I continue to be amazed at the number of patriotic and “conservative” sites on the Internet that express shock that the Republican Party seems to be playing along with Comrade Obama’s socialist agenda for this country. They seem to feel that the Republican Party is some great bastion of conservatism that will step up to do battle with the “liberal Democrats” in the name of God and country. Folks, that outdated notion is hogwash. Get over it! It has never been that way and it never will be. The Republican Party is almost as far to the left as today’s Democratic Party is. They are just better at hiding it. This is nothing new.

In our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, Walter D. Kennedy and I noted, on page 48, that: “The very foundation for modern-day liberalism/socialism was laid by the many and various utopian ideologues of the nineteenth century. The fact that these utopian socialists/communists found Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party to be objects worthy of their zeal and efforts speaks volumes as to why post-Appomattox America has adopted most, if not all of the early American socialist/communist goals. Universal suffrage was a dream of every socialist/communist movement in Europe and America; even Karl Marx spoke in favor of universal suffrage. The same can be said about a progressive income tax, abolition of the rights of inheritance, a system of national education, centralized banking and many other such socialist/communist measures.” And on page 50 we also noted: “The thought of Lincoln as the first American president to have had a communist sympathizer working in a key part of his administration is, and should be, shocking to all Americans. Charles Dana, who visited Marx in 1848, was an associate of Horace Greeley and an early convert to the communistic Fourierist movement. Dana served as assistant secretary of war under Edwin Stanton during the Lincoln administration, thus becoming the first communist, or at least the first communist sympathizer, to serve in a high position within the government of the United States.” And this was in a Republican administration and it was only the beginning. Then there were the socialists, notably Carl Schurz among them, who helped to write the Republican Party Platform in 1860.

There are some who inform us that the Republican Party is the party of small government. Though many of them may be sincere, they are sincerely in error—grave error, and we shouldn’t believe it. Walter Kennedy has also observed, in his recently released book Rekilling Lincoln that: “While often characterized as the homely rail-splitting lawyer from backwoods Illinois, Lincoln was in reality a high-pressure, well-connected corporate lawyer of the largest corporation in America during the early part of the nineteenth century. Although Lincoln is often depicted as a meek and humble friend of the common people and the downtrodden, in actuality Lincoln had a close association with numerous railroad barons. These railroad barons were some of the richest and most powerful men in America at that time.” Both Lincoln and his mentor, Henry Clay, were men who believed in the use of governmental power to protect special industries. And Donnie Kennedy has noted that: “…this system establishes a means whereby well-placed persons could leverage their position in government and finance for personal advantage.” Does that sound any different from today? Republicans and Democrats alike play this game and one hand washes the other.

For those still under the illusion that the Republican Establishment will combat Comrade Obama’s rampant socialism all you have to do to disabuse yourselves of that fantasy is to read an article that appeared on http://townhall.com for March 7, 2015, which was written by John Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins presents some very cogent points folks need to begin to consider. He says: “How do you think Republicans would have done in the 2014 elections if they had told the truth about what they intended to do when they took over the Senate? What if they had campaigned on working hand-in-hand with Obama to enact his illegal alien amnesty while supporting his budget priorities, confirming a new Attorney General who thinks everything Obama is doing is fine and promised they would do nothing while he illegally bans ammo, cripples the Internet, and lets the EPA run wild? Republicans are even gearing up to SAVE OBAMACARE if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies…What’s left unsaid is that he’s only able to do it because Republicans in the House and Senate are standing by impotently and allowing him to do whatever he wants.” Hawkins accuses the Republicans of “rank cowardice” in all their confrontations with Obama. Up to now, he’s called it right, but here I have to disagree with him. It’s not cowardice on their part. The problem is that the Republicans are just as much socialists as Obama is and they really have no problem with any of what he is doing. Doesn’t that thought give you the warm fuzzies? We have a Congress, no matter which party is in power, that really has no problem with socialism and they will do whatever it takes to protect Obama’s socialist agenda, all the while loudly complaining about how much they are opposed to it. Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, your names are really Republican and Democrat, and you both work together to give this country the socialism most of us don’t want—but we’ll get it from you anyway, no matter the party label.

The legislative branch of government has sold out to the executive branch, and all of this will soon be “legitimized” by the judicial branch when they again okay Obamacare as they have done in the past, and again, the supposed system of “checks and balances” we are supposed to have with the Constitution has gone by the boards. It has gone by the boards so much in my lifetime I am beginning to wonder if it really ever existed except on paper.

We have got to begin to rethink the fable that the Republican and Democratic Parties are different than one another, that they have different worldviews and goals. It just ain’t so. They both have a One World socialist viewpoint and that’s where they are both trying to take us. You can’t depend on the Republican Party or its minions to combat Obama’s socialism/Marxism. The Republican Party exists to lead you into it without your being aware of it.

Thanks to our government “education system” the average American citizen is being rendered unfit to govern himself and he is being recreated as nothing more than a mindless zombie who is just one more cog in the government/socialist wheel. And as long as you continue to “educate” your kids in this system all you are doing is helping them to create junior socialist cogs for their One World wheel. We have got to start thinking outside of that box. We don’t have much time left. Maybe we had best start asking the Lord to remove the scales from our eyes so we can begin to see what we need to do.

“Socialist Feminism”

by Al Benson Jr.

At present, I am working my way through an excellent book written by Stanley Kurtz back in 2010 and entitled Radical-In-Chief. It is a history of the deep socialist background of the present occupier of the White House and it is available on Amazon.com

I will have more to say about Mr. Kurtz’s book in future articles because he brings out an amazing amount of documentation about the “stealth socialist” movement in this country, in which our president has been and is a major player.

On page 140 of his book, Kurtz deals with something called “Socialist Feminism” and he goes on to show that socialism has been a major part of the Feminist Movement in the 1970s. He notes: “Yet Heather Booth’s chief efforts in 1971 were devoted to organizing for socialist feminism. Booth and her early collaborator at the Midwest Academy, Day Creamer, were involved in both the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union (CWLU) and the Action Committee for Decent Childcare. The juxtaposition of the explicitly socialist CWLU and the less ideological daycare project–open to all women, not just committed socialists– exemplifies the strategy Booth and her collaborators had laid out in 1969’s Socialism and the Coming Decade, in which small, consciously socialist groups quietly build and guide less openly ideological mass movements. Booth’s developing ideological and strategic perspective is presented in her 1971 pamphlet, written with Day Creamer and a small group of others, Socialist Feminism: A Strategy for the Women’s Movement. This pamphlet was reprinted by the Midwest Academy ‘for historical purposes,’ and was sometimes used in the Academy’s training sessions.” So you can see here, in recent times, the socialist involvement in the Feminist Movement. Sadly, this is not a new development.

In our book Lincoln’s Marxists Walter Kennedy and I deal with the Feminist Movement in this country, and in Europe, in Addendum 3, on page 307, in a section called Feminists and Forty Eighters, which was originally published in my quarterly newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle back in the fourth quarter of 2006. We observed: “Modern historians with what appears to be a selective historical bias seldom examine or mention the close connections between individuals with strong communist connections and other left of center personalities. For example the outright influence of communists in the Roosevelt administration was seldom brought to light until well after his death. Likewise, the connection between socialists and outright communists and the founding of the Republican Party, or the connection between the radical feminists and the Forty Eighters in Europe is seldom if ever reported. Radical Feminism was not something new in France and Germany during the turbulent years of the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. When the socialist (it should be noted that the terms socialist and communist were equivalent at that time) revolutions erupted in Europe in 1848, the majority of the feminists supported and otherwise aided those revolutions. Many of these women were supporters of St. Simon and Charles Fourier, both of whom were well known for their socialist philosophies.” The article then goes on to name names. Some of them you may have heard of, such as Margaretta Meyer Schurz, the wife of the well known Forty Eighter Carl Schurz who became the Secretary of the Interior during the Hayes administration. Mrs. Schurz established the first kindergarten in this country at Watertown, Wisconsin in 1856. Interestingly enough, the government in Prussia, only two years after the socialist revolts in that country had ended, outlawed kindergartens. The Prussian government was on record as viewing these schools as places of radical indoctrination for children. Given what goes on in public schools nowadays, can one really say they were wrong? Or were they remarkably prescient?

In her book Freethinkers–A History of American Secularism Susan Jacoby notes another well known feminist, “Red Emma” Goldman. She says: “At the same time there was a politically radical agnostic minority supported by European Marxist, socialist and anarchist thought and quite willing to challenge American institutions. ‘Red Emma’ Goldman was the most fiery, persuasive, and visible representative of that minority, an outspoken atheist and feminist as well as an anarchist’…Another early “Women’s Libber” over on the left! Goldman had a strong influence on Margaret Sanger, although it’s not known if Sanger ever openly acknowledged her leftist indoctrination from “Red Emma.” Sanger is reported to have been the one that invented the term “birth control.”

Back in 2003, Henry Makow, Ph.D. wrote an article that appeared on http://www.savethemales.ca called Betty Friedan: Mommy was a Commie. In part, Dr. Makow stated: “Betty Friedan, the ‘founder of modern feminism’ pretended to be a typical 1950s American mother who had a ‘revelation’ that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career. What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government…Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946-1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) ‘the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.’ In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.” This is hardly the background for most ordinary 1950s mothers. Friedan obviously did not want lots of folks to be aware of her radical leftist past. If they had been, her book The Feminist Mystique might not have sold over five million copies. One has to wonder, seeing that the Communists are opposed to filthy rich “capitalists” making all manner of filthy lucre, who got the royalties from five million copies of Friedan’s book? Did she donate it all to the Communist Party USA? Actually, the Communists don’t really have a big problem with profit–as long as it’s their people making it and not the rest of us.

It’s important that we realize that the Feminist Movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement, or whatever brand of feminism you happen to run across swimming in your soup, is all steeped in socialism, communism, or some other brand of aberrant leftism. They are not, nor have they ever been, really concerned about helping women–they are concerned about helping their women into positions of power and influence here and around the world, so they can help to shape the socialist agenda in various countries, and tell the rest of us how we should live. They are interested, and have a vested interest in tearing down every Biblical truth regarding women and replacing it with their socialist dogma and rules. That’s something Christians need to become aware of because, today, not nearly enough are.

Was the War of Northern Aggression a Marxist Revolution?

by Al Benson Jr.

The title of this article is asked as a rhetorical question, as Donnie Kennedy and I have already dealt in depth with this subject in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. But it does not hurt to ask it again, as many folks have not only not read our book, but they have never been confronted with some of the information that is now out there dealing with this subject. The leftist radicals in the early Republican Party were not bashful in giving away their socialist tendencies when they commented on the South and their plans for it and its people after the War.

James M. McPherson, who is by no means my favorite “historian” has dealt with some of this in an Internet article–Some Thoughts on the Civil War as the Second Revolution. McPherson seems to enjoy dealing with the subject of the War as if it were, indeed, a revolution, only he quotes the people that portray the Southerners as the revolutionaries. Needless to say, it was really the other way around. But then, a standard Marxist tactic is “condemn others and elevate yourself.”

McPherson noted the comments of future president James Garfield while he was in Congress, and he noted that: “During the first three of his seventeen years in Congress, Garfield was one of the most radical of the radical Republicans. He continued to view the Civil War and Reconstruction as a revolution that must wipe out all traces of the ancient regime in the South. In his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on January 28, 1864, he called for the confiscation of the land of Confederate planters and the redistribution of this land among the freed slaves and white Unionists in the South.” It hardly needs to be stated that such a concept is in total agreement with what Karl Marx advocated in the Communist Manifesto. This position was in total agreement with the first and fourth planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx–sorry, I meant Garfield–then sought to excuse such Marxist confiscation on the premise that this had been done during our War for Independence with land that had belonged to the Tories. Of course a lot of the Tories had left the country, many going to Canada, and so much of their land was vacant anyway. And Garfield went on: “The leaders of this rebellion must be executed or banished from the republic…” So, was Garfield advocating mass executions of Southern leaders? Or at least their banishment so the federal government could then control the land that had been theirs? This was the same attitude as that displayed by General Sherman regarding Southerners–and it was still consistent with Marx.

Land confiscation was a cardinal tenet of Marxism and it was also a favorite among the Northern elite. In his book Citizen Sherman, Michael Fellman observed: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war. As early as August 24, 1862, John Sherman had written his brother, ‘If we can’t depend on the loyalty of the white men of the South, I would give the land to the blacks or colonize a new set (of northern whites).’ The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be redistributed to Northern white colonists…When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility 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.” Almost makes you wonder if such is a veiled threat.

And Sherman made it quite plain that he would not hesitate to practice what we today call psychological warfare on the Southern people. According to Fellman, “His army would not inflict military defeat on a Confederate army, but intentionally humiliating destruction on a peaceful, cultivated Southern landscape and her people.” Lots easier to fight mostly unarmed Southern civilians than it is Confederate soldiers that can shoot back. But this is the way Marxists fight a war. Almost makes you wonder if Lenin took lessons from Sherman.

Radical abolitionist (and Unitarian) Wendell Phillips was among the most outspoken. In his mind he insisted that the War “is primarily a social revolution. The war can only be ended by annihilating that Oligarchy which formed and rules the South and makes the war-by annihilating a state of society. The whole social system of the Gulf States must be taken to pieces.” And dear old Thaddeus Stevens, that “gentle giant” of the radical abolitionists said they had to “treat this war as a radical revolution” and “reconstruction” then needed to “revolutionize Southern institutions, habits and manners…The foundations of their institutions…must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain.” So, as you can see by the statements made, the real revolutionaries in this war were not the Southern people or their leaders, but were, instead, those among the Northern elite who had imbibed the doctrines of socialism that became so clearly apparent when they spoke. What they have been describing here is nothing less than what the Communists in Russia and China did when they took over those countries–cultural genocide. Change the culture and make it totally unrecognizable to those who had lived under the old Christian culture. For “those people” the war and “reconstruction” were nothing more than exercises in Cultural Marxism–the 19th century variety.

Back in 2012, Andre M. Fleche wrote a book called The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict. I haven’t yet read it so I can’t comment all that much on it, but Fleche does deal with the Forty-eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I deal with in Lincoln’s Marxists. A review by Jarret Ruminski (University of Calgary) noted that: “Fleche supports his argument for the importance of 1848 by highlighting the significant roles European revolutionaries played in shaping American nationalist debates in the years leading up to the Civil War, and showing their continued influence after its outbreak.” So Mr. Fleche also recognizes how influential the Forty-eighters in this country were before the War and how their revolutionary influence affected what went on.

More and more, the general public, and especially Southerners, need to be much more aware of just how (from a socialist perspective) the North was influenced by the Forty-eighters and how that influence affected not only the War and “reconstruction” but how it has affected everything that has gone on since then.

This demonstrates that “reconstruction” never truly ended in the South, or anywhere else in the country, but is, in fact, in operation today. Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States” is all part and parcel of it. The old (Christian) culture has to be gotten rid of and a new one instituted. If you can say anything about Obama, you can truthfully say that he is a “change agent” for the New World Order, and he has taken many of his lessons in that area from Abraham Lincoln and from “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

The Republican Party Ain’t Your Friend (and neither are the Democrats)

by Al Benson Jr.

Recently I saw an article by Erick Erickson on http://www.redstate.com which was entitled President Hates America.. I can’t disagree with the title. It’s correct–President Obama does not like the United States. Erickson noted that: “The Obamas see the United States as a corrupt and bullying power that needs to be humbled.” He’s correct, the President does not like this country. He despises it and its people, not because it’s corrupt and bullying, but rather because it has not yet conformed to the socialist model he seeks to introduce here. There is resistance to that, and what he really hates is that resistance. Obama has a vision of and for America that is diametrically opposed to what some of our founders wanted for us. Obama and Patrick Henry would be at absolute opposite ends of the spectrum. Obama and Alexander Hamilton might be another matter.

Obama is not opposed to America because of its corruption and bullying–his administration has done enough of both to last for decades if they never did anything else–and the people at the top who are responsible for all the corruption and bullying are both Democrats and Republicans, establishment types who are making money out of all they are doing, while trying to push the country in the direction of the New World Order. Both political parties are top-heavy with those people.

Erickson concluded his article with: “We are less safe at home and abroad as a result. But the President’s golf game goes uninterrupted and his congress remains neutered and in fear of being disliked.” Here we don’t quite see eye to eye. He’s right about us being less safe at home and abroad, and Obama’s golf game does seem to go on forever, with us picking up the tab for it all, but Congress is not neutered or afraid of being unpopular (except maybe at election time). Otherwise, they couldn’t care less what we think of them. It couldn’t be any worse than what they think of us. We continue to elect them, naively thinking they will go to Washington to speak up for us, when actually, they go to promote the corruption Obama professes so much concern about. In truth, the Congress, at least most of it, both Democrats and Republicans, are in complete agreement with where Obama wants to take the country–down the road to some form of socialism. This doesn’t bother Congress in the least. They will still continue to collect their fat cat salaries for pretending to legislate even though Obama seeks to rule by Federal edict and they’ll pretend to complain about it loudly, if ineffectively. it’s all an expensive game, with the always-lucky taxpayer picking up the tab.

Ahh, but now that the Republicans have seized control of Congress all that will change, right? Wrong! Very little will change because, if the truth be known, the Republican agenda is quite similar to Obama’s agenda. After all, they both get their marching orders from the same people, so why should anything really change except enough of the meaningless rhetoric to fool the voting populace? For the most part, the Republican Congress with talk conservative and vote socialist.

In an article on http://www.godfatherpolitics.com J. Matt Barber stated: “I am no longer a Republican. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and their Democrat-lite RINO Republican establishment have seen to that. They have betrayed their own constituents…Last month Republicans were elected by ‘We the people’ in an unprecedented landslide-in a Democratic Party bloodbath–with clear marching orders. They were given one task and one task alone. Stop Barack Obama. They have failed both miserably and willfully.”

Let’s call a spade a spade. They failed willfully because Obama’s agenda is very little different than their own. Look at it logically. If the same clique controls both parties, then their agenda will, to one extent or another, be reflected in the actions of both parties. One may say or do it a little differently than the other, but the end result will be the same. We don’t really have two different and distinct political parties in this country with different worldviews. We have, in effect, two branches of the same New World Order group, saying somewhat different things to fool the public, but both, in reality, working for the same agenda. The Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission clique controls both parties, and both parties do what this clique wants them to do. There may be a handful of genuinely conservative Republican congressmen out there, but there are not enough of them to overcome the ones that are either New World Order types or who are willing to go along to get along so they can stay in office and cash in on the goodies.

Others seem to have also discerned the Republican game and realize how it is being played. Dr. Clyde Wilson, in an article in Chronicles for November, 2014, has perfectly described how the Republican Party plays the “conservative” game while doing socialist good deeds.

Dr. Wilson states: “Another fact: With the exception of Reagan’s contribution to winning the Cold War, the entire history of the Republican Party in the 20th century has been a grotesque betrayal–a lack of effective opposition to any leftist and Democratic initiative. The Republican Party has won office claiming opposition and immediately abetted and institutionalized whatever revolution has been imposed…When conservative Christians became politically active, giving great hope to many, they, too, were swiftly invited into the party and neutralized. For some time now the party has rested on the votes of conservative Christians and Southerners. It has never had any intention of giving these voters anything, never has given them anything, and never will give them anything.” He also noted that, should a genuine conservative presidential candidate emerge from among the Republicans in 2016, he greatest opposition will come from the leadership of his own party. This is what happened to Ron Paul in 2012. And it is all entirely in keeping with the real origins of the Republican Party, which were clearly socialist. Again, I would direct you to Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists. The Republican Party needs to be exposed for the socialism-enabling fraud that it really is.

And then, Christian and conservative voters need to start dealing with the question of “Where do we go from here?”

Alan Stang, Donnie Kennedy, and I were right about the Republican Party

By Al Benson Jr.

Back in early 2008, author and researcher Alan Stang wrote an article entitled The Republican Party–Red From the Start. Mr. Stang provided much documentation in this and other articles showing where the Republican Party was really coming from and what its origins were and, folks, let me tell you, those origins weren’t over on the “far right.”

In that article, Alan reviewed the first edition of Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists, and he made the statement “You really need to read this book.” Unfortunately, Alan passed away in 2010, I think it was, and his research and writing skills are sorely missed. He used to dig up material that the regular media people wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole, material they most studiously avoided, and he dealt with it for his audience, which seems to have been considerable. Years earlier, I had read his classic work It’s Very Simple—the true story of Civil Rights. You might check Amazon.com to see if it’s still around. Alan bared all the facts the media and the “civil rights’ crowd didn’t want you to know.

Many people might be naively tempted to think Alan, Donnie, and I are way off in our view of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the facts show otherwise. Donnie and I dealt somewhat with the early Republican Party in our book, and a few years back, I also did an article entitled The Republican Party—There are no conservative roots there. I checked to see if it was still on the Internet and the only place I can find it right now is on http://www.thisbloodlessliberty.com It was posted there on December 8, 2012. You might also check a somewhat related article on http://www.confederateamericanpride.com called The Mendacious Yankee Culture. You might ask where I am going with all this history. You may have been raised in a political environment where the Republican Party was touted as the party of “small government.” Let me tell you, nothing could be further from the truth.

In our most recent charade (pardon me, I meant election) the Republicans picked up several seats in the Senate and even some in the House. Gullible Americans were convinced, and still are, that now the country will turn around and move to the right, to a more conservative position. They feel that the Republican leadership in Congress will now move to do battle with Obama and seek to route his egregious socialism. What a laugh! And the laugh is on us, folks, the American electorate has been snookered again—the seventh time since 1980, actually the ninth time if you add Obama’s “transparency” into the mix—and you might just as well, because there is precious little difference between the two parties save for the rhetoric. Their agendas are identical.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin had an article published on the Internet today (Dec 18, 2014) entitled Are You Mad Yet? It dealt with the recent Republican victory in the elections and went on to note that the Republican Party is already working in the Congress to betray its constituents and they’re not even waiting for the new year to do it. They are working overtime to give Comrade Obama what he wants while he still has a majority in the Senate.

Pastor Baldwin quoted long-time Republican activist, Mike Scruggs, when he wrote, “I have been a Republican County Chairman in both North Carolina and Alabama. I have served countless hard-working hours as a volunteer for Republican candidates. I am therefore deeply grieved that the Republican Party leadership in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate has seen fit to betray the principles and values of a substantial majority of Republican voters, and the majority of the American people. This last week witnessed both the House and Senate passing budget bills that essentially gave Obama’s unlawful amnesty for five million illegal immigrant workers an effective pass…Our liberty and freedom are being traded for gold in the form of huge special interest political campaign donations…According to the Heritage Foundation, the average unlawful immigrant household receives $14,387 more in government services and benefits paid than taxes paid. This will almost double with amnesty, because of more benefits. This is essentially a taxpayer subsidy to businesses using illegal immigrant labor… What kind of GOP leadership wants more of these injustices to American workers and taxpayers? Speaker of the House John Boehner did not give a pass to Obama’s amnesty and plans to double illegal immigrant workers because he feared being blamed for a government shutdown. He wants amnesty so that establishment Republicans can continue to receive huge donations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other cheap labor lobbying associations.” So, when it comes right down to it, with the Republicans just like the Democrats, it’s all about money and power and the average voter be damned. He doesn’t count with either party except to have to pay for the mess they make.

An interesting question was asked by Pastor Baldwin: “When will the U.S. electorate awaken to the fact that we do not have two parties in Washington, D.C.? And when will conservative Republicans awaken to the fact that their party in D.C. does NOT represent them—and has no intentions of representing them? At the leadership level, both Democrats and Republicans represent big money, globalist agendas. Neither party cares a hoot in hades about their constituents—much less liberty and constitutional government. The toll that amnesty is going to take on this republic will be horrific. No, more than that, it will forever change the future of our country. And it won’t take long…I’m talking about escalating crime rates. I’m talking about federally-mandated expulsion of America’s historic Christian culture. I’m talking about rising unemployment for American citizens—especially African Americans…That African Americans will be among the hardest hit by the invasion of illegals is the dirty little secret that Democrat Party leaders are not telling their constituents…”

Pastor Baldwin urges those who love liberty in the Republican Party to secede from it and “join the millions of independents who got mad and left years ago.” He refers to our current system as the “two-party duopoly” that is killing the life and liberty of this country. He’s right, and you know what, with their globalist mindset they love every minute of it! Their destruction of this country is a planned destruction. They’re not merely stupid or ignorant—they know what they are doing. All they have to do is to make sure the public never figures it out.

But some of the public IS beginning to figure it out. I got an email from a man today that has figured out what’s going on, and he explains it in very plain language. He states: “There is no political party that represents the people. Those days are long over—a mere footnote in history. We may elect our reps to the Congress, but once there, the special interest parasites quickly buy them out—though not before the Establishment “heads” of each party call them in and tell them ‘this is how we do business here.’ The tiny few in D.C. who actually stand for constitutional parameters are culled out and discredited by the establishment elites.” Now you know what happened to Ron Paul in 2012. He was too honest. He wouldn’t play the game so he had to go, and they made sure he did—any way they had to. I have often wondered that, if by some fluke he had managed to win the election, would he have met with some sort of “accident” that would have incapacitated him? Having the Republican nomination stolen from him may well have saved his life.

In speaking of our “elected representatives” the email sender noted: “They throw out the sound-bytes they knew we want to hear, then cast a vote that is the very antithesis of their words. Their loyalty is not to the people nor their oath—they are lords and nobles to their NWO (New World Order) handlers who provide them money, power, and control in exchange for using their elected post to dismantle the idea of America.” Unfortunately, this is a very apt description of what we send to Washington. Does anyone wonder why the national opinion of Congress is literally in the single digits? Even the election changed nothing of real importance. No matter which party is “in power” it will be business as usual in Washington, but then, that trend took a major step forward with the election of Lincoln and the Republican triumph in the War of Northern Aggression.

Some of the Republican congressmen today may be a bit more suave than old Thad Stevens or Ben Wade were, but not all. We still have John McCain and when he loses his cool, suave he ain’t.

So don’t look for any help from the Republican Establishment in returning the country to where it should be. They ain’t having any of that—it’s not part of the New World Order agenda. A good place to start might be in prayer to the Lord, asking Him to retard the progress of the One World Government crowd and to confuse their efforts. He can do that. If enough of us repent of our sins and pray that way, He might be pleased to hear us. That doesn’t mean we don’t do anything else, but it means that we start with prayer.