Confederate Society

Every society has a segment of its population that obsesses over totalitarian control of others.  They are called “politicians” or “political activists.”  (There are one or two exceptions, every now and then, such as former Congressman Ron Paul).  These are people who just cannot stand the fact that many others prefer to live their own lives, abiding by the basic laws protecting life, liberty and property, and the moral codes that help to enforce such behavior.  They just cannot stand the fact that so many others prefer to plan their own lives instead of having the political authorities plan their lives for them.  They are often more than willing to use the coercive forces of government – including deadly force, including war – to get their way.  They think of themselves as Our Superiors, God’s chosen people, or just plain smarter and more moral than everyone else.   Or they are con-men and con-women out to plunder their fellow citizens to enrich themselves under the phony guise of “public service,” “democracy,” and myriad other grandiose-sounding scams.

In a lecture on institutionalized lying by government delivered at the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano introduced his audience to the Latin phrase “libido dominande” that describes such attitudes.  In Latin, it means “lust to dominate.”  Now along comes Clyde Wilson with his new book, The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma, that describes in great detail the peculiar American version of “libido dominande” that has plagued America (and the world) ever since the Pilgrims landed.

Wilson describes “Yankees” as “that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around” (emphasis added).  This, of course, does not include all New Englanders and their descendants, but a rather small but dominant (and domineering) subset.  “Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a Northern Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing,” writes Wilson.

Before American history was completely rewritten from a New England perspective and taught to generations of schoolchildren, this fact was widely known.  The novelists Washington Irving, James Finemore Cooper, James Kirke Paulding, and Herman Melville, among others, wrote novels that ridiculed the “Yankee” mentality that they all abhorred.  (In Irving’s story of “The Headless Horseman” Ichabod Crane was a Yankee who had come from Connecticut to New York and “made himself a nuisance” so a young New Yorker played a trick on him to send him packing back to “Yankeeland”).  Thomas Jefferson himself once complained that “It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance.”  This was long before anyone began debating the issue of slavery.  The Yankees said Jefferson, “were marked with such a perversity of character” that America was bound to be forever divided between Yankees and non-Yankees.

Wilson describes how New England writers have  falsified the history of America by emphasizing the Mayflower Pilgrims while ignoring or downplaying the earlier, Jamestown Pilgrims; by pretending that New Englanders alone won the American Revolution and ignoring the efforts of Francis Marion and other Southern revolutionary heroes; by ludicrously portraying the Virginia planter George Washington as a New England “prig” in their books and movies; and of course reserving their biggest lies in their discussions of the causes and consequences of the “Civil War.”  As if to prove Jefferson’s point, Daniel Webster wrote in his diary:  “O New England!  How superior are thy inhabitantsin morals, literature, civility, and industry!”

The Yankees’ “quest for power grew into a frenzy” as soon as George Washington left the scene, writes Wilson, by passing the Sedition Act during the Adams administration, which made it a crime to criticize Adams and the government.  Their rewriting of history began very early and has never stopped.  Although the settlement of the American West was “predominantly the work of Southerners and not of New Englanders at all,” silly books like The Oregon Trail, “written by a Boston tourist” became popular, as did “the phony cavortings of the Eastern sissy Teddy Roosevelt in the cattle country opened by Southerners.”  “The great America outdoors” are now symbolized by “Henry David Thoreau and a little frog pond . . . in the sight of the Boston smokestacks.”

Thanks to the Yankee rewriting of history few Americans know that John Hancock, John Adams, and the majority of the Northern delegates to the constitutional convention were slave owners; that at the time, ten percent of the New York City population consisted of slaves; that New England shippers were major players in the international slave trade well into the 1860s; that numerous wealthy New Englanders, such as the founder of Brown University, invested in the international slave trade business; that many New Englanders continued to own slave plantations in Cuba even after slavery was ended in the U.S.; and that in 1860 there were more free black people in the South than in the North.

There is a 300-year history of Yankees demonizing anyone who stands in their way of political domination, and of course, no one has been more demonized than Southerners – the only group of Americans to ever seriously challenge their dominance.  Moreover, the identification of God with America and the United States with infallible righteousness is Yankee stuff through and trough,” writes Wilson.  Here he is describing “American exceptionalism,”the excuse for myriad imperialistic wars over the past 150 years, always glorified by our Yankee rulers as “righteous crusades.”  Just listen to the words of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which refers to the death of as many as 850,000 Americans as “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”  Not to mention the slaughter of 200,000 Filipinos and senseless American entry into World War I, which were also “glorified” in song and words.

The “Yankee way of war,” commenced during the “Civil War” and perfected during the subsequent twenty-five year war of genocide against the Plains Indians (1865 – 1890), the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and World War I, involves “marshaling overwhelming material to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards commanders appropriately.”  This does sound an awful lot like contemporary wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

The statist indoctrination academies known as “the public schools” was also a Yankee invention, as Wilson shows, and originated as “a program of ideological and ethnic cleansing.”  It was the post “Civil War” presidents Grant and Hayes who imposed the Yankee government school monopoly on the South, modeled after “the statist, militarized models of Europe.”  Higher education was first politicized by the Lincoln administration’s Morrill Act that funded “land grant universities,” and by the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which quickly politicized agricultural education by sending “extension agents” into the public schools.

Wilson wastes no time on the self-serving Yankee fairy tale about how righteous and super-ethical Yankees supposedly marched South in the 1860s to heroically die by the hundreds of thousands for the benefit of black strangers – the basic history of the “Civil War” that Yours Truly was taught in Pennsylvania public schools.  Reminding his readers that secession is not the same thing as war, and that the causes of secession were different from the cause of the war, Wilson lucidly states that “the war was caused by the determination of Lincoln and his party to conquer the Southern states and destroy their legal governments” and put themselves in charge – forever.  “The war, after all, consisted of the invasion and conquest of the South by the U.S. government.  A very simple fact that most Americans, it would seem are unable to process, along with the plain fact that the Northern soldiers did not make war for the purpose of freeing black people.”

In 1860 antislavery arguments were hardly sufficient to win an election, let alone to inaugurate a war of conquest, says Wilson.  Other more realistic causes of the war were “an impulse toward national greatness”; “the rise of an aggressive class of industrial and banking moguls” in the North; the “arrival in the Midwest of radical, power-worshipping Germans fleeing the failed revolutions of 1848” in Europe; and “Lincoln’s clever manipulation of a phony but powerful issue: the ‘extension of slavery.’”

Crony capitalism run amok has been the end game of the Yankee way of government ever since 1865.   This involves not only the millions of secret (and not-so-secret) corrupt political deals that enrich the politically-connected at the expense of everyone else (i.e., protectionist tariffs, bailouts of billionaire investment bankers, etc.) but also aggressive, imperialistic wars that have the exact same purpose and effect.  This all began with the Lincoln administration’s introduction of corporate welfare for railroad corporations, and is of course many orders of magnitude larger today with bankster bailouts, the never-ending explosion of spending on the military/industrial complex, and myriad other examples of government of the crony capitalists, by the crony capitalists, for the crony capitalists.  There is no better example of this today than that “museum-quality” specimen of a Yankee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her pay-to-play Clinton Foundation.  Read Clyde Wilson’s new book if you wish to learn the real problem with government in America today.

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back I talked to a man that lives just down the street from us. He has bought some property out on the bayou and when he retires he'd like to move out there, put up a little house, and do some fishing. I wish him well, but if the United Nations, our federal government, and their economic "planners" have their way (and unfortunately they usually do) it will never happen.

Their plan for this man, and for the rest of us, is not that any of us own any private property anywhere out in the country or anywhere else no matter how much we might like to. The glorious plan for all of us, unless we wake up, is a little two-by-twice apartment in some big city mega-complex along with everybody else where we are limited to traveling within the confines of the city we have been assigned to. No automobiles or pickup trucks any further than the city they assign us to because if we do anymore than that it strains the "economic sustainability" of our state, the country, and the entire world--and so we must be severely limited in everything we do (and say and think) for the environmental "good" of the entire world. If you are tempted to do a little reading (before it becomes outlawed)  check out some of the sources where you see this term "economic sustainability" on the Internet or in the "news" media and you will be looking at sources, people, articles, that have been strongly influenced by the United Nations Agenda 21 program.

You say you've never heard of that? I'm not surprised. It's not exactly a priority for the "news" people unless they are encouraging different states, cities, etc. to sign up and become part of it. Other than that they seem to "know nothing" about it. In an article this size there is no way I can give you everything. The best I can do is to try to hit a few high spots for you that will, hopefully, encourage you to start checking out just what Agenda 21 is on your own.

I started assembling a file of articles on this United Nations aberration  awhile back. Anything having to do with the United Nations concerns me because this is the group that is supposed to lead the way into the glories of One World Government for the planet. If you want to find out where the United Nations is going check out the background of a man named Alger Hiss on the Internet.

I found a very informative article on from back on March 24, 2014 which said, in part, that: "Agenda 21 is based around the idea that a world-wide system must be set up, to save the planet from humans, which are destroying it with their cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all around high standards of living. The planners of the Agenda want to have complete control over all the resources in the world, in order to implement 'sustainable' or 'smart' growth, which includes the reduction of the standard of living of people in first world countries. For this plan to work, people must be made to believe that a reduction of their standard of living is good, and is being done to protect the environment, preserve resources for the next generation, reduce carbon emission, prevent climate change, and other wonderful sounding goals...To achieve the environmental goals of Agenda 21, one of the actions that needs to be taken by governments throughout the world, is to move people off of their privately-owned land and into special collectively-owned communities..." Any of this sound familiar to any of you? It's little more than an updated version of the "workers paradise" they had in the Soviet Union before Communism supposedly fell--and it's all a pile of bovine fertilizer!

No private property, no land, especially no guns, (you won't need them in the city anyway) and no freedom to travel. Your car or pickup truck will have been "confiscated" for the public good because you will have no freedom to travel, actually no freedom for much of anything. Oh yes, you will be totally free to obey all the UN and federal edicts--or else! What a Kountry!!!

The article quoted above is not the only sources for this information. Writer Henry Lamb says inAgenda 21--What Is It? How Did It Get Here  that: "(Agenda 21) is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection,social equity, and what is called 'sustainable' economic development. At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles." Doesn't that sound warm and fuzzy?

Even an article in The Blaze, which I don't always agree with by any means, got this one right.  It noted that support for Agenda 21 didn't come only from the United Nations.  It also came from "wealthy donors like billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society gave ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) a $2.1 million grant in 1997 to support its local Agenda 21 Project. The financing was used to promote the project in the United States." You have to wonder how much of the UN propaganda is promoted in public schools in this country. Well, actually you don't. Just look up UNESCO on the Internet and see what they do regarding public schools in this country. You won't be pleased. I can recall seeing tons of pro-Un stuff in public school when I went, and that is a long, long time ago. I have no sane reason to suppose  the volume of it has slowed given the Marxist predilections  of our federal government.

So what does this mean for the South (and for the country as a whole for that matter)? It means that if this monstrosity ever gets enacted my friend up the street can kiss his retirement home out on the bayou goodbye. He will be informed by some federal commissar that he will be much better off living in a miniature apartment in the local ghetto with the rest of the proles. His pickup truck?  He won't need it, he won't be going much of anyplace anymore. His guns? Forget those! The entire country will be one huge "gun free zone" except for the feds and their friends in the underworld. Fishing? Don't make me laugh! Where will he fish--in the gutters of the streets in his ghetto after we've had a toad strangler? His private property out on the bayou will have been "awarded" to some apparatchik from the UN as a reward for keeping ordinary folks away from it.

Folks, maybe you ought to consider checking out some of the stuff on the Internet regarding Agenda 21. A couple good sites to start off with are  and  especially an article by Alex Newman back in May, 2013. Oh you will find some sites out there that will "laud and magnify" the United Nations and all it seeks to do,but if you are discerning you will be able to come up with some of those that tell you the real truth. And as for your Confederate flags and your "Don't Tread on Me" flags--forget those. There will be no place in the local ghetto for such things. In fact if people sit around long enough and work hard at doing nothing, there won't even be a faint memory of such things anymore--and everyone will learn to love Big Brother, whether he lives in Washington or New York, or both.

by Al Benson Jr.

Just read an "interesting" article on  about comments made by the former header of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Shabazz, where he told a crowd in Charleston, South Carolina that it was time to "finish the mission of killing 'slave masters' and their families.'  He made these comments  at a Save the Black Church rally there. Shabazz was referring to an 1822 slave revolt started by Denmark Vessey where it was planned to kill all the whites in their beds, regardless of age or sex. Shabazz said, quite plainly that it was time to "finish" Vessey's crusade to kill whites.

I thought, as I read his inflammatory comments that, if some KKK leader in this country had advocated the killing of all blacks it would be portrayed in the media nationwide and worldwide as the hate crime of the century. Whether they actually got to do it or not would not have made any difference. The mere suggestion of it would constitute a hate crime that Washington and their prostitute press would never let us forget.

But here is this black Marxist advocating the killing of whites and the media hardly has a whimper about it. It would appear that, instead of being charged with a hate crime, Comrade Shabazz will end up getting a copy of Hillary's "Get out of jail free" card. With a Marxist administration in control of the White (Red) House does that really surprise anyone. It's all part of the Marxist class struggle program now being implemented in this country and when Hillary assumes the royal throne next year it will continue in spades!

If Sabazz said this at a Save the Black Church rally, one has to wonder exactly what kind of black churches he is endeavoring to "save." Black Liberation churches no doubt, churches that already preach Marxist dogma as Sunday morning sermons.

But the Marxists, cultural and otherwise, are nothing if not tenacious and consistent.  In Baton Rouge this past weekend New Black Panther Party leader Babu Omowale was busy urging blacks to all migrate south so they could "form their own country away from racist whitey." From the context of his remarks one would almost get the idea that "racism" existed in the North. Now wherever would he have come up with that idea? He'd better be careful he doesn't deviate from the approved script too far because we've been told for years that all the "racism" existed in the South and now here's Omowale telling his devoted followers to come south to escape from "racist whitey."

And Omowale said his followers should claim five states that should belong to the "black nation" which states are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. He figures that if enough blacks move in then whites will start to move out. He says "the end game is land ownership." Only problem there is that when a country is Marxist, ordinary folks are not able to own private property, only the powers that be are allowed that, and they own their property in the name of "the people." He never said who would end up owning the land, but then he probably doesn't want to deal too much with that part of it. That conversation might get a bit sticky for him so just leave it a vague generality.

I said the Marxists were consistent, and they are. This idea of a black nation in our Deep South is one that was floated by the Marxists around forty or fifty years ago now. It didn't go anywhere then, but with national conditions seeming moving to the left maybe they figure it's a good time to try again. No doubt Hillary would love it! Keep your eyes open because in today's volatile situation you just never know what's going to happen. All you can be sure of at this point is that most of it won't be real good.

By Fred Reed

Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it. Russia once made large numbers of second-rate tanks. That worm has turned. This thing is way advanced and outguns the American M1A2, having a 125mm smoothbore firing APFSDS long rods to the Abrams 120mm. (As Hillary would know, that’s Armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot. You did know, didn’t you, Hill?) This isn’t the place for a disquisition on armor, but the above beast is a ver advanced design with unmanned turret and, well, a T34 it isn’t.

A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that.  Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf, and Kursk.

Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitz’s has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat, and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here?

The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon’s customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating  American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, “Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.” Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people’s lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from a war with China?

What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America’s recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents.  Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them.

Picture1848 Socialist Revolution

By Robert Wenzel

Repinted from Lew

There has been something of a renaissance for socialist support in America.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, while seeking the Democratic nomination for president this year accumulated 13 million votes in the primaries, 43.0% of the votes cast.

The high-profile political figure Kshama Sawant is a member of the Socialist Alternative and also sits on the Seattle City Council. Her following is growing.

In his new book, The Problem With Socialism, Thomas DiLorenzo reports that a poll reveals that 43% of those between the ages of 18 and 25 have a “favorable” opinion of socialism and that they have a higher opinion of socialism than capitalism.

Many more in America advocate interventionist policies that are steps on the way to full blown socialism.

How could this be? Anyone who is familiar with the history of socialism knows of the millions that have died under socialist rule. They know the horrific economic conditions that have developed under socialism.

It is as though Americans, the millennial generation, in particular, have no inkling of the history of socialism in practice nor the writings that have cut the theoretical foundations of socialist ideas to shreds.

Given that the college educational environment is infiltrated with leftist professors as is mainstream media, it should probably not be a surprise that students aren’t taught an accurate story about socialism and that the general public’s understanding is just as bad.

It is obvious that something must be done to change this situation. DiLorenzo has taken a giant step in countering the trend in his new book.

The Problem With Socialism is quite simply a total and complete smashing of socialism. Any socialist belief that a socialist holds dear has for certain been totally destroyed in this book.

The horrific history of socialism and weak theoretical structure are laid bare.

From the early colonists experiments with socialism in America to the expansive socialist adventures in the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, DiLorenzo reports on the deaths and destruction.

He attacks the theoretical construct of egalitarianism and contrasts it with reality.

He examines and informs on the follies of government enterprises.

He exposes the idea that socialism has been a success in Scandinavia,

He explains how government welfare increases poverty.

He explains how socialism causes pollution.

He links the ideas of a central bank and progressive income taxes back to Karl Marx and explains why they cause weak economies.

He explains how socialist regulations create monopolies.

He explains the ways that capital is being socialized.

In short, this book provides a rebuttal to every modern day claim made by socialists. Be it full out socialists or those who may want to advance socialism in only certain ways and only in certain sectors of the economy.

This is the book  millennials need to read. It is the book socialists of all ages need to read.

It is also the book that must be read by all those who favor free markets and a free society so that they understand how to counter the arguments of socialists and general interventionists.

DiLorenzo’s book is an intellectual nuclear attack on socialist thinking. Books like this matter.

Dr. Walter Block tells the story that when he was a young socialist he approached Nathaniel Branden at a luncheon where Ayn Rand had spoken. He declared he was a socialist and would like to debate.

Branden agreed to talk with him, under conditions. Here is Block explaining the exchange:

When I arrived at the luncheon, I found that the group was sitting in “pecking order”: Ayn Rand at the head of the table, Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff, first along the two sides of the table, and the lesser lights ranged alongside. I was of course relegated to the foot of this august assembly, whereupon I turned to my neighbor, a neophyte as it turned out, and tried to argue the socialist side of a debate against capitalism. He replied that he really wasn’t very knowledgeable about this issue, but that the people located at the other end of the table certainly were. At this point I betook myself there, stuck my head between Ayn’s and Nathan’s, and announced that there was a socialist here who wanted to debate someone on economic issues pertaining to capitalism. (I was a bit of a chutzpanick in those days). They politely asked, Who was this socialist, and I replied that it was me.

Nathan very graciously offered to come to the other end of the table with me for this purpose, but he imposed two preconditions: first, I would be honor bound not to allow this conversation to lapse with this one meeting, but would continue with it until we had achieved a resolution: either he would convince me of the error of my ways, or I would convince him of his. Second, I would read two books he would later recommend to me (Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt). I agreed, and we spoke for an hour or so upon that occasion, followed up four or five times more for a similar duration at his apartment, where some of the other Randians took part, including Ayn, Leonard Piekoff, Barbara Branden and Alan Greenspan.

At the end of this process I was converted to libertarianism. I devoured both books and became a strong adherent of what I now know as the limited government libertarian position or minarchism.

While Atlas Shrugged and Economics In One Lesson are two extremely valuable books, today’s socialist require a direct attack hit to shake them of their poor thinking since they are inundated by socialist type ideas in school, on television and just about everywhere else. Their erroneous views are supported day and night.

The direct hit attack is The Problem With Socialism.

I plan to take the Nathaniel Branden model and ask any socialist who wants to debate me to read DiLorenzo’s book and advance any objections he can find to what is written in the book. The book is that powerful and important.

If you are a free market advocate, read the book so that you learn how to rebut all the socialists claims.

If you are a socialist, I challenge you to read the book and email me after, if you think there are any weaknesses in it.

At, I have a section titled, The Best Books to Read to Get a Solid Introductory Understanding of  Economics, it is a very select list of books. I have just added The Problem With Socialism to that list.

This powerful book is well written and its paperback pulp fiction size, even in its hardback edition, will result in it not appearing daunting to the current new generation that absorbs things in bits and bytes.

They’ll read it. The smart ones will absorb it and their socialist views will be blown up inside their minds with extreme intellectual force.

by Al Benson Jr.

Last week the Democratic Party  was supposedly in a shambles. The web site had an article posted for August 2nd that said, in part, “The Democratic Party is in the middle of a leadership purge that could affect the landscape of the 2016 election. Three more top Democratic Party officials have resigned today in the wake of an embarrassing email hack.”

Ahh, but that was then and this is now.

The Democrats looked pathetically bad, with party officials being thrown under the bus with amazing regularity.

On the same say all this was happening there was also an article on by Gabrielle Levy which had Trump saying “I’m afraid the election’s going to be rigged, I have to be honest,…” In light of the Clintons’ reputation I didn’t think that was an outlandish statement, but apparently the Republican Establishment did because on the Horn News for August 3rd appeared an article which was headlined “Traitors! RNC pushing Trump to quit.” This article said, again in part, “The report, from an anonymous GOP source, stated that senior party insiders are so upset and baffled by Trump’s erratic behavior that they are preparing a back-up plan for replacing him on the ballot before the November general election.” Almost sounds like something they’ve had in play for awhile.

So, in two days, we have gone from a Democratic Party in shambles over all of Hillary’s leaded emails to the Republican Establishment planning to replace Trump because of “erratic” behavior. At least this is what the “news” media is telling up. Of course how much actual truth you ever get from them is always up for grabs, but looking at this entire scenario and taking it from Democratic ruin on Monday to Trump’s possible mental condition on Wednesday, it begins to smell to me like good old fashioned damage controlfor Hillary. They needed something to take the spotlight off of her and to focus it somewhere else so people would, in a few days, forget all about her email indiscretions and have something else to chatter about. And in typical Marxist fashion, if they can pull this off, they will kill two birds with one stone–bury Hillary’s email problems and cut Trump’s political throat all in one fell swoop! And the prostitute press are more than willing accomplices.

Unfortunately, so is the Republican National Committee–but then, if the truth be known, they always have been. Trump was not supposed to win the nomination. One of the other 16 political shills running against him was, and the Republicans weren’t too fussy which one, although they’d rather have had a Bush or a Romney than a Rand Paul, but they’d have lived with a Rand Paul if necessary. No way can they co-exist with Trump and they have been looking for some way, any way, to deep six him since long before the Republican convention. All you have to do to realize this is to have followed their actions and comments and you could have told that the real agenda has always been “anyone but Trump.”

Just because he won the nomination didn’t change their Marxist mindsets–and please, don’t try to tell me all the Republicans are conservatives. Some are, but not many. When you talk like a conservative but vote like a Marxist, then you’re a Marxist, possibly different from the Democratic Marxists only in degree and false rhetoric.

It’s like I have said so many times before–the same leftist Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission clique in Washington and New York controls both parties at the leadership levels.  The only question we might ask, in light of recent articles  I’ve done, is who controls the CFR and the Trilateralists?  As high up as they are, they ain’t at the top of the totem pole.

So watch what goes on in the next few days. Hillary’s email problems will probably be ancient history and the Republican Establishment will attempt to find a way to replace Trump with yet another political stooge who will make sure it’s business as usual–and that Hillary wins. That’s the real name of the game.

So what will all the folks that voted for and supported Trump end up doing when they find they have no real voice at all as all this goes down?  Probably not as much as we could hope for.


By Joan Hough

First I must preface here the reason I claim that I am peculiarly equipped to defend the First Amendment rights of free expression of religion in the United States of America.  I am not a “Born Againer.”  I have not attended any Church service, other than a funeral, in seventeen years. I do not pray five times each day.  I do not believe that my personal religious beliefs are important when it comes to making judgements about the way that people of deep religious convictions in American are being treated in our nation today because of the usurpation of “Law Making” by nine black-robed vulture-politicians thinking themselves “the Supremes.” I do not feel compelled to make others believe as do I about God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. I do, however, deeply resent the constant attacks on Christians and Christianity that I have observed and continue to observe. I am knowledgeable that the original government of the United States was created by Christians for Christians and that government became great because of Christians.

 In the crediting the effect of Christians on our American government, I force myself to ignore the anti-Christian horrors perpetrated on Southerners by the Republican government in the late 1800s.  After a century and a half, the effect of the north’s genocidal, anti-Christian attacks has  been ameliorated by the sweeping of Southern truths under the historical carpet.  Readers doubting the credulity of the existence of “anti-Christian” attacks on the South during “the War of Northern Aggression” should read a chapter entitled the north’s “Infidelity of the Clergy.” Actions of the Yankee Men of God are castigated in a chapter in a book by northerner, Methodist-Episcopal minister Henry Clay Dean. The book is   Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System.  The anti-Southern Christian movements of the north are also revealed in much of it ugliness in two chapters in Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, by D. Jonathan White:  Joe Stromberg’s chapter “Blood on the Pulpit: Northern Clergymen, the Kingdom of God on Earth, and the Abolition of the South,” and i Richard M. Gamble’s chapter, “The Warfare of the World in the House of God.” The tragic thing about the north’s attack on Southern religion is that it was perpetrated by Unitarian influenced Christian preachers, fallen away from the belief in the Trinity and anxious to punish and kill the “real” Christians.

Today we are witnessing a greatly similar attack on religion, but on a national level—directly created by an unrestrained by Congress, Supreme Court. I am sickened and revolted by a seemingly national, governmental adoption of the Marxist-Communist-Critical Thinking cabal’s hatred for religions—especially for the Christian one. I am appalled at the sudden special preferences being accorded the Muslim religion by the Supreme Court and by our national and local politicians. A religion requiring the murder and rapes of infidels by its true believers is, for all practical purposes, being given not just protection by the Federal courts and the U.S. Congress, but preferential treatment. One must suspect that a similar treatment would be given any group claiming cannibalism as a religious ritual.

With all of the above in mind, I believe myself perhaps not intellectually equipped to do so—not clever enough to do so, and, perhaps, not allowed by the Court’s reinterpretation of the First Amendment to do so, but, no matter, I do so—I oppose the Supreme Court for their illegal law-making. I do so because I am aware that no matter the opinion of the Supreme Court, I absolutely possess the Constitutional right to cross swords with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. President, the ACLU, the NAACP, the Anti-Poverty folks, the Muslim advocates, the Illegal-Invader Advocates and, in fact, all anti-Christian groups—including the Supreme Court.  And yes, I do indeed consider the Court and the U.S. Congress, anti-Christian.  

In the reading of a 1996 published book entitled Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion, authored by David Barton, I was horrified to read, in case after case after case of ridiculously ludicrous Supreme Court Anti-Constitutional rulings—the most anti-Christianity rulings the world has known since the Dark Ages.  Who am I to judge? Someone who is one of those ordinary Americans the writers and men ratifying the U.S. Constitution considered capable of comprehending the U.S. Constitution—one of those people for whom the Constitution was written in words even we only English speaking folks can understand.

 Contrary to what the U.S. Congress, lawyers and judges would have us believe, our nation’s Founding Fathers never intended that only judges, lawyers and the wealthy elites would be able to understand the U.S. Constitution.

Upon reviewing an overly large number of the religious cases Barton details—all dealt with by the “El Supremoz,” I can reach no other conclusion, but that the present Supreme Court’s actions demand the judges receive instantaneous replacement. Definitely the “good behavior” clause should be enacted against all of the Supreme Court justices and many, many of the Federal Judges scattered about all over the nation. The Supreme Court justices’’ virtual re-writing of laws –their re-interpreting laws according to their own personal whimsies is unconstitutional. In short, they are all law breakers! A couple of the Supreme Court justices have even attacked the U.S. Constitution in public speeches and advocated junking it and replacing it—thus abjuring their oaths to God to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. These unelected members of the judicial system have joined numerous members of the U.S. Congress and are now the “domestics.”  One female justice has even stuck her snooty and biased nose into the current presidential election in an attack on the Republican candidate—her attempt to get a fellow Democrat elected. Such bad behavior requires punishment! Not surprisingly, she was also the one who recommended replacement of the U.S. Constitution with an African one.

 The Court’s justices need judgment passed on them. The Supreme Court is most certainly, no longer a court for “we the people.”  It has become a lawmaking body—a virtual collection of dictators without any checks and balances, incapable of correctly interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it actually creates laws by redefining words and combining amendments.  It does nothing according to the intentions of our nation’s founders.  it has become the latest dispenser of the most prejudiced anti-Christian verbiage and laws in American history. It has, without the oversight of any higher authority, created a new law by twisting the old Laws and plopping them into a residue of anti-Christian, Marxist/Critical Thinking excrement. Its judges have reinterpreted and melted together Constitutional Amendments into something so foreign to the intentions of our U.S. Founding Fathers, that the result would be totally unrecognizable to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Sherman and all of the other brilliant Americans involved in the creation and ratification of the original U.S. Constitution. 

 There has been no effort by anyone to slap the snooty faces and bloody the ever so superior noses of the judges on the Supreme Court or in the Federal Courts throughout the land.  Most of the States, as the results of Abraham Lincoln’s divine redefinition of all things Constitutional, have been so neutered and weakened—their Constitutionally guaranteed states’ rights buried so deep in a mountain of political dung, that they are incapable of bloodying anybody’s noses except those of the police who dare defend themselves against ethnic criminals or forget themselves and happen to arrest an illegal, murderous border jumper. The states can no longer even dump their own garbage, much less that of the all-powerful central government’s “Supremes.” We, the common folks, can only hope that some of our states are sleeping lions we can awaken.

The most numerous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court are religious ones. If Americans were to become aware of the enormous clump of Supreme Court cases in which truth has suffered under bizarre, figuratively drunken rulings, there would be something that might be termed “a run of the Court.” Nine black garbed effigies might even be wreathed in smoke.

David Barton competently proves that the unelected paltry politicians, whom we honor with the title of “Justices,” now have complete control over how, when, where and if any public religious activities can happen in our America. The discerning eye of any wide awake American has noted that the Supreme Court justices function as if it is a necessity that Christians have all their historical, long possessed traditions and Constitutional rights taken from them and bestowed on Muslims and belligerent atheists.

Just how did the modern Court take control over religion?  It did so by trashing the limitations of the religion clause of our Constitution’s First Amendment. The Judges did so, all on their little own, by deciding to add the words “separation of Church and state” to their every consideration of any and all things religious.  The initial happening this began in the year 1947 in a Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education. It was then that the Court leaped on that wagon so loved by the anti-Christians; the court reinterpreted the First Amendment by including in it the new and incorrect AND ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL “separation of church and state” metaphor.  All judges since then have used that illegal term to justify their anti-Christian rulings.   Somewhat later Supreme Court justices finagled a way to combine the First Amendment with the 14th Amendment and since then they’ve pushed us whole hog into the religious slaughter house they operate—but that combination will not be considered here and now.

The judicial men and women are, of course, not stupid—they well comprehend the meanings of words and fully realize that  separation of state and religion is not now,, has never been, and should never be a part of the U.S. Constitution. They know that the First Amendment says precisely what the nation’s Founding Fathers and all Americans believed when the Constitution was ratified—CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.   It, of course, was clearly understood by all Americans that only Congress has the power to make laws—the Supreme Court cannot and the President cannot.

The Court has, in essence, written and installed a new anti-Christian law and propagandized their personal belief that there should be a separation of Church and state in all things, even the bright and beautiful. They have propagandized so successfully that even most ordinary Americans now accept the lie that the Founding Fathers believed in the separation of church and state. THEY DID NOT! THEY INSISTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT STAY COMPLETELY OUT OF ANY ASPECT OF RELIGION.  

Practically since the ratification of the Constitution until recent years, the Court did not mention the “separation” idea in its decisions.  All of a sudden, a recent judicial adoption. Barton informs us that in actual cases, it has since been cited in seemingly countless cases:

“In fact, in actual cases filed under the First Amendment’s religion clauses in recent decades, the First Amendment was cited by courts in less than three thousand cases while the separation metaphor was cited in over four thousand. Strikingly, in examining First Amendment controversies, courts are more likely to cite the separation metaphor than they are the First Amendment itself.”

Americans would be absolutely flabbergasted and dumbstruck if they ceased for a few hours assuming a potato-like, couch-football watching position and actually read a list of the cases the Supreme Justices have misjudged. The decisions the Justices have rendered  are too bizarre to be anything other than the direct result of personal religious biases

  Barton presents for our edification a lengthy listing of many of these very cases. He n provides for us a list of 38 unprecedented Court decisions that are mind-boggling to any American with e a smidgeon of “walking around” good sense and even a modicum of knowledge concerning the contents of the U.S. Constitution.  For the details of these cases, consult Barton’s text.

 It must be understood, that even for the most innocuous of things the court calls a crime, if one resists the arresting authorities, one can be killed. Barton reports the results (court rulings) of some most interesting cases criminalizing actions which Americans  have always known as being our right. Those actions can now get us arrested.

1.                   While riding a public bus, we can be arrested for performing a Constitutionally illegal act, if we give a fellow rider a book containing Bible stories.

2.                    We can be arrested if our organization uses the word “seminary” or give a Bible degree unless the state pre-approves our Bible curriculum, your teachers, etc.

3.                   We can be arrested if we install a historic memorial for the dead that contains a cross—or if we continue to display such a memorial no matter if it is a hundred or so years of age.

4.                   We can be arrested if we display the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse or government building—no matter that it is so displayed throughout the U.S. Supreme Court and in other federal buildings. (Six Supreme Court rulings behind this arrest.)

5.                    We can be arrested if we display the Ten Commandments in a collection of other historic documents related to American law. (There are Four Supreme Cases creating this law.)

6.                   We can be arrested if our public cemetery has a planter in the shape of a cross, for if someone views that cross, it can cause emotional “distress.”

7.                   We can be arrested if our city seal includes one that depicts a religious element. (Six cases so declare this.)

8.                   We can be arrested if our nativity scene on public property is not “sufficiently” surrounded by non-religious secular displays able to make our religious one look less religious. (Judges for Five cases say so.)

9.                   We can be arrested if we or some other   Christian, prays a public prayer that reflects personal faith and beliefs. (Judges say so in seven cases) [of course it is ok for Muslims to take over public streets in Yankee cities and blare their prayers and call to prayers over loud speakers, is it not?]

10.               Even though a bill’s wording may be entirely constitutional, it the legislator’s INTENT is a religious one with a religious activity in mind, this is unconstitutional and somebody can be arrested. (Judges ruled so in one case.- Mind reading is evidently also a judicial skill.)


Riding the same judicial horse, we see judges scattered all over America telling us we are to be arrested if we:

1.                   Park on a state parking lot with a religious sticker on our bumper.

2.                   While presenting a military flag to the family of a fallen warrior say—even at the request of the family- God bless you and this family, and God bless the United States of America.”

3.                   Fail to obey the order of a Judge who in a  DeFuniak Springs, Florida case, ordered that a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse be covered so jurors will not be prejudiced against the defendant when they read “Do not Kill.”

4.                   If you are a senior citizen in Balch Spring, Texas eating in a community center and say a prayer over your food.

5.                   If you are a school employee and wear a small cross on a necklace in Russellville, Kentucky.

6.                   You can be arrested in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia and Nebraska for handing out religious literature on a public sidewalk or for preaching in public areas.

7.                   Saying words from the Bible can cause you trouble. In York, Pennsylvania, a jury sentence was overturned for a man who brutally clubbed to death a woman in her seventies because the prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words from the Bible.

8.                   You are a criminal, a law breaker if you, a student, include a religious image in your artwork.  (Four judges so decreed this in different cases concerning Schuylerville, Jefferson County, and  Baldwinsville.)

9.                   In Palm Beach County, student artists whose artwork containing symbols such as a cross or a Bible are to be treated as supporter of gang symbols, profanity and satanic signs.

10.                Odd, indeed, is that fact that courts have ruled in NINE WESTERN STATES that public school must REQUIRE THREE WEEKS OF INDOCTRINATION IN THE ISLAMIC FAITH.  All students  MUST PRETEND THEY ARE MUSLIMS AND PRAY TO ALLAH.  They are to be encouraged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Muslim garb, participate in JIHAD GAMES and read the Koran throughout the three weeks. The same Court ruled it unconstitutional for those students voluntarily to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Two cases support these two laws.)                


11.               You can be arrested if you use a school PA system during a national crisis and ask students to pray for victims, or if you allow students to engage in student initiated and led classroom discussions concerning religion. A federally appointed monitor must be provided to ensure religious speech prohibition compliance.  (One case determined this.)

12.               Just forget fine art in historic paintings, If they depict anything religious, they must not be publically exhibited.  You can be arrested for exhibiting them.  (Two cases on this.  [ I do remember when there was a infamous painting of Jesus Christ that was exhibited and despite public complaints was not removed from the exhibit despite the fact that it was openly  declared to have been painted with urine.]

13.               Ten Commandments may not be displayed in school because students on their own might read, mediate upon, respect or my goodness gracious me- obey them. [Five cases on this-  ACLU is good at winning!]

14.               Somebody can be arrested if a valedictorian mentions his own faith in his speech.  That’s unconstitutional! That speech must be read and censored before it is presented (Four cases – four judges so order) .

15.               No public school official can attend a Baccalaureate meeting in a religious building. (One case behind this law.)

16.               No praying allowed in the opening or closing of a school graduation ceremony.  (Six cases, six judges so ruled.

17.               You can be arrested if you present to students the Declaration of Independence and other writings’ mentioning of the Creator. (Five judges have so ruled in five cases).

18.               You can be arrested if you allow a classroom library to contain Christian books or a teacher to be seen with his personal Bible. (One judge so ruled in one case.)

19.               It is unconstitutional for advertisers to include religious content in paid advertisements seen in school settings.  (Three cases, three judges.)

20.               It is illegal—unconstitutional—for anyone known as a Christian to deliver a secular speech in a public school—even if it an anti-drug speech and the speaker is a member of the President’s Drug Task Force.

21.               It is illegal—unconstitutional—for a Kindergarten kid to ask what birthday is celebrated on Christmas. (Sioux Falls case- judge so ruled.)

22.               You can be arrested if you display Christian holiday symbols. IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO DISPLAY ISLAMIC AND JEWISH RELIGIOUS HOLDAY SYMBOLS, BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES. (SKOROS VS. CITY OF NEW YORK, 2006). [The Christmas tree, centuries back, was made popular by a Christian monk. Guess the judge in this case is ignorant of that truth or Christmas trees would also be banned. Jewish merchants, knowingly or unknowingly, certainly display the Christmas tree in their stores.]

There has been a major transformation in the practice of traditional Christian behaviors –causing the punishment of little school children for saying a prayer over lunch, or wearing a shirt that has “Jesus Christ” on it, or bringing a Bible to school. In Texas Children and their parents were threatened with having the kid picked up by Child Protective Services --because the kids had Ten Commandments book covers. Even valentines are declared illegal if they have a Christian message. Students in Dickson, Tennessee high school can write a paper on any topic-witchcraft, the occult, etc., but not about Jesus Christ unless they desire a 0 grade.

Anything Christian is now unconstitutional—according to the Supreme Court lawmaking politicians. Their now politically correct wishes have had an almost allegoric bomb-burst into being since the Everson decision in 1947.  Brought full steam ahead from Europe to the United States in 1848 was the Hate the Religion plan to kill Christianity.  The Supreme Court justices are making sure, at long last, that plan is fully implemented. Will Christians and all Americans who believe in the U.S. Constitution sit passively by and let nine black scavengers murder Christianity—kill Jesus again in America?  If so, then get ready for the circuses wherein the Christians are thrown to the lions in order to entertain the voters while our great Republican-Democratic One World Order leaders lead our sovereign U.S. into extinction via membership in their New World Order.

by Al Benson Jr.

Recently a good friend of mine in New England sent me a copy of a new book just out, written by Arthur R. Thompson, present CEO of the John Birch Society. I am still working my way through the introduction after skimming several pages here and there throughout the book.

While I think there might be a couple of areas Mr. Thompson and I might disagree about, over all, this looks to me like a book worth reading and as I go, I will probably end up doing an article or two on what he brings out.

What immediately struck me when I got the book was the title, To The Victors Go The Myths and Monuments. In light of the cultural Marxist assault on our faith, flags,  monuments and history here in the South over the past several years, especially in the last year or so, the title of the book sounded almost prophetic.

Over the years we’ve all heard the old remark that “the winners get to write the history books” and that’s true. No argument there. Problem is, that’s not as far as it goes. Not only do the winners get to write and promote their narrative of what happened, if they are vindictive enough (and the Yankee/Marxist IS a vindictive animal) they will try to change your whole culture, mindset, worldview, and not only yours, but also your children’s. If they are successful in erasing your unique culture from the minds and consciousness of your children, then your children, in a very real sense, become “their” children because they have conditioned them in regard to how they should think and reason. So most people in this situation end up losing more than they think.

The heinous onslaught against literally everything Confederate or Southern that started back in June of 2015 shocked so many Southern folks that they literally sat benumbed as it occurred, not sure what to make of it or do about it. The cultural Marxists had a field day before most Southern folks woke up. When some did awaken, they started to push back, and, all things considered, did a pretty good job for awhile. There were Confederate flag rallies and Confederate flag caravans on some major highways in the South, and Confederate flags went up all over the place. More in my area than ever I’d seen before and I have to admit they sure were pretty to look at.

However, the cultural Marxists, being if nothing else, keen students of human nature, anticipated all this. They realized that, after a certain point, their agenda would get pushback, and when it got to that point they stopped, sat down, and took a breather for the rest of the year. They knew what they were going to do. Their opposition mostly didn’t have a clue, so when the cultural Marxists backed off so did their opposition. The flags came down,  the caravans ceased, the rallies ceased, and lots of Southern folks, thinking they’d won a victory of sorts, went home and rested on their laurels. The cultural Marxists had only stopped to take a breather, not to quit. The average Southerner where he was involved at all,  went home, turned on the television and went back to sleep.

Guess what? This Spring it started all over again and if you are prone to watch the “news” on television or in what we laughingly refer to as the “newspapers” you can see, if you are perceptive at all, that this year is going to be a repeat performance of last year–only worse! The cultural Marxists she shifting into high gear again and most of the rest of us have yet to bestir ourselves. Always takes longer to get up and going on the second go-round. Takes longer to get psyched up to do it all over again, and some just never quite seem to make it. So the boob tube and the reality shows claim yet more cultural victims!

Much of this ran through my mind when I saw the title of Mr. Thompson’s new book. It was like I could hear the cultural Marxists telling us all “We’ve got you on the run now, and we WILL take down your flags, your monuments, rewrite your history, change your place names and street names, and when we get through, you won’t recognize anything anymore. Your culture and the memory of it will be erased and you will have no futurebecause you  have allowed us to rewrite your past.”

So we need to ask ourselves–is this the legacy we want to leave our grandchildren? Only we can answer that question–and how we answer it will determine how much of what the Lord has given us we are willing to fight to preserve. So think about it. Pray about it–and do what the Lord would have you to do. And then get out and DO it!

By Thomas DiLorenzo 
Re-posted from Lew with Professor DiLorenzo's permission.

The problem with Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate is not that she is a corrupt and dishonest politician, as her critics have charged.  No, the problem with Hillary is that she is just as big a socialist as Bernie Sanders is.  “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” she announced to a San Francisco audience in 2004, echoing the Communist Manifestomantra, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”  “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society,” she once proclaimed as First Lady.  Such statements are a defining characteristic of the socialist philosophy:  attacks on individualism in the name of the “common good” of “society” – always defined and enforced by politicians, never by society as a whole.  And like Sanders, she threatens “the rich” with even more onerous taxes to be used to subsidize the working class (“working families” in the neo-Marxist language of one of her television ads).

Hillary Clinton demonstrated her socialist credentials during the Democratic primary debates with the proud, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders.  Whenever Sanders would excite the audiences of Democrats with Santa Claus-like promises of “free” healthcare, education, housing, welfare payments, and much else, Hillary’s response was to agree with him, promising to increase federal spending by more than $1 trillion over the next ten years.  There was no disagreement over the principles of socialism, only the details.

A current fad among the socialists of Europe is to propose some kind of “basic” government-defined income for the entire population.  Switzerland just voted down this latest money-for-nothing scheme. Naturally, Hillary is all on board with it, having proposed giving every baby born in America a $5000 account that would be invested and given to the child upon reaching the voting age of eighteen.  George McGovern proposed a similar, $1000 “demogrant” in 1972, which was dismissed and ridiculed as socialistic nonsense and may well have caused him to lose the election to Richard Nixon.

In other words, Hillary is just as much a socialist as Bernie Sanders, only she doesn’t use the “S” word for marketing purposes.  She prefers “progressive Democrat” instead, but that is not very convincing, even to many of her supporters.  During a televised interview with Chris Mathews, she was asked repeatedly what the difference was between a Democrat and a socialist.  She refused to answer the question, implying to many that she probably believes that there is no significant difference.

In the early 1990s Hillary Clinton was the main architect of what came to be known as “Hillarycare” – the Clinton administration plan to impose Soviet-style central planning on America’s healthcare sector.  This gives us great insight into her vision of the role of government in the economy, and how she would like to see more and more American industries run – by dictates issued by thousands of anonymous bureaucrats paid for by the biggest tax increases in history and enforced by the heavy hand of the state. 

Socialist central planning, as such, has always been a perfect recipe for the impoverishment of entire societies while at the same time enriching and empowering a small political ruling class elite. How else could the thirty-five-year-old daughter of the late Hugo Chavez, the onetime socialist ruler of Venezuela, become the wealthiest person in that country with a reported net worth of over $4 billion?

Hillarycare was a bureaucratic nightmare that would have forced most Americans to cancel their health insurance and obtain it from a government bureaucracy.  It would have forced everyone to purchase a full array of government-defined benefits; it would have been managed from Washington by a board of seven presidential appointees and thousands of bureaucrats; access to physicians would have been restricted and controlled by bureaucrats, not patients; and all outside insurance plans would have been illegal.

Price controls on everything from doctors’ salaries to MRI machines would have caused pervasive shortages; the plan would have required massive tax increases, mostly on the lower and middle classes, causing huge job losses (600,000 in the first few years alone according to the Clinton administration itself at the time); 59 new federal bureaucracies would have been created with 20 others expanded; and hundreds of new regulatory mandates would have been imposed on healthcare providers.

Insurers would have been required to charge the same rates to everyone regardless of age or health, making a mockery of the very word “insurance.”  Costly employer mandates would have forced employers to lower wages and benefits and/or lay off workers; and state governments would have been forced to become “purchasing alliances” for the federal bureaucracy’s central planning scheme.

Members of Congress and all federal employees were to be exempted from Hillarycare, however.  Only the little people (i.e., everyone else) were to be corralled into socialized medicine.

The bizarre thing about “Hillarycare” is that it was an absurdly bureaucratic, Soviet-style central planning program that was promoted by the Clintons barely three years after the final collapse of socialism in the Soviet empire – a collapse caused primarily by the futility of attempting to centrally plan an economy through government “planning” instead of markets – just like “Hillarycare.”

Perhaps “Obamacare,” which has resurrected parts of “Hillarycare,” has been imposed on the American public because so much of it – primarily the younger generation – is unaware of the grotesque failures of twentieth-century socialism.  They should look at the current economic implosion of Venezuela – the latest darling-of-the-Left  “socialist paradise” – to learn some important lessons.

by Al Benson Jr.

After observing (and commenting) on this trend for several years now, I have  been forced to draw the conclusion that what has loosely been described as “Civil Rights” has become nothing more than a Marxist vehicle for blatant discrimination against white folks. It is particularly insidious on college campuses, which many of our conservative and patriotic people spend big bucks sending their kids to–so they can be thoroughly indoctrinated in various leftist “isms” that they have spent much of their lives fighting against. We spend treasure and blood fighting against that which we realize is totally evil and then willingly hand our kids over to it for “educational” purposes and then we are shocked at the results. I would like to think that, at some point, our patriotic folks would start to “get it” but, increasingly, I am beginning to wonder if and when that will happen.

I read a brief but interesting article on about a black professor who has said we need to “dismantle and demolish whitness.” The article noted that: “The leftist bias of America’s university system is a well documented problem but people often overlook our country’s community colleges when critiquing the stranglehold liberalism has on higher education.” The article raises a point we need to consider.I have talked for years on and off to folks who sent their kids to community colleges because, often not only were they less expensive, but the kids came home at night instead of existing in a dormitory situation, so parents got at least some inkling of what went on. It seems that even that possibility is becoming out of date now.

The article observed that often, professors who can’t get or hold a job at regular four-year colleges end up at community colleges. The article stated: “If you thought liberal propaganda at universities was bad, at community colleges it’s even worse-if you can believe it. Take, for instance, Portland Community College’s James Harrison who is teaching our students that whites are somehow to blame for the sky-high crime rates committed by blacks. This is delusional anti-white bigotry at its finest, and it’s being taught at American schools as fact.” Are you even mildly surprised? Parents really need to start looking at where they send their kids to be “educated.” You need to do some homework regarding the faculty and where they are at and what courses they teach. That would be the shock of a lifetime for lots of folks.

So how does the black college professor plan to “dismantle and demolish” whiteness? I’m sure he has an agenda guaranteed to radicalize the students that are forced to sit under his leftist propaganda without their parents’ knowledge. Further, will he dismantle and cease using all the white inventions that help him in the preparation of his anti-white diatribes every day? Will he quit driving an automobile because it was invented by whites, or will he quit flying  because Wilbur and Orville Wright were not black? What about the appliances in his home–his electric stove, his microwave oven, his television, his DVD player and all that other stuff invented by nasty white folks? In order to be consistent with his plan to “demolish” whiteness he really should quit using all this stuff and go back to what his illustrious ancestors used–right? Actually it doesn’t seem to quite work out that way. I know lots of black folks that constantly bemuse themselves with cell phones, phones that let them take “selfies” of themselves, and all manner of electronic  bric-a-brac, all invented by white folks or oriental folks–none of it invented by black folks. I supposed that’s “whitey’s fault” too, along with those high black crime rates. In actuality, what these folks, most of them leftists, unintentionally or otherwise, really want is all the good things whites have invented and produced–if they could just get rid of us whites in the process!

I have often wondered, who do they think will invent, or repair all this good stuff when we are gone? Ive watched countries like Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). When they had a white government the country had surplus food to export. Admittedly the white government wasn’t perfect. No government run by sinful humans of any color is. But are the people there better off now? Since Zimbabwe became a black dictatorship (and let’s don’t kid ourselves, that’s what it is) it, they have chased just about all the white farmers out and “redistributed” the land in classic Marxist fashion, to Mugabe’s good buddies, who don’t bother farming. The country is going hungry and they can’t figure out what the problem is. I submit it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out, but then, why bother? Lots easier to just blame the white folks for all your problems and if you can’t, or won’t work at feeding yourselves, why it has to be “whiteys’ fault” even if blacks control all the farmland, right?

Same situation starting to occur in this country in cities like Baltimore and Ferguson. How many of the places we have had riots in recently that it’s claimed are due to “white privilege” have black governments, mayors and police chiefs? How do you blame whites for the mess that is now Detroit when they have had a black government for years? Well, all you have to do is to parrot that anti-white drivel to the complaint lapdog media and they will pick it up and run with it.

When we lived up in the abolitionist paradise that was New England years ago there was one city near us that practiced what they called “urban renewal.” They condemned a whole batch of property and took it over and put up all new housing for “the poor.” It was really nice looking when they got finished with it, but unfortunately, “the poor” totally trashed it within five years and it was back to being nothing more than a more modern version of the slum they had torn down to put it up. All “whitey’s” fault I’m sure!

I can see that it will take another article to finish this–there’s just too much material to deal with in one article, but you get the picture. White folks have invented most of the modern conveniences  blacks can’t live without anymore but all their problems are are white mens faults.

It seems that most blacks have unknowingly bought into the Marxist class struggle agenda big time, at least since the start of the “Civil Rights” Movement. There is such a thing as personal responsibility and most haven’t seemed to learn that yet. There are black folks that do work hard and make a go of it and make a place for themselves in the world as Booker T. Washington advocated.  I’m not talking about them. My concern is the ones who continue to play the “Civil Rights” blame game and have, in recent years, taken it to new heights, and my concern also is with white folks who are gullible enough to buy into this Marxist twaddle. You’ve had a black Marxist president for two terms now. How much better off is the country? Please don’t all answer at once–the silence would be deafening!