Confederate Society
by Al Benson Jr.

I have been watching this game of minorities and others being “offended” at just about anything and everything anyone else says or does. It has gotten beyond being ludicrous so we need to stop and take a good look at it and where it is headed.

The “I’m Offended” game, or maybe agenda would be a more correct term, seems to do one thing–it limits freedom of expression and action. For fear of “offending” someone you dare not say this or do that, and so if you follow this to its logical conclusion you end up saying nothing, doing nothing and thinking nothing. Such inaction on the part of most people makes totalitarians, whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Communists deliriously happy.

Lots of folks have started to notice this trend (agenda) of late.  I read a quote just last week that said: “My freedom ends where your feelings begin.” That’s a very accurate statement. The man who said it understands what’s going on. I read another one this week where the man said: “I’m offended by all those folks being offended over nothing.” That one is also on target.

There are so many out there now that are “offended” by so much that if everyone gives in to their list of pet grievances society will come to a screeching halt. Could that possibly be the name of the game?

They had a major flap at Yale recently over, guess what, Halloween costumes! An article on  for November 10th said: “Halloween is more than a week in the past,  but students at Yale University are having a tough time moving on. Angry that school administrators did not take their concerns about offensive costuming seriously enough, a group of minority students met with Yale president Peter  Salovey last week to have their say. Salovery, it seems, was moved by what he heard.” What politically correct, blubbering sycophant who runs any kind of school in today’s offended world wouldn’t  be “moved” when students came to him with this kind of frippery? It gives him a chance to buddy with the plebes as if he really cared about their concerns.

It seems that some of these students are finding life on the campus of Yale “profoundly difficult.” It actually got to the point where the Intellectual Affairs Committee sent out an email requesting that students not wear “culturally unaware and insensitive costumes.” The article stated: “Apparently we’ve reached that point in history where one can take a joke.” Oh, you better believe you’ve reached it. We have arrived at the point where no one can say or even think anything that some minority group will not find offensive and jump all over your case about. There is absolutely NO humor in these people whatever. They are deadly serious.

You have to understand that this “I’m offended” agenda is another phase of Cultural Marxism. That’s all it is.  It restricts people’s liberty to laugh, or kid, and if the truth were known, much of it is not all that offensive, no matter what they say.  And I have noticed that these people who are waiting in line to “be offended” at the drop of a hat seem to have no problem at all offending white Christians, or any real Christians for that matter. They are literally standing in line to have their shot at putting Christians and their beliefs down. Haven’t noticed that? Maybe you just haven’t been paying attention. White Christians especially are the one group that it’s perfectly okay to offend, particularly if they are from the South. In fact, its’ open season on them.  Anything goes–and unfortunately, most of them don’t have sense enough to realize it yet. They’ve been kept too busy not trying to “offend” every other group around–even to the point where a lesbian “bishop” in some church in Sweden has had the cross removed from her church lest it “offend” the Muslims! You would not believe how much of this crap goes on and how much the Christians play into it unknowingly. Not much spiritual discernment left in this day and apostate age. We are so busy trying not to “offend” rank unbelievers that we can’t be bothered to stand up and defend what we are supposed to believe. After all, that might “offend” someone!

Now I am not advocating that we go out of our way to try to offend anyone, but let’s face it, Christians, just by being Christians are going to “offend” lots of folks. The truth always offends those who don’t want to believe it. If the truth offends you, I’m sorry, that’s tough. Jesus said in Matthew 11:6 “…blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Maybe Christians need to be more concerned in making sure they are not offended by Jesus and His teaching than they need to be concerned that they might offend some pagan who doesn’t want the truth anyway.

We have, this past summer, had a concentrated campaign of ethnic and cultural cleansing here in the South that has been the most dramatic I can recall in my lifetime. And you can tell that those people who want to trash our culture, want to get rid of our flags, statues, monuments, even park and street names (it all has to go, immediately if not sooner) are playing for keeps. I don’t think most Southern folks realize the intensity of the hatred those people have for us and our history, faith and culture. Everything we believe and do is “offensive” to minorities and therefore, we must stop it all, right now.

I wonder, has anyone bothered to put forth the possibility that what they are trying to do to our history, faith, and culture just might be offensive to us? Oh, that’s not even a concern. Our right to exist ends where their injured feelings begin and we need to be on “stools of everlasting repentance” forever.

After all, the Cultural Marxists are only trying to obliterate  our faith, history, and culture–why should we be offended at that? I’ll tell you something–you’d better learn to be offended by it, otherwise they just may pull it off! Where will you be then?

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again–you had better learn how to resist these people because that’s the only thing they understand–and if you don’t do it they will just run over you as if you were so much “collateral” damage. And, as for these folks that are “offended” by everything from soup to nuts, start telling them to be thankful they still have the right to be “offended.” It’s one of the few rights they still have. And if this “gentleman”  they helped put into the White House has his way they won’t have that long!

By Thomas DiLorenzo

Re-posted from Lew with permission from our friend Dr. DiLorenzo

On October 10 the online History News Network expressed its disapproval (yet again) of a statement that Ron Paul made several years ago regarding the American “Civil War.”  In a television interview Ron Paul expressed disagreement with the new, politically-correct legend that slavery was the one and only cause of the Civil War.  The long-simmering conflict over states’ rights versus consolidation and nationalism was the main problem, he said.  So the History News Network highlighted an article by one Dale Schlundt, an adjunct professor at Northwest Vista College, on “Why People Like Ron Paul Falsely Believe Slavery Wasn’t the Cause of the Civil War.”  Schlundt is very upset that someone with such a large audience and who allegedly “did not study the Civil War in depth” would say such a thing.  He says that he starts each semester of his history class with a video of Ron Paul’s television interview on the subject, and then spends considerable class time belly-aching about it.

Of course, the reason why “people like Ron Paul” believe that there were multiple causes of the “Civil War,” as with all other wars in human history, is that they have studied the subject in depth, unlike Dale Schlundt, and do not rely simply on the latest politically-correct platitudes.  For example, they are familiar with the book, The Causes of the Civil War by Kenneth Stampp, a former president of the American Historical Association. This widely-useduniversity-level textbook discusses dozens of causes of the war, which is why the title of the book includes the word “Causes,” not “Cause.”  Dale Schlundt is apparently oblivious to this scholarship.

“People like Ron Paul” are also aware of the fact Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Congress very clearly stated that ending slavery was not the purpose of the war.  The U.S. Congress, which was almost totally comprised of Northerners in July of 1861, issued its “War Aims Resolution” that stated:

That this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the States [meaning slavery], but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln assured the world that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  He then quoted the Republican Party Platform of 1860, which also pledged the Party’s everlasting support of Southern slavery:  “Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions [i.e., slavery] according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend . . .”  Dale Schlundt is also apparently oblivious to the words of Lincoln’s first inaugural address, unlike “people like Ron Paul.”

Also in his first inaugural address, near the end, Lincoln expressed the strongest support for the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had just passed the Northern-controlled House and Senate, which stated that “No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof [i.e., slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service [i.e., slaves] by the laws of said State.”  Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois ratified the Corwin Amendment before the war broke out.

In the same speech in which Lincoln advocated the enshrinement of slavery explicitly in the Constitution, he threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the new Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the rate of federal taxation just two days earlier in legislation signed by President James Buchanan.  “There will be no invasion of any state,” he said, as long as they pay up.  They did not, so Lincoln did what he threatened to do and waged total war on his own country over tax collection. 

In his article Schlundt does not say that Lincoln waged war on his own citizens to free the slaves; he says that the sole cause of the war was the dispute over the extension of slavery into the new territories.  Lincoln and the Republican Party were indeed opposed to that, citing two reasons:  1) They wanted to preserve the territories as the exclusive domain of “free white labor” to use Lincoln’s exact words; and 2) to reduce the congressional representation of the Democratic Party, since at that time every five slaves counted as three persons in the census for the purpose of determining how many congressional representatives each state would have.  Even so, the salient point here is that by seceding from the union the Southern states abandoned any possibility of bringing slaves into the territories of the now-foreign government of the United States.  So Dale Schlundt’s slavery-as-the-sole-cause-of-the-Civil-War theory comes down to this:  The South wanted to bring slaves into the new territories, so their strategy to achieve that goal was to secede, after which it would have been impossible to bring slaves into the U.S. government’s territories.  This, he says, is what should be taught to college students about the war, not the words and actions of Lincoln and the rest of the U.S. government at the time.

Nor should students be exposed to the letter that Lincoln wrote to newspaperman Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, on August 22, 1862, stating that “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and not either to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

“People like Ron Paul” also know that, early in the war, when two of Lincoln’s military commanders unilaterally issued local emancipation proclamations Lincoln rescinded them and reprimanded the commanders.  They know that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to “rebel territory,” where the U.S. government had no ability whatsoever to free anyone, while explicitly exempting parts of the South such as much of Louisiana, where the U.S. Army was in control.  The slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and West Virginia, all a part of the Northern Union, were also exempted.

“People like Ron Paul” also know that Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a “war measure” that he hoped would lead to slave insurrections, although it did not, and that it would have become void had the war ended at that time.  People like Dale Schlundt, on the other hand, are either ignorant of these plain historical facts, or they dishonestly hide them from their students.

“People like Ron Paul” also understand that secession does not necessitate war.  The issue of why the Southern states seceded is entirely separate from the question of why there was a war.  Lincoln himself was very clear on why there was a war:  By his actions he proved that his war aim was to destroy the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replace it with a coerced, Soviet-style union held together by mass murder, mayhem, the bombing and burning of entire cities, the rape, pillage, and plunder of the civilian population, and everlasting threats of doing the same should any state in the future contemplate leaving Lincoln’s “mystical” union.

When people like Ron Paul cite the decades-long conflict over states’ rights versus nationalism as a cause of the war, they are saying that the Southern states, like the New England Federalists before them, believed that the union was voluntary and that they had a right of freedom of association and of secession.  The Republican Party, on the other hand, insisted that the union was never voluntary, and was a one-way venus flytrap from which no state, and no citizen, could ever escape for any reason. Lincoln’s regime “proved” its theory of the union to be “correct” at the cost of as many as 850,000 dead Americans according to the latest research.

By: Paul Roberts
Re posted from our brothers at Lew 

I am unable to vett the accuracy of this report from a German hospital beyond the fact that this report was given over Czech TV. It coud be true or it could be anti-Muslim propaganda or some combination of the two.

Nevertheless, it is true in the sense that the sudden appearance of one million pennyless refugees in a European country, which are not of the vast size of the US and Canada, is destabilizing in many ways.

One can commiserate with the Germans and the refugees, but the Germans brought it on themselves. They permitted the Merkel government, which serves Washington and not Germany, to legitimize Washington’s illegal wars that brought Germany the refugees. The same is happening all over Europe and in the UK, where the British also sat on their butts and permitted Blair and Cameron to serve Washington instead of them.

Who is to say that the Europeans and British do not deserve the consequences of their own complicity in Washington’s gratuitous and illegal wars? Nothing more needs to be said.

The local German Press are not allowed to report on what is happening inside German Hospitals

by SB on October 14, 2015 at 9:30am

The below letter is from a retired physician who had returned to work at a Munich area hospital where they needed an anaesthesiologist. She e-mailed the following letter to her friend in Prague. The letter has been read out on Czech TV but in Germany the issues mentioned in the letter are not being reported on by the German Press because they have been told to not write anything negative about the migrants. Merkel’s government fears that the German population will react badly to the truth, so like bad governments throughout history the truth is being suppressed. Despite this German’s are protesting in record numbers as they can see the negative effects of record migration in their own towns and cities but you will only find articles and photos describing the protests on New Media. Even international media seem to be going along with the Blackout on bad news about migrants in Germany.

“Yesterday, at the hospital we had a meeting about how the situation here and at the other Munich hospitals is unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals.

Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and, we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa. Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units.

Many [Muslim] migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat them. If they receive a prescription in the pharmacy, they learn they have to pay cash. This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: “So, cure them here yourselves!” So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies.

Truly we said openly: Where are all those who had welcomed in front of TV cameras, with signs at train stations?! Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but a million of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.

Until now, the number of unemployed in Germany was 2.2 million. Now it will be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely unemployable. A bare minimum of them have any education. What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate that one in ten is pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of them have brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated and neglected. If this continues and German re-opens its borders, I’m going home to the Czech Republic. Nobody can keep me here in this situation, not even double the salary than at home. I went to Germany, not to Africa or the Middle East.

Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit.

I really don’t need this! But I’m afraid that if I return, that at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans, with their nature cannot handle this, there in Czechia it would be total chaos. Nobody who has not come in contact with them has no idea what kind of animals they are, especially the ones from Africa, and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.

For now, the local hospital staff has not come down with the diseases they brought here, but, with so many hundreds of patients every day – this is just a question of time.

In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, which they had dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.

The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we know about it through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed a doctor and nurses with a knife? Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurse’s face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum he’d go straight to jail and later to court. With these people – so far, nothing has happened.

And so I ask, where are all those greeters and receivers from the train stations? Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their non-profits and looking forward to more trains and their next batch of cash from acting like greeters at the stations. If it were up to me I would round up all these greeters and bring them here first to our hospital’s emergency ward, as attendants. Then, into one building with the migrants so they can look after them there themselves, without armed police, without police dogs who today are in every hospital here in Bavaria, and without medical help.

by Al Benson Jr. ( a member of the CSA) 

Cultural genocide, the planned and willful destruction of a culture (in this case a Christian culture), is accomplished in many ways. The orchestrated destruction of a culture is accomplished by the tearing down of the flags and symbols of that culture and the destruction of its historical monuments and the replacing of its names with others of a more socialist intent.

It is also accomplished by the mid-education and intentional dumbing down of the children of that culture so they know less than their grandfathers about their history, heritage, faith, or anything for that matter. This is often done via institutions of “learning” that are subtly used to, in effect, make children dumber than they would be otherwise, while taxing their parents to pay for the intentional ignorance.

Recently a friend in New England sent me a copy of a book by Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman about public education in this country. It is titled, quite appropriately, Crimes of the Educators and it deals with the dumbing down process that goes on in what we charitably refer to as public, or government, schools.It was published just this year by World Net Daily and so is pretty up to date with what has been and is happening in those “schools” to which most folks, unfortunately, continue to send their children to be “educated.”

While Horace Mann (a Unitarian) was hailed in the 19th century as “the father of the common (public) schools, John Dewey was hailed in the early 20th century as the “father of progressive (socialist) education.” Blumenfeld (deceased only  this past June) has  written: “In the late 1800s, he (Dewey) and his socialist colleagues decided to embark on a long-range conspiracy to radically change America by imposing their own utopian version of a collectivist society…Dewey stated that the only way to undermine a capatalist system was to get rid of the emphasis primary schools placed on the development of high literacy and independent intelligence. Why? Because both of these sustained individualism. What was needed, they believed, was a new curriculum that emphasized socialization and taught children to read by whole-word method that would lower the nation’s literacy level and make its children more amenable to collectivist values…They considered themselves peerless intellects and socialism a morally superior way of life.” However, Dewey was smart enough to realize that “…socialism could not be imposed on America by force. And so he told his followers that ‘change must come gradually’.” This was the classic Fabian socialist approach, and “The primary vehicle for this gradual change would be the public schools, where the dumbing-down process could be carried out without parents knowing what was being done to their children.”

Blumenfeld recognized that what Dewey was doing was cultural genocide and he said as much. “…Dewey’s plan was to impose on America a form of cultural genocide never before imposed on any nation. The way to do it was to disparage high literacy and to teach children to read by a method that would prevent them from achieving the kind of high personal literacy needed to develop their independent intelligence.”

Interestingly enough, Blumenfeld noted that Dewey’s mother had been a “devout Calvinist”  who had sought to instill in her son the doctrines of Calvinism, “which he then spent all his professional life trying to erase from his brain.”

Now consider this. Horace Mann ended up being a Unitarian who sought to do away with the Christian influence on education in New England. John Dewey ended up rejecting his mother’s Christian faith and trying to purge it from his memory. Both of these men were apostates–pure and simple. They both turned away from the Christian faith they had been raised in and they envisioned and worked for a public school system they could use to teach children the same apostasy they had embraced–without their parents being aware of it. Folks, this is the foundation of your public education system in this country. Stop and think about that as you blithely commit your children to the “tender mercies” of this system.

It sounds more than a bit devious to me. So much for the supposed “separation of church and state.” All you need do to get around that little foible is change the name of your religion, call it “science” and if you’ve dumbed enough people down already, you’re off to the races!

And people, especially in the South, wonder why public schools have so much problem with Confederate flags and symbols, many of which are Christian in origin. I would strongly urge people to get this book by Blumenfeld and Newman and begin to find out what goes on in “your” public schools (which were never really yours to begin with). 

In going through the mass of documentation Sam Blumenfeld and Alex Newman have provided in their book Crimes of the Educators  you are forced to come up with the conclusion that these so-called educators had one thing in mind–the total destruction of anything that could be called a true Americanist culture. Dewey, though more prominent than most, wasn’t the first.The generation of “teachers” preceding Dewey ardently worked at this in the Southern states after the War of Northern Aggression. Like most leftists they mislabeled what they were doing in order to baffle the general public. In that case they chose a Marxist term, one employed by Marx himself–“reconstruction” which was really deconstruction. Dewey, in his time, continued to play the game, taking it to another level. As I’ve said many times before “reconstruction is ongoing.”

Blumenfeld and Newman have duly noted the “progressive” (socialist) trend ongoing in education in this country and they stated: “They (the educational socialists) strongly agreed with Dewey, whose aim it was to change the focus of education from the development of individual intellectual skills to the development of cooperative social skills. Socialism’s objective had been from the very beginning to remake man from a competitive individual of a capitalist society to a cooperative being in a collectivist state. Education was considered the best way to achieve this transformation. Indeed, President Obama’s idea of transforming America is also in line with the progressive aim to create a socialist America.”

So, as you should be able to see, the “reconstruction” of America, starting in the South and expanding from there has never really been stopped. Nor has it ever really been discussed objectively and openly. It’s like those “conversations” Obama wanted to have with the public about the race question, which always ended up, somehow, with him pointing his finger at us stupid rubes and lecturing us on why we should be more accepting of the genocide of our culture.

Dewey’s (in)famous Laboratory School at the University of Chicago (where else?) went on from 1896 until 1904. During this time his ideas were tested on children, which led to him writing the book School and Society. This soon became the “bible” for socialist educators. And Blumenfeld observed: “His (Dewey’s) ideas were implemented at the Lincoln School (1916-1946) at Teachers College, Columbia University, in New York, where Dewey was invited to teach and set the direction for teacher education.” You might want to think about how many generations of public school teachers were taught these methods and the effect that has had on education in this country.

One of Dewey’s main supporters in this scheme of radical “education” was John D. Rockefeller Jr. He absolutely loved Dewey’s socialistic education plan–to the extent that he ended up donating $3 million to the school to help to promote it. In fact, and it’s almost poetic justice, Rockefeller sent four of his five sons to the school that they might be educated according to this new wave of leftist indoctrination.  Blumenfeld noted that “All four boys, subjected to the new method of teaching reading, became dyslexic.” Obviously, with the family’s money, they were able to find ways to overcome that, but how many ordinary public school students with no way to overcome that, were taught by these same methods and even today struggle with reading because they were never taught phonics? Blumenfeld correctly stated that: “Dewey’s educational methods were conceived and calculated to dumb down the nation, and he started out by dumbing down the four Rockefeller boys. Nelson, of course, was able to hire Henry Kissinger to do his reading for him.”

Blumenfeld then asked the question “Why didn’t the progressive educators admit that their teaching methods were creating dyslexia and go back to the traditional phonics method? Because what they had done to the Rockefeller boys in a private school, they intended to do to the rest of American children in the public schools. The tragedy is that there are millions of Americans like the Rockefeller boys who must endure the crippling consequences of educational malpractice. The fact that the progressives refused to stop what they were doing indicates that their intent was criminal.” Here Blumenfeld and Newman have hit the nail squarely on the head!  The professional educators know what they are doing to the children of America and they continue to do it anyway–because that’s what the elitist agenda calls for–a dumbed down population that, if they are fortunate, can maybe read at a fifth grade level. Hence they can’t really read about or grasp political issues, economic issues, theological issues, or any issues that would help to change the culture in a positive way. It’s all according to plan.

Again, I am not indicting everyone who is or was a public school teacher. Most of them have no clue to what has been done. However, the people that run the system they work for do.  And that system needs to be separated from, seceded from, most especially by Christians.

Back in 1984 (was the year prophetic or what?) Sam Blumenfeld wrote an important book, NEA–Trojan Horse in American Education. It is still available on

It dealt with the National Education Association, which has been around a lot longer than most people think it has (since 1857). Blumenfeld wrote, on page 181, that: “From 1857 to the present, the NEA has worshipped two gods; Horace Mann, a statist (and Unitarian), and John Dewey, a socialist.”

Then Blumenfeld made an interesting statement–one that has proved to be so very accurate. He said: “The progressives have always known that violence would have to be used to break the back of hard-core resistance to their dictatorship. While Dewey expected socialism to come about in America  through the use of ‘organized intelligence’ without violent revolution, he nonetheless realized  that hard-core resistance would have to be quelled by force…Dewey realized that while most people would sheepishly permit the chains of socialist control to be placed on them by ‘organized intelligence’ there would always be those stubborn individualists and religious ‘fanatics’ who would fight back.” This happened in Kanawha County, West Virginia a decade before Blumenfeld wrote his book on the NEA. Many parents there protested, marched, and resisted the educational establishment’s efforts to brainwash their children, and, when it could no longer be laughed at or otherwise suppressed, their protest was ultimately dealt with by force. For a real and shocking lesson in what the educational establishment did there, read Karl Priest’s book Protester Voices–the 1974 Textbook Tea Party.  Mr. Priest had a whole chapter in his book, chapter seven, devoted to the NEA. Since my family and I were in Kanawha County, West Virginia for part of the time this protest went on, I can vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Priest’s comments and viewpoint. I know some of the people mentioned in his book. Some are now deceased, but not all. This is a book for those who want to see how the government education system operates–in living color.

That the NEA is decidedly leftist in orientation there can be no doubt. In his book Shadowbosses  Mallory Factor noted, on page 83, that: “The National Education Association (NEA) spent $50 million on Obama’s election campaign in 2008. When Obama spoke to the NEA in 2008, he emphasized that he would be able to deliver more dues revenue to the teachers union: ‘In the coming weeks, I’ll be laying out the specific details of my plan to invest billions of new dollars into the teaching profession and recruit an army of well-trained, well-qualified teachers who are willing to stand in front of any classroom’…” (and help to brainwash the children of America as part of the fundamental transformation of America into a third world socialist nonentity).

Mr. Priest noted in his book that there were three different kinds of teachers in public schools–those who realize what’s going on and detest it but don’t know what to do about it short of quitting outright, those who are sincere teachers but don’t have a clue as to what’s going on,  and those who are utterly corrupt and more than willing to promote the leftist agenda. Over the years I’ve met some of all three.

Sam Blumenfeld and Alex Newman, in their new book Crimes of the Educators have observed that “The National Education Association (NEA) of course, endorses multicultural-global education as a ‘way of helping every student perceive the cultural diversity of the US citizenry so that the children of many races may develop pride  in their own cultural legacy…” And on and on the litany goes. Along with this they also note that: “…the NEA recognizes no American culture  that the student may take pride in. He is to appreciate the cultures of others, and learn about them, at the expense of learning about his own.” That’s what multiculturalism is all about folks–embracing other cultures to the negation of your own. This is what multicultural educators in government schools across the country are promoting–the negating (cultural genocide) of American culture, particularly Southern American culture, in favor of all other cultures–any other culture except American culture. This is what, with minor exceptions your kids will learn in government schools. If you are satisfied with that, then just leave them there–but don’t complain to others when the kids come home bearing the questionable fruit of the system you left them to be “educated” in!

Begin to educate yourself as to what really happens in most government schools. Read Blumenfeld’s and Newman’s book. Read Karl Priest’s book  and when you read what they have presented and finally become ticked off enough about it, then resolve to find Christian sources for your children’s education and, if at all possible, remove them from a government education system that practices the knowing genocide of your culture.

by Doug Hagmann 

When the farmer in Iowa plowing his field suddenly and unexpectedly hears a noise and feels the ground shake from missiles being fired from a hidden underground silo in retaliation against Russia, perhaps then Americans will wake up to the litany of lies we’ve been fed by our leaders and a complicit media. Even then, I suspect that most Americans will continue to believe the lies of the U.S. leaders and succumb to revisionist history that has little-to-nothing to do with the truth.

We are at the precipice of World War III, yet the average American has no idea. The average American is oblivious to the fact that America has been captured from within, its leadership is traitorous, and the media complicit in all aspects of seditious criminality. Many of those who might have a level of understanding however, don’t know the real story about how we arrived at this point in time. For both, we have our elected officials in Washington to thank…or to blame… or perhaps congratulate, depending upon which agenda you’re pushing.

In the event you missed the news, twenty-six cruise missiles were fired into Syria by Russian warships yesterday as Syrian ground troops launch an offensive against ISIS and U.S., NATO and Saudi-backed anti-Assad terrorists. Who didn’t see this coming?

Three years ago to the day – October 8, 2012, I wrote Lemmings…On the precipice of World War III, explaining that Barack Hussein Obama, in his capacity as the man selected for the Oval Office, was overseeing a private war in the Middle East at the direction of the Saudis. What was taking place in Syria at that time was the result of the Obama-Clinton parallel CIA/State Department’s “Fast & Furious, Libyan Edition.” To Hillary Clinton’s cackling delight, Gaddafi was deposed and killed, and Libya was being used as a supply depot for weapons funneled to Syria via Turkey and other areas in close proximity. The primary staging area in Libya was Benghazi, and specifically, the CIA complex that was attacked on September 11, 2012.

The actions by this rogue element within the U.S. government, many who are still in power and continue to hold positions of influence, led to the attack on the CIA compound that caused the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three others. Although the attack was conducted by proxy groups, those groups were acting on behalf of Russia. Accordingly, the United States did not respond, as doing so would have certainly widened the conflict and exposed the largest weapons running operation in the Middle East. Stevens, having a rolodex full of unsavory contacts including those he met while on assignment in Syria, reportedly oversaw a portion of this operation, according to my contacts in the intelligence venue.

To fully understand the perilous situation the Renegade-in-Chief has created for us as a nation, it is critical to understand the truth regarding how we arrived here. That, of course is something that Obama, Clinton and their facilitators cannot have exposed at any cost. To understand Russia’s response in Syria, the current situation must be viewed through the larger lens of past events for accurate historical context, and those events include Benghazi. It is for this reason that the American people will never get the truth about Benghazi or the mysterious Clinton e-mails, as any truthful revelation would expose the criminally traitorous activities of this unlawful administration.

How deep the lies
The lies, however, go much deeper than most reasonable people can comprehend, as we are not dealing with reasonable or rational people. We do not have truth in the media, as all media outlets are controlled by only six corporations that act as chokepoints for truth. The large media conglomerates dutifully report only what they are told to report and nothing more. Included in this pattern of control are those media pundits, including most who are identified as conservative, and most who host talk shows and television panels.

The above, therefore, explains why the background of Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II, the Renegade-in-Chief was declared “off-limits” to discussion by even those “conservative” pundits. Anyone out of compliance was (and still is) publicly ridiculed. This complete takeover is overtly obvious even in Hollywood, where many night-time talk show hosts often mock and ridicule anyone daring to question the bona-fides and allegiance of the Communist Muslim occupant of the White House.

I stress the above in this report as it is relevant even today, for the events we are watching unfold could have been prevented with a true conservative effort and media pundits who could have chosen to place the fate of their nation over their careers. They chose their paycheck over the truth, and bowed to their corporate handlers as deeply as Obama bowed to his handler, the king of Saudi Arabia.

We have grown to expect as much from the toxic liberal “progressive” Marxists, but find it difficult to accept such from the self-proclaimed conservative media and pundits. Depicted as intellectual talking heads, they never seem to break through the thin veneer of lies that covers the truth. They entertain rather than inform, which appeals to the average, non-thinking American. They offer just enough “us versus them,” play-by-play action of the long-dead partisan paradigm to satisfy those addicted to mainstream news.

What every thinking American needs to understand is that the lies that have been and continue to be perpetuated by those in elected positions emanate from members of both political parties, for most members of both parties have chosen to take their assigned seats at the globalists’ table. It is easy to see how others may have been blackmailed into taking their assigned seats, especially after drinking from the fountain of power and wealth within the beltway. That assertion also applies to certain members of the Supreme Court, a body that has become an activist arm of the globalists.

We did not, however, arrive here overnight. The subjugation of America’s sovereignty was an incremental process. It seems that the tactics of the Fabian Socialists won out over those of the Communists. Their goals are the same, only their approach is different. The ultimate objective is nearly complete, and each of us has a front seat to the next act of this Orwellian play. From Woodrow Wilson to the Clinton cabal to the globalists currently in power, Americans have been led into servitude. Sadly, many Americans are enjoying their servitude, or have no idea that they are being held captive. Feel free to call it Stockholm syndrome, but dare not call it “battered wife syndrome,” for this phrase has been deemed off limits by the thought police.

For those reasons and many more, don’t expect to learn the truth about Benghazi, for the next act of this Orwellian play has already been written. While most Americans could not find Benghazi on a globe, those who could seem to have long forgotten about the attack and its implications. A dutiful and complicit press has made sure of that.

While many quickly dismiss ludicrous explanations concerning the Benghazi attack, including the embarrassingly laughable narrative relating to the anti-Muslim video The Innocence of Muslims, they will often stop there, purposely neglecting the evidence that is highly suggestive of a rogue CIA, Clinton, Obama and Brennan cover-up.  As I detailed in my report of that video, its creation appears to trace back to people and groups close to the CIA. Additionally, the same people and entities whose fingerprints appear on the video also appear to be involved in the breach of the passport office files in 2008. It was that breach that prompted the admission by Obama that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, and also appears to have played a role in the murder of one of those involved at the periphery of that incident.

Although seemingly tedious and arguably off-topic, it is vital to understand that everything we are presently seeing taking place has been carefully orchestrated. We are not living in a world of coincidence, but one of conspiracy. Laugh if you must, but do so only after you’ve investigated all of the facts. And then, laugh at your own peril.

Three years ago, I wrote that World War III would begin in Syria, not Iran. Admittedly, Iran would play a role, but the flashpoint, Putin’s red line in the sand runs directly through Damascus. It still does, and now over two-dozen sophisticated Russian cruise missiles have served to emphasize and validate my assertions.

Obama’s deliberately destabilizing actions across the Middle East, known as the “Arab Spring,” was planned long ago in the bowels of a Saudi mansion. With the approval of Washington leadership of both parties, including the “gang of eight,” Obama was selected to oversee the operation. Obama is acting on orders from his Saudi and globalist handlers. John Boehner and other Republican leaders provided the necessary cover for Obama to complete his task. He was assisted by the Clinton criminal cabal, and given a pass by a complicit media.

If you look long enough and close enough, the evidence is there. Sadly, there are too few with the intellectual and moral integrity to report it. Or, they have already submitted their reservations for their seats at the globalists’ table.

For those with the temerity to report the truth, there is a solution to deal with you. If you’re not silenced by the restrictions of the soon-to-be-passed Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty or its Atlantic counterpart, there’s always room for you at one of your local non-existent re-education centers. They’ll even leave the light on for you.

From there, you’ll have a front row seat to the series of final acts of the screenplay of the globalists. The “Missiles of October 2015 edition,” produced and written by the Globalista’s studios, although a bit behind schedule, has been “launched.” Pun intended.
Prepare. Pray.

By Thomas Sowell 

re-posted from with permission

One of the many painful signs of the mindlessness of our times was a recent section of the Wall Street Journal, built around the theme “What’s Holding Women Back in the Workplace?”

Whenever some group is not equally represented in some institution or activity, the automatic response in some quarters is to assume that someone has prevented equality of outcomes.

This preconception of equal outcomes requires not one speck of evidence, and defies mountains of evidence to the contrary. Even in activities where individual performances are what determine outcomes, and those performances are easily measured objectively, there is seldom anything resembling equal representation.

For 12 consecutive years — from 2001 through 2012 — each home run leader in the American League had a Hispanic surname. When two American boys whose ancestors came from India tied for first place in the U.S. National Spelling Bee in 2014, it was the 7th consecutive year in which the U.S. National Spelling Bee was won by an Asian Indian.

We all know about the large over-representation of blacks among professional basketball players, and especially among the star players. The best-selling brands of beer in America were created by people of German ancestry, who also created China’s famed Tsingtao beer. Of the 100 top-ranked Marathon runners in the world in 2012, 68 were Kenyans. The list could go on and on. Although blacks are over-represented among professional football players, even the most avid National Football League fan is unlikely to be able to recall seeing even one black player who kicked a punt or a point after touchdown.

Should there be an article titled: “What’s Holding Black Kickers Back in the NFL?” Could it be that blacks are more interested in playing positions where there is more action and — not incidentally — more money?

Should there be an article titled: “What’s Holding Back Whites in the National Basketball Association?” Or an article titled: “What’s Holding Back Non-Asian Indian Kids from Winning the Spelling Bee?” Lawsuits claiming discrimination have been won on the basis of statistical disparities far smaller than these.

Among the many reasons for gross disparities in many fields, and at different income levels, is that human beings differ in what they want to do, quite aside from any differences in what they are capable of doing, or what others permit them to do.

Observers cannot just grab a statistic and run with it, though that is what is done too often in the media — and even in courts of law.

Particular opportunities are seized by some groups and used to rise from poverty to prosperity. But, for other groups, those same opportunities might as well not exist, because other groups are oriented in different directions, and those opportunities might not even catch their attention.

As regards statistical disparities in the representation of women in various occupations or at different income levels, a number of outstanding female scholars, including Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, have shown many ways in which women’s circumstances and priorities differ from those of men.

Men, for example, don’t get pregnant. And where children are raised by a single parent, that parent is a mother far more often than a father. You cannot work the 60-hour weeks that are needed to reach the top in some fields when you have children to raise.

But we seldom hear about such facts, while we constantly hear charlatans loudly proclaiming numerical “gender gaps” in employment or pay, and suing for discrimination.

Charlatans are only half the story. The other half includes people who are gullible enough to be led around like sheep by those exploiting the prevailing political correctness dispensed in our schools, colleges and the media.

Moreover, the sheep in both high and low positions often also implicitly believe that the cause of statistical disparities must have originated wherever the statistics were collected, and therefore must be the fault of the employer — even though the factors behind those disparities may have originated far from the employer and long before the people involved reached the employer.

So long as there is widespread gullibility, there will be charlatans ready to exploit it for their own benefit, either politically or financially.

Part II

One of the secrets of successful magicians on stage is directing the audience’s attention to something that is attractive or distracting, but irrelevant to what is actually being done. That is also the secret of successful political charlatans.

Consider the message directed at business owners by Senator Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama — “You didn’t build that!”

Assuming for the sake of argument that a man who owns a business simply inherited it from his father, what follows? That politicians can use the inherited resources better than the heir? Such a sweeping assumption has neither logic nor evidence behind it — but rhetoric doesn’t have to have logic or evidence to be politically effective.

The conclusion is insinuated, rather than spelled out, so it is less likely to be scrutinized. Moreover, attention is directed toward the undeserved good fortune of the heir, and away from the crucial question as to whether society will in fact be better off if politicians take over more of either the management or the earnings of the business.

The question of politicians’ track record in managing economic activities vanishes into thin air, just as other things vanish into thin air by a magician’s sleight of hand on stage.

Another of the magic feats of political rhetoric in our time is to blame “a legacy of slavery” for problems in the black community today. The repulsiveness of slavery immediately seizes our attention, just as effectively as the attractiveness of a magician’s scantily clad female assistant or the distraction of a flash of light or a loud noise on stage.

Here again, rhetoric distracts attention from questions about logic or evidence. The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just a convenient excuse for bad behavior, it allows politicians to escape responsibility for the consequences of the government policies they imposed.

Although the left likes to argue as if there was a stagnant world to which they added the magic ingredient of “change” in the 1960s, in reality there were many positive trends in the 1950s, which reversed and became negative trends in the 1960s.

Not only was the poverty rate going down, so was the rate of dependence on government to stay out of poverty.

Teenage pregnancy rates were falling, and so were rates of venereal diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea. Homicide rates among non-white males fell 22 percent in the 1950s.

In the wake of the massive expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s “war on poverty” program — with the repeatedly announced goal of enabling people to become self-supporting and end their dependence on government — in fact dependence on government increased and is today far higher than when the 1960s began.

The declining rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal diseases in the 1950s both reversed and rose sharply in the wake of the 1960s “sexual revolution” ideas, introduced into schools under the guise of “sex education,” which claimed to be able to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal diseases.

Black labor force participation rates, which had been higher than white labor force participation rates in every census from 1890 to 1960, fell below white labor force participation rates by 1972 and the gap has widened since then. Homicide rates among non-white males reversed their decline in the 1950s and soared by 75 percent during the 1960s.

None of this was a “legacy of slavery,” which ended a century earlier. But slavery became the rhetorical distraction for the political magicians’ trick of making their own responsibility for social degeneration vanish into thin air by sleight of hand.

Political charlatans are not the whole story of our social degeneracy on many fronts. “We the people” must accept our own share of the blame because we voted these charlatans into office, and went along with their ever-increasing power over our lives.

When it came to charlatans taking ever larger amounts of our own money to finance ever more big government programs, we stood still like sheep waiting to be sheared. We remained as meek as sheep when they turned schools into places to propagandize our children to grow up accepting more of the same.

All the while we had the power to vote them out. But we couldn’t be bothered to look beyond their magic words. Even now, many are too absorbed in their electronic devices to know or care.

Part III

The prevailing social dogma of our time — that economic and other disparities among groups are strange, if not sinister — has set off bitter disputes between those who blame genetic differences and those who blame discrimination.

Both sides ignore the possibility that groups themselves may differ in their orientations, their priorities and in what they are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of other things.

Back in the early 19th century, an official of the Russian Empire reported that even the poorest Jews saw to it that their daughters could read, and their homes had at least ten books. This was at a time when the vast majority of the population of the Russian Empire were illiterate.

During that same era, Thomas Jefferson complained that there was not a single bookstore where he lived. In Frederick Law Olmsted’s travels through the antebellum South, he noted that even plantation owners seldom had many books.

But in mid-18th century Scotland, even people of modest means had books, and those too poor to buy them could rent books from lending libraries, which were common throughout Scottish towns.

There is no economic determinism. People choose what to spend their money on, and what to spend their time on. Cultures differ.

On a personal note, as a child nearly nine years old, I was one of the many blacks who migrated from the South to Harlem in the 1930s.

Although New York had public libraries, elite public high schools and free colleges of high quality, I had no idea what a public library was, or what an elite high school was, and the thought of going to college never crossed my mind.

Jewish immigrants who arrived in New York, generations before me, seized upon the opportunities provided by public libraries and later their children flooded into the elite public high schools and free city colleges. This was consistent with the values of their centuries-old culture.

For most of the black kids of my generation, those things might as well not have existed, because nothing in their culture would have pointed them toward such things.

There was no reason to believe that I would have been any different from the rest, except for the fact that members of my family, who had very little education themselves, wanted me to get the education that they never had a chance to get.

They had no more idea of the role of public libraries and elite quality high schools and colleges than I did.

But they knew a boy a little older than I was, who came from a better educated family, and they decided that he was somebody I should meet and who could serve as a guide to me on things they knew nothing about.

His name was Eddie Mapp, and I can still recall how he took me to a public library, and how patiently he tried to explain to me what a public library was, and why I should get a library card. He opened a door for me into a wider world. But most other black kids in Harlem at that time had no one to do that for them.

Nor did kids from various other ethnic groups in New York have someone to open doors to a wider world for them. It didn’t matter how smart they were or whether opportunities were available for them, if they knew nothing about them.

An internationally renowned scholar of Irish American ancestry once said in a social gathering that, when he was a young man of college age, he had no plans to go to college, until someone else who recognized his ability urged him to do so. There was no reason to expect all groups to follow in the footsteps of the Jews.

In my later years, two middle-class couples I knew took it upon themselves to each take a young relative from the ghetto into their home and, at considerable cost in time and money, try to provide them with a good education.

One of these youngsters had an IQ two standard deviations above the mean. But both of them eventually returned to the ghetto life from which they came. It wasn’t genetics and it wasn’t discrimination.

The youngster with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean will probably never achieve what a Jewish or Asian youngster with an IQ only one standard deviation above the mean achieves.

Those who are celebrating the ghetto culture might consider what the cost is to those being raised in that culture. And they might reconsider what they are hearing from charlatans parading statistical disparities.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His Web site is

Editors note: The information below was submitted to us by a member and below that are some additional comments by Craig Maus, President of the Confederate Society. 

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already legally and peacefully seceded from the Union before Lincoln takes office.

April 14 1861...Lincoln violates the US Constitution by illegally calling for states to raise 75,000 troops to invade the South. Only Congress can do this, not the President.

His Secretary of State, William Seward, writes up this Illegal proclamation which will later prove to have many lies contained therein... ... Troops.htm

Here is a highlight of the lies. "...and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country".

He has his Secretary of War, Simon Cameron send telegrams to each states Governor asking for volunteer soldiers.

He gets these replies from Southern Governors...

North Carolina- John W. Ellis, Governor of North Carolina, to Simon Cameron, U.S. Secretary of War, 15 April 1861...
"Your dispatch is received, and if genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt, I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South as in violation of the Constitution and a gross usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

Kentucky- B. Magoffin, Governor of Kentucky, to Cameron, 15 April 1861...
"Your dispatch is received. In answer I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."

Virginia- John Letcher, Governor of Virginia, to Cameron, 16 April 1861...
"I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communication, mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia 'the quota designated in the table' which you append, 'to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.'

In reply to this communication I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object--an object, in my judgement, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795--will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited toward the South."

Tennessee-Isham G. Harris, Governor of Tennessee, to Cameron, 17 April 1861...
"Your dispatch of 15th instant, informing me that Tennessee is called upon for two regiments of militia for immediate service, is received. Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purpose of coercion, but 50,000, if necessary, for the defense of our rights and those of our Southern brethren."

Missouri- C.F. Jackson, Governor of Missouri, to Cameron, 17 April 1861...
"Your dispatch of the 15th instant, making a call on Missouri for four regiments of men for immediate service, has been received. There can be, I apprehend, no doubt but the men are intended to form a part of the President's army to make war upon the people of the seceded States.

Your requisition, in my judgement, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its object, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry on any such unholy crusade."

Arkansas- H.M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, to Cameron, 22 April 1861...
"In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury. The people of this Commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity their honor, lives, and property against Northern mendacity and usurpation."

Delaware- William Burton, Governor of Delaware, to Cameron, 25 April 1861...
"I have the honor to receive your communication of the 15th instant, requesting me to cause to be immediately detached from the militia of this State one regiment, consisting of 780 men, 'to serve as infantry or riflemen, for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.'

The laws of this State confer upon the Executive no authority whatever enabling him to comply with your requisition, there being no organized militia in the State nor any law authorizing such organization.

There are volunteer companies formed and their officers commissioned by the Executive, and others are being formed, but it is altogether optional with them to offer their service to the U.S. authorities, the Executive having no power vested in him to order them into its service.”

Sharing w/All Patriots bcc herein Bill w/permission to forward:

  And in addition to this fine piece you sent us here in The Confederate Society (below herein), let me add this to the Long list of un-Constitutional actions undertaken by King Lincoln that many are equally & probably unaware of:

As did King George III before him (Lincoln) do, who brought in Hessian Troops to put down the Same Rebels called Colonists only 80 years earlier, so too did King Lincoln.

We fought his superior numbered forces to a standstill with inferior weaponry & fewer arsenals so what did Sic Semper Tyrannus do- he went to his European ‘friends’ and cut a deal whereby they emptied their jails of the scum they didn’t want giving them their ‘freedom’ providing they would fight for & in Lincoln’s ‘Union’ Army.

Many of this Scum-Sucking band were members of ‘Uncle Billy’s (Sherman’s) army who raped, pillaged and murdered thousands of civilians in their ‘march to the sea’.

Lincoln also used his ‘Executive Privilege’ along with his Radical Red RepubliCONS in ‘congress’ to ‘pass’ his Empowerment Act that forcibly conscripted the Irish Immigrants coming to America into the Union Army when in fact they were NOT citizens.

The Empowerment Act provided him with multi thousands of much needed additional Troops that essentially said this:

“You can be conscripted into our Army even though you are NOT a Citizen because arriving here (in the U.S.), suggests you intended on becoming a citizen allowing us to conscript you.”

How many I wonder were ever ‘Taught’ about these actions while his Rich Socialist Friends and Families were paying $300.00, the price to be EXCLUDED from conscription, resulting in “A Rich Man’s War and a Poor Man’s Fight” slogan.

Separation IS Paramount! Separation IS Survival!

‘Played like a Fiddle and Washington has been the Riddle’.

Craig Maus,

President, The Confederate Society of America

by Al Benson Jr.

The city of Fort Smith, Arkansas may be familiar to many people. It has been pictured in many Western movies. It is the city where Judge Isaac Parker, the “hanging judge” presided over his court. Judge Parker sentenced over 70 people to hang during his judicial career, and from what I have read over the years, they probably deserved it. Others who probably deserved it and didn’t get hung, through lawyers intervening in their cases one way or another. One movie I saw years ago, “True Grit” had one of Judge Parker’s marshals, played by John Wayne, referring to the legal representatives in Fort Smith as “pettifogging lawyers.”

I’ve only been to Fort Smith once, back in the 1970s, but I remember it as a distinctly Southern town. But that was then, not now. That insidious political disease known an Political Correctness (in reality it’s Cultural Marxism) has quietly seeped into many places in the South to the point where often you can hardly tell you are in the South anymore.

Suffice it to say that the public school system in Fort Smith has now imbibed in Cultural Marxism in regard to Confederate symbols like so many other places. Given the history of the public school system I guess we really shouldn’t be surprised. Untortunately, I am afraid that many who should know the real history don’t, and so they climb aboard the dumbed-down bandwagon also.

According to the Times Record a local attorney, Joey McCutchen (they aren’t all bad) is suing the Fort Smith School Board because of their decision to remove the Confederate flag, the “Dixie” fight song, and the school mascot from Southside High School in Fort Smith.

According to the Times Record article: “The move, according to a statement from the school district came after ‘giving great consideration to the continuing impact of perceived symbols of racism on the community, state, and nation’.” So we are removing all Confederate symbols all across the country now because they are “perceived symbols of racism.” They don’t actually have to be “racist” symbols–all they have to do is to be “perceived” as that and that’s more than enough for the usual knee’jerk reaction from all the politically correct types stepping out from under their leftist rocks.

McCutchen is suing the school board on behalf of a Fort Smith resident, Curtis Sorrells, and the suit cites violation of the open meetings provision of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.  The suit said that the publicized agenda for the June 23 School Board Committee of the Whole meeting called only for a closed meeting for discussion of Superintendent Benny Gooden’s yearly performance.  The purpose of this notice was to lead members of the public and media into believing that the meeting was solely to discuss a personnel issue and that the meeting would not be open to the public.”

It was at this closed meeting according to that “members voted to recommend changing Southside High School’s mascot and fight song. Fort Smith attorney Joey McCutchen filed the lawsuit claiming the school board violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act by holding a committee vote without notifying the public.” Well, yes, if you are going to work for the cultural demise of a large group of your students you obviously don’t want to do it openly. McCutchen said: “The school board did not say one word about why they were for or against, and that is concerning, so I think we, the voters, need to come out. We need to get a school board that will engage us in the process because that’s what our government stands for.” Actually it may be what government used to stand for. Nowadays it stands for whatever it can get away with! One Confederate flag supporter said “I’m tired of all the political bull.” Friend, you better hang onto your Confederate flag because all this ain’t going away any time soon.

We have to understand that all these incidents, and so many have been reported that you can’t cover them all, are all part of one fabric–one agenda–and most of these public schools are just itching to find a reason, any reason, to ban Confederate symbols of any kind. The only thing that will stop them is a massive turnout of local citizens protesting what they are trying to do, citizens telling them that if they remove Confederate symbols then their children will no longer attend that school but will find educational alternatives. They’d be better off finding educational alternatives anyway, but that’s the kind of thing school boards might respond to, as most local school districts get federal funding based on how many students attend their schools and if a particular school ends up losing 75-100 students that will adversely affect what they get from the feds. They can understand that.

The Fort Smith situation shows us a couple things. For one, there are some decent lawyers out there who do try to do the right thing. I have known, over the years, a handful of Christian lawyers who do strive to make their faith part of their law practice.

For another thing, we should start checking out on the Internet the number of these cases that have shown up since the Charleston shootings. I’ve done some of that and, believe me, they are legion and they all seem to follow a similar pattern, which means they are all part of a preconceived agenda. Hence they are not, in any way, locally spontaneous. All the people involved in different communities may not all know one another, but there is a common thread that runs through all these attempts at banning anything Confederate, whether it be in schools, whole towns, or wherever. These people are all operating off the same blueprint. So you have to ask–where did the blueprint come from?

As the Times Record article noted, Confederate symbols are perceived symbols of racism. That in no way makes the perception accurate, but then, the leftists and those who finance them really don’t care about that anyway. Their aim is to get people thinking in a certain direction that serves their purpose. Whether that direction is accurate or not (and it usually isn’t) makes not one iota of difference.

That this is a campaign of ethnic cleansing by the left should be apparent by looking at those who support it, the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center, along with a host of lesser leftist luminaries.  No one in their right mind could ever consider such groups as “objective” or “middle of the road” no matter what the “news” media tells us. So start checking out some of these outfits that promote ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide in regard to Confederate history and culture. You won’t like what you find if you do the homework. And when you do find it, you should heed the biblical admonition in Ephesians 5:11 and expose it.

by Al Benson Jr.

Twenty five years ago this year Ken Burns launched his supposedly epic series entitled “The Civil War.” One thing you have to understand about Mr. Burns going in, he is a modern day radical abolitionist. That is his mindset. Oh, he feigns objectivity but a quick look at his work will show you that he is anything but objective.

His original “Civil War” series lasted several nights on prime time television and to be sure I got it all I sat through the entire thing. Supposedly it took Mr. Burns five years of research and a ton of Rockefeller money, all to discover that, guess what, the war was really all about slavery! What a surprise! Knowing at least part of his funding sources could anyone who has followed any of this think his conclusions would be any different.

Well, that was a long time ago, you may say. However I’ve been told that Mr. Burns is about to redo and update this series and bring it back again. After all, almost a whole generation has gone by since this series was last presented and so it’s about time now, especially in light of all this planned fuss over Confederate flags and symbols, to reintroduce this generation to the “Civil War was only about slavery issue” so that people will not forget this holy mantra of the left.

Back in October of 1990 I did an article for The Christian News out of New Haven, Missouri about Mr. Burns’ series and the title of it was exactly the same as the title for this article. Mr. Burns probably has the financial backing to update and redigitalize his material. Unfortunately, I don’t have such, so all I can do is to go back to my original article and pull out some significant excerpts and hope this will suffice. Since I expect that most folks reading this will not have seen my original article this will probably not be repetitious to most. So please bear with me.

“Being a student of that period of U.S. history that encompasses the period from around 1820-1890, I was naturally interested when I saw several articles in newspapers touting public television’s “Civil War” series, shown the week of September 23rd for five successive nights. The series got such favorable  preview publicity in the media that I felt it might be the crowning achievement of propaganda in regard to the War Between the States.  Being somewhat forewarned, and being, though Northern by birth, basically of a Southern disposition in regard to the War, I was not, unfortunately, disappointed in my assessment of the series.”

“If, in some faint vein, I had hoped for objectivity in this series, such a vain hope was dashed on the first night’s broadcast. We were supposed to have the ’causes’ of the War outlined on the first broadcast. The ’causes’ all boiled down to the same stale abolitionist rhetoric that far too many of our ‘history’ books parrot today–the reason the war was fought was to free the slaves, a noble endeavor on the part of the North. The whole question of states’ rights and constitutional issues was given no more than a line or two, barely lip service. The theological implications of the War were totally ignored, as if they had never existed, and indeed, for the promoters of the program they probably did not, consciously. We were told that the man that put this series together spent five years researching his subject. That may be, but he surely didn’t read the same books I have!”

“The series hardly dealt with the Unitarian-influenced abolitionist movement in the North and the pressure that radical movement exerted on Northern politicians. It did not at all deal with the revival of reformation Christianity taking place in the South before the war.”

“John Brown, the abolitionist terrorist, was mentioned chiefly in his connection to the aborted raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. One got the impression from the program that Brown did all that he did on his own. Never was there a mention of the wealthy group of Northerners, one a Unitarian clergyman, called ‘the Secret Six’ that paid for a great deal of John Browns terrorism, both in Kansas and other places. Why weren’t these Northern financiers of Brown’s terrorism mentioned? They are mentioned in the National Park Service museum at Harpers Ferry. Their pictures are on the wall there.”

Lord willing, I will continue with these comments in another article. I don’t know when Mr. Burns’ updated series will be rebroadcast but it might not hurt to sit in when it is and make note of all the things that have been conveniently left out. I am sure you will find the list considerable.

by Al Benson Jr.(PART II) 

I have been informed that Mr. Burns’ update for his “Civil War” series has been on public television this week (probably for the first rebroadcast of many) so I wanted to conclude my comments about it during this week. As readers can probably deduce from my comments in the first article, I have significant disagreements with Mr. Burns’ worldview.

One thing that bothered me was the way in which he dealt with some of the personalities, notably Stonewall Jackson.  In my original Christian News article back in October of 1990 I stated: “Other things in this series bothered me. Stonewall Jackson, one of the South’s ablest generals and a devoted Christian gentleman, was labeled  as a ‘cold-eyed killer, unloved by his men and fond of slaughter. I’m no expert on Jackson (though I have read two or three books about him) but I’ve read enough to know that such a description is utter hogwash!  Jackson’s Christianity was couched in terms that made him appear to be a religious fanatic. Robert E. Lee was dealt with somewhat more charitably, but probably because his own devotion as a Christian is so well-known that, like George Washington, he cannot be vilified with impunity.” (At least that was the situation when I wrote the original article. In the fanatical political correctness now afoot in the land I’m not so sure that norm holds anymore.)

“The series was very will done, artistically, with skillful use of old photos of the period, along with background music and sound effects of that time. All this was blended together in such a way as to make it all very watchable, particularly if you happen to be a history buff. All you had to watch out for were the conclusions drawn from the series.”

“The part of the series that dealt with the battles was well done and probably mostly accurate. The horrible bloodiness of the conflict was noted and not glamorized, and that was good.  Having visied several of the battlefields noted in the series, I would have to say that, historically, that was the best part of the series.” (Although now I understand that the National Park Service has gone around and changed all the plaques to state the the reason the war was fought was only over slavery, and that’s not good because it is totally erroneous. Slavery was one reason for the War, among many, and not the main reason no matter what these politically correct “historians” try to shove down your throats.)

“The program hinted at the fact that, after two years of ‘Civil War” Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, not out of a concern for slaves, but mainly as a political move, a ‘noble’ reason for the conflict to continue. Other historians have said it with more authority, though.”

“The final episode  dealt with the collapse of the Confederacy, Lincoln’s assassination, and the remainder of the lives of some well-known ‘Civil War’ figures. The birth of the Ku Klux Klan was mentioned, but NOT ONE WORD was said about the “reconstruction” period specifically, one of the most shameful periods in our history. That part of the picture was totally ignored. Down the memory hole if you will!”

“One thing admitted in this series was that the War Between the States changed the course of our history. One narrator in the series said we were never the same country after the war.  He seemed to feel that the change was for the better.” (Looking at what we have to deal with in our day, I’m not so sure of that. I think, in many ways, it’s worse.) “Another speaker summed it up by saying that, before the war, when the United States were spoken of, it was in the plural form ‘The United States are’ after the war the singular term  ‘The United States is’ came into usage. So much for the rights of and our recognition of individual states. These were swallowed up by a strong national government. Due to apostasy in this country (and most  of our troubles can be traced back to that cause) the War Between the States was truly the American Revolution (and our French Revolution) a revolution that most God-fearing Americans, both North and South lost!  Most have not realized that even unto this day.  Slaves were not freed in the truest sense of the word.  Care and ownership was just transferred from plantation owners to politicians who had big plans to use ex-slaves as a gigantic voting block  to keep them (the politicians) in power.  Many even said as much, though naturally, with less offensive terminology.”

“One of the concluding narrations was given by a lady “historian” who went so far as to say that as long as we have the downtrodden and the homeless on the streets the Civil War is never really over. One might translate that to mean “until the federal government is willing to provide cradle to the grave security for all citizens (socialism) the Civil War goes on!” And don’t we hear echoes of this same mantra today?

I have to agree with Mr. Burns on one point–the War never really has ended, but I don’t agree with his reasons. It has not ended because the Yankee/Marxist regimes that inhabit Washington have determined that the South and its Christian heritage and culture must be destroyed and they will not discontinue their war on us until they have accomplished that. We need to wake up and realize that. This latest planned and orchestrated attack on all things Confederate should be a wake-up call to Southern folks and all honorable folks everywhere as to the fact that the Ruling Elite expects you to surrender your history, faith, and culture to their minions and they will fight you until you do. Lets make sure they have a long, long fight!

 By Joan Hough

I encourage you to share this commentary with others. Knowledge is power. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is more likely to be destructive.  (Note:  The REAL definition of ignorance is:  “UNINFORMED.")

 Folks who are offended when they are declared ignorant— might wish to look up the definition before attacking the informer. They will learn that “Ignorant” does not actually mean “stupid." Anyone can be ignorant—even the brightest among us. Of course the stupid can also be ignorant. Ignorance does not discriminate between rapid and slow learners. It may be true, however, that the brightest of us are often more apt at recognizing our ignorance and making an effort to do something about it.

Political Correctness is a method of degrading freedom of speech; it is a sneaky, merging on direct, attack on the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.  Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Begun at the University of Wisconsin, P.C. was first used to prevent people from recognizing the differences that exist in nationality, beliefs, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Political Correctness  has resulted in all sorts of bizarre attacks on written and spoken language. “Chairman” became an outmoded word—no longer to be assigned as a title for a female “chairperson.”  The use of neutral pronouns such as “his” and “him” in formal written language was denounced and she, her, and them were declared proper substitutes.

This strange feminist movement resulted in the reported recent decision of at least one set of parents to allow their toddler to choose his or her sexual identity. The boy child is now reportedly choosing to wear dresses, to be reared as a girl, and to go to the girls’ bathroom at school. ( One must wonder as to the role persuasion and conditioning play in the child’s home environment.)

Political Correctness in Science places enormous restrictions and pressures on any scientist who disagrees with the beliefs of the majority on evolution, relativity, global warming, cancer cures, etc.

Political correctness or P.C. also means the alteration of one's choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative leaders or other activists) claim some status as systemically oppressed or discriminated against will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well.

George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty Four  defined “political correctness” as a means of limiting thought by controlling language.  In the 1980s here appeared throughout America a movement in which people declared that legally acceptable words, expressions, and selected ideas should be made illegal—that people who used them should be punished. This came to be.  In communities and in the nation today words, expressions, actions, and ideas have been declared politically incorrect; people guilty of using them, are found guilty of  breaking written or unwritten laws and are legally punished by government or punished by the tyranny of the community.  For example, just a few years back in Houston, a very young, elementary school girl was suspended from school because while jumping rope or something, she responded “Oh, that is so gay!” to something said by another child.

Political restrictions on language have been placed by various groups (mobs) of people for the purpose of restricting ideas they do not wish expressed and for silencing opposition they do not wish to develop.

For our own protection we should all learn just what the term “Political Correctness” encompasses. It is a direct offshoot of CULTURAL MARXISM.  Because Confederate descendants, although numbering in the millions, have no organization such as the NAACP or the AntiPoverty group—and no enormous and powerful lobby organization like the Jewish and Labor ones, Confederates are ordinarily ignored or treated with scorn by government officials.  Even the people who have much to write about political correctness have little to say about the multitude of ways it affects Historians and schools and people who would spread long hidden historical truths about the South and Mr. Lincoln and his Republican control U.S. government.

In this brief discussion of political correctness, you are apt to read more about political correctness as it affects our South, than you are likely to have read before.

Political Correctness is most dangerous to Southerners when we only consider its form of “”Don’t say this and do say that!” or “Don’t write this and don’t write that.” or “Don’t read this and do read that.” We are believing the politically correct when we believe that all the so-called new historians who are telling secrets about the north’s treatment of the South are “revisionists,” simply writing history as they wish it and not as it actually occurred. The truth, of course, is precisely the opposite.  It is the “OLD, traditionalist historians” who sell the “revised” history—lies devised by the winners are not true history. Those who perpetuate those lies are perpetuating “victor revised history.”

We are proponents of Political Correctness:

•           If we continue to accept and verbally promote historical lies because, in our ignorance, we are unaware they ARE lies.

•           If we buy the lies extolling the goodness and humaneness of the originators of the Republican Party—and believe the Party’s own propaganda that it was organized by noble men interested only in abolishing slavery,

•           If we refuse to acknowledge the truth—that originators of the Republican Party had every intention of altering the U.S. government from a Republic into a new world order of global government called a Democracy, while it functioned as an oligarchy controlled Empire,

•           If we act, or write, or speak in a manner designed to cater to the ignorance of northerners and that of fellow Southerners,

•           If we choose to remain ignorant concerning the real purpose Alvin E. Bovay had in joining with Horace Greeley to create the Republican Party.

•            If we avoid Confederate topics the powers” have decided are too ugly to be mentioned—might make “ladies” cry, might offend northerners, might incense Republicans, or might make an ethnic someone feel “uncomfortable.”

•            If, as Southerners, we avoid telling the real truth about Abe Lincoln and his Radical Republican Marxists,

•            If we avoid telling the real historical truths about what the United States government did in the South during the “Uncivil” War and during that Republican Radical Marxists designed period of Reconstruction,

•            If we avoid learning and telling the real reasons the South was invaded,

•            If we accept and spread the brainwashed into us lies and deny that the original purpose of the Republican Party was to continue the failed European Socialist War, to begin making Marxism an American reality, by redistributing Southerners’ wealth of land, forests, and money,

•           If we remain ignorant of the role 1848er Marxists played in the origin of and formation of the Republican Party,

•             If we denigrate efforts to distribute Confederate truth and attempt in any manner to halt such distribution,

•           If we condemn the actions of people when they expose Political Correctness,

•           If we know not and know not that we know not—and refuse to listen to the truth about political correctness,

IT CANNOT BE DENIED, We are PROPONENTS/supporters aiders/co-conspirators, and abettors OF Political Correctness.

For Confederates faithful to the Cause, there is no such thing as “not enough Political Correctness.” Any amount of Political Correctness is TOO MUCH!  For many of us, our pro Politically Correct actions are born out of ignorance; for some of us, our actions are the result of brainwashing. Whatever the causation, the political correctness of our speech and our writings and our condemnations of those who challenge political correctness are merely tips of the political correctness iceberg. The humongous iceberg of  now Politically Correct beliefs was first formed and placed into writing in 1848. It was dealt with in a formal fashion in Germany in 1923. Those of us who have studied the subject are aware that the later gathering did not actually “originate” Political Correctness—just re-named the process involved in that portion of  what later became known as a tentacle of “brainwashing.”  The Communist Manifesto had already set into motion a long list of actions, words, and purposes that were to be considered as politically correct by Communists/Socialists/ and elitists Republicans in the 1800s.

Molding of opinions in our America today begins with a child’s enrollment in first grade or kindergarten and with his viewing of many of the “ kiddy shows” on television.  His conditioning continues on throughout his classroom days. Reinforcement to that conditioning is given by previously conditioned parents and other adults.

 “Reconstruction” was a dozen or so year period following the War during which  Republican Radical Socialist/Communists took total possession of Southerners.  They stole Southerners’ lands, trees, farms, plantations, money, books, pictures, pianos, etc., etc., etc.--everything that the soldiers had failed to steal during their invasions. This grand form of theft was made possible because the Republicans placed the South under military law.  Five U.S. Army generals served the Republican-controlled U.S. government as dictators.  Each, a virtual king in his district. (General Sheridan who burned the entire Shenandoah Valley region, was the almighty Lord of Louisiana and Texas.)

 Reconstruction was designed to remold and remake--to reconstruct the minds of all Southerners. The idea was  that Southerner “Bible Thumpers”  were all to made into wonderful replicates of the noble New England Republicans.  One of the “remaking” processes involved the replacement of all Southern teachers with good northern Republican teachers. The South was filled with these during Reconstruction.  Southern school books were replaced with Republican approved, Republican published texts.  Southern schools, community or church sponsored,  had their teachers and their textbooks replaced.  U.S. schools for former slaves were opened throughout the South. Southern white children, digging, picking turnip greens or harnessed to plows (because all their mules and horses had been killed or stolen by Yankees) watched black children skip merrily off to free schools and books paid for with stolen Southern silver. 

Among the many brainwashing techniques used on adult Southerners was the Iron Clad Oath –which most had to be taken if they were to eat. For many Southerners, attempting to earn a living for their families, political correctness became a survival requirement, a pre-requisite for obtaining work—for any kind of paying job. They were virtually white slaves to the U.S. General in their district, and to the US government. Confederate officers were forced to rely on their bartering skills, or to pluck a living from their gardens—selling, as did one General, vegetables on a street corner.

 Governmental brainwashing has continued down through the ages. Should you doubt this, ponder this question— how many of us throughout our 11 or 12 years of public education, routinely, heard the secession of the South defended during the vast multitude of hours we served as a captive audience of governmental teachings? Children today are in school around 900 to 1,000 or so instructional hours each year—in how many of these hours do they hear the truth about our South?

  With scheduled time to be spent today on sex lessons (kindergarten kids to be introduced to the joys of masturbation) as demanded by the United Nations and its supporters, and the U.N.’s advocated New World Order take over of private education, how much time will be given truth telling in any subject?

For a ten year period before and during the War for Southern Liberty, Political Correctness tenets in the words of Karl Marx were successfully promoted  by the United States’ most widely circulated newspaper, The New York Tribune.  The Tribune was, owned and edited by Socialist Horace Greeley, the founder of numerous communes throughout the Northeast.  At the urging of Charles Dana, managing editor, Greeley hired Karl Marx and Marx wrote (even editorials) for the Tribune for ten years.

 Furtherance of the Marxist beliefs was also skillfully accomplished through the publication of thousands of pages of anti-South propaganda by the U.S. Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, and Marx’s close friend, the Assistant Secretary of War, Charles Dana. Northerners were given some very large doses of political correct materials.

The following information, all presented in a verbatim quote, informs us as to what Political Correctness encapsulates. After reading it, the horrific influence political correctness has on American lives should be clearly understood,. 

The bastion of Totalitarian Collectivism [TC] is based upon a culture of political correctness. Before authoritarians impose their rigid formulas for shaping and defining a false reality, the ground needs to be prepared for molding public opinion.  The details and narrative of mind control works best when people have already adopted an urbanity of collective singularity. The nature of “TC” is the next level beyond political correctness. 

A glaring example of the beginnings of an upside down world is outlined in Political correctness has replaced British Politics! It is noteworthy that the two primary totalitarian European regimes of the twentieth century were engaged in their own versions of ideology dogma.

So how did it all start? Political Correctness started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn't the wonderful idea of communism spreading?

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

•             the creation of racism offences

•             continual change to create confusion

•             the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

•             the undermining of schools and teachers' authority

•             huge immigration to destroy national identity

•             the promotion of excessive drinking

•             emptying the churches

•             an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime

•             dependency on the state or state benefits

•             control and dumbing down of media

•             encouraging the breakdown of the family"''"

It was no coincidence that the same themes of cultural destruction affect the British Empire after the “so called” victory over fascism. The cultural Marxism that emerged in the post war era has an undisputed record of causing the decline and destruction of Western Civilization.

-          See more at: