Wednesday, December 29, 2010



It was at The Conspiracy Exposed blog where I was exposed to a video posted at YouTube by a person using the pseudonym NanoThermite911. The title of the fourteen and a half minute video is 'Proof That Thermite Can Cut A Vertical Column'.

This is some excellent scientific investigative work that will come like a pie of "inconvenient truth" in the face to those deluded Americans who insist that they can take the word of Uncle Sam as the gospel truth and who so readily buy into every lie that Uncle Sam's toady, the mainstream media, broadcasts.

Poor, misguided Americans, they're led like sheep to the slaughter, all the while singing in unison, "Baaa-d Truthers. Baaa-d Truthers..."

Below is a link to the video. Check it out . . . unless, of course, coming face to face with truth isn't exactly your cup of Thermite.

Click Me ---> Proof That Thermite Can Cut A Vertical Column
by NanoThermite911
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
"As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."
~ Proverbs 26:11

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Saturday, December 18, 2010


This blog bit marks the debut of a new, ongoing feature not to be repeated on a regular basis here at ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ called “This Month’s First Annual Quote Of The Week Award”.

This week’s best quote was determined by our panel of judges consisting of Secretary to the Secretary General of the Attorney General’s first Lieutenant Governor, Yoey O’Dogherty, who also serves as the Dictator of ‘The Committee For The Advancement Of Democratic Principles’.

Of all the quotes that were competing for 2010’s monthly award this week, only one was eligible. The competition was fierce and went right down to the wire with Yoey O’Doghety deciding the winner in a unanimous split decision.

The winning quote was shouted softly to Stephen T. McCarthy in an Email that he didn’t receive until Monday because his Email system was not fully operating at minimal capacity until Wednesday.

That concludes the Preface to this Introduction’s Prologue, and finally we approach our final approach and the announcement of the winning quote:

The envelope please. And the winner is . . .

In an Email to me from my dear friend The Flying Aardvark, she was referring to an old friend of hers whom she seldom gets to see anymore, and this is what she wrote:

I would describe her as a very proper Jewish intellectual, who suddenly decided to take up gun collecting and NASCAR recently. I was told she no longer is that into shooting on the weekends and devotes her spare time to following Jimmie Johnson on Twitter.
Apparently guns were the gateway drug leading to the true hillbilly heroin of NASCAR racing.

Do I have funny friends, or what?

But remember, people: guns don’t kill people, bullets do!
And NASCAR is for people who have already died.

Please fail to be with us again next time when we don’t post the next winning quote in this beloved, time-honored, never-to-be-repeated, special event series.

In case I don’t get anything else posted on this blog before Christmas, I wish y’all a merry merry one. And if I do get something else posted here before December 25th, then think of this wish as merely a merry merry premature react-u-lation.

My love to you all, including my political enemies of which there are many!

BUT WAIT! That’s not all! Act NOW, and receive absolutely free, this handsome link below, suitable for clicking!

Earlier this week, my good ol’ friend Dan-The-Man “Cranium” sent me a link to what I later called the “BEST political piece I have thus far encountered during this Christm-- er... during this ‘WINTER’ season!”

Just click on the link below and view the short but GREAT video titled “The 12 Days Of Winter” (Or, “A Very Liberal Twelve Days Of Christmas”). If you don’t love that video, then you obviously found my blog by mistake and may Santa Claus leave pink bunny pajamas in your stocking!

Merry Christmas, y’all!
Yeah, that's right, I said it – “CHRIST”, “CHRIST”, “CHRISTmas!

“The 12 Days Of Winter” (Or, “A Very Liberal Twelve Days Of Christmas”)

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

“And GOD bless us, every one!”
~ Tiny Tim

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Friday, December 17, 2010


In Chapter VII ‘The Evidence On Owen Lattimore’ in Senator Joe McCarthy’s 1952 book ‘McCARTHYISM: THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA’, we find the following:

“Let Them Fall But Do Not Let It Look As Though We Pushed Them”

On July 17, 1949, shortly before [Owen] Lattimore prepared his secret advice (August, 1949) to [Philip] Jessup, he wrote in an article in the ‘Sunday Compass’, a left-wing New York publication, in which he stated, referring to the Marshall Mission:

“The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.”

In the same article, Lattimore suggests that what had been done in China should now be done in Korea also. This was before the Korean war. He stated:

“The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall – but not to let it look as though we pushed it. Hence the recommendation of a parting grant of $150 million.” (Economic aid.)

That first Lattimore quote, by the way, McCarthy also entered into the Congressional Record when he delivered his June 14, 1951, speech on the Senate floor about the disastrous activities of General George C. Marshall.

Anyway, there is a great deal more to this story, and anyone who has studied it in greater detail knows that, in fact, elements within the U.S. State Department and American foreign policy advisors like Owen Lattimore did indeed “push” China into the hands of the Communists in a variety of ways.

But I posted the quotes above just to give you some idea about how devious our so-called leaders are, and to place in proper context the remainder of this blog bit:

Recently, a friend of mine, Anniee451 of the blog Purely Politics-Partisan?-Perhaps, posted a blog bit entitled “Economic Jeen-Asses”.

After reading what she had written, I left the following comment [with minor edits made here]:

Anniee you wrote:

We're back in the Carter years, and they're talking about going BACK into a recession from a RECOVERING economy with double-digit unemployment??? And we've got Bernanke, TheBenbernank, promising to raise inflation and printing tons of fiat money (because God forbid DEFLATION! Oh NOES!) and Krugman recommending an inflation rate of an eventual 28%... and extensions of those sweet sweet unemployment benefits of 2 years total (i.e. welfare, duh) and every day I hear from people who can't get a job making more than they are already making on unemployment (and it's unfortunately all too true)... and a recession rapidly turning into a DEPRESSION... and these geniuses are recommending more of the same because it just wasn't ENOUGH the first time. Never mind that if they'd get the hell OUT of Thebenbernank plan, the stimulus, and all this other nonsense, we might HAVE jobs to get if we're willing. The country is in the hands of utter, utter fools.

Anniee, my friend, this is a point I have attempted to express on my 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' blog repeatedly over the years:

You and I are almost always largely in agreement, and TOTALLY in agreement when it comes to economics. So, I am not disagreeing with your viewpoint at all, but merely your assessment of the intelligence of these "utter, utter fools".

No, Anniee, they are NOT fools. I've said it over and over again: one does not occupy an important position in Washington D.C. by being a fool. I'm sorry, you can be a liar (Bush Sr.), you can be an evildoer (Carter), you can be an ass (all of them!), a crook (Nixon), a warmonger (“W”), a sex addict (Clinton), a drug dealer (Clinton), a traitor (all of them!), and a foreign-born Marxist (USAP). But what you CAN'T be is an "utter, utter, fool". Not in the White House, not in the State Department, not anywhere in a prominent place on Capitol Hill. They don't let fools into the D.C. Club; they are much too careful with the power they have consolidated for themselves to risk it all on a loose cannon or a fool.

Believe it or not, Anniee, those people understand the laws of economics every bit as well as we do. Although we would like to think that they are not as intelligent as we are - when we see the senseless, seemingly stupid things they do - the truth of the matter is, they are no less intelligent than you and I are.

Here's the key that unravels ALL OF THE MYSTERIES about the seeming stupidity on Capitol Hill: Their goal is to literally wreck this nation entirely - but particularly economically. However, they wish to accomplish this destruction without allowing it to appear that it was done by design [i.e., to let our economy fall – but not to let it look as though they pushed it.] If you believe that they are wrecking us via economic stupidity, you are believing EXACTLY what they want you to believe about them.

In the tome I have sent you - 'THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve' by G. Edward Griffin - you will encounter these quotes:


"...This disdain for the American work force is partly because of corporate pursuit of maximum profit above all else and partly because decision makers consider themselves to be internationalists, with no special interest in America except as a cash cow to be milked as regularly and thoroughly as possible.

"As will be illustrated in the following chapters of this book, some of these people, acting through organizations such as the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), are consciously pursuing policies designed to lower the economic stature of America so it can be more comfortably merged into global government. Taxing money from American workers to build up the economies of foreign countries has done much to advance that goal." ...


"It has become the prime directive to weaken the United States both militarily and economically. And this directive has come from AMERICAN leaders, not those of other countries. CFR members sitting in the White House, the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Treasury are now working to finalize that part of the plan. ...

"The American economy is being deliberately exhausted through foreign giveaways and domestic boondoggles. The object is not to help those in need or to preserve the environment, but to BRING THE SYSTEM DOWN."

Anniee, that may be hard to believe, but what "utterly, utterly foolish" action do they take that won't eventually result in that very thing? Are they REALLY so stupid as to continue doing the things that reasonable people like us can clearly see will - by the very laws of economics - wreck the nation?

Until sufficient enough Americans are awakened to the fact that both major American political parties are conspiring to bring the American system down, there is truly NO HOPE FOR AMERICA.

As for me, I hope that the book I have sent to you will have a devastating effect on your political world-view, to the point that you too eventually become convinced of the facts that many of those making many of the most important decisions that most impact us are not "utter fools", nor do they have the average working American's interest at heart.

Totalitarian Global Government is the goal, and the vast amount of decisions emanating from Washington D.C. are stepping stones to that very Endgame.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


‘The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve’ by G. Edward Griffin. [Please read my review of this book by clicking on the above link. It’s one of the best reviews I ever wrote for one of the best books I have ever read.]

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Sunday, December 12, 2010


"Look, Mummy, there's an aeroplane up in the sky..."

Did you see the frightened ones?
Did you hear the falling bombs?
Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter
When the promise of a Brave New World unfurled
Beneath a clear blue sky?
~ 'Goodbye Blue Sky' by Pink Floyd

Your dog is breathing it. Your cat is breathing it. Your kids are breathing it. YOU are breathing it.

What is it? Did you give anyone permission to spray you or your kids or your pets with it?

Of course, by now, every American who doesn't waste every second of their free time staring at the boob tube has noticed it. (Which means, unfortunately, that many Americans will have no idea what I'm yakking about here.)

My Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary definition of a "contrail" is as follows:

A visible condensation of water droplets or ice crystals from the atmosphere, occurring in the wake of an aircraft, rocket, or missile under certain conditions.

But what I'm referring to is NOT a contrail. The contrail of an aircraft usually has a very limited length and always dissipates into the atmosphere and disappears in two to five minutes.

No, what I am talking about - and what I have seen in the skies above Phoenix countless times over the last seven years or so - are long white lines that appear in the wake of aircraft, but which extend for as long as one is able to view the aircraft, and which does NOT dissipate and disappear over time.

In fact, the opposite is true. These white bands high in the sky, which at first glance look like ordinary contrails, actually remain in the sky, and if one watches them for 30 minutes to an hour, the viewer will notice that these compact white bands begin to spread out, remaining in the sky and forming a kind of thin white haze.

Often, more airplanes will appear, crisscrossing the sky until nearly all of the blue has been covered and the sky takes on a kind of milky-water appearance.

I have witnessed this time and time and time again over the last decade.

It's been speculated that we are being sprayed with chemicals, and thus some folks have nicknamed these contrail imposters "chemtrails".

Well, writer and filmmaker G. Edward Griffin of the Reality Zone website has now produced a new documentary exploring the disturbing questions about Chemtrails.

"We've got people that are doing terrible things to us, and we had better wake up and fight back . . . now!"
~ Former Arizona State Senator, Karen Johnson

Pay special attention to what Dr. Lenny Thyme Ph.D. says between the two minute and two and a half minute mark of Part 3 of 7. He mentions the tendency of aluminum to create plaque in your arteries. [People, y’all better start doubling up on your soy lecithin intake. Seriously!]

And, of course, most of us have heard, at least in passing, the connections that have been alluded to between excessive aluminum in the human system and the contracting of Alzheimer's Disease. So, it seems that in addition to discarding all of our old aluminum cooking pots, we had all better stop breathing if we expect to go on living free of Alzheimer's Disease.

Here's a link to G. Edward Griffin's 'WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING?' movie trailer.

The movie is available for viewing in 7 parts and free of charge at YouTube. Here's a link to Part 1 Of 7.

Listen to Dr. Lenny Thyme early in Part 3 Of 7.

The filmmakers go to Hawaii in Part 4 Of 7.
Wow! I have always desired not to go to Hawaii and now I have!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

C.O.P.S. : Corrupt Officers "Protecting & Serving"

[A Blog Bit Explaining Why I Generally Take A Dim View Of Police Officers.]
Although it gets delivered to my workplace, not being a communist myself, I rarely read the free Phoenix New Times magazine.

The Phoenix New Times is essentially a Johnny-Two-Note rag, and if there was no Sheriff Joe Arpaio and if all illegal aliens were granted amnesty, the rag would have little reason to exist.

However, occasionally some New Times cover story will attract my attention and so I’ll pick up a copy and take a look. That’s what happened in June of 2009 when I saw the “Good Cop, Bad Cop” cover.

According to the story “Behind The Blogger Who Took On The Phoenix PD…” by Sarah Fenske [which you can read by clicking HERE], a Phoenix citizen named Jeff Pataky was wrongly and stupidly arrested by the Phoenix police department based on manufactured false evidence and bogus charges filed by his ex-wife. Later, when Pataky started a website and a blog to expose the corruption in the Phoenix P.D., his home was raided by the cops and his computer and some of his other belongings confiscated.

Making use of inside police sources, “Blogger Jeff” has since given Phoenix P.D. fits and his blog here at blogspot – BadPhoenixCops – is a site full of scoops and rancor, which I began “Following” shortly after reading that New Times article in the Summer of ’09. The blog bits and the comments attached to them are often filled with foul insults and schoolyard taunts, and it can get down and dirty between the “Anonymous” cops and the anti-police visitors who comment at the site.

No question about it, some very interesting pieces get posted at BadPhoenixCops, but one must be prepared for some of the nasty insults and dirty street humor found at the site. I myself have commented there a few times, but I prefer to stay out of the gutter.
A November 12 article titled “Officer Chrisman's Partner - And His License Plate That Says SHOOT THEM ALL” drew more commentary from me than any previous blog bit at BadPhoenixCops (BPC). In short, the story pertains to an incident in which an off-duty officer was involved in a shooting and the questions raised by his personal license plate which says in code, “Shoot-M-All”. The entire article and the comments that it spawned can be read HERE.

In this case, I left the first comment at the site, in which I responded to something the Blogger had said in response to a sentence in a quoted article:

Author Alicia E. Barrón: “Police say the killing was justified because that suspect had a gun.”
BPC: (Of course it was. Conveniently all shootings by cops are "justified" since the only ones investigating, are other cops..BPC)

Stephen T. McCarthy:
>>..."Of course it was. Conveniently all shootings by cops are "justified" since the only ones investigating, are other cops"..BPC
You got that right!
I have been saying for years that there ought to be a well-screened citizen panel in each community that has oversight when it comes to issues like police shootings and accusations of police brutality. Let the citizen panels conduct the investigations into these matters, after all, if the police departments are intended to "protect and serve" the community, then shouldn't representatives of the community be the persons who make the determination whether or not that is indeed what the police departments are doing?
Why on earth would anyone want "family members" of the accused overseeing the investigation into charges of wrongdoing against one of their own? I think that only the most over-the-top and flagrant misdeeds are you ever likely to get a "guilty" judgment. And just as our political system takes the form of "representative government", so I believe that our community law enforcement system - particularly in cases of suspected wrongdoing by an officer - ought to include representative oversight.
Frankly, I don't TRUST police officers to investigate their own and make judgments that are always right and fair to the community they supposedly serve. Well, to take it one step further, I just don't trust most police officers PERIOD!
Three comments later, one of the many “Anonymous” (Anon) posters there - most of whom can usually be assumed to be police officers - wrote:

>>...If all cops are so terrible and corrupt why do rush to call them everytime you feel your safety is in jeapordy?
To which I replied:

Having experienced first-hand the "Rodney King Riots" in Los Angeles, I got a fine look at what good the cops are to the citizenry when things get REALLY dicey or dangerous. Yeah, I saw how they just freakin' DISAPPEARED from the streets of Los Angeles and left those they supposedly "serve and protect" to fend for themselves.
Oh, the boys 'n' girls in blue knew exactly where the major problems were occurring - even down to the very streets and intersections - because the news media was covering this huge story from helicopters, etc. There were lots of looters and lots of victims and lots of intended victims to be seen in the streets. What you saw very, very few of, however, were cops!
Flash-forward a year and a half later, and there I am, pulled over by a cop - I assume due to my out-of-state Arizona license plate and something about it that aroused the cop's curiosity, although he didn't tell me WHY he had pulled me over.
He left me parked and sitting there for at least 15 minutes while he watched the traffic go by, apparently hoping to see another AZ. license plate to make some sort of comparison.
Finally, he gives my driver's license back, doesn't apologize for totally wasting my time, still doesn't tell me WHY he had pulled me over in the first place, and says very curtly before walking back to his police car, "If you're going to be here for more than a week, get a California driver's license and plate.
Oh, yeah, he was A REAL TOUGH COP... NOW! But I'll bet dollars to donuts (Ha!) that a year and a half earlier, when the maroons were rioting in the streets, this same tough cop was hiding at the station with all his buddies on the force until the streets were safe again.
I'm not going to paint ALL cops with this same brush, but I've known plenty of police officers on a personal basis and haven't liked most of them. And, yeah, I agree with Anon. Screw 'em! I'm armed and I'll take care of myself, thank you very much. I won't be calling the cops - they can "serve and protect" someone else.
Five comments later, another Anon wrote:
One thing the public needs to remember about police officers is that they are simply men and women doing a job that most of you would never want to or have the guts to do. They are human beings earning a living. First and foremost, they are people doing a JOB! They are brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle, son, daughter, friend... I think that the public forgets that police officers are people doing tough jobs. I am not saying there aren't some stupid and obnoxious officers out there, but why paint a brush of all of them being bad? They aren't all bad people!

As far as the person going on about the officers in LA not being around during the riots, what would you have them do? Put out officers in a mob of 100's of people who were angry about cops? Which by the way, they took their anger out on each other by looting and rioting. Remember that these officers have families that THEY want to go home to. Do you really think putting two officers in the middle of hundreds of looting, rioting animals would have done anything to stop the rioting? Do you think possibly it would have made an already horrible situation worse? By that I mean, the animals rioting would have turned around and gone after the officers and killed them. So what purpose would that have served? Why so the department could have said, they were brave? Not worth it! Sometimes it's just not worth it.

The thing about some of you posters is you have forgotten that officers are people doing a job! I bet you wouldn't do that job. Would you have our country get rid of police departments? Do you think we could police ourselves? What happens on the roadways when police aren't around? We see a lot of speeding, red light running, etc. The fact is you get bad apples in every job and there is no way around that. Fortunately in most jobs we don't generalize about everyone because of the few morons!
November 19, 2010 3:28 PM
I submitted an extensive response to that comment which, as of this moment, has not been posted at BadPhoenixCops. So I am pasting it here, on my own blog:

To: ANONYMOUS of November 19, 2010; 3:28 PM ~

It’s unfortunate that so many individuals here use the name “Anonymous” as it’s difficult to get a grasp on how many different persons are actually commenting here. It would be better if everyone would at least come up with a pseudonym and stick with it.

Anyway, I don’t know if you are responsible for any of the other “Anonymous” comments posted here, but you responded to my comment in a very civil and reasonable way. I appreciate that and will reply in kind. It is never my choice to stoop to the ad hominem level. I am capable of it, and more than a little effective at it, but I prefer to discuss serious matters in serious and logical ways. “Flame Wars” accomplish nothing and are always a waste of every particpant’s time.

So, thanks for keeping your remarks toward me mostly “adult-like”. I will treat you with the same sort of respect.

I agree with a fair portion of what you wrote. Yes, in many instances, cops can and should be viewed as just men and women doing their jobs. (Of course, there are some compelling reasons to believe that women ought to be employed in police departments solely in Special Assignment Units for the purpose of frisking and booking female suspects or dealing with female victims of crimes such as rape, etc. But that is well beyond the scope of this comment and beyond the time I’m willing to spend on the topic of police officers.)

Due to my background as a young man and the nature of the work I do as an adult, I have had greater dealings with police officers than has the average citizen, and I have over the course of my 50+ years gained some knowledge about the personality type and the mentality of a significant number of police department employees.

You wrote: “I think that the public forgets that police officers are people doing tough jobs. I am not saying there aren't some stupid and obnoxious officers out there, but why paint a brush of all of them being bad? … The fact is you get bad apples in every job and there is no way around that. Fortunately in most jobs we don't generalize about everyone because of the few morons!”

In the first place, I specifically wrote in my second comment above: “I'm not going to paint ALL cops with this same brush, but I've known plenty of police officers on a personal basis and haven't liked most of them.”

To that I will add that of all the police officers I have known in my life (and we’re talking about at least a dozen), there are only two that I can say I genuinely liked, whom I felt were not egotists, thrill-seekers, power-mad authoritarians, racists, or just general jackasses. Two out of twelve is not a good batting average!

Secondly, when it comes to police officers as a group, my experience has shown me that we are definitely talking about more than just a “few” morons or bad apples. I’m not even going to say that the majority of officers on most police forces are bad apples, but at the very least, I believe a very significant number of them are the sorts of persons I would not be interested in maintaining a friendship with.

I also happen to be an avid fan of American West history and have studied that subject from multiple angles. Even a person’s cursory study of Law Enforcement in the Old West will prove that there was always a fine line between the mind-set of the peace officers and the badmen they pursued, and often enough that line was virtually indistinguishable. While background checks in hiring police officers has certainly improved over the last century, I don’t believe that the standard police officer psychology has changed all that much. And I am convinced that most individuals who go into police work go into it not because of a passion for justice and righteousness, but because it’s a job that pays pretty well, has good benefits, has room for advancement, and provides opportunities for a thrill-seeker to get his or her kicks.

Remember, I’ve known plenty of police officers in a personal and casual way, and several quite well, and if you tell me that most cops don’t like the idea of high-speed pursuits and kicking doors in, we both know you’re not being honest with me.

One retired Phoenix law enforcement officer (whose name might be familiar to several of the “Anons” who regularly post comments on this blog), once told me that he thought I would have made a very good cop and asked me if I had ever considered that as a career. I told him that in fact I did briefly flirt with the idea as a teenager, but decided that I didn’t possess the hypocrisy necessary to be a cop. He just nodded knowingly. And this is one of the two aforementioned cops that I HAVE LIKED personally!

What hypocrisy? Well, for starters, lets talk about cops who, while off-duty, routinely disregard the traffic laws that they bust others for breaking while they’re on-duty. Let’s talk about Joe Cop being absolutely sh!t-faced three hours after a shift has ended and then leaving “The Big Dog Bar” and driving home as intoxicated, or more so, than the citizen whom Joe Cop arrested for drunken driving only some hours earlier!

It’s curious how many of the laws that get enforced during the day get broken by the enforcers in the night.

Also, there’s a very pronounced “Us Against Them” attitude that is prevalent on most if not all police forces. And by “Them” I don’t just mean the criminal element. Cops are very, very cliquish, some evidently believing that they are a higher sort of being than the everyday citizen they (presumably) “protect and serve”. For many of them, the outlook is “Us” (police officers) against “Them” (the civvies – including the law-abiding civilians). In fact, most cops have pet terms for the average citizen, some of the terms being somewhat demeaning.

You wrote: “As far as the person going on about the officers in LA not being around during the riots, what would you have them do? Put out officers in a mob of 100's of people who were angry about cops? … Remember that these officers have families that THEY want to go home to. … Do you think possibly it would have made an already horrible situation worse? By that I mean, the animals rioting would have turned around and gone after the officers and killed them. So what purpose would that have served? Why so the department could have said, they were brave? Not worth it!”

I essentially agree with you. I don’t believe that the cops could have quelled the majority of the rioting, but they failed to show up even where there were small pockets of rioters, where the police could have actually had a positive impact. I was living there, so I know what I’m talking about.

But even for that I’ll give them a pass. But here’s what pisses me off: If the cops are going to abandon those they claim to protect and serve, then they need to drop the whole friggin’ “tough guy” and “tough chick” routine. Give it a damn rest! We have SEEN that you won’t be there when the going gets really tough, so cut the crap and the macho persona that goes with it! Shave the mustache! (Yeah, that goes for you Chicks-In-Blue, too! Shave ‘em!)

And let’s not too hastily forget that the reason the idiot “civvies” were rioting in the streets of Los Angeles in the first place is because the police department (as happens far too often) wasn’t just satisfied with arresting Rodney King and bringing him before the judicial system. No! The police wanted to play cop, judge, jury and executioner all in one. (They’re only being paid to play ONE of those parts!)

Although the rioting was illogical, it was a direct result of cops acting like the thug they were arresting! So, the bottom line is: the cops ran and hid and abandoned the innocent citizenry they’re sworn to “protect and serve” when the rioting - which the cops were largely though indirectly responsible for - began.

The truth of the matter is (as shown every two weeks in the “Exercising The Right” Second Amendment feature of The New American magazine) that when citizens most need a cop, chances are a cop will arrive too late. (Or as the saying goes: “When every second counts, the police are only minutes away.”) The people had better take advantage of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and learn to protect themselves, because more times than not, a police officer will be on the scene after the fact and merely to write a report.

I will not forget the time I was driving in the number one lane of a two-lane road in L.A. when a motorcycle cop suddenly swerved into my lane without looking, nearly hitting the front passenger side fender of my truck. And then, after freaking out over the near accident he would have been responsible for, he pulled me over and cited ME for reckless driving.

Nor will I forget the time, maybe a little over a year ago, when about 100+ motorcycle gang members conducting a funeral procession for one of their dead buddies, commandeered a couple of the avenues here in Phoenix. These were major thoroughfares that are ordinarily cop-infested. Funny thing though – I drove for over a mile and never saw a police car in sight while that motorcycle gang had completely taken over the number 2 lane of the avenue.

I feel certain that any number of persons must have placed cell phone calls to the police informing them of the avenue takeover. But I sure didn’t see any cops responding to the situation. It was sort of like the Rodney King riots all over again, only this time in Phoenix. And once again we see that when things get REAL dicey, the cops go missing.

You began your comment with this:
“One thing the public needs to remember about police officers is that they are simply men and women doing a job that most of you would never want to or have the guts to do.”

That appeared to be a general remark, not directed specifically at me, but it is evidence of that aforementioned “Us Against Them, Tough-Guy Persona” that I told you I dislike so much and find so inappropriate.

Not to make myself out to be a Mr. Tough-Guy too, but just to respond to your opening remark, I will let you know that although the motorcycle gang was occupying only the #2 lane of the avenue and riding slowly, every automobile driver on that street was afraid to drive in the #1 lane alongside that motorcycle gang. Every single driver except one that is: Yours Truly.

I figured that as a taxpayer I had every right to occupy the empty lane on that road, and so I drove in the #1 lane, right past the motorcyclists. But I drove slowly in case one of them should suddenly decide to change lanes right on top of me, like that motorcycle cop had done to me years earlier (and cited me for).

When we got to a major intersection, one of the motorcyclists parked his bike in the middle of the road, and began directing traffic. To hell with what the traffic signal said, he stopped all traffic so the 100 or more motorcyclists could negotiate a right turn together without being delayed by the stop light and separated by other motorists.

No cops directing traffic, just a dirty motorcycle dude, who flipped me off as I ignored his hand signal to “stop” and drove right on by him.

As to whether or not I have “the guts” to be a cop, I’ll let you decide. But what I do know is that I had the guts to be in the presence of that motorcycle gang, completely unarmed, and to ignore them when they attempted to commandeer the streets and illegally direct me in traffic. The armed cops you seem to think are so “gutsy”, I didn’t see anywhere.

The Phoenix Cops: They are who we thought they were!

Yeah, I suspect I have “the guts” to be a cop. It’s the hypocrisy necessary to fit in with the Clique-In-Blue that I lack.

In the mid-1970s when I was 14 and 15, I belonged to a Police Explorer Program in another state. It’s a branch of the Boy Scouts but related to law enforcement work. Many police departments sponsor Police Explorer posts, with police officers volunteering to serve as advisors to the teenaged groups. That’s where I first became acquainted with police work and got to know a number of cops on a personal basis. It’s also where I first started my underage alcohol consumption and viewed hardcore pornographic movies. Yeah, our police officer advisors provided the beer and the porno movies on our many “camp-outs”.

Now, I will admit that I wasn’t objecting to these things at that time. But nevertheless, let those who think that all of the persons who get into police work do so because they have a high regard for our laws and societal mores and want to see law-breakers brought to justice, let them think about this some. I do not believe that my experiences in the Police Explorer Program were unique. So much for the righteousness of “law-loving” cops.

You wrote:
“Would you have our country get rid of police departments? Do you think we could police ourselves? What happens on the roadways when police aren't around? We see a lot of speeding, red light running, etc.”

I consider police departments to be a necessary evil. But I also believe there are probably better ways to organize police work. There’s no point in my expounding on this as things aren’t going to change no matter how well thought-out my views might be. I have never said that all police departments ought to be disbanded (it’s a nice little fantasy though).
Truth be told, police departments are more about generating revenue for cities, counties and states, than they are about crime prevention. To be honest, speeding and red light running don’t much bother me unless those things are responsible for causing a very specific accident or problem. Although I myself don’t run red lights, if it’s 11 PM (or even 11 AM for that matter) and there’s no traffic that would be adversely affected by it, I would have no problem with a person driving through a red light.

If I’m on some road and someone blows past me exceeding the speed limit, so what?! Unless that person drives faster than he or she can safely operate their car and causes an accident, as far as I’m concerned, no “authentic” crime has actually been committed. Let’s be forthright with each other, unless damage or inconvenience to another results from an action, what we’re really talking about here is sneaky methods of further “taxing” the citizen to pay for some overly inflated bureaucratic budget.

Frankly, one of the problems I have with the police is their excessive regard for the letter of the law while not sufficiently appreciating the spirit of the law which the letter of the law was created to merely support.

If you’re at all interested in getting a better overall impression of how I view law enforcement, read

In the above article, Sheriff Richard Mack is quoted as saying:
“I was… a by-the-numbers jerk.… We had to write tickets and lots of them. ... Is law enforcement really about public service, or public harassment?”

In another place in the above article it states:

[Sheriff Richard Mack’s] soul searching, combined with years of research, led him to the following conclusion: “I am now totally convinced that the ‘Drug War’ is a farce. It provides no benefit to the public and actually makes the drug problem worse.” This personal epiphany didn’t just stop at the issue of drug prohibition but also extended to the entire method of using law enforcement as a revenue-raising tool for government. “I got fed up with the numbers game in law enforcement and with the idea that we, the police, were here to force people to wear their seat belts and to have their papers [license, registration, insurance, inspection, etc.] in order before they could freely go about their lives.”

Anonymous, in closing I will tell you that I am a basically law-abiding citizen. The only things I am guilty of are, consistently driving about 7 miles an hour over the speed limits, and I rarely wear my automobile seat belt.

But when law-abiding citizens such as myself (and many, many others just like me) generally dislike police officers, it’s well past time that cops took a good, hard, honest, introspective look at themselves and asked why they have such a public relations image problem with so many of the law-abiding citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

If more law enforcement officers would reevaluate what they are doing and why they are doing it, and then adjusted their actions and their views of proper law enforcement to be more in line with that of former Sheriff Richard Mack, I am certain that my own views and judgments about cops would also change for the better accordingly.

~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’

And that, my two readers, gives you a good idea why anti-police remarks occasionally pop up on this blog as well as my other blog, ‘Stuffs’.

The Rodney King Beating
[Had this not been videotaped, the Thugs-With-Stinking-Badges would have gotten away with it. And some still did.]

John McKenna And His Friendly Neighborhood Cops
[Had this not been videotaped, the Thugs-With-Stinking-Badges would have gotten away with it.]

Critical Mass Bicyclist Assaulted By Cop
[Had this not been videotaped, the Thug-With-A-Stinking-Badge would have gotten away with it.]

Cop Assaults New Jersey Man For Standing On A Street Corner
[Had this not been videotaped, the Thug-With-A-Stinking-Badge would have gotten away with it. Actually, for all I know, he may have.]

Racist Cop Kicks Innocent Man In The Head. Officeress Joins In.
[And it goes on and on and on…]

Now ask yourself, how much of this crap do you suppose goes on that never gets caught on videotape?

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

T.S.A. (Totalitarian Sexual Abuse) & THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC


Commies to the Left of me
Neocons on the Right
Here I am,
Forced toward the Marxists with you
~ Frank Lee McDeere

In my June 10, 2010 blog bit titled “X-Y-Z: The Mechanix Of Amerycan Politicz” I created a basic illustration of The Hegelian Dialectic as utilized by the Republican and Democrat parties that looked like this:

On any given issue, the so-called “conservatives” (Republican Right) set up at “Z”. The liberals (Extreme Leftists) set up at “X”.

(Left) X ----------------------------------- Z (Right)

Both parties then conduct a fake fight, and after it is all over, they have compromised to position “Y”.

X --> compromise --> Y <-- compromise <-- Z

At some later date, when this issue is taken up again, the so-called “conservatives” will now be defending “Y” – the new status quo – while the Extreme Leftists will set up at position “W”.

(Left) W ---------------------------------- Y (Right)

After the second round of compromises has taken place, we will now stand at position “X”, which is, of course, where the Extreme Leftists had intended to take us in the first place. This is a “game” that is played out by BOTH political parties to the detriment of the American people.

W --> compromise --> X <-- compromise <-- Y

This was my way of showing you how the Left/Right political force is able to continually move us ever Leftward. I said “political force” – singular - because there isn’t really two political parties, but merely one party pretending to be two. The idea of two political parties seemingly engaged in mortal combat is only a dog and pony show designed to pacify the people with a (phony) “choice”.

So, that was my illustration of how The Hegelian Dialectic works in terms of poltical party opposition. In words, I expressed The Hegelian Dialectic dynamic in its most fundamental format this way:

By establishing a condition or thesis (Z), and by setting up its opposition or antithesis (X), and by proposing a resolution or synthesis (Y), any predetermined outcome can be surreptitiously stage-managed by a government in order to move the masses in the desired direction.

In other words, The Powers That Be create a crisis or allow one to manifest (Z), then they stir up opposition to it or inflame and focus on a reaction to it (X), and finally they institute a resolution that addresses the crisis in a way that satisfies the opposition or responds to the reaction and which brings into existence a new piece of legislation or a new bureaucracy or a new power over the people that couldn’t have been foisted on the masses otherwise.

This, people, is two examples of how our brilliant masters utilize The Hegelian Dialectic as a controlling and conditioning mechanism against us. In one form or the other, it occurs routinely.


My friend DiscConnected of the politically astute and humorously humorous blog Back In The USSR gave me the November 8th issue of The New American magazine (he buys ‘em and I keep ‘em – I like that arrangement) and then he told me that he was eager to know what I thought of the ‘Correction, Please!’ segment featuring an article titled “Incremental Amnesty”.

DiscConnected wasn’t entirely satisfied with the article because he felt it left a false impression that if voters go Republican rather than Democrat, the illegal immigration problem is eased. He seemed to think that the writer, William P. Hoar, may have misrepresented the issue and implied that with complete Republican control the immigration issue wouldn’t be the deplorable situation it now is, with our country overrun by illegal aliens and with the Feds suing Arizona over SB-1070, etc.

Below, in italics, is the slightly edited Email that I sent to my buddy DiscConnected after I had read the article in question. I now want to borrow this ideal scenario of The Hegelian Dialectic in order to further elucidate what I was referring to in my earlier blog bit.

DiscConnected ~
You had said that you were curious to know what I thought of it after reading the New American magazine article
“Incremental Amnesty”.

Man, I gotta tell ya, I think it was excellent!

However, I did understand what you meant in saying that you felt the article wrongly left the impression that voting Republican would change things for the better in this regard.

I don’t believe that’s REALLY the impression that The New American magazine meant to give, but by focusing exclusively on the “more illegals from Mexico means more votes for the Democrat Party” angle, that is, unfortunately, the impression that a reader who doesn’t already know that TNA rejects the false Left/Right paradigm could take away from the article.

I think the real purpose of the article was to whack the Democrats, but by focusing strictly on the current administration, the article does seem to be alluding to the idea that illegal immigration is solely a Democrat cause and you were right to call them on it.

To be sure, the Democrat Party does view illegal immigrants as an enlarging of their voter base. However, if that’s all there was to this issue, then obviously the last administration – the George W. Bush “Republican” Administration – would have done everything in its power to shut down illegal border crossing in order to prevent the Democrat Party from increasing its voter base. Right? That’s perfectly logical!

But that’s NOT what the “W” Administration did. In fact, it even incarcerated those two border patrol agents (Ramos and Compean) who had the audacity to attempt doing their jobs!

I am fully convinced that the bigger picture, when it comes to illegal immigration – and the reason BOTH parties refuse to secure our borders – is that the New World Order Cultists want to dilute as much as possible our cultural history and to thereby condition our thinking so that rather than considering ourselves a sovereign nation founded by a bunch of brilliant dead White guys who constructed a Federally limited, Constitutional form of government, we will begin to think of ourselves as “culturally diverse” and not a sovereign nation so much as a “continent” with lots of different influences acting upon it.

It’s easier to stitch together seven continents to form a global government than it is to stitch together about 195 different countries, right? (We saw this same agenda behind the formation of The European Union.)

And this would explain why BOTH parties want to leave the border porous, even if illegal immigration strengthens the voting power of one political party over the other.

However, aside from making the mistake of focusing on just one small piece of the puzzle rather than at least making mention at some point of the Bigger Picture, I thought the article was very good!

This paragraph toward the beginning really got my attention:

The [Wall Street] Journal continued: “Under the incremental scenario, the White House would embrace Republican proposals to step up immigration law enforcement and border and port security in exchange for measures such as the DREAM Act, which would give illegal immigrant children a path to citizenship through military or public service. White House officials could add an agricultural-workers program to that bill but put off dealing with the bulk of illegal immigrants until later.”

Whoa! Man, could there possibly be a better example of what I was writing about under the category X-Y-Z (Or, “The Hegelian Dialectic”) in
THIS blog bit? I mean, that’s “The Hegelian Dialectic” in full bloom!


Now, recall the infamous quote of USAP’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you didn't think you could do before.
~ Rahm Emanuel

OK, knowing that high-level Uncle Sam leadership recognizes the value of a crisis as a way of exploiting a situation and seizing the opportunity to do things it wouldn’t be able to do otherwise, ask yourself this question: Would Uncle Sam MANUFACTURE a serious crisis in order to use the opportunity to reshape the structure of America?

The answer is pretty obvious, don’t you think? If they could do it, they would do it.

Now ask yourself if it’s possible that the reason neither political party has shown any interest in securing our borders is because the crisis that an unsecure border creates might be an opportunity “to do things they didn’t think they could do before”.

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform And Control Act which granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States. At that time, Ted Kennedy stated, “We will secure the borders henceforth.” And he also promised, “We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” That’s two – count ‘em: 2 – lies that the silver spoon-fed buffoon told us. The borders were never truly secured and now legislators want to grant some form of amnesty to illegal aliens yet again.

Considering that we granted amnesty to lawbreakers in 1986, and considering that our leaders have deliberately misinterpreted the 14th Amendment to read that any child born to an illegal immigrant on American soil is automatically a full American citizen, is it any wonder that illegal aliens have continued to flock here in even greater numbers since 1986?

I believe that our immigration problem was a manufactured crisis in which both political parties participated in order to achieve the mind-set in America that I described in my Email to DiscConnected. And now we again see the political parties utilizing The Hegelian Dialectic in order to provide a pathway to citizenship (read: grant amnesty) to lawbreakers. Between that and the “Anchor Baby” law, that should keep the aliens coming in droves – which is what Uncle Sam secretly desires. The script never changes, only the cast does. The immigration crisis is but one additional stepping stone on the path to a single World Government.

[Oh, Mammy! Where do I apply for a T.S.A. Screener job? Hell, I'll gain weight, cut my hair, and paint my nails!]
Item: The TSA said people are chosen for additional screening at random and strictly for security reasons.

Item: Not all air travelers are selected for full-body scans -- the majority required only to walk through more common metal detectors. Passengers picked for body scans can opt for a pat-down instead. But once they have been randomly selected for the enhanced searches, they can't opt-out of both the scan and the pat-down. ...
“Just because you buy a plane ticket doesn't mean you have to subject yourself to awful security measures. It's not a waiver of your rights," said [Patricia] Stone, 44.
"The TSA is security theater. They're not protecting us."

Item: On the eve of one of the nation's busiest travel days, a poll has found that 61% of likely voters oppose the newly enhanced security measures at the country's airports. The poll by Zogby International of 2,032 likely voters also found that 48% said they would probably seek alternatives to flying because of the new measures.”

Item:SCREW BIG SIS”: Man Strips Down In TSA Opt-Out Protest
Item: Ron Paul: Crotch Groped By TSA, Calls For Boycott Of Airlines -- “If we tolerate this,” Congressman Ron Paul said, “there’s something wrong with us.”

Item: Full-body scanners popping up at courthouses

Now the old boy may be barely breathing
But the heart of USA, the heart of USA is still beating
Yeah! In Cleveland Hopkins International Airport
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport!
Uh! Heart of USA!

~ Mary N. Tumunny

Boy, it does my heart good to see the American people finally rising up in righteous indignation over the Transportation Security Administration’s un-Constitutional infringement of our privacy rights.

In one sense it’s pretty pathetic that it didn’t occur until the T.S.A. began implementing its “enhanced pat-down” procedures. An informed citizenry would have erupted with this same level of disgust and outrage the moment these full-body Nude-O-Vision scanners were installed in airports. My anger was expressed immediately! I didn’t need to wait until these T.S.A. thugs began their “hand jive”, or “five-digit security clearance measures” before I went ballistic and started boycotting. I know when my Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled! (See my July 17th blog bit, “Drawing The Line For Uncle Sam”.)

But considering how uninformed and uninspired most Americans are, I suppose I should just be grateful that something – anything – was able to rouse them from their deep, apathetic slumbering. It shouldn’t have taken the T.S.A.’s T.S.A. (Totalitarian Sexual Abuse) to awaken the Americonned people – they should have risen up in righteous indignation months ago. But, heck, I’m just grateful that there’s still even an irregular murmur of a heartbeat in the American body that the T.S.A. Chief son-of-a-gun John Pistole was able to shock back into regularity.

I know a cat named Way-Out Johnny
Got a masculine chick named Homeland Janie
He can walk and stroll and screw with you
And do that crazy hand jive, too
Mama, mama, look at T.S.A.
Doing the hand jive with sister Mae
Grandma gave baby sister a dime
She go’n get hand jive one mo’ time
Hand jive
Hand jive
Hand jive
Do that crazy hand jive
~ Bill Bord

I have stated previously on this blog that once a person understands Uncle Sam’s endgame and the way The Hegelian Dialectic is utilized, it is sometimes possible to predict in advance changes in the political landscape.

Let me give you an example. I am NOT saying that I’m convinced this is how things will play out; I’m merely speculating - making an educated guess - about how this COULD possibly end up. Of course, there are other routes that might be selected by the New World Order Cultists, but you can be certain of one thing: our masters WILL find some way to use this crisis, this uprising of the Americonned people in a way that further promotes the New World Order agenda.

It’s certainly possible that the T.S.A. (following Council on Foreign Relations member Janet Napolitano’s instructions) suddenly implemented this new “enhanced pat-down” security measure (“Z”) in a deliberate attempt to anger the Americonned people enough (“X”) to accept some resolution that will be proposed in due time (“Y”). We might well be seeing the utilization of The Hegelian Dialectic in a “manufactured crisis” developing right before our eyes.

Here is an idea that has occurred to me as I have watched this story unfolding daily:

In May of 2005, the ‘Real ID Act’ was passed. This new Federal law demanded that all states begin issuing driver’s licenses and identification cards that conform to Department of Homeland Security guidelines and could be linked to a Federal database. In actuality, the Feds were requiring the states to participate in the creation of a National I.D. card. This was undoubtedly a step toward Biometric identification and greater control of the people.

It’s not a stretch to imagine that biometric identification cards would have been but one more step toward the eventual computer-chipping of citizens (and my more Biblically-informed readers will recognize that this would have likely been synonymous with “the mark of the beast”).

But a funny thing happened on the way to Federal tyranny: Some states rebelled, primarily due to the cost of conforming to the Federal demands. With little choice available to them, the Feds pushed back the deadline date for the states to come under compliance of the ‘Real ID Act’ to December of 2009. But as even more states began to rebel and to pass legislation at the state level essentially “nullifying” the Fed’s ‘Real ID Act’, the Feds dropped the issue -- for now. Although the law is still on the books, Uncle Sam and Aunt Janet have chosen not to enforce this tyrannical law. (After all, what were they going to do? Bring back our troops from the Middle East and order them to take up arms against the rebelling states?)

The recent outrage against the T.S.A.’s full-body scanning and enhanced pat-downs was not just an airline customer issue. Many commercial pilots also began to loudly protest this invasion of privacy. How did the T.S.A. respond to pilot protest? Here’s how:

Item: Pilots and flight attendants had been calling on the TSA to revise its “enhanced security screening” for crew, arguing that since they already go through extensive security checks, they should not have to go through new full-body scanners or be subjected to pat-downs (ATW Daily News, Nov. 16).

TSA Administrator John Pistole on Friday told Bloomberg’s “In Business” that its decision recognizes the “trusted position and relationship that the pilots have in charge of the aircraft,” and noted that pilots will now go through an “alternative, identity-based screening as opposed to the physical screening.” Pistole explained this means pilots will present an airline ID, with a positive validation, at the checkpoint.” By doing that, he said, it will “eliminate the need for additional physical screening” and enable TSA “to provide the focus on those who may be a possible risk.”

This got me to thinking . . . if airline passenger protests continue to mount, what if the T.S.A. at some point down the road made a similar agreement with airline customers? What if Janet Napolitano and her Homeland Security Goon Squad proposed the idea that Americans with biometric identification cards conforming to Homeland Security guidelines could avoid the full-body scanning Nude-O-Vision machines and the T.S.A. “Hand Jive”? That is, with a biometric National ID card and a clean personal history, you, the customer, would in a sense also be able to take advantage of an “alternative, identity-based screening as opposed to the physical screening” just as the pilots do.

Or to put it another way: It is well within the realm of possibility that the true purpose of the new T.S.A. procedures is to ignite our ire enough that we will eagerly accept, as a replacement, a yet to be proposed “compromise” resulting in the fulfillment of Uncle Sam’s and Aunt Janet’s National Identification Card agenda.

This is one way that the Feds might be able to get the states to acquiesce to the ‘Real ID Act’ which the states have, up until now, rebelled against and essentially “nullified”.

I repeat, I am not saying that I am convinced this is how this situation will eventually be used by The Feds in order to gain what they want (i.e., greater control and surveillance of the American people), but I do offer it as a very real, logical possibility. This may or may not be an accurate prediction of the denouement to this whole sordid affair, but I offer it as an example of how an informed person can analyze political events and an explanation for why it is possible for a person to sometimes accurately predict future political moves. All it takes is an awareness of the endgame and the imagination to conceive of how The Hegelian Dialectic might be employed to manipulate us, step-by-step, toward the “New World Order” and the checkmate trap that awaits us.

I leave you with the following passages from 1) The Constitution of the United States of America, and 2) The Heritage Guide To The Constitution:

1) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
~ The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

2) In the case with which the Framers of the Constitution would have been most familiar, James Otis defended several colonial smugglers against seizures made through the use of “writs of assistance”, which permitted the customs agents to search any place in which smuggled goods might be concealed, even if there was no particular suspicion the goods were there. Though Otis lost the case, no less an authority than John Adams saw the dispute as the spark of the American Revolution: “Then and there was the child ‘Independence’ born.”
~ The Heritage Guide To The Constitution; page 324

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
D-FensDogg of the 'Loyal American Underground'

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Sunday, November 14, 2010


"[Senator Joseph] McCarthy is a former Marine. He was an amateur boxer. He's Irish. Combine those and you're going to have a vigorous individual, who won't be pushed around. ... Certainly, he is a controversial man. He is earnest and he is honest. He has enemies. Whenever you attack subversives of any kind, ... you are going to be the victim of the most extremely vicious criticism that can be made".
~ FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover

On November 14th, 1908, in Grand Chute township, outside the city of Appleton in upstate Wisconsin, future Senator of the United States of America, Joseph R. McCarthy was born.

In other words, today is his birthday.

But since I am currently somewhat too intoxicated to compose a blog bit about it... I am going to postpone this blog bit until tomorrow. Return tomorrow when you will hear me say: "Consarn it all! Who turned the lights out on me?"

NOVEMBER 15, 2010:

Consarn it all! Who turned the lights out on me?

Wow! So that's what people mean when they say “drunk as a skunk”, eh? OK, I got it now.

Sheesh! That stuff’ll really sneak up on ya, huh? That was like suddenly getting whacked in the back of the head with a bag of wine ‘n’ whiskey bottles and one 24 ounce can of Coors beer!

I’m just genuinely thankful to God that I was sober enough to realize how drunk I was so that I quit while I was still slightly ahead. That coulda gone very badly.

I suppose I could have returned here today and said that I was merely “jesticulating” last night and wasn’t really intoxicated at all, but I see no reason to lie about it when I can just as easily pin it on Andy Anderson and say that it was all his fault for killing himself.

Alright then, let me see if I can’t finish this fight that I started last night just before everything went dark on me.


[In grade school I was taught that one ought never begin an essay with the word “I”, but being as big a “maverick” as was Senator Joseph McCarthy, I begin this blog bit with...]

I can scarcely believe what little curiosity the two regular readers of my blog have. Prior to August, 2010, the “signature block” I used for most of my blog comments was:

~ Stephen
"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
so a fool repeats his folly."

~ Proverbs 26:11

But after August of 2010, I began signing off on most of my blog comments with:

~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’

Not one of my friends and loyal “Followers” ever bothered to ask me: “What does ‘D-FensDogg’ and ‘Loyal American Underground’ mean?”

Well, I’m about to answer the question that none of you non-curiosity-havin’ readers never asked. -- [Hmmm...? What did he say? What language was that?]


OK, so what happened last August that inspired me to change my blog comment “signature block”? I read the excellent and extremely important book ‘TAKEN INTO CUSTODY: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, And The Family’ by Stephen Baskerville, PhD. This is a book that I urge all people concerned about the American family unit and the preservation of Constitutional rights to read... and soon!

While reading this book last August I came across the following passage on page 250:

“Recall that in the original Angry White Male movie, Falling Down, it was partly a restraining order preventing him from seeing his little girl that launched the Michael Douglas character on his slash-and-burn rampage through downtown Los Angeles,” writes Kate Zernike. “Many divorced father’s groups are about as subtle.”


Ah, yes, ‘Falling Down’ – that movie hadn’t crossed my mind for many years. I saw it in a movie theatre when it was released in 1993. From what I was able to recall of it, I judged it a very flawed movie that pretty much fell completely apart beginning with the scene when William Foster (Michael Douglas), the unemployed defense worker, encounters Nick, the neo-Nazi Army surplus store owner.

But the one scene that still stood out in my mind was where Foster comes across the city workers tearing up a street and inconveniencing everyone solely in order to spend money so as to maintain the size of their department's budget the following year. I nearly cheered out loud in the theatre during that scene because, as a Los Angeleno, I saw that exact thing happening ALL THE FREAKIN’ TIME! Heck, the department I worked for at UCLA used to do it too!

Later in ’93, I moved to Prescott, Airheadzona, and I remember telling my co-worker buddy “Big D” about that scene and how much the movie ‘Falling Down’ truly captured life in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

So, after reading ‘Taken Into Custody’, I put the movie ‘Falling Down’ in my Netflix queue and saw it shortly thereafter. I was knocked out! Yes, I still thought the scene with the neo-Nazi was over-the-top ridiculous, however, contrary to how I remembered things, the movie did NOT fall completely apart after that scene, and in fact, my opinion of the entire movie has completely turned around! Overall, I think it is a great movie and I immediately purchased a copy of it on DVD!

If for no other reason, ‘Falling Down’ should be seen by everyone for two scenes in particular: 1) The aforementioned bit when Foster encounters the city street maintenance crew, and 2) the scene when Foster encounters the socially “superior” country club golfer. Ha! I now rate ‘Falling Down’ amongst my favorite movies, but those two scenes alone are worth the price of admission!

The movie did slightly weasel out on the full strength of the statement that it might have made by showing William Foster to have a somewhat short-fuse temper, but considering the politically correct atmosphere of Hollywood, it’s actually rather amazing that ‘Falling Down’ ever got made at all!

And it was interesting to see the movie so soon after having read 2007’s ‘Taken Into Custody’ because it was apparent that as far back as 1993, the ‘Falling Down’ screenplay was on the cutting edge of family matters in America. In his book, Stephen Baskerville focuses on how divorced women are usually granted sole custody of their children and can control and dictate the “visiting rights” of the father even when there is no history of violence on the part of the male. This is highlighted in ‘Falling Down’ even to the point of a police officer’s skepticism when Foster’s ex-wife implies that he “could” “potentially” be violent, even though he had never inflicted physical violence on his wife or child.

Baskerville also mentions in his book that some researchers are convinced that murder by a mother’s deliberate “smothering” accounts for a significant amount of what commonly gets labeled “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS). This seems to be alluded to toward the very end of ‘Falling Down’, in a discussion between Foster and Detective Prendergast (Robert Duvall).

William Foster’s personalized license plate, which assists Detective Prendergast in his effort to identify and track down Foster, is “D-FENS”. And that’s how I came by the nickname “D-FensDogg”. The “Dogg” part is primarily a tribute to my old buddy A-DogG, but also an attempt to say it loud: “I’m Black and I’m proud!”
I suppose one might say that "D-FensDogg" is just another way of saying "Watchdog". And that's how I think of myself - as a watchdog who signals the alert when he sees our liberty and the American way of life being destroyed.

Now, I’m not saying, of course, that everyone ought to take the law into their own hands like William “D-Fens” Foster did. Am I? Well, no, I don’t believe I am. But, I’m just sayin’ . . .


Now, as for the ‘Loyal American Underground’ part, what you need to know is that during Senator Joe McCarthy’s heyday, when he was tracking down communists that had infiltrated the United States government and was scaring allah’s unholy trousers off the Democrat and Republican Establishment because he was a maverick and a loose cannon who was sure to eventually blow the lid off the whole “New World Order” agenda if he wasn’t stopped, there was a small group of informants and whistleblowers within the International Information Administration (I.I.A.) who secretly apprised McCarthy of facts that the Elite “New World Order” folks wanted to keep under wraps. [Was that a run-on sentence?] In other words, this accounted for some of the “leaks” by which McCarthy was able to acquire suppressed information about subversives within our government, and these genuinely patriotic whistleblowers who assisted Senator McCarthy called themselves “The Loyal American Underground”.


I really like that! I like the whole idea of patriots referring to themselves as a “Loyal American Underground” (LAU). And so I decided to resurrect that name and apply it to myself and all other true American Constitutionalists who wish to see our nation returned to the principles that our Founding Fathers worked so hard and intelligently to establish for us.


And you, my ferret-faced fascist friends, are riding with me! Give me liberty or give me death! One if by land, two if by sea! Four score and seven years ago! There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root! They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety! The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let it enforce it! In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem! The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants! I am not a vigilante; I am just trying to get home to my little girl's birthday party and if everyone will just stay out of my way, nobody will get hurt!

OK, OK, so I got a little carried away. But didja like that last one? Those were the words of William “D-Fens” Foster. Ride on, my ferret-faced Loyal American Underground

dot-compatriots, ride on!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
‘Loyal American Underground’

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.