Monday, December 26, 2011



Doggs & Doggettes ~

Christmas 2011 ended here in Phoenix, Arizona, a little over an hour ago. For a number of reasons – which I could explain in excruciating detail, but which I’m sure you’re not the least bit interested in – Bobby Darin’s song ‘Christmas Auld Lang Syne’ makes me think of my dear departed Ma, who returned to her Creator in the Summer of 2005.

Darin recorded this song on August 18, 1960, exactly one year and ten days after my birth, and it did not do very well on the Billboard music charts. Nevertheless, it has become my custom to close every Christmas Day by listening to it.

For a number of years, it has also been a tradition of mine to remove all of my outdoor Christmas decorations on December 26th (my Brother’s birthday), to send the message that what I have been celebrating is not Happy Holidays or Winter Solstice or Winter Wonder or Season’s Greetings or Frosty’s Fruitopia or any other euphemism for “The Birth Of Jesus Christ”.

My lights and decorations were meant as a symbol of Christ’s birth. And after December 25th, the Birthday Party has come and gone, and my celebration has ended.

But, I fear I have gotten a bit sidetracked, as I often do.

What I really meant to say here is that Bobby Darin’s song, ‘Christmas Auld Lang Syne’, is a window into my soul. Not that anyone will or should care to know.

Every Christmas ends with me honoring my Mother by playing Darin’s Christmas song and acknowledging that, indeed, "there’s a sadness in the heart of things".

Bobby Darin - Christmas Auld Lang Syne
(lyrics and slideshow + good quality)

~ 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.

Friday, December 23, 2011


"CAMERA . . . ROLLING! And . . . ACTION!"

I was putting up Christmas decorations, thinking about something my friend Arlee Bird of the “Tossing It Out” blog had said, and-- uhm...


[An Off-Camera Aside: Recalling what I had been taught in school as a young whippersnapper (whatever’n hell a “whippersnapper” is!), I used to assiduously avoid starting any written piece with “I”. But then as I got older, I came to realize that some of the classic and most influential written pieces in history began with the word “I”. For example: ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Henry David Thoreau, and ‘On The Road’ by Jack Kerouac both begin with “I”. So I decided that nonsense about NEVER starting any written piece with “I” was just more of that bolshevik that they crammed into my brain when I was a captive of Uncle Sam’s federal indoctrination centers, also known as “public schools”.]

"Alright, TAKE TWO.  CAMERA . . . ROLLING! And . . . ACTION!"

I was putting up Christmas decorations, thinking about something my friend Arlee Bird of the “Tossing It Out” blog had said, and I was drinking this good beer that I’d just discovered from the Lagunitas Brewing Company in Petaluma, California. What Arlee Bird had said was-- . . . hmmm...


[Another Off-Camera Aside: In case you’re interested, the beer in question is called “New DogTown Pale Ale” and it has a rich, robust bitter hop bite right upfront, but it has a nice, clean, soft finish, without all that heavy aftertaste that normally hangs around in your mouth after the sip of a potently hopped-up brew has gone down the pipe.]


I was putting up Christmas decorations, thinking about something my friend Arlee Bird of the “Tossing It Out” blog had said, and I was drinking this good beer I’d just discovered from the Lagunitas Brewing Company in Petaluma, California. What Arlee Bird had said was this:

"I listen to [radio station KFI] in the early morning then shut it off when loud-mouth Limbaugh comes on."

It being Christmas time, I then made the mental association between Rush Limbaugh (or “Limboob”, as I often call him) and the “big blow-hard” Bumble Monster from the TV special ‘Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer’. And I remembered what the wannabe dentist Herbie (or, Hermie) said about the Bumble Monster after he had defanged him:

“Don’t let this big blow-hard scare you anymore.
Just walk right past him!”

To which Yukon Cornelius added:

“…He’s nothing without his choppers. Let me at him!”

And that’s when I got the idea to create this LOL at the
‘I Can Has Cheezburger’ website:

Awhile back, blow-hard bumble monster Rush Limboob said, “This Ron Paul is going to destroy this [Republican] party...”

To which I say: “From Limboob’s lips to God’s ears!”

"CUT! . . . PRINT . . . THAT'S A WRAP!"

~ 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.

Monday, December 19, 2011


It was in December, probably 1987 or ’88. I was at work in one of the offices of UCLA’s Parking Department, when two of my best friends there, Lonnie and The Countess, broke out in song. They began singing . . .

Thank you very much, thank you very much! That’s the nicest thing that anyone’s ever done for me . . .

When the singing finally came to an end, I asked them, “Where did you hear that song?” Their mouths hung open for a minute or two and they looked at me as if I had lobsters crawling out of my ears.

And then at once they both shouted (as if I were hard of hearing because of the lobsters), “SCROOGE!”

And that’s how I first learned there was a 1970 movie musical called ‘SCROOGE’, based on Dickens’ famous ‘A Christmas Carol’.

Yes, SCROOGE is a musical.

Now look here, I’m a “dude”, as in, “guy”. If you don’t believe me, you can ask my friend The Flyin’ Aardvark. Exactly one week ago, after I had made a rude remark, she wrote this to me: Ahem. ... You are such a GUY! Ha!

I was on my high school’s sophomore football team. I was on my high school’s varsity wrestling team. I NEVER cry (where anyone else can see it) and I DO NOT like musicals!

Well, except for Roy Rogers oaters.

And ‘Singin’ In The Rain’.

And ‘My Fair Lady’.

(Alright, I also like 'Guys And Dolls', 'Bells Are Ringing', and ‘The Sound Of Music’, but so help me, if you ever tell that to anyone, I – will – hunt - you - down - and - KILL - you! Twice!)

Therefore, I was predisposed to dislike SCROOGE. But I saw it anyway. With The Countess. I told her, “If it’s a musical, I won’t like it.” And I was right because... I LOVE it! It is by far my favorite filmed version of 'A Christmas Carol'. And, yes, I've seen the vast majority of them.

How good is this movie? Well, ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ and ‘Scrooge’ are both on my Top Ten favorite movies list. No, NO, NO! I do not mean “Top Ten favorite Christmas movies list”. I mean Top Ten list PERIOD!

In fact, I’m not sure which of those Christmas movies I love most. It pretty much depends upon which one I’m watching at the moment.

SCROOGE stars Albert Finney and was filmed in England with an all Great Britain cast. For those who know anything at all about acting, that means the acting is way, Way, WAY friggin’ better than what you will find in most American movies!

The direction is fantabulous, the sets are spectacular, the cinematography is delicious, and the music is so addictive it should be considered a controlled substance. For such an old movie, even the special effects are still pretty good.

Two of my all-time favorite quotations come from the movie SCROOGE:

Mankind should be our business, but we seldom attend to it.
~ Jacob Marley

There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish; the thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember, …time is short, and suddenly you're not there anymore.
~ The Ghost Of Christmas Present

I have only one negative remark to make about SCROOGE: There is one song in the score, sung by Tiny Tim, that is so high-pitched, stepped-on-a-cat’s-tail awful that I fast-forward through it every other year.

[Note: I watch my four favorite Christmas movies only every other year, so they don’t cease delivering to me the emotional impact I watch them for. This year, it’s the “modern” classics – ‘Scrooge’ and ‘A Christmas Story’ – next year it will be the old school classics – “It’s A Wonderful Life’ and ‘Miracle On 34th Street’.]

But even that awful song by Tiny Tim has become a part of the Christmas tradition that I share with my brother, Nappy. Every other year, we TRADITIONALLY fast-forward through it!

There’s a part in SCROOGE where - in anticipation of the second ghost’s appearance, and temporarily feeling bold and brave – Ebenezer yells out, “I’m ready for you!”

Well, this year, just as Tiny Tim’s dreadful song was about to be sung, I raised the DVD gizmo, my finger on the fast-forward button, and I yelled out, “I’m ready for you, Tiny Tim!”

Nappy and I both laughed. Yeah, you can make a “Christmas tradition” out of just about anything.

If you’re having trouble finding “The Christmas Spirit” this year – as it seems many people are – then you need to watch SCROOGE.

Here’s a link to about ten minutes of this wonderful life movie! (This is a future Christmas, in which Ebenezer has died, and the people indebted to him are joyfully singing "Thank you very much!")

Scrooge the Musical (1970) Part 9

See it mo’ bigger at YouTube by clicking here:

[Note: In actuality, the movie’s visuals are not as dark as they appear in this video.]

Dog God bless us, every one!
~ TinyTim @Dyslexia.moc

~ 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.

Monday, December 5, 2011


Everytime I see an image of Newt Gingrich I can’t help thinking immediately that he looks like a big fat toad.

And that’s not too far from the truth either. Being a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)[see the link below] – Newt is indeed a toady or a lap dog for ‘The Establishment’, that International Banker-controlled power behind the scenes that is instrumental in setting the policies for both major political parties in this country.

Below is a copy of the Email I received this morning from the ‘RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT’ campaign people. It tells you all you need to know in order to determine that a vote for Newt is a vote for 'the road always taken' :

Dear Stephen,

I am going to describe a candidate for you right now, and I want you to think about whether or not you would support him.

This candidate was for the individual mandate that served as the model for "ObamaCare." He was originally for the TARP bank bailouts before he was against them. He joined with Nancy Pelosi to promote the anti-business "global warming" agenda.

He slammed Paul Ryan's budget plan as "extreme," calling it "right wing social engineering."

You might think I am talking about Mitt Romney. Heck, you might think I'm talking about a liberal Democrat. But I'm not.

That candidate I'm talking about is Newt Gingrich. He is what I like to call a "counterfeit conservative."

And I have barely even scratched the surface!

My campaign team has put together a great video that tells you more about Gingrich and his liberal positions over the years. It tells you how he flip-flopped on a host of important issues.

And it shows, despite his claims, he is simply not a conservative.

You can take a look at the video HERE, which has spread like wildfire across the web, as it's received almost 600,000 views.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

You might have seen recently that Mr. Gingrich traded on his former political office to land a $1.8 million lobbying contract with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why is this so disturbing?

Because while these out-of-control federal agencies were ruining the housing market and causing millions of homeowners to lose their homes and life savings, Newt Gingrich was earning millions advising them.

At that same exact time, I was publicly declaring they needed to be stopped before they ruined the economy.

I guess Newt Gingrich and I have a different idea of what to do with federal bureaucracies. I fight to rein them in and shut them down before they can do harm. He pads his personal bank account while they wreck our economy.

While I was fighting environmental extremists, the out-of-control EPA, and the Soros-funded green movement, Newt Gingrich was filming commercials with Nancy Pelosi.

While I was fighting government bailouts, Newt was saying he would have voted FOR them.

Don't be fooled by the words candidates use when they are running for office. Look hard at their records. My record is one of true limited government, anti-Washington, D.C. conservatism.

Newt Gingrich has a long record of liberal appeasement, flip-flopping on key issues, and lobbying for insider millions.

Millions. That's right. Remember the individual mandate I mentioned earlier that Newt supported? His healthcare group received nearly $40 MILLION in contributions from the healthcare industry.

I have rarely seen a candidate who represents so much of what is wrong with Washington and what is wrong with our political system.

We can and must demand better.

We must demand REAL conservative values. We must demand a person who puts faith, family, and freedom ahead of all else. And we must demand a candidate who has remained true to principle his entire career.

I believe I am that candidate, and I ask you to take a look at my Plan to Restore America ...

You can tell I mean every word in it -- just as I've meant every word I have said in public life. And that's something that everyone will admit, whether they agree with all of my positions or not.

With me, what you see and hear is what you get. Wouldn't that be a nice change?

I am the only true conservative in the top tier of candidates running for the GOP nomination. And I ask for your support.

Together, we can stop the counterfeit conservatives AND the liberals in the White House. We can take back and Restore America Now.

For Liberty,
Ron Paul

P.S. Whether it's flip-flopping on TARP, supporting the individual mandate that served as a model for "ObamaCare," joining with Nancy Pelosi in support of the global-warming crowd's radical agenda, or making millions off of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they helped destroy our economy, Newt Gingrich is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

He's what I call a "counterfeit conservative."
. . .
The Iowa caucuses are less than 1 month away. So please click here to make your most generous contribution so my campaign has the resources necessary to blitz the airwaves in Iowa with the message of Newt Gingrich's serial hypocrisy.

Also, VizFact’s Video Blog recently made aware of a couple other pro-Ron Paul videos that are brief but well worth watching. Here they are:

Blacks for Ron Paul 2012

Democrats Leaving Party to Vote for Ron Paul

Newt Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) . What’s that? Glad you asked . . .

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) : Conspiracy? Nah, Coincidence.

~ 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.

Thursday, November 17, 2011


Dear Loose Doggs & Doggettes of the ‘Loyal American Underground’ ~

Are some state leaders truly (finally!) waking up to the crimes of the “Undocumented Socialist Acting as President”? Let us hope and spread the news . . .

Below is just a few brief excerpts of an article appearing on the World Net Daily website. You can read it in its entirety by clicking HERE.


Hearing Friday As State Lawmakers Also Probe President's Eligibility

Posted: November 16, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

A hearing, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, is scheduled before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz that alleges Barack Obama has used fraudulent documents and a fraudulent Social Security number.

The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building, and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.

[Lawyer Orly Taitz]
. . .
Further, "The most staggering evidence is Mr. Obama's lack of a valid Social Security number and his use of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from the state of Connecticut, a state where he never resided, which was never assigned to Obama, according to E-Verify," the complaint states.

It alleges not only is the Obama birth documentation a modern printout, there are numerous experts who attest it is fraudulent.

~ 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.

Sunday, November 13, 2011


 Following is a single-question “Pass” or “Fail” test.

When you enter your polling place, accept your ballot and step into your booth or up to your partitioned cubicle to record your 2012 Presidential Republican Primary vote, you are being asked to mark the box that indicates . . .

[ ] 1: The candidate that the mainstream media claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 2: The candidate that Fox News claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 3: The candidate that the NeoConservative voices on the talk radio station you listen to claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 4: The candidate that the Democrat or Libertarian party claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 5: The candidate your Mommy, Daddy, Husband, Wife, Boyfriend, or Girlfriend claims has the best chace of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 6: The candidate that the most recent polling figures claim has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 7: The candidate that YOU believe has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 8: None of the above.


If you checked number eight you answered the question correctly. If you marked any box other than number eight you have failed this test.

When you vote in the 2012 Presidential Primary election, you are being asked one very simple question, and yet it’s amazing how election after election so many voters get confused and waste their vote.

The only question you are being asked to answer on your ballot is this:

“Which presidential candidate would YOU most like to see occupying the White House for the next four years?”

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. You’re not being asked to speculate on anything; you’re not being asked to display your political prognosticating skills or your psychic prowess; you’re not being asked to answer any question that you are not immediately fully equipped, prepared, and informed enough to answer.

You are being asked one simple question that you and you alone, in the entire world, are uniquely able to answer:

“Which presidential candidate would YOU most like to see occupying the White House for the next four years?”


In the 2008 presidential election, many registered Republicans voted for a candidate they didn’t really want – John McCain – but they voted for him because they had been convinced that he was the only Republican candidate who had a chance of beating the Democrat. And in the end, McCain lost by a very large electoral college margin to Barack Obama. My candidate – Ron Paul – didn’t beat Obama either. So, did I ultimately waste my vote more than the others wasted theirs?

My vote did not lead to victory but it did lead to peace of mind, knowing that when push came to shove, I gave my one vote to the candidate I believed was the best person for the job.

If you voted unenthusiastically for John McCain, with a “lesser of two evils” mind-set, then your vote was wasted even more than my vote was wasted because not only did your vote not lead to victory but it did not lead to peace of mind either.

We both lost, but I cast my vote “honestly” – with no intellectual compromising - for the one man I genuinely wanted to see in the White House. You compromised your vote and won neither the election or the good feeling that comes with knowing that you truthfully did the very best you could for your candidate.

One hundred out of one hundred times I’ll take a loss with no compromising of the integrity of my vote over a loss WITH compromised integrity.

Regardless of what the talking heads and the polls claim, if you think the best man for the job is Ron Paul, you should vote for Ron Paul. Period. If you think the best man for the job is a woman, then you should vote for Michele Bachmann, etc. Cast only honest votes, my friends.

In 2008, nearly every voter I personally spoke with said they wanted Ron Paul to win the election. But when it came time to actually cast their ballots, most of them voted for McCain because they had been convinced by the media that he was the only one who had a chance to win the general election.

But I can’t help thinking that if everyone who said they most wanted Ron Paul had simply voted for Ron Paul regardless of the unfounded “rumors” that he couldn’t win, Ron Paul might really be residing in the White House this very day.


Here’s the Loop:

International Bankers and major Corporation Leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in America – neither wants to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs.

The controlling entities of most major corporations are in fact International Bankers and other very wealthy individuals.

Mainstream media organs are major corporations.

The controlling entities of most major corporations (i.e., including manstream media organs) are in fact International Bankers and other very wealthy individuals.

International Bankers and major Corporation Leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in America – neither wants to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs.


OK, you see what I did there? That little display of “here we go ‘round the mulberry bush” illustrates why the talking heads of the mainstream media (which absolutely includes so-called “conservative” talk radio and Fox News) attempt at every turn to sway your vote by repeatedly telling you in overt and subtle ways “who has a chance to win the upcoming election”.

If you watch or listen to political programs, you are being constantly conditioned to vote a certain way by dogmatists and propagandists representing International Bankers and Corporations. There are approved candidates and unapproved candidates, and it is the job of these media mercenaries to influence you to vote for the candidates that have been approved by the Bankers and/or Corporation Leaders.

The Bankers and/or Corporation Leaders want to make certain no person reaches the White House who might throw a monkey wrench into their money and power-making machines; they NEED you to vote into office a candidate who is secretly in bed with them, or whom they feel, at the very least, they can ultimately control.

A real “rogue” candidate (e.g., of the Ron Paul variety, not the Sarah Palin variety) is the last person the Bankers and major Corporation Leaders want to see reaching the White House.

Most political shows, debates, and polls are controlled and manipulated by these powerful people to influence the way you will vote. When it gets down to the point where you are voting for the lesser of two evils, they have already won and couldn’t care less which of them you vote for because they “own” both candidates.

But, if you could actually propel with your primary election vote a genuine Constitutional patriot/free market economist into the general election, you could, for the first time since Grover Cleveland was in the White House, experience real change – and I mean real “good” change!

Here is one fine example of how “they” – the plain and fancy “they” – have slipped it into the minds of voters that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote:

Please feel free to copy and paste this blog bit or a link to it all over the Internet, and Email it to your family and friends.

And please vote “RON PAUL” in 2012. 


Why I Would Never Vote For These 2012 Presidential Candidates…

You Just Don't Know How Much That Hurts Me!

Are You A Member Of The “Republocrat” Party?

~ 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.

Saturday, November 12, 2011


Ron Paul’s speeches and voting record after about 21 years as a Congressman have been so consistent with what is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution that for someone to say they do not support Doctor Paul it is synonymous with saying, “I do not support the Constitution”.

Do you think that is hyperbole? If so, then I challenge you to tell me one political act or piece of legislation that you do or do not agree with, in which your position is in opposition to Congressman Paul’s view on the matter, and the Constitution explicitly supports your view rather than his. Go ahead. Just one.
~ Judge Yoey O’Dogherty
Superior Court Justice from the great State of Clarity

The August 22, 2011 edition of The New American magazine included a section titled “GOP Candidates’ Credentials” in which they examined each candidate’s political history and platform in some detail. [Also available online: GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials]

I have said it loud and proud . . . I support RON PAUL For President In 2012! I voted for him in 2008 and will surely vote for him again in the upcoming Republican primary.

I have copied and pasted below (in italicized red text) some snippets of information found in the aforementioned ‘New American’ profiles which illustrate points of contention I have with all of the candidates not named “Ron Paul” in the GOP presidential race.

Although these are not necessarily the ONLY reasons I would not vote for these candidates, these facts alone make voting for them an impossibility for me. To read the entire profile for each candidate, rather than just these few excerpts, click on the article link at the bottom of this blog bit.

[Be Forewarned: Although the information below I take very seriously, I am going to have a bit o’ sport with the accompanying photos. Please understand that I don’t mean to insult anyone. That is to say, I don’t mean to insult anyone other than these candidates and the people who will foolishly vote for them.]


[Michele Bachmann comes prepared to play
with the big boys!]

In January 2010, Michele Bachmann wrote an installment for the blog in which she argued against the effectiveness of “stimulus” money in turning around our economy. While I don’t have any issue with her stance on that subject, it’s her byline at that gives me the willies! Townhall is a NeoConservative media organ as evidenced by its constant praise and promotion from NeoCon guru Hugh Hewitt.

Like Sarah Palin, Bachmann is a genuine “social conservative” and I applaud her for that, but . . .

Her voting record on key issues scored in this magazine’s first “Freedom Index” for the new Congress shows her with a 90-percent ranking, having voted “right” on nine out of 10 issues, ranging from repealing ObamaCare to defunding Planned Parenthood to ending American military action in Libya.

The one exception was her vote to extend provisions of the PATRIOT Act that authorize federal authorities to listen to suspects’ telephone conversations without specifying what they’re looking for and to seize personal papers, records, and “any tangible thing” that may be relevant to an investigation. (Over her congressional career, her cumulative Freedom Index score is 81 percent.)

While she voted for the Libyan withdrawal, Bachmann has supported the ongoing war in Iraq, arguing in a debate over President Bush’s troop surge in 2007 that the “radical Islamists” can only defeat us “if they crumple the resolve of America to fight and to win this war.” In June of this year, Bachmann argued against the drawdown of the surge troops in Afghanistan, even though this year’s reduction would still leave more U.S. forces there than when Obama came into office.

Last November Bachmann spoke at a symposium hosted by Freedom Watch, a lobbying group that supported the Iraq War and now calls for “western intervention to remove this dangerous Islamic regime” in Iran. While Bachmann did not explicitly call for military action against Iran, she spoke of “the need to do more than the simple engagement strategy of talking.” In a guest blog on the Heritage Foundation website this year, Bachmann argued against any reductions in the overall defense budget.


[Herman "Munster" Cain]

Oops. Sorry. Wrong photo . . . although the mix-up was certainly understandable. Here’s the correct photo:

[Herman "Munster" Cain]

I’m not even going to address all these recent sexual harrassment allegations against Herman Munster because I don’t know what’s true and what’s not, and besides that, there are plenty enough political/economic reasons not to vote for Cain without even delving into questionable personal affairs.

Until recently, Herman Cain was a largely unknown businessman whose major claims to fame included a high-level appointment in the Federal Reserve System

On top of his advocacy on behalf of the Fed as an institution, Cain has also expressed opposition even to a congressional audit of the Fed that would allow Congress and the American people to find out what exactly is going on at the central bank. He suggested contacting one of the Fed’s “PR people” if Americans wanted answers. Making matters worse for supporters of the growing anti-Fed movement, Cain said an audit was “not necessary” and that calls for government oversight were simply the product of ignorance.

In recent years and months, a great deal of secret information about the Fed has become public. The institution was, for example, clandestinely bailing out foreign banks — including one owned by the Libyan dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi — with trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, it was manipulating the markets for stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, and more.

In addition to central monetary planning, Cain has also been an ardent supporter of various bailouts, especially the so-called “banker bailout” of 2008, officially known as TARP. An opinion column he wrote during the height of the debate blasted “free market purists” for opposing the $700 billion program.

Cain has actually donated to a broad array of political campaigns. Democrat U.S. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Danny Tarkanian, Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle’s primary opponent, have both benefited from his largesse. So have many others.


[Newt . . . after he "got better".]

Prior to the 1994 elections, Gingrich and his Republican associates unveiled a list of agenda items that they pledged to act upon, should they win majorities in the House and Senate. Called the “Contract With America,” the plan received an enormous amount of media coverage at the time.

Although widely credited with propelling the Republicans to their takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994 (the storied “Republican Revolution”), few of the agenda items in the contract were ever implemented, with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 probably being the most significant outcome. In the end, business as usual prevailed over electoral promises.

Lost in the hubbub of policy debate was the fairly obvious point that a “contract with America” — between the federal government and the American people — already existed in the form of the U.S. Constitution; were its limits on government power and spending observed faithfully, no further electoral gimmickry and grandstanding would be necessary.

Following the Republican takeover of the House, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House in recognition of his leadership in bringing the Republicans back to power on Capitol Hill. He became Bill Clinton’s most vocal adversary, leading the effort to impeach Clinton on sundry charges of corruption and malfeasance.

Although the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the defining event of his presidency, it fell short of holding him accountable for crimes more significant than his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Under Gingrich’s leadership, charges of giving military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions were dropped from the letters of impeachment, and Clinton was able to defend himself successfully against what were portrayed as minor charges arising from a personal sex scandal.

Gingrich, the “social conservative,” has been married three times, most recently to Callista Bisek, a former House of Representatives staffer with whom he carried on an extramarital affair during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [see link at blog bit's end], the country’s premier organization promoting world government, it is not surprising that Gingrich has supported many pet programs of the CFR globalist elites, including expanded powers and more money for the UN and World Trade Organization, and more money for foreign aid.

He was for many years an alarmist on global warming and even starred in a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi warning of the imminent dangers of climate change. He ardently supported mandatory cap-and-trade legislation and ethanol subsidies, but now that the alleged science behind global warming is being thoroughly exposed and discredited, he has flip-flopped on climate change and some energy issues.

Newt Gingrich’s guiding philosophy, like that of many “conservatives” of his political generation, is that big government is better tamed and reformed than abolished - that Leviathan, subject to virtuous leadership, can be turned to virtuous ends.


[Huntsman’s hunt is petering out.]

During his time as Governor of Utah, Huntsman was also responsible for the state’s “Alliance for Prosperity” with the Mexican government. Among other schemes, the alliance sought to create pressure for “immigration reform” and “mobility of the work force.” Apparently then-Mexican President Vicente Fox, who met directly with Huntsman, was very pleased with the Governor and with Utah’s adoption of “driving-privilege” cards for illegal immigrants.

In addition to negotiating the unconstitutional interstate “climate” compact with foreign authorities, Huntsman has an impressive “globalist” record on other issues too. For example, he was a longtime member of the powerful world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations [see link at blog bit's end]. He even served as a founding director of the Pacific Council on International Policy, established in 1995 in partnership with the CFR.

Even worse for Huntsman’s candidacy is a leaked handwritten note he sent to Obama. “You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote in August of 2009, even underlining “remarkable” for added emphasis. “It has been a great honor getting to know you.” In another leaked letter, Huntsman praised former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary.

The “establishment” press has generally been kind to Huntsman. More than a few media outlets have even tried to distort the facts — for example, by ignoring Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson and claiming that Huntsman was the first or most well-known GOP contender to call for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. And while Huntsman has garnered public support from the likes of Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, conservative pundits of all stripes have ridiculed and attacked his campaign. Some even suggested he was running in the wrong party.


[Rick "W" Perry having a "Bush-Brain" moment.]

I previously chronicled some of my issues with Rick Perry in a series of videos posted on ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’. It was titled ‘Just Say “NO” To Rick Perry!’ [You can visit it by clicking HERE.]

As if all that and his proposal to reward illegal immigrants with work visas weren’t enough, I have to agree with the person who posted a YouTube video of Rick Perry’s mental collapse at the November 9, 2011 GOP Debate under the title of “Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes”.

On NeoCon Hugh Hewitt’s deceptive talk radio program the following day, that non-Constitutionalist, warmongering phony was attempting to do damage control for his George W. Bush-alike hero Rick Perry, but I think it’s of no use. If there’s even half an ounce of brains left in the Republican wing of the United States of the Americonned electorate, then practically speaking Rick Perry’s presidential bid came to an end the other night.

Watch this brief video and see what happens when a phony “conservative” fake “Constitutionalist” tries to emulate Congressman Ron Paul and co-opt that man’s honest platform and sincere talking points. If Rick Perry truly meant what was coming out of his mouth - if his words really represented what was genuinely in his heart – then his mind wouldn’t have shut completely down like it did.

Sure, we’ve all had those “blank brain” moments, but do they happen when we’re speaking of something we are totally committed to and passionate about? NO!

And it’s almost hysterically funny when Rick W. Perry looks over to Doctor Ron Paul beside him and Perry’s body language just pleads – BEGS! – Ron Paul to save him. This is an absolutely “must-see” video! Anybody who would vote to put Rick W. Perry in charge of this nation after this display of falsehood and ineptitude should be put away in the Cuckoo County booby hatch for their own protection.

Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes



[Miracle Mitt – Let’s give him "the third degree!"]

Mitt Romney’s candidacy is something of a miracle. “Miracle Mitt” continues to claim — falsely — that he didn’t seek to raise taxes as Governor of Massachusetts. And he appears to be getting away with it, as enough Republican voters remain ignorant of his record for Mitt to retain his “frontrunner” status in the 2012 Republican presidential primary race.

The Cato Institute reported of Romney’s 2003 proposals as Massachusetts Governor:

He scared some conservatives when he said that he was opposed to tax increases but he couldn’t rule them out. His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix.

However, the “fees” were really taxes — i.e., they had nothing to do with actual costs incurred by government services they provided. Romney’s claim of not raising taxes is based upon a simple deception: He called his tax increases “fees.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC’s Meet the Press host, the late Tim Russert, exploded Romney’s claim that he hadn’t proposed tax increases as Governor:

Mr. Russert: The AP says it this way: “When Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay. In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees,” [and] “increasing 57 others.” The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was “Fee-Fee”; that you just raised fee after fee after fee. That’s a tax.... A fee’s not a tax?

Gov. Romney: A fee — well, a fee — if it were a tax, it’d be called — it’d be called a tax. But…

Mr. Russert: Governor, that’s, that’s gimmick.

Gov. Romney: No, it’s, it’s reality. It is. But — and I have no — I’m not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees. We raised fees $240 million.

Romney argued with Russert: “But a fee is different than a tax in that it’s for a particular service.”

Of course, Romney increased fees upon gun owners (gun permits) and for people who needed duplicate licenses. Neither of these is a “service” that the government provides; they are simply licenses needed to comply with government-established mandates.

The independent noted that “the Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance says that fee increases during Romney’s tenure added up to $260 million per year, with another $174 million raised from closing some corporate tax ‘loopholes.’ The independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the revenue total of fee hikes and tax loophole-closings at between $740 and $750 million a year.”

The RomneyCare championed by the Massachusetts Governor in 2006 is nearly identical to national legislation enacted in 2010, mandating all of the major provisions that are present in ObamaCare:

• Mandating individual healthcare (and a fine for not purchasing insurance);

• Mandating employer healthcare for employees (and a fine for non-compliance);

• Banning insurers from exempting “pre-existing conditions” from policies;

• Mandating that young adults may stay on their parents’ plan until age 26;

• Creating government regulated “insurance exchanges”; and

• Instituting heavy subsidies for the poor to purchase insurance.

Yet the costs of Massachusetts’ RomneyCare are out of control. An April 2011 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation Report on Massachusetts healthcare reform says that Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the nation, and those costs are expected to nearly double by 2020.

Romney supported the TARP bank bailout in 2008, a bailout that sparked the Tea Party movement’s ire at the use of taxpayers’ money to bail out a few super-rich banks that lost risky gambles on a real estate market bubble. Romney continues to say that the TARP bailout was a good deal today, but has tried to modify his stance by saying that Obama implemented the law poorly. In essence, Romney has defended the principle of corporatism — bailout of super-rich banks with the tips of waitresses and cab drivers — while condemning those who managed the corporatism.

On the political Left, former Democratic National Committee staffer Matt Ortega has put up the particularly clever website, which quotes Romney on both sides of more than a dozen issues.

Front and center in “Multiple Choice Mitt” is Romney’s rhetoric on the abortion issue. During his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s position on abortion was identical to Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberal Democrats in the state: “Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said during the 2002 gubernatorial debates with Democratic candidate Shannon O’Brien. Since going on the campaign trail for President in 2008, Romney has claimed a conversion to the pro-life side of the issue.


[Rick Sanatorium, attempting to "get better"
. . . like Newt did.]

A strong supporter of the Iraq War — which was initiated without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war against a country that had never attacked the United States…

Santorum had this to say, in the same manifesto: “We need to embrace the challenge to dedicate a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid,…

Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the presidency on June 6, 2011. Measured by a “conservative” yardstick, Santorum’s voting record in the Senate frequently belied any conservative rhetoric. In the second half of 2005 alone, for example, Santorum voted for $31.8 billion in foreign aid appropriations, for $7.7 billion for the EPA, and for $100.7 billion for the Agriculture Department and the FDA,…

And now you know why ONLY Ron Paul deserves my vote in 2012 !

[Ron Paul gets behind one of his sincere slogans.]


RON PAUL’s ‘New American’ Magazine Credentials Profile

The New American Magazine: “GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials”

What Is The 'Council On Foreign Relations' (CFR)?

~ 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.

Friday, November 11, 2011


Are you against raising taxes?

Are you against bank and big business bailouts?

Are you against excessive government spending?

Are you against our foreign wars that kill our soldiers needlessly?

Are you against someone placing their hand on the Holy Bible, swearing before God and country to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and then turning right around and ignoring most of what the U.S. Constitution clearly says?

If you’re AGAINST ALL OF THOSE THINGS, then I have surprising news for you:

You are FOR . . . RON PAUL ! 

Whether you realize it or not, the presidential candidate for you in 2012 is DOCTOR PAUL! He has the right prescription for this country's ailment.

People!, People!, People! You’re being given one last chance to put a genuine Constitutionalist patriot and free-market economics expert into the White House. Are you going to blow it yet again? (You just don’t know how much that hurts me!)

I have shouted my fingers hoarse trying to explain what the NeoConservatives stand for (big government, foreign intervention and imperialism), explaining that the Republican and the Democrat parties are really only ONE two-sided political party. (Congressman Ron Paul is the only non-NeoConservative rogue Republican in the 2012 race.)

I have not only said this but I have SHOWN it on this blog time and time again. I have strained my eyes far into the night providing evidence and book recommendations proving that our biggest enemy is a group of moneyed Insiders that for all intents and purposes controls the president, the Congress, and the judicial system and which is ultimately responsible for every major problem we face in America today. God knows I’m tired of banging my fingers raw on this keyboard trying to reach We The People but getting through to nearly no one.

You're not really going to do it, are you? You’re not going to choose six of one or half a dozen of the other by reelecting Barack “USAP” Obama or by replacing him with yet another Illuminati puppet and, once again, let slip the dogs of war, oppression, terrorism, tyranny, and economic devastation. Please tell me you're not!

Will the Americonned People screw up their last chance to right the sinking ship? Will the Fig-Bottom Americans fig it up again?!

Look, don’t hurt me anymore. Please!

Please watch the following 6 videos – excepting the last one, they're all extremely short (you can see the total running time in the bottom left corner of each video). I’m not saying you’ll necessarily agree with Ron Paul on every single point (I myself disagree with him perhaps 5%-7% of the time), but one thing you can be sure of: Ron Paul’s plan of action is consistent with the U.S. Constitution ALL OF THE TIME.

No, he’s not the most polished speaker. But who do you want in the White House, the slickest orator or the most honest candidate?


Yes, this first video I posted on 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' once before, but it is so damned good I can’t resist leading off with it again.

No More Liars: Ron Paul for President 2012

Dr. Ron Paul: Protect Life, Protect Liberty

From Prophet to President - Ron Paul 2012

Ron Paul Ad - Consistent

"Banned" Commercial: Ron Paul 2012 (Unofficial)
A Beijing, China, economics class in 2030

"2012: One on One" series of interviews:
Ron Paul 2011-11-06 Sunday (Fox News Sunday)




~ 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.

Friday, November 4, 2011



QUESTION #1: Why did ‘World Trade Center’ Towers #1 and #2 collapse into their own footprints on September 11, 2001?

What’s that? Speak up, please – I didn’t hear you.


Something about burning airline fuel and melted steel beams, eh? You say you don’t really understand the whole thing but it’s something to that effect, huh?


QUESTION #2: What caused 'World Trade Center' Tower #7 - which was NEVER hit by an airplane – to collapse hours later in an identical manner to Towers #1 and #2? . . . And have you ever – EVER!in your entire life, seen another building anywhere collapse in like manner which was not the result of a 'controlled demolition' project?

If you are going to maintain a large national security state, there must be a threat to justify its continued existence. ... For the security state to continue, there must sometimes be large terrorist acts in the U.S. The last thing the national security state wants is peace and no enemies.
~ Gurudas (real name: Ronald Lee Garman)
(from the book 'Treason: The New World Order' - 1996)

Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place. ... They revolted against much more mild oppression.
~ Congressman Ron Paul
(commenting on HR-3162, The USA/PATRIOT Act)

It is my hope that all the unconscious lemmings will join us rebellious loose dogs of the Loyal American Underground (LAU) in shining the light of truth on the most significant treasonous act in America thus far into the 21st Century.

But before an unwitting lemming can become a 'loose dog rebel' and spread the truth, he or she must learn the truth.

There is much more to know about the September 11th terrorist attacks than what is covered in just these two documentaries below, but these are the two best films I’ve found on the subject so far, and they form a fine foundation from which to begin your earnest quest for truth and understanding (translation: see... be shocked and... inspired to... read).

I do not claim that these two documentaries alone will prove anything to you other than this . . .


Too many vital questions pertaining to 9/11 remain unsatisfactorily answered . . . if answered at all.

The foremost issue of our time is to restore Constitutional government.
. . .
The response of the Washington crowd is to call protesters racists and paranoid, passing more laws to take away more rights. Criticism of the government is called criticism of the nation.
~ Gurudas
(from the book 'Treason: The New World Order' - 1996)

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
~ Edward Abbey

To view these documentaries full-screen at YouTube, click on the URL links (in blue) that I have included below each video here . . .

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup - (Part 1)

Click this URL link to see the movie full-screen at YouTube:

I'm so pissed off at the American people; I'm so pissed off at this government because of this cover-up!
~ Bob McIlvaine
(from the movie "9/11: Press For Truth")


Click this URL link to see the movie full-screen at YouTube:

Counterfeit philosophies have polluted all of your thoughts
Karl Marx has got ya by the throat
And Henry Kissinger’s got you tied up in knots.
. . .
Adulterers in churches and pornography in the schools
You got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making rules
When you gonna wake up?
~ Bob Dylan
(from his song "When You Gonna Wake Up?")

Loose Change 9/11 An American Coup (2009) Part 1:

9/11 was (at minimum) predominantly an inside job! Rogue elements within the United States government were principally responsible for what happened. Let’s not be fooled further; let’s not be fooled again!

A new... a “real”... an objective investigation into 9/11 needs to be conducted. And this time, an investigation that is NOT Elite-orchestrated for maximum cover-up.

Be a part of the Loyal American Underground (LAU) by learning the truth and telling the world!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
A Loose Dog 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.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011


Well, hot dog and cold, hard facts! Arizona’s Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has already done more with this 'Barack “USAP” Obama Fake Birth Certificate Issue' than I expected him to. I figured he’d just make a little noise over it for awhile to get some ink and then he’d drop it in someone else’s lap.

Then again, maybe Joe sees this as his official entrance into politics – a desire on his part that has been rumored for some time. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I’ve been living in Airheadzona now for 17 years going on 6 lifetimes, and I don’t have much respect for Sheriff Joe or anyone else “serving the public” in this desert wasteland hell hole.

Anyway, read and applaud . . .


Panel Probing Eligibility For 2012 Ballot Wants To See Original Birth Certificate

Posted: October 31, 2011
8:38 pm Eastern
© 2011 World Net Daily

Arizona's maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio promised surprises in his jurisdiction's investigation of Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and his Cold Case Posse is delivering – raising questions that touch on the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate issued last April and the possibility Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security Number.

Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see original birth records before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012, not an electronic file or scanned copies.

The sources say the panel needs to examine the microfilm documenting Obama's birth, as well as the ink-and-paper original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health is holding in its vault.

The PDF file and various scanned copies of the birth certificate that the White House released April 27 are simply not good enough, the posse has determined.

Earlier this month, WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi spent 18 hours over a two-day period in Arizona briefing the Cold Case Posse on a wide range of evidence regarding Obama's eligibility.

"The posse wants to see the entire microfilm roll containing Obama's birth certificate, not just a microfilm copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate in isolation," Corsi explained. "An individual microfilm copy could be forged, but forging the entire microfilm reel on which Obama's birth certificate is in sequence would be almost impossible."

Also, Corsi said, the posse wants the ink-and-paper original 1961 Obama birth records still held in vault by the Hawaii Department of Health to be released publicly and subjected to independent court-authorized forensic examination.

Corsi affirmed that the posse's conclusion it needs to see the Obama birth certificate microfilm is part of the "shock" that Arpaio warned would be forthcoming, when he spoke last week to the Surprise Tea Party group meeting in Surprise, Ariz.

The focus on the microfilm records of Obama's birth arose after Arpaio's investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966.

WND reported in July 2009 that Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke made public the copies in an article by the Honolulu Advertiser.

WND also has reported that the Obama birth certificate's number appears to be out of sequence with the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins.

The Nordyke twins were born Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama, and their birth certificates were registered Aug. 11, 1961, three days later than Obama. Yet their birth certificates have lower numbers.

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

Susan Nordyke, the twin born first, has certificate number 10637, and her sister Gretchen has certificate number 10638. Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961, and registered Aug. 8, 1961, has certificate number 10641.

"In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity," Corsi commented. "If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama's birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time."

Corsi also indicated that the Arizona posse has interviewed court-certified forensic examiners who have advised that they can only issue an expert opinion on whether Obama's birth certificate is a forgery if they can examine the original ink-and-paper records.

Corsi told WND the Arpaio investigation is far-reaching in scope.

In addition to examining whether or not the long-form birth certificate is a forgery, the Cold Case Posse is examining evidence that Obama may have a fraudulent Social Security Number. The posse also is looking at records pertaining to Obama's birth narrative that suggest Barack Obama Sr. may not be the biological father.

"In total, the Cold Case Posse has assembled some 2,000 pages of evidence in the case," Corsi explained, "and is now preparing to conduct interviews to examine a wide range of questions, including that Obama may not be qualified to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution because he was a dual citizen at birth, given that his father was listed as a citizen of Kenya when the future president was born."

Corsi said the Cold Case Posse is currently in the process of briefing various Arizona state officials about the progress of the investigation.

"Sheriff Arpaio said this would be a thorough and diligent investigation," Corsi said, "and that is exactly what the investigation has become. Sheriff Arpaio once again has proven to be a man of his word."

Well, I would hardly go so far as calling Joe a man of his word, nevertheless, he does seem to be sincere in pursuing this treasonous issue and my Stetson’s off to him for that . . . for now.

~ 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.

Friday, October 28, 2011


. . . to quote a friend of mine:

~ McDogg

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, October 16, 2011



If there is such a thing as an intellectually honest atheist, I’ve yet to meet him or her. Experience has taught me that there is something psychologically far deeper and more nefarious to atheism than mere skepticism or disbelief. In fact, I suspect it involves something more than just psychology, too; I believe it is sometimes spiritual in nature.

I don’t know how many times I have encountered professed “intellectually honest” atheists to whom I have recommended certain books that examine the evidence for God and Christ, and have had those so-called “honest” atheists fail to explore my recommended texts.

See, here’s the deal: If there is a God to whom we are accountable and who will ultimately judge our behavior, the atheist, well, he or she don't wanna know! Eyes closed, fingers jammed in the ears, mouth goin’ “La!-La!-La!-La!,
I can’t HEAR you!”

But the Evolutionary theory is so full of holes it’s “holey”; while the evidence for a Creator is so overwhelming it is almost “Holy”. (I know, I know . . . “La!-La!-La!-La!”
You can’t hear me.)

In the July 4, 2011 edition of The New American magazine, there was a good article pertaining to the mythological “Separation Of Church And State” concept that the holey atheists have brainwashed most Americans with. In that article, the author, Mr. Wolverton, wrote:

“Regardless of the source of the assault on constitutional principles, constitutionalists should be able to defend those principles by relying on history and reason, without ad hominem disparagement of the attackers. The polestar of defenders of the Constitution is the document itself, not emotional recriminations of those opposed to their position.”

In theory, I agree with that viewpoint. In practice, well . . . I don’t always practice it anymore. The success of the holey atheists in conditioning We The People to accept the premise that any Christian idea must be entirely eradicated from every public sector is one of the most significant reasons that the U.S.A. has become a moral cesspool and a rotting corpse; it’s one of the principal reasons that the U.S.A. will ultimately and utterly fall. Recognizing the factually flawed and underhanded tactics of the God-haters, and seeing the devastation that their dishonest work has wreaked upon my country, I have lost all patience with them.

I do not consider myself a “Christian” by the modern definition, and therefore I do not play patty-cake with the holey atheists the way these Ned Flanders types do. I’ve seen what the “kid glove” treatment from the Ned Flanders Crowd has resulted in: Atheists: 666 Trillion - Flanders: 0. That’s what you call “a blowout”. If you’re an atheist and you want to debate me about this topic, be forewarned that I get a ‘D-minus’ in “Plays Well With Others” and you’ll get no “Heidely-ho, neighbor!” from me.

To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven: A time to reason, and a time to fight. And the season to reason has passed.

Did any of you God-haters want some book recommendations to help straighten you out (or to “make your hair curl”)? I didn’t think so. The article - alright, let’s get on it! . . .

by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus and Thucydides, for Newton and Euclid; and I find myself much the happier.” Constitutionalists surely sympathize with the Sage of Monticello when they read the chronicling of the evisceration of our Constitution that is printed daily in newspapers around the country.

From Article I to the Tenth Amendment, every essential protection of liberty enshrined by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution is being attacked (successfully) and set at nought by those determined to divest the United States of the rule of law and the freedoms it ensures. No single aspect of American constitutional liberty is more misunderstood, misapplied, and manipulated than the First Amendment’s defense of religious freedom.

For example, a recent opinion piece published in the Baltimore Sun accused the U.S. Naval Academy of “defying the Constitution — specifically the First Amendment.”

Specifically, the author (an adjunct instructor at the academy) asserts that the Naval Academy administration is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment through the practice of saying grace before meals. As the author describes the tradition: “They [Naval midshipmen] are marched into the mess hall, called to attention to listen to announcements, and then to prayer by a chaplain before sitting to eat. They are not permitted to leave, and thus they are forced to listen.”

To support his accusation, the author cites a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. He provides the following history of the case:

That is the opinion of our courts and the compelling reason to end it. In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th District ruled in Mellen v. Bunting that the Virginia Military Institute’s suppertime prayer was unconstitutional: “Put simply, VMI’s supper prayer exacts an unconstitutional toll on the consciences of religious objectors. While the First Amendment does not in any way prohibit VMI’s cadets from praying, before, during or after the supper, the Establishment Clause prohibits VMI from sponsoring such a religious activity.”

Moreover, in April 2004, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Court of Appeals’ ruling, thus affirming the lower court’s decision.

After rehearsing this bit of jurisprudential precedent to his end, the author gloats over the fact that the other service academies fell into line and discontinued the practice of preprandial prayer. Then, he provides for the reader the logical (to him) conclusion of the argument he has presented: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Let’s get the Naval Academy to act to fully support and defend it — not defy it.”

Further proof is found in the story recently published by The New American online describing how a federal district court held that “the Medina Valley Independent School District of Texas could not include prayer in its commencement ceremonies, nor use any language perceived to be religious in nature.” The lower court ruling was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the fact that such a challenge was originally upheld by the district court is disturbing. In the Medina Valley case, the complaint was supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group dedicated to scouring religion from every nook and cranny of American society.

A Principled Foundation

Regardless of the source of the assault on constitutional principles, constitutionalists should be able to defend those principles by relying on history and reason, without ad hominem disparagement of the attackers. The polestar of defenders of the Constitution is the document itself, not emotional recriminations of those opposed to their position. In an effort to follow that injunction, it is necessary to examine the legitimate purpose and provenance of the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the oft-cited “wall of separation” between church and state, and the role of the Supreme Court in defending or destroying those ideas.

First, we must base ourselves firmly on the premise that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In fact, the Constitution itself proclaims such in Article VI: “This Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land.” With that, constitutionalists have no quarrel, as it is that supremacy that we long to have recognized and respected by legislators and Presidents. This article, as applied to the issue of the Naval Academy’s mealtime prayer, however, does not support the opinion piece’s author. Furthermore, those challenging the prayer at school commencements will find no fuel for their fire. To the contrary, the history of Anglo-Saxon law, the words of our own Founding Fathers, and the plain language of the Constitution itself all testify that the Establishment Clause was never enacted to proscribe such piety.

First, the three branches of the federal government have enumerated powers — that is to say, they may not act outside of the defined theaters of action ceded to them in the Constitution. One of these branches, the legislative, is composed of a Congress, and to that Congress is granted by the Constitution “all legislative powers.” Therefore, no other branch may make laws.

Furthermore, Congress itself may enact only those laws which address subjects found within the sphere of specifically enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. As there is no grant of power to Congress to legislate with regard to “religion,” it may not pass laws in that area.

Second, the Constitution in the First Amendment reads in relevant part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The threshold question of this analysis is the understanding of what is meant by the “establishment of religion.” We may begin with a cursory review of the history of the practice of establishing religion in England.

Throughout the tumultuous history of the monarchs of England, the official and exclusive recognition of religion has swung (usually violently) between the Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant (Anglican) religion. Whichever of the two denominations held sway in England, the “establishment” thereof consisted chiefly in the mandatory payment of (and forceful collection of) tithes. These “donations” were used to support the church and the clergy.

The critical aspect, then, of the establishment of a religion was the employment of the sword of state in the collection of tithes to support that state-sponsored religion. The people were compelled at the point of a sword (quite literally) to provide the funds necessary to perpetuate the control of the approved clergy through the payment of their living expenses.

In America, the establishment of religion continued in most of the colonies. Non-conformists could be imprisoned or fined (or worse) for failing to pay the mandated tithe. The history of the founding of America, however, made the establishment of a religion by the civil authorities more difficult than in England. This was to be expected, given that many of the earliest settlers of America fled England to escape the persecution heaped upon them by the crown and its representatives for refusing to support a faith they considered errant and perverted from the straight and narrow.

By the time of the outbreak of the War for Independence, prominent Americans were advocating the end to established religion and the support of religion built on voluntary donations, as made by congregants according to their conscience, without influence or compulsion on the part of the civil authority.

In 1772, Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia wrote in a letter to a London newspaper:

Now to determine on the justice of this charge against the present dissenters, particularly those in America, let us consider the following facts. They went from England to establish a new country for themselves, at their own expence, where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion in their own way.

Alexander Hamilton expressed a similar view of history in remarks written three years later:

While tithes were the free, though customary, gift of the people, as was the case before the passing of the act in question, the Roman Church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment, which it had been divested of at the time of the capitulation.

Finally, James Madison, the very man endowed by history with the honorific title of “Father of the Constitution,” in 1832 wrote in a letter to a reverend:

In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna., and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there was no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals.

The testimony of these three witnesses corroborate one another and provide compelling evidence that early on in its history, the establishment of religion was contrary to the will of the American people and the spirit of the founding of our nation by those seeking freedom to practice religion according to the dictates of their own conscience, without fear of royal repercussion.

Finally, in light of the steady dissolution of established religions throughout America, it is useful now to read the specific language of the First Amendment so as to understand the metes and bounds of its proscriptions.

A Control Over Congress

A careful reading of the plain language of the 10 amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights reveals that there is one organization that is prohibited from making laws establishing a religion: Congress. Read the First Amendment again: “Congress shall make no law.” When this restriction is read in concert with the last of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that the states and the people retain the right to establish religions, if that is their desire. In fact, many states retained their established religions after ratification of the Constitution: New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, for example.

To recap the scope of the Establishment Clause, then, the intent is to forbid Congress from establishing a national religion (as was done by the British Crown, often at the point of a sword); Congress is forbidden from restricting the right of individuals from worshiping as they choose; and Congress, therefore, has no constitutional authority (and, remember, all the authority of Congress is enumerated and is not natural) to infringe at all upon the right of the states and the people to fully and freely exercise their liberty of conscience.

As with so many other matters of constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court has not bound itself nor based its decisions on the pure principles of freedom as explicated in the Constitution.

In the early years of the 20th century, for example, the high court decided that the 14th Amendment applies not only to the states, but that it incorporates (or imposes) the First Amendment (which, remember, applies only to Congress) on the states, as well. In the case of Benjamin Gitlow v. People of the State of New York (1925), the Supreme Court overturned the decision in the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government (Congress) and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The court in Gitlow found that the guarantees included in the First Amendment were “fundamental personal rights” and could not be impaired by state governments. That represents a radical revision of American constitutional jurisprudence, the first of many such decisions that would rewrite not only the First Amendment, but redraw the boundaries around the power of Congress to abridge the right of worship.

As for the abolition of prayer from the public school, subsequent Supreme Court decisions piggybacked on Gitlow and its progeny to accomplish that end. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the majority (6-1) decided the voluntary recitation of a non-denominational prayer in a New York public school represented the “establishment of religion” as proscribed by the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, “religious activity” was substituted for “establishment of religion,” thus outlawing prayer based on a completely unsupportable judicial sleight of hand. All of this damage to the Constitution was done without a single word of explanation of how the definition of an “established religion” (a denomination supported by the civil government) as understood for centuries included the voluntary recitation of a non-denominational prayer. The deed was done.

In 2000, the Supreme Court continued perfecting its skill at misdirection by citing itself in a decision that created a new constitutional standard for the “establishment of religion.” In the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the majority held that student-led, voluntary, non-denominational prayer was “perceived” government sponsorship of prayer, thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. Further, the court held that any policy that made “nonadherents” feel like “outsiders” was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in defiance of centuries of Anglo-Saxon law, the words of our own Founders, and the plain language of the Constitution itself, had in the course of about 80 years obliterated the Constitution and altered the proper relationship between government and religion. The next plank of the platform was carved from a phrase Thomas Jefferson likely never knew would be so wrested.

Everyone has heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” The anti-religious wail those words as a war cry against any “actual” or “perceived” influence of faith on government. As is evident from the analysis presented above, that phrase exists nowhere in the Constitution. It has its origins in a letter sent by our third President in response to one sent to him by a church in Connecticut.

As mentioned above, Connecticut maintained an established religion (the Congregational Church) until 1818. In 1801, members of the Baptist denomination in Danbury sent a letter to Thomas Jefferson, plaintively setting forth their difficulties at being an officially disfavored community of faith.

In his response, Jefferson sympathized with his correspondents and declared his hope that “their [Connecticut’s] legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Far from being advocacy of the relegation of religion to solitary confinement in the private sphere, Jefferson cites the Establishment Clause itself as the model for other legislatures. As President, and as a student of the law, Jefferson undoubtedly understood that the First Amendment applied those restrictions on Congress, not on the church. As a perhaps relevant bit of context, the day after Jefferson penned the letter to the Danbury Baptists (January 3), he attended a worship service conducted in the House of Representatives presided over by a Baptist minister. Hardly the behavior of a man opposed to the offering of prayer in a government venue.

So we see that despite efforts of the Supreme Court to redefine the borders of the First Amendment (and all other articles and amendments of the Constitution), the misunderstanding and misapplication of the clear language of the First Amendment, and the unjustified conflation of the “wall of separation” phrase in a private letter, there is no evidence that the Establishment Clause was included in the Constitution to prevent students from asking the Lord’s blessing over their food or from giving Him thanks for it. To the contrary, the Establishment Clause was written into our Constitution to prevent Congress from impinging upon that right.

Written by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

Published by The New American magazine

Posted by Stephen T. McCarthy

As a dog returns to his own vomit,
so an atheist 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.