Wednesday, March 30, 2011


[From the STMcC archive; 2006, August 31]

How much better than wine is your love,
And the scent of your perfumes
Than all spices!
~ Song Of Solomon

I read through my Bible each year, always dreading the day I’ll come to ‘Song Of Solomon’. Although I find it embarrassing, some people really seem to get off on it. Dr. Chuck Missler writes, “No book of the entire Bible has given rise to more commentary or difference of opinion. Some think it is just an allegory, others that it is literal, and still some as a handbook for sensual lovemaking . . . Great stuff. The rabbis wouldn’t let anyone study the book until they were over thirty.”

Yeah? Well imagine saying to a beautiful woman at a cocktail party, “Your hair is like a flock of goats going down from Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of sheep which have come up from the washing…Your neck is like an ivory tower…Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus.”

Would you like some cheese to go with that wine you’re wearing?

And then there’s the passage in chapter seven: “How fair and how pleasant you are, O love, with your delights! This stature of yours is like a palm tree, and your breasts like its clusters. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of its branches.” That always reminds me of the Steve Miller song, THE JOKER, in which he sings, “You’re the cutest thing that I ever did see; I really love your peaches, wanna shake your tree.”

For me, the only redeeming aspects of ‘Song Of Solomon’ are a couple of verses (such as the one I opened this review with) that remind me of the perfume, MACKIE For Women.

My most serious and long-lasting romance was with a woman I called “The Countess”, based on Jeanne Moreau’s character in filmdom’s greatest tragic romance, MONTE WALSH (1970). In 1994, after five years and five months to the day, the Countess and I finally called it quits for good and went our separate ways, however, happily, we retained our friendship. But once upon a time we used to like to test the many perfumes and colognes at department stores, even though I could never find any I cared for. They were always too “_____." ("floral"; "chemical"; "overpowering"; "sweet"; "stinky"; you name it). With me, it was always ACK!, UGH!, YUCK!, GACK!, and PHEW!

But then one day the Countess said, “How about this one?” I inhaled and said, “MMMmmmm…” We had found MMMmmmmackie. And since the Countess liked it too, that became her scent.

I wish I had some MACKIE now so I could accurately describe that fragrance, but relying on a dozen-year-old memory, I recall it as being only lightly floral; more like luscious fruit, drizzled with warm honey, sprinkled with spice and talcum powder, then mixed with white lace and promises, and a twist of “Come hither.” What’s “Come hither”? Danged if I can explain it, but believe me, a guy knows it when he encounters it. Take it from a “Real Man” whose nose knows... (or just take it from me).

And that reminds me, we now have a term: “Girlie Girls”. These are females who revel in their femininity. In my youth, there was no need for such a category because nearly all girls were girlie; they all played to their “natural” strength of femininity. They knew how to manipulate men with their tender qualities. They knew how to be ladies and how to make men feel good about being men. And the men loved them for it.

But now, most women I see come off more masculine than most males I know. (I think that with the death of Waylon Jennings, my Brother and I, and one other guy I’ve read about who lives in Chicago, are probably the only “Real Men” left. And really, my Brother may just be a little TOO “Real.”) But MACKIE For Women is a scent for that rare breed of woman today who still remembers what it means to be a woman, and who wants to present herself accordingly. If you’re one of those butch babes, tattooed and truck-driving, putting MACKIE on is going to be like putting a gold necklace on a grrrl gorilla. I’d say, save yer money instead for a really nice tattoo of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

MACKIE is a standout scent - it isn’t just another perfume. Some time after the Countess and I went phfft, I found myself speaking with a woman who had a familiar aura about her. “Are you wearing MACKIE?” I asked. She was stunned that I was able to identify it. I let her go on believing that I was simply a finely cultured gentleman. (Now that I think about it . . . maybe she thought I was one of those “funny” guys. No, I don’t mean comedians.)

And later still, I thought I caught a whiff of it emanating from a woman on the street. I nearly had a big Mack attack! Under ordinary circumstances, I would have immobilized her against a wall and said, “I wanna shmell ya!” But in this case, she happened to be walking an extraordinarily large and high-strung looking dog, so I somehow managed to pull myself together and let her walk on by.

If you want to revisit a time when “girlie” was common, when women were ladies and ladies were so smart they knew how to get their way with men without even having to compete with them, then MACKIE is your first move on the way to “checkmate.” It’s probably not going to change your whole life - just your love life. (Of course, sometimes that too creates a wide-ranging rearranging). But think how enjoyable it’s going to be to send men the olfactory signal that you’re a real lady, and to see them mysteriously compelled to treat you like one.

But just to be on the safe side, you might want to keep Rover nearby – a lotta guys are gonna wanna shmell ya!

~ 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, March 28, 2011


Hokey-Smoke and Hoo-Wee! Git along little dogies, git along! Can it really be that Glenn or Glenda Beck has finally seen the light?

Just last week, I received an Email from G. Edward Griffin stating that he had been interviewed by Glenn Beck and that he would be appearing on Ol’ Marshmallow Head’s program. It seems that Glenn or Glenda Beck has now read Griffin’s book ‘THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve’ (or claims he has read it, anyway) and he decided to promote it on his popular television program.

I made it a point to watch the program – even though watching Glenn or Glenda Beck prance and sashay around has always made me uncomfortable. And I will admit that for the first time EVER, I actually gained a little bit of respect for Glenn (or Glenda).

I don’t know how sincere Ol’ Marshmallow Head is about this. Was it just a one-time deal to try to get the genuine conservatives off his back? Is he really beginning to understand what genuine “Constitutional conservatism” means? Or is this just some slick ploy that he or she cooked up for reasons not yet discerned by us?

Frankly, I don’t trust Glenn or Glenda Beck, and even if he is honestly trying to inform We The People about some
new-old revelations that he’s suddenly come to grasp within the grey matter of his marshmallow head, it will be a long time before I can let my guard down with him... or her.

But for now anyway, I will give him credit for one good show that presented to the Americonned People an hour’s worth of truth about a crucial economic matter.

[Bravo, Marshmallow Head! Kudos… for now. I hope this is the start of something big.]

In case you missed the show, below is a summary review of the program which was published on the ‘New American Magazine’ website:

By Raven Clabough
Saturday, March 26, 2011

Politically astute viewers of the Glenn Beck program know that he is sounding more like Ron Paul and less like a neoconservative every day. Regular viewers also know that Friday’s episodes tend to be a break from the monotony of current events, with a greater focus on foundations, whether it be the founding of this nation, or the foundations of progressivism, etc. The Friday, March 25, episode of the Glenn Beck program focused on one of the foundations of America’s economic woes: the Federal Reserve.

Beck acquired much of his knowledge about the Federal Reserve from the book The Creature from Jekyll Island written by G. Edward Griffin. According to Beck, G. Edward Griffin’s book has been handed to him on a number of occasions as suggested reading, while others simply encouraged him to read it. Having done so, Beck highly recommended the book to his viewers, calling it a “fascinating read.” (The book will likely make its way to the Top 25 Bestsellers on Amazon, as most books recommended by Beck do.)

With a focus on the book, Beck’s episode offered insight into the growing Leviathan that is the Federal Reserve and how it has been a contributing factor to America’s struggling economy.

Beck began: “During the financial crisis, most Americans heard about the Federal Reserve, but most Americans don’t know anything about it — how it works, what it is, or even how it's run.” He added, “We know that it buys our debt, it sets up interest rates” — and “it has a lot to do with the economic well-being of our nation. But where did it come from?”

The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, but despite what the money interests would have Americans believe, it was not drafted in Congress, but in great secrecy at a private estate on Jekyll Island, Georgia. In fact, the meeting of the drafters was so secretive that Senator Nelson Aldrich, the Chair of the National Monetary Commission and GOP Whip, sent his own private railroad car to a New Jersey railroad station where each participant was instructed to arrive at the railroad car alone and pretend not to know the others.

Aldrich was the business associate of J.P. Morgan and the father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. “No special interests there,” joked Beck.

The other drafters included Abram Piatt Andrew, Frank Vanderlip (who represented John D. Rockefeller), Henry Davidson, J.P. Morgan, and Paul Warburg (who represented the Rothschild banking family). Collectively, the men represented one quarter of the world’s wealth.

G. Edward Griffin explains the reason for the secrecy:

If the American people had known that this bill, which was supposed to protect the American people from the big, bad bankers, was actually written by those bankers, then the scam would have been out in the open.

Mutual competitors, the drafters’ original purpose was to form a bank cartel so that they no longer had to compete with each other. Their goals included the following:

• Stop growing competition from newer banks;

• Put in place the mechanism for creating money out of thin air;

• Gain control of the reserves of all the banks so the reckless ones wouldn’t be exposed to currency drains or bank runs;

• Shift the losses from the bank owners to the taxpayers; and

• Convince Congress that the purpose was to protect the public.

Under the new system, the federal government can go to the Fed to obtain as much money as it needs to finance its deficit spending, meaning that the federal government can spend as much as it wants over and above what it collects from taxpayers. Money is created out of nothing to finance government and other debt, and pumped into the economy.

What’s worse is that the Federal Reserve is privately owned and accountable to no one. But who owns the Fed? No one knows who owns the Federal Reserve, according to Beck.

The Federal Reserve explains away this strange secrecy on its website:

Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really “private” companies but rather “owned” by the citizens of the United States.

Despite the flowery language found on the Fed’s website, history dictates that it has been a source of America’s financial woes virtually since its inception.

Beck’s guest, Mark Calabria, director of Financial Regulation at the Cato Institute, described one area in which the Federal Reserve played a devastating role. “The Federal Reserve played a key role in creating the housing bubble to begin with ... by cutting rates to historic lows, the mortgage and housing market took off, and eventually that bubble was going to burst.”

Calabria adds, “They’re trying to create more bubbles today, if you look at the quantitative easing, at the interest rates we’re seeing now.”

Calabria contends that the Federal Reserve attempts to give Americans the illusion of individual wealth through the manufactured bubbles so that it may encourage spending.

Griffin adds, “We have to recognize the principle of the Ponzi scheme. This system really is a Ponzi scheme; it works as long as the money supply continues to expand ... but when it finally stops the whole thing comes to an end.”

“When you create money out of nothing, you also face the fact that the money goes back into nothing,” Griffin continues. “This kind of system makes the expansions and contractions inevitable. The booms and the busts are inevitable. If the money were backed by something solid like gold, there wouldn’t be these expansions and contractions.”

When Beck asked whether those who own the Federal Reserve are getting richer from the Ponzi scheme, Griffin responded:

Their vision now is much bigger than just making money. Their vision is in terms of controlling nations, controlling society, controlling the world. We’ve all heard that phrase a “new world order.” They use this phrase over and over again. It’s their phrase and they’re really serious about it.

Pointing to the heads of influential spheres who are seemingly in line with the Federal Reserve, Griffin added, “They’re taking the money and buying up political leaders, media outlets, large organizations, influential labor unions, etc.”

Beck questioned Calabria on the accuracy of claims that President Ronald Reagan “rattled some cages” at the Federal Reserve after taking an interest in its inner workings, and was ultimately “put in his place” by the agency. Calabria replied:

There was a lot of pushback on the regulatory side. That’s the reason Reagan did not reappoint Volker the second time because at that point they were not getting along all that well, and there were pretty big differences in policy. This is despite [the fact that] Reagan was very supportive of Volcker's efforts to bring inflation down; most of the disagreements were really on the regulatory side. Reagan and his treasury department wanted to redo banking regulations in a way that Volcker did not agree with.

The regional presidents have to be approved by the Federal Reserve here in Washington. And so there are a number of people that Reagan wanted to get approved to regional Federal Reserve banks - and these were hard money people, people that were inflation fighters - and Volcker vetoed them.

Beck’s guests also addressed the Federal Reserve’s false assertions that they would not monetize the debt, even after they’ve already done so.

When asked if we are headed for “real tough times,” Calabria definitively answered yes.

Griffin asserts that the American people can be rid of the Fed since it was created by an act of Congress and can therefore be eliminated by an act of Congress. Whether it’s likely is another story.

“What must happen before Congress has the backbone to do that? There has to be a complete change in Congress because they are beholden to this creature,” remarked Griffin. “Challenging the Federal Reserve power, there’s no question in my mind that they will pull out all the stops and try and ruin the economy and blame it on the fact that we were challenging the Federal Reserve.”

Related article:

RAPING THE WHOLE WORLD (And Getting Away With It)

~ 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, March 27, 2011


Last December, a friend of mine posed an excellent question to me in an Email exchange. Just a few days ago, something caused me to recall that question and the response I sent to my friend. And then I got to thinking how our exchange would actually make a fairly good blog bit. I feel that this subject is of sufficient importance to make the posting of my friend’s question and my answer to him worthy of its own blog installment. I hope you feel the same way. And so here goes – my friend’s question and the answer I sent him:

Are you in agreement that the subversion [Senator Joseph] McCarthy was blowing the whistle about wasn't just garden variety espionage? That it was part of the larger New World Order/capitalist conspiracy? I read an argument once by someone who claimed it was isolated and had no larger implications.

Well, that’s a good question, and any answer anyone gives is speculative and arguable. My guess is - like everyone else’s - merely a guess, but it IS an educated guess based on a lot of research into Joseph McCarthy.

Obviously I have not found anything conclusive nor anything that seems to slant strongly in one direction or the other, so I can only base my belief on what I know about McCarthy and a few glitterings of circumstantial evidence.

First, what facts do we know about McCarthy? Well, contrary to the liberal and media-fueled image of him being like a Neanderthal, McCarthy was extremely intelligent! It would surprise most people to learn how bright he was; he unquestionably had a well above average I.Q., and even one or more of his critics acknowledged that he had near photographic recall.

Yes, McCarthy was tough as nails, both physically and mentally – he could be a take-no-prisoners brawler when he needed to be – but he relied on his mind even more so. And I find it nearly impossible to believe that McCarthy was not to some degree or level aware of the underlying reasons for all the intrigue and the reluctance on the part of Washington to dig deep into the question of subversives. He was way too smart to have been totally in the dark about it all, and if ANYONE knew about the deeper conspiracy, then McCarthy had to have known as well. That’s just my opinion, but it’s a firm opinion.

Also… even if McCarthy had believed that he was fighting solely against Communist infiltration of the government when dealing with the Truman Administration, when he ran into the same exact sort of obstructions in rooting out Communists when the Republican Eisenhower Administration took over, he was just far too intelligent a man to have failed to notice that something much bigger and much deeper than mere Communist infiltration was occurring.

We must also remember that McCarthy was undoubtedly aware of the ongoing work by the Reece Committee (and the Cox Committee which had preceded it) and those investigations into the major foundations such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford. Those investigations were certainly uncovering some very bizarre, difficult-to-explain activity related to Communism, and money being funneled by wealthy “Capitalists” to “Socialists”. McCarthy was nobody’s fool, and the Internationalist aspect of it would undoubtedly have been apparent to him.

And then we must consider the statement he made toward the end of his anti-Marshall speech before the Senate when, after revealing all of the ways in which Marshall had harmed America’s best interests and assisted the Communist cause overseas, McCarthy concluded:

“How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.

“Who constitues the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot be sure. We are convinced that Dean Acheson, who steadfastly serves the interest of nations other than his own, who supported Alger Hiss in his hour of retribution, who contributed to his defense fund, must be high on the roster. The President? He is their captive. …”

Well, here we see McCarthy alluding to Acheson's “Internationalist” world-view, and of course, we both know that our Presidents are, at the very least, tools or “captives” of the Elite – that is when they are not actual A-List Elite party members (i.e., I would label “W” more as an active participant, and an Obama as more of a tool – or “fool” if you prefer). And in my opinion, if McCarthy was alluding merely to a Communist conspiracy here, that statement would appear a bit too overblown, too grandiose. To be sure, McCarthy had his flaws, and he was not above inflating or overemphasizing some statements for effect, but I see in his statement here, something more than a remark about the Communist conspiracy. I think he was hinting at something much bigger and something much more sinister. For instance, note his use of the word “circles”“Who constitutes the highest CIRCLES of this conspiracy?” I immediately think of the Illuminati / Freemason structure of circles within circles.

And of course, McCarthy was well aware of the Alger Hiss / United Nations connection and knew of the interest Wilson and FDR had in creating a world body.

Yeah, I could be mistaken, but I think McCarthy knew more than he even let on publicly. And I also think the Establishment knew he was always going to be a loose cannon, that he could never be bribed nor controlled, and that he was destined to eventually let the big cat out of the bag. And that’s why they went to such lengths to first shut him up and then shut him down. I believe they viewed McCarthy as the most dangerous man in America! They knew he was on the trail of Oppenheimer and that he wouldn’t stop there. They knew he was a REAL patriot, a GENUINE maverick, and that he wasn’t afraid to fight against overwhelming odds. He HAD to be stopped!

[March 2011 Addition: I ought to have also mentioned that Senator McCarthy strongly felt that an investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was long overdue, and he made known his intention to conduct such an investigation. As Roy Cohn stated: “Senator McCarthy had found the CIA to be a very ‘juicy’ target…” The CIA director, Allen Dulles, took the position that no employees of the CIA could appear before any Congressional committee. Let that sink in a little bit – even though it's hardly an unusual stance considering that President Truman had issued an order in 1948 that the loyalty and security files of all government employees were off-limits to Congressional committees. And lest anyone think this was strictly a typical pro-communist, pro-subversive Democrat ploy, be aware that not only did the Establishment’s Republican President, Eisenhower, not rescind this un-Constitutional policy, but he likewise enforced it against Congressional committees seeking to ferret out subversives in the U.S. government during his time in the White House. And I believe McCarthy’s desire to conduct a future investigation into the CIA is one of the principal reasons that the Establishment set the dogs upon him and made shutting down McCarthy priority number one.]

I believe McCarthy was attempting to dismantle what at that time was the Elite’s most valuable asset: Communists within the Federal government. I think he saw that as America’s and the world’s most imminent threat. Communists were the Elite’s most active and valuable “moving part” at that time, and I believe McCarthy felt he needed to render that part “motionless” as soon as possible.

And you saw what sort of opposition and criticism he received for merely fighting against Communist subversives. He had a hell of a time convincing people that Communism had infiltrated the government in a very dangerous way. Now imagine if back in, say, ’52, McCarthy was saying that Communism was merely a tool of a group of hidden Elites who were attempting to gain control of the entire world. Imagine trying to make that fly in ’52 when, with all the evidence we have accumulated since then, we still can’t make it fly for most Americans in 2010!

So, I think McCarthy was going after the most active arm of the New World Order conspiracy that he felt he could have some measure of success against from the position he occupied.

I’m not the only one, it seems, who holds this view. For example, in his book THE SHADOWS OF POWER, James Perloff is alluding to the same thing when he writes:

He [McCarthy] has been reviled by nearly every Establishment journal in or out of print not because he denounced some minor government employees as subversives. The international bankers would not lose sleep over such people whether they were innocent or not. McCarthy was crucified because he discovered that there was more than a tip to the iceberg. As Anthony Lukas explained in his New York Times article on the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]: “Though his nominal targets were Communists in Government, by the Fifties few Communists retained important positions, and as McCarthy bulled ahead it became clear that his real target was the Eastern Establishment, which had run the nation’s foreign policy for decades… McCarthy never explicitly attacked the Council (as he did the closely allied Institute of Pacific Relations). But many of those he denounced were or had been Council members: Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, Owen Lattimore, Philip Jessup, Charles Bohlen and Dean Acheson.”

Now I don’t fully agree with that Lukas statement in all respects, but you get the idea. Apparently, at least three persons – Perloff, Lukas, and myself – believe that McCarthy knew the identity of the REAL enemy.

~ 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, March 19, 2011


[From the STMcC archive; 2007, January 14th]

I’m going to begin this book review with a little story, and if you’ll just hang in there, you’ll eventually see how it relates to THE BLUE PAGES.

Back in 1972, my Pa was the manager of The Machinists, a Little League baseball team whose star shortstop was my little Bro, Napoleon (a nickname). Early one morning – on “Picture Day” no less, when every boy’s uniform should have looked neat and clean – outfielder Graham (always a troublemaker), got sassy with Napoleon, and the boys did what boys sometimes will do. Graham was only about twice Napoleon’s size. But we’ve all heard the old adage, “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the will and anger in Napoleon!”

One of the boys told my Pa, “Hey! Mr. McCarthy! Graham and Napoleon are fighting in the outfield!” He saw the knot of boys cheering in the distance and he ran full tilt to break it up. But as he drew nearer, he saw that Graham was getting quite a thrashing, and (as he loved to tell for years afterwards), he “slowed down to a jog and then a stroll.” Only a bad dad would unnecessarily spoil his son’s fun! We’ve all heard the phrase about taking someone “out to the woodshed.” Well, on Picture Day 1972, Napoleon took Graham “out to right field.”

A year or two later, while we were both in junior high school, Graham and I arranged an after-school meeting in a nearby alley, and as is always the case, news got out and there was an eager gathering of kids in that alley awaiting the two combatants. I can no longer recall the circumstances, but I’m sure Graham must have instigated the fracas because I never started a fight I didn’t start.

Graham threw the first punch – a right hook, which I blocked and countered with my own right hook, introducing my right fist to his left ear. Graham threw the right a second time, I blocked it again, and again bopped him in the left ear. I guess my opponent was thinking, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” or maybe, “Third time’s a charm”, because he opted for the right hook yet again, and I countered as before. Graham was a slow learner, and whereas he was merely a half-wit when the fight began, he was undoubtedly a half-deaf half-wit when it ended. Which it did when an old man stuck his head over a fence Wilson-like from ‘Home Improvement’ and mentioned “calling the cops.” Every kid ran in every direction! Ah yes, beating up on Graham - it was just a McCarthy Family Tradition.

This past Christmas day, our Sister gave Napoleon THE BLUE PAGES as a gift; it was the biggest hit of the day. She gave me a coffee mug with the BILL OF RIGHTS printed on the side. When hot coffee is poured into it, your rights begin disappearing (i.e., as you “wake up” you notice how the federal government is stealing your rights! Clever idea.) But I couldn’t keep my hands off of Napoleon’s BLUE PAGES. How did I ever live without this book?

THE BLUE PAGES were compiled by a couple of Lefties and intended to inform the Libs which of those big, bad companies are giving money to the Republicans, and you know, not honoring the civil liberties of their employees by failing to offer insurance coverage to their “alternative lifestyle partners”, etc. And conversely, which “good” companies should be supported because they support the indefensible and sundry Socialist agendas. But the great thing about this book is that it can be used as unintended. In other words, every time Graham threw his right, he dropped his left and lunged, opening himself up for a powwow (or maybe that should be pow-ow!) between my right fist and his left ear. In essence, I was using Graham’s punch against him, just like I’m now using THE BLUE PAGES to monetarily punish the very companies it was meant to assist.

THE BLUE PAGES includes over 4,000 company entries from every consumer sector. It first notes the dollar amount given to the Democrat and/or Republican party by the top three executives for each company during the 2003-04 donation cycle (granted this is now dated and limited information, but it’s a start). Then there’s a small body of text that highlights the significant lawsuits resolved or pending, history of corporate fines, positive and/or negative ecological impact, the social / sexual / gender policies, and the insurance coverage offered by each company.

I’ll say this for THE BLUE PAGES, although the astute and even just semi-astute reader will detect the “Left Lean”, it’s more balanced than one would anticipate from a Libby publication. It doesn’t shy away from spotlighting infractions against the Left-leaning companies like you might expect. This book really does seem fair enough to be used effectively by both, Socialists (Democrats and Republicans), and true conservatives (me, myself, and I).

I’m an “Independent” Constitutionalist, so I detest both the Democrats and the Republicans. But at least the Republican party says the right things even though it’s lying about what it intends to do about it. Both parties stand for global, totalitarian Socialism. But the Dems institute it quicker and I’d prefer to see our Republic die slower. For many years, I’ve been boycotting all goods from Communist countries and others with terrible human rights abuses (such as India and Indonesia). But now I can boycott the most immoral offenders in THIS country as well!

THE BLUE PAGES is one of those books you’ll open to look up one thing and find yourself buried in for the next hour. It’s filled with interesting info. such as:

* Although PepsiCo gave nearly 70% of its monetary donations to the Republican party, it “received top scores from the Human Rights Campaign 2004 Corporate Equality Index for its pro-gay, -lesbian, -bisexual, and –transgender policies.” I wish I drank Pepsi so I could quit!

* The Estee Lauder cosmetics company “earns high marks for its… longtime extension of health care benefits to its employees’ same-sex partners.” Well, I’ve been meaning to quit attending those midnight showings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show anyway.

* With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good, right? They gave 99% of their dough to the Republicans, but a 2005 report found that their jams advertised as “100% Fruit” often contained less than 50% fruit. Oh well, at least they weren’t giving their money TO the fruits.

* Good news! I can start eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream because it’s now owned by Unilever which gave only 11% of its money to the Dems. I’m gonna gorge myself on ice cream this year, gain 300 pounds and then sue Ben & Jerry for creating an addictive product that contributes to obesity and clogged arteries. (I mean, that’s how the liberals do it, isn’t it?)

* Get this! Hooters of America paid two million bucks to settle a class action suit filed by men [sic] denied the opportunity to serve as “Hooters Girls.” Though it was ordered to create gender-neutral positions, the company still maintains that “being female is reasonably necessary” to be a Hooters Girl. Sounds “reasonable” to me. Now, THAT’S a hoot!

I love this book; it ain’t perfect but it’s my favorite Christmas gift that I didn’t receive this year. I guess I won’t be eating at liberal Denny’s anymore, but then who wants a Grand Slam Breakfast when they can have a pint of “Cherry Garcia”?

Hey, buddy, if you’re still out there somewhere (i.e., someone hasn’t beaten you six feet under yet), my Sister is lookin’ fer you. She says it’s her turn!

~ 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, March 17, 2011


At school, Casey Heynes had been picked on and picked on and picked on, and finally he reached the end of his tolerance and body-slammed the little bully, Ritchard ("Dick") Gale.

Hey, Little Dick, did you learn a lesson? Little girlie dogs shouldn’t pick on BIG MANLY DOGS! Remember that, Little Dick, for it will serve you well as you go through life.

The school in Australia, where this incident occurred, suspended BOTH boys. But then that shouldn’t surprise us, since everyone knows that the most emasculated countries in the world are Australia, Canada, and France. (The United States of America probably gets only fourth place on the “Most Emasculated Countries” list.)

Internet service: $39.99
Popcorn & Soda Pop: $4.50
The sound of Little Dick's body meeting the pavement?: Priceless!

I love this video!: love it, Love it, LOVE it!

For follow-up crap, you can click here.

~ 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, March 12, 2011




Welcome to SEX, TATTOOS & VIOLENCE R US #9… #9… #9… #9… #9…
This is the ninth (and final) installment of ‘Sex, Tattoos & Violence R Us’. I’m happy to have you here. Unfortunately, Ariel O. O’Airedale (my inflatable girlfriend) and I had barely begun composing this edition when we got into a big argument and she kicked me out of the house. So, a good portion of this installment I had to compose entirely by myself, sans "the brains of the outfit”. Therefore, please understand and forgive me if the writing isn’t up to the usual standard – hey, I’m workin’ alone here!
This, of course, will also explain why I’m wearing my “misogyny” on my sleeve in this last installment of the Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ SEX, TATTOOS & VIOLENCE R US series.

Just the other day, a friend of mine paid me a great compliment when he said, “Dude, you are fu#king funny!” But I corrected him: “No, unfortunately, Ariel left me, so nowadays I’m only funny.”
It’s become almost a cliché, really, because everyone’s heard that supposedly Ravel's famous musical piece ‘Boléro’ is good to ditypolf to. Some folks probably really have ditypolfed to it. (I never had the energy or the stamina to give it a try.)
However, my favorite recording to play on those rare occasions when Ariel didn’t have a (air)head-ache, and consented to let me inflate her for a two-minute ditypolf session was the album ‘Ellington Indigos’. I suppose I’ll never have occasion to play MY copy anymore, but I figured I’d pass this idea on to you:
The next time you and your “significant other” are in the mood to ditypolf, do it while playing Duke Ellington’s ‘Indigos’.

The album’s song selection is: Solitude / Where Or When / Mood Indigo / Night And Day / Prelude To A Kiss / All The Things You Are / Willow Weep For Me / Tenderly / Dancing In The Dark / Autumn Leaves (with the first half sung in French)
Obviously, that’s a good, romantic, ditypolfing lineup of tunes. They worked well for Ariel and me. But now with Ariel out of my life, I should probably just sell my ‘Ellington Indigos’ CD on eBay. I don’t guess I’ll be playing anything but The Ramones anymore.
Be aware that the slogan “New & Improved” actually means “New & Inferior and/or More Expensive”. Keep that in mind as you shop.
It now seems that no matter where I go here in Phoenix, Airheadzona, I see a Hookah Lounge on every corner. Seriously? People get together and smoke tobacco out of a communal pipe? How… American Indian. Or Hippie. Or Commie. Or something!

Well, anything that is suddenly catching on in Phoenix, Airheadzona, and is becoming “The Next Big Thing” here probably peaked in popularity in America’s other states four or five years ago.
The other day I used the word “salve” in a blog bit comment that I posted. Later I got to thinking about that word, and also about the word “corps”, as in ‘Marine Corps’ or ‘press corps’.
Well, it’s bad enough that so many English words contain a letter that is silent when being pronounced, but in “salve” and “corps” we have not just one letter in each word that is silent, but TWO! Now that is ridiculous! Is the United States of America really so affluent that it can afford to waste so many letters, even to the point of wasting two letters in one small word? If that’s the case, then I propose we send some of our surplus letters to some of the less fortunate countries.
I’ve been told that there are some words starving for letters in Africa, China, and India. Rather than sending our tax dollars overseas in the form of ‘Foreign Aid’, why doesn’t USAP send some of our extra letters instead? It would be good for the letter-deprived countries and it would be a positive public relations act on our part. A win/win situation!
After nearly five years, my DVD player broke on me. Mine was a Toshiba model SD-V394, made in Thailand. I figured now, five years later, I would be unable to find ANY DVD players not made in China and I was despairing over the idea of buying something made in that Communist, abortion-forcing country. But then my buddy DOCTOR DISCCONNECTED came riding to my rescue. He gave me an older DVD player that he had stored away after upgrading to a better model.
One problem: My brother Nappy and I couldn’t get any sound out of it. Everything seemed to be operating normally except there was no sound, and the two of us tried patching the cords every conceivable way. …Or so we thought.
So, after two days, I finally gave up on it and after going to a couple other stores and failing to find a DVD player NOT made in China, I went to Best Buy and bought the cheapest player they had – made in China. And I kid you not, I could hardly stand the thought of myself doing this.
On the one hand, I had made earnest attempts to find a better solution to the problem, and I do have over a thousand dollars tied up in DVD entertainment – which is basically the only form of entertainment in my life. If I turn the TV on, it’s ONLY to watch a DVD.
But on the other hand, DVDs are mere entertainment; it’s not like the DVD player was some plumbing part or automotive part that I HAD to have and Chinese-made was all that was available. Could I really mentally justify buying myself a DVD player made in China? Well, I was hating myself all the way home, and hating myself while plugging in the new DVD player, and then hating the new DVD player when it ALSO provided no sound.
Now I knew for sure it wasn’t the stupid players that weren’t working, it was my stupid brain that wasn’t working! Then I did the totally unthinkable! I plugged the DVD Audio Out cords into the TV’s Video 1 Audio In slots and voila! Sound. Now I’m thinking: I’ll bet that same approach would work on DiscConnected’s old DVD player too. So I take out the new unit and plug in DiscDude’s used unit and voila! Sound. The next day, I returned the new player to Best Buy and they returned my money. And now I sleep with a clear conscience.
What a concept!: ‘Audio Out’ plugs into ‘Audio In’. Who-da thunk it? I would have sworn that Nappy and I had tried that approach over the two days we spent toiling on this project, but evidently not. Yeah, Nappy and me . . . we’re a couple of coconuts!

I may be a coconut, but I still have enough intelligence that I’m capable of feeling intellectually insulted. There is little I hate more than those types of commercials where we find two people seemingly having a private conversation about some product. We’re supposed to believe that we are eavesdropping on this couple and learning about some wonderful product right along with one of these two, plain, everyday persons like us.
The dialogue in these advertisements always goes something like this:
JILL: “Hi, Pamela. Hey! Where’s your tennis racket? We have the court reserved for ten o’clock!”
PAMELA: “Oh, Jill, I can’t go out in public today. I have a big, fat pimple right on the tip of my nose.”
JILL: “That’s nothing to worry about, Pam. Here, try some of this.”
PAM: “Zit-B-Gone? But does it really work?”
JILL: “I’m wearing it myself right now.”
PAM: “But, Jill, you have perfect skin!”
JILL: “That’s what you think. Go ahead, apply some to your nose.”
PAM: “Hey, the pimple seems to have disappeard. Zit-B-Gone REALLY DOES work! This is a fabulous product, Jill!”
JILL: “You’re telling me! I wish I had known about Zit-B-Gone when my wedding pictures were taken. Hey, Pam, where are you going?”
PAM: “To get my tennis racket. Zit-B-Gone works so well that we’re going to keep that appointment on the court after all. Jill, it’s too bad for you that Zit-B-Gone doesn’t erase tears the way it erases pimples, because I’m going to beat you like I own you.”
JILL & PAM Together: “Ha!-Ha!-Ha!-Ha!-Ha!”
Ooh! I hate, Hate, HATE those commercials!
It was either while I was driving to Best Buy to purchase the new DVD player or driving to Best Buy to return the new DVD player, when I found myself stopped at a traffic signal behind some little white car displaying on the back of it both the Christian “Fish” symbol and a bumper sticker with the New York Yankees logo on it. And I’m thinkin’ to myself: Isn’t that sending mixed signals? I mean, c’mon, make up your mind! Which are you going to promote? Christ or the Devil?

Christ . . .

. . . And The Devil.
OK, check this out! The next time you hold a door open for someone, whether male or female, watch and see if that person doesn’t reach out toward the door, and very often even touch the door lightly as they are passing through to enter or exit. Ninety-five out of one hundred people will react this way despite the fact that you are holding the door open for them. It’s almost like some aspect of human nature doesn’t allow us to fully trust the person not to let the door close on us as we are parallel to it. I’ll bet I do this too. I’ve been observing and noting this for many years now. Like, what’s up with this?
Good intention will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. ... It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
~ Daniel Webster
You run across the term “NeoConservatives” or “NeoCons” frequently, and I have often employed it on this blog as well. But do you really understand what is meant by this term? Do you know how to identify NeoCons? Do you know what they stand for? A pretty good short definition is this: “A Socialist in Economics, a Liberal in Politics, and a Conservative in Culture”. But for the full story, read the John F. McManus article titled ‘NEOCON CONTROL’ found HERE.
Recently, an ice cream truck has been making occasional rounds through my neighborhood. Nothing – NOTHING! – makes me reminisce about my wonderful Orange County, California, boyhood like the music playing from an ice cream truck; it makes my heart cry tears of innocent joy. I bought a cotton candy-flavored ice cream from the ice cream man several weeks ago. And the last time we heard him approaching, Nappy and I were both waiting for him, standing on our front lawn, money in hand. But he never came down our street. So I went inside and got myself a
Scotch & Soda instead.
We here at ‘Sex, Tattoos & Violence R Us’ have begun hearing rumors that actor Charlie Sheen may be in hot water for some statements he has publicly made. And we are dedicated to bringing you this story just as soon as we are able to confirm or deny the older rumors that we are still investigating - rumors that singer Michael Jackson has died and that O.J. Simpson is suspected of having killed his wife.
A couple of weeks ago I was talking with this nice Christian woman where I work when she happened to mention something about having helped her teenage daughter buy a new truck. I said, “A truck? Why did she want a truck?” And the woman replied, “She just wanted a truck.”
I didn’t say this to her, but I already knew why her daughter wanted a truck. She wanted a truck because that’s what many women want to drive these days. And the reason women want trucks these days is because so many men drive trucks these days.

You see, Cyndi Lauper got it wrong and my brother Nappy got it right. Cyndi said that “Girls just wanna have fun”, but in truth, girls just wanna be boys. And as Nappy pointed out years ago, men can induce women into doing ANYTHING merely by doing it themselves. He is so right!
Here are examples I like to use:
If a majority of men began acquiring Dalmatians - that is to say, if after deciding to own a dog, a large segment of the male population began leaning toward the Dalmatian breed - before long, most women would begin selecting Dalmatians when choosing a dog too.


If men began playing the game Tiddlywinks and began forming all-male Tiddlywinks leagues, there are two things that I can guarantee would happen in just a few short years: 1) Women would begin forming their own Tiddlywinks leagues, and 2) some women would sue for the right to participate in the all-male Tiddlywinks leagues.

Yeah, when it comes to men, women in general have inferiority complexes like that, which drives them to try to “keep up with the Joneses Menses”.
Sigmund Freud was a nut, but he was on to some basic truth about ‘Penis Envy’. I don’t believe he had it worked out right, but he was definitely on target in identifying a female envy pertaining to men.
And here’s my theory about the current truck fad among women: For many years now women have been exposed to countless television commercials showing brawny guys in rugged trucks bouncing over rugged terrain, or men on construction sites, sweating and engaging in manly physical labor revolving around big trucks, all to the tune of powerful-sounding drums and electric guitar music, or Bob Seger singing “Like A Rock”. And over time, this caused the ‘Penis Envy’ in women to kick in and, even if only subconsciously, they began to desire trucks so they could appear more macho, like men.
For years I had been mentally noting how many more women I saw on the roads driving trucks, and with each passing year, the number seemed to increase until now approximately 50% of all the trucks on the road are being driven by women. That’s true here in Phoenix, Airheadzona, anyway, and I would be surprised if it’s not true across the country, since Phoenix rarely leads, but follows.
I knew that the truck fad had really caught on with women when a few months ago my own Sister mentioned how she would like to own some certain make and model of truck. Never in all my life had I heard her say a positive thing about trucks until now. And it should be noted that my Sister has always been a ‘Dedicated Follower Of Fashion’.
If women are now drooling over trucks for some reason other than the one I propose, then what is that reason? Is it because trucks get such good gas mileage? No. Is it because trucks are especially fast? No. Is it because women haul a lot of “stuffs”? No. (In all these years that I have been watching this female/truck fad developing, I have only seen 3 or 4 women actually hauling anything in the bed of their trucks.) Is it because trucks are big and safe? Well, they are, but so are SUVs, and SUVs have more room for passengers, kids, toys, and junk. Is it because trucks have such sleek lines and a sporty look? No. I don’t care how much you try to round out the hard edges, a truck is still just an empty sandbox on wheels!
I can think of only one seemingly valid reason that so many women are driving trucks today: Penis Envy.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking I hate women. I do not. I like women who like to BE women. In fact, if I were this country’s Benevolent Dictator, no girl or boy would be allowed to graduate from high school without displaying a reasonably good grasp of the principles illustrated so beautifully in the book ‘THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN’ by Alice von Hildebrand. That’s right, in an ideal world, even the males would be required to study what is so great about “Real Women”.
But since all the knee-jerk female feminists are already falsely accusing me of being a misogynist for exposing the truth in that segment above, I might as well close this final installment of ‘SEX, TATTOOS & VIOLENCE R US’ by laying one more Inconvenient Female Truth on ya. This is a true-to-life scenario that I am familiar with, it has not been exaggerated in any way in order to make a point. This is the truth:
Where I work, there are three entrances into the building, at the North, South, and East ends. At 6:00 PM, the North and South doors get roped off and signed (“Please Use The East Door Only”) in order to direct all traffic through the East door alone. It’s a valid security measure that I won’t bother to explain in detail.
This means that people leaving the building after 6 PM, but who are parked nearest the North or South entrances, are required to use the East door and walk a little further to reach their cars in the parking lot. At most, we’re talking about an extra one or one and a half minute of exercise (walking).
In the last 12 years, perhaps 5 males – TOTAL! - have asked if they could slip under the rope/sign and exit out the door closest to their parked car. In those same 12 years, 4 or 5 women per week – PER WEEK! – have asked if they could slip under the rope and sign and use the closest door. Even when there’s still plenty of daylight outside (and security parking lot escorts are readily available after sunset), it makes no difference – day or night, light or dark – 4 or 5 women will beg for special treatment every week, requesting to use the closed exits solely because they are closer to their parked cars.
Based on these facts, what differences can we discern between men and women? What is the thinking process behind the massive discrepancy we see in the way that men react to the regulation and the way women react to it? Anyone have any ideas what we can conclude from this scenario about how men and women perceive themselves?
My observations related to the above illustration have caused me over the years to develop a simple theory that I have named “The Princess Principle”. Enough said?
'Wrestling With Morality: Boys Vs. Girls On The Mat'
By Selwyn Duke
(He couldn't have said it better!)
This has been another fine Ariel O. O’Airedale (who was mostly absent) & Stephen T. McCarthy production, brought to you by our sponsor . . .
Home Of The “20-for-19” Drink Special

The “20-for-19” Drink Special: Drink 19 Martinis during Happy Hour and your 20th Martini is “on the house!”
~ Stephen T. McCarthy (and Ariel O. O’Airedale)
Back Issues: 
Forerunner to S. T. & V. R US: 
7 Remastered RANDOM THOUGHTS + 1 Previously Unreleased BONUS TRACK And 1 ALTERNATE TAKE
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, March 4, 2011


Wake up, America! Your government is totally out of control! When are you going to turn off your television set and take a stand against it?

It was my brother, Nappy, who pointed me in the direction of this breaking story about The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) of our so-called "Justice Department" and its gunrunning activities putting high-powered automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartel criminals.

Yes, this is the same ATF that torched women and children in Waco, Texas, once upon a time. You remember that story and those lovely Federal agents (rabid, killer dog whores working for Uncle Sam), right? If not, watch the documentary 'WACO: The Rules Of Engagement' and refresh your memory!

Here's the latest crap from America's ATF Bureau:

March 3, 2011

ATF Agent Says "Fast And Furious" Program Let Guns "Walk" Into Hands Of Mexican Drug Cartels
By Sharyl Attkisson
(CBS News)

WASHINGTON - Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.

He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?

"Yes ma'am," Dodson told CBS News. "The agency was."

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.

Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

Dodson's bosses say that never happened. Now, he's risking his job to go public.

"I'm boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we've been doing it every day since I've been here," he said. "Here I am. Tell me I didn't do the things that I did. Tell me you didn't order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn't happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn't happen."

Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

ATF named the case "Fast and Furious."

Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.

So it turns out ATF not only allowed it - they videotaped it.

Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets... the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.

One e-mail noted, "958 killed in March 2010 ... most violent month since 2005." The same e-mail notes: "Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone," including "numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles."

Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border. "I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two," he said. "The more our guys buy, the more violence we're having down there."

Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over.

Their answer, according to Dodson, was, "If you're going to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs."

There was so much opposition to the gun walking, that an ATF supervisor issued an e-mail noting a "schism" among the agents. "Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case...we are doing what they envisioned.... If you don't think this is fun you're in the wrong line of work... Maybe the Maricopa County jail is hiring detention officers and you can get $30,000 ... to serve lunch to inmates..."

"We just knew it wasn't going to end well. There's just no way it could," Dodson said.

On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down. Dodson got the bad news from a colleague.

According to Dodson, "They said, 'Did you hear about the border patrol agent?' And I said, 'Yeah.' And they said 'Well it was one of the Fast and Furious guns.' There's not really much you can say after that."

Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry's murder.

Dodson said, "I felt guilty. I mean it's crushing. I don't know how to explain it."

Sen. Grassley began investigating after his office spoke to Dodson and a dozen other ATF sources -- all telling the same story.

The response was "practically zilch," Grassley said. "From the standpoint that documents we want - we have not gotten them. I think it's a case of stonewalling."

Dodson said he hopes that speaking out helps Terry's family. They haven't been told much of anything about his murder - or where the bullet came from.

"First of all, I'd tell them that I'm sorry. Second of all, I'd tell them I've done everything that I can for them to get the truth," Dodson said. "After this, I don't know what else I can do. But I hope they get it."

Dodson said they never did take down a drug cartels. However, he said thousands of Fast and Furious weapons are still out there and will be claiming victims on both sides of the border for years to come.

Late tonight, the ATF said it will convene a panel to look into its national firearms trafficking strategy. But it refused to comment specifically on Sharyl's report.

Statement from Kenneth E. Melson, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will ask a multi-disciplinary panel of law enforcement professionals to review the bureau's current firearms trafficking strategies employed by field division managers and special agents. This review will enable ATF to maximize its effectiveness when undertaking complex firearms trafficking investigations and prosecutions. It will support the goals of ATF to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico and combat firearms trafficking in the United States."

Well, there ya go, People - that's your tax dollars and the representatives of your government's Justice Department at work for ya.

Between your ATF agents and your TSA agents, and the man you elected to un-Constitutionally live in The White House, and your lezbo who oversees your Department of Homeland Security, you have much to be proud of, America! It's no wonder at all that most of the world hates you!

~ 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, March 2, 2011


The Februay 21, 2011, edition of The New American magazine included a review written by Thomas R. Eddlem for the book ‘You Can Still Trust The Communists…To Be Communists (Socialists And Progressives Too)’ by Fred Schwarz and David Noebel. Mr. Eddlem says it’s a “very valuable and important book”.

I’m thinking I might buy a copy of it, and not for what it says but for what it shows.

Anyone who has spent any time reading ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ is aware of the fact that I have spent years studying Communism/Socialism. I mean, how could a defender of Senator Joseph McCarthy – as I am – not be fairly well versed in the ways of Communism? Just undertaking a serious study of McCarthy would necessitate gathering a lot of information about McCarthy’s mortal enemies: the Commies and their Fellow Travelers.

Of course, when one learns about Communists, it is only natural that he or she will also gather along the way knowledge about all of the other “Socialist dogs”, such as the Fabians, the Keynesians (e.g., NeoConservatives), various types of Fascists, and every stripe of Dumb-O-Crat, and so forth and so on.

I have plenty of Communist-related titles in my bookcases, from classics such as John Stormer’s ‘None Dare Call It Treason: 25 Years Later’, Douglas Hyde’s ‘Dedication And Leadership’, Whittaker Chambers’ ‘Witness’, and Stephane Courtois’ ‘The Black Book Of Communism’, to lesser known works like Clarence Carson’s ‘Basic Communism’ and Richard Wurmbrand’s ‘Was Karl Marx A Satanist?’ (I don’t suppose I even need to mention Karl Marx’s ‘The Communist Manifesto’, do I?)

So, although I am sure I would learn a thing or two about Communism by reading ‘You Can Still Trust The Communists…To Be Communists (Socialists And Progressives Too)’, I have to suspect that the bulk of this book will simply be rehashing information I’m already familiar with.

And yet, I’m thinking of purchasing the book anyway. Why? Because I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the cover illustration! I think I need to have that in my house. Take a look… below is the Beatles’ original – an iconic album cover – followed by the updated Schwarz/Noebel take on it:

Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

Sergeant Commie’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

It’s very difficult to make out all of the faces because of the poor quality of the image, but in the upper right corner I have identified Antonio Gramsci, and in the lower right corner is “Hanoi” Jane Fonda (next to Castro). It looks to me like the dude playing a banjo in the lower left area might be Pete Seeger, and I love the fact that an actual “Beatle” made the cover: that’s a black and white photograph of John Lennon just to the left of Marx in the yellow band uniform.

The only thing I might have done differently is to have put Lenin’s face where we now find Marx, so that Lennon would be standing next to Lenin (who would be wearing John Lennon’s yellow band uniform from the original album cover photo).

Anyway, regardless of this book’s text; regardless of how much or how little new stuff(s) I might or might not learn from it, I think I needs me to have ‘You Can Still Trust The Communists…To Be Communists (Socialists And Progressives Too)’ in my home library. That is just CLASSIC imagery.

Imagine there's no Lennon
It's easy if you try
No Marx below us
Above us lotsa pie
Imagine all the Commies
Gone since yesterday…

Imagine there's no Commies
Although it’s hard to do
No Socialists nor Fascists
And no Liberals too
Imagine all the people
Left the hell alone!

You may say I'm a loony
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll wise up
So our problems will be done

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

POSTSCRIPT: This ain’t got nuttin’ to do wit’ nuttin’ but, on my other blog, I just posted a very old picture of Yours Truly that a friend of mine happened to run across and Emailed to me.

Check it out! I really was young (and nearly “cool”) once, in a galaxy far, far away.

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.