#1 RULE OF POLITICS

.
THE BONES OF PATRIOTS PAST
(Or, ‘The Socialists Who Cried Conservative’)

by Stephen T. McCarthy

Once upon a time, there was a number of conservative Americans. When the conservative people saw how socialists calling themselves Democrats or Liberals had stolen their liberties guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights and had pissed all over the U.S. Constitution, they knew something had to be done.

Then a group of politicians calling themselves Republicans said, “We have seen the destruction done by the Democrats. Like you, we are political conservatives, and if you vote us into authority, we will reverse the damage done by the Democrats. We will reduce the size of government, we'll cut federal spending, and we'll return your individual rights to you and honor your state’s right to govern itself.” And the Republican media pundits said, “Yes! Protect the Constitution by voting Republican, and things will improve!”

So, the conservative people voted Republicans into power. And the Republicans stole the liberties guaranteed to The People by the Bill of Rights and they pissed all over the U.S. Constitution.

So, in the next election, the majority of people voted the Republicans out and the Democrats back in. And the Democrats stole the liberties guaranteed to The People by the Bill of Rights and they pissed all over the U.S. Constitution. The conservative Americans knew something had to be done.

Then the group of politicians calling themselves Republicans said, “We agree with you conservative Americans. If you vote us into authority, we will undo what the Democrats have done. We'll reduce the size of government, cut federal spending, return your individual rights to you and honor your state’s right to govern itself.” And the Republican media pundits said, “Yes! Protect the Constitution by voting Republican, and things will improve!”

So, the conservatives voted the Republicans back in again. And the Republicans stole the liberties guaranteed to The People by the Bill of Rights and they pissed all over the U.S. Constitution.

So, a majority of The People became disgusted and brought the Democrats back into power, and the Democrats stole the liberties guaranteed to The People by the Bill of Rights and they pissed all over the U.S. Constitution. The conservative Americans were angry and they said, “Doggone it! Something MUST be done about this terrible situation. Our country is being destroyed!”

And the group of politicians calling themselves Republicans said, “We agree with you conservative Americans. If you vote us into authority, we will undo what the Democrats have done. We'll reduce the size of government, cut federal spending, return your individual rights to you and honor your state’s right to govern itself.” And the Republican media pundits said, “Yes! Protect the Constitution by voting Republican, and things will improve!”

And the conservative Americans dug up the graves of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson and they beat the Republican politicians and the Republican media pundits to death with the bones of patriots past.

The moral of this story is: Beware of Socialists in Republican’s clothing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, he wrote the following in the Declaration Of Independence. Perhaps you’ve heard of it… unless you’re an Airheadzona high school student:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Hmmm… “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,” eh? Nope. Doesn’t ring a (Liberty) Bell, does it? No, not much it doesn’t.

Last August, I got into a bit of a snit when a friend of mine told me after hearing USAP’s speech at the Democratic National Convention that she had decided to vote for him. She told me that USAP “seems really sincere.”

I responded:

Yeah, so did Hitler, in the beginning. So did Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao and pretty much every other dictator we could name. So did Clinton and Bush. I wonder how many times over the five (?) years we’ve known each other I have said to you:

“IT’S NEVER, EVER WHAT A POLITICIAN SAYS THAT COUNTS, IT’S ONLY WHAT HE DOES THAT MATTERS. AND IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE WILL DO IN THE FUTURE, JUST CONSIDER WHAT HE’S DONE IN THE PAST.”

And what has Obama done in the past? Well, if you’ve looked beyond the mainstream media at all, then you know that he is nothing more than a … Marxist; he doesn’t give a rat’s a## about the Constitution and the American tradition.

In April of this year, an intelligent, genuinely conservative and genuinely patriotic friend of mine wrote the following to me:

It is just that I like neocons better than undistilled, flat out red socialist radicals like Obama. I see neocons' glaring faults. They are maddening. Neocons ALMOST have principles... a few may even HAVE some. They just water them down and abandon them so that whatever good they could have done is usually lost. But, in at least STATING principles occasionally, they are closer to correct than libs, though most of the time almost indistinguishable. At least one might be able to have a conversation with them, which I find impossible with liberals.

I replied:

Yes, I know. My contention, however, is that the Neocons always intend to move in the opposite direction of their stated beliefs once they assume power. In short, it's not that they get confused or simply lose their way in the process; it's that they are lying from the outset. I couldn't even count the number of times I've said,

"It's not what a politician says he stands for and promises to do that counts, it's only what he does that matters. And if a person wants to know what a politician will do in the future, he or she only needs to look at what that politician has done in the past."

Someday I should write a brief Blog bit about this observation because, honestly, it's the single greatest truth that I have learned in my years of studying the political scene.

And recently I added:

I think this Blog Bit will explain where I'm essentially coming from in my dislike of Neocons such as Gingrich, Rush, Beck, and all the others. In a nutshell though, my contention is they are simply playing "Good Cop" to the Liberal's "Bad Cop." But you realize, of course, that when a police agency plays "Good Cop/Bad Cop" both sides actually represent the agency. It's a game to sucker the suspect. Well, I think it applies equally to politics. But hopefully I'll make my viewpoint more clear in the forthcoming Blog Bit.

Well, that forthcoming Blog Bit has arrived, and THIS is my #1 Rule Of Politics…

I’ll state it concisely first and then elaborate: The only true conservatives on the political scene today are “Constitutionalists.” To believe in a strict adherence to the Founding Fathers’ position on federal restrictions dictated by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is the only genuine conservatism that exists. Today, nearly all Republican politicians referring to themselves as “conservatives” are lying about their conservatism to get your vote.

What is a real conservative trying to “conserve”? The form of Constitutionally limited Republican government designed by our Founding Dads! We certainly don’t desire to conserve the latter day socialism institutionalized by Liberals and Neoconservatives (read: Fakeconservatives).

There is a game being played on the Americonned People whereby socialists known as Democrats appear to war with socialists known as Republicans. The only difference is that the socialists calling themselves Republicans CLAIM to stand for conservative values in order to capture the vote of the Americonned People who identify with conservatism. In essence, it’s the Hegelian Dialectic played out by two political parties who are ever consciously moving the masses Leftward.

In order to quickly get my point across, I’m going to briefly throw a spotlight on the man who has falsely come to symbolize genuine conservatism today: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan is supposed to be the great representation of conservative political ideals, but a close examination will prove that he has been placed on his Republican Pedestal of History solely for what he said, not for what he actually did, because what Reagan did rarely matched his conservative rhetoric.

Any so-called conservative presenting Ronald Reagan as the epitome of their position is no conservative at all. If you tell me, “Ronald Reagan was a great conservative president”, my response to you is, “Get thee behind me, Liberal: for thou savourest not the things that be of Constitutionality, but the things that be of socialism.” (I’m sorry if this troubles those of you who think of Reagan as a great American hero, but when we know the truth, the truth will make us free.)

The evidence against Reagan’s conservative bona fides would swallow this Blog Bit, but to put a nugget of it in brief: Despite cutting tax rates, Reagan also “chalked up more government debt than all the Presidents before him combined.” A reduction in taxes without a reduction in government spending only adds to the deficit, and adding to the deficit does not a conservative make! [See: ‘The Shadows Of Power: The Council On Foreign Relations And The American Decline’ by Perloff.]

Ronald Reagan (along with George H. W. Bush) was a member of the World Federalist Association. “This group openly called for immediate world government.” It’s aim was to “create a world federal government with authority to enact, interpret and enforce world law adequate to maintain peace …. World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.” Bye-bye Bill of Rights protection for American citizens!

At a 1983 economic summit, Ronald Reagan said: “An integrated world economy needs a common monetary standard … But, no national currency will do – only a world currency will work.” [See: ‘Treason: The New World Order’ by Gurudas.]

Asked on March 17, 1980, during the Florida primary, whether he would allow any Trilateral Commission members in his Cabinet, presidential hopeful, RONALD REAGAN, replied, “No, I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any administration of the U.S. government should have the top 19 positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No. I would go in a different direction.”

Just prior to the election, REAGAN was asked who really ran the country and he answered, “I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government. They want a government by a handful of people because they don’t believe the people themselves can run their lives … Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people’s lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?”

And yet, after becoming president, Reagan assembled a “transition team” of 59 Elite people representing international bankers and multinational corporations to select, screen and recommend appointees for major administration posts. Of that 59 person team, 28 were Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members, 10 were members of the secret and elite Bilderberg Group, and 10 were members of the Trilateral Commission. [See: ‘The Unseen Hand’ by Epperson.] There’s an incestuous relationship between all three of these conspiratorial groups. President Reagan ultimately named to his administration the following Council on Foreign Relations members (primarily Global Government-promoting Keynesian socialists). This is a partial list:

RONALD REAGAN’S CFR PALS
VICE PRESIDENT: Bush
SECRETARY OF STATE: Haig
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Weinberger
CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Jones
C.I.A. DIRECTOR: Casey
TREASURY SECRETARY: Regan (former Trilateral Commission member)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Washburn
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Baldridge
ASSISTANT TO SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR: West
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION: Duffy
DEPUTY DIRECTOR CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Inman
DEPARTMENT OF STATE: 21 CFR members
AMBASSADORS: 24 CFR members
MISCELLANEOUS POSTS: 46 CFR members

The bottom line is: Although he talked a good game, and although he may have truly desired to do right by his country, the fact is that Reagan sold out to The Secret Elite. He was just one more in a long line of pseudo-conservatives fooling the Americonned People in order to get votes. At best, Reagan was an enabler of traitors; at worst, he was a liar and a traitor to his country. One thing he certainly was not, however – he was NOT a conservative American patriot. That Ronald Reagan has come to symbolize the modern conservative movement perfectly illustrates just what a sham the Republican party really is! Like other presidents before and after him, Reagan was dishonest when he put his hand on The Holy Bible and swore to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

But this pattern of fake conservatives fooling the people hardly begins or ends with Reagan.

Remember when the Republicans destroyed the Democrats in 1994 based on a so-called conservative Contract With America? Did you notice how quickly and strikingly the federal government adapted to Constitutional limitations right after Newt Gingrich and his fellow "conservative" politicians took office? Yeah, me neither. Well, color me surprised! Promises, reneging; promises, reneging, ad infinitum. Has a pattern developed here, Thomas Jefferson? We won’t even discuss “W” and how he increased the cost and scope of government even beyond that of Bill Clinton And His Jolly Band Of Lying Liberals. A fairly strong argument could be made that the last president to remain true to his oath of office was Grover Cleveland. Yeah, that was a few years ago.

Nowadays we have pseudo-conservatives with their own TV stations and radio programs, continuing to brainwash the authentic conservatives in America into believing that they have a voice in the media. But these people are all frauds; they’re not really conservatives like you and I. They say the right things, but they avoid mentioning the meaningful issues.

Rush Limbaugh? I agree with most of what he says, but it’s what he DOESN’T say that disturbs me! He won’t address the real heart of the trouble. What are the two biggest political problems in America today?

1: Our complete disregard of Constitutional restrictions. (Important!: By definition, this would include our illegal Federal Reserve System. The Fed is illegal because it’s un-Constitutional! See: ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve’ by Griffin.)

2: Foreign and domestic policy being dictated by nonelected Elites in nongovernmental organizations (e.g., the CFR, international bankers, corporate representatives, etc.) rather than by a Congress coerced only by The People it legitimately represents.

These are the 2 biggest problems in the U.S.A. today, and why aren’t Limboob, Bill O’Really?, Sean “You’re An
Un-American American” Hannity, and Michael “Trotskyite” Medved shouting about them every day on their programs? Why are they always just Yakking Around The Bush but never trying to drive a stake into the heart of the monster? Wanna know why? Because they’re all frauds; secret Keynesian socialists in Republican’s clothing, and they exist to speak just enough truth to convince you they represent your ideas and concerns, but they don’t fully ACT on the conservative Constitutional principles they claim to love. To borrow an appropriate tune title from Pat Metheny: (It’s Just) Talk.

The Republican media pundits serve one purpose, and that is to convince you to vote Republican again next time around. This way the One-World Fascist Agenda (“New World Order”) can continue unabated while you get the satisfaction of throwing the current crop of bastards out of office. Back and forth the political pendulum swings: Democrat-Republican, Democrat-Republican, Democrat-Republican, but the slide into statist tyranny deepens with each swing of the political pendulum.

Here’s a little test I’ve devised to help a person figure out whether or not a Republican is a real (Constitutional) conservative: If he has his own segment on Fox News, he’s not. If he broadcasts behind The Golden EIB Microphone or praises the man who does, he’s not.

A Rush Limboob can state the obvious all day long; he can Yak for hours about how wrong federal bailouts are (which of us conservatives don’t already agree with that?) But until he starts pointing his fat finger at the real cause behind the outrage – the Federal Reserve System - until Limboob starts criticizing the source of the trouble and calls for an audit of The Fed and then a discontinuation of that un-Constitutional Beelzebub, his “conservatism”?-- (It’s Just) Yak. And that goes for his every phony crony. Neocons all. The Federal Reserve System is our country’s single most egregious transgression against the U.S. Constitution. So, why is it not on the lips of “conservative” TV and radio commentators each and every single day? No! Answer the question, Reader. Answer it!

Pay attention! The whole point of this Blog Bit is to illustrate that anyone can say ANYTHING, but that doesn’t make it so. Ronald Reagan could call himself a conservative but that didn’t make it so. He could swear to uphold the Constitution, but that didn’t make it so. George W. Bush claimed to be a conservative but that didn’t make it so. He claimed to endorse smaller and less expensive government but he increased government’s size and cost even beyond his liberal predecessor, Bill Clinton. I guess it depends on what the meanings of the words “is” and “conservative” are.

Insincere Yakking doesn’t just apply to politics, of course; it can operate across-the-board. A woman can call herself “Christian” until the cows come home blue in the face, but saying she’s a Christian doesn’t make it so. Particularly if her beliefs are not in accord with the Biblical standard that defined original “Christianity.” I can say I’m a six-year-old Hindu girl from Dogbite Falls, Minnesota, but that doesn’t make it so.

In conclusion, I’ll reiterate what my years of study have proven to me is the #1 Rule Of Politics:

IT IS NOT WHAT A POLITICIAN SAYS THAT MATTERS MOST; IT’S WHAT HE OR SHE DOES THAT YOU NEED TO NOTICE.

Do you wish to understand a politician’s real beliefs? Then put aside the things he or she has said and examine the history of their actions. How have they voted? What organizations have they joined? Whom have they previously supported? This is where you’ll find the answer you seek. (Yes, it will require a little homework on your part. If that’s too much effort for you, then you shouldn’t be voting. Voting is a responsibility best left to the Big Boys and Girls.)

For the media, the rule gets a slight twist:

IT IS NOT WHAT A POLITICAL COMMENTATOR SAYS THAT MATTERS MOST; IT’S WHAT HE OR SHE LEAVES UNSAID THAT YOU NEED TO NOTICE.

Remember people, it is only your belief that mainstream politicians mean what they say that perpetuates the illusion of political options. Do your homework, investigate the background of your “conservative” politician of choice - or even your “liberal” politician of choice - and you will eventually wake up to see the reality behind the illusion. An illusion deliberately fabricated to keep you dreaming of “Change” without any real possibility of experiencing it.

Here’s the bumper sticker slogan:

The truth about a person ain’t in YAK, it’s in ACT!

Beware of Wolves in Sheep’s clothing. Beware of Democrats in Republican’s clothing. Beware of Socialists in Capitalist’s clothing. Beware of Liberals in Conservative’s clothing. But most of all, beware of Men in Women’s clothing!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Link To The Companion Piece:
#1 RULE OF SELFHOOD

Other Links:
What Is Neoconservatism? You NEED To Know THIS!
I Don’t Trust Glenn Beck
.

THE ANTIDOTE FOR FEMINISM (Or, "REAL WOMAN" DEFINED)

.
[*From the STMcC archive; 2006, July 31st.*]

*My grading scale is typical A through F, but with the very highest mark being an R, which is the equivalent of an A++. Why an R? Heck if I know. My Pa used to tell me that in high school he had a drafting teacher whose highest grade was an R. Pa never did learn what the R stood for, nor - sadly - did he ever achieve one.

Book: “THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN” by Alice von Hildebrand; 2002

Grade: R

In a recent E-mail exchange with a 43-year-old female friend of mine living on the East Coast, I asked her to give me her definitions of the terms "Real Man" and "Real Woman." She replied with a beautiful little one-sentence definition of a "Real Man", but then followed that up with this:

"A real woman? That's easy: a girl who rides a motorcycle in a skirt..."

I can't even begin to describe the depth of my disappointment in that definition, coming as it does from a generally spiritually-minded woman. But then I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised seeing as how she (and every other female of her generation) has been exposed to 40 years of Feminist indoctrination. I thought how sad it was that she - a woman herself - had less understanding of what makes a "Real Woman" than I had, and here I - being a man - am a supposedly insensitive brute of a thing ("a bear with furniture" to quote the very funny comedienne, Elaine Boosler). This only goes to emphasize the point that those extremist social engineers we call "Feminists" have been so effective in twisting and confusing the minds of the vast majority of the female gender that even "spiritual" women no longer recognize what they are and what they are supposed to do in support of the human society (as dictated by their Creator, The Lord God).

I do not read anything without having a yellow (yellow ONLY!) highlighter nearby. I highlight favorite sentences and passages in EVERYTHING I read, that includes fiction and even magazines. 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN' by Catholic writer and thinker Alice von Hildebrand is - at only 108 pages - not much more than a booklet, but don't let that fool you into thinking that she doesn't have much to say about the privileges of being a woman: my copy of her book is thoroughly filled with yellow highlighted sections. In fact, there are so many penetrating insights packed into each page that I have rarely highlighted so many sentences per page in any book other than The Holy Bible! When I first read 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN', I was blown away by how much of great value Hildebrand had to say on the subject. (And I finished the book sort of feeling that I had been cheated by being born "a bear with furniture.")

Hildebrand dedicated her excellent book "WITH LOVING GRATITUDE TO MY DEAR FRIENDS WHO ALL LOVE TO BE WOMEN." Following is just a very small sampling of the many profound and extraordinary observations Hildebrand shares with us about the privileges of being a woman:

* As sanctity is devalued in [Socialistic feminist, Simone de Beauvoir's] eyes (as a poor substitute for great achievements), the highest praise that can be given anyone, male or female - namely holiness - is, to her mind, only a left-handed compliment... What characterizes holiness is this limitless readiness to serve others. [pages 6 & 32]

* Yet it seems evident that even in the face of their physical vulnerability, given their greater sensitivity, their more subtle intuitions, their talent for feeling themselves into others, women have greater possibilities of uplifting or of hurting others than those usually granted to the opposite sex. [page 9]

* Unwittingly, the feminists acknowledge the superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like men. [page 10]

* The denigration of women is clearly a sad consequence of original sin which has subverted the hierarchy of values... Original sin was a sin of pride, of disobedience, of irreverence, and of metaphysical revolt that led to an inversion of the hierarchy of values... As women are weaker than men, and as they do not bask in the limelight as much as men do, as they are less "creative" than the strong sex, they are bound to be the victims of this distorted hierarchy of values... but that feminists have endorsed this inversion is still more pitiful. Imprisoned in the spiritual jail of secular categories, they fail to understand that their true mission is to swim against the tide and, with God's grace, help restore the proper hierarchy of values. By living up to their calling, women will succeed in guaranteeing a proper recognition of the unique value of femininity and its crucial mission in the world... [T]he "weakness" of the female sex, as far as accomplishments and productivity are concerned, can be more than compensated by her moral strength when she lives up to her calling... But feminists - blinded by secularism - do what, in fact, will lead to a worsening of women's situation. Feminists are women's great enemy. [pages 21, 26 & 29]

* Nietzsche perceived clearly that the emancipation of women is a symptom that their feminine instincts are weakening... The whole tragedy of contemporary feminism - which Cardinal Josef Ratzinger [now the Pope] considers one of the greatest threats menacing the Church - stems from a lack of faith and a loss of the sense of the supernatural. Feminism is inconceivable in a world rooted in Judeo-Christian values... The new age philosophy of feminism, in waging war on femininity, is in fact waging war on Christianity. For in the Divine plan both are intimately linked. Not Socialism, as Simone de Beauvoir believed, but Christ is the great ally of women. Modern ideology wages war on the Gospel which teaches humility and that those who lower themselves will be exalted. [pages 30 & 32]

(Let's not forget that Jesus Christ said that He "did not come to be served, but to serve." [Matthew 20:28] And after all is said and done, who would you prefer to be remembered in this world as being most like, Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Mother Teresa and even Jesus Christ Himself? ~STMcC)

* Here is a truth worth meditating upon: Women are more geared to piety because they have a keener awareness of their weaknesses. This is their true strength. [page 66]

(And lets not forget that Saint Paul was directly told by Jesus Christ that his strength would be "made perfect in weakness." See 2 Corinthians 12:9. ~STMcC)

* [Regarding the context of women and childbirth, the great Christian commentator, G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) writes...] "No one staring at that frightful female privilege, can quite believe in the equality of the sexes." [page 87]

And in keeping with the spirit of that observation, I am about to reveal one of my secret inner beliefs; something that I - until now - have never told a single person, but a thought that I have entertained in my heart and mind for many years:

It seems to me that if all of the world's masterpieces of art, and all of its most uplifting and poetic writings, and all of its most emotionally moving musical compositions were gathered together in one place, they would still not come close to equalling the beauty in the simple God-created concept of a mother feeding her infant child from her own body. Maybe you wouldn't expect such an idea coming from an "old school" man like myself, but there it is! That's what I really think. And the world's most supreme beauty is something that I, being a male, will never experience! Now, try to imagine the revulsion I felt during that disgusting scene in that disgusting movie, 'Million Dollar Baby', when Clint Eastwood tells his female boxer: "I want you to jab, right in the tits, until they turn blue and fall off." (Incidentally, I saw that movie ONLY so that I would feel justified in posting a negative review of it.)

Never having been a Catholic, the only aspect of this book that I have less than glowing comments for are its few instances of Catholic dogma with which I do not concur. But these are rare occurrences and easily ignored. In light of the spiritually deep and worldview-altering insights that Alice von Hildebrand shares with us, lowering this publication's grade because of them would be an irresponsible act on my part.

It seems that God never intended me to marry and become the head of a family. One problem was that - in this feminist-dominated era - I could not find "Real Women" potential mates. One great, notable exception was (my ex-girlfriend) "The Countess", a Real Woman for sure! But evidently marriage was just never in the cards that God dealt to us.

At nearly 47, a "family" is now out of the question for me. But, if I'd gotten married and had children, there are maybe half a dozen books that I would have insisted that my children read and display a comprehensive understanding of. I assure you that 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN' by Alice von Hildebrand would have been one of those select books. And I don't mean just my girls would have had to read it; it would have been on the REQUIRED READING LIST for my boys as well. Why? Because once a man has understood the awesome privilege and responsibility that God has entrusted to the female gender, he would thereafter be perfectly incapable of sexually, physically or emotionally abusing women!

I now urge you to read 'THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A WOMAN' and then to pass it on to your own daughters before "Real Women" become an even greater rarity in our culture than are "Honest Politicians.” And as it stands right now, I'd call that one a draw.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

WHERE'S THE B.C., B.O.?

.
Below is a link to the latest drama in "THE CASE OF THE MISSING BIRTH CERTIFICATE":

Pentagon Orders Soldier Fired For Challenging Prez.

If you're starting to get the idea that I'm like a dog with a bone when it comes to this birth certificate issue, you're starting to get the right idea. Until I know which doctor (witch doctor?) delivered Baby B.O. at which hospital, USAP cannot be my president! Come on, out with the "real" birth certificate, Mr. Transparency. [*Cough!-Cough!*]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

AIRHEADZONA: IT'S A STATE OF STUPIDITY (or, Iz U Smarter'n A Arizona High Skool Student?)

.
[Get your Number Twos out; there is a civics/history test at the bottom of this Blog Bit.]

Everybody who has spent any time worth mentioning in the state of Arizona already knows why I routinely refer to it as “Airheadzona.” Our first problem is that anyone moving here is forced to turn in their brain at the border. I mean, of course, the Northern, Western and Eastern borders. There are no officials guarding our Southern border.

But what they do is confiscate your brain and give you a claim check in exchange for it. The people living here have completely empty craniums, and that is why Arizona is known as “The Grand Canyon State.” Should someone ever wise up enough to move out of the state later (a tough decision to reach minus your brain), he or she turns in the claim check at the border and receives their brain back. But bear in mind that these are brainless state employees running the system, so more times than not, the citizen does not get their original brain back. That’s why it’s said that once a person has lived in Arizona, they’re never quite the same again.

Since no one is watching our Southern border, it’s possible for illegal aliens (we won’t even mention Islamic terrorists) to enter Arizona at will from that side. Thus, these people obviously bring into the state what brains they might have. But the person who WANTS to live in Arizona hasn’t much grey matter to begin with, and what little they do have is quickly boiled by the heat, so they don’t represent any real threat to the status quo. (Speaking of heat, I hear we’re supposed to reach 116 this weekend. "But it's a dry heat." If we had brains we’d be brain-dead. Pray for us!)

Yes, here in Airheadzona, most of us couldn't beat a dead dog lying by the side of the road in an I.Q. contest. And our stupidity is reflected in myriad ways: as you’ve probably heard, thanks to our illegal immigrant population, we’re #1 in the country in kidnappings; we also top the chart in stolen cars; we’re #1 in stolen identities; and a few years back I read that our crime rate per capita was double that of New York City. I recall hearing that we also rate at or near the top nationwide in unmarried teen pregnancies. Of course, our state's economy is in the tank, and that’s why our former governor, Butch Napolitano, was promoted to Secretary of Homeland Security by USAP. She doesn’t have to worry about dollars and sense nor that pesky Southern Arizona border anymore.

But we’re not always at the top; we’re at the bottom of the chart in some subjects. For instance, we are regularly at or near the bottom in national SAT scores. And in athletics, well, the Airheadzona Diamondbacks play Double-A ball in the Major Leagues, the hockey team is bankrupt and may leave the state (only the players’ temporarily misplaced brains is delaying that move), and the NFL Cardinals… well, we’re all still scratching our empty heads about what happened last year, and we’re hopeful that the “real” team will be back on the gridiron next season. The last thing we need is the country’s spotlight on us like it was during Super Bowl week.

Arizona was once “Goldwater Country” and so we still have a lingering and undeserved national reputation as a politically conservative state. But Goldwater was a long time ago - prior to The Great Brain Heist. I’m a Constitutionalist, so believe me, I recognize conservatism when I see it… and it ain’t here. That Western “Leave Us Alone To Run Our Own Affairs” attitude has declined in direct proportion to the Eastern and Californian influx. Not to mention the confiscation of our brains. That didn’t help matters.

To prove my points, I’m offering you the same TEN-QUESTION TEST that was recently administered to Airheadzona high school students. Last week, this was the hot topic on former-Congressman J.D. Hayworth’s talk radio program. Below is the test as it appears on Hayworth’s web page. Take it and see how you do. I’ve included my own answers with the questions, just in case you need a little assist from an Airheadzonan (me, Stephen T. McCarthy).

Are You Smarter Than An Arizona High School Student?
Tuesday 06-30-2009; 4:21pm MT

The Goldwater Institute recently released a new report that said only 3.5 percent of Arizona high school students have learned enough history, government and geography necessary to pass the U.S. Citizenship test. 1,140 students from Arizona high schools were asked ten questions that were on the exam given to people applying for U.S. citizenship. According to the report, only 40 students out of a sample of 1,134 Arizona public high school students quizzed passed the test.

Below are the questions they were asked. Do you know the correct answers?

1) What is the supreme law of the land?
[*Stephen T. McCarthy sez: Judge Judy?]

2) What do we call the first 10 amendments of the Constitution?
[*STMcC sez: Myths and Fables?]

3) What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?
[*STMcC sez: “Clowns” and “Jokers”? Clowns to the left of me; Jokers to the right; here I am, stuck in the middle with you?]

4) How many justices are on the Supreme Court?
[*STMcC sez: None. They’re Injustices, and they usually stay INSIDE the court.]

5) Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
[*STMcC sez: Some dead White guy?]

6) What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States?
[*STMcC sez: Billy Ocean?]

7) What are the two major political parties in the United States?
[*STMcC sez: The Marxists and the Trotskyites. This one I’m sure of!]

8) We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years?
[*STMcC sez: Too many?]

9) Who was the first President of the United States?
[*STMcC sez: Bill Clinton? No, wait. Clinton was only the “first BLACK president.”]

10) Who is in charge of the Executive Branch?
[*STMcC sez: International Bankers. Actually, this one’s not a guess because I KNOW this answer!]


HERE COME "DUH" ANSWERS:

1) What is the supreme law of the land? Answer: The Constitution (70.5% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

2) What do we call the first 10 amendments of the Constitution? Answer: The Bill of Rights (75% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

3) What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress? Answer: Senate and House (77% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

4) How many justices are on the Supreme Court? Answer: Nine (90.6% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

5) Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Answer: Thomas Jefferson (74.7% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

6) What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States? Answer: Atlantic (41.2% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

7) What are the two major political parties in the United States? Answer: Republican and Democrat (50.4% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

8) We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years? Answer: Six (85.5% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

9) Who was the first President of the United States? Answer: George Washington (73.5% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

10) Who is in charge of the Executive Branch? Answer: The President (74% of those quizzed got this question wrong.)

It's not hopeless! It's NOT, I tell ya! Let's just give these teachers a raise. Clearly, what our education system needs is more money spent on it. With more money, our kids could learn these difficult facts. (Never mind that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the Federal government permission to meddle in education at all!)

Although I suspect our students deliberately dumbed-down all across the country by the Federal education system would likewise have trouble with this simple test, I don’t think too many states, if any at all, would collectively score as pathetically low as the Airheadzona students did. But then you gotta cut ‘em a little slack; remember, they’re working without brains.

Actually, the truth of the matter is that it really doesn’t make much difference how much we educate our kids in civics and history because, regardless, the country will only be as strong as its weakest link:
the Democrat Girl-Next-Door.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

THE HISTORY OF CONSERVATISM & LIBERALISM

.
It’s no secret that political Conservatives prefer big, intimidating dogs to little, fluffy cats. And that for Liberals, the reverse is true. Everyone knows that Conservatives like whiskey, martinis (gin, not vodka), and lots and lots of beer; while Liberals would rather drink white w(h)ine, cocktails with little paper umbrellas in them, and imported bottled water. Conservatives listen to Louis Armstrong, Louis Prima, Waylon Jennings, and they listen to their mothers. Liberals listen to Prince, Boy George, Madonna, and Elton John - four transvestites who were collectively known as A Flock Of Seagulls. Conservatives applaud movies such as The Wild Bunch, The Dirty Dozen, and Rocky (the first one only – 1976); while Liberals wet themselves over chick flicks, foreign films, musicals (they just adore those fruity show tunes!), and anything with Barbra Streisand in it. A French chick flick that starred Barbra Streisand singing in Italian would be a sexual experience for all Liberals, male and female.

This, of course, is all common knowledge. But on July 2nd, an old friend of mine, Cranium, sent me a useful e-mail which included an enlightening overview of the Conservative and Liberal movements. I don’t know who wrote this, so I’ll just call him “Anonymous” and I’ll thank Anonymous for the valid and insightful history lesson. Thank you, Anonymous!

So, for those who want a trustworthy education in things political, and who seek to understand the essential facts behind the Conservative and Liberal labels, I give you THE HISTORY OF CONSERVATISM AND LIBERALISM:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1) Liberals, and
2) Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbecues and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these Liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men or wussies. Some noteworthy Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth: the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

A few modern Liberals like Mexican lite beer (with lime added), but most prefer a chilled glass of Sauvignon Blanc, with passion fruit and kiwi aromas which are marked by grassy notes, then rounded out on the midpalate by peach flavors - crisp and refreshing, with a hint of chalky minerality on the finish; or, Perrier bottled water. They eat raw fish but dislike beef. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard Liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, Ivy League Professors, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated-hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink Sam Adams, Harpoon IPA or Yuengling Lager. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, policemen, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above. A Conservative will simply laugh and be content with the absolute truth of this history.

Well, my dear Blog readers (all both of yaz!), there it is. Everyone should feel free to comment. All Liberal whining will be laughed at and then promptly ignored.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.

SEX, TATTOOS & VIOLENCE R US - #2

.
Stephen T. McCarthy here and winging it without the brains of this outfit, my inflatable girlfriend, Ariel. This is the second issue of pointless postings:

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION!
Opposing abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control, like I do, and favoring greatly reduced federal authority and a return to states’ rights, like I do, and having voted for Ron Paul, like I did, it seems that Butch Napolitano And The SumDunce Kids consider me a potentially dangerous character. Maybe y’all shouldn’t read any more of this Blog; I’d hate to be a bad influence on ya.

“THE FIREWORKS ARE IN THE DOCUMENT” (To Coin A Stolen Phrase)
As I have done for the last 8 4ths, this Fourth Of July I will read “The Declaration Of Independence” from “When” to “Honor.” I invite you to join me. Just bring your sombrero, your perro caliente, your cerveza, your lentes, and somebody else’s Social Security number. Viva la Revolucion!

BREAKING NEWS
Have you heard that O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake are suspected of having killed their women? Yup, it’s true. Semi-reliable sources also inform us that pop star Michael Jackson has died. We have not been able to confirm the accuracy of that report yet, but standby and we will pass along further information to you just as soon as it comes in.

JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT
Do you need a gauge to determine just how far the U.S.A. has fallen morally and socially? Try this one: There is now a place calling itself “The Divorce Store.” As if divorce wasn’t sad and bad enough, it’s now somewhat imagined to be just another commodity that an American might purchase at a “store.” The end is near. In fact, it’s halfway down aisle 6, on the left side, upper shelf. Just let me know if you need a store clerk to help you get one of the divorces down.

“REAL MEN” DON’T SUCK
I’ve been saying it for years: Real Men don’t use drinking straws! Why do waiters and waitresses (Oops! I mean the genderless term “food servers”) bring a drinking straw to the table whenever I order iced tea? What the hell?! Don’t they know that Real Men never use drinking straws? It’s fine to bring straws for women and children, but for men? REAL Men? And isn’t it obvious that’s what I am? Damned food servers! Look, the day you can show me a movie that includes a scene with Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, Richard Roundtree, Audie Murphy, or Robert Mitchum sucking out of a drinking straw, that’s the day I’ll rethink this thing. But until then, Mr. and “MS.” Food Server, you can take that straw and you can stick it… well… stick it in Ariel’s… uhm… diet Pepsi.

POLITICALLY INCORRECT MY A— er… uhm… MY REAR END!
One of the most ludicrous things I can think of about modern America is that BILL MAHER once had a television program called – of all things – “Politically Incorrect.” There are few people in this country more consistently politically correct than Bill Maher. I mean, here’s a guy who supports gay marriage, criticizes religion, and serves on the board of PETA. He’s an environmentalist who believes in anthropogenic global warming. He also supports the killing of the unborn (i.e., murder, though euphemistically referred to as “pro-choice”). Maher also supports the death penalty. All of these things are considered politically correct by our Elite Puppeteers in 2009.
- - -
Yes, granted he believes in legalizing marijuana – which I would consider still politically incorrect at this time; as well, he supports euthanasia – also politically incorrect, at least according to the man on the street. And true, what he said about the 9/11 terrorists which cost him his job some years back was, at that point, politically incorrect (although factually correct). But for every politically incorrect idea that Maher supports, one could find five P.C. beliefs he holds in accord with the Elite Social Engineers behind the scenes. That he could get away with calling his former show “Politically Incorrect” is outrageous. Maher is a sham and the fact that he has been considered politically incorrect for so many years goes to show what a sham American society is, too!
- - -
“I know the morals and values folks want us to take time out of the school day for prayer and the Ten Commandments and abstinence training, and to learn at least two theories of evolution – the one agreed upon by every scientist in the world [sic], and the one that involves naked ladies and snakes.”
~The Politically Correct maroon BILL MAHER
- - -
If y’all want to see something REALLY politically incorrect, click HERE.

WHAT’S FAT AND WHITE AND LIES ALL OVER?
A good friend of mine recently confessed to me:
“I am always confusing Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich -- yes, I know Gingrich was Speaker of the House.”
- - -
I forgave her confusion:
“Well, that’s understandable: they’re both fat, White Neocons. I can’t stand either one of them!”

NO POINT IN POINTING OUT SOMETHING TO THE BLIND
I have a political rule of thumb: do not debate politics with anyone who still believes that there are two political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. If the person is still blind to the fact that there is only one political party in this country disguising itself as polar opposites and pretending to do battle, then I am wasting my time trying to get through to that person in a political argument; he or she hasn’t even graduated yet to a point where meaningful political dialogue can take place.
- - -
I’m pretty good about obeying my rule of thumb, but every once in awhile I’ll throw a political punch or two just for the heck of it. When Politico.com – a tool of the Elite Social Engineers – posted an article meant to dismiss the idea that USAP’s meeting with HELLARY CLINTON and the Bilderberg group was significant, I created an account at Politico.com just so I could comment.
- - -
At one point in the debate, a person going by the pseudonym SamsClubber posted the following:
- - -
There is nothing new about these Bilderberg annual meetings. The Clinton's have gone. It is also interesting to note, that CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) members are in both parties. Colin Powell and Newt Gingrich for example.
In fact, that is probably how this elite worldist group got Newt Gingrich to sit down and do a Global Warming Nonsense Commerical with the nutcase Nancy Pelosi.
These groups probably mean well, and infiltrate nicely into the various political parties while maintaining their own objectives of instituting their world view, but they are subject to failure. The League of Nations was a notable example. The collpase and failed state of Mexico before it can become part of the governing North American Union is another example of one more glitch in the We Are Global One.
The fact that China is really not a US partner in ANYTHING is another example that would hurt the Clinton's and Henry Kissinger's feelings.
- - -
Sometime later, a self-confessed “Liberal” named Kenric responded to SamsClubber:
- - -
It sounds like in your ideal world the two parties are Conservative Republicans and Moderate Republicans, because Powell is the latter. Granted, he supports many liberal ideals and endorsed Obama, and I actually don't understand why he's not a Democrat, but he's not.
- - -
That’s when I reentered the debate to essentially support SamsClubber and enlighten the Liberal Kenric:
- - -
KENRIC: Of course you don't understand why Colin Powell isn't a Democrat. That's because you REALLY don't understand what's going on here. What the so-called "Conspiracy Theorists" have been saying is way over your head. "See Hillary Run; See Dick (Cheney) Act Like A Dick" is more your speed.
- - -
I haven’t received a reply from Kenric yet… but I look forward to that day. Let the games begin!

I COULDN’T CARE MORE THAT YOU “COULD CARE LESS”
This is another thing that’s been bugging me for years: I can’t believe how often people say it incorrectly. Listen up, nitwits, the proper way to say it is, “I COULDN’T CARE LESS.” Why is it that so few say it correctly? No less than 8 out of 10 times, the person will say, “I could care less.” I even find it consistently written incorrectly in newspaper and magazine articles! You’d expect that at least the professional writers would “write it right.” Teachers and public speakers get it wrong on a regular basis, too! Do you realize that when you say “I could care less” you are actually saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you meant to say? The idea that you’re intending to convey when you say “I COULDN’T care less” is that this thing (whatever’s being discussed) is of such little interest to you that there is NOTHING out there that you care less about! That when it comes to caring, this is scraping the very bottom of the barrel. But when you say “I could care less” that’s like saying you COULD care less. Get it? In other words, you haven’t yet reached the very bottom of the barrel of caring. I’m only pointing this out to you people because I care more than I do not.

WHICH CAME FIRST, THE IDIOT OR THE LIBERAL?
Is the Idiot a Liberal because she’s an Idiot? Or is the Liberal an Idiot because she’s a Liberal?

THE MARK OF THE BEAST?
I think that great Greek philosopher ANONYMOUS said it best:
- - -
“Nonconformists are easy to spot because they all look alike.”
- - -
Ain’t that the truth? You can tell in a moment who society’s rebels are because they’ve pierced and tattooed their bodies as a display for the rest of society. They want us squares to see that they “don’t follow the status quo.” The only problem is that – as is always the case – the nonconformists have all conformed to the commonly accepted rebel fashion. (Remember the acid-dropping, longhaired, tie-dyed protesting rebels of the ‘60s? They all looked alike, didn’t they?) And these pierced and tattooed pseudo-rebels now come in all ages: teens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and even a few seventy-something-year-olds. How pathetic is that?!
- - -
Now perhaps someone will try the specious argument that these pierced and tattooed maroons aren’t really attempting to express societal rebelliousness, but merely believe they are beautifying their bodies. Uh-huh. Right. I’ve got a message for that fifty-something-year-old overweight woman standing in line before me at the supermarket: Wanna beautify your body? Get off your lazy butt and drop sixty pounds! Trust me, it will make you look more attractive than that dragon tattooed on your left shoulder blade, which you yourself aren’t even able to see. (It’s there for the benefit of others, isn’t it? “Oh, look at me, everyone! Look at me!” your tattoo screams!)
- - -
It won’t happen this way, but I’d do a jig if on The Day Of The Lord it turned out that tattoos were actually “the mark of the beast.” Wouldn’t that be delicious if everyone who “followed the crowd” to the tattoo parlor had unwittingly paid money for and received the devil’s mark? What if they have “fake-rebelled” themselves right into hell? What if the tattooer’s needles really symbolize the devil’s pitchfork? HA!
- - -
Well, if a picture’s worth a thousand words, then here’s a thousand and ten words from me for all you phony rebels out there: 1,010 Words.

PEER PRESSURE
I’ve received a jury summons in the mail. Ooh! Don’tcha just hate it when that happens?! Well, looks like it’s time to break out the ol’ “Kill ‘Em All And Let God Sort ‘Em Out”
T-shirt. That ought to keep me off a jury. (Always does.) I can’t get stuck in a courtroom all day when there are so many daytime television court programs I wouldn’t get to watch!

JOHNNY ON THE SPOT? Or, JOHNNY COME LATELY?
My years of studying American history turned up a disturbing pattern. Time and time again, "Time" and most other mainstream media propaganda organs totally dismissed or minimized important occurrences until AFTER the damage was done. Our journalistic watchdogs seldom let the cat out of the bag until it was too late to do much about it. “Communists running rampant in American government? Pshaw! Castro, a commie? Relax, comrade, he’s only an agrarian reformer.” Of course, after the horse was loose, they’d close the barn door. “In hindsight, comrades, it seems McCarthy wasn’t a TOTAL nut. And yes, we suppose there were signs that Castro may have had Red leanings all along. Oops. Oh well. We’ll get ‘em next time. But for now, relax, we’re on top of this birth certificate thing and it all checks out fine.”

THE USAP DECEPTION
I’m strongly urging you all to see the new Alex Jones documentary “The Obama Deception.” When a good buddy offered to send me his copy but added that I already know this stuff, I gratefully declined his offer. A few weeks later, however, a copy arrived in the mail for my brother Nappy, sent by an old friend of his. It was in the house so I decided to watch it anyway. Yes, I did already know the vast majority of the material, but perhaps YOU don’t. This might really open some hypnotized eyes out there!
- - -
Other than the way the filmmaker attempted to portray John F. Kennedy as our last unowned president (which I find no convincing supporting evidence for and plenty that contradicts it) and Alex Jones’ use of the bullhorn which makes him come off appearing like some real extremist kook (which he’s not!), I thought this was a very well constructed presentation. Along with Aaron Russo’s “America: Freedom To Fascism”, I’d say this is the best documentary I’ve seen that exposes the New World Order. In my opinion, it’s far superior to any of the other Alex Jones movies I’ve previously viewed.
- - -
One thing I especially appreciated was the interviews with a couple of young Black men who have seen through the deception and not allowed the issue of race to cloud their vision. Rappers “KRS-ONE” and founding member of Public Enemy “PROFESSOR GRIFF” prove that they see through the carefully managed political show that the Elite behind the scenes use to condition and control the masses.
- - -
Here’s just one piece of dialogue from the film that you might find interesting:
- - -
Narrator: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has proposed the extrajudicial banning of any American on the fraudulant “No-Fly List” from owning any firearm.
- - -
Emanuel: “That is, if you are on the No-Fly List because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America." [*And then all the Useful Idiots in the audience applaud.*]
- - -
Narrator: Over 25,000 Americans are added each month to the “No-Fly List”, which numbers over a million people who have not been charged or convicted of any crime.
- - -
Did you notice how much evidence Emanuel feels the Feds should need against you in order to steal your Second Amendment right from you? “MAYBE a POSSIBLE terrorist”? Maybe? Possible? Nice to see that the Feds feel they should hold themselves to such a high standard of evidence before stripping perfectly innocent Americans of their Constitutional right.
- - -
I haven’t flown in a few years, and I wonder if I’m even still eligible to do so. Let’s face it, Butch Napolitano And The SumDunce Kids have made it clear that people who think like I do (you know, “Rah!-Rah! Constitution; Guard the borders; Protect the unborn” and all that) are potential threats to all the great things that America stands for.
- - -
Anyhow, make sure you see “The Obama Deception.” A few minor missteps aside, this is one movie that just might make you see that until We The People demand REAL “Change” there is no “Hope” of future freedom. I don’t care where you get a copy because I have no financial investment in it, but one way or another… SEE THE MOVIE!

SOUR CHERRIES & SOUR BLUEBERRIES IN A BOWL OF SOUR MILK
A fat, lazy, ignorant, immoral, ungodly, and conceited country is now reaping what it has sown. America must now eat the sour fruit she cultivated. There is a price to be paid for watching reality TV, for listening to Oprah, for celebrating depravity, for disrespecting your body, for murdering your unborn children, for thumbing your nose at The Holy Bible, and for ignoring your own Constitution. And that price is paid in the coin of collapse. God’s judgment may not be swift but neither is it unjust. Yeah, Happy Fourth of July!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
"As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."
~Proverbs 26:11

Back Issue:
SEX, TATTOOS & VIOLENCE R US - Issue #1

Forerunner to S. T. & V. R US:
7 Remastered RANDOM THOUGHTS + 1 Previously Unreleased BONUS TRACK And 1 ALTERNATE TAKE
.

IRAN'S MISTAKE: "LISTENING TO THE AMERICANS"

.
And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.
~ Dr. Ron Paul; “The End Of Dollar Hegemony” (2006)

Numerous economists have expressed alarm about Iran’s ambitions, saying that “the impact of the Iran Oil Bourse on the American dollar – and U.S. economy – could be worse than Iran launching a direct nuclear attack.” (Some pundits have even suggested that this could be an additional explanation for why this Islamic republic appears to be the U.S.’s next target.)
~ Dr. Chuck Missler; “Prophecy 20/20: Profiling The Future Through The Lens Of Scripture” (2006)

It was a sad commentary, I reflected, that the United States, and indeed most Western countries, had adopted a double standard for international morality: anything Marxist, no matter how bloody and base, is acceptable.
~ Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (The Shah Of Iran)

If you stick your nose in somebody else’s business and it smells like sh#t, odds are you have your nose in a very private place. Remove it!
~ Stephen T. McCarthy (me)

Originally, the next thing I intended to post on this Blog was links to some excellent articles about the U.S. Constitution, but with the terribly sad upheaval taking place in Iran right now, I’ve decided to shelve the Constitution links. Besides, what the hell does the U.S. Constitution have to do with the United States in 2009 anyway? How relevant is THAT? (I shall return to beat this dead horse later.) A blogger needs to keep up with the times, to roll with the punches, to ride the waves of shifting seas; a blogger needs to remain as flexible as Gumby and his pony pal, Pokey, too. (You can read my mind about that suspicious relationship – I’m not even going to go there.)

It’s a pretty good bet that our government will eventually attempt to use the current crisis in Iran as a pretext for sticking our nose in Iran’s anal orifice. After all, USAP’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, believes one should “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

A study of the history of American foreign policy will show that more times than not, where there is strife and social unrest around the world, and where America has interjected Herself in the affairs of other nations, the unrest was created or, at best, exacerbated by American meddling. The U.S. State Department has been more responsible for worldwide political problems over the last 80 years than any other party one could point to. Who assisted the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia? The U.S. Government (and some very wealthy so-called “American Capitalists”). Who was most responsible for making the U.S.S.R. a world superpower? The U.S. Government. Who made it possible for Communism to gain control of China? The U.S. Government. Who helped Saddam Hussein get a stranglehold on Iraq? The U.S. Government. Who cloaked Castro in a cover of respectability (just another “agrarian reformer”) so he could turn Cuba over to the Communists? The U.S. Government-controlled mainstream media. (And if you don’t understand why the major media sources – including Fox News – are arms of the U.S. Government, then you need to read “Stop Being A Useful Idiot” for starters.) I could go on and on and on. To get a good idea of how sticking our nose in the “business” of other nations has continually backfired and shot us in our own butt, read Congressman Ron Paul’s book “A Foreign Policy Of Freedom.”

Make no mistake about it, my heart goes out to many Iranians at this time. However, with all hell breaking loose in Iran now, and my suspicion that this corrupt administration (“meet the new boss; same as the old boss”) will try to use it to its advantage (just like the “W” administration used the 9/11 attacks), now is a good time to read James Perloff’s good article which appeared in the 2009, May 25th issue of The New American magazine. Timing is everything, and Perloff’s was impeccable! Yes, it's lengthy, but what doesn't kill ya makes ya smarter and harder to fool the next time.

IRAN AND THE SHAH: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
By James Perloff
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Americans have been hearing for several years about potential war with Iran. For instance, on September 17, 2006, Time magazine reported, “The U.S. would have to consider military action long before Iran had an actual bomb.” On October 10, under the heading “A Chilling Preview of War,” Time warned: “As Iran continues to enrich uranium, the U.S. military has issued a ‘Prepare to Deploy’ order.”

In September 2007, US News & World Report stated: “Amid deepening frustration with Iran, calls for shifting Bush administration policy toward military strikes or other stronger actions are intensifying.” And in June 2008, President-to-be Barack Obama declared: “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

However, suppose a progressive, pro-Western regime ruled Iran, representing no threat? War discussions would be unnecessary. Yet many forget that, until 30 years ago, exactly such a regime led Iran, until it was toppled with the help of the same U.S. foreign policy establishment recently beating war drums.

Meet the Shah
From 1941 until 1979, Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s Shah (king).

Although Iran, also called Persia, was the world’s oldest empire, dating back 2,500 years, by 1900 it was floundering. Bandits dominated the land; literacy was one percent; and women, under archaic Islamic dictates, had no rights.

The Shah changed all this. Primarily by using oil-generated wealth, he modernized the nation. He built rural roads, postal services, libraries, and electrical installations. He constructed dams to irrigate Iran’s arid land, making the country 90-percent self-sufficient in food production. He established colleges and universities, and at his own expense, set up an educational foundation to train students for Iran’s future.

To encourage independent cultivation, the Shah donated 500,000 Crown acres to 25,000 farmers. In 1978, his last full year in power, the average Iranian earned $2,540, compared to $160 25 years earlier. Iran had full employment, requiring foreign workers. The national currency was stable for 15 years, inspiring French economist André Piettre to call Iran a country of “growth without inflation.” Although Iran was the world’s second largest oil exporter, the Shah planned construction of 18 nuclear power plants. He built an Olympic sports complex and applied to host the 1988 Olympics (an honor eventually assigned Seoul), an achievement unthinkable for other Middle East nations.

Long regarded as a U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: “He determined to make Iran … capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own interests were threatened and come to his aid.... It necessitated an army of 250,000 men.” The Shah’s air force ranked among the world’s five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel and supplied the beleaguered state with oil.

On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. “All faith,” he wrote, “imposes respect upon the beholder.” The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization.

Yet, at the height of Iran’s prosperity, the Shah suddenly became the target of an ignoble campaign led by U.S. and British foreign policy makers. Bolstered by slander in the Western press, these forces, along with Soviet-inspired communist insurgents, and mullahs opposing the Shah’s progressiveness, combined to face him with overwhelming opposition. In three years he went from vibrant monarch to exile (on January 16, 1979), and ultimately death, while Iran fell to Ayatollah Khomeini’s terror.

Houchang Nahavandi, one of the Shah’s ministers and closest advisers, reveals in his book The Last Shah of Iran: “We now know that the idea of deposing the Shah was broached continually, from the mid-seventies on, in the National Security Council in Washington, by Henry Kissinger, whom the Shah thought of as a firm friend.”

Kissinger virtually epitomized the American establishment: before acting as Secretary of State under Republicans Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, he had been chief foreign-affairs adviser to Nelson Rockefeller, whom he called “the single most influential person in my life.” Jimmy Carter defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election, but the switch to a Democratic administration did not change the new foreign policy tilt against the Shah. Every presidential administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s has been dominated by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of the establishment that dictates U.S. foreign policy along internationalist lines. The Carter administration was no exception.

Nahavandi writes:

"The alternation of parties does not change the diplomatic orientation of the United States that much. The process of toppling the Shah had been envisaged and initiated in 1974, under a certain Republican administration.... Numerous, published documents and studies bear witness to the fact, even if it was not until the beginning of the Carter administration that the decision was made to take concerted action by evoking problems related to human rights."

The Shah’s destruction required assembling a team of diplomatic “hit men.” Du Berrier commented:

"When the situation was deemed ripe, U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan — the man reputed to have toppled the pro-American government of General Phoumi Nosavan in Laos — was sent to urge the Shah to get out. In December Mr. George Ball, an instant “authority on Iran,” was sent as a follow-up with the same message."

Sullivan (CFR), a career diplomat with no Middle East experience, became our ambassador to Iran in 1977. The Shah recalled:

"Whenever I met Sullivan and asked him to confirm these official statements [of American support], he promised he would. But a day or two later he would return, gravely shake his head, and say that he had received “no instructions” and therefore could not comment.... His answer was always the same: I have received no instructions.... This rote answer had been given me since early September [1978] and I would continue to hear it until the day I left the country."

The other key player du Berrier named, George Ball, was a quintessential establishment man: CFR member, Bilderberger, and banker with Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb. The Shah commented: “What was I to make, for example, of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an advisor on Iran? I knew that Ball was no friend.”

Writes Nahavandi:

"George Ball — that guru of American diplomacy and prominento of certain think-tanks and pressure groups — once paid a long visit to Teheran, where, interestingly, the National Broadcasting Authority placed an office at his disposal. Once installed there, he played host to all the best-known dissidents and gave them encouragement. After he returned to Washington, he made public statements, hostile and insulting to the Sovereign."

Joining the smear was U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, whose role Nahavandi recalled in a 1981 interview:

"But we must not forget the venom with which Teddy Kennedy ranted against the Shah, nor that on December 7, 1977, the Kennedy family financed a so-called committee for the defense of liberties and rights of man in Teheran, which was nothing but a headquarters for revolution."

Suddenly, the Shah noted, the U.S. media found him “a despot, an oppressor, a tyrant.” Kennedy denounced him for running “one of the most violent regimes in the history of mankind.”

At the center of the “human rights” complaints was the Shah’s security force, SAVAK. Comparable in its mission to America’s FBI, SAVAK was engaged in a deadly struggle against terrorism, most of which was fueled by the bordering USSR, which linked to Iran’s internal communist party, the Tudeh. SAVAK, which had only 4,000 employees in 1978, saved many lives by averting several bombing attempts. Its prisons were open for Red Cross inspections, and though unsuccessful attempts were made on the Shah’s life, he always pardoned the would-be assassins. Nevertheless, a massive campaign was deployed against him. Within Iran, Islamic fundamentalists, who resented the Shah’s progressive pro-Western views, combined with Soviet-sponsored communists to overthrow the Shah. This tandem was “odd” because communism is committed to destroying all religion, which Marx called “the opiate of the masses.” The Shah understood that “Islamic Marxism” was an oxymoron, commenting: “Of course the two concepts are irreconcilable — unless those who profess Islam do not understand their own religion or pervert it for their own political ends.”

For Western TV cameras, protestors in Teheran carried empty coffins, or coffins seized from genuine funerals, proclaiming these were “victims of SAVAK.” This deception — later admitted by the revolutionaries — was necessary because they had no actual martyrs to parade. Another tactic: demonstrators splashed themselves with mercurochrome, claiming SAVAK had bloodied them.

The Western media cooperated. When Carter visited Iran at the end of 1977, the press reported that his departure to Teheran International Airport had been through empty streets, because the city was “all locked up and emptied of people, by order of the SAVAK.” What the media didn’t mention: Carter chose to depart at 6 a.m., when the streets were naturally empty.

An equally vicious campaign occurred when the Shah and his wife, Empress Farah, came for a state visit to America in November 1977. While touring Williamsburg, Virginia, about 500 Iranian students showed up, enthusiastically applauding. However, about 50 protestors waved hammer-and-sickle red flags. These unlikely Iranians were masked, unable to speak Persian, and some were blonde. The U.S. media focused exclusively on the protesters. Wrote the Shah: “Imagine my amazement the next day when I saw the press had reversed the numbers and wrote that the fifty Shah supporters were lost in a hostile crowd.”

On November 16, the Shah and Empress were due to visit Carter. Several thousand Iranian patriots surrounded the White House bearing a huge banner saying “Welcome Shah.” However, as Nahavandi reports:

"The police kept them as far away as possible, but allowed a small number of opponents [again, masked] to approach the railings … close to where the Sovereign’s helicopter was going to land for the official welcome. At the exact moment, when courtesies were being exchanged on the White House lawn, these people produced sticks and bicycle chains and set upon the others.... Thus, the whole world was allowed to see riotous scenes, on television, as an accompaniment to the arrival of the Imperial Couple."

Terror at Home
Two major events propelled the revolution in Iran. On the afternoon of August 19, 1978, a deliberate fire gutted the Rex Cinema in Abadan, killing 477 people, including many children with their mothers. Blocked exits prevented escape. The police learned that the fire was caused by Ruhollah Khomeini supporters, who fled to Iraq, where the ayatollah was in exile. But the international press blamed the fire on the Shah and his “dreaded SAVAK.” Furthermore, the mass murder had been timed to coincide with the Shah’s planned celebration of his mother’s birthday; it could thus be reported that the royal family danced while Iran wept. Communist-inspired rioting swept Iran.

Foreigners, including Palestinians, appeared in the crowds. Although the media depicted demonstrations as “spontaneous uprisings,” professional revolutionaries organized them. Some Iranian students were caught up in it. Here the Shah’s generosity backfired. As du Berrier pointed out:

"In his desperate need of men capable of handling the sophisticated equipment he was bringing in, the Shah had sent over a hundred thousand students abroad.... Those educated in France and America return indoctrinated by leftist professors and eager to serve as links between comrades abroad and the Communist Party at home."

When the demonstrations turned violent, the government reluctantly invoked martial law. The second dark day was September 8. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Teheran were ordered to disperse by an army unit. Gunmen — many on rooftops — fired on the soldiers. The Shah’s army fired back. The rooftop snipers then sprayed the crowd. When the tragedy was over, 121 demonstrators and 70 soldiers and police lay dead. Autopsies revealed that most in the crowd had been killed by ammo non-regulation for the army. Nevertheless, the Western press claimed the Shah had massacred his own people.

The Shah, extremely grieved by this incident, and wanting no further bloodshed, gave orders tightly restricting the military. This proved a mistake. Until now, the sight of his elite troops had quieted mobs. The new restraints emboldened revolutionaries, who brazenly insulted soldiers, knowing they could fire only as a last resort.

Khomeini and the Media Cabal
Meanwhile, internationalist forces rallied around a new figure they had chosen to lead Iran: Ruhollah Khomeini. A minor cleric of Indian extraction, Khomeini had denounced the Shah’s reforms during the 1960s — especially women’s rights and land reform for Muslim clerics, many of whom were large landholders. Because his incendiary remarks had contributed to violence and rioting then, he was exiled, living mostly in Iraq, where Iranians largely forgot him until 1978.

A shadowy past followed Khomeini. The 1960s rioting linked to him was financed, in part, by Eastern Bloc intelligence services. He was in the circle of the cleric Kachani Sayed Abolghassem, who had ties to East German intelligence. Furthermore, in 1960, Colonel Michael Goliniewski, second-in-command of Soviet counter-intelligence in Poland, defected to the West. His debriefings exposed so many communist agents that he was honored by a resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives. One report, declassified in 2000, revealed, “Ayatollah Khomeini was one of Moscow’s five sources of intelligence at the heart of the Shiite hierarchy.”

Nevertheless, as French journalist Dominique Lorenz reported, the Americans, “having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability and set him up in Paris, a succession of events, which could not have occurred, if the leadership in France had been against it.”

In 1978, Khomeini, in Iraq since 1965, was permitted to reside at Neauphle-le-Château in France. Two French police squads, along with Algerians and Palestinians, protected him. Nahavandi notes:

"Around the small villa occupied by Khomeini, the agents of many of the world’s secret services were gathered as thickly as the autumn leaves. The CIA, the MI6, the KGB and the SDECE were all there. The CIA had even rented the house next door. According to most of the published witness-statements, the East Germans were in charge of most of the radio-transmissions; and, on at least one occasion, eight thousand cassettes of the Ayatollah’s speeches were sent, directly to Teheran, by diplomatic bag."

Foreign-affairs analyst du Berrier reported:

"French services quickly verified that Libya, Iraq and Russia were providing money. Young Iranians, members of the Tudeh (communist) Party, made up Khomeini’s secretariat in France. Working in cooperation with the French Communist Party they provided couriers to pass his orders and tapes into Iran. Their sympathizers in Britain turned the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) into a propaganda organ."

Journalists descended in droves on Neauphle-le-Château; Khomeini gave 132 interviews in 112 days, receiving easy questions as their media organs became his sounding board. Nahavandi affirms that, within Iran “the Voice of America, the Voice of Israel and, especially, the BBC virtually became the voice of the revolution, moving from criticism, to overt incitement of revolt, and from biased reporting, to outright disinformation.”

Khomeini’s inflammatory speeches were broadcast; revolutionary songs aired on Iranian radio. One journalist, however, stunned Khomeini by bucking the trend: intelligence expert Pierre de Villemarest, hero of the French Resistance in World War II, anti-communist, and critic of the CFR. Interviewing Khomeini, de Villemarest asked:

"How are you going to solve the economic crisis into which you have plunged the country through your agitation of these past few weeks?... And aren’t you afraid that when the present regime is destroyed you will be outpaced by a party as tightly-knit and well organized as the [communist] Tudeh?"

Khomeini didn’t reply. The interpreter stood, saying, “The Ayatollah is tired.” De Villemarest registered his concern with the French Ministry of the Interior, but reported, “They told me to occupy myself with something else.”

Ending the Shah’s Rule
Iran’s situation deteriorated. As Western media spurred revolutionaries, riots and strikes paralyzed Iran. The Shah wrote:

"At about this time, a new CIA chief was stationed in Teheran. He had been transferred to Iran from a post in Tokyo with no previous experience in Iranian affairs. Why did the U.S. install a man totally ignorant of my country in the midst of such a crisis? I was astonished by the insignificance of the reports he gave me. At one point we spoke of liberalization and I saw a smile spread across his face."

The Carter administration’s continuous demand upon the Shah: liberalize. On October 26, 1978, he freed 1,500 prisoners, but increased rioting followed. The Shah commented that “the more I liberalized, the worse the situation in Iran became. Every initiative I took was seen as proof of my own weakness and that of my government.” Revolutionaries equated liberalization with appeasement. “My greatest mistake,” the Shah recalled, “was in listening to the Americans on matters concerning the internal affairs of my kingdom.”

Iran’s last hope: its well-trained military could still restore order. The Carter administration realized this. Du Berrier noted: “Air Force General Robert Huyser, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe, was sent to pressure Iran’s generals into giving in without a fight.” “Huyser directly threatened the military with a break in diplomatic relations and a cutoff of arms if they moved to support their monarch.”

“It was therefore necessary,” the Shah wrote, “to neutralize the Iranian army. It was clearly for this reason that General Huyser had come to Teheran.”

Huyser only paid the Shah a cursory visit, but had three meetings with Iran’s revolutionary leaders — one lasting 10 hours. Huyser, of course, had no authority to interfere with a foreign nation’s sovereign affairs.

Prior to execution later by Khomeini, General Amir Hossein Rabbi, commander-in-chief of the Iranian Air Force, stated: “General Huyser threw the Shah out of the country like a dead mouse.”

U.S. officials pressed the Shah to leave Iran. He reflected:

"You cannot imagine the pressure the Americans were putting on me, and in the end it became an order.... How could I stay when the Americans had sent a general, Huyser, to force me out? How could I stand alone against Henry Precht [the State Department Director for Iran] and the entire State Department?"

He finally accepted exile, clinging to the belief that America was still Iran’s ally, and that leaving would avert greater bloodshed. These hopes proved illusions.

A factor in the Shah’s decision to depart was that — unknown to most people — he had cancer. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan (CFR) assured the Shah that, if he exited Iran, America would welcome him. Despite the pleadings of myriad Iranians to stay, he reluctantly left. However, shortly after reaching Cairo, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt effectively informed him that “the government of the United States regrets that it cannot welcome the Shah to American territory.”

The betrayed ruler now became “a man without a country.”

Iran’s Chaotic Descent
On February 1, 1979, with U.S. officials joining the welcoming committee, Ayatollah Khomeini arrived in Iran amid media fanfare. Although counter-demonstrations, some numbering up to 300,000 people, erupted in Iran, the Western press barely mentioned them.

Khomeini had taken power, not by a constitutional process, but violent revolution that ultimately claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. Numerous of his opponents were executed, usually without due process, and often after brutal torture. Teheran’s police officers — loyal to the Shah — were slaughtered. At least 1,200 Imperial Army officers, who had been instructed by General Huyser not to resist the revolution, were put to death. Before dying, many exclaimed, “God save the King!” “On February 17,” reported du Berrier, “General Huyser faced the first photos of the murdered leaders whose hands he had tied and read the descriptions of their mutilations.” At the year’s end, the military emasculated and no longer a threat, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. More Iranians were killed during Khomeini’s first month in power than in the Shah’s 37-year reign. Yet Carter, Ted Kennedy, and the Western media, who had brayed so long about the Shah’s alleged “human rights” violations, said nothing. Mass executions and torture elicited no protests. Seeing his country thus destroyed, the exiled Shah raged to an adviser: “Where are the defenders of human rights and democracy now?” Later, the Shah wrote that there was...

"not a word of protest from American human rights advocates who had been so vocal in denouncing my “tyrannical” regime! It was a sad commentary, I reflected, that the United States, and indeed most Western countries, had adopted a double standard for international morality: anything Marxist, no matter how bloody and base, is acceptable."

Exile
The Shah’s personal tragedy wasn’t over. He stayed briefly in Egypt and Morocco, but did not wish to impose risks on his hosts from Muslim extremists. Eventually he welcomed Mexican President Lopes Portillo’s hospitality.

However, in Mexico the Shah received an invitation from CFR Chairman David Rockefeller, who used influence to secure permission for the Shah to come to America for medical treatment. Rockefeller sent a trendy Park Avenue MD to examine the Shah, who agreed — against his better judgment — to abandon his personal physicians and fly to New York for treatment. In October 1979, he was received at the Rockefeller-founded Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital for cancer treatment. Here the Shah experienced a fateful delay in spleen surgery that some believe accelerated his death.

The Shah’s admission to the United States had another outcome. Partly in retribution, on November 4, 1979, Iranians took 52 hostages from the U.S. embassy in Teheran. (According to Nahavandi, Soviet special services assisted them.) This embarrassed Jimmy Carter, who had done so much to destroy the Shah and support Khomeini. The seizure made the Shah a pawn.

While in New York, Mexico inexplicably reversed its welcome, informing the Shah that his return would contravene Mexico’s “vital interests.” One can only guess at the hidden hands possibly influencing this decision.

Carter faced a dilemma. Iran wanted the Shah’s return — for a degrading execution — in exchange for the American hostages. However, a direct trade might humiliate the United States.

Therefore, Panama was selected as intermediary. Following treatment in New York, the Shah was informed he could no longer remain in America, but Panama would welcome him. In Panama, however, the Shah and Empress were under virtual house arrest; it was apparent that it would only be a matter of time before the Shah would be sent to Iran in exchange for the hostages. A special cage was erected in Teheran. Khomeini’s followers envisioned parading him in the streets before final torture and bloody execution.

However, Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president and the Shah’s friend, discerned the scheme, and sent a jet to Panama, which escorted the Shah and Empress safely to Egypt.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi died on July 27, 1980. His last words: “I wait upon Fate, never ceasing to pray for Iran, and for my people. I think only of their suffering.” In Cairo, a grand funeral honored him. Three million Egyptians followed the procession.

Anwar Sadat who, like the Shah, advocated a peaceful Middle East, and defied the American establishment by saving the Shah from infamous death, did not survive much longer himself. The following year, Muslim extremists assassinated him under circumstances remaining controversial.

The Issues
Why did the American establishment, defying logic and morality, betray our ally the Shah? Only the perpetrators can answer the question, but a few possibilities should be considered.

Iran ranks second in the world in oil and natural-gas reserves. Energy is critical to world domination, and major oil companies, such as Exxon and British Petroleum, have long exerted behind-the-scenes influence on national policies.

The major oil companies had for years dictated Iranian oil commerce, but the Shah explained:
.
"In 1973 we succeeded in putting a stop, irrevocably, to sixty years of foreign exploitation of Iranian oil-resources.... In 1974, Iran at last took over the management of the entire oil-industry, including the refineries at Abadan and so on.... I am quite convinced that it was from this moment that some very powerful, international interests identified, within Iran, the collusive elements, which they could use to encompass my downfall."

Does this explain the sudden attitude change toward Iran expressed by Henry Kissinger, beginning in the mid-seventies? Kissinger’s links to the Rockefellers, whose fortune derived primarily from oil, bolsters the Shah’s view on the situation. However, other factors should be considered.

Although the Shah maintained a neutral stance toward Israel, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, he allowed critical supplies to reach Egypt, enabling it to achieve a balance of success, and earning Sadat’s undying gratitude, but wrath from influential Zionists. Did this impact the West’s attitude change in the mid-seventies?

We should not overlook that the Shah opposed the powerful opium trade, now flourishing in the Middle East.

Finally, the Shah was a nationalist who brought his country to the brink of greatness and encouraged Middle East peace. These qualities are anathema to those seeking global governance, for strong nations resist membership in world bodies, and war has long been a destabilizing catalyst essential to what globalists call “the new world order.”

What is the solution to modern Iran? Before listening to war drums, let us remember:

It was the CFR clique — the same establishment entrenched in the Bush and Obama administrations — that ousted the Shah, resulting in today’s Iran. That establishment also chanted for the six-year-old Iraq War over alleged weapons of mass destruction never found. Therefore, instead of contemplating war with Iran, a nation four times Iraq’s size, let us demand that America shed its CFR hierarchy and their interventionist policy that has wrought decades of misery, and adopt a policy of avoiding foreign entanglements, and of minding our own business in international affairs.

To the man or woman who believes (like I do) that The Bible is the Word Of God and who also wishes to see peace in Iran, I ask you: what does Scripture say about the future prospects of peace in the Middle East? Do you think that American intervention can lead to long-lasting peace in that region of the world? Or, for that matter, can we expect permanent peace ANYWHERE at all on this planet prior to the return of Christ? If you believe so, know that your God disagrees with you. (Read your Bible.)

To the secular man or woman who wishes to see peace in Iran, I ask you to consider that Albert Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Even if American meddling wasn’t really about power-mad empire-building but was truly about seeking peace on Earth in good faith, is it not insane to believe that our foreign policies in the Middle East will succeed now when they have always failed in the past?

I argue that the wisest and most efficacious thing we as Americans can do for Iranians is to pray for them. The Bible warns us against getting militarily involved:

He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own
Is like one who takes a dog by the ears.
~ Proverbs 26:17

Let’s not listen to the deceitful voices of those in power who will surely promise falsely:

“Carry on my [wayward] American sons;
There’ll be peace when you are done.”

Yeah, right!
I think we can expect similar results from pursuing further American foreign policy to what we have experienced in the past. How ‘bout we stay home and tend to our own business for once? You know, let’s try something DIFFERENT!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Addendum:

Xtremely, Xtremely Important Link:
The End Of Dollar Hegemony

If you appreciated James Perloff’s article posted above, then consider reading his books. I have read both “THE SHADOWS OF POWER: The Council On Foreign Relations And The American Decline” and “TORNADO IN A JUNKYARD: The Relentless Myth Of Darwinism” and I strongly recommend them to you. The Council On Foreign Relations is to peace what Mao was to love, and Darwin was to science what Marx was to economics.
.