It seems that our federal government continues it's program to sell us down the river on immigration. When we shoved the amnesty bill back down their throats, we cheered our apparent victory over the open borders zealots. But they were not so easily defeated, and came back at us with the so-called Dream Act that would have been an amnesty by another name. We managed to beat that back as well and thought we had managed to put the issue to bed for a while.

So you can imagine my shock when I saw a story from Family Security Matters that explained how the federal government, led by President George W. Bush, has decided to reassign a number of ICE special agents to do Customs work. The move was done with little fanfare, and basically no media coverage...even here at Town Hall. It seems that the fed has managed to bury this situation from public scrutiny so that they can continue to chase their amnesty dream. I don't know what I can really do, but I feel that it is my responsibility to at least inform any who come to my blog of the situation. For a more complete account, please go to familysecuritymatters.org.

In today’s edition of Townhall, Phil Harris has a column that attempts to take Fred Thompson to task for his stance on abortion being a state’s rights issue. Mr. Harris feels that Thompson should reevaluate his position, vis-a-vis abortion and come to the conclusion that the federal government should take an anti-abortion stand. Some of the posts that I read were in agreement with Mr. Harris, and some decided that they would have to modify their views in light of Mr. Harris’s arguments.

As you can probably guess, I am not one of those people. On this issue, I stand firmly in the camp of Fred Thompson. Abortion rights must equal state’s rights, in my opinion.

Let’s be clear here, I am not making a case for abortion on demand. I am now, and have always been against abortion. I believe that it is the taking of human life and should be discouraged, and if the various states deem it necessary, it should be prohibited. But the argument here is whether or not the states should have the right to legislate on the issue, or if it should fall to the federal government to legislate it. I do not see where the federal government has any right to legislate anything in this area.

Amendment X of the United States Constitution reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is as simple as it seems: If the Constitution does not give a power to the federal government, then that power is reserved for the states; the federal government should have no voice in the matter. And until the SCOTUS injected itself into the abortion issue in 1973, the federal government had no interest in the issue of abortion…and it still should not have any interest in the issue. This was an area that had been handled by the various states in the way best deemed by the voters and legislatures of those states, as it should have been according to the concept of federalism.

But Mr. Harris feels that federalism should be suspended here and that Fred Thompson has it all wrong to insist that the federal government stay out of the issue. The prevailing argument from Mr. Harris seems to be that since this is a national issue, and a moral issue at that, then the federal government should be interested in it. I say that the only reason that this was ever a national issue is because the federal government, via the judiciary, hijacked it from the states so that the SCOTUS could impose its social policy preferences on the nation. The SCOTUS had no legal right to intervene in the Roe case, and its activism opened a national Pandora’s Box on an issue that was best handled by the individual states. The Roe ruling brought big government deeper into our private affairs and allowed for even more government intrusion into our personal lives. I though that was something that conservatives were against…or was I mistaken?

The thing is, federalism is not something that we conservatives can put on and take off as it suits our purposes. One of the major beliefs of the conservative movement is that we need less government intrusion into our lives, not more. A strong belief in federalism is one of the things that allow us to remain free from governmental control, it is what allows us to have a say in shaping the laws that we live by, and I do not want to see that eroded. But if we decide that allowing the federal government to decide this matter is okay, then we are in no position to oppose other encroachments on us by the feds, because we have already given them authority to do so.

I understand that abortion is an emotional issue for most, and that the feelings about the issue are strongly held. I understand that many would love to see some sort of law handed down to establish national rules or standards when it comes to abortion, as well. But I see that willing acceptance of increased federal intrusion into the realms that the Constitution set aside as being “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” as an invitation to tyranny. If we allow the federal government to disregard the Constitution and its restraints on federal power on this issue, then what will the next issue be that we turn over to Washington. We have had so many of our powers taken by the federal government, why would we be willing to give away any more?

I applaud Fred Thompson in his stand on this issue, because it is the right stand to take. It may not be universally popular, and it may not be politically expedient, but it is in keeping with the words of the Constitution and that is what is important. I would rather support someone who does the right thing, even if it’s not the popular thing, than to see someone disregard the Constitution and its clear wording to score easy political points.

On this issue, Fred Thompson is right and Phil Harris is wrong.

We all, at one time or another, have let it be known how much we dislike the media in this country. In “straight news” there is always a liberal slant to what is reported and how, and in sports news all social issues are reported from a liberal perspective as well. Too many times we do not get the facts, simply the media spin on the facts, as seen through the liberal prism.

Two sports related stories covered on ESPN this week are perfect examples of this: the “controversy” over Phil Jackson’s postgame joke about his team’s poor defense, and the Alex Rodriguez contract situation with the New York Yankees. Both show the way that media spin can turn simple statements and situations into whatever the media wants them to be.

Let’s take the Phil Jackson comments first, shall we? After a game in which his team had been lit up for a ton of three point shots, mostly on drive and kick situations, Phil made a joke something like this: Tonight was a Brokeback Mountain kind of game, plenty of penetration and kick out. The assembled media laughed, because in all honesty, it was a decent joke. But the talking heads at ESPN did not see it that way at all! Why, they were shocked that a person of Phil Jackson’s stature would say such a thing, and were absolutely appalled that reporters would actually laugh at that. Jamelle Hill, a writer for ESPN.com said on the ESPN show First Take, that she could not believe that her fellow reporters laughed at those jokes and that they had better not write anything condemning Phil for saying it, since they were laughing. Former NFL quarterback Sean Salisbury said, in the same segment, that Jackson should have known better than to say something that was insulting. But here’s where my hypocrisy meter goes off. I remember Sean Salisbury playing a leading role in the movie The Benchwarmers where one of the running jokes in the film was that big, strapping, athletic Sean was secretly gay…and if you don’t believe me, watch the movie on Starz! And yet another of their on air anchors at ESPNEWS was wondering aloud if what Jackson said was a fineable offense by the NBA. So it’s pretty obvious that the folks at ESPN have decided what the story on that is and are working overtime to frame it as a “gay bashing” incident. The really funny thing is that Phil Jackson is basically a hippie, and is probably as liberal, if not more, than the folks at ESPN!

Then there is the framing of the Alex Rodriguez story that is a bother to me, as well. With A-Rod, there has always been a seeming desire at ESPN to bring him down a peg or two. When he signed his huge deal with the Texas Rangers for $250 million, the ESPN folks decided that A-Rod was greedy and only cared about himself; as if none of them would take a job paying a quarter billion dollars if it were offered to them! Then when the pictures of A-Rod and some blonde chick surfaced in a paper, ESPN was all over it trying to make it out that A-Rod was cheating on his wife, even though there was no evidence to support that claim. Then there were the attacks on A-Rod’s character for having the temerity to opt out of his contract with the Yankees during Game 4 of the World Series. According to Peter “Snappy Turtle” Gammons, this was a reason that teams should avoid signing A-Rod, it was evidence of why he had not won a title, and it was the only way A-Rod could get his name mentioned during the World Series. Pretty professional stuff, huh? Finally, there is the current framing of his decision to enter negotiations with the New York Yankees for a new contract. According to ESPNRadio hosts Mike and Mike, A-Rod has had to “Come crawling back to the Yankees with his tail between his legs”, because there was apparently no deal out there for him on the free agent market. According to them, and all the talking heads to follow today, this is a defeat and a humiliation for A-Rod and his agent Scott Boras and a triumph for the Yankees. Suddenly the words of Hank Steinbrenner that he would not negotiate with A-Rod are being spun so that Steinbrenner is a winner by breaking his word, and A-Rod is a loser by negotiating with the Yanks. How, exactly, does that work?

As I recall, A-Rod never said that he wanted to leave the Yankees; he never said that he didn’t want to be a Yankee, nor did he ever pronounce that he would never negotiate with the Yankees…yet, he’s the “loser” here? He stands to get a contract that pays him $27 million bucks a year and he never had to back off of his words to do so, yet he is the one that is “humiliated”? But I will bet you dollars to donuts that all of the ESPN opinion heads will make that their spin on the entire matter.

And it is that which make many of us mistrust the media. Here are a couple of examples where the “reporting” on the incidents are slanted to reach a previously formed opinion; Phil Jackson makes his joke and he’s a bigot, A-Rod gets a raise, yet he’s “humiliated.” The stories are not being reported or remarked on fairly, but are being shaped to fit the media template for stories of their type, or about their subject. And if it’s happening in sports media, you can rest assured that it happens everywhere else in the media universe. And that’s why, in the words of Public Enemy, “You can’t trust it!”

I have been a bit lazy on the blog front, not having written anything new in a bit. But it's not because I haven't been paying attention to things, but because I've been paying attention to a lot of things at once. So instead of focusing on just one issue, I think I'll just try to hit some of the highlights here.

Is it just me, or does it seem that Townhal has become the official internet organ of the GOP? From having Rudy pushed on us by so many, to the lead dog Hugh Hewitt being an unabashed Romney-ite, to Linda Chavez and her continual droning about how conservatives are wrong on illegal immigration, Townhall has moved away from what intially attracted me in the first place. It is no longer a place where conservative opinion counts, just the same old GOP voices.

Is it just me, or is Sean Hannity an unpaid member of the Rudy Giuliani campaign? I listen to Hannity every now and then, and it seems that every time I tune in, he's got Rudy on the show. And if not Rudy, then John McCain. I suppose that the Rudy infatuation goes hand in hand with the Hillaryphobia he has working, but it is tiresome. For someone who claims to be so staunchly conservative, Hannity sure has a lot of love for Repblicans of the "moderate" persuasion!

Is it just me, or has the US just found itself in a bad place with Pakistan? With Pervez Musharaff basically declaring martial law and suspending the constitution, the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have too much invested in Musharaff to disown him like Carter did the Shah, but his actions are in direct contrast to our stated aim to spread democracy in the ME. If we continue to offer him support we look like hypocrites to the world, but if we abadon him we risk unleashing hell on the region. Maybe the whole "spreading democracy" thing should have been made a secondary aim, instead of being touted as the primary aim for military action in the region, huh?

Is it just me, or is this whole "Green is Universal" campaign by NBC Universal totally annoying? Green logos, stupid little save the world commercial spots...sickening! Especially when they try to claim that it is no at all political...even as Nobel Prize winner Al Gore guests on "30 Rock" this week. But I'm pretty sure this is just a coincidence.

Is it just me, or did Gregg Jackson hit a nerve with his piece about Mitt Romney on Townhall's Friday edition? He pointed out that Mitt may just be a really slick, opportunistic politician who changes positions for politcal points...and the crowd went ballistic! First there were all those saying it was a "hit piece" or full of lies...without pointing out or debunking the alleged lies. Then there were, predictably, the Mormon contingent who immediately fell back on the long held Mormon defense to any and all criticisms..."We are being persecuted!" The thing is, the only mention of the piece of Romney's religion was to say that the religion factor seems o have been focused on while Romney's record was being ignored. And the wa some people reacted, Jackson may have been right!

Is it just me, or has this whole political season already seemed to have gone on too long? By the time the elections do roll around, would it be any surprise if the people were apathetic about it? We have been caught up in an election cycle so long that Fred Thompson has been criticized for jumping in too late...even though he entered the fray nearly a year and a half before any ballots were going to be cast? Doesn't that strike anyone else as a bit excessive?

Is it just me, or does the current political leadership in Israel have some sort of death wish? They are hell bent on giving up territory in the vain hope that it will pacify the Palestinians who only want to see them D-E-A-D, dead! Maybe they should listen to Benjamin Netanyahu when he warns them to listen to those who say they want to kill you...especially if they have already tried to do it!

  

Now, let us examine the defining factor in both the rise and the fall of the Pahlavi regime: the relationship between the Shah and the United States. The relationship was a longstanding, cordial relationship that began in earnest with the return of the Shah to power in 1953. According to Rosadi, the United States had been primarily responsible for the coup that overthrew Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne.[1] And in the intervening 25 years the United States had given the regime near total support, including massive military aid. This was done in support of a regime that was an important ally in a strategic part of the world.

Seemingly, that relationship was set to continue in this same vein as the Carter administration took over the reins of the US government in early 1977. In two separate speeches on December 31, 1977 President Carter first said, “The Shah and I share a hope that peace will come to the Middle East and that our military alliance remains unshakeable [italics added], we may help to reduce the level of tensions and armaments throughout the world”.[2] The President also said,

      "We have no other nation on Earth who is closer to us in planning for our mutual military security. We have no other nation with whom we have closer consultation on regional problems that concern us both. And there is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal gratitude and personal friendship." [3]

These statements should have reassured the Shah, who according to Parsons was apprehensive of the victory by Carter in the 1976 elections. “He had never been comfortable with Democrat [sic] Presidents, who were more disposed…to inject a moralizing element  into the formulation of American foreign policy.”[4] But, according to Hoveyda, the Shah misjudged the Carter administration’s true feelings towards him: “The Carter administration that entered the White House in 1977 considered him as a rather cumbersome ally and looked forward to a change in Iran’s political system.” [5]Similarly, Parsons stated that the Carter administration’s spousal of human rights in the Third World, including Iran, and the emphasis on the need to cut back on transfers of military equipment heightened the Shah’s fears that America would no longer offer him total support. The elimination of political freedom and the unleashing of the SAVAK on political dissenters was coming back to haunt the regime, and the United States was beginning to pull away at a time when the regime would find itself needing American support most.

In 1978 a “perfect storm” would converge on the Pahlavi regime that would severely test the strength of their relationship with the United States. The unrest and uprising by the people of Iran (spurred on by the mullahs), the economic difficulties brought on by the Shah’s anti-business campaign, and the “Black Friday” massacre converged to bring on a crisis for the Pahlavi regime. The “Black Friday” incident had touched off large scale anti-government riots throughout the country and according to Bakhash had pushed the Shah into a terrible state of indecisiveness in how to deal with the uprisings.[6] The Shah wavered between the use of “clamp down” tactics and making concessions to the opposition. And much of this indecision could be traced to the mixed signals that were coming from Washington; after decades of giving unconditional support to the Shah, the new Carter administration never gave him any definitive guidance on what course of action he should take to deal with the uprising. This was due to a split within the upper reaches of the Carter administration itself. On one side stood Secretary of State Cyrus Vance who advocated the establishment of a coalition government in Iran that would include the Ayatollah Khomeini and his radical Islamists[7]; on the other side was National Security Advisor Abigniew Brzezinski who felt that the United States should offer support to the Shah regardless of what he chose to do in putting down the uprising.[8]

Even as the Shah wavered between “crackdown” and concession, he continued to look to the United States for directions on how to proceed. The problem with this was that the one person in the US government who could ultimately give the Shah guidance was wavering as well. According to Rosadi, “President Carter wavered between these two positions, initially supporting the Shah but reluctant to recommend the need for a crackdown, followed by support for a national coalition government although never foreclosing the possibility of a military coup.” This indecisiveness from Washington resulted in the Shah never getting a clear message on what actions America would support; thusly, the Shah never made any definitive moves to shore up his regime’s authority. This inaction would prove fatal to the Pahlavi regime in the months to come.

In December 1978, the American and British governments began urging the Shah to abdicate the throne and to leave Iran[9]. The Shah initially resisted, but as pressure mounted from within and without, he finally acquiesced and turned control of the Iranian government over to the Regency Council and Prime Minister Shapour Bakktiar. On January 16, 1979 Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi boarded a plane in Tehran, along with his family, and left his native country never to return.

Looking back, we an see how many individual situations: an autocratic ruling style, unresolved and continuing conflicts with Muslim clerics, mismanagement of the economy, and a changing relationship with the United States weakened the Shah’s hold on the government of Iran. And when all of those elements converged, we see that a “perfect storm” assaulted the regime that it simply could not withstand. In the final analysis, the words of former British ambassador to Iran Sir Anthony Parsons give a great summary of the Shah’s major difficulties:

        Equally we [ambassadors to Iran] realized that his original character had not changed, that he was still indecisive and lacking in the bloody resolution which characterizes the traditional autocrat, and that he had a pathetic and altogether mistaken belief that the Americans and British, if not determined for their own arcane and incomprehensible reasons to overthrow him, must somehow have the ability to maintain him on his throne.[10]

We can only wonder and speculate how different the situation would be in the Middle East had the Shah been able to hold onto power in Iran. It is certain that there would never have been the infamous 444 Days of Americans held hostage, and we can speculate that with a pro-American ally holding the purse strings that Iranian oil money would not have been funneled into supporting terrorist outfits like Hezbollah.  

But in the final analysis, we can see that as much as the Shah failed himself, he was also failed by the US government in his most urgent time of need. Had we had a President who realized that personal morality cannot be the basis of American international policy, or one who realized that sometimes it necessary to be allied with regimes that are not perfect we would mst likely still be looking at Iran as an ally, and not as a menace in the region. We did not lose Iran as much as a weak administration gave it away, and we are haunted by their poor grasp of international relations to this day.    

 

Another factor that contributed to the Shah’s fall from grace was his ongoing conflicts with the Islamic clergy during his rule, especially the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. According to Wagner, Khomeini became an Islamic mullah (teacher) in 1926, the same year that Reza Khan was crowned as shah. After Reza Shah was forced from power, Khomeini wrote a book that was highly critical of the deposed Shah, and accused him of abandoning Islamic principles. In later years he would level these same charges at Mohammed Pahlavi. The Ayatollah Khomeini would continue to be a vocal critic of the Pahlavi regime, and near the end would become the living symbol of those who were rebelling against it.[1]

Starting in 1963, with the launch of his White Revolution, the Shah began to alienate the Shiite clerics in Iran. The White Revolution reforms were, according to Wagner, a direct threat to the influence of the mullahs. The land reforms threatened their financial base, as most of the mullahs came from land owning families, the expansion of educational opportunities threatened their influence because in many small villages the mullahs were the only people who had received an education, and the establishment of women’s rights was seen as an anti-Islamic attempt to corrupt young women.[2]

As a response to the societal changes of the White Revolution, the clerics in Iran began to organize themselves and their followers into a strong front aligned against the Shah. According to Wagner, “As they [clerics] saw their income, their Islamic heritage, and beliefs increasingly threatened by an ever more secular government, they began to plan their own revolution”[3].

Also, during the years 1976-78 several events occurred that would bring the Shah’s conflicts with the clerics to a boiling point. First, in 1976 the Shah decided to change the Iranian calendar; the dating system was changed from the time Mohammed fled from Mecca to the date of the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great[4]. This change outraged the clerics, who saw it as an attack on the Islamic heritage of the country. Another development that raised serious tensions was a 1977 plan by the regime to further liberalize the nation. According to Hoveyda, the Shah, under pressure from the Carter administration, announced a plan to move towards a constitutional monarchy, reinstate multiple political parties, and to hold internationally monitored elections by 1979.[5] These planned reforms were universally decried by he Shia Muslim clergy, who needed a closed society to maintain their control over the uneducated Muslims under their sway.

But the most important event was the “Black Friday” massacre at Tehran’s Jaleh Square. On September 7, 1978 a militant demonstration calling for the overthrow of the Shah, the establishment of an Islamic government, and the declaration of the Ayatollah Khomeini as the true leader of Iran was held in Jaleh Square. This demonstration spurred the Shah to declare martial law in the city. When the protestors refused to disperse the next day when order, Iranian military troops opened fire on them, killing many in the gathered crowd. This action further outraged the clerics, who used it as evidence that the government was at heart hostile to Islam and far too influenced by the West. It also outraged the general public, and put the Shah in a position where he was being challenged on all sides; he could not control the citizens and he was in no position to negotiate any type of peaceful resolution with the clerics[6].

Another important, yet often overlooked factor in the Shah’s fall was the mismanagement of the Iranian economy by the Pahlavi regime. During the years 1963-73 the Iranian economy entered a period of great growth. According to Bakhash, during this period living standards improved greatly throughout the nation and the society became more consumption oriented. But even during this period of prosperity, the government continued to follow credit policies that favored large scale farmers and industrialists, at the expense of small business and farm owners.[7] These policies caused a serious division between the upper classes, who were usually friends of the regime, and the lower classes who felt they were being locked out of the economic boom. The policies basically created a situation where class envy became the norm in the country.

The mismanagement became most apparent following the 1974 Iranian oil boom. In that year international oil prices exploded, and with around 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves under their feet the Iranians were positioned perfectly to ride the wave to riches. Iranian oil revenues quadrupled from around $5 billion to nearly $20 billion in a matter of a few years, leaving the government suddenly flush with ready cash. The Shah took this great windfall and embarked on a spending program that was supposed to “turn Iran into one of the world’s five leading industrial countries”[8]. The spending program financed a great deal of new construction projects and huge increases in civil service; however, the Shah never seemed to consider that the revenues would ever slow down, as they did in 1977-78. According to Bakhash the Iranian economy overheated and was unable to sustain it’s most recent rate of growth, causing inflation to explode and the prices of basic staple items to soar. At that moment the government launched an intense anti-business campaign; established industrialists were exiled or jailed, investment was curtailed, building projects were cut back or abandoned, and a hiring freeze was instituted in the civil service sector.[9] These moves, much like the policies of Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression, had serious negative consequences for the Iranian economy. The policies had the effect of causing an economic slow down; as the people began to suffer job losses and witness economic opportunities evaporate before their eyes, they began to turn on the one person they held most responsible for the worsening economic conditions: the Shah.

I am going to do something new for me here at the Spade. With all of the attention on Iran, again, I have decided to share my reasoning on why and how we lost Iran in the first place. The posts will be in parts, as you can see from the title, and will be based on a research paper I did on the subject a couple of years ago. I invite, as always, your comments on the posts. I will likely post one per week until all are published. Thank you for reading the Spade, and I hope that my posts on this subject are informational and enjoyable.

On July 27, 1980 Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, died in Egypt an exile; reviled by his former subjects, and abandoned by the Western governments that had once lavished praise upon him. Only three years earlier, on December 31, 1977, President James E. Carter stated:

            Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect and admiration and to the love which your people give to you. [1]

What caused the fall of this man once called the “King of Kings”? The answers to this question are myriad, but we will focus on four topics of interest: Pahlavi’s autocratic governing style, his conflicts with Iran’s Islamic leadership, the mismanagement of the economy, and the relationship between the regime and the United States government.

To gain an understanding of Mohammed Pahlavi, we are compelled to look back at the beginning of the Pahlavi dynasty and the history of Mohammed’s reign. According to H.L. Wagner , the Pahlavi dynasty was founded on February 21, 1921 when Mohammed’s father, Reza Khan led an army of 3000 men into Tehran and seized control of the Persian government. After a short stint in 1921 as prime minister, Reza Khan was crowned king on April 25, 1926. The newly crowned king, now known as Reza Shah, would rule the nation for the next fifteen years. During this time, the king would institute a major reform program that saw educational opportunities expanded, the legal system patterned after Western courts, women given civil rights, and the nation’s infrastructure greatly improved. And, in 1935 the country was renamed Iran, in homage to the nation’s rich history and heritage.[2]

During World War Two, Reza Shah decided that Iran would remain neutral, although he felt closer to the Germans than the Allies, due to past conflicts with the British and Soviets. Using the presence of some German workers in the country as a pretext, the British and Soviets invaded Iran on August 25, 1941 and on September 16, 1941 the occupying powers forced Shah to abdicate the throne and hand power over to his 21 year old son Mohammed. Reza Shah was then sent into exile, first to Mauritius and then to Johannesburg, South Africa where he died on July 26, 1944.

The young Shah became the ruler of a humiliated nation, one that had been invaded by outside powers and seen its leader forced into exile by those invaders. By 1953 the new Shah would himself be in exile after losing an internal power struggle with his prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq. Mossadeq would in turn be ousted in a coup largely orchestrated by the American CIA. By August 1953 the Shah would be returned to the throne of Iran with the full backing of the United States government. He also returned to power with three ideas that would later play a role in his downfall: the belief that his security as ruler was dependent on American support, the feeling that he should have absolute power, and the determination to brook no challenges to his authority.[3]

Upon his return from exile, the Shah began to exhibit the traits of an autocrat, mainly by attempting to cement his hold on power. In January 1963, he launched the White Revolution, a series of sweeping reforms that would radically alter Iranian society. The government was reorganized, women were granted voting rights, and education was extended to the rural poor. Also, profit sharing plans were introduced for workers, access to healthcare was made more available to regular citizens, some government businesses were privatized, and land was to be redistributed to the country’s poor.[4]

But, according to Shaul Bakhash, even during his reforms the Shah tended towards autocracy by suppressing independent political parties, created a regime controlled Party, packed the Parliament with “yes men”, and surrounded himself with sycophants.[5] Likewise, Fareydoun Hoveyda  stated that the Shah began to have a major change in character between 1965 and 1975; “Hubris seized him and he came to consider himself superior to everybody inside, and outside the country”. [6]His “hubris” led the Shah to believe that the Iranian people would support him in any decision that he made and in any action he took. This belief led him to become more arbitrary in the way he ruled; even though he controlled the parliament, the Shah often chose to ignore the Iranian constitution and rule by imperial decree.[7]

In 1975, the Shah further exhibited his growing “hubris” by abolishing all political parties, and creating one Party that all Iranians were required to join. Those who did not wish to join the Rastakhiz (resurgence) Party were told to take their passports and leave the country[8]. Also, during this time the Shah began to use his secret police, the SAVAK, to attack and harass any group that opposed him. According to Wagner, “The SAVAK used torture and murder to eliminate political opposition”[9]; Bakhash further stated that the SAVAK went in a rampage, beating opposition leaders and planting bombs near their meeting places.[10] However, the Shah never seemed to consider the effects of taking such actions. How would his allies view him? How would his subjects react? The use of the SAVAK to suppress political dissent, and the obvious disregard for political plurality caused Western governments, especially the United States, to reassess their relationships with Tehran. According to Sir Anthony Parsons, former British ambassador to Iran,

            One of the Shah’s problems was that by destroying all balancing elements in Iranian politics and by creating for himself a position of sole leadership in direct communion with the people, there was no one else for the people to blame when things went wrong. [11]

              And when things began to go wrong for the Shah, he found that his subjects had, in most respects, turned against him; the elimination of political choice and the use of the SAVAK to suppress dissenters was more than the Iranian people would bear.

It seems lately that anytime a conservative states that they cannot in good conscience support Rudy, Romney, or McVain they are assaulted with "You cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good", or some such nonsense. The problem is that conservatives are not looking for perfection in a candidate, but a good candidate to support.

But in the mind of the GOP loyalists that populate Townhall, any thought of not supporting a Republican candidate...ANY Republican candidate...is treated as some sort of betrayal. We get the "enemy of the good" speech from them like a parent lecturing a kid about not eating his veggies. "Not voting for Rudy is the same as voting for Hillary", they say. Or, "Any Republican is better than any Democrat."

That, my friends, is utter horsesh*t! And I am sick of having GOP loyalists trying to bully me into supporting a candidate that does not hold dear the same things that I do. Again, we conservatives are not looking for a perfect candidate because we know there iis no such thing. But we are DEMANDING that if the GOP wants to count on our support in November '08, they had better deliver a conservative on the ballot. Period.

We are sick of being told that Rudy is a conservative, that he will appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the SCOTUS, and that he is strong on foreign policy and immigration. Where's the evidence of that? In letting "Turn 'Em Loose" Bruce Gordon exercise his liberal judicial tyranny from the New York bench for years? In declaring that NYPD did not care about the immigration status of criminals in the city, and in turning NYC into a "sanctuary city"? And what foreing policy/defense policy has Rudy ever had to make? Securing Times Square isn't exactly the same thing as securing the southern border, ok?

And just because I am focusing on Rudy doesn't mean that I haven't paid attention to Romney the Kennedy Republican from Massachusetts. He has all the right words about abotion and homosexual marriage...now. But what was he doing about it when he was in the Massachusetts governor's mansion? Not a whole hell of a lot, that's what!

And everyone knows what I think about John McVain. This guy has gotten about as much mileage out of being a Vietnam POW as anyone could get;  now he acts as though that qualifies him for the office of Commander In Chief. This is the same John McVain who coauthored the McVain-Feingold Incumbent Protection/Free Speech Limitation Act, and who vociferously defended the President's plan to turn America into a Mexican suburb!

The point is that the people the GOP leadership keep trying to shove on us aren't even conservative for the most part...much less good candidates. So before continuing to deliver the "enemy of the good" speech to conservatives, the GOP loyalists need to get us the good...then maybe that stupid little speech will make sense.

Until then,  shut up. I don't feel like hearing that speech anymore.

Everyone knows that the Civil Rights Establishment...The Right Reverends Jackson & Sharpton, Julian Bond & the NAACP, and the voices of Belafonte, Glover, & Gregory...are totally in bed with the mainstream (liberal) media. They come out like vultures after carrion whenever there is a story with any hint of racial bias to it, and the media attack dogs go after anyone that can be destroyed by their poison pens. They hold themselves out as the clarion of racial justice, and are quick to pounce when they see any evidence of injustice anywhere...so much so that Rush Limbaugh has renamed Al and Jesse "The Justice Brothers"!

There was a hurricane of controversy over the "injustices" in Jena, La. recently with massive protests held in the small town, and a media frenzy that generally painted every white person in the town as a night rider, and every black person in town as a cowering victim of the town's pervasive racism. That was the way the story was reported, and we all heard about how the young men in question were "victims" of a racist justice system and how the poor souls were being railroaded. You know, "Free the Jena 6" and all that jazz. Now, while there is some truth to the claims that the D.A. may have gone overboard on the charges, there can be no doubt that the young men involved in the six-on-one assault deserved some punishment. And now, sportswriter  Jason Whitlock has done the type of reporting that should have been done and exposed how the case in Jena was mythologized.

But this is not about Jena, it is about how a real victim of the system, who needed the voices that were raised to defend a group of criminals in Jena to defend him sat in jail, while the Civil Rights Establishment let him languish there. They could not come to his aid, because his story was not the news of the day...it was no longer a part of the news cycle. No, this young man would have to wait and get things done on his own, without have 20,000 people march to protest his incarceration.

Genarlow Wilson is free today, after serving 2 years of a 10 year sentence for having oral sex with an underage female. He is free because the Supreme Court of the state of Georgia, in admittedly an act of activism, looked at his sentence and decided that it was the very definition of "cruel and usual punishment".He is not free because of the pressure brought to bear on the state by Julian Bond, "The Justice Brothers", the NAACP, or Danny Glover. He is free because he had a lawyer that was truly his advocate and fought for him until he was freed. Now, that is not to say that "The Justice Brothers" totally abandoned him, because Big Al did drop by...seemingly on his way to the Jena protests.  But make no mistake, the Civil Rights Establishment failed this young man, and their media minions forgot about him and his struggle.

And where was the conservative press? There were reams written about the jeopardy that the Duke 3 were placed in by an overzealous prosecutor, but not one word about Genarlow Wilson. This young man lived the worst case scenario envisioned by those who were crushing Mike Nifong on a daily basis, yet not one bit of ink was spilled to defend or advocate for him. He was locked up by a prosecutor who tried him knowing that a conviction carried a 10 year sentence, and who seemed to take pleasure in the fact that he held the key to Wilson's possible freedom...all the kid had to do was humble himself before the prosecutor and he might...might...have a shot at freedom. Isn't this the very type of situation that had us all screaming for Mike Nifong's head on a platter?

So was everyone while Genarlow Wilson sat in prison? Where were the protests? Where were the media stories? Where were the indignant columns...although I can foresee an Ann Coulter column calling for him to be returned to prison, since Ann doesn't think anyone outside of Scooter Libby can be wrongfully prosecuted or convicted, but I digress...from the vanguards of justice on the right?

It seems that there was a lot of failure to go around on this story, but things worked out for Mr. Wilson in the end.

No thanks to the usual suspects.

In the past few years we conservatives have tagged any member of the GOP that did not hold traditional Republican positions as RINOs...Republican In Name Only. We have called John MCain a RINO for his co-authoring the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, we have called Lindsey Graham a RINO for his rabid support of the Bush immigration sell-out, and we have called Olympia Snowe a RINO because of her liberal leanings on nearly every major issue. And at the time, I thought we were right, but now I realize that we were wrong.

They're not the RINOs here, we are. The conservatives are the New RINOs, as strange as that sounds; but just roll with me a few moments and you'll see where I am going.

The thing that I hear most conservatives at Townhall complaining about when it comes to the GOP is that the Party is moving away from the conservative principles that have sustained it for most of recent history. There has always been a strain of moderate to liberal influence in the GOP, but generally the Party has always know that it's strength lay in the conservative base of the Party. So when push came to shove you could always count on the Party taking a stand with the base and promoting conservative principles and policy ideas.

The apogee of conservative principle in the GOP in recent years was in the Reagan years, when Ronald Reagan embodied the ideals that conservatives most identify with. He was strong on defense, he was a fiscal conservative, he believed in "American exceptionalism", he was a proud patriot, believed in limited government, and he was able to reach across the aisle and bring in the so-called "Reagan Democrats" to the GOP. In so doing he was able to put together a sweeping victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980, and absolutely crushed Fritz Mondale in 1984. The Party was riding high and conservatives were eagerly pointing out the fact that as much as Reagan's personal appeal had to do with his victories, it was also a validation that conservatism can win---and win big---when honestly presented to the American people.

But it seems that after Reagan left office in 1988 his conservative principles were left behind by the GOP. It seems that what they learned during the Reagan years was not that conservatism wins, but that reaching across the ideological aisle was what accounted for Reagan's victories. Now, it was natural that George H.W. Bush would be the GOP nominee in 1988, since he was the sitting Vice President of one of the most popular Presidents in the history of the Unites States. But what was telling about H.W. Bush was that while he talked a good conservative game he was the walking definition of a "moderate". Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm made him look like a conservative on national security, but a closer examination of what he set out to accomplish...the very limited objective of expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait...and his reliance on UN resolutions for justification should have sounded the alarm. And if that did not do it, then his quick flip flop on his "no new taxes" pledge should have had the hackles standing on the backs of conservative necks. But, hey we were winning elections so we let it slide.

But the real show of how far the GOP had shifted from the conservative principles of the Reagan heyday could be seen in the people that the Party pushed for, and secured the nomination of, in presidential races. We have seen such moderates as H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in '96, and now the two terms of the "compassionate conservative" from Crawford, Texas. And now the powers that be are pushing Rudolph Giuliani as the "front runner" in the primary process, because he is "electible"...even though he is as liberal as any Democrat candidate running on the other side. But his is who the Party establishment longs for to run in the '08 elections against the presumptive Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. There is not a real bit of difference in their attitudes towards homosexual marriage, gun rights, or abortion on demand nor is there much difference in their rhetoric as it relates to national security matters. Yet the GOP power brokers continue to push Rudy on us as if he is a savior.

And sadly, the rank and file of the GOP has bought into all of the Rudy talk, and the Hillary scare tactics. Anyone that dares voice their concerns about Rudy's lack of conservative credentials is summarily shouted down. Anyone who says that their conservative principles will not allow them to vote for Rudy Giuliani is accused of supporting Hillary,and is being told that they have no place in the GOP.

And those voices are right, to a great degree. We conservatives have watched, almost helplessly as our beloved Party has drifted ever leftward in a vain attempt to get the center. We have watch as our Party leaders have started to act like drug addicts chasing the high of electoral victories and political power no matter the cost. We have seen the Party prostitute itself to push a "comprehensive immigration reform" package that would have essentially erased the idea of our national borders...just to court the Latino vote. We have watched as the Party spent our money recklessly, in an attempt to buy votes from senior citizens with a Medicare prescription plan that even the AARP didn't want. And we have seen our views trivialized, marginalized, and demonized by the very Party that we have so staunchly supported over the years.

You see, in this new GOP we conservatives are the true RINOs. We do not subscribe to pure Republicanism, but instead we hold true to out conservative principles...no matter what. We may not always agree on every issue, but what we can agree on is that our principles must come before Party loyalty. And as the Party has moved ever leftward in seeking the middle, all the while knowing that to get to the center they will have to move away from their roots, we have remained steadfast in our conservatism. And that has moved us put of the mainstream of the GOP and has made us the very thing that we always accused them of being...RINOs.

So you see conservatives, we are the new RINOs and it is nothing to be ashamed of. We have stood firm in what we believe and have not compromised simply for a chance to win an election; we know that winning with Rudy is the exact same thing as losing with Hillary.

So if anyone calls you a RINO, be proud of it because it means that you are willing to take a stand on what you believe. And if being this kind of RINO s wrong, then I don't want to be right!

Another day, another round of Middle East peace talks. When are the nations of the Western world and the leadership of Israel going to realize that Hamas, Fatah, and the PLO don’t want peace? They want you gone, and they will use any means to “git ‘er done”, including the peace talks ruse. Someone had better listen to what the Palestinians are really saying, instead of hearing just what they want to hear!

Is Fox News glad they have no more dealings with Rita Cosby, or what? It seems that Ms. Cosby has gone into the scandal book industry and has decided that Anna Nicole Smith’s lawyer and baby-daddy were sleeping together. But get this: she doesn’t have any evidence of it, other than a rumored “sex tape”! She has never seen the tape, can’t say with any conviction that it exists but she felt free to write about it in her new book! Can you say “lack of journalistic integrity” boys and girls?

If Albert Gore, Jr. is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, what about me? I have a 12 year old boy and a nearly 4 year old girl, and I manage every day to keep them from killing one another. Surely that contributes more to world peace than making some mock documentary about global warming, right?

Quick, someone answer me this: Why do the media want to know what the White House is going to say about Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s criticisms on the campaign trail? If I’m not mistaken, GWB isn’t on the campaign trail---so how does anything he says impact on the candidates and their campaigns?

On a related note, I think that Sen. McCain has pretty much defanged the General’s recent criticism of the Bush plan in Iraq. Sen. McCain pointed out that when Gen. Sanchez was in a position to make a difference in the course of the war, he was the head cheerleader for the plan that he now characterizes as a “disaster”. It sounds to me like someone is trying to salvage their legacy as a military officer to me!

In the “MYOB” department, could someone tell the Congress to stay out of other nation’s histories? In an effort to make themselves feel important, the Democratically controlled Congress has decided that it needs to pass a resolution condemning Turkey for “genocide” against the Armenians after World War One. This resolution covers something that happened nearly 100 years ago and has had the effect of souring relations between the US and Turkey; Turkey has taken this so seriously that they have recalled an ambassador over the situation. In case the Congress hasn’t noticed, Turkey is a strategic ally of ours in the Middle East, and we should be trying to strengthen the relationship instead of antagonizing the Turks. History will rightly judge what the Turks did to the Armenians---we don’t need the Congress trying to pass judgment on anyone else for their history; we have plenty of skeletons in our own closets to deal with before we go digging into someone else’s!

Finally, from the “Let It Go” file”: I would urge Fred Goldman to let his vendetta against O.J. Simpson go. I cannot even imagine what it is like to see my child murdered, nor to see the man who did it go free---and make no mistake, O.J. did it! But after all of this time, it is time to let some of the bitterness and anger go; all it is doing is poisoning you. Fred Goldman has allowed his entire life to be defined by the death of his son and his hatred towards the man he believes killed him; that is no way to honor the memory of your son, and it is no way to live a life. By holding onto this vendetta, Fred Goldman is allowing O.J. Simpson to kill him, just as he killed his son.

 

 

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former vice president, and leading global warming alarmist al-Gore officially means that the Nobel Peace Prize is just another trinket handed out to those that are hostile to America and her interests. And it is especially so for former elected officials that wage a rhetorical war on America every chance they get: witness the awards given to Jimmy Carter and now al-Gore.

What has al-Gore done to promote any type of peace? Yes he has spoken out against the invasion of Iraq, but only after he was part of the administration that drew up the plans to depose Saddam Hussein! Other than that, what has he done to promote peace---which is what I thought the whole Nobel Prize thing was supposed to predicated upon.  I guess they must have used the usual tortured liberal logic: Since al-Gore thinks that global warming is going to be the end of the world, his making a bogus documentary---while contributing more to global warming in day than most people do in a year---is some type of promotion of peace. Or something like that...it really doesn't matter anyway. No logic need apply when a bunch of Eurolibs get together to honor an Amerilib.

But if al-Gore is worthy of the Noble Peace Prize, why not Rodney King? I mean, Rodney King at least did something to promote peace somewhere! It may not have been "I Have a Dream", but it he did take to the airwaves during the LA riots and ask "Can't we all just get along" in order to try to quell the rioting there. That is at least as deserving of the award as what al-Gore has done, right?

Stay tuned folks, the next go around we may see it awarded to a phony soldier like Jessie MacBeth, and it would be fitting. By awarding the Noble Peace Prize to al-Gore, it now has as much real value as the phony decorations MacBeth made up for himself!

All White people are racists, whose very existence is brightened by the opportunity to keep Black people in their place. They also hate gays, anyone who is non-Christian, and routinely seek ways to oppress women. They are the originators of the slave trade and could not have succeeded in America, or elsewhere without the wholesale subjugation and exploitation of “uncivilized” nations. Whites stole America from the Indians, and where they could not steal what they wanted they engaged in Wholesale slaughter of those that opposed them---remember Wounded Knee Creek?

Whites have sought to disenfranchise Blacks and in recent elections have engaged in massive voter fraud and intimidation to elect the person that they wanted to see as President. From the end of the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, White men led a massive campaign to discourage Blacks from exercising the very rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution. And they are still at it today.

White people have also never been above using the race card in the criminal justice system, either. From the acquittals for mass murder in the South during the 1960’s, to the cases of Charles Stewart and Susan Smith, Whites have systematically been allowed to kidnap, bomb, maim, torture, or kill
Blacks with near impunity because they owned the system.

And every White man, woman, and child---8 to 80, blind, cripple, or crazy is guilty of those offenses because they are White---and all Whites think that way. Well, nearly all Whites anyway. Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Ronald Reagan are really credits to their race. I may not have agreed with them on everything they did, but they are a real credit to the White race.

Is your breathing heavy yet? Is your pulse pounding in your ears? Have you hands started to shake with the adrenaline rush that anger---nearly rage---brings with it? Are you wondering what type of idiot would write such inflammatory garbage? Are you wondering why it is showing up at a Townhall blog, written by someone who calls himself a conservative?

Well now you have a small glimpse of how I feel whenever the subject of race comes up on nearly any of the Townhall threads. Now you have a small taste of the anger and disbelief that I have to deal with when I hear conservatives tell me or others that race is not a factor in anything in life. Or when I read that Blacks are this entire thing, that entire thing, or another thing entirely. I get sick to death of it, and damn it you would too if you had to deal with it.

I am sick of conservatives telling me whom I should admire, how I should feel, and if I am not squarely in their camp on every issue then I am wrong. I am tired of reading that Blacks always seek a pass on their wrongdoing, or that all Blacks have a slave/plantation mentality, or that Blacks are the only ones---besides Mexicans, of course---who are a “burden” on the social safety net. I’m sick of hearing that garbage---and you should be too!

I am weary of feeling like I have to defend Black people whenever the subject of race comes up. I am sick of having people say that Blacks are the real racists because they have their own institutions, pageants, and entertainment venues. I am tired of being told that Blacks have to assimilate into the dominant culture, or they are some type of fifth column that is trying to undermine America. I am tired of hearing how BET or the Miss Black America pageant is somehow an affront to the American people that should be abandoned in the grand quest for assimilation. So let me give you a synopsis of why we have BET and the Miss Black America Pageant to begin with. The MBA Pageant was started because Blacks were effectively shut out of the Miss America Pageant and so a pageant for Black contestants was started. It allowed for little Black girls who wanted to become beauty queens something to aspire to, and to be judged by people whose ideas of what is beautiful does not stop at the Euro-American ideal. BET was started in the 1980s because MTV had a corporate policy that they were not going to show any music videos by ANY Black artists. Think about that: an entertainment medium, whose biggest star at the time was the most non threatening Black man alive—Michael Jackson—decided to shut him out of their fledgling business because he was Black. And remember, this was not the 1950s or 60s, this was the 1980s. So Robert Johnson, being the entrepreneur that he is, decided to start his own cable network to bring music videos made by Black artists to a Black audience. But somehow this does not denote the entrepreneurial spirit that conservatism claims to love, but somehow it is a testament to “Black racism”? And because the words Black Entertainment Television bothers some segment of the White populace, it should be shut down? How about this: BET shuts down right at the time that CMT shuts down. Fair enough?

There’s an old song that states “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child”, and that is the way I feel sometimes as a conservative. It’s tough being a Black man who holds conservative political views in this country: you know that the left is going to come after you because you don’t reside on the liberal plantation anymore, but it’s even worse when you have to deal with the uninformed attitudes among too many conservatives as well.

So let me say it as clearly as I can: Judge me, and every other Black person you meet as an individual. No one group of people are all of one mind on any subject, so stop assuming that Blacks are. Stop with the blanket statements and indictments of all Blacks because of the actions of some. Would any of you like it if we Blacks decided that Jeffrey Dahmer, Bill Clinton, or Tim McVeigh was “just how White people are”? And please stop pointing out only conservative Blacks as what Black people should be; it smacks too much of the whole “credit to their race” idea that should have been put to bed long ago. We are free to look back at history and decide that we admire Malcolm X or Booker Washington, just as you are free to decide that George Washington or John Kennedy are worthy of admiration.

And please stop treating Blacks as if we are the “other” that sociology speaks of. We are people just like you, with many of the same hopes, dreams, fears, and aspirations that you have. We are Americans, just like anyone else---so treat us like it.

Judge us, truly, by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin.

We in this country are saddled with the most myopic media in the history of mankind. These people are some of the biggest navel-gazers that have ever come down the pike, and they are absolutely convinced that they speak for “the people” on all types of issues. We see it in both the “mainstream” news media, and in the sports pages; people that never take the time to really talk to the people they claim to represent.

Take the coverage of the Iraq War and all of its related stories and issues in the major media. It is all the same, all the time, no matter what paper or network you watch for your news and information. From the beginning of the war, the media have taken the view that the war was contrived, a political ploy, or some grand conspiracy to seize oil from the Middle East. And every major media outlet has reported it the same way, in the same vein, and using nearly identical words. There is hardly ever any deviation from the accepted party line on the failures of the administration or of the belief that we are not fighting the broader war against Islamic aggression by being in Iraq. And the media is always right there to tell us that they are reflecting what “the people” think of the issue.

In sports we see it in the way that the home run chase of Barry Bonds has been covered. When Bonds hit #756, ESPN---the self proclaimed “World Wide Leader in Sports”---made sure that the first person they interviewed about it was one of the authors of “Game of Shadows” who immediately threw cold water on the moment. And they did it as a reflection of the negative views they assured us that most people held of Barry Bonds and his historic accomplishment.

The thing about both of these situations is that they are really only reflective of what the media thinks of the situations! Most of the news media are anti-war, and most of the sports media are anti-Bonds; they simply think that since they are the media that most people must see things the same way they do. But more likely, they are listening not to “the people”, but to their media buddies, and that is where they form their opinions.

Take the war for instance; most people, regardless of their views on President Bush, are supportive of the idea of us prosecuting this war to a positive outcome. In other words, while the media agitates for us to pull troops out and absorb a defeat, the people want to win! And in the case of Barry Bonds, there are plenty of people that are supportive of the new home run king, while the media---many for strictly personal reasons---have nothing at all to say positively about him.

The media in this country is very insular, and they are much more concerned with how their peers think than what the people think. They write their article to impress their media pals, and to earn accolades from them---not to adequately inform us, their readers.

So the next time they claim to speak for us, think about this: How many of this insular bunch has ever taken time out to talk to the people they claim to speak for? I know most in the media do not speak for me…how about you?

So this is what we have come to, members of the United States Senate taking to the floor of that esteemed chamber to denounce the words of a private citizen. The speeches made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Tom Harkin show just how out of touch the members of the Senate truly are and just how much they are lockstep with liberal media groups of all stripes. But most importantly, it is a stark illustration of just how power mad the Democrats in the Congress are, and how dangerous they can truly be.

Of course by now most everyone has heard about Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment, and has seen the media and political tempest in a teapot that as arisen from it. Far be it from me to defend Mr. Limbaugh, as he has a 3 hour radio show broadcast all over the world that allows him to defend himself much better than I could dream of doing. No, my intention here is not to really discuss what “El Rushbo” said on his show, nor to rehash all of the anti-military statements made by a bevy of Congressional Democrats. What I want to point out is how this Democrat controlled Congress is using the bully pulpit given to them by the people to attack a private citizen, and how this activity is exactly the type of thing that we conservatives have always known the Democrats would do if allowed to gain power.

There is something unseemly, and a tad bit frightening about seeing members of the United States Senate going onto the floor of the Senate and denouncing a talk show host for saying something that they don’t like. These people, who write the laws that govern this country, have attacked a private citizen in public for saying something they claim to disagree with, and are sending a letter to his syndicator to pressure them to publicly repudiate him. And they are preparing a resolution---legislation, people---to condemn Rush Limbaugh!  For a Party that claims to support free speech, they sure seem intent on stifling any speech that contradicts the Democratic Party line.

But in all seriousness, it is disturbing to think that our elected officials are so partisan that they allow themselves to be sucked into low brow mudslinging against citizens they don’t particularly agree with. Senator Harkin’s cheap shot at Rush about his past addiction to painkillers is symptomatic of the Democratic Party’s willingness to say anything, do anything, or hurt anyone they think is standing in their way politically. And what is really disheartening is the fact that citizens of this country continue to send such mean spirited, angry, hateful people to represent them.

And don’t think that this assault on the free speech rights of one citizen is an isolated incident; it is part of the new Democrat’s DNA. They have stood behind those that would ban religion from the public square, which would restrict gun ownership to the point that only the police and military could possess them, and who have worked to deny the people any real say in determining who can represent them---and for how long. These people have no love of freedom, and no respect for your rights; all they see and care about is political power.

Be watchful of these Democratic demagogues, because it may be Rush Limbaugh being legislated against today but it won’t be long before it is you in the dock. After all, opposing the Democrats is a hate crime---right?