General Music Chat

Ironically, or 'Iranically, Iran would have little to no problem with being 'liberated', and is pretty much the inverse of Iraq.
Most of the general populance is already westernized, due to a shaws bright idea to bring in satellite television.
In Iran, the leadership and religious leadership is the problem, in Iraq the tribal differences and infighting is the problem (the 'people').

Pretty accurate!

That's why I specified that the PEOPLE needed to change their government out. The Iranian people are far more forward thinking than alot of Muslims countries. But then, Iran is unique among Islamic countries, anyway. They speak Persian. They have one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and consequently a very long and rich cultural history. The Shah who was overthrown had been trying to modernize the country, and improve women's rights and education... westernizing the country in many ways. Khomeini became an atagonist toward such reforms and the Shah himself, and get enough support to overthrow the Shah. Now it seems though, that the people themselves, are embracing, all these decades later, the Shah's original vision to some degree.

But the people of Iraq "were" pleased to be free of Sadaam too. There are sectarian problems, but Sadaam himself "WAS" universally despised.

Are you saying that the Shah had no effect on the society? That he didn't help to modernize his nation?

The Shah, was the reformer that modernized Iran, gave women the right to vote and hold various offices, improved education, 90% of farmers became land owners, virtually overnight.

The worst thing the Iranian people ever did to themselves was to evict the Shah. Khomeini, and other clergy, simply resented the Shah lessening the POLITICAL and LEGAL powers, they previously enjoyed.

The worst thing the Iranian people ever did to themselves was to evict the Shah. Khomeini, and other clergy, simply resented the Shah lessening the POLITICAL and LEGAL powers, they previously enjoyed.

Odd thing to say for anyone interested in civil rights, Craig. A huge # of ppl were imprisoned for speaking out against the gov't. His rule teemed with even more with corruption than our own.

The Shah ruled with an iron fist on one hand, while he gave lip service to the ideals of the west on the other. That was why he was ousted. He was considered to be the embodiment of western decadence & cruelty.

He was certainly no benevolent dictator by any stretch of the imagination. Getting rid of him was a good thing for the ppl, but that which they replaced him with, was no better in the end.

Odd thing to say for anyone interested in civil rights, Craig.

It isn't odd at all.

A huge # of ppl were imprisoned for speaking out against the gov't. His rule teemed with even more with corruption than our own.

Once again... slip a jab against America in there... trash your own country. Awesome!

The Shah ruled with an iron fist on one hand, while he gave lip service to the ideals of the west on the other.

He wasn't paying lip service. He "WAS" westernizing his country. Had he been allowed to continue, the Middle East and our relations to it, would be FAR DIFFERENT than they are today.

That was why he was ousted. He was considered to be the embodiment of western decadence & cruelty.

Yeah, considered to be the embodiment on western decadence by the CLERICS, who were merely ANGRY they had lost much of their powers, and their religious rule, to the courts.

He was certainly no benevolent dictator by any stretch of the imagination. Getting rid of him was a good thing for the ppl, but that which they replaced him with, was no better in the end.

Phil, once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Craig, I suggest you read up on the Iranian history, preferably by those authors who aren't writing pro-USA propaganda. I was alive then, Craig. I remember the news at the time.

The Shah was no benevolent dictator. His rule was one of the reasons that the muslims hate us, & with damned good reason.

"Once again... slip a jab against America in there... trash your own country. Awesome!"

I'd really rather not, truth be told, but the facts speak for themselves. We set up a puppet dictatorship - NOT a "democracy" - in Iran. His excesses rivalled Hussein's own in Iraq, & his domestic policies were clearly not of the friendly type. I'll "trash" the USA each & every time it;s deserved, & it most certainly WAS deserved with this guy, as it was with Noriega & Castro.

If you weren't such a programmed flag-waver, you might see things a little differently.

I've said it before - every time the USA sets up a new gov't, or backs a country unilaterally, it comes back to bite is in the ass, because we only do it to further US imterests, & NOT the ppl of the countries involved. This results in thise ppl being used & abused poorly, & they have every right & reason to hate the country responsible for thier plight.

The Shah was hated throughout his reign, once the gov't of Iran had settled down after his US-backed takeover.

Craig, I suggest you read up on the Iranian history, preferably by those authors who aren't writing pro-USA propaganda. I was alive then, Craig. I remember the news at the time.

Yeah me too.

I was probably only 14 at the time, but I watched the Evening News daily with my family, and would ask my step-father questions about anything I didn't fully understand.

And much later, as an adult, living in Washington, DC, I had a few friends from Iran. One of whom, had to flee with his family, when the Shah was deposed.

I've also read a great deal, about Iran's considerable history.

The Shah was no benevolent dictator.

I don't recall ever calling him a "benevolent dictator".

Those are your words.

However.... He was a benevolent dictator in many respects. He wanted to be a good and thoughtful leader, and worked toward that end. I am convinced that he saw himself as something of a second-coming of "Cyrus the Great".

He was a reformer. He was trying to bring about something of a modern version of Persia's Greatness of the past.

He tried to break the power that the Mullahs had wielded for centuries. Creating a more modern and secular society, where law was concerned.

He modernizing Iran, and increased women's rights, and their power in societal leadership. The country prospered more, economically, during his reign. He was HEROIC in his positions, particularly for the time period. The biggest criticisms of his reign, are his lavish spending, and his administration's crack-downs on political opposition.

Neither of those concern me, when compared to the GOOD he did, and tried to do, for his people and his country. He was royalty after all, why shouldn't he be kept in the trappings of royalty? The country was deep in oil wealth, he was a good leader... I don't begrudge a "Royal Family" living in royal entrapments.

As far as the opposition goes... he was bringing about, unheard of, change and modernization, and was seen as being guided by, not just a modern society (America) but a non-Muslim one!

The potential for violent opposition, coups, overthrow, etc... was very strong, and very real. I think his motivations were ultimately altruistic. He believed the changes he was making would bring his country into a modern era, and help them to become more of a world player, a stronger nation, a more powerful nation, and one better benefiting the country's citizens.

You really don't understand Iran, as... PERSIA!

But the people there do. They know their proud history, and that at one time, they were the LARGEST EMPIRE the world had EVER KNOWN, up until that time.

What you also don't understand, is that the Shah is being re-evaluated in more recent times. Many Iranians have a reformed view of those days, and of the Shah's actions and plans for their future. I would recommend that you read his book "Answer to History" if you can find a used copy, and you will better understand the man, and his motivations.

Even the revolutionaries of his day (then young), that were involved in causing his overthrow, NOW CHANT...

"God bless the Shah's soul, the economy was better then."

Had he been allowed to see his reforms through, finish the process of reducing the power of the Mullah's religious fanaticism, and continued his country's modernizations, we would have seen AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT HISTORY in our Middle East relations.

That was the world's big chance to avoid all that occurred in the decades since, and more importantly, the things which are to come!

The Shah was hated throughout his reign

"Hated THROUGHOUT his reign?"

No he wasn't.

He was widely admired and supported.

This gradually declined, as he took steps which reduced the power of the Mullah's and of various political factions there. He falsely assumed that he would receive widespread support from the common people, after he had instituted land ownership reforms, which gave 90% of the country's sharecroppers, ownership of the land they worked. The owners were paid off at fair market rates, and the farmers were given loans to buy the land themselves, at a 30% reduction in market value.

He underestimated the influence of the Clerics and others, on the largely uneducated people, as well as some betrayals in his own government.

His being deposed, and overthrown, shocked the world, and was very unexpected. Even our own CIA, working WITHIN Iran, to keep checks on his opposition, were caught by surprise.

Oh yeah. There's a good source - go to the Shah himself!

From its inception, Craig, his reign was considered a dirty trick by the west to control the region, &, by default, thier oil.

His modernization techniques involved emprisoning anyone who dared to speak out against him in public or print. He was feared, Craig, & with good reason, NOT just by the mullahs & clerics, but by regular folk. There was nothing democratic about his reign ot his goals.

His failure to maintain his rule shows me that his ppl didn't want him in power, no matter how western his ideals (or perhaps because of them).

His failure to maintain his rule shows me that his ppl didn't want him in power, no matter how western his ideals (or perhaps because of them).

Phil,

Again, you are in way over your head. You only know the few things you find on Wikipedia... I know people FROM IRAN who lived UNDER HIS RULE. I've read books that detailed this episode in history. I expressed to you already, that those who overthrew him, now regret it. To the point, that there is now a famous chant used to mark this change of attitude.

You are trying to understand something "now" from very dated information, that is at best incomplete, but also very often, just... WRONG!

The Shah was a good man. A reformer. A visionary.

Iranians, have come to understand this now.

Too bad you haven't.

As for me... I can look at people and know alot about them. I knew his heart was good and decent, even as a child. History has confirmed my childhood insights.

Believe what you want.

I will put more weight on the opinions of the people of Iran, over yours.

Oh yeah. There's a good source - go to the Shah himself!

Ha ha ha!!!




Thanks for the suggestion!

Well, I didn't exactly go to the Shah... but I went to Amazon.com!!!

Here are what Iranians (and others) are saying about the Shah now, 30 YEARS LATER, which I found under... REVIEWS for his book...


----------- REVIEWS ---------------

As a young Iranian living in the United States, I became involved in anti-shah activities common among the Iranian youth
inspired by leftist ideologies in the 1970's. But the hindsight is always 20/20. Reading this book has given me a different perspective of the man and his ideas, his philosophies and his wishes for a nation who supported him whole-heartedly after second World War and who turned against him in 1979. Now I understand that his aspirations for modernization and curbing the yokes of religious fanaticism levelled against our people by the Mullahs during the past several centuries were the right cure for the ills of our society. I regret my contributions to the creation of the current turmoil in my beloved homeland, by my actions against a man and a government that loved his country and could not be called anything but a patriot.

====

We, Iranians, never appreciated his service to our country and were quick to judge him and toss him out when he needed us the most.

====

The minority of Iranians who betrayed Iran and the Shah were just the janitors of the world conspiracy against him. The real architects were behind the curtain! But they made it look like a revolution for which it was not, just as Iran today is not a republic but is called the Islamic Republic. The regime is not even an Iranian regime. Their identity and ideology is anti-Iranian.

====

It's now 2009 now and after 30 years Iranians still have no clue what they did. A little heart felt wisdom would have really helped them so much. After reading this book and speaking with many Iranians today, I think they should become educated regarding the definition of words. Dictator would be the first word I would encourage every person to learn the meaning of.

Dictators don't make their decisions based on the advice of the consensus of their team like the shah did, they aren't primarily focused on increasing the freedom of those they serve like the shah did (according to Aristotle they serve their own good only), so they would not be paying for the living expenses and university education of over 100,000 Iranians that studied in the US and Europe. Dictators are not people who center their entire lives on helping people have the possibility to enhance their lives for example by growing the Iranian economy to 5 times that of Turkeys in 1979 (unlike today where it is only 40% the size of Turkeys after 3 trillion dollars in Oil Revenue).

Dictators build 100,000 square feet palaces for themselves. Saddam built over 20 in just 30 years and the shah didn't even build one. I guess between building mines, steel mills, hospitals, public courts and schools he realized the people he love needed freedom more than he needed a palace.

Instead of debating amongst each other, when Iranians realize what a dictator is and is not, their comments will make more sense and not be based on ignorance but based on wisdom.

Maybe they would then figure out why the media invented the label of dictator for the shah as well as others like a megalomaniac, a villain, a crook. The west used ignorant, uneducated, naive masses to humiliate the shah because they were against the freedom he had brought to Iran. The West purposely betrayed the Shah and his country.

His democratic friends worshiped money more than democracy or humanities spiritual journey as you can see from the results of betraying the shah. To think the USA wouldn't even supply the shah with tear gas or plastic bullets or any equipment to peacefully stop demonstrations on the one hand and then used their own media and other tools of soft power to topple the shah by inflaming Iranians about crimes that never existed. Shame on America. Shame on Carter. What disgraceful values America upholds. After what they have also done to Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq recently is it any wonder Americans are so disrespected globally today.

====

Most appropriately titled, this is the best testament to one of the most mis-understood yet significant world leaders of the last century.

Reading this, one may ponder what many don't: IS democracy the best solution for all countries and regions? Iranian history and cultural pride are founded on having largest and longest lasting Empire (540-330 BC) and multiple resurgence. Even today's greatest super-power, the USA, is still under influence of the British monarchy (though well hidden). He has been the only leader post-WWII to reach such an apex, to come close to breaking from British emperial hold. His account illustrates the hippocricy and double-standard the West uses through the U.N. in western interest, and how it ultimately lead to his own personal and Iran's national demise

Under the Shah, Iran had a parlaimentary system much like Britain and the book explains many of the struggles the Shah had in making Iran's government and society self-governing with a quiet monarchy. Mossadegh loving Iranians may rethink their opinions (perhaps even wonder if he should have executed him for treason) but better understand the Shah's consideration in trying to have Iran self-govern. He gives accounts of his land-reforms intended to preserve Iran's forests, curb profiteering and land-speculation, and redistribute wealth and property from the upper-class. The book also documents the principles of his White Revolution.

His detailed account of Iran's military arsenal demonstrate his thinking (and the reality) that it stabilized the middle-east, as evidenced by Soviet invasions on Afghanistan and Iraqi attack upon Iran after the revolution, and Desert Storm, and American efforts to stabilize (or control) middle-eastern countries since. More so today, one can see his then valid concern about fundamentalists and terrorists as evidenced by World Trade Center attacks, Spain's train bombings, and massive Hezbullah growth.

Except for his then valid concern about Soviet domination, what is quite fascinating is that many of his points still read as being current 25 years later. One may wonder the under-handed activity and powers of this political enemies when reflecting on appreciation and admiration-filled descriptions of President Nixon (politically assassinated via impeachment) and Egypt's Anwar Saadat (assassinated by Islamic fundamentalist 2 years later).


Considering the political deceits, underhanded politics by Western media and governments, and psuedo-intellectual criticisms from his own subjects, the respect, rights for women, and economic prosperity his leadership brought to Iran, he truly deserves the title of Shahanshah... until the next benevolent "dictator" brings vision and order to the "land of the Aryans", history's greatest kings, and the cradle of civilization.

May he rest in peace with Kourosh (Cyrus), Dariush, Reza Shah, and other God-loving Persian kings of the past and future.

====

The Shah of Iran is one of the least understood of the leaders of the 20th century. He made three fatal errors. He ordered his troops to rip the veils off women in order to force modernity upon the radical Muslims of Iran. He dealt with Israel with brought him the hatred of the Mullahs. Lastly he tried to emphasize a pre-Islamic past, a Persia where the capital was Persepolis. This went against the Islamic nature of erasing anything historical that comes before Islam. Thus the Shah drew the ire of the radical Muslims of Iran and he was ousted from power.
This book details his ideas and his efforts. He speaks openly about his anti-communism(the only thing he shared with the Mullahs) and about his military build up, trying to make Iran a world power. He speaks about his ideas of combining moderate Islam with a secular government. He speaks about the influence that Ataturk and Nasser had on him. He speaks about how he gave woment he right to vote and did not have a polygamous marriage.

This is an interesting book. Obviously it tells the Shahs story from his point of view, but his point of view is something we are to often deprived of in the West. In our time the Shah has been vilified as a ruthless leader who used American money to suppress his people. The reality, as he articulates, is that the radical Muslims created a far worse dictatorship where secret trials, execution and worse religious persecution were rampant. Iran might not have been perfect under the Shah but at least women could go to school, at least women could shake the hand of an `unrelated man' and at least dancing and beauty parlors were'nt illegal. An important book in light of the current opposition to Irans Muslim dictatorship.

====

This book changed my perception of the Shah, who was demonized in the "Western" world. I understood what it was he was trying to do for his country has admire him for those efforts. I used to believe that the Shah was evil but that view has changed. I wish the best to the Iranian nation. One of my best reads ever!


http://www.amazon.com/Answer-History-Mohammad-Reza-Pahlavi/product-reviews/0812861388/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Craig we agree on most things but I have to side with Phil on a couple o points on this one.
first off I believe that Phil has the same opinion on America as me: this country is great... our leaders are scum o the earth!
This country has been ruled by manipulation and propaganda for at least 5 decades.
The Shaw was inserted by and a pawn of the US government (C.I.A./C.F.R.) just as Hussein/Noriega.
The Iranian people aren't represented by what we hear in the U.S. as pretty much everything we hear through the corporate media (state TV) is rhetoric and propaganda based; nearly every news source in the US TV/radio/newspaper is owned by one of 5 corporations. The major publishers here are owned by them as well.
I believe Phil loves this country just as much as you and I, but is ready to see heads roll for the bullshit that they put us through and feed us!


"I know my sh*t stinks"

first off I believe that Phil has the same opinion on America as me: this country is great... our leaders are scum o the earth!

No disagreement there.

This country has been ruled by manipulation and propaganda for at least 5 decades.

Longer.


But so are all governments.

The Shaw was inserted by and a pawn of the US government (C.I.A./C.F.R.) just as Hussein/Noriega.

This was a little different. The two you mentioned, were common thugs, that America had a working relationship with... until their usefulness expired. The Shah was royalty. His father had ruled before him, but was exiled by Britain and the Soviet Union, who invaded Iran, after the King (The Shah's Father) refused to allow his Trans-Iranian Railway to be used to bring military supplies through Iran, in support of the war effort against Germany. Britain and The Soviet Union were allies, of course.

The Father, however, was a reformer and progressive thinker, just as his son was. And the son, was really, merely continuing the modernization efforts the father had already begun, during his reign.

In any event, one year after the Father was exiled, America became involved in the war, and now ALL THREE COUNTRIES (Britain, Soviet Union, America) had troops in Iran, and were in effect, running the country, in order to ensure the protection of the trains, and supply route, as well, as the foreign investments in the oil fields, to keep the oil flowing too.

After America became involved, the son... Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran) was "allowed" to accede to the throne, to replace his father as King of Iran. At the behest of the Clerics, who did not like the Modernization going on, the freedoms granted women, etc... political unrest grew, and a new Prime Minister was named by the Iranian Parliament, who promptly nationalized all Oil Production in Iran. After several attempts on his life, by a Communistic Political Party in Iran, and his political enemy being named Prime Minister... he fled Iran.

Wanting their interests restored, America and the UK, then staged a coup, to return the King (The Shah) back to power.

For his part... the Shah, was only wanting to continue the reforms and modernization, his father had begun. As Shah, this meant, he elevated women's rights, so that they could even be lawyers and judges in Iran. He sought to wipe out illiteracy in his country, through a massive public education system. And illiteracy has ALWAYS been a problem in Muslim nations. They are among the most illiterate in the world. Not "under-educated".... ILLITERATE! And he modernized his country and brought it prosperity.

Under the Shah's rule, in only two decades, Iran became the strongest militarily, and the wealthiest country in the Middle East. An amazing accomplishment.

He was not a "puppet" in the traditional sense. His family was a ruling royal DYNASTY, and he received support from America and Britain, because with him, the oil continued to flow. He opposed nationalizing the oil production, because he anticipated an oil embargo by the west, if this occurred, which could them ruin Iran economically, and halt the modernization and reforms he was working toward.

His vision was COOPERATION with America and others, and he saw his country becoming one of 5 major world governments. He personally opposed Communism, and so preferred working with America, on his country's modernization, to the Soviet Union.

But the same religious zealots, the powerful Clerics, who first opposed his father, and for the same reasons, then went after the son.

The rest is history.

But The Shah was not so much a "puppet" - As a "pragmatist".

But his INTENTIONS were HONORABLE and TRUE.

Do you disagree with that as well?

pretty much everything we hear through the corporate media (state TV) is rhetoric and propaganda based; nearly every news source in the US TV/radio/newspaper is owned by one of 5 corporations. The major publishers here are owned by them as well.

Ok... there are 5 Mega-Companies that control most of our media. Am I getting that right?

Ultimately, what does that mean to us?

It seems ominous and manipulative, and in some ways it is. But how much so? Not as much as some would like to believe. Just consider how many political parties in America really have any chance of holding power....

Gee... TWO.

Is that of less concern, than that the media is controlled by FIVE companies? And of the five companies, who are they "ALL" in the tank for? Democrats? Or... Republicans? They certainly fight it out, among the two choices, with Radio and FoxNews more in the Conservative camp, and CNN, MsNBC, Network News, etc... in the tank for Liberals.

We agree, that there is deception. That handfuls of powerful families in the world, pull strings among COUNTRIES and NATIONS worldwide. That we are being duped, and manipulated, and CONDITIONED to accept their will for our lives.

AGREED!

But they aren't as united, or as all-powerful, as you believe.

There is REAL dissension among various factions, and not just media-created dissension to keep up appearances. And they are not all ruthless, evil, people. Many, likely believe, they are building a civil world, for the benefit of all. Remember... they also have families, that have to live with what they create, as well as having their descendents for many generations, having to live with the results as well.

I believe Phil loves this country just as much as you and I, but is ready to see heads roll for the bullshit that they put us through and feed us!

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

But killing the baby to save it, is never a good strategy.

His attitudes are POISONOUS, and not liberating, revolutionary, or BENEFICIAL. All they can do, is DESTROY. To rebuild something which has fallen, broken or gotten off track... you need to first REVIVE and RECAPTURE, it's past sense of VALUE... not DEGRADE THAT VALUE!

You can call for Revolution, or Revival, or Renewal, but it must be done in a POSITIVE CONTEXT, not a DEATHLY NEGATIVE one. No one wants to save something that is irredeemably rotten! Things that are completely rotten, are only worth TRASHING!

And as Iranians have now discovered... the replacement, may very well be FAR WORSE, than the original problem! And that replacement may take DECADES or even CENTURIES, to remove, and give the next thing a chance.

PRIDE IN AMERICAN VALUES AND IDEALS is what will help restore this country, and more than RESTORE IT, but enable it to live up to it's ORIGINAL IDEALS!

Craig, my views are far less dangerous than those who worship the free market, swearing by all that's holy, that it will save us in the end.

Our two-party system is rife with corruption up to the highest levels in our gov't. I think that's a horrible problem that needs immediate attention, & will never say "that's the way it is, so what?"

I'm not saying that we need to dismember the gov't. I've never said that. What I DO hold to is the belief that when there is corruption, it is our duty as citizens to root it out & put a stop to it, not just shrug my shoulders & say that's the way it's always been.

When the market is bought out by a few monster corps, it's way past time to re-evalue our economic system, & assure that this stops & cannot recur.

When our Supreme Court opens the doors to our gov't, & hangs up a "For Sale" sign, it's time to overturn thier decision with public outrage & possibly even riots in the streets!

When my gov't overthrows other gov'ts to make a few corps more profitable, it's time to put a stop to its actions.

When my gov't brings illegal drugs into our neighborhoods to quiet down the populace, it needs to be addressed, & ppl IN that gov't need to be jailed.

When my gov't breaks its international treaties, I must stand up & fight it.

When my gov't STARTS war, without provocation, I must fight it.

When my country tortures & kills ppl without just cause (& I maintain that there is rarely, if ever, a reason to do so), my duty is to fight it.

When my gov't lets criminals who've stolen the life's savings of its populace walk free, I must fight it.

When my country's leaders do thier very best to convince the voters that those things they've voted for are wrong, I will fight back.

When my country's leaders are placed in office by court decree over the popular vote, I must speak out & fight.

And I will fight anyone who tries to interfere with my belief-based actions.

My gov't has done all the above & more, in my lifetime. I cannot & will not say that it's the "greatest country in the world," for that reason alone.

This country has turned to sh*t in its search for the almighty dollar, & encourages its population to do whatever they need to, whether it's legal or not, to succeed. I love my country in spite of all of the problems, but there is much that I truly hate about it, Craig, & there is nothing you can do but prove all of the above wrong to change my views on it all.

Yes, my views are dangerous - to the corrupt, to the users & abusers of what should be a better system.

I've never been & will never be a "America, do or die" flag-waving robot as long as my country is so frikken wrong about so much. As long as there is so much corruption & other criminal behavior being condoned by my gov't, I cannot feel all that much pride in it. When it goes the distance to fix these things, perhaps my pride can be restored. Until then, I'll remain an angry man fighting the system at every turn it makes for the worse.

You are absolutley right Phil. The free market system has broken down.

This can all be directly traced to one president.90 years ago we had a president that opened the door to direct theft. woodrow wilson.

To pay for ww1,Income taxes became the new standard. 90 years ago that was the start of legal theft in this country.
Hey, like John Candy said in "mermaid" you find something that works you stick with it.

Ten years later income taxes went to CRUSHING rates and the whole world entered into the great deppression.

Phil you speak many truths and I dont question your Americanisim.

My fear is that we have opened way to many doors to the new American ideal.
WHATEVER YOU CAN STEAL ,,,,DO IT.

This incudes CEOs, senators and congressman, judges,union leaders,churches,charitable organizations,world leaders,and yes past and present ,presidents of OUR country.

I didn't open this door in this country, and I am afraid the only way we can get back,is to start searching for true honor in all our leaders, and more important, within ourselves.

actually we can thank the De Rothschild family for our present problems; they intentionally set out to take over the economy's of the leading nations of the world... sounds crazy huh!
Well it's well documented. They use such tools as Socialism (but termed as communism) to decentralize governments and gain power over them. That's why Our decentralized form of government is so great!
Google Paul Warburg and begin researching the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank on Jeckle Island and you'll find out what's really the cause of our current situation!

and yes, Woodrow Wilson was part of it!


"I know my sh*t stinks"