Political Hollywood

Hollywood politics is like graffiti, it pops up out of nowhere, looks bright and colorful at first, but defaces public property and usually disgust more people than it amuses, then as the artist moves on to something bigger and better, just seems to begotten or fades away.  

My thought is, when you are an aging cinema star, seemingly forgotten in your golden days, with a career that is at a dead end, your agent calls and says ‘hey how about you do a political bashing of the president, I can assure you national coverage , and get your name right back out there.’ And it seems to work.

But do people really care? Not really, at least I don’t, want to know why? Because are their ideas any more important than mine, NO. Are they any more intelligent than I am, NO. Were they born of woman, and struggled to live in this world, well ok maybe that’s a, YES.  Are they truly committed to the bullshit propaganda that they spout, NO. Do they ever present an answer to the solution, NO. Are they after attention so that their careers will revive, damn another, YES.  Will what they say in that fifteen minutes that are to enlighten and change our lives, affect theirs, NO. Will their public appeal to the masses increase, NO. Will their agents rake in the money from their outburst, you betcha baby, YES. Will the commentator’s rateings soar, Yes. Damn, and I wanted this to be a negative piece, way too many YES’s.  Is society better off with wisdom of doom and gloom, NO. Can I be at a Steak n Shade when a millionaire celebrity buy burgers< doubtful. Do they have more money to party with than I do, hell YES.

Political conversations are not new, but bashing for the sake of notoriety, is immature no matter at what age.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Eddy Toorall


Is Ukraine the new Czechoslovakia of 1938?

Will the rebel provinces of the Ukraine, become the “liberated provinces of the Sudetenland”? Will we have “peace in our time?” Are we reliving history of 80 years ago? Think about it.

Thank you for taking the time to read this



Congress a sexual play ground

The old saying of  ‘don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house’ should be engraved above the entrance to Congress. It would seem that the asylum is being ran by the inmates. But guess who pays their settlements? Taxpayers, yep, and you thought you were getting your dollars worth of good government.


CNN Report: 16 November 2017
“…….Lawmakers and staffers say sexual harassment is “rampant”….with female lawmakers making fresh allegations of sexual harassment against unnamed members who are currently in office….According to a report from the Office of Compliance, more than S17 million has been paid out in settlements over a period of 20 years—1997 to 2017.
According to the OOC data….there have been 268 settlements.

Washington Post: October 27, 2017
Michelle Ye Hee Lee & Elise Viebeck

“ Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.
The result is a culture in which some lawmakers suspect harassment is rampant. Yet victims are unlikely to come forward, according to attorneys who represent them.
Under a law in place since 1995….A special congressional office is charged with trying to resolve the cases out of court.
When settlements do occur, members do not pay them from their own office funds, a requirement in other federal agencies. Instead, the confidential payments come out of a special U.S. Treasury fund.


SOURCES: Cable News Network / Washington Post

Hypocrisy of the Press and Media on classified documents

Since the President of the United States has decided to declassify the contents of a FISA warrant the press has all but called the act “criminal”. Claiming it endangers the security of the nation with in its context if released.  I find this strange, as I have witness more blatant security risks by their release of classified secrets in the printed press. 1971 the New York Time released the ‘Pentagon Papers’ by Daniel Ellsberg, these were CLASSIFIED documents dealing with secret information concerning the conduct of the Vietnam War. Wasn’t any condemnation of this act, even though it breached national security. As a matter of fact it was touted by them as the public’s right to know, and presented as an act of patriotism. Then again more recently with Edward Snowden (National Security Agency, 4 laptops with terra bits of CLASSIFIED information) and Chelsea Manning (United States Army, more than 750, 000 CLASSIFIED documents), both hailed as heroes of the people. But which people? Not my hero’s, traitors I call them. Sworn to up hold the laws of the nation to which they betrayed. Yet the press applauded and even awarded them. Academia even bestowed laurels on Snowden, even international awards. Of course most of it came from foreign nations, and why not, it only denuded the United States of their security, not theirs. (P.S. ever notice how all the Russian hacking started after Snowden landed in Russia?)Manning even received a Presidential Commutation of Sentence (January 2017)from Barack Obama, amazing.

But the press or the media did not scream outrage at any of those above, yet praised them in their acts of courage to confront their own government in a dishonorable act. Yet the President which has the authority under the Constitution to make public what information to which he believes is a benefit for the people to know, is ridiculed, berated and slandered. America are you truly that naïve? 

Thank you for taking the time to read this



Being American

“the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” First inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the 32nd President of the United States was held on Saturday, March 4, 1933. Those words spoken that day where about the great depression then gripping the world and the United States, but they ring as true today about the global war we face against terrorism. Seventeen years ago this date, the United States was shown as to what lengths a radical ideology will drive people to do. Thousands of Americans lost their lives unaware that the mere fact of them being American made them targets for destruction. Though today these memories are still fresh in many of our minds, we must not let the events of this tragic day fade, we must always remember and teach our children, grandchildren that they by simple fact of being Americans places upon them the burden of vigilance.

The world of today is not a safe place, any who think that by ignoring or down playing the threats to security will show our great humanitarianism are foolish, or worse. When an ideology begins teaching their children that the only way to salvation is to cleanse the earth of all who think, pray, or just by general principle live differently that they do, then those who ignore or do not take seriously what is being said are doomed. This day proved that they mean what they say, if no other day has.

We should not fear them, because this is their secondary aim, but neither should we ignore them. Vigilance is the guardian of freedom, ever under assault throughout the world it must be safeguarded as if it were the rarest of gems, for that is exactly what it is. I have written several articles of late on fascist and communist using documents containing their own words in an effort to show that their goals and methods are the same, subjection of the people by whatever means necessary. When I detail ones brutality, I may not point out the other by name but it is implied. Those are just names but their tactics come with many labels, all for a righteous cause.

In a troubled world democracies struggle to maintain their liberties from outside forces, but when it comes from within their own governing bodies openly challenging without due process, then as we have seen before freedom could be lost.

Those we remember today lost their lives because we are one people, one nation, no matter the differences that placed us here due to our birth, or our beliefs. We the people of this nation are the nation. If we do not trust in ourselves in the ideas that forged this nation or in the great achievements to come, then we are lost. For no nation can stand divided for long. There is a motto that’s says it all” United we stand, divided we fall”.

Think of those who gave their all by being Americans.


CONTIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

For Prosperities Sake

Internal resistance (1. opposition to somebody or something 2. refusal to accept or comply with something) to the elected administration of any government is called subversion (an action, plan, or activity intended to undermine or overthrow a government or other institution). Taking in to account the so called good intentions of the acts which hinder or thwart the actions of said government; this is still a very dangerous method of preventing the governmental control. This definitely is not the way in the United States or any democratic government. Disagreement and /or opposition to political ideologies are basic for a democracy, you say ‘yes’ I say ‘no’. But to actively work for the failure of instead of correcting the actions of a government is insurrection (a rebellion against the government or rulers of a country, often involving armed conflict) this in no way can be justified.

Advocating the assassination (which many celebrities have done) or the call for open populist resistance in the form of “push back”, as meaning a physical obstruction of the members of an opposite political party (in public) or the government officials of a dis-affectionate political party in open session blatantly flaunting the ‘rule of law’ by boasting about breaking the laws to which they swore an oath to protect, to me this is sedition (actions or words intended to provoke or incite rebellion against government authority, or actual rebellion against government authority).

These actions are contrary to all the ideas of the founding of the United States. The Constitution was established to address all the failings of government and to adjust or correct such. Congress should be the more aware of this than any other, they take the oath to support and defend the constitution, they make the laws which govern the nation in accordance to the constitution, and they should not be the ones to boast about violating it.

If this sets precedence for this administration what can we expect in the next? To what lengths will the parties resort to in future elects? Shall we see the military guarding voting stations, shall we read about candidates being assassinated, as we see I other countries? Perhaps we will witness the discontented senators breaking away and forming a rebellious sub-nation, as we have endured once before? These things are happening all around the world now. We have the greatest instrument of democracy to readjust the working of government the Constitution. Instead of working for the downfall of a government let us use this instrument to create the government we can all benefit from.

Congress you are entrusted by the people to be the guardian of the law, do so. The Supreme Court you are entrusted by the people to be the interpreter of the law, do so.

Those that disregard the law have failed to live up to the ideas of the founders of this republic and disgraced your selves in the eyes of the people. Resist all that you can instead of working to repair what you see as a flaw, and prosperity will be the judges never doubt that.

I would sign this as anonymous (lacking individuality or distinctiveness) but then you would have thought this was penned by a 6th grader working on a social studies project.

P.S. If you have read the true story of the Spartacus rebellion 73-71 B.C.E., then you know he was not a hero but a butcher of humanity.

Thank you for taking the time to read this


CONTIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall

Internal Governmental Resistance or the fall of governments

Fears of a Non-Democratic Government; With the recent so called revelations in an anonymous letter to a newspaper purportedly by a member of the Presidential staff, and the admitted violation of Senate Rules of secrecy and disclosure from a sitting Senator currently on the Judiciary Committee (Corey Booker D-NJ), both stun and alarm me as a citizen. Has the so called “resistance” turned in to an insurgency with in the government? If so, do they truly understand the ramifications of such a movement? Coup is nasty word in the English language, associated with third world countries with depot dictators, but history teaches us different, even a modern western civilized democratic country can become the victim of a political coup, as in Germany January 30, 1933. So much talk these days is given to the supposition of the reemergence of fascists, but is any one fully aware how the first transition of NAZI power took place. It was not open rebellion, it was not an armed revolution as in Russia 1917; it was a slow process over years of political maneuverings. Adolph Hitler was not elected he was appointed by an elected President with the consent of an elected governing body (Reichstag, the German Congressional body), to which Hermann Wilhelm Gӧring was the elected President of that body (equal as to the Speaker of the House). This is a political coup from within the duly elected government, a resistance to the democratically elected government by the people with the in sole intent to over throw and said government, and affects the “seizure of power” from that government. Hermann Wilhelm Gӧring said as much in his own words at the Nurnberg Military Tribunal of Major War Crimes Trials 1945-46.

The following are exerts from that trial which detail the “seizure of power” from within the German government in a legal manner by ‘insurgence resistance’.

Volume IX  77th Day 11 March 1946

JUSTICE JACKSON: I notice that you use here, as you have used in your interrogations by the United States, the expression “seizure of power.” That was the common expression used in your group, was it not, to describe the coming to power of Adolf Hitler?

BӦDENSCHÄTZ: It cannot be used in this sense. At that time it was completely legal because the National Socialist Party was then the strongest party, and the strongest party nominated the Reich Chancellor, and the strongest party had, as such, the greatest influence. It must not be interpreted to mean that they usurped the power, but that they had the most influential and prominent position among the parties, that is, by the completely legal means of election.

Volume IX  79th day 12 March 1946

STAHMER: What do you know about the institution of the Secret State Police, the Gestapo?

KӦRNER: In the first months after the seizure of power the Secret State Police evolved from the Political Police Department Ia. Basically the Political Police Department remained; it was only reorganized under the name of Secret State Police.

Volume IX 80th Day 13 March 1946

STAHMER: What was your position in the Party during the period from 1928 until the seizure of power?

GӦRING: I had no office in the Party. I was never a political leader in the Party-that is perhaps strange-either in the Reich party Directorate or elsewhere. I was first of all, as I said, a member of the Reichstag and thereby a member of the Reichstag faction of the Party. At the same time I was the Party speaker, that is, I travelled from city to city and tried to do whatever I could to extend the Party, to strengthen it, to recruit and convince new members, and especially to win over to our side Communist and Marxist adherents in order to create a broad base among the people and not to have Rightist circles only, which were nationalist of themselves.

From the middle of 1932 on, after we had weathered countless elections and for all of these elections had had to participate in the campaigns by holding speeches, for example, often three in one evening, often the whole night long; I, as a member d the Party, or better said, because our Party had the strongest representation in the Reichstag, was chosen President of the Reichstag and thereby took over a generally political task.

Shortly before, at the end of 1931, when I saw that the Party had grown to an extraordinary extent and was gaining, the Führer said to me that he would very much like to have a direct representative who was independent of a Party office and who could C-out political negotiations. This person was not to be tied down to any particular Party office. He asked me whether I would take over this function, especially as I was living in the capital of the Reich anyway.

I took over this commission-it was not an office, but rather a commission of-a general nature. In a few sentences he gave me the liberty to negotiate with all parties from the Communists to the extreme Rightists, in order, let us say, to undertake specific joint action in the Reichstag, or other suitable political steps. Naturally also I was given in this connection, the task of effecting the dissemination and the penetration of our ideals in all circles. To these circles belonged, as has already been mentioned, the industrial and intellectual groups. Since I had connections with and access to all these circles, it was quite natural that the Führer considered me especially suited for this task, as he could depend upon me absolutely in this respect and knew that I would use all my powers to advance Our ideas. When I became President of the Reichstag my task in this capacity was greatly eased, for now I was, so to speak, legally authorized and even obliged to participate in political events. If, for instance, a government resigned in the Reichstag or fell through a vote of no confidence, it was my duty as President of the Reichstag, to suggest to the Reich President, after having negotiated with the parties, what the possibilities were in my opinion for a new coalition government. Thus the Reich President was always bound to receive me in this capacity with regard to these matters so I was able to create a rather close connection between the Reich President and myself. But I should like to emphasize that this connection had already existed before; it was a matter of course that Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, if I requested it, would always receive me, because he had known me in the First World War.

STAHMER: What part did you play in the appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor?

GӦRING: I should just like to explain first that when I said that I held no office in the Party, no political office, my position had nevertheless naturally become stronger and stronger, especially since the end of 1931, from which time on I worked more and more closely with the Führer and was considered his special exponent but only on the basis of normal and natural authority which increased greatly after the seizure of power.

As to my part in the appointment of Hitler: If I am to explain this to the Tribunal I must first describe the situation briefly. The balance among the parliamentary parties had been disturbed as early as the end of 1931 or the beginning of 1932. Things were going badly in Germany and no proper enduring parliamentary majority could actually be procured, and already the Enabling Act then in force had come into play to the exclusion, in part, of the Constitution. I call to mind the Brining cabinet which had to work to a large extent with the Enabling Act and which at the time was also greatly concerned with Article 48 of the Reich Constitution. Then there followed the Cabinet of Von Papen, which also could not put itself on a parliamentary basis, on a more lasting or firmer basis. Herr Von Papen at that time tried to make that possible and, in order to get a parliamentary basis, he asked the National Socialists, the strongest party at that time, to establish such a basis together with the other parties. There was some talk-Von Papen’s name had been given to the President as a nominee for Reich Chancellor that Hitler should become the Vice Chancellor in this Cabinet. I remember that I told Herr Von Papen at that time that Hitler could become any number of things, but never Vice If he were to be made anything, he would naturally have to .be in the highest position and it would be completely unbearable and unthinkable to place our Führer in any sort of second position. We would then have had to play the role of governing, but possibly not all according to our lights, and Hitler as a representative of the strongest party would have had to be responsible for these things. This we declined categorically. I do not emphasize that because Herr Von Papen is in the dock with me. He knows that we always respected him personally, but I told him then, after this gesture had come to naught, that we would not only not support him, but would also oppose his Cabinet in the Reichstag to the utmost, just as we would consistently fight every succeeding cabinet which did not give us a leading influence in the Chancellery.

There came then-I do not remember exactly for how many months Herr Von Papen held the reins-the well-known clash between him and me, he as Reich Chancellor, I as the President of the Reichstag, in which it was my intention to bring about the fall of his government, and I knew there was to be a motion of “no confidence” by the Communists, in which practically everybody would participate. It was necessary for this vote of “no confidence” to be expressed under all circumstances in order to show the Reich President that one could not govern with such cabinets without some sort of strong reserve. I saw the “red portfolio” and knew that the order for dissolution was in it, but let the voting be carried through first. Thirty-two votes were for Von Papen and about five hundred were against him. The Cabinet of Von Papen resigned.

Up to that point all the parties had drawn up cabinets, apart from the few small fragmentary parties. All men who were available had already been presented to the people at some time. Towards the end, Reich Defense Minister Von Schleicher, the political figure behind the scenes, had played an increasingly important part.

There were therefore only two possibilities: Either the actual proportion of power would be taken into account and the leader of the strongest party, as is generally customary, would be brought into conferences and entrusted with the power, or else the man who was operating behind the scenes, the only possibility that was left, would be brought forward. And this happened. Herr Von Schleicher himself took over the chancellorship in conjunction with-and this is important-the office of Reich Defense Minister. It was clear to us, not only to us but also to the other parties, that as Herr Von Schleicher had far fewer personal sympathizers than Herr Von Papen and could not bring about a majority, a military dictatorship was finally aimed at by Von Schleicher. I had discussions with Herr Von Schleicher and told him that at this moment it was even possible to form a parliamentary majority. Through conferences I had succeeded in bringing together the German Nationals, National Socialists, Center, German People’s Party and smaller supporting groups, to form a majority. It was clear to me that such a majority could be only temporary because the conflicting interests were too great. But it was a matter of indifference to me whether I brought our Party to power this way or that-if by means of parliamentary negotiations, very good; if by the Reich President’s summons, all the better.

These negotiations were turned down by Herr Von Schleicher because he knew that he would then not be able to remain chancellor. Then again there were Emergency Laws and Enabling Acts. Parliament had thus been more or less excluded even before our seizure of power.

I immediately issued the same challenge to Herr Von Schleicher in the Reichstag, much, more emphatically than previously to Herr Von Papen. In the meantime the presidential election had taken place and after that a Reichstag election, in which, after the dissolution of Von Papen’s Cabinet we lost several seats. We were reduced from 232 to 196 seats. Then in January there were further elections, which showed an extraordinary rise in favor of our Party and proved that the short crisis had been surmounted and that the Party was on the upgrade more strongly than ever before.

[Chancellorship: Beginnings 22 January 1933]

On Sunday, the 22nd of January 1933-the 30th was a Monday I was in Dresden at a large political meeting, when I was summoned in the morning by the Führer to motor to Berlin immediately. I arrived that afternoon, and he told me, which I already knew, that the Reich President was no longer satisfied with Von Schleicher and saw that political matters could not continue in this way; nothing was ever accomplished; the Reich President had independently arrived at the conclusion that somehow some responsibility must now be given to the strongest Party. Before that time, in a very clever way, a wrong personal impression of the Führer had been created in the old gentleman’s mind and he was prejudiced he probably took offense at the word socialism, because he understood that in a different way.

Briefly, Hitler revealed to me that day, that that evening I was to speak to the Field Marshal’s son at the home d Herr Von Ribbentrop. I believe Herr Von Papen was to be present also and-I am not sure about this-Meissner, who was the State Secretary of the Reich President. The Field Marshal’s son wanted to inquire on behalf of his father what the possibilities were of Hitler as chancellor and the inclusion of the Party in responsibility. In a rather lengthy conversation I declared to the son that he should tell his father that, one way or another, Von Schleicher would lead to shipwreck. I explained to him the new basic conditions for forming a new government, and how I had heard now of the Field Marshal’s willingness to entrust’ Hitler with the chancellorship, thereby regarding the Party as a main basis for a future government majority if Adolf Hitler were also able to succeed on this occasion in drawing in the German Nationals and the Stahlhelm-for he wanted to see a definite national basis. The Stahlhelm was not a parliamentary party but it had many followers. The German Nationals under Hugenberg were a parliamentary party.

We did not discuss very much more that evening. I told Von Hindenburg’s son that he could tell his father that I would undoubtedly bring that about, and the Führer gave me orders to undertake negotiations during the coming week with these parties on the one hand and with the Reich President on the other. There were difficulties here and there. I found that our conceding…

A recess was take

STAHMER: You were dealing with the question of your participation in the appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor. Would you continue?

(Failed efforts to form a government)

GÖRING: I had arrived at the last decisive period. The negotiations had become somewhat difficult. The Field Marshal, Reich President Von Hindenburg, who, until then, had come to know the Führer personally only through two conversations and who had not yet overcome his distrust of him-a distrust which had been instilled and nourished for many years by a variety of influences, simply because he did not know him-had at that time demanded some severe restrictions, so that we, the strongest and now the leading party, which would have to be responsible to the nation for future measures, would be relatively very restricted and, in comparison with our strength, weakly represented in the government.

One must not forget that at this moment Germany had arrived at the lowest point of her downward trend. There were 8 million unemployed; all programs had failed; confidence in the parties existed no more; there was a very strong rise on the part of the revolutionary Leftist side; and political insecurity. Therefore those measures were necessary which the people would expect of US, if we were in the government, and for which we had to stand. So it was a very heavy burden to take over such a responsibility with such severe political conditions imposed.

First condition: The Reich president wanted, under, all circumstances, that Herr Von Papen should become Vice Chancellor in this Cabinet. Apart from his sympathetic personality Herr Von Papen did not bring us anything, because there was no party behind him. But the Reich President demanded, beyond that, that Herr Von Papen should attend the presentation of the reports which the Führer, after being appointed Reich Chancellor, would have to make to the Reich President. But this was abandoned very quickly, and by the Reich President himself.

Secondly, the Reich President desired that the Foreign Office, independent of all parties, should be in the hands of Herr Von Neürath. Herr Von Neürath also brought us nothing in the way political power, apart from his knowledge and ability.

Thirdly, the position of Prüssian Prime Minister which, next to that of the Reich Chancellor was always the most important in Germany during the period after the World War was likewise to be filled by the person of Herr Von Papen. Before the World War, as it is known, the offices of Reich Chancellor and Prüssian Prime Minister were for these reasons always combined in one person.

Fourthly, the Reich President demanded that the office of Reich Deikense Minister should also be in the hands of an independent person, a soldier; and he himself chose him, without our having anything to do with it, namely, General Von Blomberg, who at that time was at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. Herr Von Blomberg was not known personally either to the Führer or to me at that time.

Even though the essential and definitely most important posts in the Cabinet were thus already filled by persons in whose choice we had had no influence, still further demands developed in the course of the week. It was demanded that the Finance Ministry should be in the hands of Count Schwerin von Krosigk, again a man backed by no political party. The Ministry of Transportation was to be under Herr Von Eltz, to whom the same applied. The leader of the Stahlhelm, Seldte, was to be taken into the Cabinet. Certainly the Stahlhelm was a large and extensive movement, but not politically, and it was not represented by a single delegate in the Reichstag.

There was left, as a really political party, only the German National Party, with 36 seats-our only parliamentary ally, so to speak. Here too, extraordinary demands were made, which were in no correct proportion to the smallness of that party. In the end we, as the strongest party at that time with 232 seats, were given only the following, as far as I remember: The office of Reich Chancellor of course; then Dr. Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior, in the Cabinet; and I third in the Reich Cabinet, with an assignment as Reich Commissioner for Aviation, a very small subordinate division, an insignificant branch of a small Aviation Department in the Ministry of Transport, but no department otherwise. But then I succeeded in becoming, without conditions attached, Prüssian Minister of the Interior and thereby a political minister of the largest German state, for in the end Prussia was actually the place where the rise to internal power started.

It was so far an extraordinarily difficult affair. At the last moment the forming of the Cabinet threatened to fail because of two factors. The Führer had made the unconditional demand that shortly after the appointment of the new Cabinet a new Reichstag election should take place, knowing correctly that the Party would be greatly strengthened thereby and possibly could represent a majority by itself, and thus be in a position to form the government platform by parliamentary means.

Hugenberg, as leader of the German National Party, absolutely opposed this, knowing that his party would probably disappear more or less in this election. Even 5 minutes before the meeting of the Cabinet there was still danger that it would break up because of this. It was pure chance that at this moment the Reich President to administer the oath to the new ministers; and so the Cabinet was formed.

The second danger threatened from Schleicher who, through his confidant, on the Sunday made the following offer to the Führer and me: He wanted to emphasize that the Reich President was not a sure factor as far as the new government was concerned; it would serve the purpose better if he-even though he had withdrawn the day before were to join us to form a government now quite definitely not on a parliamentary basis of any kind, but rather on the basis of an entirely new situation, a coalition of the Reichswehr and the NSDAP. The Führer refused, recognizing that this would be impossible and that the intentions were not honest.

When Herr Von Blomberg arrived at the railroad station from Geneva on the Monday morning, he was given two orders, one from Herr Von Hammerstein, Chief of the Army Command and his superior, to come to him immediately; the other from Hindenburg, his commander-in-chief, to come to him immediately. There was at that time, known only to a few, the threat of a Putsch by Schleicher and Hammerstein with the Potsdam Garrison.

(Third Reich: the seizure of governmental authority)

On the Sunday evening I mentioned that to Reich President Van Hindenburg, and that is the reason why, 2 hours before the rest of the Cabinet, Herr Von Blomberg was appointed Minister of War, or at that time Reich Defense Minister, in order to prevent any wrong move by the Reichswehr. At 11o’clock on the morning of the 30th the Cabinet was formed and Hitler appointed Reich Chancellor.

STAHMER: Had the Party come to power in a legal way, in your opinion?

GӦRING: Of course the Party had come to power in an entirely legal way, because the Party had been called upon by the Reich President according to the Constitution, and according to the principles in force the Party should have been called upon much earlier than that. The Party gained strength and came to power only by of normal elections and the franchise law then valid.

STAHMER: What measures were now taken to strengthen Power after Hitler’s appointment?

GӦRING: It was a matter of course for us that once we had come into power we were determined to keep that power under all circumstances. We did not want power and governmental authority for power’s sake, but we needed power and governmental authority in order to make Germany free and great. We did not want to leave this any longer to chance, to elections, and parliamentary majorities, but we wanted to carry out the task to which we considered ourselves called.

In order to consolidate this power now, it was necessary to reorganize the political relationship of power. That was carried out in such a manner that, shortly after the seizure of governmental authority in the Reich and in Prussia, the other states followed automatically and more or less strong National Socialist governments were formed everywhere.

Secondly, the so-called political officials who according to the Reich Constitution could be recalled at any time, or could be dismissed, would naturally have to be replaced now, according to custom, by people from the strongest party.

As far as legality, that is, the opinion that we came to power legally, is concerned, I should like to emphasize two considerations in particular.

Firstly: in the years 1925 to 1932 no fewer than 30 Reichstag, Landtag, and presidential elections took place in Germany. The very fact that 37 parties had candidates in one Reichstag election alone gives a clear picture of, how it happened that one strong coalition formed the so-called government majority, and another strong grouping formed the opposition, each with an entirely different point of view. Just think of an opposition formed in common by Communists and National Socialists for example, and the fact that one small party which had eight representatives altogether was now the decisive factor, and in two readings of a law, especially of a decisive law-every law had to have three readings-voted against the government and then secured sufficient political and material advantages to force the law through for the government at its third, final reading. This may give a picture of the conditions.

The second point which I want to emphasize especially in regard to the legality of our coming to power is the following:

Had the democratic election system of England or the United States of America existed in Germany, then the National Socialist German Workers Party would, at the end of 1931 already, have legally possessed all seats in the Reichstag, without exception. For in every electoral district in Germany at that time, or at the beginning of 1932 at the latest, in every one-I emphasize this once more-the NSDAP was the strongest party; that is to say, given an electoral system as it is in Great Britain or in the United States as these weaker parties would have failed to gain any seats and from this time on we would have had only National Socialists in the Reich, in a perfectly legal way according to the democratic of these two great democracies.

For the further seizure of power the main political offices were now filled by new holders, as is the case in other lands when there has been a change-over of power among the political parties. Besides the ministers there were first of all-taking Prussia as an example the administrative heads of the provinces, the official heads of administrative districts, the police commissioners, county heads (Landrate). In addition there was a certain further grade1 believe down to ministerial directors-who were considered political officials. District attorneys were considered political officials. This on the whole describes the range of offices which were filled anew when a shift in political power took place and had previously been bargained out among the parties having the majority. It did not go so far as in other countries-all the way down to the letter carrier. There was a change of office holders, but only of the most important posts.

In spite of that we did very little in this direction at first. First of all, I requested Herr Von Papen to relinquish to me the position of Prüssian Prime Minister, as he, having no party behind him, could not very well undertake this re-shuffling, but rather I, that is, one of us, should undertake it. We agreed at once. Thereupon I filled some, a relatively small part, of the highest administrative Prüssian offices with National Socialists. At the same time I generously allowed Social Democrats to remain in these posts for many weeks. I filled a few important provincial offices with leading Catholic persons who were much closer to the Center Party than to us. But slowly, by degrees, in the course of time these offices, to the extent that they were key administrative positions were, of course, filled with National Socialists-it could hardly be otherwise in the further course of the change-over, since these offices at the same time corresponded to the political districts. Even until the very end district heads remained in part National Socialists, in part, however, simply officials. The same was true of the Landrate. In the case of police commissioners, I should like to emphasize for the information of the Tribunal that the police Commissioner’s at first had nothing to do with the Gestapo. A police Commissioner in the bigger cities had the same function as a Landrate in the country, in part at least. These police commissioner posts had always been filled by the largest political parties until the seizure of power. Thus I found Social Democrats in these positions who could not, with the best of intentions, remain, as they had always been our opponents up to that date. That would have been absurd. I filled these police commissioner posts partly with National

Socialists but partly, however, with people who had nothing to do with the Party. I remember that to the most important police commissioner post in the whole German Reich, the one in Berlin, I appointed Admiral Von Levetzow, retired, who was not a member of the Party. In some of these offices I put former SA leaders.

(Consolidation of power)

For the purpose of consolidation of power, which seemed very important not only to me but all of us because that was to form the basic condition for our further work, a still stronger influence came into the Reich Cabinet. New National Socialists received positions as ministers. New ministries were created. In addition came a number of new basic laws.

It was indeed clear: to everyone who had concerned himself with German conditions, either abroad or especially in Germany, that we would put an end to the Communist Party as quickly as possible, It was an absolutely necessary consequence that it should be prohibited. We were convinced that if the Communist Party, which was the strongest next to us, had succeeded in coming to power, it would certainly not have taken any National Socialists into its cabinet or tolerated them elsewhere. We were aware that we would have been eliminated in an entirely different manner.

A further point in the consolidation of power was to eliminate to a certain extent the Reichstag as a parliament, at least for a period of time during the reorganization, because its influence was increasing until then. That, however, had happened owing to the fact that we had an absolute majority in the Reichstag after the new election. In some cases we suggested to the former parties that they should dissolve themselves, because they no longer had any purpose, and those which could not dissolve themselves were dissolved by us. I was speaking of the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party. Beyond that, we wanted finally to fulfill an old, old longing of the German people and now not only appear to have the structure of a Reich, but at last, really become a unified German Reich. This purpose was served by firmly establishing the Reich idea and the Reich’s power throughout the countless states and provinces. If it had been difficult for a fervent German patriot before the first World War to get along with a heap of petty princes, it was even worse with those who took their places, for in the place of one small will there now appeared the most various, party-bound officials.

In the Reich there was a majority based on one thing; in Prussia, on another; in Bavaria, on yet another; and in Hesse, on something quite different. It was impossible in this manner to establish Reich sovereignty and a Reich which could be great again.

Therefore I suggested to the Führer that the state parliaments should be dissolved and done away with as a matter of principle. In Prüssia I began with the elimination of state parliaments, which I considered entirely superfluous, for the simple reason that the principle “Reich dominion, not state authority” was already in force. I saw no reason why so many different authorities should exist which, with their unnecessary frictions and discussions merely hindered constructive work. Yet, however much I wanted to see and make the Reich structurally unified, I, and the Führer above all, always supported the idea that within the German states and provinces cultural life should remain many-sided and bound to local traditions; that is to say, all the old centers of culture, which, as is well known, had formed around Münich, Dresden, Weimar, and so on, should continue to exist in that way and be supported.

For the further consolidation of power those laws were created which would first of all eliminate any further obstacle .to progress, that is to say, on the basis of Paragraph 48, the law did away with the so-called freedoms. The conception of these freedoms is a matter of controversy. The “Law for the Protection d People and State” was created, a law which was most urgently needed. 1n the past years much had been prohibited which could have stimulated patriotic activity, yet a senseless defamation had been allowed, of the German people, its history, the German State, and those symbols and objects which are, after all, very holy things to a patriot; and they were not protected in any way.

It is a matter of course that in connection with the concept of “conformity” which arose at this time, very many unnecessary and excessive things were done, for after the seizure of power the whole movement developed along revolutionary lines, although not in the way of revolutions as they had been known in history until then, such as the French Revolution, or the great Bolshevist Revolution that is to say, not by way of great conflicts and cruel changes, revolutionary tribunals that executed people by hundreds of thousands-but still with a strong revolutionary aim in the direction of unity of State, Party, and National Socialism as the basis of leadership and of ideology.

This “conformity” which I have just mentioned was then affected in detail; but, as I have said, on the occasion of such drastic political transformations people will always overstep the mark here and there. Personally I did not consider it necessary that every organization should now become National Socialist or that-if I am to express myself quite drastically-every club or similar organization should absolutely have to have a National Socialist chairman. But in decisive political matters, and in matters of principle, our ideas and our ideology had to be recognized more and more; for that was the basic condition for the rebuilding, establishing, and Strengthening of the Reich.

(Führer and Reich Chancellor 1934)

An additional strengthening, which occurred only after the death of Reich President Von Hindenburg in 1934, was the confirmation of the head of the state and the Reich Chancellor in one person. To this I should like to add that on this occasion I had a long conversation with the Führer. Right from the beginning we had discussed whether Hitler would and should take over the position of head of the State, and whether I should take over the chancel lordship. In view of the Führer’s temperament and attitude it was unthinkable that the Führer, sitting on a throne above the political clouds, so to speak, should appear only as head of the State. He was definitely a political leader and hence a leader of the government. Also the thought of putting in some other person as a puppet head of the State we considered unworthy of the situation.

The Führer told me then that the simplest thing to do would be to take as example the United States of America, where the head of the state is at the same time also the head of the government. Thus, following the example of the United States, we combined the position of the head of the State with the head of the government, and he called himself “Führer of the German People and Reich Chancellor of the German Reich.”

That he thereby automatically became also the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces followed as a matter of course, according to the Constitution, and also according to the previous Constitution, just as is the case in other countries also.

That was the position, broadly speaking, apart from a number of other .developments which probably will have to be mentioned later in my testimony-as for instance, the establishment of police power, the basic element of the consolidation of power, and so on.

In conclusion I wish to say:

1) It is correct that I-and I can speak only for myself-have done everything which was at all within my personal power to strengthen the National Socialist movement, to increase it, and have worked unceasingly to bring it to power under all circumstances and as the one and only authority.

2) I have done everything to secure for the Führer the place as Reich Chancellor which rightfully belonged to him.

3) When I look back, I believe I have not failed to do anything to consolidate our power to such an extent that it would not have to yield to the chances of the political game or to violent actions, but would rather in the further course of reconstruction, become the only factor of power, which would lead the Reich and lead ‘it-as we hoped-to a great development.

[COMMENT: This shows that a covert attempt to overthrow a government from the inside is possible and can be achieved, and the use of propaganda as a cover story to deceive and misdirect can be effective. Sometimes what you think is being done isn’t necessarily true. Democracies fall from within more often than from without, liberty is a fragile thing and sometimes lost freely and willing by the people. An internal resistance to the established government is never a good thing, nor beneficial to the nation or its people.]

Thank you for taking the time to read this

Who they are:

Robert H. Jackson Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Karl Bӧdenschätz: was liaison officer between the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe and the Führer’s headquarters

Dr. Otto Stahmer: Defense attorney, the counsel for Hermann Gӧring


SOURCE: Military Tribunal of Major War Crimes (LOC)

Is ANTIFA more fascist than the fascist?

First of all I suppose the question is just who are these Anti-fascist? No one seems able to address this question, they claim there is no central hierarchy, no unifying central control or origination structure, but without such, how could they plan, plot or execute the protest/riots which ensue.  Impossible, the scenes I have witnessed on television show hundreds perhaps even thousands of participants at these events. This cannot be possible without an in-depth planning and coordinated structure. Otherwise with just local cells of smaller groups taking action we would see far lesser crowds. The apparent global markings of this group speak of a much larger origination.

Second question is what is their agenda? No protest is just a gathering of people marching around without a definite message to promote. Ok, they are against fascism, but is this all? They are the defenders of our personal freedoms, not quite. With this large a following (I admit that some are merely duped into the main theme) there is an underlying result they wish to produce, but it is hidden deeply in the heart of this movement. By being ambiguous this gives it the greatest chances of remaining hidden.

Third question are they any less brutal than those they oppose? No, they use physical violence to disrupt, intimidate, and vandalize private property. By doing this I can’t help recall the tactics of the NAZI SA (Sturmabteilung [Storm troops]) during the 1920’s in German. The SA were the true fascist, and they had zero tolerance to any idea other than NAZI ideology. They disrupted any opposition meetings with beatings; they destroyed Jewish business and burning Synagogues. Smashing business windows; beating pedestrians on the street without any intervention by the police. It seems that the antifa group has adopted the same tactics. This is a sign that they are not the guardians of individual freedoms. They most assuredly do not safe guard the freedom of speech.

Fourth question is there a global conspiracy? Ok, here is the part where everyone does that little head shake and with a hearty chuckle rolls the eyes. But I merely ask out of curiosity. Could there be? If not, then why the use of a unifying name? Why the promotion of a single main theme? Why the seemingly uniform dress code? Why the secrecy?

Reverting to the 4 journalistic W’s: Who are they, What are they about, Where are they, Why are they? I add the fifth W; What do they hope to achieve.

Thank you for taking the time to read this



1955 United States – Iran Treaty

The following treaty between the United States and Iran has become the focus of yet another attempt by the Islamic Republic of Iran to extort money from the U. S.. Although this treaty was signed in good faith by the U.S., I for one feel that Iran has violated it on several occasions, in essence making it invalid. First with the over throw of the originator government by revolution, second by the unlawful occupation of the U. S. Embassy in Tehran, and many more overt actions against the U. S.. But the International Courts see it otherwise, allowing another unlawful filing, if there has every been a breech of this treaty, then it was by the current Iranian government. Congress needs to readdress this treaty and with in its powers, revoke it once and for all.

[P.S. Update 3 October 2018 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States no longer considers this treaty valid]

Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights

Treaty signed at Tehran August 15, 1955;

Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;

Ratified by the President of the United States of America

September 14, 1956;

Ratified by Iran April 30, 1957;

Ratifications exchanged at Tehran May 16, 1957;

Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America

June 27, 1957;

Entered into force June 16, 1957.



WHEREAS a treaty of amity, economic relations, and consular rights between the United States of America and Iran was signed at Tehran on August 15, 1955, the original of which treaty, being in the English and Persian languages, is word for word as follows:






The United States of America and Iran, desirous of emphasizing the friendly relations which have long prevailed between their peoples, of reaffirming the high principles in the regulation of human affairs to which they are committed, of encouraging mutually beneficial trade and investments and closer economic intercourse generally between their peoples, and of regulating consular relations, have resolved to conclude, on the basis of reciprocal equality of treatment, a Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

The President of the United States of America:

Mr. Selden Chapin, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at Tehran;


His Imperial Majesty, the Shah of Iran:

His Excellency Mr. Mostafa Samiy, Under Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

Article I

There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran.

Article II

1. Nationals of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted, upon terms no less favorable than those accorded to nationals of any third country, to enter and remain in the territories of the other High Contracting Party for the purpose of carrying on trade between their own country and the territories of such other High Contracting Party and engaging in related commercial activities, and for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested, or in which they are actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital.

2. Nationals of either High Contracting Party within the territories of the other High Contracting Party shall, either individually or through associations, and so long as their activities are not contrary to public order, safety or morals:

(a) be permitted to travel therein freely and reside at places of their choice;

(b)enjoy freedom of conscience and the right to hold religious services;

(c) be permitted to engage in philanthropic, educational and scientific activities; and

(d) have the right to gather and transmit information for dissemination to the public abroad, and otherwise to communicate with other persons inside and outside such territories. They shall also be permitted to engage in the practice of professions for which they have qualified under the applicable legal provisions governing admission to professions.

3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present Article shall be subject to the right of either High Contracting Party to apply measures which are necessary to maintain public order, and to protect public health, morals and safety, including the right to expel, to exclude or to limit the movement of aliens on the said grounds.

4. Nationals of either High Contracting Party shall receive the most constant protection and security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party. When any such national is in custody, he shall in every respect receive reasonable and humane treatment; and, on his demand, the diplomatic or consular representative of his country shall without unnecessary delay be notified and accorded full opportunity to safeguard his interests. He shall be promptly informed of the accusations against him, allowed all facilities reasonably necessary to his defense and given a prompt and impartial disposition of his case.

Article III

1. Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of either High Contracting Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the territories of the other High Contracting Party. It is understood, however, that recognition of juridical status does not of itself confer rights upon companies to engage in the activities for which they are organized. As used in the present Treaty, “companies” means corporations, partnerships, companies and other associations, whether or not with limited liability and whether or not for pecuniary profit.

2. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall have freedom of access to the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in defense and pursuit of their rights, to the end that prompt and impartial justice be done. Such access shall be allowed, in any event, upon terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals and companies of such other High Contracting Party or of any third country. It is understood that companies not engaged in activities within the country shall enjoy the right of such access without any requirement of registration or domestication.

3. The private settlement of disputes of a civil nature, involving nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party, shall not be discouraged within the territories of the other High Contracting Party; and, in cases of such settlement by arbitration, neither the alienage of the arbitrators nor the foreign situs of the arbitration proceedings shall of themselves be a bar to the enforceability of awards duly resulting therefrom.

Article IV

I. Each High Contracting Party shall at all times accord fair and equitable treatment to nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, and to their property and enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasonable or discriminatory measures that would impair their legally acquired rights and interests; and shall assure that their lawful contractual rights are afforded effective means of enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws.

2. Property of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party, including interests in property, shall receive the most constant protection and security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in no case less than that required by international law. Such property shall not be taken except for a public purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable form and shall represent the full equivalent of the property taken; and adequate provision shall have been made at or prior to the time of taking for the determination and payment thereof.

3. The dwellings, offices, warehouses, factories and other premises of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party located within the territories of the other High Contracting Party shall not be subject to entry or molestation without just cause.

Official searches and examinations of such premises and their contents, shall be made only according to law and with careful regard for the convenience of the occupants and the conduct of business.

4. Enterprises which nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party are permitted to establish or acquire, within territories of the other High Contracting Party, shall be permitted freely to conduct their activities therein, upon terms no less favorable than other enterprises of whatever nationality engaged in similar activities. Such nationals and companies shall enjoy the right to continued control and management of such enterprises; to engage attorneys, agents, accountants and other technical experts, executive personnel, interpreters and other specialized employees of their choice; and to do all other things necessary or incidental to the effective conduct of their affairs.

Article V

1. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted, within the’ territories of the other High Contracting Party:

(a) to lease, for suitable periods of time, real property needed for their residence or for the conduct of activities pursuant to the present Treaty;

(b) to purchase or otherwise acquire personal property of all kinds; and

(c) to dispose of property of all kinds by sale, testament or otherwise. The treatment accorded in these respects shall in no event be less favorable than that accorded nationals and companies of any third country.

2. Upon compliance with the applicable laws and regulations respecting registration and other formalities, nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded within the territories of the other High Contracting Party effective protection in the exclusive use of inventions, trade marks and trade names.

Article VI

1. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall not be subject to the payment of taxes, fees or charges within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, more burdensome than those borne by nationals, residents and companies of any third country. In the case of nationals of either High Contracting Party residing within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, and of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit or in non-profit activities therein, such payments and requirements shall not be more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other High Contracting Party.

2. Each High Contracting Party, however, reserves the right to:

(a) extend specific tax advantages only on the basis of reciprocity, or pursuant to agreements for the avoidance of double taxation or the mutual protection of revenue; and

(b) apply special requirements as to the exemptions of a personal nature allowed to non-residents in connection with income and inheritance taxes.

3. Companies of either High Contracting Party shall not be subject, within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, to taxes upon any income, transactions or capital not attributable to the operations and investment thereof within such territories.

Article VII

1. Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the making of payments, remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories of the other High Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to assure the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services essential to the health and welfare of its people, or (b) in the case of a member of the International Monetary Fund, restrictions specifically approved by the Fund.

2. If either High Contracting Party applies exchange restrictions, it shall promptly make reasonable provision for the withdrawal, in foreign exchange in the currency of the other High Contracting Party, of:

(a) the compensation referred to in Article IV, paragraph 2, of the present Treaty,

(b) earnings, whether in the form of salaries, interest, dividends, commissions, royalties, payments for technical services, or otherwise, land

(c) amounts for amortization of loans, depreciation of direct investments and capital transfers, giving consideration to special needs for other transactions. If more than one rate of exchange is in force, the rate applicable to such withdrawals shall be a rate which is specifically approved by the International Monetary Fund for such transactions or, in the absence of a rate so approved, an effective rate which, inclusive of any taxes or surcharges on exchange transfers, is just and reasonable.

3. Either High Contracting Party applying exchange restrictions shall in general administer them in a manner not to influence disadvantageously the competitive position of the commerce, transport or investment of capital of the other High Contracting Party in comparison with the commerce, transport or investment of capital of any third country; and shall afford such other High Contracting Party adequate opportunity for consultation at any time regarding the application of the present Article.

Article VIII

1. Each High Contracting Party shall accord to products of the other High Contracting Party, from whatever place and by whatever type of carrier arriving, and to products destined for exportation to the territories of such other High Contracting Party, by whatever route and by whatever type of carrier, treatment no less favorable than that accorded like products of or destined for exportation to any third country, in all matters relating to:

(a) duties, other charges, regulations and formalities, on or in connection with importation and exportation; and

(b) internal taxation, sale, distribution, storage and use. The same rule shall apply with respect, to the international transfer of payments for imports and exports.

2. Neither High Contracting Party shall impose restrictions or prohibitions on the importation of any product of the other High Contracting Party or on the exportation of any product to the territories of the other High Contracting Party, unless the importation of the like product of, or the exportation of the like product to, all third countries is similarly restricted or prohibited.

3. If either High Contracting Party imposes quantitative restrictions on the importation or exportation of any product in which the other High Contracting Party has an important interest:

(a) It shall as a general rule give prior public notice of the total amount of the product, by quantity or value, that may be imported or exported during a specified period, and of any change in such amount or period; and

(b) If it makes allotments to any third country, it shall afford such other High Contracting Party a share proportionate to the amount of the product, by quantity or value, supplied by or to it during a previous representative period, due consideration being given to any special factors affecting the trade in such product.

4. Either High Contracting Party may impose prohibitions or restrictions on sanitary or other customary grounds of a noncommercial nature, or in the interest of preventing deceptive or unfair practices, provided such prohibitions or restrictions do not arbitrarily discriminate against the commerce of the other High Contracting Party.

5. Either High Contracting Party may adopt measures necessary to assure the utilization of accumulated inconvertible currencies or to deal with a stringency of foreign exchange. However, such measures shall deviate no more than necessary from a policy designed to promote the maximum development of nondiscriminatory multilateral trade and to expedite the attainment of a balance-of-payments position which will obviate the necessity of such measures.

6. Each High Contracting Party reserves the right to accord special advantages:

(a) to products of its national fisheries,

(b) to adjacent countries in order to facilitate frontier traffic, or

(c) by virtue of a customs union or free trade area of which either High Contracting Party, after consultation with the other High Contracting Party, may become a member. Each High Contracting Party, moreover, reserves rights and obligations it may have under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and special advantages it may accord pursuant thereto.

Article IX

1. In the administration of its customs regulations and procedures, each High Contracting Party shall:

(a) promptly publish all requirements of general application affecting importation and exportation;

(b) apply such requirements in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;

(c) refrain, as a general practice, from enforcing new or more burdensome requirements until after public notice thereof;

(d) provide an appeals procedure by which prompt and impartial review of administrative action in customs matters can be obtained; and

(e) not impose greater than nominal penalties for infractions resulting from clerical errors or from mistakes made in good faith.

2. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, or of any third country, with respect to all matters relating to importation and exportation.

3. Neither High Contracting Party shall impose any measure of a discriminatory nature that hinders or prevents the importer or exporter of products of either country from obtaining marine insurance on such products in companies of either High Contracting Party.

Article X

1. Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of commerce and navigation.

2. Vessels under the flag of either High Contracting Party, and carrying the papers required by its law in proof of nationality, shall be deemed to be vessels of that High Contracting Party both on the high seas and within the ports, places and waters of the other High Contracting Party.

3. Vessels of either High Contracting Party shall have liberty, on equal terms with vessels of the other High Contracting Party and on equal terms with vessels of any third country, to come with their cargoes to all ports, places and waters of such other High Contracting Party open to foreign commerce and navigation.

Such vessels and cargoes shall in all respects be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment within the ports, places and waters of such other High Contracting Party; but each High Contracting Party may reserve exclusive rights and privileges to its own vessels with respect to the coasting trade, inland navigation and national fisheries.

4. Vessels of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment by the other High Contracting Party with respect to the right to carry all products that may be carried by vessel to or from the territories of such other High Contracting Party; and such products shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded like products carried in vessels of such other High Contracting Party, with respect to: (a) duties and charges of all kinds, (b) the administration of the customs, and (c) bounties, drawbacks and other privileges of this nature.

5. Vessels of either High Contracting Party that are in distress shall be permitted to take refuge in the nearest port or haven of the other High Contracting Party, and shall receive friendly treatment and assistance.

6. The term “vessels”, as used herein, means all types of vessels, whether privately owned or operated, or publicly owned or operated; but this term does not, except with reference to paragraphs 2 and 5 of the present Article, include fishing vessels or vessels of war.

Article XI

1. Each High Contracting Party undertakes

(a) that enterprises owned or controlled by its Government, and that monopolies or agencies granted exclusive or special privileges within its territories, shall make their purchases and sales involving either imports or exports affecting the commerce of the other High Contracting Party solely in accordance with commercial considerations, including price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation and other conditions of purchase or sale; and

(b) that the nationals, companies and commerce of such other High Contracting Party shall be afforded adequate opportunity, in accordance with customary business practice, to compete for participation in such purchases and sales.

2. Each High Contracting Party shall accord to the nationals, companies and commerce of the other High Contracting Party fair and equitable treatment, as compared with that accorded to the nationals, companies and commerce of any third country, with respect to:

(a) the governmental purchase of supplies,

(b) the awarding of government contracts, and

(c) the sale of any service sold by the Government or by any monopoly or agency granted exclusive or special privileges.

3. The High Contracting Parties recognize that conditions of competitive equality should be maintained in situations in which publicly owned or controlled trading or manufacturing enterprises of either High Contracting Party engage in competition, within the territories thereof, with privately owned and controlled enterprises of nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party. Accordingly, such private enterprises shall, in such situations, be entitled to the benefit of any special advantages of an economic nature accorded such public enterprises, whether in the nature of subsidies, tax exemptions or otherwise.

The foregoing rule shall not apply, however, to special advantages given in connection with:

(a) manufacturing goods for government use, or supplying goods and services to the Government for government use; or

(b) supplying at prices substantially below competitive prices, the needs of particular population groups for essential goods and services not otherwise practically obtainable by such groups.

4. No enterprise of either High Contracting Party, including corporations, associations, and government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or controlled shall, if it engages in commercial, industrial, shipping or other business activities within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for its property, immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other liability to which privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.

Article XII

Each High Contracting Party shall have the right to send to the other High Contracting Party consular representatives, who, having presented their credentials and having been recognized in a consular capacity, shall be provided, free of charge, with exequaturs or other authorization.

Article XIII

1. Consular representatives of each High Contracting Party shall be permitted to reside in the territory of the other High Contracting Party at the places where consular officers of any third country are permitted to reside and at other places by consent of the other High Contracting Party. Consular officers and employees shall enjoy the privileges and immunities accorded to officers and employees of their rank or status by general international usage and shall be permitted to exercise all functions which are in accordance with such usage; in any event they shall be treated, subject to reciprocity, in a manner no less favorable than similar officers and employees of any third country.

2. The consular offices shall not be entered by the police or other local authorities without the consent of the consular officer, except that in the case of fire or other disaster, or if the local authorities have probable cause to believe that a crime of violence has been or is about to be committed in the consular office, consent to entry shall be presumed. In no case shall they examine or seize the papers there deposited.

Article XIV

1. All furniture, equipment and supplies consigned to or withdrawn from customs custody for a consular or diplomatic office of either High Contracting Party for official use shall be exempt within the territories of the other High Contracting Party from all customs duties and internal revenue or other taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.

2. The baggage, effects and other articles imported exclusively for the personal use of consular officers and diplomatic and consular employees and members of their families residing with them, who are nationals of the sending state and are not engaged in any private occupation for gain in the territories of the receiving state, shall be exempt from all customs duties and internal revenue or other taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation. Such exemptions shall be granted with respect to the property accompanying the person entitled thereto on first arrival and on subsequent arrivals, and to that consigned to such officers and employees during the period in which they continue in status.

3. It is understood, however, that:

(a) paragraph 2 of the present Article shall apply as to consular officers and diplomatic and consular employees only when their names have been communicated to the appropriate authorities of the receiving state and they have been duly recognized in their official capacity;

(b) in the case of consignments, either High Contracting Party may, as a condition to the granting of exemption, require that a notification of any such consignment be given, in a prescribed manner; and

(c) nothing herein authorizes importations specifically prohibited by law.

Article XV

1. The Government of either High Contracting Party may, in the territory of the other, acquire, own, lease for any period of time, or otherwise hold and occupy, such lands, buildings, and appurtenances as may be necessary and appropriate for governmental, other than military, purposes. If under the local law the permission of the local authorities must be obtained as a prerequisite to any such acquiring or holding, such permission shall be given on request.

2. Lands and buildings situated in the territories of either High Contracting Party, of which the other High Contracting Party is the legal or equitable owner and which are used exclusively for governmental purposes by that owner, shall be exempt from taxation of every kind, national, state, provincial and municipal, other than assessments levied for services or local public improvements by which the premises are benefited.

Article XVI

1. No tax or other similar charge of any kind, whether of a national, state, provincial, or municipal nature, shall be levied or collected within the territories of the receiving state in respect of the official emoluments, salaries, wages or allowances received

(a) by a consular officer of the sending state as compensation for his consular services, or

(b) by a consular employee thereof as compensation for his services at a consulate. Likewise, consular officers and employees, who are permanent employees of the sending state and are not engaged in private occupation for gain within the territories of the receiving state, shall be exempt from all taxes or other similar charges, the legal incidence of which would otherwise fall upon such officers or employees.

2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply in respect of taxes and other similar charges upon:

(a) the ownership or occupation of immovable property situated within the territories of the receiving state;

(b) income derived from sources within such territories (except the compensation mentioned in the preceding paragraph); or

(c) the passing of property at death.

3. The provisions of the present Article shall have like application to diplomatic officers and employees, who shall in addition be accorded all exemptions allowed them under general international usage.

Article XVII

The exemptions provided for in Articles XIV and XVI shall not apply to nationals of the sending state who are also nationals of the receiving state, or to any other person who is a national of the receiving state, nor to persons having immigrant status who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the receiving state.

Article XVIII

Consular officers and employees are not subject to local jurisdiction for acts done in their official character and within the scope of their authority. No consular officer or employee shall be required to present his official files before the courts or to make declaration with respect to their contents.

Article XIX

A consular officer shall have the right within his district to:

(a) interview, communicate with, assist and advise any national of the sending state;

(b) inquire into any incidents which have occurred affecting the interests of any such national; and

(c) assist any such national in proceedings before or in relations with the authorities of the receiving state and, where necessary, arrange for legal assistance to which he is entitled. A national of the sending state shall have the right at all times to communicate with a consular officer of his country and, unless subject to lawful detention, to visit him at the consular office.

Article XX

1. The present Treaty shall not preclude the application of measures:

(a) regulating the importation or exportation of gold or silver;

(b) relating to fissionable materials, the radio-active by-products thereof, or the sources thereof;

(c) regulating the production of or traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war, or traffic in other materials carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment; and

(d) necessary to fulfill the obligations of a High Contracting Party for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, or necessary to protect its essential security interests.

2. The present Treaty does not accord any rights to engage in political activities.

3. The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not extend to advantages accorded by the United States of America or its Territories and possessions, irrespective of any future change in their political status, to one another, to the Republic of Cuba, to the Republic of the Philippines, to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or to the Panama Canal Zone.

4. The provisions of Article II, Paragraph 1, shall be construed as extending to nationals of either High Contracting Party seeking to enter the territories of the other High Contracting Party solely for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an enterprise in the territories of such other High Contracting Party in which their employer has invested or is actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital: provided that such employer is a national or company of the same nationality as the applicant and that the applicant is employed by such national or company in a responsible capacity.

Article XXI

1. Each High Contracting Party shall accord sympathetic consideration to, and shall afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding, such representations as the other High Contracting Party may make with respect to any matter affecting the operation of the present Treaty.

2. Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless the High Contracting Parties agree to settlement by some other pacific means.

Article XXII

1. The present Treaty shall replace the following agreements between the United States of America and Iran:

(a) the provisional agreement relating to commercial and other relations, concluded at Tehran May 14, 1928, and

(b) the provisional agreement relating to personal status and family law, concluded at Tehran July 11, 1928.

2. Nothing in the present Treaty shall be construed to supersede any provision of the trade agreement and the supplementary exchange of notes between the United States of America and Iran, concluded at Washington April 8, 1943.

Article XXIII

1. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at Tehran as soon as possible.

2. The present Treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of ratifications. It shall remain in force for ten years and shall continue in force thereafter until terminated as provided herein.

3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year’s written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed hereunto their seals.

DONE in duplicate, in the English and Persian languages, both equally authentic, at Tehran this fifteenth day of August one thousand nine hundred fifty-five, corresponding with the twenty-third day of Mordad one thousand three hundred and thirty-four.




WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by their resolution of July 11, 1956, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said treaty;

WHEREAS the said treaty was ratified by the President of the United States of America on September 14, 1956, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate, and has been duly ratified on the part of Iran;

WHEREAS the respective instruments of ratification of the said treaty were duly exchanged at Tehran on May 16, 1957;

AND WHEREAS it is provided in Article XXIII of the said treaty that the treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of ratifications;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make public the said treaty to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith on and after June 16, 1957, one month after the day of exchange of ratifications, by the United States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the city of Washington this twenty-seventh day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred [SEAL] -fifty-seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred eighty-first.


By the President:


Secretary of State


Thank you for taking the time to read this

SOURCE: United States Department of State


A Personal view of History

History has the final judgement of world and life events. Once I settled in too an appreciation of the written word, reading books, I found that the reality of human events far outweighed the fiction that any mind could conceive. As I progressed into my studies to my great surprise did I find that the some of the better fictional stories had their base in factional persons, events, and places. It was the great authors who in their own right were professors of the arts, pertaining to the histories of peoples long lost to our present knowledge which wrote the enduring fictions around said peoples.

Also true is the fact that I now know, that as the events unfold in our own life time seem confusing and contradictive, that in 50 or a 100 years to come, after all the facts hidden from us today shall be revealed. The truth will come to light, the facts will be known and vindication or condemnation shall be assigned accordingly. The times we live in at present are filled with new discoveries each day in the path of humanity’s social advancement from our darkest past, due to the curiosity and dedication of persons with that thirst for the three basic questions of humanity, WHO were they, WHAT did they do, WHERE did they came from and to whence did they go.

I am confident in the knowledge that somewhere somehow perhaps in darkened musky archives the truth shall lay until some inquisitive mind will inadvertently stumble across. Maybe not the answers to questions which originated the enquires they came for, but the deeper they peruse the more intrigued they become. That unquenchable search for truth to which all historians are addicted too, shall finally ignite their detective urges, for historians are not merely scribes of the present but investigators of the past.

Though perhaps neither you nor I shall ever know the absolute truth of today’s events, be assured that it shall be exposed to generations yet to come. Censorship is the greatest foe to history for its presentation in the present, but oral transmission of information has always been the mainstay of humanity, I still have faith in this. I still have faith in that human need for knowledge, for the truth and the eventual uncovering of such.

A saying I have always found interesting is “those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it” (cannot recall who said it or if that is the direct quote, but it carries the jest of it). Another quote I hold dear is from Abraham Lincoln in the banner of this blog, pause a moment and reflect on those words.

From myself and staff contributors we thank you for taking the time to read the articles presented here and hope they are informative and entertaining.