textfiles/politics/coutetat.hum

The following is an electronic reprint, with the author's permission, of Larry
Abraham's Insider Report of December 1986.  Subscriptions to Insider Report are
$80 for 6 months or $145 for one year.	For subscription information contact
Insider Report P.O.  Box 39895 Phoenix, AZ 85069.  Outide Arizona call (800)
528-0559.  Inside Arizona call (602) 252-4477.	Electronic reprint courtesy of
Genesis 1.28 (206) 361-0751.


THE COUP D'ETAT IN WASHINGTON

What you are currently witnessing, my fellow Americans, is no mere scandal over
an arms shipment.  Far from it.  What is actually taking place is a coup
d'etat.  The visible leader of this coup is Secretary of State George Shultz.
The planning, strategy, and tactics are all being carried out by his colleagues
in the Council on Foreign Relations, within and without government.  And the
intended victims are anti-Communists everywhere.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has as it's third definition of coup d'etat
"the alteration of an existing government by a small group".  In all coups,
events move fast and furiously.  Disclosures are made and heads roll.  Then,
more disclosures are followed by more heads rolling.  There are accusations,
denials, charges, and countercharges.  To the uninformed observer, everything
appears to be one vast state of confusion.  But be not confounded, gentle
reader.  This coup is no different from many in the past.  As Lord Action said
of the French Revolution, "amidst the tumult is too much design."

THE BOTTOM LINE

Before I get into all the essential background of what is now a created crisis
of historic importance, let me give you the bottom line.  Believe me, you won't
like it.  Here it is:  The anti-Communists are being purged from the Reagan
Administration.  One-worlders in the State Department (in effect, the CFR
foreign ministry) are now in complete control of the U.S.  foreign policy.

This means that anti-Communist efforts throughout the world will now be set up
for betrayal, collapse, and ultimate destruction.  From the high mountains of
Afghanistan to the jungles of Nicaragua, from the swamps of Laos to the plains
of Angola, courageous and gallant freedom fighters will be sold into Communist
slavery.

Now for some background information that is critical for a proper understanding
of the coup that has just taken place.	Well before the Reagan Administration
took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, deals were being cut.  Once it
was obvious that Carter was out and Ronald Reagan would soon be in, jockeying
for position became a way of life inside the beltway.

The first major deal (and possibly the most fatal) came when Ronald Reagan
agreed to put George Bush on ticket as the nominee for Vice President.	With
this came all of the Bush baggage--James Baker, Malcom Balderidge, ultimately
George Shultz, to name but a few.

THE WHITE HOUSE vs.  THE STATE DEPARTMENT

One of Reagan's most worthwhile early appointments was of Richard V.  Allen to
the post of National Security Adviser.	Allen's tenure was short-lived, due to
a "scandal" contrived and constantly pumped by the Washington Post, over a
meaningless gift to Allen's wife by an obscure Japanese businessman.

But it was during these early days of the Reagan Administration that something
called the Reagan Doctrine was born.  Simply stated, the Reagan Doctrine
supported efforts to free countries now under the yoke of Communist slavery.
Ever since the end of World War II, the State Department had tacitly supported
the opposite view--that "once Communist, always Communist." Now, here came
Ronald Reagan, Richard Allen, and others, saying that a country now under Red
domination is fair game for reversal.

At the State Department, the Reagan Doctrine was about as popular as drunk
jokes at a Baptist convention.	But Reagan's first Secretary of State,
Alexander Haig, was no powerhouse policy maker.  He clearly was being rewarded
for his "good efforts" to protect the Establishment during the final days of
the Nixon Administration.  It quickly became apparent to the Insiders that
stronger measures and stronger leaders would be necessary to counter the
anti-Communists in the White House.

THE LINES ARE DRAWN

Understand that what we are covering here could encompass volumes, and
undoubtedly will someday.  So let me touch just the highlights.  Haig goes out,
George Shultz comes in; Allen goes out, Robert McFarlane comes in.  In the case
of McFarlane, part of the key Allen staffers remained at their posts--including
Lt.  Oliver North.  Ollie believed in the Reagan Doctrine and went to work
implementing it.  He helped plan the Grenada invasion, covert support for the
Contras on Nicaragua, arms and aid to Jonas Savimbi in Angola, assistance to
the anti-Communist freedom fighters on Afghanistan, and so on.	In other words,
the National Security Council was actively and effectively pursuing an
anti-Communist course.

At the State Department, of course, especially under the ubiquitous George
Shultz, it was business as usual:  undermine our allies and reward our
adversaries.  The State Department had powerful friends helping it, the
national news media being one of the most important.

To understand what is happening now, it is vital to realize that at one and the
same time, the following had been taking place:  Col.North and friends
(Ambassador Lewis Tambs, Jack Wheeler, Andy Messing, Gen.  Jack Singlaub, et
al.) were drumming up support for the Contras, while the State/Congressional
"liberals"/media triumvirate were doing everything they could to block them.
Ollie and friends (Howard Phillips foremost among them) were pushing for vital
arms to Jonas Savimbi and support to RENAMO in Mozambique.  The State
Department, on the other hand (led by George Shultz, Chester Crocker, and Frank
Weisner), was delayingarms to Savimbi and giving millions in direct aid to
Samora Michel in Mozambique.

I had first-hand knowledge of two of these situations.	Working through friends
in Israel, I became aware of a veritable supermarket of rifles, ground-to-air
missiles, radar equipment, and so on, that was for sale.  We were going to get
this materiel to Jonas Savimbi and his anti-Communist freedom fighters in
Angola, if the Stingers and Red-Eyes promised him by President Reagan were
delayed to a point of uselessness.  Fortunately, thanks to Howard Phillips,
Jesse Helms, and a handful of others, it proved unnecessary.

Also during the same period of time (late '85 and early '86), I was in direct
contact with Ollie North, as part of an attempt to supply sophisticated
communications systems to the Contras on Nicaragua.  Even then, Ollie knew he
was a target, and all conversations were very circumspect.  As far back as two
years ago, trial balloons were being launched by the Washington Post and the
New York Times over what "undisclosed State Department sources" were calling
"that rogue operation in the White House." The wolf pack was stalking him, and
Ollie knew it.	It was just a matter of time before they drew blood.

THE REASON FOR "IRANGATE"

Now enter, from stage crazy, the Iranian connection.  Hunter Thompson once
said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." In order to understand
the weirdos in Iran, the clock must once again be turned back to BR time
(that's "Before Reagan").

Had the CFR alliance been working in the best interest of the United States,
none of what is unfolding today could have happened.  How quickly we forget
that it was the very same State Department/major media axis that toppled the
dastardly Shah and brought the sainted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini back from
French exile.

Yet in spite of the duplicity, these are now the very same people who are
screaming to high heaven that "there are no moderates in Iran." There are
"moderates" in Russia, of course.  There are "moderates" in China, Angola,
Mozambique, Nicaragua, Cuba, even within the PLO.  But none in Iran,you are
supposed to believe.  According to major media/State Department logic, even the
most brutal of Communist regimes have "moderates." Yes, they are Communist, but
they are moderate Communists --especially if they speak English, cut their meat
with a knife, and laugh appreciatively at a Gary Trudeau cartoon.  These
"moderates" should be wined, dined, and courted at Park Avenue cocktail
parties.  But never, repeat never, is such a distinction accorded
anti-Communists.

Anybody with half an ounce of brains knows that there are people and forces
inside Iran that are well worth helping, in anticipation of the vacuum which
will follow upon the death of the Ayatollah.  Even within the Khomeini
loyalists, there obviously exist people and power blocks who are jockeying for
position.  Considering that the Ayatollah is 84 years old, and something less
than a whirling dervish of administrative capability, is it not logical to
assume that people within his oligarchy would be looking elsewhere for allies?
Granted, some are already in the pocket of the Soviets.  But isn't that even
more reason why others might be very amenable to an opening from the West?

POTENTIAL ALLIES IN IRAN

I have never been to Iran, and I can't think of one Iranian I know personally.
But even without such first-hand knowledge, I can think of at least four groups
who are worth courting within that beleaguered country:

(1.) The Kurds.  This ferocious and independent group rules the northern
reaches of Iran, and is feared by everyone--including the Israeli general who
trained and armed them.  Brigadier General Tzuri Sagi (now retired) told me two
years ago when I was in Israel that the Kurds would prove a major obstacle to
the Communist takover of Iran.	Even the Khomeini crazies have never moved
against them, for they would be shipped back to Teheran in goatskins.  The
Kurds are definitely people worth having on your side!

(2.) Pahlavi followers.  The late lamented Shah still has vast numbers of
people who must look back at his reign as the "good old days".  The Shah's
eldest son is, I believe, an officer in the U.S.  Air Force.  Whenever he's
interviewed he goes to great lengths to tell his listeners about the Pahlavi
loyalists outside of Iran and within.  Isn't it interesting that young Pahlavi
is completely ignored by our media masters, as they spread the line, "there are
no moderates in Iran."

(3.) The Iranian Jews.	I have been told by people who keep track of such
things, that the Jewish population of Iran numbers over 3 million.  This is
indeed a force to be reckoned with, as Israel has clearly acknowledged.  As far
back as October 1982, then-Israeli ambassador to the United States, Moise
Arens, disclosed in an interview in the Boston Globe, of all places, that
Israel was routinely selling arms to Iran.  You would think that the Washington
Post would surely admit that among 3 million Iranian Jews, there must be some
moderates.  But to the "liberal" mentality, this dilemma is easily solved.
When facts get in the way, ignore them.

(4.) Miscellaneous groups.  Within this category are the followers of the
exiled Bauni Sauder (remember him?), the Suuni Muslims, and those who are
merely politically ambitious, such as Parliamentary Speaker Ali-Akbar
Rafsanjani and his adherents.

If it is true, as the media and George Shultz would have us believe, that
"there is no one within Iran worth courting," then who in the name of Allah
made the decision to send the original hostages home to America, on the very
day Ronald Reagan was being sworn into office in 1981?	Obviously somebody,
including the old Ayatollah himself, felt that with friends like Carter; you
don't need enemies, but that with Reagan, maybe, just maybe, it might help to
have access to the "Great Satan" in Washington D.C.

Finally, on the Iranian aspect of the whole charade, you have Adnan Khashoggi,
Saudi mega-bucker, joining forces with Manucher Ghorbanifar, and Iranian deal
doer, and agreeing to face the cameras in an exclusive interview with Barbara
Wawa.  So off she flew to Monte Carlo, where she was informed, in no uncertain
terms, that the media had really messed up.  "Had you stayed out of it," they
said in so many words, "more hostages would have been released, Iranian access
would have continued, and Communist elements inside Iran would have been
outflanked." And I'm sure they were right.

As Pat Buchanan hammered home (to the delightful consternation of the press),
if the Iranian initiative was designed to sell arms to Iran, use the markup of
said arms to help anti-Communists in Nicaragua, and do it all without costing
the American taxpayers one cent, then God bless Ollie North!

But--and here's the biggie--none of this contrived controversy has anything to
do with selling arms to Iran.  The arms shipments, regardless of beneficiary,
served only as a smokescreen, blocking our view of the real purpose of this
exercise.  Remember the bottom line conclusion I presented on page one?  The
real war is the one being fought inside the beltway surrounding Washington D.C.

THE REAL OBJECTIVE

As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, George Shultz and his
minions at State have been looking for a way to put an end, once and for all,
to anti-Communist activity emanating from the White House.  Also, they have as
their objective final consolidation of all U.S.  foreign policy in their grasp,
just as it was in the halcyon days of yore, when Henry Kissinger held both
posts, Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.

Here's how the game was plotted.  The Insiders who set it up waited until the
November election results were in.  They waited until they knew that every key
committee, both in the House and the Senate, would be in friendly hands.  They
waited right up to the moment when it looked as though the rest of the
hostages' plight were at an all-time high.  As any good bridge player knows,
knowing when to play your cards is as important as what cards you were dealt.
And these folks are pros.

The opening gambit appeared in the pages of an insignificant newspaper
published in Lebanon and written in Arabic.  Al Shiraa, an obscure pro-Syrian
weekly, dropped the first trump card to hit the table, when it revealed details
of McFarlane's secret trip to Iran.  Now, who do you suppose monitors weekly
newspapers written in Arabic?  Well, let me give you a hint:  it isn't the
overpaid, over-drinking, Pulitzer-pursuing pundits of the New York Times and
the Washington Post.  No way.  Nor is it Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw,
or the rest of the blow-dried, sweater-wearing, talking heads on network TV.
The only people who indulge in that obscure and tedious function are the
heavy-lensed and nameless minions at the State Department.

So how do you suppose that juicy little tidbit about Robert McFarlane made it's
way from the blasted-out back alleys of Lebanon to the front pages of the New
York Times and the Washington Post?  As Professor Henry Higgins would have
said, "By jove, I think you've got it."

So now comes the media blitz--the pointing with pride, the viewing with
alarm...asking about the who, what, when, and where.  Speculation was flying
thick and fast.  "Shultz didn't know." "What didn't he know?" "Donald Regan
knows." "What does he know?" "Poindexter is responsible." "Responsible for
what?" The real culprit is Ollie North." "Who the blazes is Ollie North?"

Blood was starting to appear in the water, and the sharks went into a feeding
frenzy.  Nobody knew just yet bliid it was, but that wasn't important.  It was
seeping out of the White House, and for the liberal media establishment that
was all they needed to know.

STOKING THE FIRES

On November 24, Undersecretary of State, John C.  Whitehead, strolled into a
State Department hearing room and proceeded to place the State Department in
official opposition to the President and his White House operation.  Who is
John C.  Whitehead?  You'd better get to know him, for unless things change
drastically, he is going to have a lot to say about how foreign policy is
conducted on your behalf.

John Whitehead went straight from Harvard, where he received his MBA, to the
financial behemoth, Goldman, Sachs, and Co.  By 1955, he was a partner at this
key Insider institution.  And let me tell you, there are few positions in the
would of international mega-banking more powerful than senior partner at
Goldman, Sachs.

Then quietly and without fanfare, in the interest of serving a "higher order,"
Mr.  Whitehead left his esteemed position on Wall Street and moved to
Washington, to become the number two man at State.

It's important you understand what all of this means.  Here's a man who has
spent his entire professional life on Wall Street, now in the second-most
important position in the U.S.	foreign policy establishment.  What experience
does he have in statecraft?  Just who is he, to take on his own President?
Well, gentlefolk, the answer is simple:  John C.  Whitehead is one of "the
boys".  Did I mention that during his Wall Street years, he also became a
prominent fixture at the Council on Foreign Relations and a trustee for the
Carnegie Corporation?  (You remember the Carnegie Corporation; that is where
Alger Hiss hung his hat when he left the State Department in 1946.)

You may never have heard of John C.  Whitehead before "Irangate" was
orchestrated for our entertainment.  But believe me, among the folks at the CFR
who have been running your country for the past fifty years, he is well known
indeed.  In the inner sanctums of the New World Order crowd, his credentials
are impeccable.

THE PURGE BEGINS

But back to the coup d'etat.  The very next day, November 25, with the lessor
lights of the press speculating that surely the next act will be George
Shultz's resignation, now that the State Department had "distanced" itself from
the President's policy, a very important and very private meeting was held.
Only two men were present:  Secretary of State George Shultz and President
Ronald Reagan.	The off-the-record meeting took place in the morning.

Then, just an hour or two later (about noon, Eastern Standard Time), Mr.Reagan
called a news conference to announce the resignation of Admiral John Poindexter
as National Security Adviser and the sacking of his aide, Lt.  Col.  Oliver
North.	The President refused to answer questions and turned the microphones
over to Attorney General Edwin Meese.

Finally, one week later, on December 2 came the coup d'grace of this coup
d'etat.  President Reagan again took to the microphones of the White House
briefing room, to reveal that the new Presidential adviser for national
security affairs would be one Frank C.	Carlucci.

As I watched Ronald Reagan make this announcement, I knew that my worst fears
had been realized.  Not only was Shultz not going to resign; but he had
consolidated full working control over all aspects of U.S.  foreign policy.

Just in case there was any doubt about this, confirmation came immediately
after the news conference ended.  During the postmortem, the CBS morning
anchor, Morton Dean, cut to his State Department reporter and asked, "How is
this appointment being viewed over there?" The answer was immediate and
unmistakable:  "State Department officials are overjoyed with Carlucci's
appointment.  They see him as one of their own."

MORE ON FRANK CARLUCCI

As to Carlucci's curriculum vitae, I shall try to be brief.  Princeton '52,
Harvard '56.  Joined the State Department in 1956, right from Harvard.  Served
in various African stations, including Johannesburg, until 1971, when, presto
chango, he metamorphosized into an economic expert and became associate
director of the Office of Management and Budget.  In case you have forgotten,
the sitting President was Richard Nixon, and Carlucci's immediate boss, the
Director of OMB, was none other than George Shultz.

But Mr.  Carlucci's first love was in foreign affairs, so in 1975, under Gerry
Ford, and until 1978, under Jimmy Carter, Frank Carlucci was U.S.  Ambassador
to Portugal.  Seems harmless enough, doesn't it--until you remember that
1975-1978 were the critical years in the post-Salazar era of Portuguese policy.
Under Gen.  Salazar and his successors, Portugal had been combating the
Communist-supported revolutionaries in Angola and Mozambique.  It was during
Carlucci's tenure as Ambassador to Portugal that the U.S.  State Department,
first under Kissinger (during Ford's presidency) and later under Muskie (with
Carter as president), supported "independence" for Portugal's former
possessions.  Of course, what this really meant was that Marxist-Leninist
cut-throats soon controlled both strategic former colonies flanking South
Africa.

Next, the multi-talented Carlucci took up his new assignment in the Carter
Administration as Deputy Director of the CIA.  (That's right.  Ronald Reagan's
new National Security Adviser was Jimmy Carter's number 2 man at the CIA.  I
hope this isn't making you as sick to read as it is for me to write.) In 1982,
Frank Carlucci ventured forth to make his fortune as president of Sear's World
Trade, Inc., but like all CFR members, when duty calls, back to government you
go.  I can almost hear his former and about-to-be new boss, George Shultz,
saying, "Frank, have I got a job for you."

So there you have it.  The coup is complete, and the mop-up operation is
underway.  How are things going to be run now?	Let me quote it straight from
the horse's mouth.  Here is how New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis
described the new realities.  In his syndicated column of December 5, Lewis
said of the President:	"His leadership would have to be of a different kind,
collaborative, not royal.  Centrist, not driven by ideological obsession."
Understand that by "ideological obsession" Lewis means anti-Communist
activities, and you'll understand what he is signaling.

Continuing, Lewis says "...he appointed a respected professional, Frank
Carlucci, as his National Security Adviser.  One wonders who helped bring the
President back from the brink?" C'mon Anthony, spend $95 for a subscription to
Insider Report, and you'll know whodunit.  Oh, I forgot; you'er a reporter for
the New York Times, you've won the pulitzer prize, you already know.

Further on in his column, Lewis indicates that just appointing Carlucci ins't
enough.  Or as he puts it, "other professional changes cannot be avoided if the
President hopes to work with Congress." Then Lewis concludes by delivering the
following unmistakable warning:  "The collaboration with Congress depends on
the substance of policy as well as respect for those who carry it out.	There
can be no collaboration if the President insists on ideological crusades."

Lewis doesn't care what the boobs in Biloxi make of this column.  He knows it
will be understood where it really counts--in the power centers of Washington
and the financial centers of New York.	There will be no collaboration with the
new Congress unless the President toes the mark and does exactly as he is told,
especially as regards to U.S.  foreign policy.

As I write this, the other fatalities in this coup d'etat are starting to come
thick and fast.  The anti-Communist, highly respected and brilliant Ambassador
to Costa Rica, Lewis Tambs, has resigned his post.  Now, Ambassador Faith Ryan
Wittlesey, a devout anit-Communist and great patriot, is under fire because she
too is a friend of Ollie North.  And you can be certain that the carnage will
continue.

But it doesn't have to be this way!


LET'S TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

Let me turn from this solemn and somber review, and present instead a positive
plan that would strike a devastating blow against our would-be masters, and
serve the cause of freedom very, very well.

Let me offer our own game plan, which of put into effect immediately could
wrestle the offensive out of the hands of George Shultz and his media
collaborators.	Admittedly, what I'm about to propose is audacious.  But we
live in a time when only bold measures can capture the imagination of a nation
whose people are mesmerized by television and who grow easily bored by anything
which can't be presented in predigested bites.

Let's use this whole sordid mess to demand something that is long, long
overdue--namely, investigate the State Department!  Here is how we can take the
offensive on this one:

(1.) Ollie North would choose a sitting committee of the Senate, disregard the
advice of his lawyers to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and tell the whole truth
of what he and his fellow anti-Communists were doing.  I suggest that this
committee be the one chaired by Sen.  Jeremiah Denton.

But make no mistakes about it.	If Ollie North announced that he had dismissed
his lawyers and was prepared to appear before this committee, each and every
member would come scurrying back to Washington as though his life depended on
it.  Furthermore, Ollie could pick the time--say 9 p.m.  Eastern Standard Time,
or what the media pros call "prime time".  Every network, regardless of
scheduled programming, would be there, cameras fixed, klieg lights on,
breathlessly waiting for every word.  It would be a media event unlike anything
our side has had before or may ever have again.

In a prepared statement, Lt.  Col.  Oliver North, in full uniform and armed
with the truth, would tell the American public just why it was he had to do
what he had done.  The President wouldn't, and didn't, trust his own State
Department to implement the Reagan Doctrine of rolling back Communism.	"If the
president can't trust his State Department," Ollie could conclude by saying,
"why should we?" Therefore, I call on my fellow citizens to demand, and the
members of Congress to form, a special committee to launch a full-scale review
and investigation of State Department Policy and the actions this policy
fostered."

What would happen?  Why, the left would go absolutely crazy!  The media would
scream "Mccarthyism." In short, all hell would break loose.  But isn't it time
as Shakespeare said in Julius Caesar, to "cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of
war." For indeed we are at war.  A contemporary of the great bard, Sir John
Harrington, said in a brilliant epigram:  "Treason doth never prosper, what's
the reason?  For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." It is high time to
call treason by its proper name.

(2.) The next day, with conservatives across America taking the lead, we swamp
the Senators and Congressmen with telephone calls, telegrams, and letters,
demanding an investigation as called for by Ollie North.  Pat Robertson, Jerry
Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Marlin Maddoux, and other right-thinking Americans
would take to the airwaves with the cry, "Investigate the State Department!"
There are TV and radio evangelists and conservative talk-show hosts in every
part of this country who would rally to this effort.  It's time we employed
those assets.

(3.) Then, to make sure that a liberal whitewash wasn't engineered under the
new Congress, Pat Buchanan (now the only man in the Executive Branch we can
truly trust) would resign his position as White House Director of
Communications and offer the chair to an independent panel of distinguished
citizens and honest scholars, to prepare and present to the President their own
findings on U.S.  foreign policy and its failures.

The cover-up crowd have had their own special commissions on everything from
Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination to the failure of the shuttle launch.
It's time honest and patriotic Americans had a commission that would ask the
right questions and look in the right closets.

(4.) Finally, all across America, from state houses to Rotary clubs, from
classrooms to boardrooms, petitions would be prepared and circulated, demanding
"Investigate the State Department!" What if the names were computerized, and
every person who signed was sent a copy of the commission report, detailing the
treasonous duplicity carried out by the CFR/State Department cabal?

Could this plan work?  Of course it could.  Would it change things?  Without a
doubt.	Will it happen?  Frankly, the answer to that question depends totally
on the response of the key players:  Ollie North, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson,
and so on.  They must ask themselves, as President Reagan himself said so
effectively, "If not us, who?  If not now, when?"

And as for the President, let's face facts.  He has become a captive of forces
around him that he does not even understand.  This is a battle that must be
fought without him...or even in spite of him.

At another time in our history, when the future of the country hung in the
balance, a man rose to implore his fellow citizens to action.  The date was
March 23, 1775.  The place, Richmond, Virginia.  The man, Patrick Henry.  Hear
him now:  "We are not weak if we make proper use of those means which the God
of nature has placed in our power...the battle, sir, is not to the strong
alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave...it is vain, sir, to
extenuate the matter.  The gentlemen may cry, peace, peace,'but there is no
peace.	The war has actually begun."

We've been at war for years.  You know it, and I know it.  Now we have the
chance to make sure the American people know it, too--and to learn why so many
of our "leaders" keep shooting the good guys in the back!