► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Richard Nixon’

Richard Nixon paved the way for Barack Obama

by Mojambo ( 164 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Election 2008, History, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Progressives at August 23rd, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Despite being the number 1 monster for the Left (actually W. can now challenge him for that position), Richard E. Nixon (yes know-it-alls I know it is Richard M. Nixon – Richard E. Nixon is what Archie Bunker used to refer to him as, didn’t you ever watch All In The Family?)  like the rest  of the elite Republican Establishment was never a conservative.  Wage and Price Controls, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, taking the U.S. dollar off the gold standard, Endangered Species Act – all were initiated under his administration. The most pernicious thing we can thank Richard E. Nixon for was the Philadelphia Plan which institutionalized Affirmative Action (i.e. reverse discrimination). From the seeds of Affirmative Action (1973)  was sprouted Barack Obama in 2008 and the rest is history. Nixon, who had very little interest in domestic policy, was more then happy to let the Democrats in the Senate and House run things at home  as long as he could concentrate on his greatest passion – foreign affairs.

by James Lewis

As Matt Patterson pointed out in these pages, Obama is the Affirmative Action President.  He was elected to make up for America’s never-ending guilt about black folks.  That obsessional guilt trip works so well that it’s landed us in racial socialism, also called affirmative action.  Marxism whips up resentments of the poor against the rich — but in fact it empowers only the left.  Well, racial socialism does the same thing.  It whips up “people of color” against evil palefaces in order to empower the left.  It’s the Ku Klux Klan in new sheets.

In the “historic” election of 2008, a white kid told me he voted for The Savior “because Hillary looks too white.”  It was his little contribution to affirmative action.  He will now be victimized for life for the color of his skin.

Well, who started affirmative action?

AA as compensatory racial favoritism was first announced by Lyndon Baines Johnson.  But it was implemented by the Nixon Labor Department as the Revised Philadelpha Plan, with strict racial quotas and timetables.  The Philadelphia Plan was supposed to make up for genuine discrimination against blacks in the Philadelphia buildings trades.  But it quickly triggered an avalanche of racial compensation claims, legal decisions, and executive orders that flipped the burden of proof.

Today, instead of having to prove a history of group discrimination, AA simply presumes a proven history of discrimination and compels employers to prove it ain’t so.  Nixon ordered the Commerce Department to start its first racial compensation plan.  In 1973 he “required all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees.”

Once AA applied to all federal agencies, it quickly spread to all institutions that took money from the feds, including the states and local governments, universities, colleges, general education systems, federal contractors, and on and on.  AA became the presumption of universal white guilt in America.

Now there is legitimate compensation law, going back to the Bible and the Code of Hammurabi.  If I harm you from malice or neglect, I owe you compensation.  The trouble with AA is that it no longer requires proof.  If you’re white, male, and heterosexual, you are presumed guilty.  If racial discrimination harmed someone centuries ago, AA creates the presumption of guilt by race.  AA has universalized group guilt, and has driven a stake through the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

[…]

Watergate was a third-rate burglary, but Nixon’s affirmative action order may topple America as a nation.  Americans are no longer equal.  We are color-coded M&M candies.  The left can play any color against the others for generations to come.

The Nazis were just another racial socialist movement.  Ethnic scapegoating was their road to power.  Racial socialism has a fearful historical track record.

I saw the AA mafia rising in academia when I was serving my sentence there.  In English, education, communication, and ethnic studies, AA brought in the radical left — not by merit, but by race, gender, and militancy.  If you’re gay you get preferential hiring in some colleges today.  Agitators like Bill Ayers get life tenure as “education” professors because education became Marxified.  That’s how the left took over the colleges.  That’s why your kids can’t read today — but they are brainwashed to feel guilt because of African-American slavery that ended in 1865.  That’s also why the left will never talk about twelve centuries of Muslim slavers.  Like poverty, slavery is just an excuse for the left.  They don’t care about slavery.  They care about power.

[…]

In 2008 Obama bamboozled the nice liberals who fell for the Racial Revenge narrative.  But back in reality it’s black people who now have a 35% unemployment rate.  Anne Coulter points out:

When blacks were only four generations out of slavery, their illegitimacy rate was about 23 percent (lower than the white illegitimacy rate is now). Then Democrats decided to help them! Barely two generations since LBJ’s Great Society programs began, the black illegitimacy rate has tripled to 72 percent.

That’s the best predictor of school dropouts, gang warfare, crime, drug abuse, and yes, more unmarried pregnancies for more kids growing up in pathological conditions.  It’s an epidemic.

Socialism destroys families, as you just saw in London, and then the media beat home the message that more socialism is the answer.  HIV works the same way.

Our fantabulous hero Obama should be called Barack bin Nixon, because his spiritual father is truly Richard Milhous Nixon.

Read the rest here: How Nixon Created Obama

Return To The Gold Standard?

by Deplorable Macker ( 31 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Elections 2012, History, Republican Party, Special Report at May 14th, 2011 - 11:00 am

The world has been off the Gold Exchange Standard since President Nixon ended the direct convertability of the Dollar to Gold in 1971. The current fiscal crises around the world may be the end result of that action.
In an interview with Human Events, Steve Forbes predicts a return to the Gold Standard within five years:

With a stable currency, it is “much harder” for governments to borrow excessively, Forbes said. Without lax Federal Reserve System monetary policies that led to the printing of too much money, the housing bubble would not have been nearly as severe, he added.
“When it comes to exchange rates and monetary policy, people often don’t grasp” what is at stake for the economy, Forbes said. By restoring the gold standard, the United States would shift away from “less responsible policies” and toward a stronger dollar and a stronger America, he said. “If the dollar was as good as gold, other countries would want to buy it.”

Even the broken clock…er, Ron Paul… agrees with this wisdom, which could very well be an issue during the 2012 Presidential Election. The Demo☭rats, of course, do not want to crucify mankind upon a Cross of Gold. One can only imagine Президент Обама doing the same thing William Jennings Bryan did back in the day.
So…should we return to the Gold Standard? Discuss.

Ike would have never gotten involved in Libya

by Phantom Ace ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Headlines, Republican Party at April 8th, 2011 - 3:27 pm

The Republican Party used to be the Party that believed in being cautious on interventionism. In 1920, the GOP undid Woodrow Wilson’s Progressive intervention in Latin America by ending the occupation of several nations like the Dominican Republic. Eisenhower ended the Korea war and Nixon ended the Vietnam War. Reagan was a cautious interventionist as well. He only went into Granada because of the presence of Cuban troops, he pulled out of Lebanon because he saw no US interest there (huge mistake), struck Libya in retaliation for the Berlin Disco bombing and only hit the Iranians during Operation Flying Mantis because they were interfering with shipping. Since then the GOP has become the Party of unlimited war.

Some Republicans would love to invade everybody and force Democracy at the point of a Gun. It sickened me to see the GOP cheer lead Obama’s war in Libya to help AL-Qaeda. The same Party that claims to fight Islamic terror, is enabling it.

It’s still worthwhile to consider some of the dynamics surrounding the U.S. decision. The influence of the media is one—a million microphones clamoring for action will tend to force action. The administration no doubt feared grim pictures from Benghazi and the damage those pictures could do to the president’s reputation and standing. Another dynamic, I suspect, is a change in presidential leadership style the past few decades, toward a bias for dramatic or physical action, toward the seemingly bold move. The other night I was with an old Reagan hand who noted that Ronald Reagan broke ground by speaking truth to and about the Soviets, by holding up his hand and saying “Stop,” by taking tough diplomatic actions, by working closely with the Soviets’ great foes, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher. But he didn’t break ground by literally breaking ground! He didn’t invade Eastern Europe. He was judicious about the use of military might.

[….]

Political operatives are sort of embarrassed by caution and judiciousness now, as if they are an indicator of weakness (the Democrats’ traditional worry) or a lack of idealism and compassion (the Republicans’ worry.) But carefulness in a leader is a beautiful thing. That is the message of “Eisenhower 1956,” David A. Nichols’s history of how Ike, the old hero of World War II, resisted great pressure to commit U.S. forces in the Suez Crisis and, later, the rebellion in Hungary. The whole book is a celebration of restraint. “Eisenhower the military man was not militaristic,” writes Mr. Nichols. “He did not think that there were military solutions to many problems.” He was happy to use his personal “military credibility” in deterring the Soviets but viewed war with them “as a last, not a first resort” and often talked about disarmament.

[….]

Two closing thoughts on the modern impulse toward US international activism. The past 10 years, as a nation, we have lost sight to some degree of the idea of Beaconism—that it is our role, job and even delight to be an example of freedom, a symbol of it, a beacon, but not necessarily a bringer of it or an insister on it for others. Two long, messy, unending wars suggest this change in attitude has not worked so well. Maybe we could discuss this in the coming presidential campaign.

The GOP needs to return towards it old foreign policy roots. Strong on defense doesn’t mean war without end. If we commit to war, it should be massive, brutal and quick. We should only occupy a nation if it’s in the economic interest of teh US. If we take ove ra  nation with resources American companies should get priority in contracts, not the French or Chinese.

Strong on defense doesn’t mean war with everyone.

Simon must be Reading my Mind

by snork ( 132 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Economy, Patriotism, Politics at January 23rd, 2010 - 6:00 am

Mr. Johnson’s ex-business partner has a bit more sense than Mr. Johnson. A lot more sense. But it was a weird, almost scary experience to see my ideas in print, that I’d never even told anyone.

First, he says the obvious:

The scary thing is that many of us believe the President hardly knows much of anything, certainly not economics, and is surrounded by an increasingly paranoid and defensive group of advisers. It’s shades of Nixon, but worse. Tricky Dick, at least, knew what he was doing and could accomplish things. Obama is the biggest windbag to ever ascend to the presidency. He has no idea what he is doing and now things are getting rough.

That’s bad, because Nixon, with his wage and price controls, was one of the most economically illiterate presidents in history. Knowing what I know now, if I could go to 1960 and vote, I’d vote for JFK.

Frankly, I’m worried for our country because this man doesn’t really understand what the public is telling him. He just thinks we’re “angry.” He’s wrong – we’re furious and we’re furious because he blames everyone but himself and seems psychologically incapable of taking responsibility. One can imagine a ninety-year old Obama stumbling around in some rest home shaking his walking stick at George Bush. But for the moment Bush is being replaced. Now evidently it’s the banks fault. The evil bankers are to blame. It’s capitalism, stupid.

Like many people, I too was initially taken in by the clean, articulate black guy with no Negro dialect. But long before the campaign was over, it was profusely evident that the guy was as phony as a three dollar bill.

Problem is, we’ve been there, done that, a thousand times. The alternative to capitalism is socialism and it has never worked. Not once, in all its myriad permutations. In fact, it most often hurts those it was intended to help, bankrupting the society and leaving the lower classes destitute.

But empiricism isn’t Obama’s strong suit. As Roger said in the prior quoted paragraph, he’s incapable of learning anything. And here’s where it gets kind of creepy. Roger said exactly what I was thinking:

I am deeply afraid of that because Barack Obama has never had to deal with any personal adversity in his adult life. He has lived a completely privileged existence. This is a first for him. There’s no telling how he will behave. Watch out, buckle up and hold on to your seats.

Bullseye, Roger! That’s exactly the problem with this dangerous man. He’s never failed at anything in his entire life, because the games have all been rigged! That’s why he’s utterly incompetent at everything he does, and incapable of learning from failure. He’s managed to get almost to the age of 50 without anything ever failing, because the affirmative action elves were always ready willing and able to go in and fix everything. Now, he’s like a six year old going on 50. In charge of the federal government. With a video game concept of economics.

I’m also afraid that Roger’s right about his unpredictability. Nixon, for all of his flaws, was a gentleman, and when the jig was up, he walked away with grace. And for all of his ego, when it came down to putting the country through the kind of turmoil that Al Gore eventually did put the country through or giving the presidency to JFK, he did the right thing. What’s scary about Obama is that his idea of “the right thing” is a childish cartoon of Marxist heroes and Capitalist villains. There really is no telling what he might do when placed in a box. And I think when that time comes, the American people will find themselves pining for the old days of grace and patriotism under President Nixon.

Extra: A Canadian’s take on our Fearless Leader.

It has been a year of fecklessness, amateurism, and posturing. Less that is useful has been accomplished by this president in his first year than by any president since Herbert Hoover, and he was ambushed by the Great Depression after seven months.

However, he has a more upbeat ending than Roger:

For all the claims that the Republicans are too influenced by religious zealots and country club knuckle-draggers, the administration may be in the hands of ‘redistributive,’ pacifistic Kool Aid drinkers. If it is, the Republicans will have to elevate their 2012 presidential candidate this year. The office may, 213 years after the retirement of George Washington, actually seek the (wo)man, but not from what is conspicuously on offer now, from either party.

Amen.