What Would Nixon Do?

Spiro Says: In Theaters Now

2011-01-26T08:53:00.000-08:00

As a nation we far too often find ourselves submerged beneath a deluge of audio and visual media produced by an effete corps of impudent snobs, suffocating our senses with their subversive solipsism.

I’ve seen it before. In the late 1960’s, when our nation was in the midst of excising the malignantly cancerous hooliganism of the left, Hollywood and the recording industry were glorifying the gaggle of gangrenous gangsters gleefully tearing at the very moral fabric which holds our civilization together. The counter-culture was quoting from Mao's Little Red Book instead of Jesus' Good Book, and the youth were seeking wisdom from the false prophecy of "Mr. Natural" rather than Mom and Dad.

Time and again good, honest, decent, patriotic Americans were denounced as squares in movies and television. The little boy who delivered paper or the girl who held tea parties with dolls and who said “Please” and “Thank You” were mocked, while drugged-out hippies, civil rights rioters, and pinko intellectuals were hailed as heroes. Music was no better, being nothing more than an orchestrated orgy of sex and drugs.

Granted, there was the occasional wholesome offering, but for every Perry Como or Pat Boone there were dozens by malicious minstrels of mayhem like the Beatles and the Doors. And for every Patton or Battle of the Green Berets showing in a theater, there were 10 Easy Riders.

And now we once again find ourselves at the time of the year when the Sodom of Southern California, Hollywood, gathers together in much-publicized communal onanism to congratulate itself and announce which of their awful offal is nominated for their golden calf of depravity, the Oscar.

As expected, the nominees for Best Picture are a celebration of moral bankruptcy. The "alternative lifestyle" is glorified as heroic, while decency and respect for authority is cast as a villainous oppressor. This year, no fewer than four movies (Inception, 127 Hours, The Fighter, and The Social Network) are tales in which the protagonist’s indulgence in selfish individualism leads to their triumph over the system, while two others (Black Swan and The Kids are All Right) are simply repulsive and attempt to legitimize the perversion of homosexual lifestyle.

Now, as someone who still believes in something as square as Law and Order, movies like this send a chill up my spine. The message from the cultural cannibals in Hollywood is that the youth should reject the American way of life - a life filled with rules, morals, values, decency, and respect for the chain of command. These movies encourage the young people to question the wisdom of authority and challenge the very foundations of our civilization. They insinuate that happiness and true liberty lie in a hedonistic pursuit of personal desire, rather than being a better American through total dedication to God and unquestioning obedience. These movies say that being different is acceptable, and that even something as obviously corrupt as lesbians raising children should not only be tolerated, but applauded!

The threat to our Way of Life is very real, and if unchecked could lead to children all over this great land moving en masse into communes, being brainwashed by gurus, embracing heathen spirituality, and eventually rising up in bloody rebellion with negroes and communists to ritually slaughter their sleeping parents with gardening implements and household items.

Make no mistake, the culture war is as real and as lethal as one fought with bullets and bombs. Our task, as respectable Americans, is to stand together and fight the army of pusillanimous pussyfooters peddling pernicious pabulum. I implore all True Americans to do their part. United we can bring an end to cinematic smut and subversion, and once again enjoy films like Shane, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and Birth of a Nation.

God Bless America.

Happy Hour: More Than A Funny Name

2011-01-21T11:07:00.000-08:00

Cheers!

This week the Clan Kenndey is celebrating the life of my late brother-in-law, Robert Sargent Shriver. And I do mean celebrating. He was a friend in need and a pious man who wasn't above knocking back a pint or worshipping the creature with the rest of us.

Needless to say, the wake is still in progress. And will be so long as the whiskey holds out.

I won’t call Sargent a hero, ’cause what’s a hero? But sometimes, there’s a man – and I’m talkin’ about the Sarge here – sometimes, there’s a man, well, he’s the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that was the Sarge.

The Sarge came to us from outside.  My father felt sorry for him, took him in, and treated him as one of his own. And we all grew to look at Sarge as our brother. Everyone liked the Sarge. His natural self-depreciating manner and willingness to endure our constant womanizing made him welcome on all our nocturnal adventures. He was not the kind of man who naturally made enemies.

He was the perfect complement to my ambitious and bellicose father and brothers. Where John was coldly calculating and ruthless, and Bobby prone to violent action, Sarge was the voice of reason. Often playing devil's advocate, and searching for a resolution that didn't involve bribes or eliminating troublemakers. He was the ultimate team player and a gentle man who knew when and how to keep his mouth shut. He tolerated all of our shenanigans, and made the Kennedy administration more respectable.

Politics were never Sarge's thing, but since it was the Family business, he knew that he'd have to endure it. His first real taste of it came in 1964 when that hammer-headed Texan, LBJ, wanted him as running mate.  Bobby quickly put a stop to that, saying, "There's not going to be a Kennedy on the ticket. And if there were, it would be me." Naturally Johnson was terrified of Bobby and so he backed off and settled for that pile of dirty rags, Hubert. At that point Sarge went to visit LBJ to make sure that he understood the Way Things Are, and that he shouldn't try to carry a grudge.

Then there was that time in '72, when Senator McGovern's running mate, Tom Eagleton, had to leave the campaign in disgrace after the press found out he had undergone electro-shock therapy for major depression. Tom hadn't bothered to tell McGovern, whose judgement now appeared to be dodgy and whose campaign was well and truly sunk.  In desperation, McGovern reached out to us for help. Once again, Sarge stepped in and, even though it was a doomed move, Sarge agreed to do McGovern a favor and be his running mate.  And, when McGovern was whipped like a runaway slave, the Sarge stayed on to comfort him, while reminding him that he now had an obligation to the Family.

Both John and Bobby were sincere in their desire to make the Kennedy Family completely legitimate by helping the coloreds and the poor, but being Kennedys, they really had no idea what to do. For us, being poor meant only being able to afford buying a municipal election. Sarge was different. He seemed to have this strange connection to the less fortunate, and while John and Bobby were giving lip-service to helping out, the Sarge did something. He was the heart and the concious of our organization. He founded Headstart, the Peace Corps, and Vista. He was so diplomatic and tolerant that he even served as ambassador to France for two years.

Sarge was our conscience, our humility and our gentleness. He was our consiglieri.

So, hoist a glass and drink to the Sarge with me.

Bottoms up!

Oh Henry! - A Chinese Box

2011-01-20T12:41:00.000-08:00

.

There's been a bit of unexpected and positive news coming from the Korean peninsula recently, as the South has agreed in principle to meet with the North on talks to help bring down the overall level of animosity and aggression in the region.

There is a cynical undercurrent among the diplomats who believe that these talks will likely just be a sham. After all, North Korea is known for it's outlandish outbursts, not it's calm reason. But, as I assured the president before my Paris peace talks with the North Vietnamese, the simple act of bringing these people to this point is a major accomplishment, and a cause for optimism.

Of course, before engaging in the summit the South Koreans should be prepared for a fact I had to learn the hard way: they will get absolutely nothing tangible from the North. No concessions, no agreements involving weapons or military actions, no admission of responsibility for any past deeds, and no guarantees of a continued truce. The North Koreans, like the North Vietnamese, are an adversary who will evade, deny, deflect, and confuse, and who often completely contradict their own statements and positions within the same sentence. The North will use the talks as a publicity stunt, seeking to portray themselves as reasonable and open minded to the global community, instead of as the collection of madmen and barbarians they truly are.

The one advantage the South Koreans have over me is that, being Asian themselves, they are already naturally inclined to understand the deceit and duplicity that lies within the Oriental heart. That realization came as some surprise to me, as I had not imagined any race to be so devious. What was I, a mind reader to know such a thing?

The bigger question is obviously, why would the North agree to such talks now? Why, after a year of unparalleled belligerence and saber rattling, would the North suddenly want to appear compliant? The obvious answer is they are hoping to once again dupe the United States and our allies into providing much-needed aid in terms of food and money. They've certainly used this tactic before with past presidents to great success. It seemed that whenever the North needed assistance, they would become an unbearable annoyance, and then would extort the West before calming down.

But that's too pat an answer, and doesn't give any credit to the deeply inscrutable nature of these dybbuks. As I learned long ago, when an Asian comes to you with a gift, it's usually accompanied with a very large bill.

No, the real reason for this sudden olive branch by North Korea is because South Korea (and by extension, the US) is getting assistance from an unexpected source: China.

During the Paris peace talks, I was working like a schlemiel behind the scenes trying to get either the Soviet Union or China to assist us by convincing the Viet Cong to be honest and sincere in negotiations. We poked, threatened, and begged the Russians and Chinese for help, because we knew that without it the Vietnamese would have no incentive to engage in genuine talks. So long as the Soviets and Chinese were encouraging them, they could behave as they wished. Despite my best efforts, I too often found myself exasperated. During sensitive negotiations Le Duc Tho would just sit there, kibbitzing about the soup, instead of addressing the peace process. I should be there with nothing better to do? Never mind that we were acting in good faith and only wanted a sensible resolution to the conflict. Lack of any pressure from the Soviets or Chinese meant the Vietnamese could, and did, squander time and energy like little pishers.

Today, of course, China is much different than it was during Mao's time. Who knew that suddenly making a bit of money isn't so bad anymore? Chinese communism, while still oppressive and corrupt, is much more welcoming of the income it can generate through partnerships with Western business. And so, there is little coincidence that North Korea's sudden burst of diplomatic friendship happens to come at the same time as Chinese President Hu Jintao's summit with President Obama, and meetings with American industrial moguls.

The Chinese are nothing if not pragmatic. It's clear that they understand that despite their commitment to propping up the meshuggah Kim Jong Il, their future lies with General Motors and Boeing. And so, at some point, the Chinese must have realized that it would be to their great benefit to maybe yank on the chain around the North Korean neck and tell them to heel.

Of course, given that it is the Chinese who are behind this sudden North Korean amity, it's safe to assume the worst. Better to not be caught with our trousers down. The Chinese may have told the North Koreans to play nice for now, but there is little point in believing they have told them to do anything more than that, or for any longer than needed.

Orientals are very shrewd negotiators, and one must be able to peer behind the porcelain mask of friendship in order to determine their true nature of enmity. China's influence in bringing the North Koreans should not be misconstrued. This is a temporary tactic, designed for China's benefit so they can strike a favorable bargain with the US. And, the carrot for the North Koreans is likely the promise of increased Chinese aid once they reap the harvest of these seeds.

As fellow Asians, I am sure the South Koreans understand this. And, as Asians, I am sure they have something up their sleeves as well.

Zie Gezunt!

Sarah's Complaint

2011-01-12T12:17:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

So it seems that the intrepid little semi-Governor Sarah Palin has decided to stop letting her handlers, advisors, aides, and other various and sundry apologists speak for her. It's about time. When I had to face a crisis (such as rebutting claims of false prosecution of Alger Hiss, misappropriation of campaign funds, or the Watergate cover-up) I made sure that I was the one facing the cameras and speaking to the people. Hiding behind others is a coward's choice. Besides, no one can speak as well for one's self as they can.

So, it was a relief that Sarah finally came forward. Unfortunately, as much as the little filly has chutzpah (as Kissinger would say), she is still the dimwit who claimed proximity to Russia was foreign policy experience and that the rapture is on it's way.

Now, far be it for me to criticize a fellow conservative. Particularly one currently embroiled in the swirl of negative press. While other voices that said Sarah's effort has further diminished her already hollow, superficial, and insutbstantial persona, I am impressed by her ambitious effort.

Semi-Gov. Palin's statement is a bold attempt to once and for all strip the crown of victimization from the still blod-stained hands of Rep. Giffords and the other victims, and place it firmly on her empty head. Forget those who were shot - the real tragedy here is how our poor, misunderstood little Sarah is being treated so unfairly and being mercilessly picked-on:

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision [...] But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Her point, aside from clumsily climbing upon a crucifix of her own making in order to publicly martyr herself while accusing those who are tired of her occasionally incoherent rhetoric of "Blood Libel," is to do as she says, not as she does! Also, that she is not only not responsible for the shooting, but that the constant stream of venom, anger, hate, scapegoating, xenophobia, intolerance, fearmongering, lies, and violent talk coming from her and the right isn't causing a toxic environment:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

See? We no longer solve political disagreement with duels. Only with one unbalanced geek holding a semi-automatic pistol. Besides, the Founding Fathers wanted us to get down into the muck and use the most vile, insulting, and personally slanderous insults in political debates! So forget about Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson. Political talk has always been icky. The fact that Palin, conservative commentators, and the tea-people pepper their rhetoric with thinly veiled references to armed revolt and that the left are traitors who should be eliminated with expediency isn't creating an atmosphere of intolerance ... it's just passionate debate.

However, the most impressive thing Palin attempts is a move with an incredibly high degree of difficulty: a complex four-part combination of: invoking the name of the real victim as a means of weeping her innocence, using 9-11 as a shield, proclaiming that combative conservative propaganda has never called the opposition anti-American, while simultaneously (you guessed it) accusing anyone disagreeing with her as being an anti-American:

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment [...] But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

See? It's clear that those who don't agree and who think that somehow the confrontational style of Palin has contributed to the demise of civility are just a bunch of anti-American, treacherous, communists who want to take away our freedoms.

It's as clear as day.

Nixon is: Impressed

Deny! Deny! Deny!

2011-01-11T13:23:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

In the aftermath of the assault on sitting US Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), which left several others dead, there've been questions as to motive. What on earth could have driven the young man responsible to intentionally target this Congresswoman.

Naturally, since the victim was a democrat the press and the more hysterical leftists automatically assume that the shooter, one Jared Loughner, was directly influenced by conservative rhetoric.

They gleefully pointed to such things as the somewhat aggressive nature of conservative talk show hosts and commentators like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc; the propensity with which right-wing candidates (such as Giffords' opponent in the recent election, Jesse "Machine Gun" Kelly) use militaristic and combat metaphors in reference to their opponents; the negative, confrontational, and occasionally exceedingly angry and violence-tinged tone of the recent tea-people protests; and much, much more.

Yet the subversives and hippies have reserved their largest scorn for our intrepid and plucky semi-Governor, Sarah Palin.

They note how Palin had at one point Twittered (in reference to congressional campaigns including Rep. Giffords' seat) "Don't retreat. Instead -- RELOAD!" imploring the public to visit her website which showed Rep. Giffords' district as one targeted for action with a rifle's crosshairs.

So, what are conservatives in general, and semi-Gov. Palin in particular, to do?

Exactly what they are doing now, and (not coincidentally) what I did back in 1972 when word of the Watergate nonsense first broke: Deny, Deny, Deny. When those two pinko reporters first started writing about Watergate I made sure that everyone on my staff - from the Vice President to the guy who mopped the puke in the men's room - vehemently denied it. And just like I did then, the tea-people and republicans are feverishly and bravely denying any blame now.

The beauty is that it doesn't matter that the accusations are correct. Sure, technically this Loughner guy was just one deranged individual acting on his own. But one can't expect to shit the bed then be surprised that it stinks. Of course all the violent, angry, belligerent, brutal, and confrontational bombast pouring from various republican candidates, tea-people websites and pamphlets, and conservative media is poisoning society and has created an atmosphere in which violence is inevitable. There's no doubt! One can't constantly refer to the opponent as anti-American traitors and terrorists; use images of guns, targets, bullets, and wanted posters in propaganda; or exhort supporters to take action using thinly veiled metaphors for attacking, warfare, and defending one's self from an enemy bent on destroying their freedom and then be surprised when some unstable geek decides to go on a shooting spree.

The point is, so what? Since when has the truth mattered, or since when do politicians or agitators accept responsibility for their behavior? The only way this will stop is if the orthogonians do something about it, and they won't. Because pandering to the most base level of fear, hatred, and paranoia works.

So it's important that the conservatives not only deny, but take the initiative. After all, denial on it's own appears like an admission of guilt. Therefore, one must try and turn the tables to implicate the other guy, because in politics, like football, the best defense is a good offense. I turned the tables against all of my enemies by insinuating at every opportinuty that their crimes and malfeasance made anything for which I was accused of seem like swiping bubblegum from the corner market. And the right is doing the same thing now: not only audaciously scrambling to wrest victimhood from the hands of those who were actually shot, but pointing the finger right back at the left, claiming that the whole shooting is their fault.

In an artful bit of deflection, Rebecca Mansour, semi-Gov. Palin's aide, not only dismissed suggestion that Palin's belligerent behavior and combative rhetoric were related to the shooting, but that it was actually Palin who was the real victim in all this. Mansour called any criticism of our plucky little reality television personality "obscene and appaling" implying how unfair and hurtful such claims are, and how deeply they are affecting the innocent and pure Sarah. Why, one can almost see our beloved Sarah plain-and-small laying face-down on her bed in a dimly lit room, clutching the skin of a bear she recently shot from a helicopter using a high-powered semi-automatic rifle equipped with a marksman's scope, softly weeping over how everyone is being so mean to her and paying all that attention to some stupid congresswoman (who wasn't even killed!).

It's enough to make a grown man need to take a moment to gather himself.

Nixon is: Impressed

Kruschev's Korner: Christmas is Red!

2011-01-10T10:21:00.000-08:00

S Rozhdestvom y Novym Godom, tovarichi - and Happy New Year to Workers under Capitalist Masters, also!

I have just returned from bolshoi vacation in celebration of revolutionary new year of 2011 and glorious party for most socialist of holidays, Christmas!

Da, is pravda! Christmas is Marxist holiday proving by science and irrefutable Russian logic. Think for minute about what is Christmas: Christmas is to portray as time when man wearing brilliant red suit redistributing wealth among workers and proletariat. Even famous Imperialist British writer, Charles Dickens makes clear how Christmas is socialist in very long book is name Christmases Carols. Not as good as Soviet novel, but still a strong moral tale of dedicated and noble worker Bob Cratchit and son Tiny Tim (who is being deformed in capitalist factory) having ultimate triumph over evil Ebeneezer Scrooge, who comes to eventual realization of superiority and equality of socialism as how for saving his soul.

Even in corrupt United States is populist Christmas understood and rejoicing. Of course, Americans are confused about proper day for Christmas. Is not on December 25 from Vatican propaganda says. No, poor Americans. Christmas is actually on January 7, according to proper calendar based in history and accurate Orthodox reading of Bible. In Russia we know real meaning of holiday is for enjoying much happiness and with family. For this, we have one long celebration, from New Year's Eve to Jan 7th. Everyone to go outside and practice skating and hockey. All peoples are together in equality of wonderful Socialism and there is much rejoicing. It is for this reason that Russian Governement allows Christmas celebration -- and not for drain money from pockets of peasants and workers. But Americanski is wrongly changing meaning of Christmas by making too much of buying and spending all their money on status-symbol gifts, and turn Christmas into profiteering and benefit of overseers and bourgeoisie at expense of proletariat.

Also, decadent capitalist are to forgetting about meaning of Christmas with perverting name to "Xmas" as if is salacious exploitation movie for debauchery and moral shortcoming for depraved Uzbeks.

Xmas? Nyet, comrade. Christmas is not about peddling flesh and getting prostitute for degenerate sex.

Sad, backward Americans, always for trying and trick People instead of embrace real message of Christmas. Is like old Russian saying: "Us v chest a boroda i u kozla yest" which is mean, A moustache is be making respected but even goat will wear beard!

Certain Western Economists in fit of jealousy and trying to bury wonderful Marxist origin of Christmas have been to critisize our weeklong national holiday, saying this is being to weaken powerful Russian economy and placing us two weeks behind other nations' production. Their backseat driving is silly nonsense. As in spirit of Socialism and placing good of state over individual, all workers simply work harder in final two weeks of January month!

Is understandable misconception by Western stooges: lazy Americans think that nothing will be accomplished unless workers are slave for corporate barons on job six days a week. Is remind me of joke popular in days after I left top job in CCCP. Someone will ask question of what is difference between Capitalist Hell and Soviet Hell? Here is answer: in Capitalist Hell, demon in top-hat and monocle drive eight centimeter nail into your ass every day at 8 AM, and after one month have 30 nails. In Soviet Hell, first ten days of month is no nails on shelf, so no driving. Next nine days, manager demon is in committee meetings discussing productivity and goal for next month. Next five days, worker demons are out sick. Next five days after, hammer is broken and new one must be procured. But on thirtieth day, all thirty nails are driven in.

See? So is just the same.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Morning Constitutional

2011-01-06T09:51:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

One of the things I find most fascinating about political strategy is it's apparent paradoxical nature. In almost every case, the more transparently mendacious, outrageously slanderous, and obviously patronizing a political accusation or statement is, the more likely it will be accepted by the orthogonians as being honest and sincere. I've always intuitively known that and my instinct was confirmed in my first campaign back in 1946 agasint incumbent John Voorhis, in which I blatantly lied about his communist sympathies. The more extreme my accusations were, the more the voters believed them. Needless to say, I won.

So, when I see as utterly ridiculous a stunt as the new tea-people in congress opening the session by reading the constitution, I have to applaud. This is something even the most depraved Hollywood PR agent couldn't have dreamed up. It's elegance lies in it's simplicity. On the surface, it seems innocent enough. What could be more American than starting congress by reading the seminal document in American history?

And therein lies the pearl of aggressive genius. By not only reading the constitution, but making it clear that it's never been done before in the entire history of the US government, it politicizes the act and allows the tea people to claim ownership of the constitution. And so, ispo facto, they must be the only ones who are dedicated to it and to protecting America's freedoms and liberty. The implication is clear: if the left truly believed in and supported the constitution, they would have done this a long time ago. But they didn't. Why? The answer is obvious. The left must consist of anti-American barbarians dedicated to overthrowing our freedoms. After all, the devil doesn't read the bible.

The problem for the tea-people who want to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution is twofold. First, there are the embarrassing little bits and pieces such as Article 1, section 2 and a few other not-very-flattering parts. Secondly, they also run the risk that reading the constitution in full may begin to awaken some curiosity in the minds of the public and spark the realization that some of their stated positions may not adhere to the spirit of the document (particularly in regards to application of the 1st, 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 16th amendments). However, it's a pretty safe bet for the tea people that most Americans won't see through this clumsy stunt. The Great Silent Majority out there is far more interested in the sizzle than the steak. Packaging, illusion, style over substance, hype - whatever you want to call it, the rubes in the heartland are persuaded by perception rather than reality, and by and large they are far too drunk or lazy to actually try and figure something out for themselves. In that way the orthogonians are quite passive and will rarely question whether a pig is wearing lipstick or that someone is pissing on their shoes while calling it sweet summer rain.

The only sad point in all of this is that no matter how hard they try, the tea-people will never be able to do as good a dramatic reading of the constitution as Capt. Kirk.

Nixon Approves

Bewitched

2010-12-30T13:18:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

It seems that even after an election, candidates (even losers) can still face slander, character assassination, and political attacks. Christine O'Donnell, the simpleton, teabag senatorial candidate from Delaware (and who is not a witch), is being investigated by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for misappropriation of campaign funds, and using the money for personal expenses. It’s a serious charge, and one that takes me back to my time as a young, brash candidate facing a similar problem.

In 1952, as candidate for Vice President, I was blindsided by some rumors and whispers coming from Adlai Stevenson’s camp regarding some funny business with my campaign funds. Let me be perfectly clear: these were completely false, and so of course I denied it. But the pinkos in the press were out to crucify me and they just wouldn't let up. Soon even Ike was starting to doubt me.

Now, you have to understand that painting a candidate with a brush of corruption is a political strategy as old as time itself. While I preferred attacking patriotism and character, I also occasionally used the spectre of financial shenanigans. And even if done in a clumsy manner, say the way the republicans tried to smear the Clintons with Whitewater in the 90's, it is effective.

For the person targeted by these accusations, the trick is in how to combat it. One way is to take the high-road; ignore the charges and hope that doing so denies them any legitimacy and they go away. The alternative is the aggressive approach in which one vigorously denies them to prove themselves innocent. In ’52 I first tried the former. However, ignoring the charge didn’t work because the press kept the accusations alive. As a result, the pressure mounted and so I was forced into the latter and had to publicly defend myself.

I had to make my case, convince the public and Ike that I was innocent and exonerate myself, or resign as Ike's running mate. Since I have never been a quitter, and leaving before the election is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body, I had no choice. So I demanded and got 30 minutes of TV time to refute the charges. I knew that this was a one-shot deal.

When the red-light on the television camera turned on, I began. I artfully laid out my finances, warts and all, for scrutiny. I accounted for every cent, showing both the origin and destination of my personal income, and showed where the campaign funds were allocated. I pointed out how I owned an average car, had a mortgage, and how my wife didn’t have a mink coat but a respectable republican cloth coat. In other words, I showed that I was just like the Joe Sixpacks and Sally Lunchpails out there watching me: an average Orthogonian being unfairly attacked by privileged Franklins. Then, as a coup de grace, I admitted to one potentially slight violation of campaign contributions: I mentioned how a donor gave my family a dog, and I stood up with as much fire and grit as I could, choking back emotion, and defiantly stated that since my girls seemed to like it, we were keeping him. And that dog saved my ass.

Although it was the most effective speech I ever gave and the response was overwhelmingly positive, it was the most humiliating experience of my life. Easily the bitterest pill I've ever had to swallow - even worse than getting out-schemed by that damned Kennedy in '60 or being mocked by the press in my California gubernatorial defeat in '62. I would have much preferred to have the rumor die quietly.

But Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t seem to be bothering with trying to ignore things. When news of the investigation broke out, she immediately took the offensive and vehemently denied any wrongdoing by issuing a statement saying the charges are politically motivated. She’s adopting a scattergun defense, taking aim at everyone from her own campaign workers to Vice President Joe Biden, accusing them all of targeting her in some liberal conspiracy to bring her down, stating,

"You have to look at this whole thug-politic tactic for what it is [...] Given that the king of the Delaware political establishment just so happens to be the vice president of the most liberal presidential administration in U.S. history, it is no surprise that misuse and abuse of the FBI would not be off the table"

Now, on the surface it would seem that Ms. O’Donnell is doing exactly what I did nearly 60 years ago - bravely facing down the charges. Except that her defense isn't one. Unlike me, she hasn't offered any evidence or facts to prove her innocence. No financial records or proof of income. In fact, all she's done is accuse others of ganging up on her. It's a risky tactic because it's far too transparent and stinks of a guilty person desperately trying to deflect the truth.

Not only that, but her victimization claim seems shaky. Back in '52 when it happened to me I was an active candidate for Vice President addressing an assault during a hotly contested campaign. O'Donnell has already lost her campaign, having been stomped and publicly exposed as a lightweight, and is fading into the obscurity of being a political asterix. She’s no more than a punch line to a joke about embarrassing American political campaigns, and has about as much relevance as a half-eaten egg salad sandwich left on a bench in some rural bus depot.

In other words, her claiming to be some sort of victim of a cabal run by evolutionists, masturbators, and papists simply doesn’t make any sense. A "conspiracy" defense only works for people who are already (or potentially) in a position of power.

Sure, it's completely absurd and makes her seem more of a paranoid nincompoop than she already is. But, bless her dimwitted heart, at least she’s fighting. Who cares if she’s doesn't have the capacity to understand that the idea she’s being targeted is ludicrous? She’s going down swinging and sticking to her pig-ignorance. Does it matter that she's already admitted guilt by confirming that she spent campaign funds on her rent since she claimed her home doubled as her headquarters? Not in the least. We already knew she was completely stupid, but at least now we also know the little dullard has guts. And that’s got to count for something.

My advice to Ms. O'Donnell is to get a dog. Preferably a Cocker Spaniel.

Nixon Approves

Season's Greetings!

2010-12-25T09:53:00.000-08:00

All the Kennedys in Boston liked Christmas a lot.
But the Nixon, down in Yorba Linda
Did not.

Nixon is: Festive

False START

2010-12-21T14:10:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

The end of the year is traditionally a time for people to reflect on what has happened and turn toward what is coming. Unless, of course, you're the president with an agenda facing the last few days of a lame-duck congress. In that case, the end of the year is a time of pressure and anxiety as you scramble to salvage as many of your initiatives as possible before the new (and hostile) group comes in and sabotages your every move.

The matter of Obama's Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia is a perfect example. President Obama has asked the congress to ratify START before congress adjourns for the end of the year. The republicans, wearing their pants high after successful mid-term elections and gaining the extension of the Bush tax cuts, are resistant and looking to again flex their muscles. The rationale of the republican senators who wish to delay the vote on the treaty is that they want to take reasonable time to debate it and ensure that it allows for sufficient protections for the United States is hard to refute.

However, as others have pointed out, what happens in the senate, particularly as it concerns matters of the president, is usually not based on logic, nor because of a Left-Right philosophical incongruity. Instead, too often, it becomes little more than a pissing contest between the legislative and executive branches, where the senate obfuscates a president's agenda simply because they can. Sadly, congress wants to feel important and relevant, and to do so they often resort to taking a position contrary to that of the president simply because it focuses attention on them. What they really need to do is understand that if the president does something of this level, the job of congress is simply to approve it and nothing more. Congress should focus on domestic issues and not meddle in international affairs. Foreign policy should be the sole territory of the president. Congress has neither the capacity nor opposable thumbs required for that sort of delicate work.

So, while the president is pressing for swift ratification, the senate, led by Sens McConnel (R-KY) and Kyl (R-AZ) is intentionally playing a low-tempo game. Now, far be it for me to question the integrity of my fellow republicans, but there are some who have wondered whether their intransigence is actually justified. And while I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to members of my party, I have more than enough first-hand experience with senators to know that they can often act on selfish reasons ahead of what's good for the country.

Back in 1972, I found myself in a similar situation. I, along with Kissinger, had been working with Leonid Brezhnev, Aleksander Dobrynin, and the Soviets since 1969 on the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT). And anyone who has had to face the Soviets knows that this was a very delicate matter. After three years of endless summits in desolate locales negotiating megatonnage, deployment vectors, MIRVs and MRVs, ICBMs, and methods of verification, we finally had an agreement. To say it was a noteworthy accomplishment is more than a gross understatement.

SALT should have been cause for massive celebrations along the level of VE and VJ day. I should have been met with a ticker-tape parade in Times Square, fireworks, and been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Instead, as Henry said, the republicans in the senate treated me like a schlub (its one of those funny sounding Hebrew words he would often use). They questioned my patriotism and reacted to the treaty with knee-jerk opposition and skepticism. Some even wondered aloud whether I'd capitulated to the communists and ensured the destruction of our nation. They demanded an open debate to dissect the treaty and then had the temerity to suggest changes according to their whims. It made no difference to them that between me and Henry we had the two sharpest international political minds involved. Oh no! Those ingrates felt as if somehow they had the right to meddle, even though they had about as much understanding of the intricacies of the agreement as a hillbilly has of personal hygiene.

Their interference almost sent Henry over the edge, but I understood the congressional mind (having served as both representative and senator). All those small people wanted was their moment in the spotlight. Maybe a few pictures in their local papers for the rubes. Ultimately, they voted to ratify the treaty. But not without first butting in to the process like an unwanted alcoholic half-brother at Thanksgiving dinner.

It's not surprising that things haven't changed all that much, although in today's climate it seems that the vocal opposition of Senators McConnel and Kyl are more about being against something Obama is for. Still, it boils down to those to just being the sort of pushy dunderheads who crave the attention and validation of their existence. People like them ought to realize that their constant intrusion does nothing but needlessly complicate things. But their inflated sense of self-importance prevents that.

Nixon is: Frustrated

Happy Hour: Bush Tax Cuts Get Donkey Punched

2010-12-09T13:25:00.000-08:00

Cheers!

You know, it's been tough trying to be positive about how my fellow Democrats have been doing in congress lately. We get clobbered in the mid-term elections ceding control of the House and having the Senate majority trimmed to a sparse majority of 53. We manage to pass a watered-down version of the revolutionary healthcare bill, but Don't Ask-Don't Tell is not yet repealed; the DREAM Act hasn't yet seen the light of day; Clean Energy continues to be hobbled by big business interests; and we still have combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's enough to make a guy take up drinking, so it's a good thing I've been doing it for a while.

However, every now and then something happens that brings a smile to my face, and reaffirms my belief that today's Democratic Party actually stands for something, the way it used to when my brothers ran the show. Today was one of those days when the Donkeys in the House of Representatives took a collective sip of courage, stood up to the bullying of the Republicans, and voted to reject the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, while keeping the current cuts for middle-class and working Americans in place.

This is a significant show of spine by the Dems not seen since Tip O'Neill would stomp through the House commissary, drinking other fellas' milkshakes. And, it calls the bluff on the GOP, who held working-class Americans hostage by threatening to oppose the extension of the unemployment benefits for long-term out of work Americans unless the rich got their tax cut.

Naturally, the Republicans will squeal like stuck pigs about this. They'll lie about how the Democrats want to hike taxes and spread fear about how this is going to further harm the economy. Their argument has been that giving the wealthy their tax cut stimulates the economy because as the wealthy spend their money it will create jobs. What they don't say is that the wealthy will use the extra money to buy monocles, light their cigars with $100 bills, and pay whores to indulge their unspeakable repressed perversions.

Republicans will also just ignore the fact that passing this tax cut extension while simultaneously extending the unemployment benefits would really kill the economy by increasing the defecit even further. They'll also forget to mention that we've already been enjoying this tax break for the past 6 years or so, and it hasn't yet resulted in job growth or economic prosperity.

In fact, we've already had about 30 years of this nonsense and the economy (for regular Americans) has been steadily deteriorating since "Trickle Down" was first introduced by Reagan in 1980. It didn't work then, and it's not going to magically work now.

Which begs the question: why are the Republicans so eager to see the cut extended?

Well, there's the fact that the people who would benefit most from this extension are the ones pulling the strings of the GOP. But that's only part of it. They know quite well that extending the tax cuts is a bum deal that would ruin the economy and leave the US in even worse shape two years from now. In fact, they're counting on it. They realize that their best chance to unseat Obama in 2012 will be if the economy has continued to deteriorate. So they are more than willing to inflict more hardship if it buys them the presidency.

So, now the ball is in the Repubicans' court. The Democrats have found their pride and that's worth toasting. So raise a glass with me.

Bottoms Up!

Kruschev's Korner: World Cup is Red!

2010-12-06T09:38:00.000-08:00

Dobro yutro, comrades!

Perhaps you have heard the bolshoi izvestia of past week? No, is not how your capitalist president Obama is having hard time trying to fix corrupt Amercanski economy. Is much bigger than this. Central committee of FIFA has wisely chosen Mother Russia to host Wold Cup in 2018. They have correctly rejected bid from perfidious and treacherous England, as well as joint bids by tiny Belgium and Netherlands and also by imperialists Portugal and Spain. And to showing how FIFA recognizes of not rewarding greedy enemy of global proletariat, American attempt to purchase the tournament for 2022 by sending running dog Bill Clinton was rightfully ignored, showering corporate stooges with much shame.

This is as should be because Football is people's game and shining example of Socialism. In game, each player contributes to glory of team, none tries to monopolize ball. Maybe this explains why American team is never taste success on football pitch?

President of Russkaya Football Soyuz, Comrade Sergei Fursenko, makes brave in statement to say,

“Nobody can stop us from achieving our goals for 2018. We now need to focus on the tasks ahead: the construction of 16 new stadiums and 72 training centres. Today, this has suddenly become a reality. I would therefore like to congratulate everyone – this is a victory for all of us.”

Is pravda! Back in my youth when Czar was oppressing the land, the people had no stadium. None, none, none! Football we played by kicking head of cabbage around in muddy field after donkeys finish plowing. And we had no training centers. Training consist of trying to prevent drunken Uzbeks of stealing cabbage. After glorious 1917 Revolution new socialist government of Lenin is building scientific sports complex, and Soviet athletes show superiority in international competitions, like glorious Soviet goalkeeper and premier player in world, Lev Yashin.

Lev Yahsin makes spectacular save for mighty Soviet Football Soyuz!

Today is beginning of bright new glorious dawn for Soviet Football thanks to hard work and sacrifice by the People with guidance of scientific Socialism.

Capitalist countries cannot prevail against tide of history. Last year U.S. President Obama struck out trying to extort the IOC and win Olympics for his hometown of Chicago by going to Copenhagen carrying bags of money and threat of American military imperialism. This year Russia sends supermodel Natalia Vodianova to Zurich as display of warmth, protection, and nurturing love of socialism for all exploited peoples and races, and BAM gets World Cup.

Beautiful socialism is love and protecting on all races

We Russki have a saying that fits American failure with Olympics and 2022 World Cup: "Nitko idet k Tulom so svoim samovarom." This is meaning that nobody should traveling to Tula and bringing their own samovar. But don't worry, Americanski. Russia is gracious host and will allow you to come and play. And after you lose in opening round, can stay as guest and enjoying the vast landscape and pleasant hospitality of Mother Russia.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Taking a Leak

2010-12-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

My fellow Americans,

A lot has been made over the release of classified, sensitive, and secret diplomatic information by the WikiLeaks website, with considerable attention given to some of the characterizations of foreign leaders.

News outlets pounced on such purile and lurid passages as calling Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi "feckless, vain and ineffective as a leader", and with a penchant for throwing "wild parties." Or those painting French President Nicolas Sarkozy as having a "thin-skinned and authoritarian personal style" with a bit of an inferiority complex. Now, many Americans probably agree with this and don't understand the uproar over this leak. After all, none of this is actually top-secret information. We all know that Berlusconi is a drooling old whoremonger and that Sarkozy is a petulant hobbit.

The naive among us would look upon something like this as simply transparency, and the right of the people to be informed about what their government is doing. But that's not true. Much like the process of making sausage, there are things in government and diplomacy that the people are better off not knowing. And your average orthogonian doesn't really want to know what happens behind the scenes. He's happy just knowing that the government is taking action to keep him secure, healthy, and free. The less he knows about the specifics, the better.

But that isn't the point. The content is incidental to the act. It doesn't matter that most of these comminications are mundane reports about unimportant incidents in insignificant countries. What is pertinent is that the publication of these documents is a serious and major breach in the integrity of our protected communications and a blow to our national security.

So these leaks, while cloaked in the guise of transparency, are really just the attempt of Franklins looking to take a potshot at the power structure. I know, because I had a similar experience. In June, 1971 the leading voice of the subversives and agitators, the New York Times, started publishing excerpts from the classified "Pentagon Papers" which detailed the top-secret American strategy, analysis, plans, and intentions for political and military operations in Vietnam. It didn't matter that this information was compiled during my predecessor's administration. The important thing was that this was secret government communications and it was now in the hands of the liberal press. It was a leak, and that level of aggression simply can not be allowed to stand unanswered. As president, it was my duty to respond.

Now, while you might not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, you can break the hands of the dirty rat who opened the lid and let it out. Retaliation, disproportionate in it's intensity, is whats needed. And that's just what I did back in '71. Once we smoked out that snake Ellsberg it was all about payback. And that's what needs to happen now. This Asange is thumbing his nose at the sanctity of government and the privilege of politicians and diplomats to perform without fear of public scrutiny.

When I faced this matter I chose Liddy for the job. He was a nasty and vicious bastard, and wanted nothing more than the chance to go Cambodian on some pointy-headed East Coast liberal like Ellsberg. I wanted the sweet revenge of destroying his reputation, livelihood, and personal life, while I think Liddy had something a bit more immediately physical in mind. In any case, a slipup during the infiltration of Ellberg's psychiatrist's office quashed the plans.

But at least I had the minerals to take action.

Now it's Obama's turn. He needs to find some psychotic beast willing to risk everything to get to this character and run a spike up his ass. At this point it's about principle. And that is more precious than any memo describing the Iranians as selfish, uncooperative misanthropes.

Nixon is: Vengeful

Debriefing: What Happened to My America?

2010-11-08T11:03:00.000-08:00

MISSION TIME: ZULU ZULU TANGO

Greetings fellow patriots.

The other day, as I was exercising my God-given right to walk the streets of my community, my blood froze. There before me I saw the most curious sight I’ve seen since that drugged out hippy Timothy Leary. Yes, friends, they were cameras. Mounted on poles at intersections with the intent of watching you.

Upon seeing the surveillance my training kicked in and I immediately used my God-given agility, honed by the American military, to quickly take cover behind some foliage while simultaneously drawing the firearm I always keep at my side (promised us by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States of America).

I did a quick reconnaissance of the area, secured my perimeter, and confident that there was no threat re-holstered my weapon. I again looked up at the surveillance cameras and wondered to myself about them.

On the one hand, I applauded the initiative required to ensure the public’s continued compliance with the law. Constantly monitoring the activity of revolutionaries, anarchists, and other un-American leftist organizations is something we only dreamed of in the turbulent days of the counter-culture. Limits on our ability to gather information meant that our prosecution of the war against the subversives took longer, and often required unwavering dedication and relentless hard work of good patriots in order to preserve our American society. Back then, a computerized, round-the-clock, blanket surveillance system was the stuff of fantasy.

But then it dawned on me: these cameras could also be used for evil by those same communist sympathizers as a means of preventing true Americans, like you and me, from carrying out our duty. Suddenly remembering that we have a socialist president, that realization sent a chill down my spine.

This is not the America I knew and loved. That was an America where a bright, ambitious young attorney could plot to kidnap anti-war protesters, take them to Mexico bound and gagged, and leave them there to rot -- or die (which ever came first).

This was now a mendacious America of the weak. An America of Sam Ervin, Woodward and Bernstein, and that treacherous swine, John Dean. An America of filthy weasels and sniveling snitches that keep their eyes and cameras watching us. Instead of patriotic Americans using this new technology to protect ourselves from leftist insurgents and intellectual agitators, those same enemies could now compile intel on us. Much the way the Weathermen and the Black Panthers began to develop their own espionage organizations in the 70’s to try and infiltrate our police and government security agencies, it seems our new socialist government is looking for a new way to monitor us. Recording and keeping files on true Americans, lying about us and following us and asking about us … and ratting us out, turning on us when we least expect it.

This environment where one is constantly under threat of being betrayed by an informant reminds me of my time in prison. On one occasion an inmate was suspected of snitching on one of my comrades. In order to ascertain the veracity of this suspicion, I recruited a few trustworthy Cuban-born accomplices and devised a careful plan to expose the truth, which I called Operation Veritas. The plan was for my companions to enact an elaborate mock-fracas involving pro- and anti-Castro demonstrators combined with copious shouting and a small but vigorous melee to occupy the attention of the guards while I then isolated the suspected rat in the laundry, behind a large container filled with soiled linen. Once my position was secure, I would interrogate the suspect with a series of cross-referenced questions and strategically placed kicks to the balls. The operation was a complete success, and the suspected snitch admitted his guilt. I just wish that guy was Dean.

My razor-sharp insight tells me I am on to something larger and more sinister than I ever suspected; but much as I had to first put Operation Veritas into action before dealing with the snitch, I must ferret out the facts. Nonetheless, the clues are already there. Do you think it a coincidence that these cameras are around at the same time a muslim in Christian's clothing is president and that pinko Jerry Brown is once again the Governor of California?

I think not!

Yours, ever vigilant in God’s sight.

G

Kruschev's Korner: Goal!

2010-06-16T11:37:00.000-07:00

Dobro Yutro, Comrades!

Many of my American friends maybe not knowing that is currently playing in South Africa the World Cup of football. World Cup is big international tournament and world celebration more important for all people than Olympics. All world are stop work and put attention on football pitch to watch people's game. Poor Americans not understand this, and even make mistake and call game soccer instead of football, because American have own game called "football." But Americanski football is not actual football. How can be? Is played with hands and never use feet on ball! Is should be called handball.

But in FIFA World Cup tournament yesterday was exciting match featuring corporate sponsored Brazil playing stalwart socialist representatives of Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Many in world are thinking Brazil is the most impressive football team, but really are typical capitalist stooges - mercenaries who play for money and always showing off. But DPRK is solid and courageous team made from proud socialist men who play for strength and pride.

Game was perfect example of eternal struggle of people against oppression. Brazilian are make constant attacking but brave DPRK defense is powerful like unpenetrable wall protecting against western decadence. Eventually, corrupt match referee conspire with degenerate and greedy FIFA officials to give Brazil advantage to win. But even though final score is 2:1, DPRK are true winners by show socialism is defender of all people in world.

Compare fearless DPRK with pitiful USA attempt. Americans show how decadent lifestyle of debauchery and hedonism make for soft and weak team. Americanski players are confused, and only by laughable and cowardly mistake by imperialist British goalkeeper can save USA from crushing embarassment of exposing crumbling capitalist system.

Also typical of capitalisti, Americans know is impossible to win World Cup and so must use puppets like Brazil or Germany. Brave socialist warriors of DPRK are stand alone and face entire world.

And sad that Americans are not seeing entire world celebration because of narrow mind and arrogance in sport. Maybe if vain Americans try and learn more about international peoples it would help stop militaristic American imperialst war machine, for to make better peace in world.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

The Chosen People

2010-06-04T08:20:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

In what can only be labeled a cowardly attempt to kick me when I am unable to defend myself, the Democrats yesterday started squealing like a stuck pig alleging that I am an anti-semite because of a memo written by Fred Malek, a low-level lackey in my administration.

Let me be perfectly clear about this. The American people deserve to know whether their president was an anti-semite. Well, I am not an anti-semite. If I were, would I have had Henry Kissinger as my second in command - someone in whom I had the ultimate confidence, trust, and respect? And let's face it, Henry's about as Jew as one could be. He's what the Hebrews would call a real "Mensch" (which I think means either stand-up fellow or shrewd negotiator). Heck, Henry is more a Jew than most rabbis out there. And he's not the only Jew I knew. Golda Meir was a friend of mine, and I had the distinct pleasure of being embraced by no less a Jew than Sammy Davis Jr.

Are these the pictures of an anti-semite?

The Democrats are basing their preposterous accusations on a few recently released memos attributed to this Malek guy. Among them are one in which he supplied a list of people who he described as "ethnic" with "Jewish sounding names" for removal from their positions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Malek's role, overseen by Bob Haldeman, was to identify those within the Bureau who were pinko sympathizers, agitators, or otherwise hostile to the efforts of my administration. Naturally, we wanted these men out. But not because they were Jewish. It was because they consistently misrepresented economic statistics with the sole intent of undermining my credibility and authority. It's simply a matter of coincidence that these people were also Hebrews. Jew or not, I wanted men who were loyal. And, in my experience, I have found that, overall, Jews can be among the most loyal people around. I think it's something their mothers instilled in them (you know how big a role mothers play for Jews), and along with an instinctive understanding of calculating interest, this extreme loyalty is something in which those people can take justifiable pride.

Also, consider this: the individuals specified by Malek were accountants, economists, statisticians, and other financially-related professionals. Do you honestly think that I could have ever replaced them with non-Jews? So again, tell me, how on earth could I be a anti-semite if I replace a pinko Jew with a true patriotic, loyal Jew? If anything, those who claim that republican Jews are less Jewish than democratic Jews sound like the true anti-semites here.

But none of this fools me. Defamation and character assassination is the Nixon way, and I can smell a smear campaign from a mile away. This whole thing is just a cheap hustle by the Democrats trying to use alleged anti-semitism to slander the republican candidates in the upcoming mid-term election. But once again, the democrats prove that they're pikers when it comes to dirty-campaigning. Do they really think the Orthogonians would be sympathetic toward a pack of whiney, subversive, pointy-headed, intellectual Jews in the government? What the democrats don't understand (or, what they simply refuse to acknowledge) is that while the rich folks may hate the poor folks, the catholics may hate the protestants, and the hindus may hate the mohammedans, everybody hates the Jews.

Nixon Disapproves

Land of the Lost

2010-06-01T14:36:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

I’d like to take this moment to talk to you about an incident involving president Obama and the Democratic party that you may have missed.

It seems that the Obama administration sent Bill Clinton over to Pennsylvania to bribe Rep. Joe Sestak with an unnamed position in the administration if he would only give up his challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter for the senate nomination. The reason is clear: the democrats obviously understand that in the general election in November the republican candidate would beat this Sestak guy like an evangelical christian in a mohammedan prison riot.

This isn’t any stupendous feat of political insight. Arlen Specter is still a fixture in Pennsylvania, and has considerable appeal for the center. And, in this climate of anti-incumbency and ambivalence toward the spirit of “hope” it’s probably a good idea to have someone who is palatable to the dim-witted Orthogonians. Besides, Specter is familiar enough in PA so that, if nothing else, the nostalgia vote may be enough to put him over the top.

And top everything off with the fact Obama owes a significant debt to Specter for changing sides in 2009, giving the democrats a super-majority of 60 seats. So when it became clear that this Sestak guy would be a genuine threat, the administration was faced with an unexpected and very delicate problem: how to ensure their preferred candidate would get the nomination without appearing to meddle in local politics.

That's no small problem, and back in the 1970 mid-term elections I was faced with a similar dilemma. The junior senator from New York up for re-election was Charles Goodell, a republican, who was appointed by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill Bobby Kennedy’s seat in '68. However, although Goodell was a member of my party, he was an agitating bleeding-heart who consistently opposed my strategies for Vietnam and the country. Just like that damned Rockefeller, he was a Franklin and a republican in name only, and needed to be purged. After meeting with my trusted inner-circle, I decided that James L. Buckley, (brother of noted conservative gasbag William F. Buckley and a very vocal hawk on Vietnam and opponent of the anti-war hippies), would be a trusted ally, and one on whom I could count in my growing battles against complacency, subversion, and appeasement.

Unfortunately, as leader of the party, it would not be seemly for me to actively campaign against one of my own - even if he was soft. Goodell, while undependable, was a republican after all, so it was a very delicate matter that required finesse and, above all, no evidence of overt tampering by the president. So, rather than my usual course of action (like sending a squad of hired goons to rough him up, or spending good slush-fund cash to bribe him), I opted for a more delicate maneuver: using Spiro Agnew as a foil to erode his support and to turn the people against him. Remember, by that time Agnew had become something of a minor-celebrity among conservative fanboys and hard-hats who wanted nothing more than to believe that their government was out there busting the nuts of liberal peaceniks. Agnew’s inflammatory rhetoric and bombastic attitude were the perfect way to whip up hysteria, so I sent him to campaign throughout New York urging people to vote for the candidate who would “support the president.”

Agnew never mentioned any names. He didn't need to. His heavy implication and pointed remarks made it clear who we preferred.

And as expected, in '70 Goodell lost his election. But this Sestak fellow won the recent primary. Why? Because Obama’s clumsy bribe of offering Sestak some sort of administration position was played far too ham-handedly. Even worse, the president offered very little incentive and even less threat. A good political power play always has a tempting carrot so when the rube does sell out he can salve his conscience by telling himself he made the right choice. But these offers also carry an ominous stick, so that if the candidate stubbornly clings to something as quaint as ethics, there is a clear and real menace as consequence to his intransigence. And to top it all off, there was no subtlety in this. Where was the subterfuge or the coverup? Since when is the assassination of a political career done without deniability? This would never have flown in my time. Not only would the operative tasked with getting Sestak out of the race been hidden beneath layers and layers of cover, but we would have given the entire operation a cool name. All my dirty tricks were fully covert and had codenames. That sort of minor attention to detail promotes an esprit de corps and sense of gravity.

If this is how the Obama team handles a problem within their own ranks, how on earth are they going to manage the North Koreans?

Nixon is: Amused

Kruschev's Korner: Mars Is Red!

2010-05-19T07:28:00.000-07:00

Dobro yutro, Komrades!

Recently, I have been watching typical Americanski "futuristic" televisions program is name "Firefly." Is cautionary tale of dangers of corrupt Capitalist decadance, filled with many gun battles and fantasy. Very good is character called "Niska." Niska is typical Capitalist, selfish and cruel and makes for good example of western imperialist for to teach children about evils. Good also are Reavers -- like Cossacks but without singing and dancing. Both are trouble for small band of heroic revolutionaries, who fought against fascist oppressors, but must always flee from place to place from being outlaws of greedy system.

Only is one flaw with this program: Is complete fairy tale of deranged propaganda showing German central planets, with USA and China main colonists of Space. Nyet, nyet, nyet, Mr. Whedon, this is laughable premise: XA XA XA !!! Everyone knows is Soviets who will prevail and settle space for better good of all mankind and bringing socialist harmony. When is time for man to create base on Mars, it will be from socialist glory and work, not decadent capitalist blood money and advertising stickers.

And proof for this is plain as nose on face, EVEN NOW, NASA SHUTTLE ATLANTIS IS CARRY OUT HER FINAL MISSION for Americanski Space Program! And is only two more missions planned for ANY Americanski Shuttles: Discovery to fly in September and Endeavor is last in November. After November, all western astronauts will be left as beggar in streets of capitalist cities like London, and must seek transport from glorious Russian Space Agency in order to reach International Space Station.

But not to worry! We will not leave our poor American cousins standing with thumbs out in Baikonur Cosmodrome waiting for lift. Nyet, we will graciously help poor Americans get to space station -- for now. Their foolish leaders have willingly lowered United States back to rank of second rate space power like Kazakhs or Italians, just as in day when Soviet Union launched Sputnik and when Yuri Gagarin became first man in space one year after. Gone is competitions between US and Soviet rockets. Gone even is cooperative era of Soyuz-Apollo mission. Americans give good effort but is not capable of maintaining technology and will to be in space. So now Russia now stands athwart Space like a colossus - but always with open hands to help others in spirit of sharing.

Americans once were fearless pioneers of space -- fearless in following lead set by Soviet Union in 1960 and '61. Following even heroic Soviet dog, Laika, who is going in space before Americans. The destruction of Challenger and Columbia are testament to bravery. Since turn of century, however, NASA has lost nerve. Attitude today is, "Oh, no! Third auxiliary backup toaster is broken. Launch must be postponed." If Russian spacecraft gets broke, cosmonauts fix with twine and chicken wire, no problem, and go. Is difference between Capitalists and Socialists: Capitalists are lazy and always looking to buy solution to problem. But Socialists are resourceful and can manage to fix their way out of trouble with ingenuity and common sense. For decades, Americans led own space missions; but now impoverished and cowardly heads at NASA will relegate brave Americanski astronauts to being mechanics and like Uzbeki repairmen: changing batteries in Space Station. Is sad.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Oh, Henry! Iranian Headache

2010-05-18T08:38:00.000-07:00

There has been quite a lot of commotion about the recent agreement by the government of the Republic of Iran to ship 1200 kilograms of low-enriched Uranium to Turkey, bringing it into compliance with the Atomic Energy Agency’s October agreement negotiated by the U.S., Russia, France and Iran.

The delay compliance by the Iranians is not accidental. Waiting these six months has ensured that they can ship the specified amount of uranium and still have enough in stock from which to construct an atomic device. Further, they are retaining the right to continue to enrich uranium for future use.

This is not surprising at all. Let me tell you, as someone who has experience dealing with the Arabic mind, that they are among the most treacherous maniacs on earth. Every word they say has at least three meanings, and a few hidden ones. They are filled with malice and will never turn their backs on an opportunity to make a deal to their advantage.

The problem with dealing with Arabs is that they are a race of cheats, con artists, and scoundrels. Fraud and swindling are as much a genetic trait in them as is their oily nature and unsettling smiles. Not only that, they use the fact that they are innately repulsive to everyone to help them gain the upper hand. So although they are finally acquiescing to the letter of the original agreement, they are doing so in a way they know the west cannot accept, thus allowing them to appear the victimized party – brutally oppressed by the never-satisfied western powers.

In the absence of a military reprisal, the only tool available to the international coalition is economic. And applied successfully, sanctions could be quite effective against the Iranians. They are people that do not do well with privation. They are spoiled, greedy, materialistic, and addicted to the gaudy trappings of status. Take away their ability to buy Gucci sunglasses or French colognes and suddenly you’ll find them quite conciliatory. But that won’t happen as long as the Russians and Chinese keep the tap open to designer handbags and Italian loafers.

But the real work here will be with the Brazilians and Turks, who actually brokered this deal. These opportunistic lampreys must believe that this is their chance to make their bones on the international scene. The advantages for both are clear: Turkey will improve it’s standing in Europe and help it secure admission into the EU, while Brazil seeks to emerge as the power in South America.

So rather than waste time speaking with the Iranians, what the US, British, and French need to do is have more private negotiations with the Russians, Chinese, Turks and Brazilians. They still have some sway with Iran. For every one contact with Iran there must be five behind the scenes contacts with them. It’s vital to convince them it’s in their interest to not trade with the Iranians. One hand washes the other.

And the time is right. These people will be completely preoccupied with the World Cup in June and July, and the last thing they'll want to do is sit for hours on end in sweltering rooms with swarthy, cuminy Iranians when they could be enjoying a game of soccer. Diplomacy is the art of using the weaknesses of others against them. It's time to press our advantage.

Gehen Gazint!

Extreme Justice

2010-05-17T09:34:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

Many of you may not be aware of a significant decision by the US Supreme Court today. In United States vs Comstock, the Supreme Court voted 7 -2 (with Justices Thomas and Scalia dissenting) that the federal government has the right to hold a person convicted of a federal sexual offense beyond the completion of their prison term if they are deemed to be a still be "sexually dangerous." According to the Justice Breyer (writing in the majority opinion),

[Congress has the right to enact laws] to punish [sexual criminals'] violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.

In other words, the federal government can keep someone in prison for as long as they want. Provided they claim he is still a danger.

Now, much of the legal gibberish in the actual decision involves requiring the federal authorities prove that the individual is still a threat and that releasing him would cause a threat to the community. On the surface, that seems to be in agreement with the spirit of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments (all of which cover laws and legal rights). But let's be real. For all practical purposes what it does is allow the government to accuse, try, and convict a person of a crime they haven't yet done but may commit. It's pre-emptive justice: you will be sentenced to an indefinite extension of your prison term because it is likely you will commit a crime in the future.

It's beautiful. A sublime act of Orwellian philosophical gymnastics. The government will proactively convict people on their potential to commit crime in order to protect the innocent rubes out there. Oh sure, some of the liberals may yowl about freedom, due process, and fascism, but nobody will take them seriously. The Orthogonians will support it because it's about protecting them from sex-crazed perverts looking to repeatedly sodomize their children and use them for other unspeakable pleasures of the flesh. Oppression is easy if you can sell it as protection. Remember, the nazis didn't come into power by the muzzle of a gun, they did so by exploiting fear.

The more I think about this ruling the more I like it. And I mean I like it a lot. It's a good Nixon ruling, and I only wish this would have been decided back in '68. Think of what I could have done. I could have used the DOJ as my own personal hit-squad ensuring compliance of the press and keeping the radicals on the left in line by tossing them in the hoosgow because of the problems they might cause. My enemies list would have become a court docket for immediate prosecution. It's the exact system the Soviets and the Chinese had at their disposal to keep their people in line. And it worked. Hell, all I would have needed is a couple of shrewd Jew lawyers to help out John Dean, and we could have really cleaned house, throwing the radical hippies, treacherous intellectuals, and militant negroes in jail simply by showing they could commit crimes. There would have been no Watergate hoopla because we wouldn't have been forced to go underground to take care of the problem. All we'd have needed to do was grab Woodward & Bernstein, a few of those pinkos in congress, and other rabble-rousers and put them away.

Oh, if only I was born 40 years later.

Nixon Approves

Happy Hour: Oil's Well That Ends Well

2010-05-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

Te.

Cheers!

You can count me as one of New Orleans' biggest fans. I've long appreciated the sweaty charm of the Big Easy. Many is the time I've spent lost weekends in it's dusky embrace, bathed in the spicy musk of creole sensuality and alcohol-fueled enthusiasm.

So, naturally, seeing the area once again be threatened with a devastating disaster is very difficult for me to take. The only time one should smell petroleum in New Orleans is if you pay good money for the privilege.

Make no mistake, the spill need not have been this bad. While in the Senate, I was one of the most fervent voices for regulating the oil industry - but a procession of Republican presidents and congresses disagreed, result in BP getting approval to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without the required Environmental Impact Assessment study, or commitments to safety and redundant back-up systems in case of accident. You know, the kind of hands-off approach the Republican Party support in their "Drill, Baby, Drill" zeal.

Not surprisingly, conservatives are now stumbling over themselves to try and gain some level of distance between themselves and their greasy monster, while others are spouting the Orwellian claim that somehow this is the fault of the Democrats and President Obama – going so far as to call this “Obama’s Katrina” as if the two events had anything in common aside from geography. The absurdity is astonishing. How Hurricane Katrina in 2005 parallels with the current situation is something even a dozen or so belts of whiskey doesn’t explain. The Hurricane was a disaster that directly impacted the city and it’s residents, demanding swift federal response in terms of emergency, health, evacuation, and housing support. The oil spill requires none of these, yet even so Obama and the government are monitoring the situation and have offered support as needed.

The Bush administration's inactivity during Hurricane Katrina showed them to be completely over-matched and unprepared. Although it was known well before landfall that Katrina would be a devastating storm, there were no preliminary efforts made by the federal government to have some sort of support or emergency response contingency in effect. When the storm hit and the nation watched a city drown before their eyes Bush did his best impression of Nero, picking and strumming a guitar with a total disregard for the people suffering. It was only a week after the fact that Bush arrived in New Orleans for a few clumsily staged photos trying to make him seem engaged and concerned.

Yet still the republican wags are blaming Obama for not donning his cape and using his super-powers to stop the leak himself. It’s almost as if they are calling for the federal government to step in, take over for the company, and handle every aspect of the containment and clean-up – from the cost to the manpower. These are the same people who yowled like stuck pigs at the idea of the government providing healthcare to those unable to get it for themselves.

But even more amazing is how the right are suddenly using Katrina as a pejorative, after claiming (with a straight face) that Bush did nothing wrong. How can the perfectly acceptable actions of Bush during the hurricane suddenly be held as some sort of low-water mark for Obama? Can it be that even republican expectations for Bush were so low that his not visibly pissing his pants and drooling on television was considered successful?

In any case, this disaster has had at least one bright side: it’s caused Sarah Palin to go into hiding.

Bottums Up!

Here Comes The Judge

2010-05-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

President Obama has nominated his second Supreme Court Justice today, United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Now, selecting a Supreme Court Justice is almost entirely a political thing - pandering to your supporters and extending influence into the Judicial branch. But it's also about paying off political loan sharks and balancing the books on unspoken deals made over handshakes and whispered promises. This was particularly true for me during my presidency.

You need to realize that getting nominated for president in 1968 was very different than today. There were only a handful of open primaries and most of the delegates needed in the convention were awarded through seedy deals made in small, dark rooms filled with sweaty men chomping on cigars, knocking back slugs of bourbon, and telling jokes about Jews and Blacks. These repulsive swine were small-minded men with selfish agendas who would deliver the necessary delegates but only if you agreed to repay at an astronomical vig. I had to supplicate myself in front of these cheap hustlers, hat in hand, and make a lot of promises - particularly to a group of racist old ward-heelers from the south. And when it came time for me to name my first supreme court justice, these yowling rednecks demanded repayment.

I knew that the sort of person a Klansman like Strom Thurmond wanted as Supreme Court Justice would be anathema to the rest of the country. So, I would nominate a Bircher, Clement Haynsworth, or a repulsive hack like G. Harold Carswell, knowing full well that they would be rejected by the senate. But the hayseeds and bumpkins couldn't complain, because I had tried to give them one of their own. That was the Nixon way. Game the system by following the letter of the agreement but not the spirit.

It's through that sort of prism we must view President Obama's recent nominee. While he didn't have to face the degradation of kowtowing to a gang of ruthless thugs, he still had to make a pack of promises. So, which debt does Kagan pay off?

At first glance, Kagan seems to be a very shrewd choice to address the concerns of the Orthogonians in the middle of America. A dowdy old lawyer with an all-American story of achieving success. Since she's not a judge she has no track record of decisions that opponents can use against her. About the worst that could be said about her is that she seems very much a Franklin; a pointy-headed Dean of Harvard Law school who sits in an overstuffed leather chair, parsing out the subtleties and nuance of legal philosophy.

There is little doubt that she'll be confirmed. The Democrats will force a vote before the mid-term elections, guaranteeing that they have the support needed to pass her through. It's a safe pick with a safe strategy.

The thing is, however, Obama will have at least one more nomination before the 2012 election. Justice Ginsburg is in ill health, and likely to retire after the next session. Had I been in Obama's position, I would have made a more bold choice for this nominee, especially knowing I had the votes needed to confirm. Save the safe pick for next year when you may need it. Because from here on out, things will only get more contentious. Particularly when/if he gets to replace one of the Raging Right: Scalia, Alito, Roberts, or Thomas.

That's when the real fun starts

Nixon is: Contemplative

Mexican Standoff

2010-05-07T10:41:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

As the protests and reactions to anti-Illegal Immigrant legislation in Arizona continue to swirl the lawyers are now getting ready to argue whether or not the law is constitutional. If you stop and think about it, the fact that a law making illegal immigrants illegal may itself be illegal is kind of ironic.

The actual legislation has plenty of problems, and is most likely going to be struck down by the courts. Not only does it appear that it will encourage institutionalized racial profiling, but the provision mandating investigation of immigration status seems to violate the protection against unwarranted search and seizure guaranteed by the 4th amendment, quite probably rendering the law unconstitutional.

But let’s be honest with ourselves. This law was never really about addressing Illegal Immigration. There are already more than enough laws about illegal immigration on the books. This law is about whipping the flag-sucking dunderheads into a frenzy by telling them that it’s necessary to protect our sovereignty. It’s just a shiny piece of foil dangled in front of a group of retards. It plays on their latent fears and draws their attention while letting them raise a righteous anger and drape themselves in patriotic slogans. More than that, it assures them that things are not their fault. It’s because of the other guy. In other words, it’s another ploy to make the Orthogonians feel like they are being victimized.

And it’s as old as time itself. The ancient Hittites would constantly complain about those un-cultured Assyrians. The Romans used the Gauls as their whipping boy. The Soviets would scapegoat the filthy and lazy Uzbeks. And back in the 1800's we had the Irish and the Italians. And now we have the Mexicans.

It’s a subtle political strategy I used throughout my political life. I knew that the boogeyman of communism is fine, but it’s a conceptual threat. It’s not real. Not tangible. So, I also used real scapegoats, like hippies and civil rights activists. Real threats that the Silent Majority can see, hear, and smell. And just like hippies and civil rights activists, Mexicans are a good release for the inherent Prejudice and Fear of the Orthogonians. Someone real on whom we can blame all our problems. The economy stinks? Well it’s because the Mexicans are taking all the jobs. Healthcare is broken? It’s because the Mexicans are flooding the emergency rooms without paying. Too many drugs? It’s because the Mexicans are pushing dope. Teen pregnancy? Those hot-blooded Mexicans are sexing up our daughters. Traffic? All the damn Mexicans on the roads. Global warming? Well, Mexicans eat a lot of beans, which causes them to fart, which increased greenhouse gasses.

You get the picture.

And it works. We conservatives have always been able to solidify our base by manufacturing a common enemy, then using it as a way to scare the feeble-minded into supporting us. It’s the political analogy of the second law of thermodynamics. In physics kinetic energy increases in proportion to entropy. In politics, power increases in proportion with fear.

Which brings us back to the Arizona law. This law was written with the 2010 mid-term elections in mind, and was intentionally designed to fail. The Orthogonians out there waving their flags and shouting patriotic platitudes are just sheep, bleating along in their willful ignorance as they’re herded by the GOP. And when this law is overturned the republicans intend to convert the anger of the rubes into votes against the liberals who coddle immigrants.

Manipulation never goes out of style. Because there will never be a shortage of nincompoops out there.

Nixon Approves

The Silence of the Dopes

2010-05-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

Today I’d like to take a moment to talk to all of you about silence.

Some say that silence is golden. Others say it’s a virtue. While still others claim it’s the best way to avoid confirming one’s idiocy in the mind of others.

It seems that someone on Semi-Governor Palin’s team must truly believe the latter, because our plucky little functionally retarded conservative crusader has been conspicuously absent from the news for the last week or so.

Which is strange, because this last week has seen a growing environmental disaster from the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico, increasing agitation over Arizona’s illegal immigrant law, and an attempted terrorist car-bombing in New York’s Times Square. And someone who wants to be taken seriously as a potential candidate for president dreams of exactly these sorts of situations, so they can capitalize on the opportunity to make the people see them as a strong, calm, and dependable leader.

Back in the mid 60’s, when I was carefully preparing my candidacy for the 1968 presidential election, there was no end to these opportunities. Race riots were flaring up seemingly every weekend. The war in Vietnam was beginning to become more and more a disaster. The college kids were spreading subversion in the form of free love and drugs. And whenever anything boiled over Nixon was there. You didn’t see me running for cover like a frightened schoolgirl. I was always ready to offer a word or advice or analysis, and this added a veneer of leadership to my persona that helped make the Orthogonians see me as slightly less unlikeable.

Unfortunately, these are also situations in which the less capable can destroy any aspirations they have, the way George Romney's presidential bid was ended after he muffed questions about Vietnam in '67. And as we all saw from her unscripted interviews with Katie Couric, little Sarah-Plain-and-Small is perhaps the least capable public figure around. In fact, having her speak would be inviting disaster. I think, perhaps, that Sarah’s handlers realize that the best strategy is to keep her hidden. Her strength is name-calling and fear-mongering, not calm, measured reassurance. Besides, what could she say? That even though the Bush administration deregulation of oil companies she preaches in her "Drill, Baby, Drill!" sermons helped make the disaster in the gulf worse, opening the coasts for an orgy of speculation is still a good thing? Even worse, she would very likely burble something almost completely incoherent while winking at the camera like a boozed up skank at last call, desperate for a one-night stand.

So, perhaps in this case Sarah’s silence is a good idea. Not only does it prevent us further confirming our suspicions about her idiocy, it also gives us all a good break from the Wasilla Half-Wit.

Nixon is: Ambivalent

Kruschev's Korner: Is All Greek To Me

2010-05-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

Gree.

Good morning, Comrades and also Imperialists,

Today I am very sad about situation in Greece. Greece is, as you know, second cradle of civilization after Kiev. Many good ideas come from Greece, and is also source of raw material for Great Soviet Cyrillic Alphabet, as well as source of word "alphabet."

Now Greeks are in bolshoi mess because of borrow money from decadent Capitalists and cannot pay back. Why to pay back? Only to borrow more from same Capitalists and buy and sell with them. West makes lending only for profit. Is never to help Greeks! We offer better alternative: scientifically proven superior model of production called Marxism

Treacherous Germans are saying Greeks are being lazy bums who know not how to save money. We Russians can better teach them how is save money. When Krushchev was poor metal worker in Eastern Ukraine city of Yuzovka I had not two kopeks to rub together for warmth in winter. Then Comrade Stalin encourage everyone to save and scrimp in order to build glorious Soviet Industrial base. He encourage with bayonets and KGB. When I became Premier, budget was tight an American Military Complex was making for Soviet Union to spend more every year to protect of our sovereign nation from American aggression. I used clever Ukrainian common sense and saved money by to rely on missiles for Soviet defense instead of tanks and planes. Missiles more efficient than build many tanks and aircrafts. Maybe not every missile worked, but was always great deterrent. Imperialist Americans could not bear thought that even one of mighty Soviet missiles might actually find target and blow up. Even better, my strategy worked like brilliant and forced Kennedy to remove Americanski missiles from Turkey and so eliminated threat to Soviet Union.

Da, we can teach our brothers the Greeks great lesson that is very bad idea to just borrow borrow borrow always from Western Capitalists. But will be hard road for us in teaching Greeks. Today, Greeks are lazy like good-for-nothing Uzbeks, and must learn importance of work! Is no good all day to drinking ouzo and play briscola. In Soviet Union everyone must contribute! Even stari babushki did work - if only to sweep sidewalks in Red Square - everyone always has duty to contribute to Soviet glory. We teach this important lesson to Albania, and if Albanian can learn then so can Greek. After all, who can think Albanians are better or smarter than Greeks?

So you see, question is not "Shall Greeks Tighten Belts?" but "For Why Shall Greeks Tighten?" For self-righteous Germans? For self-serving Dutch? For double-dealing English and unreliable French? For organs of Capitalist Imperialism such as IMF that is only love money? Are Greeks supposed to be mules and do their bidding?

My friends, the answer is "Nyet!" Greek is not even allow himself to be ruled by another Greek. How then could they submit to whip of Western running dogs? Even now, Greeks show anger and are protesting in the streets. Soon they will remove current Greek puppet government of Capitalist stooges and join glorious Eastern bloc family. We shall show them how to sacrifice for benefit only of Greece!

Also, Greece have many good ports large enough for mighty Soviet Navy.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Tin Soldiers and Nixon Coming

2010-05-04T08:15:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

I wanted to speak to you today, on the 40th anniversary of the unfortunate incidents that occurred on Kent State University.

Now, some have asked whether I feel any personal responsibility for what happened 40 years ago. To them I say that I wasn't the one who called in the agitators and militant demonstrators. I wasn't the one who chose to violate the law by assembling in an illegal manner. And I wasn't the one who provoked the National Guard. The words I said then still apply today: when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.

Still there are some who continue to think that the actual cause of that event was the negative rhetoric I and other republicans used from the mid-60's through my election in 1968. Well, if that’s true, then the entire political process should be held to scrutiny, because the very DNA of political campaigns is a tightly wound double helix of demonizing your opponent and exploiting the Terror and Outrage within the populace.

We republicans understand the power of Fear at a cellular level, which is why you’ll continue to hear our candidates portray the other guys as un-American monsters, who have nothing less in their hearts than the ultimate destruction of our Pure lifestyle. It doesn’t matter if it was me in the late ‘60’s painting the intellectuals, civil rights activists and the anti-war faction as being a real and imminent threat to society, or today’s candidates snidely questioning Obama’s citizenship, or insinuating that Democrats will allow unwashed packs of wild-eyed muslim fanatics to rape our young boys then sell their spent carcasses for opium. The game hasn’t changed.

But, as Kent State showed, it takes more than exploiting Fear. Not only do you have to demonize the other side, you have to make sure that the Orthogonians are complicit in any actions taken to act on that Fear. Distort and lie. Create a fictive boogeyman to menace the security of the rubes, and portray yourself as the only one with either the ability or balls to stand up to it. Fear drives power much better than hope, and people will gratefully accept the most unthinkable atrocities if you scare them enough. After all, a few napalmed children or massacred students is a pretty cheap price to pay to protect a freezer full of TV dinners and a new patio set. And just like an abusive alcoholic who beats his wife because she "made him do it," one must never forget to blame the victims. Because, once the dust settles and the bodies are exposed, it’s critical that you assure the straights that those now suffering deserve their fate. The National Guard would never have fired if those long-haired pinkos had just stayed home and relaxed in their barca loungers.

So, the next time you see one of those massive teabag rallies just remember that the politicians whipping up the Hysteria and Fear with their inflammatory speeches aren’t to blame. They’re just doing what politicians have done since the very beginning. No, the fault lies with the dimwits and cretins who believe all the paranoid gobbledygook about a secret socialist cabal within the government with plans to round up the white Christian men for service in salt mines, while the women are carted off to be pleasure toys for hyper-libidinous Arabs. After all, propaganda only works if the simpletons believe it.

Nixon is: Sanctimonious

The Marching Morons

2010-05-01T11:46:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

Today I'd like to take a brief moment to open up to you about something that has really been chafing my hide: the annoying practice shown by the extreme right-wing elements (such as the tea people) to make it a point to portray President Obama being a socialist, only to then (often in the same breath, or in the same poster), associate him with Hitler.

Now, I know some of you may be wondering whether Nixon has gone soft. I want to make it absolutely clear that is not the case. I know the value of painting someone with a brush of lies, and I support any and all efforts to that end. But even within the libel, distortion, and blatantly outrageous defamation of a political campaign, there has to be at least a level of consistency in order to make them plausible.

So, this trend of simultaneously calling Obama both a Socialist and Fascist within one breath is not only grotesquely embarrassing, but also shows a stunning ignorance.

Here's a perfect example:

I'll just give you a moment to allow the utter idiocy of labeling an image of Obama with three Communist icons "Fascism" to sink in.

I know. The ignorance here is pretty alarming. How can Obama be both a Communist and a Fascist at the same time? That's like saying he's both wet and dry. Communism and Fascism are a zero-sum game. You're either one or the other. Choose a side and stick with it.

Now, I know that I should be the bigger man in this case and just let it go. But that's not the Nixon way. I was never the bigger man. I based my entire political life on not being the bigger man, and making sure to exaggerate every irritant, offense, and inaccuracy no matter how insignificant or inadvertent. In fact, I was the smallest man of all - which allowed me to be so effective in my slander, character assassination, and manipulation of the truth to whip the ignorant masses into a frenzy. Remember, I was the one who raised Communist-baiting and treasonous innuendo to an art form. And, I think I know something of the difference between Communists and Fascists.

So, allow me to offer a quick primer to all of those morons out there who continue to remain confused, because it is pretty simple, actually. Communists are extreme leftists. Fascists are extreme rightists. Left/Democrat = Communist. Right/Republican = Nazi. How people can be such blithering idiots as to mess that up astounds me, and leads me to wonder what sort of difficulty they have in putting on their shoes in the morning. As a leftist, Obama should be portrayed as Stalin, Lenin, Che, or Castro. And, as the counterpoint, rightists such as Sarah Palin should be portrayed as Hitler, Mussolini, or as a stormtrooper for the SS.

Besides, the whole idea of Obama as a Nazi simply flies in the face of reason. Nazis are about racial, cultural, spiritual, and national purity. So it's pretty asinine to portray a mulatto as the leader of such a movement. No, the people who represent the Nazi ideals are those who preach hatred and intolerance of others - Birchers and reactionaries like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Jan Brewer. A good Nazi wants to eliminate those who don't conform to their racial/cultural/religious standards (through imprisonment, deportment, or execution), not one who wants to open the borders to everyone or provide government-sponsored healthcare and assistance! To give a simple example, the Arizona anti-Illegal Immigrant law is fascist, while those amnesty laws would be Communist.

So painting Obama as Hitler is just stupid. He is not Hitler. Besides, do you think those fiercely conservative militias out there, with Swastikas and Nazi-inspired slogans and artwork decorating their remote clubhouses in the wilderness, and who preach their white power and anti-government liturgy want a black man as their figurehead? Think about it.

It honestly makes me wonder about the intelligence of the right.

It's more and more apparent that people are simply not as well-educated today as they were even 20 years ago. Particularly, I am ashamed to say, republicans. Now I know that we republicans were always less intelligent than democrats - but that gap is widening. And with every day and every new display of right-wing propaganda that gap is more and more evident. Of course I realize that when trying to get the support of the Orthogonians one has to dumb things down considerably. Aiming for a 5th grade education is about correct for the dingbats and nitwits who make up the republican base. But even then, one doesn't have to be Sarah Palin and go full retard. You can still hit the lowest common denominator while maintaining simple factual accuracy. The accusations of Obama being a socialist are perfect for the nincompoops out there who have no idea what socialism actually is (i.e. the tea people). And while the claim that Obama is a socialist is obviously false, at least it falls within a broadly appropriate tautological application.

The worst part is that this whole confusion of Socialist, Communist, and Fascist makes us (the real and true republicans) seem just as stupid as the tea people. And Nixon can not abide that.

Nixon Disapproves

Tradition

2010-04-28T09:12:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

The dog days of the 2010 mid-term election are starting to really heat up. The normal sniping and random shots across the DMZ have started to become coordinated and targeted. Individuals are being pointed out, names are being called, accusations raised, and challenges leveled.

I love the smell of politics in the morning.

Yesterday, the NRCC (National Republican Campaign Committee) fired a shot across the DNC’s bow by claiming that they were “playing the race card from the bottom of the deck” because they (the Democrats) are working to bring out the minorities to vote in November. The sheer balls of that statement is bewildering! And, very gratifying to this old race-baiter.

Now, you have to understand that using race as a campaign strategy is an exceedingly delicate proposition. Back in 1966 when I was laying the foundation for my presidential run in ’68, I saw that the nation was ripe for using race as a tool to stoke the fires of Dread and Revulsion burning in the hearts of white people. Had I tried this in either ’64 or ’65 I would have been flogged like a heretic in the Inquisition. Just look at what happened to Goldwater and his cadre of Birchers and segregationists. But by 1966 race riots had been popping up in cities all over, and the radicals like Stokeley Carmichael had begun to give the equal rights movement a bad name. The glow of the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act had vanished as white people started to feel as if the minorities were ungrateful for all that was done for them. The tide was turning and the Orthogonians just needed a spark to come alive.

And I was there, manipulating the deepest and most vile nightmares of Joe Sixpack and Sally Lunchpail. The Franklins snickered at me, saying that people were sophisticated enough to realize that the unrest within the minority population was due to economic inequalities and entrenched social injustice. They scoffed at the notion that white people would quiver in terror over the idea of integrating schools. They mocked the idea that folks would be so gullible as to fall for such obvious and depraved tactics as preying on the myth of hulking Negro men defiling the flower of pure white innocence.

I love it when Franklins underestimate me. My instincts were true. The Orthogonians are sheep, easily led by exploiting their most primitive fears, and before you knew it the feeding frenzy was on. The result was that Republicans had won the day in the ‘66 elections on the back of pure and unsoiled racial fear.

Now, as then, my fellow Republicans are turning to race, just as they have whenever things looked bleak over the past 40 years. And once again the time is right. Just look around: the bigotry, hatred, and prejudice among the right is close to boiling over. Teabaggers are flaunting the same segregationist KKK slogans we used so skillfully in the 60’s – only more artfully disguised. Propagandists are working overtime to insinuate ethnic causes for problems around the country. And the disgust among conservatives regarding a non-white president is mouthwatering to someone clever enough to channel that Anger and Loathing for their own use.

So, the strategy of the NRCC attempting to whip up some reaction among white people by painting the Democrats as racist for working to get out the minority vote is the sign of returning to the tried and true – much the way a dog returns to his vomit. And of course it doesn’t matter that it’s absolutely prima facie absurd. In politics (like advertising) perception is reality. It helps that the Orthogonians already believe these things. They just need someone to verbalize the lie to justify their hate and soothe their nascent consciences, so they can go out and act on their instinctive racism. And trust me when I tell you that there are more of them than there are of you.

It’s nice to see that the Hebrews aren't the only ones with a sense of tradition.

Nixon is: Energized

Kruschev's Korner: Zdravo!

2010-04-26T13:02:00.000-07:00

Good morning, Comrades!

And it is a good morning for Mother Russia and Ukraine, now that we have signed new lease to keep strong and patriotic Black Sea Fleet based in Crimea. In return, Ukraine will have large quantity of superior Russian natural gas. We help our friends, unlike some imperialist powers.

I would like to extend congratulations also to Comrade Medvedev and Comrade Putin on splendid diplomacy with our neighbor Ukraine. I was born and raised in Ukraine and I know our roots go deeply together.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: Russia's current leaders are not Socialists unlike American leader great Comrade Obama. Are you sure? In politics, one must not be obvious. If you are not leaf on wind, you will be purged. Most important qualities are to be strong leader and to be unpredictable to your many adversaries, as Comrade Putin did so brilliantly in keeping Abkhazia and South Ossetia from being dominated and oppressed by the puppet of Western decadence, Georgia. As my friend Deng used to say, "What is difference if cat is black or white, as long as catches mouse."

In order to advance the People's interests, a leader must be willing to try new things. Like my friend Comrade Trofim Lysenko. He thought of way to boost crop yields for wheat. Everything in life is wheat! We tried and it didn't work! So then we tried something else.

In same way, Ukraine tried to turn away from Mother Russia and make friends with counterrevolutionary Western imperialist powers. That did not work; so she came home.

до свидания до следующего времени, капиталистов!

Spying for/on Dummies

2010-04-23T11:57:00.000-07:00

Spying .
My fellow Americans,

It seems our intrepid semi-Governor Sarah Palin has completed her testimony in the case of the miserable little liberal punk who hacked into her unsecure Yahoo email account.

The question isn't whether this pinko is guilty, but rather of the manner and extent of punishment this twerp deserves.

As someone who knows a thing or two about undercover surveillance, allow me to offer my perspective: This brat should be punished fully and completely. Oh, not because he hacked Palin's email. After all, part of the political game is intelligence and operating on the edge of ethics and law. In order to have the advantage over any adversary one needs as much information on them as possible. And if you need to creep into an office under the cover of night and bug the campaign headquarters of a rival in order to learn more about them, well, that's just the price of doing business.

No. The reason this irritating bastard should be shown no mercy is because of the clumsy manner in which he gained access to Palin's email. Even more, because he did so and didn't even make the slightest attempt to cover his tracks.

Before embarking on any sort of operation of this nature one needs to take the time to properly lay the groundwork. Among the things that must be considered are whether you have the proper personnel in place to conduct the mission with competence. Even more important is to ensure that you cover every possible contingency in case of error or discovery. Did this kid have any sort of alibi ready, or even some cover story to provide credible deniability? What about something - carrot (in the form of hush money) or stick (in the form of assassins) - to make sure that all persons involved remain loyal? Or, at the very least, a plausible scapegoat or willing fall-guy who could take the heat so the Boss doesn't get tossed into the slammer. I was meticulous in my pre-game preparation. I made sure I had the right pieces on the board before I launched the mission, and even gave them a cool name: The Plumbers. Liddy provided the stern hand and blind brutality required to make sure the others stayed in line. Bebe Rebozo secured a very deep slush fund in case we had to grease any palms or buy any cooperation. And my Bobs were there, ready to not only swear to my innocence, but also willing to take a bullet if it came to that.

And even with all my careful strategy things went wrong. So the level of audacity and hubris in this kid is simply stunning. It's as if he didn't even think this through. A lethal error on his part, and one that needs to be met with a dear enough cost so that he won't make the same mistake in planning the next time he tries something like this.

Of course, Palin is not without some level of blame in this mess. After all, anyone involved in even the lowest rung of political battle should be savvy enough to realize you simply do not use an open line for communication. The fact that she was so mind-bogglingly stupid is reason enough to consider her ill-equipped for the office of the President.

Nixon Disapproves

Behind the Veil

2010-04-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

Behind .

My fellow Americans, there has been a drawn-out brouhaha over in France regarding the whole question of mohammedan women wearing their face-scarves, and whether this somehow steps all over their rights.

There is a definite parallel between the upheaval in France today and the Negro uprisings we had in the late 60’s. Both are instances of minorities not appreciating the society in which they live, nor comprehending or showing sufficient gratitude toward the inherent compassion and tolerance of the European mind. It seems as if the more a government does for these people, the more they want, and the more violently they demand it.

The bleeding hearts, hippies, and liberals will certainly cry about all this and twist it into something to do with race. They’ll wail that the face covering is a part of the mohammedan religion, and that forcing these people to discard it somehow treats them as not equal since it is okay for Hebrews to wear their beanies, or Christians to wear a cross. This is, of course, nonsense and the sort of gobbledygook typically spouted by privileged left-wing Franklins. Neither beanies nor crosses hide one’s face (though those wild beards some orthodox Jews have come close). The left always seems so concerned about the rights of some minority group or other that they neglect the rights of the rest of us. And unlike others, I stand with the good, honest, law-abiding citizens of both the United States and France.

Now, before you paint me as some sort of Bircher, let me just be perfectly clear: I supported the Civil Rights bill of 1964. And I supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Nixon was always a friend to the Negro, and in fact, some of my acquaintances were Negroes. But at some point enough has to be enough. When the Negroes in the 60’s began to riot that line was crossed. And now, like then, the mohammedans in France have to realize that their demands can not infringe on the rights of Frenchmen, and that actions carry consequence.

Living in a civilization based on law and order requires compromise and tolerance. And the French mohammedans, like the American Negro, have to realize that they must compromise by giving up on their outrageous demands in order for the rest of the Americans and Frenchmen to be able to tolerate them.

Nixon is: Frustrated

All the Tea in China

2010-04-16T09:15:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

I'm not unfamiliar with protest movements. I've had to endure groups of smelly, unwashed, communist-influenced, sign-waving malcontents for almost my entire political life. So naturally I am pleased as punch to see the right muster a similar movement, complete with frothing-at-the-mouth hysterics and semi-literate troglodytes whipped into blind rage at a liberal President.

I love the fact that these inbred nincompoops are out there holding racist, hate-filled signs, threatening violence and irritating the liberals. But most of all I love how they've adopted the Nixon way of creating and spreading the biggest and most outrageous lies possible. I built my political life on telling ghost stories about communists lurking in corners, so it warms my heart that these savage dimwits have chosen to resurrect socialism as their monster, and I admit to an admiration of the sheer audacity of this strategy.

Now, of course the whole complaint of these Tea people is completely baseless. President Obama is no more a socialist than Eisenhower or I were. The yelping and gnashing of teeth at this health care reform is a clever ruse to hide the real cause of anger, because even these Tea Bag nitwits understand that the health care reform is really no more socialist than Medicare, Social Security, the National Parks system, the CDC, or the money the federal government spends on schools, roads, and protection. No, the real burr in the saddle of these Tea people is the fact that Obama is a mulatto. After all, it's not a coincidence that the whole Tea Bag movement is filled with conservative, middle-aged, viagra-popping, xenophobic white men.

The danger, however, is to the Republican Party as a whole. This Tea Bag thing is a tricky issue. The GOP needs to keep the extreme reactionary lunatics happy, but can't risk alienating the vast, moderate Orthogonians out there. Embracing the Tea people, with their racist anger and violent tendencies, could turn off the rational center of the country. On the other hand, denouncing them as fanatical bigots could trigger a George Wallace type of candidate in 2012.

It's a tightrope for the GOP. But before the hammer falls the sight of this group of wild-eyed waterheads shouting about socialism brings a nostalgic warmth..

Nixon is: Amused

Send In the Clowns

2010-04-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

I don’t need to tell you that political campaigns are built on equal parts mendacity, pandering, and charisma. But for some reason I’ve always had difficulty with that last bit. Inexplicably, people just weren’t attracted to the Nixon charm. Children would cry whenever they saw me and my campaign managers would constantly remind me to never smile because of the intense feeling of distaste it caused. Even Pat said that while she loved me, she really didn’t like me at all.

This wasn’t a problem at first, because I was able to insinuate myself with the rest of the Orthogonians out there and deflect attention from myself through the use of communist boogeymen. However, in 1960 it became an issue, and by 1966 it was a crisis. So I did what so many successful politicians did: I hired a joke-writer. Two years later, I was elected the 37th president of the United States.

Since then, the charisma thing has elected five of the last six presidents: Carter was the naïve aw-shucks innocent, Reagan played the wisecracking game-show host, Clinton was the suave party-guy, W was the folksy dullard, and Obama is the earnest visionary. So, it’s not really any surprise that potential candidates for 2012 are already honing their acts. The one who has the biggest head-start has to be Sarah Palin, trying a Reagan-Bush hybrid of mean-spirited folksiness and one-liners.

Her speeches are nothing more than a collection of sardonic insults and precisely calculated “zingers” designed to create a persona and give the fawning crowds something to wildly applaud. Oh, there’s no doubting it’s effective, but it’s also very hollow and at the end of the day, unsatisfactory. One gets the feeling that Sarah Palin will wear out her welcome very quickly – sort of like that “Wild and Crazy Guys” thing SNL used to do. Because gags and insults will only get you so far. At some point you have to serve some meat to go with all the appetizers. And the danger for her is that Sarah Palin is quickly becoming nothing more than a warm-up act. A one-dimensional, insult-spouting MC that whips the faithful into a frenzy, but who then cedes the stage for the main attraction.

Look, when I was unveiling the new, likable Nixon I did the whole Bob Hope thing too, shooting one-liners at people like LBJ. But I also included a lot of self-mocking gags, and in the end I had the gravitas that comes with experience and knowledge behind me. Sure, people enjoyed my jokes, but they also knew that with Nixon it was all-business. Palin gives the opposite feeling. People look at her and just know that there is absolutely nothing behind her makeup. Take away her joke-writers and all you have is a nasal-voiced, intolerant nincompoop.

That seemed to work okay for Reagan and W, but at least with me you knew there was more than just a friendly face.

Nixon is: Smug

God Hates You (and Jesus thinks you're ugly)

2010-04-09T14:30:00.000-07:00

.
My fellow Americans,

I’ve never been a fan of prostituting my religion for political gain. It’s always seemed to me to be the most base, vile, and repulsive way to pander to the rubes. I always preferred aligning myself with the Orthogonians; exploiting the latent racist and xenophobic fear of the people through insinuations and implied threats. My bread-and butter was always to side with the average stupid and lazy American by claiming that the other guy doesn't understand them, and is actively threatening the safe, soft, middle-class lifestyle of the people. It worked because Joe Six-Pack and Sally Lunchpail will always be terrified at the thought of communist takeover, or by the horror of filthy, dope addicted hippies overthrowing the nation and raping the women.

So, whenever I see current politicians try to bring God into things, I naturally shudder. But it’s become the trendy choice for politicians today. Oh, they don’t come right out and say they are chosen by God – that would be not only too much an ostentatious display of arrogance (on par with the patronizing air of the East Coast elite Franklins), but also just feel too Jewish. No, the politicians have come up with a much more sinister way of linking themselves with God’s favor.

Whenever asked about a possible candidacy, or about strategy, policy, or position on the issues, the politician will now answer that they have prayed on it, or are waiting for God to provide guidance. The logical conclusion being that whatever the candidate then does is not only sanctioned, but ordained by the Big Cheese, and thus beyond question or criticism.

I admit, I admire the subtlety of this strategy. Not only does it convey divine blessing, but has the added bonus of hinting that The Supreme Being isn’t a fan of the other guy. Yet despite it's advantages, it still isn’t right for me. I much prefer rolling up my sleeves and diving into the cesspool of slander and calling someone's personal integrity into question. It would have been easy for me to prey on the fear of subservience to the Vatican by hinting at a Roman Catholic president kissing the Pope’s ring. But seeing as how it depends too much on the voters being very stupid, easily manipulated, and prone to outbursts of righteous violence, religious exploitation will never be as effective as us-vs.-them tactics.

Except in the South, that is.

Nixon is: Not Impressed

GOP Playing on Fears: The Worst Kept Secret in Washington

2010-03-05T09:13:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

It seems that the liberal press is once again working overtime to create a tempest in a tea pot regarding some silly memo regarding campaign strategy used by the Republican National Committee.

Evidently, this so-called memo promotes the use of fear-based tactics, character assassination, racial hysteria, and muckraking in campaigns, and urge republican candidates to portray the president and other democrats as driving the country to socialism.

Leaving aside the likely truth that this so-called memo is a fake, fabricated by the left-wing conspiracy in order to paint true and loyal Americans as dishonest (or at least unethical), the bigger question is why this is news at all?

Have all of you people been in a coma for the past 100 years? Every important political campaign since John Adams smeared Thomas Jefferson as a slave loving fancy-lad has involved playing on the voters' fears. Whether it's me questioning my opponent's patriotism by making baseless accusations that they're a communist; George HW Bush raising the ghosts of racial horror by using a mug-shot to imply that Michael Dukakis will set free wild eyed negroes to feast on the tender flesh of the nation's pure white daughters; or George W Bush terrorizing people with the looming apocalypse of their christian civilization at the hands of bloodthirsty muslim zealots, poltics is a lowest-common-denominator business.

You gonna get raped

And the public are lemmings - either too drunk or too stupid to ever catch on. Paradoxically, the bigger and more outrageously one creates the fear, the more the dopes believe it, because only then does it seem plausible. The rubes out in the cornfields who cling to their bibles and hold guns and NASCAR sacred need this. Fear breeds hate, and hate is a great motivating factor. When you get people to hate something, you can use that to your advantage. The Nazis understood this, and it's something we republicans have adopted as our own. It doesn't matter who you make the threat: communists, homosexuals, hippies, minorities, illegal immigrants, students and intellectuals, muslims, the French - all you have to do is pick a group to blame for all the current problems, then associate your opponent with them.

This so-called memo isn't news. It's the republican way.

Nixon is: Confused About the Fuss

Sen. Jim Bunning: A Profile In Courage

2010-03-02T08:40:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

It isn't often that we get to witness a lone man display extreme tenacity in the face of adversity. Particularly not in the world of politics, where one's integrity is often compromised several times in an hour in order to help expedite a lunch order.

Happily, today we get to see a supreme example of a man who absolutely does not care about anything but himself. A man whose narcissism and delusion are so grand that it defies description. A man who perfectly exemplifies the attitude of "I don't care about you. Fuck you."

Senator Jim Bunning, (R. KY) is nothing if not a giant middle finger to every American who is struggling during this long recession. By single-handedly holding up the passage of a bill to extend unemployment and COBRA benefits to more than a million needy Americans, Sen. Bunning is showing a level of disdain and contempt for the common man not seen since Marie Antoinette.

This is the world's smallest violin playing just

for the unemployed slobs out there.

And why should Sen. Bunning give a wet rat's ass about you, your kids, or that guy down the street who lost his job? Sure, it's easy to simply categorize him (as the Democrats and liberal press are doing) as a heartless a man who has nothing but hatred and scorn for people out of work. And my comment about that is, so what? I applaud Jim Bunning for standing up for himself. Whether his cause is right or not doesn't matter. Every now and then a politician has to stand up and remain strong, regardless of what the issue is. Even if it means dragging the country through prolonged agony.

However, the most delightful aspect of all is when Sen. Bunning read a letter from "Robert in Louisville" who is supposedly out of work, but supportive of Bunning's stalling the unemployment assistance bill. It's one of the oldest lies in the book (and one I used with great success in my Checkers speech): you fabricate some poor slob without two nickles to rub together to represent all those working class Joes who will get screwed by your policy, and claim they wrote you to say that even though you're making them suffer, they support you and will sacrifice for you because you're doing The Right Thing. And the rubes buy it every time. It's sublime. It's elegant. It's the Nixon way.

Of course, ultimately Sen. Bunning will lose his crusade, and the bill will pass. And he'll slink back to the hills of Kentucky, where he'll dream of the good old days of lounging on a porch, sipping Juleps while listening to the dulcet sounds of the darkies working the fields, and dreaming of spending half an hour in the dusky embrace of his octaroon housekeeper. But in the mean time, Jim Bunning has reminded us all of what America once was. A nation of God Fearing White Christians who could do what they wanted without concern over sacrificing the poor, the colored, or the immigrants, and who could have any who disagreed labeled a communist and thrown in jail.

Ah, nostalgia!

Nixon Approves

Slap-Fight in the GOP

2010-02-25T09:33:00.000-08:00

My fellow Americans,

As you could probably tell, my mood of late hasn’t been good, what with the shenanigans of that dingbat from Alaska and her family, and my ex-Chief of Staff sliding into the great beyond. It’s felt like the summer of 1974 all over again, only this time without the solace of sycophants like Henry, Tex, and the Bobs to help me out. Thank god for bourbon and anti-depressants.

But there is a bit of light peeking through the clouds. There is nothing that can bring me out of my doldrums quicker than a good old fashioned political slap-fight . The deceit, duplicity, degradation, and depravity that comes when politicians start calling one another’s character into question is like slamming pure, uncut bliss.

Unfortunately, it’s the republican party which is apparently undergoing a bit of an identity crisis. Tempers are rising and egos getting bruised as the hacks, misanthropes, ward-heelers, waterheads, and dopes all start pointing fingers, making accusations, and claim the mantle of top conservative. And in doing so, they’ll eventually need to look back to how we used to do it back in the day. Bring out the big guns. Political campaign is nothing but controlled slander, and the one who does it the best usually wins.

The trick is to be completely unrestrained and uninhibited about how you assassinate the character of your competitor. I know it sounds absurd, but the more unbelievable, bold, and shameless your attacks, the more the rubes will buy it. It’s an art form, and one that the republicans, sadly, seem to have forgotten. Look at 2008. The McCain campaign made a few minor assaults on Obama’s integrity and allegiance (mainly in the form of clumsy and uninspired speeches), but they were so feeble, it was clear they were lies. Now compare that with my first campaign in 1946, when I mercilessly slandered Jerry Voorhis by calling him a communist. Of course he wasn’t a communist, and of course the people knew he wasn’t. But my brave strategy of calling him one paid off, and I whipped him like a runaway slave. Why? Because the outrageous and contemptible lies fed the public’s desire to believe. Truth, like compassion, has no place in politics.

The sad thing is that none of the current crop of dimwits in the republican party know what a real conservative is anyway. Now, Barry Goldwater, there was a real conservative. I knew Barry Goldwater. I served my country with Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was a friend of mine. And I can say with complete confidence that Rush Limbaugh is no Barry Goldwater.

Nixon: Approves

Whore: A Definition by Example

2010-02-24T10:28:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

There are very few things that can make me turn my head and fight the primitive reaction to vomit in disgust. Student protests are one. Smug, pompous, privileged, Harvard-educated Franklins are another.

But sadly, neither of those things is the cause today. I've just found that one of those miserable Palin kids will be on some saccharine television program preaching the importance of abstinence (I can't recall her name - something like Bottlecap, or Whiplash. Anyway, she's the unwed high-school mommy).

For a moment, lets leave aside the incredible hypocrisy of using a girl who spread her legs like butter on toast to tell others to not give in to their throbbing biological urges. This is yet another example of Caribou Barbie's ludicrous insincerity in terms of using her mewling spawn as fodder for her political ambitions, while at the same time loudly wailing whenever any of her litter is then mocked by the press.

Now, I understand the need to employ an aggressive campaign strategy by constantly attacking a straw-man, and the need to adopt creative means to maintain some semblance of public attention while not in office. However, my choice of straw-men were hidden communists, and my choice of maintaining public attention was to continue to bolster my already impressive foreign relations experience by taking trips around the world to visit different leaders and further reinforce the perception that Nixon is a man who understands what is Really Going On. Something a vapid backwater semi-governor who somehow equated proximity to a foreign country with foreign policy might consider. But what I would never do is pimp out my daughter, Tricia, for the cameras and gain exposure vicariously through her. Unlike candidate Milf, I have limits to my degradation.

When I consider what has happened to the once proud Republican party - the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Ike - it makes me more depressed than the summer of '76 when I spent my days all alone, wandering along the beaches of San Clemente, collecting bits of washed up seaweed and wishing I had another chance at how to tackle the whole Watergate thing.

Nixon is: Revolted

I'm Sorry You're So Ungrateful

2010-02-23T09:56:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

History is filled with instances of great men - leaders and icons - being embarrassed and torn down by the masses in some fit of petty anger and jealousy. Men like Jesus Christ and Mussolini have all had their moment of truth when they have been forced, usually on pain of harm, to face their people and issue some sort of apology.

Yesterday, General Stanley McChrystal, was publicly humiliated by the act of appearing on Afghani television to offer an apology. His trespass? Having a few dirt-farmers as unintended casualties as a result of the battle to protect those ungrateful people from the horrors of the Taliban.

Now, I've had occasions on which I've had to swallow my bile and suffer the supreme indignity of this spectacle. In 1952 as candidate for Vice President, I had to answer the lies and slander spread about me by the subversive press. Thankfully, I was deft in my ability to deflect atttention by pointing out that Pat wore ugly coats, and that my children had grown fond of a flea-infested mongrel. Then, in 1973 I again had to stand in front of the camera to respond to yet more left-wing attacks on my character and assure the people that I was not a crook.

Two martyrs

So believe me when I say that I have first-hand knowledge of the pain and embarrassment of this sort of ordeal. The sort of understanding only a kindred spirit in a trial by fire can have. And my heart goes out to Gen. McChrystal in his time of need.

Personally, I blame the current president. This would never have happened in my day. I would never have asked Gen. Westmoreland to apologize to the Vietnamese for soemthing like My Lai, or to have Henry stand in front of the cameras to pull on his greasy forelock because of Cambodia (though his ego could have used that kind of check). I understand and respect the uniform and the men who wear it. Besides, the president and the Generals who serve him have a hard job, and it often gets messy. Sure, there can be unhappy mistakes and our hair might get a bit mussed. But it is for the greater good.

The sooner the bleeding-heart press and un-American hippies understand that, the better it will be for the rest of us, the Great Silent Majority.

Nixon is: Angry

Confusion

2010-02-22T12:08:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

There has been something that has been bothering me recently. It's the spate of shockingly contradictory statements and actions most often voiced by otherwise sensible people.

Take, for example, Samantha Bell, the daughter of Joseph Stack (the terrorist that slammed his small plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX).

Evidently, this poor woman is a mess. On the one hand, she calls her father a hero for doing what he did:

"Yes [he is a hero]. Maybe now people will listen [...] I think too many people lay around and wait for things to happen, but if nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice then nothing will ever be accomplished."

Without a hint of betraying the complete incongruity, she then said that what he did was wrong. Further (and even more disturbing and indicative of a new spoiled, entitled attitude I usually associate with effetes who summer in Hyannis Port ... you know, Franklins) she contradicts her statement with her actions, as she goes on to describe how she had to leave the United States in mid pregnancy for the much more socialist country of Norway because Medicaid would not take care of her.

It's difficult for me, a man who tends to agree with her small-government ideology, to reconcile the fact that she then betrays that belief by going to a land where the government manages healthcare. And I'm somewhat an expert in compromising my morals, ethics, beliefs, and integrity in order to make a point.

My fellow Americans, is this the best we can do? Is this poor display of incompetent thought what conservative philosophy has degraded to?

Even worse, she seems to agree with the idea of her father taking action against the IRS. That is something I could never condone. Violence against a government agency is terrorism, as sure as if it were done by Carlos the Jackal or Yassir Arafat. Besides, in my day the IRS was a very valued government insitute. It served me as a very strong weapon in my attempt to battle my enemies.

It wasn't like this in my day. It wasn't like this at all.

Nixon Disapproves

The Haig is Dead, Long Live the Haig

2010-02-20T13:02:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

It is with a heavy heart and a flare-up of my shingles that I announce that General Alexander Haig, my ex Chief of Staff, has died.

Haig, or "Strafing Run Al" as I called him, was always someone to whom I could turn when the liberal press, college peaceniks, or intellectual crybabies would start to annoy me - which was pretty damned often. Unlike some other members of my staff, Al understood the need for aggression and a show of strength at a cellular level. This was not a man who would doubt the wisdom of ordering a squad of B52s to bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail. Far from it; his eyes would light up with glee and his boundless joy would be more than he could contain. When the order for an attack was given his only two questions would be when does it start, and how many runs would be enough to blow those deceitful yellow commies back to the negotiating table.

Al's most important role, though, was to be my eyes and ears in terms of Henry. Kissinger was a vital asset to be sure, but he was also deceitful and cunning - ready to upstage the president at any moment, and thus was someone who required a very short leash. And Al was exactly the sort of man I needed yanking that leash whenever Henry would start to bark a bit too loud. Al was blindly loyal, never questioned an order, willing to do whatever it took to ensure that the president maintain order and discipline in the land, and eager to unleash violence on all enemies foreign and domestic without a second thought. He was a brutal sociopath, but he was my brutal sociopath.

I have many fond memories of Al, but the one that always brings a smile to my face is one meeting with me, Al, and Henry, during which we were discussing what to do about the over reaction by the press to a few hippies getting shot at Kent State University. Al was resolute, and wanted to issue a terse statement to the press amounting to "They played with fire and got burned." Henry, on the other hand, wanted to be more conciliatory toward the left, believing it could win us points. Al began to bubble over with anger over what he viewed as appeasement, when he suddenly turned to Henry, reached under his coat, pulled out his pistol, pointed it at Henry's forehead, cocked the hammer, and said in an almost inaudible voice, "Goddamit, Kissinger, if you think we should kiss the ass of those liberal traitors I will splatter your egg-headed, Jew brains all over the Oval Office." I decided enough was enough, told Al that we should be adult about it, and say something non-committal about the whole thing, and let it rest. Al slowly returned his weapon to the holster, whispered that Henry was very lucky, then let out a fart. We all laughed.

Good times.

Nixon is: Doleful

Sticks and Stones

2010-02-19T12:10:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

It seems that modern politicians have much more freedom in expressing themselves once they've left office. Such as Dick Cheney's recent comments about President Obama.

After my term as Vice President ended, it was understood that once out of office I was supposed to hold my tongue in order to preserve some traditional form of dignity. Well, I've always been a good soldier, and have always tried to do what is best for my party and my nation. So, even though I had to clench my teeth during that damned Kennedy's term, I kept my peace. Sure, I'd vent some of that anger by putting Pat in her place, or shooting songbirds, but I never made a speech complaining of the Irish conspiracy that stole the election. The unexpected benefit was that it helped temper my steel into the finely honed blade that filleted McCarthy in '68.

But even if I were to have spoken up, I would have been very careful to never directly criticize the president. That's not my style. It lacks subtlety or flair. Construct a strawman and then tear it to shreds is the Nixon way! At the very best, direct criticism just makes one look like they've spent their time away from public service harvesting a very large crop of sour grapes, and looking for all the world like a pathetic, bitter little man - possibly riddled with phelbitis.

Of course, Cheney was never subtle and could be the most petty and vengeful of people. I recall that he had some small function in my administration as a unrestrained mad dog, and even then we all found him to be far too abrasive. He always wore that sneer, and never understood the art of stabbing someone with a velvet glove. He also would release the most foul and eye-watering flatulence.

It saddens me to see someone like Cheney publicly wallowing in their anger. The course I chose was to allow all the bile and resentment to slowly ferment over time, turning me into an even more lethal and vindictive person. Turning me into the best damn Nixon I could be.

Nixon is: Sanctimonious

A Retard by Any Other Name

2010-02-17T10:12:00.000-08:00

dis.
My fellow Americans,

It seems that we as a people (and more specifically, we Republicans as a group) are getting soft. We've lost the fortitude that allowed us to stand up to the likes of Hitler and Daniel Ellsberg, while also pulverizing opponents like McGovern or Allende into jelly.

Worse yet, what is particularly distressing is how those who lead, or who hope to lead, have also become pathetic, dribbling weaklings - demanding apologies for the slightest perceived offense. So you can imagine my supreme disappointment when Gov Sarah Palin, potential candidate for President in 2012 and the self proclaimed "pitbull with lipstick" became offended by a cartoon that made fun of retarded kids. A Cartoon! Not an editorial in the Times or the Post, but a cartoon.

Our leaders need to be strong and able to withstand the brutality, vitriol, and character assassination that comes with the responsibility of power. Did I cry and demand an apology when the Democrats started calling me 'Tricky Dick,' or when those subversive newspaper cartoonists drew unsavory pictures of me, sweaty and grime-covered, climbing out of a sewer?

Of course not. I always gave as good as I got. In Moscow in 1959, when Kruschev tried to get the better of me in the kitchen debate, I didn't fold up and demand an apology. I fought back. And that's what Gov. Palin needs to do. Just shut her trap about her damned mongoloid child and go on the offensive. She's shown she's capable of it. Her malicious lies and despicable slander of President Obama during the 2008 campaign were almost as good as my savage 'Pink Lady' strategy against Helen Gahagan Douglas back in 1950. The trouble is, Palin is one of those distasteful, mealy-mouthed prima donnas who can dish it out but can't take it, and ends up getting her ruffled panties in a twist whenever things get rough. Just like a dame.

Politics is a rough business, and it needs to be. If a candidate is unable to handle the unfriendly treatment of the press or their competitor, how would they ever be able to look a communist in the eye, or be able to give the command to bomb Cambodia? Regret and compassion are only acceptable in concession speeches, and even then only if contrasted by pettiness and seething, bitter animosity. Asking for an apology - even for mocking a defenseless retard - is for losers.

Nixon is: Revolted

Presidents' Day

2010-02-15T09:19:00.000-08:00

.
My fellow Americans,

Monday is "Presidents' Day." I'm not sure I like the idea of having only one day stand for every president. It seems it gives too much credit to those that are unworthy. After all, one could argue that while some presidents deserve special recognition (like Teddy Roosevelt, or Rutherford B Hayes), others ought to have their graves exhumed and their bones ground into paste for use as a salve for shingles (I'm looking at you, Grover Cleveland!).

Why should I, the president who opened the door to China and faced down Leonid Brezhnev, share a day with some spoiled pretty boy whose greatest accomplishment was spouting off some grade-school German? You didn't see me in South Vietnam saying something silly like "I am a Saigoner" in whatever bloop-bloop way those people have of speaking. I never could get the hand of that language like Henry did. It was too hard on my Quaker tongue. Now French, that's a Language for me. Sure, it makes you feel a little fruity when speaking it, but it's a good language. A clean language. A republican language.

But no, the country loved that Rum-Running sonofabitch's kid. Even though I was the one who nailed that pinko Alger Hiss. I was the one who went toe-to-toe with the Soviets. I had to clean up the mess in Indochina. I had to deal with that insane demagogue in Havana. I had to put my foot down and keep those smelly hippies in line. I did all the hard work, while that playboy got by on looks and that goddamn Harvard accent. I didn't have daddy to clear my path through life. I had to do it on my own - working in my father's grocery store in Yorba Linda. You know ... an Orthogonian, like the rest of you ...

All I ask is while you're drinking your Gin & Tonics, to give a little thought to how much you're all missing. After all, you don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

Nixon is: Angry