Category: News

Watergate Sowed A Lasting Cynicism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1TU33YzvkM&feature=related  Just viewed this historic video about Watergate.  Afterwards, reviewing it, the title caught my attention.  784 days that changed America.  365 +365 equals 2 years. add 54 days and I realized that the Democrat opposition to the landslide Republican election victory lasted 2 years 54 days.  I have written about this elsewhere.  However, one point for this blog.  Not one person was killed by Watergate.  Yet, the Democrat controlled Senate held daily hearings on the “lying” Nixon for 784 days.  I remember that at times the hearings went on into the midnight hours.  Finally, the will of voters in 48 States that had elected Nixon, was thwarted by Sam Erwin, Judge Scirica, and the Watergate Special Committee.  Is it any wonder that since that time there is great scepticism on the part of the public and all parties as to the motives and integrity of the Democrat party and their henchmen in the bureaucracy?  Just a thought, but I consider it a thought to be considered seriously.

Obama’s Blame Game is Plain Stupid

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-weekly-address-gop-blame-stalemate-100021216–abc-news-politics.html  The writer of this blog is at wit’s end as to what to say about President Obama’s continued dissembling about the economy.  He is the king of blame and the blame is always on the other guy.  Obama never owns up to his part in the stalemate and always, again I say aways, blames the other guy.  We should have realized this was his standard mode of operation when he accused the white policeman who tried to help save the property of the black professor in Cambridge Mass.  He blamed the white cop of being over zealous.  Now, what is a President of the United States and so-called leader of the entire free world doing by interfering in the small town of Cambridge scuffle between a cop and a college professor?  Really, it was very petty and revealed Obama’s mindset.  He is a man who sees everything in black and white.  He sees everything as a battle as us versus them.  He interprets everything in terms of I win and you lose.  It is not an attitude that makes for progress in politics.  It is hyper partisan and increases the natural friction between the politics parties to super heated levels.  It divides because everything is black and white.  And the interpretation of the black and white is me versus you.

Did Robert’s Betray the Majority?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html  The core of this article is that John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court may have changed his opinion at the last-minute and joined the Obama Liberals to rewrite and uphold the Obama health care law which Justice Roberts called a Tax.  We will probably not know the answer but if his change of decision was last-minute and if it was merely to save the reputation of his tenure as Chief Justice, then he should resign.  Why?  Because a Supreme Court Justice should not, for purely personal reasons, change his convictions and his impartial judgement concerning the constitutionality of a law.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rationale of the ruling.  However, as a person with a reasonable mind, as the ruling was announced on TV I thought that Roberts wanted to save Obama.  Now, I understand that the article says he wanted to save his court.  It is bad enough, for him to save his court at  great financial cost to the nation.  But, I would add, that since the inauguration, when Robert flubbed the Oath of Office, he has been very sensitive to Barrack Hussein Obama as being the first black President.  When a man makes a silly mistake like the flubbing of the oath, he has a subconscious desire to “make it up to the other person”.  This could even be a subliminal urge that cannot be accounted rational.  It is instead highly personal and the non rational nature of Justice Roberts decison to uphold Obama care based on Robert’s use of the word tax as opposed to penalty evidences his need to make things right with The Man.  Very sadly, the entire nation must live with the foible of one white man’s need to ingratiate himself to a black man.  AND before you get all racist against my calling white and black, please remember the Congressional Black Caucus walkout, Eric Holder’s racism accusations against the entire House of Representative and starting with the Cambridge police incident, Barrack Obama’s statements that the white cops acted stupidly.  For any accusers, here is my take.  I now believe that it is in the best interests of America to talk about race frankly.  Therefore, when black Americans are allowed to consistently, persistently and regularly use the race card against white Americans, it is fair game for the White Americans to do the same to them. Maybe with a new frankness, we can finally get past the inordinate power given to black americans because it is held that only they can use the race card and no one else.  It is so stupid that as soon as a writer, like myself, points out black versus white, it is always regarded by our politically correct culture as being the white person who is racist.  Can a black person be racist?  Well, enough of that because it really is something that should not be necessary in a cultured, civilized and educated society.

Back to Roberts.  Could it be that the Chief Justice decided at the end to abandon the majority because he wanted to save Obama. The article seems to indicate that the opinion of Minority was actually written as the opinion of the “then” majority.  Could Robert’s have played the Judas at the last-minute?  Is that the reason for Justice Kennedy’s strident assertion in dissent that the Chief Justice changed the law and thereby actually revised it in order to make it constitutional?  Obviously, revision of a law is the prerogative of the House and Senate and not of the Court.

Another possibility- Could Robert’s have thought that he was saving the Congress and defending them in their legislative function.  If that is the case, then he legislated from the bench in order to save the legislature.  That is twisted to say the least.  But also stupid because the Dissent indicated that they were willing to strike down the whole law. This would have delivered the nation from the tyranny of a law which was purchased from Nebraska, from Louisiana, from Missouri and from Wisconsin with bribery,  a bribery using US tax dollars against the will of its citizens.

There is a cry from the Democrats that only now must we move on and leave things as they are.  This is pure politics.  There are good reasons for taking the fight against Obama care back to the legislature.  Not least of which is the Brief submitted by 26 State governments opposing the implementation of the tax.  Since Robert’s has declared the “mandate” to be a tax, the powers of the House and Senate are affirmed and the House can exercise those powers by constant attempts to repeal this unfair, unpopular and flawed tax.  Of course, the House will need to get past the uncompromising blockade established by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, who has declared all such proposed legislation to be “dead on arrival” and therefore not even to be considered by the Democrat Senate.

I said at the beginning that if the reasons enumerated here are true, then Chief Justice Roberts should resign.  I retract that opinion.  If they are true, let him repent of personal prejudice and confess, at least to himself.  The nation is not served by a obsequious Supreme Court  whose Chief Justice is afraid of the Black man in the White House and therefore is willing to abandon values, judgement and therefore Justice in order that The Man would not scold him.  Because, if that is the actual reason he decided as he did, then the Supreme Court is very severely damaged in the view not only of the partially informed public but of the legally trained who can only regard such a ruling as flawed beyond belief.

Nixon, and his Persecutors,Watergate Scandal or Government Overthrow?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/woodward-and-bernstein-40-years-after-watergate-nixon-was-far-worse-than-we-thought/2012/06/08/gJQAlsi0NV_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop   Like many older Americans I remember the so called Nixon years.  So, from the street level, here’s the rest of the story.

1. Not everybody loved Nixon, to be sure, but not everybody hated him either.  From my reading of the era, the left liberals absolutely hated Richard Milhouse Nixon.  It was visceral.  He was from a small rural background and the majority of his haters were from the Eastern Urban Establishment.  (Granted, we are told that such an elitist establishment doesn’t exist!!)  Nixon stood against Adlai Stevenson and was an outspoken opponent of Walter Lippmann and the secret liberal bias of Walter Cronkite and other news personalities.  A liberalism, which since their deaths we have discovered, was all-pervasive and determinative of practical decision-making, effectively used to block conservatives like Nixon from power.  Although, much to the Left’s chagrin, Nixon was able to out maneuver them.

2nd Nixon only narrowly lost the election to John Kennedy.  Many historians believe that the election was actually stolen by Joe Kennedy and the Chicago Mafia Chief.  If true, and many reputable historians believe it is, then the thief of an election from the American people was a criminal overthrow of the legitimate election of Richard Nixon as President.  Yet, Woodward and company disdainfully dismiss this as urban legend and right-wing conspiracy theory.  So, are we to believe that the enemies list of the legitimate government of Richard Nixon was far worse than the criminal stealing of an entire Presidential election?  Only blind hatred of Nixon and the desire for self-justification can overlook history in favor of deductive propaganda.

3. Nixon won an overwhelming victory in his second election.  The winning of forty-eight out of fifty states in a Presidential election is again disrespectfully dismissed as insignificant in favor of the leftist liberal interpretations of Nixon’s politics.  The portrayal here is as though Nixon was the criminal whole stole his second term. Strange how writers Woodward and company want to explain away the criminal activity of John Kennedy’s campaign by portraying Nixon’s 48 State landslide as something stolen!!  There is absolutely no accusation in history that the 48 State landslide of Nixon’s second election was a fraud.  There is absolutely no hint of credible evidence suggesting that there were any election shenanigans. But we ARE left with the Liberal bias as innuendo that if the break in had not occurred, Nixon could not have convinced the voters in 48 States to vote for him.  Therefore, so the conspiracy practitioners of the Democrat party whisher, Nixon’s second ternm as President was not legitimate!!

3a.  The writer of this blog believes that the undermining of our Republic began not with Joe Mc Carthy and the Communist scare of the 1950.  It began with the Sam Irwin Watergate Committee of the 1970’s when the Democrat party systematically undermined the American free election system.  In effect, the Watergate committee’s main objective was the eviction of a duly elected US President.  He has won 48 States.  His electoral victory was overwhelming.  Nonetheless, the Watergate committee of Sam Irwin, Bob Woodward, and their cronies in the Democrat party, assisted by the owners of the Washington post and the New York Times, succeeded in the overthrow of the legal government of the USA by petulance and cynical political rhetoric and criminal cronyism.  (Just to relieve the intensity of this blog; can you imagine that the House and Senate of the USA meet in continuous 24 hour sessions for months and that their staffs worked 16 hour days and that every news channel in the USA carried the Watergate congressional hearings everyday for 24 hours a days for months?  Really!! The American people were ready to have the President resign just so that they could get back to regularly scheduled programs like I Love Lucy and the Honeymooners!!)

4. From the streets of America in those days, I remember the burning of cities on East and West coasts by violent revolutionary leftist agitators.  I remember watching TV night after night as our college campus’ were ignited by arsonists, our inner cities set ablaze by the very residents who lived there, and our public buildings bombed by the likes of Bill Ayers. The country was in revolution not against Nixon the man, or Nixon the President.  It was a revolution without a cause and Vietnam was the excuse.  And all I could think about back then was how angry I was at the college educated rich kid perpetrators of such destruction.  It was my country too but they felt it was their playground to loot, pillage and burn.

5. Then we get to Watergate.  Here I will just sketch my issues.  First is the “deep Throat” informant who we learn later was a trusted intelligence agency employee who regularly gave secret, private and personal information to Woodwood et.al.  The whole issue here is the trusted position of the informant who was a spy inside the administration. He was not outed until he outed himself just before he died.  I always rejected the idea of a spy inside our government giving information to a novelist and reporter.   Personally, I find the use of the sexual name, “deep throat” a reference to oral cock sucking, to be indicative of the attitude of Woodward and his ilk.

5a. Then there is John Dean who was an attorney to the President and who willingly accepted personal immunity from Senator Sam Erwin, who was himself a Nixon hater.  I think it would be very informative and enlightening if we would re broadcast the entire Watergate hearing with a special highlight on the legal counc=selor to the president, John Dean.  Folks, this was the President’s lawyer.  He was a personal, as juxtaposed with public, advisor to the President.  This man, has the Judas ability to come out and not only reveal what he said to the President in his capacity as legal advisor; he also reveals what the President said to him, personally and privately.  I mean, Nixon is talking to HIS LAWYER here and the man is taking notes with the intention of revealing this privileged information to the enemies of the president em=nemies who sole goal is to destroy John Deans client.  I mean not only to hurt Nixon, but to steal his election victory, destroy his presidency, destroy his Name, Destroy his family I mean the Sam Erwin Watergate Committee has one goal and one goal only.  It was to totally annihilate Richard Nixon and everyone and everything connected to him.  And here, as we watch the Watergate hearings, is John Dean, Esquire., the President attorney, who is willing and gleefully participating in the destruction of his client.

TO Be Continued….

President Demand Obedience to His View

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-demands-action-transportation-bill-student-loans-100034841–abc-news-politics.html  The President gets more specific today with his cynical assertion that the Republicans of the House of Representative are to blame for the grid lock in legislation.   This writer wants to state his belief that until today the President has been very selective whenever criticizing the legislative branch by always referring to the grid lock in Congress.  Granted, technically the Congress is the House of Representative, but for most ordinary people it refers to the whole branch and therefore lays blame on the majority party.  However, the facts remain that the blockage is the Senate with “dead on arrival” Harry Reid completely blocking all legislation from the House that does agree with President Obama’s personal directives to his Democrat henchmen in the Senate.  Yet, very good legislation of a myriad type has been passed by the House but stopped “dead on Arrival” in the Senate.  It seems to be that our nation is served by a President who constantly blames the Republicans for every ill and exonerates his own Democrat party for everything.  Today we heard more of the same, when Obama said that the White House and the Democrats in the Senate have done everything right on Transportation and Student Loans while it is the House Republicans who, Obama claims, bicker, back bite, and block progress.  I have come to the conclusion that whenever Obama blames somebody for something, I will look at the ones he excuses, including himself, and there I will find exactly the behavior he publicly and cynically denounces.  I guess that Obama regards the American people as stupid enough to elect him on a hope and a chance of change, and now he believes they will continue to believe whatever he says to be true, as true,  although the facts regularly indicate the reverse.

Nancy Pelosi is a Scary Clown

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/pelosi-rips-holder-contempt-charges-i-could-have-arrested-karl-rove-on-any-given-day/#ixzz1yO8nVpcc  At least when she was House majority leader, The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representative was scary.  I mean she is actually talking here about arresting a US citizen, an advisor to the president like Valerie Jarrett, and throwing Carl Rove in the House of Reps. jail.  I think that Ms. Pelosi misunderstands the historical purpose of the jail cell.  I believe it was for times of insurrection and civil war, when there might have been insurrection and chaos within the halls of the House.  It was not meant for the kind of power filled political revenge intimated here by the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House.  Has she forgotten the rules called habeas corpus?  Yes, Lincoln did suspend the constitutional rules involving habeas Corpus, but that was during the Civil War and only because Confederate spies and assassins were roaming the halls of the Congress, Senate and all of the public ale houses of D.C. .  Thankfully, the Hon. Nancy Pelosi is no longer the leader of the majority in the House and therefore, no longer Speaker.  Therefore this formerly scary person is just a clown.  Woe be to us if she ever regains the Speakership!!

Pope to visit Philadelphia 2015

s: What’s at stake in Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Philadelphia

    Jun. 08, 2012

By David Gibson, Religion News Service

Pope Benedict XVI leaves his general audience Wednesday in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican. (CNS/Paul Haring)

Nearly lost amid ongoing reports about the Vatican leaks scandal, Rome’s battle with American nuns, the American bishops’ battle for religious freedom, and the priest on trial in Philadelphia, was the news that, by the way, Pope Benedict XVI plans to visit Philadelphia.

Benedict made the announcement at the end of his visit to Milan on Sunday for the church’s triennial World Meeting of Families. The next meeting would be in Philadelphia in 2015, he said, and he planned to be there, “God willing.”

True, the trip won’t happen until 2015, and it may well not happen at all — Benedict would be 88 by then. Even if there’s a new pope in 2015, the City of Brotherly Love is still almost assured of getting a papal visit — new popes like to underscore continuity, and respect the plans their predecessors had in place.

In a larger sense, the visit would be about more than promoting family life, and in many ways it’s related to other Catholic issues now dominating the headlines. Here’s why.

It’s practical

Benedict’s only other visit to the United States, in April 2008, was to New York and Washington. One might think that he would want to visit the South or West, where the Catholic flock is actually growing, and to give those folks there a chance to see the Holy Father.

But Philadelphia is on the Eastern seaboard, and about the closest point in the United States to Rome. That’s no small consideration for a pope who has never been terribly vigorous and who now suffers from a painful arthritis-like condition that drains his energy.

The pope likely will face intense lobbying from U.S. bishops who want him to visit their diocese, too. While papal aides will try to resist such entreaties, another logical stop would be Baltimore — the “mother church” of all U.S. dioceses — and now headed by Archbishop William Lori, who has no small amount of influence in the hierarchy these days.

It’s pastoral

Philadelphia’s Catholics have been rocked by years of increasingly horrific revelations about sexual abuse by clergy, and the former head of priest personnel, Monsignor William J. Lynn, is awaiting a jury’s verdict on whether he will be the first church official ever convicted for helping cover up for clergy molesters.

Moreover, the Philadelphia archdiocese — one of the most storied and solidly Catholic in the nation — faces an unprecedented wave of closures and mergers, as well as a sobering $12.3 million operating loss for the last fiscal year. Philadelphia’s new archbishop, Charles J. Chaput, warned that those money troubles would mean a significantly downsized event — a papal rally of just 60,000 to 80,000.

Chaput said Benedict still wanted to go because of what it could mean to the city’s Catholics. “Philadelphia is in the midst of a very difficult time and I hope that (the 2015 meeting) will be a way of celebrating our commitment to be a church of the new evangelization that looks forward to the future with confidence and joy,” Chaput said after he appeared with the pope in Milan.

It’s personal

Chaput has emerged in recent years as a leading champion of the Vatican’s “new evangelization” as he uses his bully pulpit to argue forcefully for a strong Catholic voice in the public square.

Chaput has also undertaken a number of sensitive missions for Rome: leading an investigation of an Australian bishop who was eventually sacked for his liberal views, and helping to clean up the conservative, scandal-plagued Legionaries of Christ order. This visit is a papal pat on the back for Chaput.

Will the visit help Chaput earn a cardinal’s red hat? There are no guarantees, but retired Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali would be 80 in 2015, making Chaput eligible — and appealing.

It’s political

Even if the trip does not come off, the image of Benedict standing next to the Liberty Bell or other icons the city of America’s founding freedoms dovetail perfectly with the bishops’ campaign for religious freedom, which they say is threatened by government policies like the health insurance mandate for birth control coverage.

The bishops’ “Fortnight for Freedom,” which runs June 21 to July 4, consciously tries to link the Catholic faith with the American founding, and the prospect of a papal visit to Philadelphia drives the point home.

“It’s fitting that this gathering, which celebrates the cornerstone of society, will take place in America’s cradle of freedom,” Chaput said.