The Voice of Reason: A V.I.P. Pass to Enlightenment Read online

  The media I am referring to is of the same lineage as the knucklehead reporters, writers, and journalists who provided the almost unspeakably pro-Obama coverage in this most recent, and most disastrous, “election” (“coronation by media” sadly being a much more accurate and descriptive phrase). This branch of the media hated Nixon. They hated him for his courage and his refusal to kiss their asses. They hated him for his work ethic, his moodiness, his love of true liberty, and his ability to get things done with grit, resolve, and determination. He was nothing like their shallow, pompous, glamorous, born-to-the-manor idol, John F. Kennedy. JFK had nothing on his own. The media co-manufactured his cheap, reflective pseudo-brilliance, and then they basked in it, like the reptiles they were and still are. And that is an important point—the members of the media created JFK so they could then associate with him. It was as good a way of picking up chicks on the left as ever there was. JFK and the media—a symbiotic, sex-crazed Frankenstein’s monster, let loose on a gullible, trusting, and complacent country, which it then proceeded to pillage, both politically and psychologically.

  If that last paragraph went over your heads, let me put it in simpler terms. The media invented JFK, then sold him to the voters, much like a recent political lightweight who was given the greatest push in the history of the American political system—Barack Obama.

  But I don’t want to veer too far off topic—this chapter is about an American hero. Nixon ran in ‘68 and started kicking some tail right off the bat, even as the media whined and cried about ‘Nam (They’re shooting back! Run away!). While the media expressed negative opinions about US involvement in Vietnam and the heroes who carried out the justified, dangerous missions, Nixon did his thing. The media didn’t like that, not one bit, so they turned up the heat. They came at him and the American people with a well-organized blitzkrieg of bullshit. They basically instructed the American voters to elect his opponent, Hubert Humphrey, but the American people didn’t buy it for one second. Nixon wiped the floor with him and became the leader of the free world.

  So Nixon was put in the White House, where he belonged, and he got to work. He started droppin’ bombs and letting the Russians and the Chinese know that communism had to go in Southeast Asia. He wasn’t unreasonable. He was happy to sit, talk, and try to work it out. Not on their terms, but on ours. He was all over the place, in dark blue suits and a permanent five o’clock shadow. He was putting his finger in people’s chests and telling ‘em right where to go if they didn’t like it, always backed by fellow badass Spiro Agnew, his right-hand man.

  During this whole time, Nixon was talkin’ zero trash, like a man; running a country in tough times, with a war going on and things to do. He was just doing his job, and then the next election rolled around. And guess what? The media, which hadn’t been able to sit down in the last four years thanks to the licking they took while bent over Nixon’s knee, decided to get some revenge. They doubled-down on the relentless, astonishingly biased reportage, basically demanding that the American voters elect Nixon’s opponent, a pacifist, milquetoast, stumblebum named George McGovern. And I mean the shrillest, most overwhelmingly one-sided “journalism” in political history (until this last election, that is).

  And guess what happened, my fine friends? Nixon won even bigger than the first time. The voters repudiated the media and their attacks both on Nixon the politician and Nixon the man; they gave him an overwhelming vote of confidence. The American people told the media, and their hollow, opaque, pandering coward of a candidate, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

  They understood Nixon and the complexities and demands of his mission, and they approved of what he stood for. How did they come to this decision? By thinking for themselves. They refused to be dictated to by a bunch of guys with microphones, news cameras, and notepads. The American voters manned (and wo-manned) up, and they sent Nixon right back to the hard work of winning a war and running a country, which was increasingly being undermined by the Left and its ideological shock troops, the media. The media, rife with individuals who had avoided the war by getting college deferments, had no interest in winning the war. Those war-avoiders had graduated from college with degrees in journalism and gone to work at newspapers and television stations across the country. Bitter and resentful, they bored their way into the supporting psychological structure of the country like a gang of shipworms, determined to destroy the timbers of the ss United States, even if that meant sinking the ship.

  You see, those angry, defeated, invertebrates now held a grudge not only against Nixon, the leader of their country, but they also held an ever-growing grudge against the American people. They felt the American people had somehow wronged them by refusing to buy their line of bullshit in two straight landslide elections. The media could not collectively countenance the notion that the voters would reject the political hacks they, the media, had aligned themselves with philosophically. As the “unbiased journalists” schlepped back to their desks after the second landslide victory, a grudge burned and glowed in the hearts of each and every one of those cowards, and they waited for an opportunity to take their hateful, spiteful, cowardly vengeance.

  Now Nixon ran with a bit of a rough crowd. He had a few guys around, the kind of guys you need every once in a while, particularly in the rough-’n’-ready world of the late ‘60s–early ‘70s politics. Knock-around guys, sure, but also guys with good hearts. Most of them had seen some action and done their share of work, clean and dirty. Personally, I wish I had a few of those guys around myself. They may have been able to give me some “advice” or “assistance” with some of my recent “challenges.” Sadly, though, that type of associate, loyal and willing to break a few eggs for you if you tell him you want an omelet, is gone, long gone.

  Anyway, a few of those fellas who hung around Nixon got involved in a bit of high jinks—nothing too bad. Nothing every other president’s rapscallions hadn’t done some version of, including the gangsters who hung around the two presidents that preceded Nixon—JFK and LBJ. Regardless of the commonality of their high jinks, they got into a bit of a jam. Nixon found out, and like a man he tried to bail out his guys. He did less than a perfect job of it. (Google Watergate—I don’t have all day to give you people a history lesson.) The media, those flea-bitten, mangy, rabid dogs that had been skulking in the shadows, looking for a chance to strike, got wind of it. In the interest of the country, and the people, and the political system, they could have let it ride. But nooooo. …

  With that white-hot hatred for the American voter still burning in their hearts, the media chose to destroy Nixon the president, the patriot, and the man. The media’s prime mission was to punish the American voter for having the temerity to not be dictated to by them. Yes, my friends, that’s the real reason the media grabbed ahold of Nixon at his one weak moment and refused to let go. In their hearts they had grown to hate America, and the American people, too much to just let it ride. They chose to sacrifice the American people’s belief in, and support of, the political system for that one moment of vicious, crude, cruel vengeance. They made a conscious choice to make a big deal out of a very minor incident, knowing full well the damage it would cause. And, sadly, they succeeded. The American voter and the American political landscape have never been, nor will ever be again, the same. For their own perverse, twisted satisfaction, the media ruined a great man and damaged a nation’s belief in its leaders for time immemorial.

  And for what, I ask you? They sabotaged and hamstrung a military effort to battle communism by attacking the presidency, thereby forcing our courageous soldiers to fight a two-front war—the one against “Charlie” in the green hell of Vietnam, and the one against the greasy, cowardly, vile mongrels who spit on them on airplane runways when they came back to America. On their home turf, soldiers now had to deal with the brainwashed, slovenly, antiwar protesters. This behavior by protesters not only affected our heroes, it also affected our true enemy—“Charlie” in the jungles. It emboldened our enemy and al
lowed it to redouble its efforts to kill American soldiers. Eventually, it aided in our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we all know how things went after that. In the wake of America’s exit from that part of the world, Pol Pot, a Communist mass-murderer in neighboring Cambodia, killed more than two million of his own people. Both North and South Vietnam fell into chaos.

  Flash-forward to now. Vietnam is in business with the United States. China, too. And Russia. And everybody. They could have all had it back then if they had just done it Nixon’s way and gone capitalist when we told ‘em to. So just remember, the blood of every American solider who died in Vietnam is partly on the hands of every antiwar journalist and every hippie protester, and so is the blood of the American political system and the blood of President Richard Nixon. And let’s not forgot that the corpse of the American people’s trust in government is buried in their backyard.

  Richard Nixon.

  Still my president.

  Rest in peace, great American.

  It’s Not About Left And Right —It’s About Respect

  know all of you have been waiting for me, your New Champion of All Things Conservative, to start taking aim at President Obama. Although there are many verbal shots to take, there is something I’d like to share that will hopefully enlighten Obama Bashers and Obama Supporters alike. Regardless of my personal feelings, he is, first and foremost, President Obama. He was elected by the people of my country—the country I love, support, and would die for. He has chosen to take on one of the most difficult, time-consuming, stressful, and poorly paying jobs on earth. And personally, I believe his intentions are honorable and that he is doing his very best.

  Out of respect for the man, and the office, I call him president. I do not agree with many of his policies; I am philosophically opposed to many of his political positions; and he and I hold radically divergent opinions on most topics. But as a man, and as an American, I feel it is incumbent upon me to support him, even if that means being a member of the “loyal opposition.” My support may come in the form of silence. It may come in the form of respectful dissent. But it will be supportive, for the sake of my country.

  I would like you readers to give that a moment of thought. Then, I would like you to compare my approach with that of President Obama’s supporters in the years prior to, and even during, the election he won over John McCain.

  Answer me this: Were they behaving as members of the “loyal opposition” when:

  They were ridiculing, mocking, and belittling George W. Bush?

  They used every means, fair and foul, to malign Bush, question his intelligence and decision-making capabilities, and describe not only him, but also his wife and children, in terms of contempt, cruelty, wickedness, and anger?

  Why was it then (and still is now) that those on the left, the so-called progressives, always seem to fight the dirtiest? Why is liberal politics always the most cutthroat? Where was that type of personal, vicious attack on President Obama’s character, his intelligence, his very worth as a person, from the Right during the campaign? It didn’t exist.

  For eight years the liberal Democrats put their own feelings, their own hatred, and their own viciousness in front of the needs of their country. Because they hated—absolutely hated—President George W. Bush. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, liberal politics is the policy of hate and aggrievement, first and foremost. Just listen to liberals speak. Watch their actions. You can literally hear and see the hatred leaching out of their bones, forming a poisonous cloud that infects everyone around them. Let me make a few things very clear:

  Liberals don’t love the poor; they hate the wealthy.

  Liberals don’t respect justice; they hate and seek to destroy anything they perceive as unjust.

  Liberals don’t even love their own ideas; they just hate everybody else’s.

  Liberals do not respect the rule, or even the intent, of law as a construct of civilization; they see it only as a weapon to dismantle their ideological opponents—to punish those with different ideas, different circumstances, different objectives.

  Liberals hide behind the ever-shifting, amoral curtain of “social justice” to attack, destroy, and scatter the bones of industry, wealth, individual excellence, and personal achievement.

  Liberals use the Darwinian concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest (even though they are actually the ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace, one of his contemporaries) to force-feed the theory of evolution down every child’s throat as a government-mandated absolute in public schools. Then they discard the notion completely when it comes to human beings who work harder, achieve more, and succeed in favor of a very hazy, nonscientific, constantly shifting notion of “equality” and “social justice,” both codes for “hate,” which they then use to strip from the fittest among us all the benefits of being fit. (“See that guy with the Porsche? He’s better than all of you. Elect me so I can get rid of him, so we can all be the best together!”)

  Don’t just take my word for it—listen to them yourself. Listen to how they always come out against something—some perceived injustice, some wrong they must make right. And while you’re at it, watch how politically selective they are about it. Watch how they hold a press conference to denounce, ruin, and utterly destroy a broadcaster who inadvertently used a phrase or term that they perceive as “insensitive” to a particular race or ethnicity, all the while ignoring the fact that their lack of concern over that phrase for the past twenty years allowed it to slip back into the cultural mainstream through records produced by members of that particular race or ethnicity. Listen to how limousine liberals like Rosie O’Donnell rant about the fact that you are allowed to own a gun to protect your family, while she has armed bodyguards protecting her children. Listen to the hatred erupt from the bowels of her liberal guts as she hisses and screeches at everyone with differing opinions on same-sex marriage, gun control, or any other topic.

  Is that how the conservatives act?

  I have Democratic and liberal friends. In the eight years that President Bush was in office, eight of the most trying, painful years this great nation has been faced with—the attempted genocide of our people on 9/11, an international enemy with no face and no name trying to kill as many Americans as possible with no respect for humanity—I never once heard any of my enlightened, liberal friends refer to George W. Bush as “President Bush.” I never even heard them call him George Bush.

  It was always, without fail, simply the name Bush, spat out like a rotten grape. No respect for the man, his efforts, or the office itself. The same liberals who would lie on the carpet in the Oval Office to shine President Obama’s shoes would intentionally spill red wine on it if President Bush were in office. But it’s the same carpet, and the same office, and that’s the difference I see in liberals and conservatives.

  In assessing President Obama’s job performance, liberals have been quick to deflect attention (and its subsequent and inevitable criticism) from some of the president’s disastrous policies by sneering under their breath, “Well, he got Bin Laden.” They do this as if all along they were hawks on the parapets of the nation, howling for the blood of that war criminal. They weren’t. They were up on the parapets howling for blood, but it was the blood of a wealthy American or a conservative politician or a comedian who used an ethnic slur—not for the blood of the ideological architect of the mass murder of their fellow Americans. They steered clear of that, so afraid of “how the world perceives us” that they became declawed kittens lying on their bellies whenever anyone in the world raised the slightest stink about what we do to defend ourselves.

  But once it was done, once that serial killer was sent to hell, where he belongs, the liberals used his justified death as a way to give President Obama a big “attaboy,” while bypassing questions about his other atrocious policy decisions. And let’s be real here for a minute. It’s not like the president fast-roped out of a chopper with the SEALs team himself, with a knife in his teeth and a SIG P226 on his hip
. And it’s not even like it was his idea. (It might have been, had President Bush not already bravely instituted the policy of our nation as it applies to terrorists by saying, “We will bring you to justice, or we will bring justice to you.”) But to be perfectly fair and honest, when the time came, when the question was put to President Obama about what do when Bin Laden’s whereabouts were discovered, when the moral weight was on his shoulders and his shoulders alone, President Obama did the right thing.

  Let me go on record here and say:

  “President Obama: When they told you they had Bin Laden pegged, trapped in that filthy rat hole of a house, and they asked you to make a decision about what to do with him, you stepped up. You ordered the Navy SEALs to kill him. You did the right thing. You showed the courage, resolution, and conviction of the leader of the free world. I was proud of you, and proud to be an American with you as my president. I don’t agree with many of the things you do or believe in, but you are my president and I want you to succeed for the sake of my country. I would prefer you to succeed and for me to be wrong for the sake of this nation. But I reserve the right to disagree with you, and feel safe, and comfortable, and free from the fear of reprisal should I publicly or privately support different candidates with different ideas in the future.”