Communist Leader Adorns Obama Whitehouse Christmas Tree

Nixonian Foreign Policy and Obama

A couple of days ago, I described Hillary Clinton's foreign policy as being that of Richard Nixon and the more I thought about it, the more I felt that point needed clarification.

Nixon's main achievements came in the field of foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson's tax and spend approach to welfare combined with his mismanagement of the Vietnam War led to a period of American weakness. High inflation, breakdowns of social cohesion, and a declining ability to project power meant that by the late 60s, that weakness was real. Nixon adjusted US policy accordingly. For the first time since World War II, we dealt from a position of weakness rather than one of strength. This required Nixon, more so than other presidents, to engage enemies with despicable domestic records. Mao Tse Dong was the worst of the lot. However, Nixon did this with an overall vision of m,aking our enemies (USSR and China) more afraid of each other than of us. It worked, giving us breathing room before the American Renaissance of Ronald Reagan.

Obama has insisted that we show disrespect to our friends and love to our enemies (who use the opportunity to slap us in the face when they get the chance.) It is the Nixon concept of engaging enemies, without the overall plan of how to use that engagement to secure security. What is most galling is that at the end of 2008 the United States was the most secure and strongest power in the world. Obama's excessive borrowing has placed us at the mercy of our adversaries. His policy of apologizing for every slight, real or imagined, has dissolved the international respect so carefully established by Bush and Rice.

So a point of clarification. I used Nixon to describe Clinton and Obama's policy because liberals believe that Nixon is worse than Hitler and Judas Iscariot rolled into one. However it does use some aspects of Nixon's process without the overall vision or savvy that will lead to an enhanced American security.

The Orwell Doctrine

George Orwell's novel 1984 reflects the fears of his time, a resurgence of totalitarian regimes. The dictatorship he created was based both upon the terrifying regimes of Hitler and Stalin complete with a personality cult around the unreachable Leader named Big Brother. Totalitarian regimes love to play with words, for example the People's Republic of China was one of the main perpetrators of massacre and artificial famine in the past century. It had much to do with the power of Mao and nothing to do with helping the people.

Obama is not Mao, nor is he Hitler nor is he Stalin. However, he and his Democratic Party want to attack basic freedoms and cloak these efforts with language. The Left are itching to reenact what they call the "Fairness Doctrine."

This doctrine emerged in the late 1940s as a power assumed by the Federal Communications Commission to force radio broadcasters to grant equal time to all sides of a political issue. If enforced today, this would force a radio station to provide three hours to a liberal host if they run the Rush Limbaugh show for three hours. Local boards would be erected to ensure fair access.

It is telling that liberal presidencies and Supreme Courts have supported the concept while conservatives have opposed it. In the 1980s the Reagan Administration revoked the doctrine, citing the fact that it violated a radio station's right to free speech and also inhibited a station's right to operate in a free market. This allowed a proliferation of conservative talk shows to emerge on AM radio in the 1990s that proved popular and profitable. Meanwhile, well-funded attempts to establish liberal talk radio failed miserably. Seems that people did not want to listen to their ideas.

This attempt to squelch conservative radio is an outrage. If President Bush had used government action to silence Michael Moore or the liberal newspapers, the nation would have risen in outrage whether they agreed with the liberals' ideas or not. It's a question of free speech. Left wingers now have started feeling their power and arrogantly want to display it. It will start with the radio. Next they will come after people's guns. Then what? One shudders to think.

Hillary Clinton Supporters Call Fox News Fair and Balanced, Indirectly

Democrats, especially those of the pantsuit persuasion, have many times over the years chided Fox News as being a bastion of conservative bias. They love bashing the network's "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

Certainly over the years Fox News has gotten its shots in at both Clintons while other networks cast a glow upon them. This primary season saw the Clinton backlash candidate within Democratic circles result in the nomination of not a formidable Clinton Part II, but of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern rolled into one vague and incomprehensible package.

Hillary Clinton thought she had this one in the bag. Based upon the media love affair with her over the years, why should she have felt any differently. Negative media coverage, not just in stories, but also photo selection, point of view, even jokes, assailed her as it normally does the GOP nominee. She found out suddenly what it was like to be a Republican.

Last week her supporters called out MSNBC and CNN for their presumed bias against her nomination. Of course they hauled out the sexist card against those two organizations. Interestingly by default she acknowledges Fox's claim of fair and balanced coverage. Stories also surfaced last week describing the possibility of retribution against those who turned on the Clintons. In our state, Governor Manchin only announced his support of Obama after receiving the blessing of the Clintons. Not that it matters since Joe Manchin would rather be seen with Mao Tse Dong at this point than Barrack Hussein Obama (of course there's not much difference between those two.)

*****************************************************************

Speaking of disciples of Mao Tse Dong, Delegate Carrie Webster (D-Kanawha) spent over $73,000 in the primary! The party of the common man has 80% of the $1.28 million that all legislative candidates have at this point, according to Lincoln Walks at Midnight.

Voters must look past the flash and dash that the Democrats can afford and pay attention to their pro-abortion platform that also endorses the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was voted down by the US Senate in 2000 99-0. It would have been 100-0, but Strom Thurmond was too ill to vote. It would effectively destroy much of the coal market. Additionally it would place restrictions on the US economy that competing third world nations would not be burdened with. Senators Byrd and Rockefeller as well as all our representatives voted against it.