GLOBAL GOVERNMENT NEEDED TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE??

I don't even believe this shit.  Look at this crock of rationale from Scientific American, of all sources...

Effective World Government Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.

Pardon me?  So we need an "effective world government" (replete with carbon taxation and "green economy") in order to SAVE THE WORLD from climate change??

Pardon, but the Scientific community DOES NOT KNOW how to influence the climate one way or another.  We might be able to seed clouds in an extremely localized situation, but we have NO IDEA of how to REVERSE climate change.  The very notion is absurd.

No, we're not to that level of technical sophistication, okay?  In order to REVERSE climate change, we'd first have to UNDERSTAND climate change.

And we don't.

We don't even know the dynamics that drive thunderstorms.  We're still discovering shit about meteorology for which we don't even have fucking words.

What we THINK we know is that Earth's climate is entirely capable of changing suddenly and drastically, and WITHOUT the chemical contributions of humankind, and that's been the case since DAY ONE.

No, I'm not buying the argument that mankind is capable of re-engineering the climate.  Nor am I buying the argument that mankind can voluntarily re-engineer HUMAN BEHAVIOR.  It's not happening.  Not in my my lifetime and not in yours, and not in the lifetimes of our children and great-great-great grandchildren.

As "intelligent" creatures, we should recognize that we we're NOT ABOVE following the same path of the 99% of terrestrial organisms that have gone before us — Extinction comes to every species eventually, and some sooner than later.

We're not a particularly SUCCESSFUL species, compared to most.  Perhaps we're not supposed to survive; our suicidal behavior may be an indication that we're on a dead-end evolutionary path.

If we were TRULY intelligent, we would've thought twice before digging the hole in which we now find ourselves, yes?

DISNEY LOSING $200 MILLION ON "JOHN CARTER"

Can you say The Black Hole?

Predictably, the Disney Corporation's $300 MILLION space fantasy John Carter has ALREADY been declared a box-office and critical failure, mere DAYS after its premier.  Read it and weep (grin)...

Disney in $200 Million Writedown for "John Carter"

Walt Disney will incur a $200m writedown on John Carter, the action film based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel which has failed at the box office despite a $300m production budget and an extensive global marketing campaign.

The company said its “current expectation” is that its movie studio division will incur an operating loss of between $80m and $120m for the quarter following the release of the move.

The writedown deals a blow to Rich Ross, the chairman of Walt Disney Studios, who has been trying to improve returns at the division following a restructuring and a focus on films made under the Disney, Pixar and Marvel brands.

However, the abject failure of John Carter is not likely to be forgotten in an industry where a single flop can wipe out a studio’s annual profits.

Let's tell the truth here, shall we?

Disney hasn't made a decent movie since old Walt died.  No, I'm not making concessions for The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid and Finding Nemo and Wall-E, because those were kiddie films, and little kids don't recognize bad writing and worse music — they just want to see colorful cartoon characters bouncing around the screen.

Disney's major failing for the last 45 years has been their unabashed reliance on OLD FORMULAS that were successful in the 40s, 50s and 60s.  I mean, FORGET ORIGINALITY should be the Disney motto.

Beyond a complete absence of originality in plot lines and dialogue, Disney has displayed a thorough INABILITY to handle dramatic science fiction and adventure fantasy.  They should've just closed the studio down in 1977, after Lucas released Star Wars and after Spielberg and Lucas collaborated on the first Indiana Jones movie in 1980, okay, because George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg completely redefined fantasy to a level OUT OF REACH for the obsolete Disney Corp.

And, beyond their failure in the movie business — yeah, Disney is a failure in spite of their antiquated marketing ploy of promoting EVERY Disney film as "The Number One Movie in America!" and "The Funniest Movie of the Year!" — Disney also happens to be a mean-spirited business corporation.

And I mean VERY mean-spirited.  

I don't know how many of you are acquainted with Disney's history of hostile takeovers in the last 40 years, but I can tell you that the company is HOSTILE.

In the typical Disney takeover scenario (one of which my wife witnessed in Chicago in the 1980s), Disney personnel literally STORM the premises carrying military-grade assault weapons and place the newly-acquired company on lockdown, pending a hostile debriefing of the employees.

Thereafter, the employees are informed in the most belligerent manner that their new careers will be "making money for the Disney grandchildren."  If the employees don't appreciate this sort of manhandling, the Disney stormtroopers tell them to evacuate the property in 5 minutes.

That's why I STOPPED watching Disney films and purchasing Disney-related products some 35 years ago.  Yes, I research every movie and every product to determine its relationship to Disney — whether by Touchstone or Buena Vista or Pixar or Marvel or Sony or McDonald's or a dozen other of their affiliates — and I staunchly REFUSE to contribute to the Disney money machine.

It's very sad that what was once a good and wholesome company (under Walt) has turned into the money-grubbing and bad-tempered Ebenezer Scrooge of the entertainment world.  Serves them right when they take a major financial loss such as John Carter.

IS PATRIOTISM ILLEGAL...AGAIN?

Yeah, I like to whip out the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) citation against me on occasion, and I always end up with several emails asking me to clarify exactly what ADL citation I mean.  So I'll make it perfectly clear right now...

From early 2007 to mid-2010, I was one of the more entertaining contributors to the conspiracy theory website Above Top Secret.  I do not recommend that site to anyone interested in "free speech," by the way.  As is my wont, I expressed myself in blusterous and bombastic political rants on AboveTopSecret, and I made it no secret that I considered a government that employed FEAR as a weapon against its own citizens a government of terrorists.

Well.  This sort of talk attracted the attention of the Anti-Defamation League, which as you may know is a Jewish organization that defends Jews and Zionist governments against defamation by anti-Semites and Nazis and your ordinary American citizens.

Accordingly, in April of 2010, the ADL released a truly bizarre compilation of "violent speech" sampled from "extremist" sources all across the Internet.  This was the so-called ADL Center on Extremism Special Report, which was delivered to the Federal Government under the much scarier title "Violent Voices: Anti-Government Extremism Takes on New Intensity"...

Yeah.  You're not hallucinating.  The ADL built up their hysterical case against "violent speech" in America by cutting and pasting examples taken from private Websites, message boards, political forums, et cetera, from all across the Internet.

Above Top Secret was mentioned three times, I believe, in the ADL's Special Report, and they were citing ME, specifically.  Which was a dubious honor, to put it mildly.  I mean, Above Top Secret is chock-full of paranoid schizophrenics and nutcases and UFO fanatics and 911 Truthers; and for one of their own to be specifically cited in a report to the government was enough to send them into a frenzy.

When I wrote "TOXIC REIGN: Reclaim Our Future," in June of 2010, it was in response to the unwarranted ADL attack.  I tried to market the book on Above Top Secret, for which action I was permanently BANNED from the site.

Go figure, eh?

Look, here's what I said, this is my exact statement that the ADL pulled from Above Top Secret (you'll find the citation in the middle of Page 8 of the ADL report):

“When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation, you must realize that Congressional Democrats are the terrorists who in no way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.” 

That's violent speech, right?

Bullshit.  That's me saying the same thing I've been saying for years.

The only thing I'd change in that statement today is the reference to Democrats, because it's actually an undeclared SOCIALIST BODY of legislators, both Republican and Democrat, who are steering this country toward straight-up communism, and who are using fear tactics against the American people as they undermine our Constitution.

Yeah, the Anti-Defamation League was apparently so hysterical that they included ALL SORTS of statements that were not only NOT violent in nature, they were declarations of Patriotism.

Is Patriotism illegal now?

There was a time in our nation's history when being a Patriot was so illegal it would get you hung or shot or bayoneted.  Do you remember that bit of American history?  Are they still teaching it in our mandatory public education system?

It was called the American Revolution.

Is that where we are now, folks?  Are we on the brink of another Revolution?

LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME REALLY SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY

I don't usually cite Alex Jones' InfoWars or PrisonPlanet or any other conspiracy sites, because I'M a much better conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones, okay?  I'm not afraid to REALLY tell it like it is.  Alex Jones always toes the line between acceptable and extreme statements.

I, on the other hand, am not afraid of stepping way over the line.  It's called TELLING THE TRUTH.

That's why the Anti-Defamation League cited ME for "violent speech" back in 2010, even though the example they cited of my "violent speech" had nothing to do with violence.  All I said was that the U.S. Congress was a den of domestic terrorists, okay?  Which is the TRUTH.

However, although I'm no particular fan of Alex Jones, I have to acknowledge when he publishes a news story that the Liberal Socialist Mainstream Media won't touch with a ten-foot-pole, such as this one:

Department of Homeland Security Issues List of "Suspicious Behaviors"

Infowars has obtained a document from the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security & Preparedness that lists banal bodily activities such as yawning, staring and goose pumps as “suspicious activity” indicative of terrorism. 

The document (PDF), entitled Terrorism Awareness and Prevention, is presented as a guide for both “residents and workers of New Jersey,” along with employees of federal, state and local agencies, on how to “assist in combating terrorism” by identifying “unusual or suspicious activities and behaviors.” 

The guide encourages participants to “look for signs of nervousness in the people you come in contact with.” “Signs will become particularly evident in a person’s eyes, face, next and body movements.”

The document then lists examples of suspicious behavior indicative of terrorism, which include, “Exaggerated yawning when engaged in conversation,” “glances,” “cold penetrating stare,” “rigid posture,” and “goose bumps”. 

Of course, any of these behaviors could be explained by a million other circumstances and the likelihood that they are indications of terrorist activity is virtually zero. 

However, as we have seen from recent literature put out by the DHS or related law enforcement bodies, the standard for being characterized as a potential terrorist is getting broader and broader all the time. 

I want you to look at the document in question, Terrorism Awareness and Prevention, which you will immediately notice was released as an image-based PDF file.  There's no live text in it, because they don't want you and I easily copying and circulating the text, okay?  But I want you to look at it, just the same.

This document makes a point of citing the classic FBI definition of "terrorism" thusly:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.

You see what the problem is with that definition, right?  It's the fourth word in the definition: UNLAWFUL.  So, if the use of force or violence or intimidation or coercion is considered LEGAL, then it's not terrorism, right?

The DHS use of force and violence and intimidation and coercion is NOT considered terrorism, because the Federal Government says it's LEGAL.  Our own government maintains that it's LEGAL for the DHS and FBI and BATF to intimidate and coerce and use force and violence against American citizens, but it's somehow NOT terrorism?

This is bullshit, people.

Now let ME tell you what terrorism is:

Terrorism is the use of FEAR as a weapon. I don't care WHO uses it or HOW they attempt to revise the definition to justify their actions; those who employ FEAR to coerce populations  are TERRORISTS, and that most especially applies to those in central government.

No, it's NOT RIGHT for our government to use FEAR as a weapon against the American people.  Those in our government — our Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches — are the REAL terrorists, and they're the MOST DANGEROUS terrorists, because they've made their own terrorism "legal"...  You and I don't have recourse against this sort of insidious domestic terrorism committed by our own government AGAINST US.

Consider what this DHS document is telling us:  Yawning is suspicious activity.  Sweating is suspicious activity.  Scratching your ear is suspicious activity.  Sitting in your car is suspicious activity.  Staring into space is suspicious activity.

They're backing us into a corner such that anything we do can be considered suspicious activity.

But check this, the DHS document says that enforcement operatives should NEVER take race or religion into consideration when reporting suspicious activity.  That's their word: NEVER.

So let's just deliberately IGNORE the FACT that Arab Muslim fanatics comprise nearly 100% of the international terrorist threat in the world.  Oh, noooo, we CAN'T appear RACIST, and we can't cast aspersions on Muslims, can we?

How much better to strip search handicapped people in wheelchairs and old women and toddlers than to risk OFFENDING a goddamned Arab Muslim, right?

I mean, you want to see some sinister shit?  Look at the bottom of Page 8.  This is from the section on "Suspicious Packages and General Mail Handling"...

Be on the lookout for suspicious envelopes and/or packages.  Do not open suspicious mail.  Open all non-suspicious mail with a letter opener or method that minimizes skin contact.

What?  They don't want DHS operatives opening suspicious mail — it might be DANGEROUS.  But they're advised to open ALL non-suspicious mail. That's verbatim, okay?

I mean, it's either incredibly stupid on the part of the DHS to publish something like this (which is reason enough to distrust them), or they, quite frankly, don't give a damn that the public knows the DHS has the authority to open ANY mail that doesn't even fall under the heading of suspicious.

That's pretty damned suspicious behavior, don't you think?

We can't sue the DHS, okay, we can't file a lawsuit against the Federal Government for breaking the goddamned law and undermining the U.S. Constitution.  So you and I are at their mercy.

They think.

No, let me tell the DHS what is REALLY suspicious activity: Detaining innocent people for no reason; harassing innocent people for no reason; and accusing innocent people of "suspicious activity" because Janet Napolitano is a paranoid, anti-American, Nazi imbecile.

And the ULTIMATE in "suspicious activity" is obeying the suspicious orders of a paranoid Nazi imbecile, AGAINST your morals and better judgment, and then claiming later that you were "only following orders"... That's Nazism, y'all.

Folks, you had better believe that the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Administration and the U.S. Federal Government in general are going to REGRET carrying out this systematic persecution of INNOCENT American citizens, in the same way that Nazi war criminals regretted "following orders" against their morals and better judgment.

Yeah, they're going to be JUDGED by their BETTERS, not by their Socialist Nazi peers.  And by "betters," I mean the American People, the victims of this domestic terrorism carried out by our central government.

And the sooner they are judged, the BETTER, because they're stealing our Liberty, people.

TEXAS IS A WHOLE 'NUTHER COUNTRY, AMIGOS

You MUST be kidding me.

All the liberal folderol is making me a bit dizzy, but let's take a look at this...

Federal Government Opposes Texas Photo ID Law

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department's civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification. 

Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.

Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud. But advocacy groups for minorities and the poor dispute that and argue there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.

Pardon, but NO. Let me tell you something, voting may be a right, but when Mexicans are illegally swarming across the border by the MILLIONS, you MUST institute a means of identifying WHO is WHO, okay? In Texas, the Photo ID is a simple process to establish that you are a legal resident of the state, right? The claim by the Left that Texas is discriminating against Mexicans is BOGUS, okay?

Texas has bent over backwards for Mexicans, Texas is so Mexican-friendly that the Gringos are picking up and moving AWAY from suburbia, because the illegal aliens are SWARMING into the cities.

And, do you know what a BIG part of the problem is? It's naturalized Mexican-Americans who encourage their relatives to illegally cross over. "Hey, yeah man, it's good over here, come get some, bato! They don't enforce the immigration laws, man, get over here and we'll barbecue a goat in my backyard!"

My early memories — and I have total recall, just FYI — involve Mexicans.  When I was a little kid, my oldest teen sister was kidnapped and raped by a Mexican illegal alien, and she was held hostage by him and his family for a couple of days.

He was loco.

He used to come creeping around our house on the east side of Houston, peeking in our windows at night.  My brother found a beer can with a knife hole stabbed through it, right under my sister's bedroom window.  That weird sonofabitch was terrorizing us.

I don't know the details of the negotiation for my sister's release, because I was just a kid and the adults were trying to shield me and my other brothers and sister from the sinister business.

They didn't go through the police.

She came back disheveled and psychologically damaged.  Whatever else she may have become in her life evaporated at the age of 13; her subsequent fractured and erratic path in life proceeded from that assault.

There were rumors that the loco motherfucker "committed suicide."

But I don't think so.

See, I very clearly recall one night after my sister had returned home, when there was a disturbance in the back of the house, there was a scream, and I was abruptly shuffled to safety as my Dad bustled out the front door with a 12-guage shotgun in his hands.  To take care of a peeping tom.

So.

Don't tell me that sort of shit isn't still going on.  I grew up in Texas.  I know.

Hey, it's not a matter of economics, it's not a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of being ELIGIBLE to VOTE in an American election.

But, see, the U.S. Federal Government WANTS illegal aliens voting in America. It's a major breach of Constitutional law, but the Federal Government knows that illegal aliens will vote for the Socialists who promise to "spread the wealth around" and advocate instant citizenship.

That's why Obama's spineless administration has continued to leave America's southern border totally vulnerable to invasion.

YET ANOTHER GOVERNMENT WARNING: RED MEAT KILLS!

Speaking of meat grinders and other such dripping red concerns, check out this story from the British news publication, The Telegraph.  The British government's Department of Health just released new study results on the lethality of red meat in the human diet...

Red Meat Blamed in 1 Out of 10 Early Deaths 

The Department of Health was last night urged to review its guidance on red meat after a study found that eating almost half the daily recommended amount can significantly increase the risk of dying early from cancer and heart disease

Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of dying by 12%.  The study found that cutting the amount of red meat in peoples’ diets to 1.5 ounces (42 grams) a day, equivalent to one large steak a week, could prevent almost one in 10 early deaths in men and one in 13 in women..

Red meat often contains high amounts of saturated fat, while bacon and salami contain large amounts of salt. Replacing red meat with poultry, fish or vegetables, whole grains and other healthy foods cut the risk of dying by up to one fifth, the study found.

Just remember this: Study after study after study is commissioned by the government, not by the population that these studies affect most.  

I can guarantee you that, if you go to dinner with any politician in Washington, he or she is eating anything he or she desires, and the richer the diet, the better.  Additionally, they drink alcohol like it was going out of style, and they smoke tobacco like smokestacks.

Look at Barack Obama — a notorious smoker who can't quit.  Look at his wife, Michelle, publicly feeding her kids "low-fat" pork ribs (whatever THAT is).  Down South, you know what a "low-fat pork rib" is?  It's a dry bone — pork ribs are ALL fat.  Don't give me that "low-fat" bullshit, honey.

Look at Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, who drinks alcohol to excess, and who has actually tripled the State Department's annual alcoholic beverage bill.  And look at the lavish parties and vacations they all enjoy in Washington.  Those people in the highest offices revel in everything that is deemed "unhealthy" for the rest of us.

Government-commissioned studies are NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY by the very people who commission them.  And that isn't us.

Don't believe anything that the Federal Government tells you.  And especially don't believe the food recommendations of the USDA — the so-called "Food Pyramid" is a pure hoax, designed only to support unnecessary aspects of the agricultural industry.  No, you do not need pork products, you do not need eggs, and you absolutely do not need any dairy products — no milk, no cheese. 

Humans get all the Calcium we need in a red-meat diet with greens on the side.  Period.  That's how we evolved, and that's how we'll survive.  Believe me, we're not increasing our chances of survival by heeding government warnings and the bullshit being taught in public schools.

They don't teach anything in the government-sponsored mandatory public school system any more, except political indoctrination — they teach kids to OBEY the government, to blindly ACCEPT these government-sponsored studies without question.

The result?  Kids are "graduating" in abject illiteracy, and after 12 years in the public school system, these kids are unqualified to flip a hamburger.  So their parents must fork over an additional quarter-million dollars in college tuition for four more years of schooling, after which the kids are STILL unable to compose a coherent paragraph.

You know what they teach in schools today?  They teach Anthropogenic Global Warming THEORY.  They teach the downfall of Capitalism and the benefits of Socialism and Communism.  And they probably still teach the USDA's "Food Pyramid" of "required" foods in the human diet — which is a HOAX.

No, humans do not require milk or cheese or pork or poultry eggs in their diets.  That's absurd, it's a marketing ploy that dates back to the early 20th Century.  You may as well claim that we require SPIDERS in our diet.  

Sure, humans can eat a wide diversity of foods, including spiders, and particularly so in instances of starvation — but that doesn't mean we must eat a wide diversity of foods to survive.

We go to such desperate extremes in diet, it's no wonder we're such a physically weak species.  I don't think people realize that you're better off eating the same things your parents were eating when you were conceived.  You can live a long, healthy life eating red meat and green vegetables, because THAT'S WHERE WE COME FROM, okay?

You can go on a vegetarian diet if you want, but you should know that "diets" are traditionally a form of medical treatment for illness.  When your liver acts up, for example, you go on a citrus diet to correct it.  Diets are medical therapy, okay?  So there may be a vegetarian diet, but there's no such thing as a "vegetarian" human. 

Although we can survive on vegetable matter, inasmuch as we are omnivores, we cannot survive on vegetable matter ALONE. 

The reason we are superlative survivors is because of our ability to consume a diversity of foods; however, it is obvious from an examination of our anatomies and digestive systems and BRAINS that we are primarily CARNIVORES and that we have evolved on a high-protein diet provided by meats, not vegetable sources. 

Look at the size of our gastrointestinal systems and our pelvises.  We're not designed like other apes that consume vegetable matter primarily.  A large gut is indicative of a vegetable diet, because vegetable matter is not terribly protein-rich; so you must consume a LOT of vegetable matter to extract the protein that you require.

A carnivorous diet, rather, provides an abundance of protein in a small package.  So carnivores typically have small digestive systems compared to their vegetarian prey.

Again, compare a human skeleton to that of a chimpanzee or a gorilla or orangutan.  The differences are obvious.  The ape skeleton is built to accommodate a large, vegetarian gut.  The human skeleton is built to accommodate a much smaller gut.

Because we're primarily carnivorous

It's perfectly acceptable for humans to consume a single diet comprised of red meat and greens for their entire lives.  When the red meat runs out, we'll switch over to fish, or we'll switch over to virtually anything that doesn't immediately kill us.  

Because we CAN. 

But anytime the government "warns" us about our diets, it's always a matter of politics and economics, and it's never about public health.

NOW, WHO WAS IT THAT TURNED VIETNAM INTO A MEAT-GRINDER?

Time for a dose of TRUTH, before the Liberal-controlled media further poisons your minds.

Last night I streamed-in the Independent Film Channel (IFC), where a lot of new film work gets some well-deserved public exposure.  For example, The Blair Witch Project pretty much evolved on IFC in the 90s before it ever hit the big screen, okay?  Blair Witch was a $64,000 movie that grossed, like $130,000,000.  Fascinating story behind it (another blog, maybe).

Anyway, I still stream-in IFC to see what's cooking in the indie film community, so I streamed in this documentary about LBJ and Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War.  I erroneously thought it was a new documentary.

Now, for you people who weren't born until the 1980s and 1990s, Richard Nixon was a real American patriot, he was a Navy man in WWII, he was a good friend of John F. Kennedy — they were drinking buddies, okay, who had very similar conservative ideas, and they both hated Communism.

In fact, when JFK and Nixon ran against each other for the presidency in 1960, it was a fairly conservative campaign on BOTH SIDES.  Both Nixon and JFK had served in WWII, and JFK was a war hero, of sorts.  These guys were cut from the same mold, okay, and they were campaigning on conservative issues coming out of the Eisenhower administration of the 1950s.

In fact, one of the biggest concerns that conservatives had about JFK was that he was a New England Catholic.  Oooooh, a Catholic!  The controversies of the 1960 election were, like, NOTHING compared to the horseshit we see in politics today.

But this documentary I was watching on the IFC painted a picture of Richard Nixon as a MONSTER who ESCALATED the Vietnam War into a meat grinder for American troops.

And I'm sitting here thinking, I don't believe this.  I do not believe that I live here in America and I'm watching a piece of Liberal historical revisionism that is not only egregiously WRONG in its premise, but it's insidiously and aggressively biased against a man who's been dead for 18 years.

I mean, why  further assassinate a man's character decades after the fact?  What is the purpose of this documentary?  Why is IFC showing it?  Well, obviously, it's about indoctrination, it's about disseminating disinformation in order to indict those associated with Richard Nixon — namely, the GOP.

The documentary's intent was revising history to turn Richard Nixon into a grinning demon for posterity.

I later discovered that this cinematic horse pill was an ancient 1974 documentary, Hearts and Minds, by liberal anti-war film maker Peter Davis (the Michael Moore of his day).  This guy, I think, may be one of the flies in the ointment.

I think this Davis character, and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and all the other truly dreadful renaissance Liberal journalists who went after Nixon because they could, are the painters of NOT an honest historical portrait of President Nixon; verily, they chose to REVISE history in a very determined and hateful fashion.

Folks, let me ask you, what do YOU really know about Richard Nixon?  I don't mean what have you heard through the Liberal-controlled news media, and I don't mean what have you learned in our incredibly Leftist mandatory free education system.

I mean, what have you gone back and RESEARCHED so that you KNOW you have the facts in hand?

Most of you probably have never researched anything in your lives.  I'm not condemning you.  It's lamentable, but it's the fault of the education system for BLUNTING your curiosity.

In my life, I've NEVER been satisfied with the first answer, nor even the second or third answers.  Given a particular project or crusade, I used to plow into the Library (call it the Whole Earth Database of days gone by), and follow the Who's Who and Facts on File and footnotes and bibliographies until I had CORNERED the Truth.

Sometimes it took days, even weeks.  When I grew bored, I would research topics for other students, and I'd write their papers for them, too, index cards inclusive.

Today, however, we have this marvelous, transparent (well, mostly transparent) Internet that gives us access to a million-million databases on every subject we could possibly want to study; yet we still have these scumbags attempting to REVISE HISTORY, to CONTAMINATE our databases with FALSE information, and they do it in order to advance their petty political agendas.

So, even AFTER these scumbag liars have passed on, their LIES remain to confuse and indoctrinate the unwary.

So, what do you think you really know about Richard Nixon?  Uneducated people will say, aw, he was a conservative crook, he had something to do with Watergate (whatever that was), he got caught doing what all presidents do, he turned the Vietnam War into a meat grinder, et cetera, et cetera.

Almost all of which is bunk.  I say almost because, yeah, Richard Nixon authorized the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, where the Democratic National Committee had campaign offices.  So what?  His stupid henchmen botched a break-in, got caught trying to steal information about the Democrat presidential campaign in 1972.

What Nixon did was HARMLESS FUN compared to the bullshit that the Kennedy boys pulled.

John F. Kennedy, remember, was a good friend of Richard Nixon, they shared many of the same conservative convictions about America.  But John Kennedy was a MEAN sonofabitch who used the Internal Revenue Service like a WEAPON against his political adversaries and those even vaguely perceived as adversaries.

John F. Kennedy spied on private Americans like hell wouldn't have it, he surveilled and threatened political activists and organizations, he did things that Americans would NOT tolerate in a transparent society today, okay?  He got away with it, and so did his brother, Bobby... Well, they almost got away with it.  Their legends got away with it, with a deluge of dreamy "Camelot" pablum and all that nonsensical Liberal crap; but the Kennedy boys got themselves whacked.

You don't step on toes the way they did without bringing some retribution upon yourself.

John F. Kennedy planted cameras and microphones all over the goddamned place, because he was paranoid (and for good reason, people were out to get him).  It was the wiretapping equipment from JFK's administration that Nixon was still using in 1972.

JFK was an unconstitutional, spying fool who was into serious domestic espionage, and that's just a fact; but where in the HELL did this caricature of Richard Nixon originate, depicting him as the big, bad U.S. President who fucked up in Vietnam?

Where did that come from?

Because it's not true.  I was alive back then, and I remember.  Besides, the official records of the Vietnam War are on file in the U.S. National Archives, and I'll bring 'em out here for your perusal.  Here:

U.S. National Archives: Confirmed American Deaths in Vietnam by Year

Now, what you're looking at is a table that I pulled directly from the U.S. National Archives, and I graphically dressed it up with colorful sidebars, so you can see the number of American deaths in Vietnam per-year and per-president.

Incidentally, CACCF is the Defense Department's Combat Area Casualties Current File, which includes confirmed dead, missing in action and prisoners of war.

Eisenhower got us involved in Vietnam originally, back in the 50s, as we offered technical advice to the French forces (who were up to their ass in North Vietnam and wanted out).  We lost only 9 guys during the Eisenhower administration.

Ike got us into Vietnam in an "advisory capacity," and JFK pretty much respected that level of involvement, as is indicated by the very low numbers of American deaths during his brief administration.  What are we looking at, less than 200 American troop deaths under JFK in Vietnam?  Hell, Bill Clinton saw 200 American troops killed in ONE BARRACKS BOMBING on his watch.

Sheesh, did you know over 14,000 American troops died on Bill Clinton's watch?  That's TWICE as many as died under George W. Bush.  Another inconvenient truth, but I digress...

Anyway, I think it's safe to surmise that JFK wasn't the big war dog in Vietnam.  JFK was more concerned about Cuba and Russia.

But, hold on... What's this?  Look at the American death toll under the NEXT administration, under that of President Lyndon Baynes Johnson.  Lyndon Johnson's administration didn't just "ratchet-up" the level of American operations in Vietnam, HE turned it into the veritable fucking MEAT GRINDER that we all remember with such revulsion.

Look at the numbers of dead under LBJ's administration.  It CLIMBS, nay it LEAPS from one year to the next.  In just ONE year, the year that Johnson finished his reign of terror, 1968, we know 16,592 American troops died in Vietnam.

If LBJ had remained in office?  Who knows.  He might've fed 20,000 troops to the meat grinder the following year.

But look what happens when Richard Milhous Nixon enters the White House in 1969, look at the number of American troop deaths.  They DECLINE.  It's more than a mere decline, the deaths drop off by THOUSANDS, year after year.  It looks like a "winding down," does it not?

Well, of course it is.  As soon as Richard Nixon, the friend of JFK, stepped into office, American troop deaths in Vietnam began to diminish.  Nixon brought the war to an END, he pulled American troops OUT of the meat grinder that LBJ started.

And THAT, friends, is what the Liberal Lefties want to hide from you, they want to hide the FACT that the mad dog Democrat Lyndon Baynes Johnson turned Vietnam into a MEAT GRINDER.

Hey, and I want you to print out my colorful little table of death and share it with your Liberal friends, if you would be so good.

But, in the meantime, just do the math, add up the deaths per-president, and see who the REAL monster is.  It was LBJ... The guy was a fucking maniac, one of the biggest stains on the Democrat Party EVER.

Sure, Richard Nixon had his little scandal with Watergate (which was all about two Liberal Journalists who were out to get Richard Nixon).  Nixon's actual transgressions are, like, NOTHING compared to the heinous shit we see today in the highest offices, shit that is condoned and disseminated across the nation, and swallowed in big goofy gulps by the gullible public.

Hell, Richard Nixon was a NICE man, he was a very intelligent man, he served in the same Navy as JFK, he was a thoughtful conservative who cared very deeply about America, as did JFK, and I know Nixon actually changed the world in a positive way during his administration.

Did you know China considers Richard Nixon a sort of a hero?  Nixon was the guy who opened up diplomatic relations between the West and Communist China back in the 70s.  They still think very highly of Nixon over there.

Nixon was a good guy.  Don't let anybody tell you different.