| Updated July 30, 1999 |
|Assassins like Richard Nixon... |
By Sue Morrison
W ho was the president-elect in 1980? Was it the amnesic Ronald Reagan, or was it Richard Nixon, who was physically located in New York, but mentally connected to Washington DC. Indeed, author Sam Anson blew Nixon's cover out of the water when he said: "Nixon gets into his office every morning about 7:30. By noon, he will have made and taken 40 calls, most of them to Washington. First, he calls the White House and speaks to Ed Meese, Bud McFarlane and President Reagan. Then he starts working the State Department. Everyone from George Schultz on down. He not only gives advice on foreign policy, but on politics in general. What he says is taken very seriously". And we thought Richard Nixon had resigned. On the contrary, Richard Nixon had successfully cultivated the degree of unaccountable power he always demanded.
According to often cited polls, President Bill Clinton is a moral deadbeat compared to Richard Nixon and we’re talking about a public opinion poll which is being used to dictate moral superiority. The New York Times is a leading advocate which perpetuates this perverse sense of reality. By way of editorial, on February 15, 1999, the New York Times used a moralizing professor from UCLA to plant the suggestion that John Dean was the only difference between Richard Nixon and President Clinton. The American public understands and rejects such a blatant level of anti-Clinton propaganda, and like Ken Starr, the media continues to shoot itself on the foot.
Perception aside, the morality of Bill Clinton is unassailable if you compare it to the morality of Richard Milhouse Nixon. The fact that most people think otherwise is a glaring indictment of a media which is supposed to inform -so let us pick up the slack and take a long hard look at the post-Watergate morality of Richard Nixon. First and foremost, the one thing that Clinton’s impeachment has made clear is that it is not possible to separate the sinner from the redemption and given the fact that Richard Nixon refused to repent reflects the magnitude of his moral degeneracy. Indeed, as far as Richard Nixon was concerned, he was a loyal Patriot who had the right to defy the law at will. If he was impeached, it was not because he was a criminal but because the liberal media was out to get him. That is what Richard Nixon in fact believed and having developed the bizarre notion that if the media did not report it, it wasn’t a crime, his peculiar answer to getting away with breaking the law was to forge alliances with the media. Indeed, Richard Nixon was always uncomfortable and insecure about the media unless he controlled it to the point where his message dominated. In that context, the 1980’s were Richard Nixon’s heyday because by that point in time, everything that meant anything to Richard Nixon -the presidency and the media, were largely in his hands. Secrecy has obscured the simple reality, but there are more than enough clues to give every reasonable person the opportunity to fill in the blanks.
The first clue about the fact that he had cultivated the power he always craved was Richard Nixon's confidence level. By 1980, Richard Nixon was confident enough to say: "I am confident that President Reagan and the members of his administration will have the vision to see what needs to be done and the courage to do it." The second clue is the fact that the media ignored books like, "Break-ins, Death Threats and the FBI; The Covert War Against the Central America Movement." Written and exhaustively researched by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan, the book recorded two hundred verified instances of break-ins, burglaries, death threats, harassment and arson, but the media failed to report the unified plot to destroy peace advocates who challenged Reagan's Central American policy. No press coverage, no crime. The flip side of this perversion is that Richard Nixon developed the idea that he could use the media to destroy his adversaries -and therein lies the genesis of the media-driven Whitewater scandal. Richard Nixon unleashed the monster, and once again, it took the United States Senate to contain it.
The disturbing element of the secret war that Nixon waged is the unreported casualties. It is difficult to catalogue the dead bodies, the media failed to show up, but it is certainly possible to identify Richard Nixon's high profile targets. In particular, Nixon and cronies like Gordon Liddy were determined to give Ronald Reagan a protest-free administration, and they prepared to nip anti-war demonstrators in the bud. As far as Nixon was concerned, anti-war demonstrators were irresponsible, hateful failures. In his own terms: "They basically are haters, they are frustrated, they are alienated -they don't know what to do with their lives . Nixon's obsession to control these haters was so extreme, that even the Kent State massacre was a bizarre source of satisfaction. Richard Nixon made that perfectly clear when he said: "I can think of those Ivy League presidents who came to see me after Kent State, and who were saying, please don't leave the problem to us -I mean let the government do something. None of them would take any of the responsibility themselves."
If the paranoia and the hatred that Richard Nixon manifested did not claim the life of John Lennon, the timing of the murder is the most startling coincidence in world history. Indeed, at the time of Lennon's death, Richard Nixon was in the middle of a pervasive declaration of war which was, in the mind of Richard Nixon, a titanic struggle to win world war III. Who says? Richard Nixon said so. In his own words: "If America loses World War III, it will be because of the failure of its leadership class. In particular, it will be because of the attention , the celebrity and the legitimacy given to the trendies"... And why was Richard Nixon so absolutely definite about the need to deny them attention? Richard Nixon essentially justified the need to muzzle a trendy like John Lennon when he said: "in a less hazardous age we could afford to indulge the prancing of the trendies on the stage of public debate. But now our national survival depends on learning to distinguish between the meaningful and the meaningless."
Richard Nixon spelled it all out in his book "The Real War" and when his style of leadership had claimed the life of John Lennon, he wrote "Real Peace." Talk about leaving your fingerprints at the scene of the crime. The murder of John Lennon was essentially Nixon's way of claiming both sides of the peace debate, and that is quite obvious to anyone who studies the dark side of Richard Nixon. Indeed, Nixon was a sophisticated fraud and cover up artist who even managed to get away with serious, undisclosed Watergate crimes. The crimes that were high enough to remove Nixon from office were simply the tip of the iceberg and the master felon made that absolutely clear when he said: "the factual truth about Watergate could probably never be completely reconstructed, because each of us had become involved in different ways and no one's knowledge at any given time exactly duplicated anyone else's." Suffice it to say, Nixon cronies like Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gordon Liddy were well versed in the art of political assassinations and if they didn't kill anybody they were hopeless failures.
British Barrister, Fenton Bressler, proved that John Lennon was stalked and slain with the method of a political assassin in his exhaustively researched book "The Murder of John Lennon," but the media missed it. The media ignored the fact that the assassin embraced Richard Nixon's claim that John Lennon was valueless and meaningless. As late as 1992, the motivation that claimed Lennon was so vivid that Mark David Chapman told Larry King that he struck out at something that he perceived to be phony. He was not a deranged fan as the media insisted, he was a moral minority who satisfied Richard Nixon's paranoia. Indeed, Mark David Chapman has been consistent. As soon as he murdered Lennon, his boast left not a single need to second guess. According to Chapman, "I murdered a man. I took alot more with me than just myself. A whole era ended. It was the last nail in the coffin of the 60's." Indeed, it was Richard Nixon Starting Over.
According to Ralph Reed, the legacy of Bill Clinton will hang around Al Gore’s head like an albatross in the year 2000 because "he defended the indefensible." The boy is certainly full of himself, isn’t he? If he doesn’t understand the fact that anti Clinton attack dogs are as moral as Richard Nixon was, he has a long way to go before he becomes a moral man. Can’t fool the feminists Ralphie. Everytime your kind ridicule and make fun of a Boy Scout like Al Gore, we think about murderers like Richard Nixon.
For all you intelligent skeptics, Nixon’s feigned commitment to law and order is quickly becoming the joke of the century, and it is perhaps significant to note that his relentless determination to destroy Kennedy, was even more violent. In his memoirs, Nixon exposes the obsession that he and Hoover shared to blame the Kennedy assassination on Oswald the “Communist”, an obsession which produced the bizarre claim that prior to his attempt on Kennedy’s life, Oswald planned to assassinate Nixon. Intelligent, comprehensive researchers clearly understand Nixon’s foreknowledge about the Kennedy assassination, and Nixon himself routinely betrayed his knowledge about the murder of the century. In an August 22, 1972 press conference, Nixon said: "If ten more wiretaps could have found the conspiracy [to assassinate JFK] -uh, if it was a conspiracy -or the individual, then it would have been worth it. Nixon had trouble separating the pretense from the reality, and in the end, he indicted himself.