Tricky Dick Meets the NSA

Even if you trust the Obama Administration with NSA programs that see everything we do online, drones that can blow us up and an executive order that allows the President to maintain a kill list of anyone he wants, anywhere he wants, they won’t always be in charge. How will you feel about those powers when someone like the paranoid Dick Nixon is in charge?

20 thoughts on “Tricky Dick Meets the NSA

  1. I thought of you Ted after I saw Robocop. At the very end, the Samuel L Jacson character does a little speech about using drones on civilians, basically supporting their use and criticizing those who criticize them.

  2. Richard Milhous Nixon in all (dis)honour, but I do hope I’m not on that list of «betrayers» that Hillary Rodham Clinton and consort are said to have composed….

    Henri

    • Somewhere around the house, I’m sure I still have a cassette tape of Nixon’s resignation speech. My wife & I were in Germany at the time, and it was something like 3:00 am where we were. We popped the cork on a bottle of bubbly and celebrated! 😀

      • It’s what people don’t remember about Nixon that has destroyed America in the decades since. Ending gold exchanges and starting the runaway printing of dollars as well as the creation of 401(k)s and HMOs. He threw ordinary working Americans to the wolves in the name of protecting their retirement and health. He was perhaps the worst president we ever had.

      • The terrible inflation was a direct result of ending the gold exhange standard. His decision rocked and infuriated the world.

      • @ Jack Heart –
        As with so much in recent history that has ignored the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, I wondered at the time why the abandonment of the gold standard was allowed.
        Admittedly, social studies (OMG “social”?) were not my specialty, but I seem to recall that somewhere in the Constitution is a provision that the monetary system of the U.S. would be based upon only gold and silver. Do I err?

      • @derlehrer

        Not precisely, you’re thinking of Section 10, which is about the states, not the federalis.

        No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; … coin Money … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts …

        Money is described at the federal level in Section 8:


        The Congress shall have Power To:

        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

        To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

        But you do have to realize that these folks were primarily Mercantilists, the word ‘capitalism’ hadn’t even been invented yet. While they were all starry-eyed about pretty rocks, Adam Smith across the ocean was advising governments about the folly of stockpiling large amounts of gold.

      • @ CrazyH –
        You see? It’s that thing about “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts …” that I remember and it troubled me at the time and still has me troubled.
        By accepting “Silver Certificates” they hedged a bit; but by accepting the “Notes” that the Feds issued, didn’t they violate that provision?

      • @derlehrer –

        That’s not quite how I read it, it was only the states which were prevented from doing so – but those were issued by the feds. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly spell it out, but methinks they were likewise obligated to accept the coin of the realm – why else have currency if not to be used?

        (this may wind up being a double-post, I tried to reply once & the site stopped responding.) ((purely coincidence, I’m sure :-)))

      • @ CrazyH –
        Well, as I said: The subject of Social Studies was not my strong suit; I’m a languages person. Ask me about English or German (less about French). But it still seems to me that gold and silver were the standard envisioned by those who wrote the Constitution and that this toilet paper of today’s time is the main reason for the fiasco we call the economy. Those who control the government surely know more than I.
        Likewise, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t crystal-clear or there wouldn’t be a debate about it today.

        [Note: I also ran into difficulties posting, but by hitting the browser’s “Back” arrow, I was able to return to this and try again.]

      • @derlehrer, I kinda figured there’d be some German associated with someone calling himself ‘the teacher.’

        I agree that the founding fathers probably thought in terms of gold-as-wealth. However, the important part is that they didn’t mandate a gold standard, which leaves us the freedom to explore other options.

        In fact, there was no formal gold standard until 1821 when it was first adopted by England. Today there are no countries left which still use it.

        What Nixon did didn’t really have as big an impact as many people think. He decoupled the value of the dollar and the value of gold. Consider, if an ounce of gold is worth 38 American dollars, and an ounce of gold is also worth 35 British pounds, then we can easily see that 38 dollars is worth 35 pounds. At that point, the conversion to ounces of gold is just adding another step in the calculations; the answer’s the same either way.

        And that’s what Adam Smith was pointing up over two hundred years ago. A country’s wealth – and hence the value of its currency – should be based on GDP, rather than by comparing it to some arbitrary standard.

      • @ CrazyH –
        You have my attention, and – even at my advanced age – I’m willing to learn more.
        If the individual states were not allowed to “… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…,” how could they have issued paper currency over the course of the years (which several states did)? I won’t even delve into the Confederate money, because they felt they were no longer a part of the Union; but the principle remains the same. The problem I see is that sometimes the Federal Government chooses to ignore “the Supreme Law of the Land” to suit its own purposes (or those of the officials in charge). I have a big problem with that type of manipulation.

      • @derlehrer sez, “The problem I see is that sometimes the Federal Government chooses to ignore “the Supreme Law of the Land” to suit its own purposes”

        Absolutely – and the precursor to that problem is the fact that we allowed the Fed’l Gubmint to become an “it” rather than an “us.”

        The way I remember it from my fourth grade Social Studies class is, “We the People…”

      • @ CrazyH –
        Correct. But how much power do “the People” have? A number of years ago I joined neighbors and others at a rally in protest of the pending invasion of Iraq. The government stooges were there in their black car with darkened windows, taking photos of the protesters.
        .
        The power is in the hands of those folks, and they will do anything and everything to keep it. I am reduced to a “voice crying in the wilderness” and can do nothing but write to my “representatives” and protest their actions when I disagree. Would that I could do more.
        🙁

      • interestingly, the USA agreed to repay Germany all the gold we owe them over a perior of about 10 to 12 years. Don’t we have it on hand? What happened to all the gold in Fort Knox?

  3. > Even if you trust the Obama Administration …

    Funny, back when Bush was spying on Americans all the wrongnuts were telling us how he was keeping us safe from something or other. I fired back that, gee, how would they feel if it was one of those evil democrats with that kind of power…?

    … now a dem does have that power & they’re crying their little eyes out.

    • ^
      ^
      This is why those of us who can see beyond the fear-mongering (i.e., past our noses) must remain vigilant and begin the restoration of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The government should NEVER be allowed to trample underfoot those documents, nor the treaties that forbid torture, etc.

      • Quite right. The point of the Constitution is that rights are inalienable and to be protected at all times regardless of circumstances and politics.

        CrazyH, that’s an excellent point about Bush supporters, and the same goes for Bush detractors who hated overreach and now support their guy for doing the same.

Leave a Reply