Richard Nixon Library: ‘1969 Inauguration of Richard Nixon’

Source:Richard Nixon Library- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) being inaugurated as President, January, 1969.

Source:The FreeState 

“From the holdings of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library

From the Motion Film File

File ID: MFF 624 and MFF 625

NARA Record Group: 128.2

Produced by Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and Naval Photographic Center.

Technical production by the Senate Recording Studio and the Naval Photographic Center.

1/20/1969

For more information contact the Richard Nixon Presidential Library

nixon@nara.gov

http://www.nixonlibrary.gov

* * * * *

For more information, please visit the Nixon Library at http://www.nixonlibrary.gov or contact us at 714-983-9120 or nixon@nara.gov

* * * * *

The appearance of any advertisements on this website does not constitute an endorsement of any product or service nor does it reflect any official position taken by the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, the National Archives and Records Administration, or the United States Federal Government.”

From the Richard Nixon Presidential Library

This film just gives you a good idea of what everyone goes through before the actual official inauguration of the new President and that ceremony takes place. As well as the last day of the outgoing President who happened to be President Lyndon B. Johnson on this day. As well as how power is transferred from one President to the new President who was Richard Nixon on this day. And the transfer of power from The White House from the Democratic Party which had it since 1961, to the Republican Party in 1969.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Overtime With Ann Coulter

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking to Alt-Right loudmouth Ann Coulter.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Bill and his roundtable guests (Ethan Nadelmann, Chaz Bono, Ann Coulter, Amanda Foreman, Christopher Hayes) answer fan questions.” 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I’m not sure if I’m willing to give credit to anyone who is willing talk to Ann Coulter about anything, or just think maybe that person has more time to throw away than me, which would be a good thing, or just think maybe this person is just very chartable. Because generally I think she’s just doing a crazy monologue and not expecting to be taken seriously, except she doesn’t seem to have a comedic timing and just throws out all of this crazy nonsense (to be overly generous) with a completely straight face and acting like she’s being serious.

Ann Coulter actually said on Real Time With Bill Maher that the Obama Administration threaten to bomb Egypt, if their dictator Hosni Mubarak didn’t leave office. That’s just one example and she was completely serious about that.

Washington Times: ‘The Left’s War On Rednecks’

Source:The Washington Times- Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Post 

“In their own minds, liberals are open-minded and promote diversity – unless they’re talking about a white, southern, conservative believer. In that case, it’s open season for intolerance.

Tuesday’s Republican primaries in Mississippi and Alabama brought out the worst in some liberal commentators. HBO’s Bill Maher added to his recent difficulties by tweeting “Toothless Tuesday too tight to tally! We’re gathered around the magic picture box with a bowl of grits watching the returns come in!” This was a mean-spirited dig based on cartoonish stereotypes of the South.

Mr. Maher’s defenders might point to Jeff Foxworthy’s brand of humor, listing the alleged characteristics of rednecks. Mr. Foxworthy – who last week endorsed Mitt Romney for president – always delivers his lines with a wink, whereas Mr. Maher has developed a permanent smirk. Mr. Foxworthy’s blue-collar fans might nod and admit that some jokes ring a little true; Mr. Maher’s privileged left-wing devotees are already certain that the people in those states are illiterate hillbillies. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd, southern folk don’t need them around anyhow.”

From The Washington Times 

I agree with The Washington Times (which is a big city, Mid-Atlantic newspaper, in the heart of Blue America) as far as how the American-Left defines rednecks and Southern-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants in America. But similar to how making fun of ghetto people and hip hop culture or left-wing elitist culture is not bigoted or racist, neither is making fun of SASP (Southern Anglo Saxon Protestants) either.

Both sides have their faults and their strengths. I’m not comfortable with either group, because I tend to see urban leftists as snobs, bigots, and even at times as racists towards European-Americans, or at least English-Protestants. And I tend to see political rednecks as bigots who seem to be stuck in some 1950s time warp and never got the memo (perhaps because they can’t read) that America has moved past Ozzie and Harriet’s, Beaver Cleaver, John Wayne’s 1940s and 50s America.

We’re just a lot more diverse as a society now and not just ethnically and racially, but culturally, with all sorts of new, mainstream lifestyles and definitions about what the American Dream is and what it means to be a real American today.

Rednecks or the Christian-Right has been revolting against the Cultural Revolution since the 1960s and again wants to take us back to the 1950s culturally and politically. Urban hipster-leftists, would try to erase redneck or (SASP) culture and force their way of life onto everyone else. Which is why you have this modern culture war going on between these two political fringes.

The Daily Caller: Nicholas Ballasy- U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr: 'President Obama Should Declare a National Emergency'

Source:The Daily Caller- U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr (Democrat, Illinois) talking about a direct government jobs program.

"Jesse Jackson Jr Obama should declare a national emergency." 

From The Daily Caller

Representative Jesse Jackson who's not shy when expressing his opinions (similar to Muhammad Ali, who he resembles) he's one of the most vocal members of Congress we have as far as expressing exactly what he's feeling, his opinions are always clear. And I'll give him a lot of credit for that, he's one of the most honest members of Congress that we have. (Which is like being the best rapper from South Dakota) 

Whether you agree or disagree with Representative Jackson (from Chicago) or not, I generally disagree with him, Representative Jackson who is with the so-called Progressive Caucus (closeted Democratic Socialists, in actuality) a bit left of myself. (To put it mildly) And I'm a Liberal Democrat. 

What Representative Jackson is talking about here is having President Obama essentially declare a state of emergency as it relates to the American economy. That our economy is so bad that so many people are unemployed right now, that the Administration can't wait for Congress to (get back from playing golf or raising campaign money) solve our economic problems. That President Obama has to step in and solve these problems on his own. And essentially try to solve these problems and implement his American Jobs Act by executive order. 

Executive orders aren't laws (otherwise they would be called executive laws) they can be repealed simply by Congress. The House and Senate coming together to repeal them and with a divided Congress, thats not likely, unless the President writes and executive order thats clearly Unconstitutional and is very unpopular. 

The problem that the President would have is essentially implementing new law constitutional or not, Representative Jackson has called Congress a "Rebellious Congress" similar to the times of the Civil War. That Congress wants to prevent the President from passing any new agenda by essentially not doing anything, that the House has blocked the American Jobs Act by not taking it up. And the Senate Republican Leadership, even though they are the Senate minority, has blocked the AJA with the cloture rule. 

It takes sixty votes in the Senate to debate or pass anything. So what Representative Jackson is saying is that President Obama should circumvent Congress and implement the AJA on his own administratively on his own and bypass Congress. Saying that Congress won't get around to passing the AJA or any jobs bill, we have almost no economic or job growth in the Country right now. We have 9.1% unemployment and that the President should declare a national economic emergency and deal with these issues on his own with his Administration, because no one else is prepared to deal with these issues. 

This is a very risky advice that could bring Congressional investigations. (House and Senate) I don't see how the President could do this without bringing a lot of heat to him (while he's up for reelection) and causing a lot of political problems for him that President Obama doesn't need. 

What the Obama Administration should be doing is trying to pass the AJA in several different steps: focusing on infrastructure investment in one step. Regulatory reform in another step. Tax reform in another step. 

Congress has already passed three trade agreements and then tax reform. Thats the best shot that President Obama has at passing a jobs bill. 

Commentary Magazine: Alana Goodman- ‘Rick Santorum Wants to Ban Gambling’

Source:Commentary Magazine- columnist Alana Goodman.

Source:The FreeState

“National Review’s Jim Geraghty wonders whether there might be a business-related reason behind casino magnate Sheldon Adelson’s reported opposition to Rick Santorum. Take a look at what the former Pennsylvania senator had to say about gambling during a recent interview with Jon Ralston:

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do.”

From Commentary Magazine 

“Rick Santorum completely self-destructs in an interview with Neil Cavuto” 

Source:Fox News- anchor Neil Cavuto interviewing Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

From Neil Cavuto 

I’m thinking about starting a brand new blog about Rick Santorum. I’m going to completely dedicate it to the former member of Congress who’s benefited greatly since leaving Congress, as so has the rest of the country. I might call it the World of Big Government Courtesy of Rick Santorum. The beauty of it would be, that Senator Santroum would provide me with all the material on his big government position of the day. I might even pay the former Senator royalties, for his contributions to this blog.

The problem with this potential blog, is that it would take up all my time. Forget being a political junky, I would end up becoming a Santorum junky. All Rick 24 hours, seven days a week all the time. Because Rick comes up with a new big government position basically everyday. Stick around and I’ll go through them with you.

In the last two weeks, Rick Santorum has come out of favor bf banning heavy metal music, which is why Dave Mustaine endorsed him. (Perhaps Dave Mustaine is losing his nearing now thanks to all of his head banging) Trying to suck up to the Senator with a straw and has lost so many brain cells from heavy metal, which is why he endorsed Rick Santorum and why Rick wants to ban heavy metal. The distinguished Senator came out in favor of banning pornography, trying to lure Michele Bachmann wing of the nut house to endorse him. Condoms, birth control, and now today gambling.

Calling Rick Santorum a Conservative is like calling a midget a giant or a cow a horse, a dog a cat, water, fire, it doesn’t past the laugh test, unless you don’t have a sense of humor. And if that’s the case you shouldn’t read this piece either.

Rick Santorum would give any Socialist you want to name a great run for being in favor of big government: David McReynolds, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich have nothing on this guy. They would all be midget’s compared with Rick. (Not just Dennis Kucinich) And every time he finds a new way in how to protect people from themselves, lovers of liberty need to call him out on it.

Tavis Smiley & Cornel West: ‘The Rich & The Rest Of Us’

Source:Amazon- Tavis Smilley's and Cornel West's book.

Source:The FreeState 

“Record unemployment and rampant corporate avarice, empty houses but homeless families, dwindling opportunities in an increasingly paralyzed nation—these are the realities of 21st-century America, land of the free and home of the new middle class poor. Award-winning broadcaster Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West, one of the nation’s leading democratic intellectuals, co-hosts of Public Radio’s Smiley & West , now take on the “P” word—poverty.The Rich and the Rest of Us is the next step in the journey that began with “The Poverty Tour: A Call to Conscience.” Smiley and West’s 18-city bus tour gave voice to the plight of impoverished Americans of all races, colors, and creeds. With 150 million Americans persistently poor or near poor, the highest numbers in over five decades, Smiley and West argue that now is the time to confront the underlying conditions of systemic poverty in America before it’s too late.By placing the eradication of poverty in the context of the nation’s greatest moments of social transformation— such as the abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, and the labor and civil rights movements—ending poverty is sure to emerge as America’s 21st -century civil rights struggle.As the middle class disappears and the safety net is shredded, Smiley and West, building on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., ask us to confront our fear and complacency with 12 poverty changing ideas. They challenge us to re-examine our assumptions about poverty in America—what it really is and how to eliminate it now.”

From Amazon 

“The latest census data shows nearly one in two Americans, or 150 million people, have fallen into poverty — or could be classified as low income. We’re joined by Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, who continue their efforts to spark a national dialogue on the poverty crisis with the new book, “The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto.” Smiley, an award-winning TV and radio broadcaster, says President Obama has failed to properly tackle poverty. “There seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the poor just don’t matter. President Obama is a part of that,” Smiley says. “I take nothing away from his push on healthcare, but jobs for every American should have been priority number one.” West, a professor of religion and African American studies at Princeton University, says that after the historic U.S. struggles against monarchy, slavery and institutionalized racism, “the issue today is oligarchy. Poverty is the new slavery, oligarchs are the new kings — the new heads of this structure of domination.”

Source:Democracy Now- author Tavis Smiley talking about his book.

From Democracy Now 

Tavis Smiley who personally I like, but generally don’t agree with, but who’s someone who I respect, hosted a panel discussion that C-SPAN (thank God for C-Span) broadcasted on MLK Day on Monday. If you guessed Tavis Smiley was there, you would be correct, but it had Professor Cornel West, New-Left activist Michael Moore, financial adviser Suzie Orman and a young woman. Who’s name I can’t remember and I didn’t recognize it. 

But I thought what won the panel discussion even though it wasn’t a debate, but hit the nail on the head (if you want to use that expression) and made very good job of making points and a case in how to win the War on Poverty, by actually moving people out of poverty, that you generally don’t hear from today’s so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) Who generally use their time to bash capitalism, or call for more public assistance. 

A lot of this discussion was basically about how we can move away from capitalism and explaining how President Bush basically screwed the American economy. And that President Obama wasn’t left-wing enough to fix it because he wasn’t in favor of their big government programs. And calling for more Welfare etc, when it comes to poverty. Socialists tend to be more about giving people in poverty more Welfare.More Welfare insurance at taxpayers expense of course. And are more interested in sustaining people in poverty. 

The young woman at this C-SPAN discussion was talking about actually moving people out of poverty. Which is completely different, so they can be self-sufficient and get off of public assistance. And she’s the only person that made this discussion worth watching. The War on Poverty a war that President Johnson declared in 1965 47 years ago if you were born that year are middle age now. And today you might not even remember LBJ as President.

The solutions to finally win this war, are pretty simple, but harder to put into practice: 

First of all you need a good economy that has strong job growth. We are finally starting to see that now. But to help adults who currently live in poverty whether they are working or on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, is through education and job training. Get them back into school, so they can get themselves the skills they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance. That takes money, but would pay for itself in the long run, because we would be creating new taxpayers.

Long-term what we need to be doing to avoid kids living in poverty as adults. Or end up in the corrections system, is to make sure they stay in school. And get a good education, while their parents are going back to school. And to do this we need to reform our public education system.

We need better educators and competition inside the public education system, so low-income parents can send their kids to good schools as well. That’s called public school choice and we have to do something about our high dropout rate. Encourage kids to stay in school, not drop out and have kids and end up on public assistance. Or get involved in organized crime and in the corrections system. We proved in the 1990s with the Clinton Administration, with Welfare to Work. 

We can do this, move people out of poverty and into the middle class by empowering them to get the skills that they need to get a good job and not live on public assistance to the point that we got our poverty rate down to 13%, a record low for the United States is an approach that we need to get back to.

Dan Mitchell: 'Big Government Is Not Stimulus: Why John M. Keynes Was Wrong'

Source:CF&P- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) is one of the targets of Dan Mitchell's piece here.

"The CF&P Foundation has released a condensed version of our successful mini-documentary explaining why so-called stimulus schemes do not work. Based on a theory known as Keynesianism, politicians are resuscitating the notion that more government spending can stimulate an economy. This mini-documentary produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation examines both theory and evidence and finds that allowing politicians to spend more money is not a recipe for better economic performance." 

From the Center For Freedom & Prosperity 

If you are literally arguing that government spending can't do anything to boost and stimulate the economy, then you are admitting that President Ronald Reagan's Economic Recovery plan of 1981, which included steep, across the board tax cuts and huge increases in government spending, mostly relating to the military, with every dollar for these programs being borrowed didn't work. 

You are also admitting that President George W. Bush's economic stimulus plans of 2001 and 2003, which again included steep, across the board tax cuts and large additional increases in government spending, didn't work either. I'm not sure if Dan Mitchell has even thought about it, even though he's a professional economist.