Tag Archives: President Nixon

The Dollar’s Final Crash Down A Golden Matterhorn, by Egon von Greyerz

Produce enough of anything and you can drive i to worthlessness. That’s particularly easy with fiat currencies, and governments have done it throughout history. From Egon von Greyerz at goldswitzerland.com:

Was Richard Nixon a real gold friend who understood the futility of tying a weakening dollar to gold which is the only currency that has survived in history?

So was Nixon actually the instigator of the movement to FreeGold?

I doubt it. He was just another desperate leader who was running out of real money and needed to create unlimited amounts of fiat money. Although his fatal decision to close the gold window was clearly the beginning of the end of the current monetary system.

But although the decision was fatal, Nixon was clearly not personally responsible. What the world saw in August 1971 was just another desperate leader who realised that he couldn’t stick to the monetary or fiscal disciplines necessary to maintain a sound economy and a sound currency.

In history, Nixon should be seen as the rule rather than the exception. Since every currency has been slaughtered throughout history, one particular leader will also be required to be the executor.

So in 1971, history had elected Tricky Dick to be the inevitable destroyer of the dollar.

Nixon's lies
I don’t quite know what the definition is of “suspend temporarily” but 50 years seems to be pushing the limit!

And as regards the strength of dollar goes, we all know what happened to the “strength of the currency”! Please see the illustration of the dollar collapse further on in the article.

Continue reading→

Nixon Shock, the Reserve Currency Curse, and a Pending Dollar Crisis, by Mish Shedlock

When Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, he opened a Pandora’s box of economic evils. From Mish Shedlock at moneymaven.io:

Many problems today including deficit spending, trade deficits, and income inequality have their roots in 1971.

Nixon Shock

A reader asks “What Forced Nixon to Close the Gold Window in 1971?”

The answer is called “Nixon Shock“.

Nixon wanted to fight the war in Vietnam, not raise taxes, and not hike interest rates to finance it.

Arthur Burns, not Volcker was at the Fed.

American economist Barry Eichengreen summarized: “It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100 bill, but other countries had to pony up $100 of actual goods in order to obtain one”.

Vietnam War and the Dollar Exodus Beginning

The dollar exodus had its beginnings way back in February 1965 when President Charles de Gaulle announced his intention to exchange its U.S. dollar reserves for gold at the official exchange rate of $35 per ounce.

Continue reading

Comey & The Saturday Night Massacre, by Patrick J. Buchanan

There’s a world of difference between what President Nixon did during Watergate and even the most far fetched and damning charges that are being leveled at Trump. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, said Marx.

On publication day of my memoir of Richard Nixon’s White House, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Instantly, the media cried “Nixonian,” comparing it to the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre.

Yet, the differences are stark.

The resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Bill Ruckelshaus and the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox came in the middle of an East-West crisis.

On Oct. 6, 1973, the high holy day of Yom Kippur, in a surprise attack, Egyptian troops crossed the Suez Canal and breached Israel’s Bar Lev Line. Syria attacked on the Golan Heights.

Within days, 1,000 Israeli soldiers were dead, hundreds of tanks destroyed, dozens of planes downed by Soviet surface-to-air missiles. As Egypt’s army broke through in the Sinai, there came reports that Moshe Dayan was arming Israeli F-4s with nuclear weapons.

“This is the end of the Third Temple,” Dayan was quoted.

Nixon ordered every U.S. transport that could fly to deliver tanks and planes to Israel. Gen. Ariel Sharon crossed the Canal to the west and rolled north to cut off and kill the Egyptian 3rd army in Sinai.

The Gulf Arabs declared an oil embargo of the United States.

We got reports that nuclear-capable Russian ships were moving through the Dardanelles and Soviet airborne divisions were moving to airfields. U.S. nuclear forces were put on heightened alert.

On Oct. 10, another blow had befallen Nixon’s White House. Vice President Agnew pleaded nolo contendere to tax evasion and resigned.

Nixon immediately named Gerald Ford to replace him.

It was in this environment, with Henry Kissinger in Moscow trying to negotiate a ceasefire in the Mideast, that Cox refused to accept a compromise deal that would give him verified summaries of Nixon’s tapes, but not actual tapes. Democrat Senators Sam Ervin and John Stennis had accepted this compromise, as had Richardson, or so we believed.

Nixon had no choice. As he told me, he could not, in this Cold War crisis, have Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev see him back down in the face of defiance by one of his own Cabinet appointees.

To continue reading: Comey & The Saturday Night Massacre

 

Nixon and Trump, Then and Now, by Patrick J. Buchanan

Similarities and differences between the 37th and 45th presidents of the United States. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

For two years, this writer has been consumed by two subjects.

First, the presidency of Richard Nixon, in whose White House I served from its first day to its last, covered in my new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

The second has been the astonishing campaign of Donald Trump and his first 100-plus days as president.

In many ways, the two men could not have been more different.

Trump is a showman, a performer, a real estate deal-maker, born to wealth, who revels in the material blessings his success has brought. Nixon, born to poverty, was studious, reserved, steeped in history, consumed with politics and policy, and among the most prepared men ever to assume the presidency.

Yet the “mess” Trump inherited bears striking similarities to Nixon’s world in 1969.

Both took office in a nation deeply divided.

Nixon was elected in a year marked by the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, race riots in 100 cities, and street battles between cops and radicals at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

By the fall of 1969, Nixon had buses surrounding his White House and U.S. Airborne troops in the basement of his Executive Office Building.

Trump’s campaign and presidency have also been marked by huge and hostile demonstrations.

Both men had their elections challenged by the toxic charge that they colluded with foreign powers to influence the outcome.

Nixon’s aides were accused of conspiring with Saigon to torpedo Lyndon Johnson’s Paris peace talks. Trump aides were charged with collusion with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to disseminate stolen emails of the Democratic National Committee. The U.S. establishment, no stranger to the big lie, could not and cannot accept that the nation preferred these outsiders.

To continue reading: Nixon and Trump, Then and Now

How Berkeley Birthed the Right, by Patrick J. Buchanan

Leftist radicals have helped some of the most unlikely people. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

In December 1964, a Silver Age of American liberalism, to rival the Golden Age of FDR and the New Deal, seemed to be upon us.

Barry Goldwater had been crushed in a 44-state landslide and the GOP reduced to half the size of the Democratic Party, with but 140 seats in the House and 32 in the Senate.

The Supreme Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the most liberal in history, was on a roll, and LBJ was virtually unopposed as he went about ramming his Great Society through Congress.

The left had it all. But then they blew it, beginning at Berkeley.

Protests, sit-ins, the holding of cops hostage in patrol cars — went on for weeks to force the University of California, Berkeley, to grant “free speech,” and then “filthy speech” rights everywhere on campus.

Students postured as revolutionaries at the barricades, and the Academic Senate, consisting of all tenured faculty, voted 824-115 to support all Free Speech Movement demands, while cravenly declining to vote to condemn the tactics used.

Middle America saw the students differently — as overprivileged children engaged in a tantrum at the most prestigious school in the finest university system in the freest nation on earth.

Here is how their leader Mario Savio described the prison-like conditions his fellow students had to endure on the Berkeley campus in 1964:

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

To borrow from Oscar Wilde, it takes a heart of stone to read Mario’s wailing — without laughing.

As I wondered in an editorial in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat that week, “If there is so much restriction of speech on the campus, how it is that a few yards from Sproul Hall there is a Young Socialist League poster complaining of ‘American Aggression in the Congo’ and calling on students to support ‘the Congolese rebels.’”

To continue reading: How Berkeley Birthed the Right

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy, by Antonius Aquinas

The world changed dramatically for the worse when President Nixon closed the gold window—the ability of foreign governments to redeem their US dollars for gold. From Antonius Aquinas at acting-man-com:

President Nixon’s Decision to Abandon the Gold Standard

Franklin Delano Roosevelt called the Japanese “surprise” attack on the U.S. occupied territory of Hawaii and its naval base Pearl Harbor, “A Date Which Will Live in Infamy.” Similar words should be used for President Nixon’s draconian decision 45 years ago this month that removed America from the last vestiges of the gold standard.

Nixon points out where numerous evil speculators were suspected to be hiding. No, wait… actually, Nixon points to the black hole that has swallowed countless lives and a great deal of treasure under his and his predecessor’s watch – ultimately leading to the US default on the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard. Photo credit: Richard Nixon Presidential Library

On August 15, 1971 in a televised address to the nation outlining a new economic policy entitled, “The Challenge of Peace,” Nixon instructed the Treasury Department “to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against speculators.”*

Nixon continued:

“I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interests of monetary stability and in the best interests of the United States.”**

Of course, any objective student of history knows that this was a lie and that it was not “speculators” which were causing monetary instability, but the U.S.’s own crazed inflationary policy which attempted to fund its imperialistic endeavor in Vietnam while expanding the welfare state at home.

This resulted in the Treasury losing an alarmingly amount of gold reserves to other central banks who rightly sought real value in exchange for depreciated American greenbacks.

The televised announcement of the gold default, with Nixon telling blatant lies to defend the decision, in addition to lying about its “temporary” status while revealing his economic illiteracy at the same time, all in the space of a mere four minutes.

In essence, Nixon’s decision ended gold redemption and placed the U.S. and the rest of the world on a purely fiat paper standard for the first time in recorded history. By doing so, the U.S., in effect, became a deadbeat nation which no longer honored its obligations and was set on the road to its current banana republic status.

Instead of impeachment proceedings and his ultimate resignation for the juvenile break in at the headquarters of the nation’s other ruling crime syndicate, Nixon should have been imprisoned for this deliberate and destructive act which has led, in large measure, to the nation’s crushing and insurmountable debt burden, reoccurring booms and busts, and now economic stagnation.

To continue reading: A Date Which Will Live in Infamy

 

Is Hillary Clinton The Democrats’ Richard Nixon? by Eric Zuesse

Hillary Clinton is Richard Nixon incarnate? Eric Zuesses makes a good case, via zerohedge.com:

Richard Nixon’s similarities to Hillary Clinton are remarkable:

1: Both were highly successful politicians who had exceptionally negative net-approval ratings from the U.S. public, but were viewed highly favorably by the voters within their own Party.

2: Both were unsuccessful in their first run for the Presidency, but managed to come back and ran considerably more successful campaigns the second time around.

3: Both were highly distrusted, except by the voters within their own Party.

4: Both went into their Presidential campaign years (especially the second time around) as being “the candidate with experience.”

5: Both were war-hawks and proponents of a big military, but were also liberals on social policies and regulatory policies (for example, Nixon signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act, several environmental initiatives including the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Mammal Marine Protection Act, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; and, he started the Earned-Income Tax Credit, which “now lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program”).

6: Whereas Nixon, running during the Cold War against the sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968, lied that he had ‘a secret plan to end the Vietnam war’ (he actually had — and applied — a secret plan to extend the Vietnam war), and he won the Presidency on the basis of that lie; Hillary Clinton, running against the anti-restoration-of-the-Cold-War progressive Bernie Sanders in 2016, lies by saying that she has a plan to end the war in Russia-allied Syria. Sanders says: “Of course Assad is a terrible dictator. But I think we have got to get our foreign policies and priorities right. The immediate — it is not Assad who is attacking the United States. It is ISIS. And ISIS is attacking France and attacking Russian airliners. The major priority, right now, in terms of our foreign and military policy should be the destruction of ISIS.” Clinton says an emphatic no to that: “Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians. The reason we are in the mess we’re in, that ISIS has the territory it has, is because of Assad.” So, she is promising regime-change in Syria and saying that it’s the prerequisite to defeating ISIS — which is an absurd lie, since ISIS, and Al Qaeda, and all the other jihadist groups who have flocked into Syria to overthrow and replace Assad, are certainly not the way to defeat ISIS, nor to defeat the other jihadist groups there, all of which are anti-Assad, as is Clinton herself. Clearly, then, her ‘plan’ to win the war in Syria is, essentially, to replace Assad with jihadists — to whom the U.S. is sending thousands of tons of weapons. Her Big Lie there is merely stupider than Nixon’s (it’s transparently stupid, because both she and ISIS aim, above all, to overthrow Assad), but it’s just as much a lie about war-and-peace as was Nixon’s ’secret plan to end the Vietnam war’; and, in that sense, it is remarkably similar and (like Nixon’s lie was) can be believed only by liar-trusting fools, including virtually all members of the candidate’s own Party, plus a large percentage of political independents.

To continue reading: Is Hillary Clinton The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

Nixon Invented the Drug War to Decimate Hippies and Black People, Former Adviser Confesses, by Robby Soave

From Robby Soave at reason.com:

President Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs for one specific reason: to decimate his perceived political enemies—the anti-war left, and black people.

That’s according to an anecdote in a lengthy cover story for Harper’s, in which journalist Dan Baum recounts an interview he conducted with John Erlichman, a former Nixon staffer who was jailed for one year due to his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Unprompted, Erlichman confessed the true purpose of federal drug prohibition:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The dastardly plan failed only in the sense that Nixon ultimately lost—a victim of his criminal behavior and utter lack of scruples. But the War on Drugs certainly brought ruin, poverty, and crime to minority communities, cost the nation outrageous sums of money, and expanded the scope of the federal government’s oppressive power. This was not done for any noble public purpose—it was a political gambit, nothing more.

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but it’s not only paved with good intentions.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/22/nixon-invented-the-drug-war-to-decimate

What Nixon Wrought, from The Burning Platform

From the administrator at theburningplatform.com:

I’m sure glad Nixon only “temporarily” suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold. When a politician or banker uses the word temporarily to describe some un-Constitutional act they are taking to protect you, be sure it’s permanent and you are getting screwed on behalf of the establishment. Nixon closing the gold window in 1971 allowed him to continue the welfare/warfare state.

Bernanke temporarily reduced interest rates to 0% eight years ago to avert some sort of financial disaster (Wall Street banks reaping the consequences of their actions and going bankrupt). Rates are still essentially 0%, supposedly 7 years into an economic recovery. Obama and his minions temporarily were going to run huge budget deficits to jump start our economy with Keynesian magic. It’s seven years later and the budget deficit will exceed $600 billion this year and on path to exceed $1 trillion in the next few years. Temporarily is code for bend over citizens.

The de-linking of the dollar to gold allowed politicians to promise free shit to their constituents in order to buy votes, with no immediate consequences for their re-election campaigns. Politicians gone wild led to the national debt going from $370 billion in 1971 to $19.1 trillion today. It allowed these treasonous bastards to promise $200 trillion of goodies to the people, which they won’t honor.

It allowed Wall Street to peddle credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, and home equity loans to the unwashed masses through the greatest propaganda program in history. They’ve lured generations of math challenged Americans into the debt slavery of low monthly payments for eternity. We now sit with $60 trillion of total debt and a faltering economy which will never generate enough wealth to pay off the debt.

We’ve passed the point of no return. The economic collapse is a forgone conclusion. It’s just a matter of how much longer the sociopathic establishment can keep the charade going. There are cracks appearing everywhere. Time is running out. Thank Trick Dick for his temporary suspension of dollar convertibility.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/03/12/what-nixon-wrought/

Presidential Crimes Then And Now, by Paul Craig Roberts

Reprinted from Paul Craig Roberts, The Neoconservative Threat to World Order (Clarity Press, 2015), on paulcraigroberts.org:

Are Nixon’s and the Reagan administration’s crimes noticable on the scale of Clinton’s, George W. Bush’s, and Obama’s?

Not much remains of the once vibrant American left-wing. Among the brainwashed remnants there is such a hatred of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan that the commitment of these two presidents to ending dangerous military rivalries is unrecognized. Whenever I write about the illegal invasions of other countries launched by Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, leftists point to Chile, Nicaragua and Grenada and say that nothing has changed. But a great deal has changed. In the 1970s and 1980s Nixon and Reagan focused on reducing Cold War tensions. Courageously, Nixon negotiated nuclear arms limitation agreements with the Soviet Union and opened to China, and Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev the end of the dangerous Cold War.

Beginning with the Clinton regime, the neoconservative doctrine of the US as the Uni-power exercising hegemony over the world has resurrected tensions between nuclear-armed powers. Clinton trashed the word of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and expanded NATO throughout Eastern Europe and brought the military alliance to Russia’s border. The George W. Bush regime withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, revised US war doctrine to permit pre-emptive nuclear attack, and negotiated with Washington’s East European vassals to put anti-ballistic missiles on Russia’s borders in an effort to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent, thus bringing major security problems to Russia. The Obama regime staged a coup against a government allied with Russia in Ukraine, traditionally a part of Russia, and imposed a Russophobia government as Washington’s vassal. Turning to China, Washington announced the “pivot to Asia” with the purpose of controlling shipping in the South China Sea. Additionally, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes fomented wars across a wide swath of the planet from Yugoslavia and Serbia through the Middle East and Africa to South Ossetia and now in Ukraine.

The neoconservative ideology rose from the post-Reagan collapse of the Soviet Union. The doctrine met the need of the US military/security complex for a new enemy in order to avoid downsizing. Washington’s pursuit of empire is a principal danger to life itself for everyone on the planet.

Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, Nixon and Reagan went against the military/security complex. Nixon opened to China and made arms reduction agreements with the Soviets. Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev the end of the Cold War. The military/security complex was displeased with these presidential initiatives. Both left and right accused Nixon and Reagan of nefarious machinations. Right-wing Republicans said that Nixon and Kissinger were selling America out to the communists and that the scheming Soviets would take advantage of Reagan, the old movie actor. “Communists,” we were assured, “only understand force.”

Nixon and Reagan focused on eliminating dangerous rivalries, and the three stooges—Clinton, Bush, and Obama—have resurrected the rivalries. Those who cannot see the astonishing difference are blinded by prejudices and their brainwashing.

In this article, I describe unappreciated aspects of the Nixon and Reagan presidencies. What I provide is neither a justification nor a denunciation, but an explanation. Here is what Patrick Buchanan, who was in the White House with both presidents, wrote to me in response to my explanation:

“Craig, you are dead on in what you write about both Nixon and Reagan and what they sought in their presidencies. Reagan often talked of those ‘godawful weapons,’ meaning nukes. I was at Reykjavik with him, and was stunned at Hofde House to learn that Ronald Reagan pretty much wanted to trade them all away. And when, years later, Tom Wicker wrote favorably about the Nixon presidency, he accurately titled his book One of Us. All his life Nixon sought the approbation of the [pre-neocon] Establishment. Am deep into a new book, based on my experiences and my White House files, and all through it I am urging him [Nixon] to be and to become the kind of conservative president I wanted, but he never was. My thanks for bringing in The Greatest Comeback, which covered the period when I was closest to Nixon. All the best, Pat.”

Writing for Americans is not always an enjoyable experience. Many readers want to have their prejudices confirmed, not challenged. Emotions rule their reason, and they are capable of a determined resistance to facts and are not inhibited from displays of rudeness and ignorance. Indeed, some are so proud of their shortcomings that they can’t wait to show them to others. Some simply cannot read and confuse explanations with justifications as if the act of explaining something justifies the person or event explained. Thankfully, all readers are not handicapped in these ways or there would be no point in trying to inform the American people.

To continue reading: Presidential Crimes Then And Now