Magic City Morning Star

Advertising | RSS Feed | About Us 

Last Updated: Oct 14, 2013 - 1:07:08 AM 

An eclectic mix of news and information
Staff Login
Donate towards our web hosting bill!

Front Page 
  News
  -- Local
  -- State
  -- National
  Community
  Business
  -- IRS News
  -- Win at Work
  Education
  -- History
  Tech Notes
  Entertainment
  -- Comics
  International
  -- R.P. BenDedek
  -- Kenneth Tellis
  Outdoors
  Sports
  Features
  -- M Stevens-David
  -- Down the Road
  Christianity
  Today in History
  Opinion
  -- Editor's Desk
  -- Guest Column
  -- Scheme of Things
  -- Michael Devolin
  -- Tom DeWeese
  -- Ed Feulner
  -- Jim Kouri
  -- Julie Smithson
  -- J. Grant Swank
  -- Doug Wrenn
  Letters
  Agenda 21
  Book Reviews
  -- Old Embers
  Notices
  Archive
  Discontinued


Web Directory Reviews
WDR Directory of Directories
Restore The Republic - The Home of the Freedom Movement!

Paul Streitz

Is the Yalie Nightmare Over Yet?
By Paul Streitz
Dec 31, 2007 - 8:36:54 PM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

The past twenty years has been a period of unparalled misfortune for citizens of the United States. Graduates of Yale University have occupied the White House for these twenty years and could continue for another four to eight years if Hillary Clinton is elected President.

The Erlanger theory of organizational entropy says that a business reaches a level of success because of the drive, intelligence and foresight of the founding fathers of the business. Thereafter, the business inevitably goes into a decline because each successive level of management is worse than the former. (Erlanger's buys mismanaged companies, fires the executives, brings in new management, restores profitability and then makes a profit on the increase in the stock price.)

The theory of organizational entropy also applies to nations and to societies. The geniuses that founded this nation Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, etc. were followed by a series of incompetents as Presidents. They never resolved the issue that was tearing the nation apart, slavery. The result was the bloody Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln is known as a war president who freed the slaves. Less well known were his economic accomplishments. He restored a federal bank, printed national money (the greenbacks), restored high tariffs to protect workers and industry and unified the country with a railroad to reach the Pacific. Even without the Civil War, Lincoln would have been a great President.

Abysmal chief executives followed other great Presidents. Dwight Eisenhower ended the war in Korea and the nation experienced unparalleled peace and prosperity. The Eisenhower era was followed by a series of incompetents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

The Vietnam War was initiated bye JFK, expanded by Lyndon Johnson, and then prolonged by Richard Nixon. Nixon was impeached and then pardoned by Gerald Ford, who refused to enforce our laws for Nixon's clear obstruction of justice. Jimmy Carter soon followed. His strategy of the invasion of Afghanistan was to meditate in the Rose Garden and not allow American athletes to participate in the Olympics. Somehow that did not deter the Russians.

Ronald Reagan's term in office was marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union and peace and prosperity. When he saw that the United States was headed into an endless quagmire in the Middle East, he withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, even though the hawks were calling for increased involvement.

Thereafter, the Yalie Era of United States Presidents began. George H.W. Bush (Yale 1948) stated that there would be no new taxes, "read my lips." Well his lips were lying and there were new taxes. He then proceeded to give Iran signals that the United States would not object if Iran took over Kuwait, and then formed an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

Exactly why the United States started this war is still uncertain. But clearly it was in contradiction to George Washington's (probably written by Hamilton) injunction to avoid foreign entanglements. George H.W. Bush launched the United States into a sand quagmire from which we have not yet emerged. George H.W. Bush was followed by William Jefferson Clinton (Yale Law, 1973).

The predatory sexual behavior of President Clinton is too lengthy to mention. What is more important is Clinton's record of selling out American workers with his passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). While opposed by a majority of the citizens, Clinton was willing to take big bucks in campaign contributions from Republican businessmen for his reelection. So much for the Democratic Party as the party of the American workingman.

His foreign policy consisted of intervening on the side of the Serbs (Muslims) in Kosovo as they continued Muslim expansion into Europe. He embraced multiculturalism and ignored the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

George W. Bush continued the domestic policies of Clinton, that is, the exportation of American jobs in return for big business support. During the last eight years some five million manufacturing jobs left the country. The United States has a multi-trillion dollar trade deficit and the U.S. dollar continues to sink.

2001 and the destruction of the World Trade Center gave George W. Bush a reason to continue his father's policy of the use of military force in the Middle East. One might think that the President might recognize that Islam is a force that has territorial and political objectives; instead, despite all contrary current evidence and thirteen hundred years of history, George W. declared that Islam was a religion of peace.

An invasion of Afghanistan were the Taliban and Al Qaeda were located was soon followed by an invasion of Iraq, where they were not located. Riding the momentum of public opinion for aggressive action, American forces were back in Iraq. The war soon morphed from a war for national protection to establishing democracy in the Mid-East. As the situation deteriorated with insurgent resistance and continued American losses, the reason was then changed to that America could not leave because the situation was too unstable and there would be a civil war in Iraq.

It might be mentioned that Bush's opponent in the 2004 election was John Kerry (Yale 1966). George Bush had spent the Vietnam War years protecting the Alamo in the Air National Guard. John Kerry in contrast had a career in the U.S. Navy that should have been an episode on Gilligan's Island. He soon returned to testify to Congress to reveal make-believe war atrocities he had never experienced. It is also worth pointing out that the chicken hawk Joe Lieberman (Yale 1964, Law 1967) spent his Vietnam years in the Yale Law Library.

While protecting the Iraq border, George W. Bush opened up the southern border to the Mexican invasion. Frequently meeting with President Vincente Fox, George Bush encouraged the invasion of illegal immigrants by telling the big lie of "Jobs Americans don't want." As the American people objected, Bush did what he did in Iraq, he stonewalled and ignored them. There was no enforcement of immigration laws against employers. He then deceived the American people by putting the National Guard on the border, except they could only get coffee for the Border Patrol.

"Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is inflicting pain and humiliation," says Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984.

In the Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek devotes a chapter to "Why the Worst Get on Top." For Hayek, operatives and leaders in a totalitarian system, "He must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for them. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything." That about describes the Yalie Presidents and the aspiring Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton (Yale Law 1973) promises simply a return to the Clinton years of lies, misappropriation and scandal. If anything, Lady Macbeth was in the play, and is with the Clintons, more unscrupulous than her husband. The bright side is that she might return some of the furniture she stole from the White House when she left.

Certainly, from the first lie of George H.W. Bush ("Read my lips."), to Bill Clinton ("I did not have sex with that woman.") to George H. Bush ("Jobs Americans don't want" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction"), this string of Presidents has shown the remarkable capability to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence. But more importantly for them, to experience the power of having no personal harm fall on them. That is real power. They have not been disgraced, but lionized by their supporters.

To achieve any leadership position, the individual must have a drive for power, that is, the ability to influence and make decisions that affect others. This would be true whether you are talking about being the president of the Parent-Teacher Association or the President of the United States. At the higher level, of course, the leader has more supporters, but also far more virulent critics. The rewards of salary and prestige are also higher. The mayor of the town is not an ordinary citizen; rather he is "The Mayor."

George Washington certainly had the drive for power. He actively sought to become the leader of the Continental Army. He actively opposed those who sought to politically undermine him. Nevertheless, he always subordinated himself to the cause of the American Revolution, which he called "our glorious cause." King George III of England said that if Washington walked away from being President, he would be the greatest leader ever. He did walk away after two terms. He was the greatest leader ever.

Those seeking political power with no scruples or personal morals always claim that they are doing so because there are committed to the "people" or the "poor" or to abstract claims for "social justice." The question is whether their actions meet their words.

The last twenty years of Yalie Presidents has certainly shown four men and one woman who were guided more by Big Brother's dictum of inflicting pain. There is the moral pain of Americans seeing the leader of the country as a sexual predator. There is the economic pain of an increasingly fragile economy. There is the redistribution of wealth; the wealthy get richer, the middle-class stagnates and the poor become poorer. Finally, there is the pain of burying the bodies of young men and women killed in foreign entanglements that could have been avoided.

Would George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, or Ronald Reagan invaded Afghanistan or Iraq? Eisenhower once said that it is more difficult to get the last soldier out than the first solider in. He recognized the limits and dangers of power; none of the Yalies recognize that because it is the personal drive for power that motivates them, not a cause or concern for the nation or the citizens they lead.

Is the Yalie Reign of Misrule Over Yet? Have the American people suffered enough at the hands of Yalie Presidents. Lord, let's hope so!

Paul Streitz

Co-director
CT Citizens for Immigration Reform
amfirst@optonline.net


© Copyright 2002-2013 by Magic City Morning Star

Top of Page

Paul Streitz
Latest Headlines
Milton Friedman's Smoot-Hawley Lie
Who is Qualified? Who Gets Elected?
Pat Buchanan - Wimpy White Male Republican
Where Sarah Goes, the Grass Roots Grow
John McCain Tanked the 2008 Election

A Dinosaur of Education - a blog by James Fabiano.
Shobe Studios
Wysong Foods - Pets and People Too

Google
 
Web magic-city-news.com