Traditional Americans?

From time to time, I often find myself reading a piece from someone who I know understands an issue and has sufficient grasp of the arguments to make a cogent interpretation in forming an intelligent opinion on that topic whatever it may be. Pat Buchanan is one of those individuals, though from time to time he lapses in his thinking and it finds its way into his writing. This is one of those times. I believe that in order to understand the root cause of those lapses one must understand the individual and examine that individual's accomplishments, and the company which that individual has kept during his/her professional career, what causes that individual has embraced, etc...

I agree with Pat Buchanan's basic premise in an article he has written for World Net Daily titled, Traditional Americans are losing their nation (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113463) in which he perhaps with his tongue firmly placed in his cheek, he connects American dicontent with Obama with white supremacy and racism. This plays into the mantra of the left and the racial hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whom have made a career enriching themselves off of this.

But you know what Pat's problem is? He's been an elitist (albeit like Newt Gengrich) conservative for too long. Pat Buchanan is not a mainline true conservative, but a moderate with conservative leanings on many issues, and liberal on others. He opposed vehemently the Iraq War Phase of the War on Terror and attributed it to oil, the issual screed one reads from the far left. That is one example and there arae many others, but I won't go into them in this post, it would require a much longer writeup involving an analysis and brief biography of the man, not something having to do with what we are examining here. I will only write briely on this and continue the focus of our discussion which has to do with the swelling of opposition across the nation to the policies of Barak Hussein Obama, and his and the media's reaction to it. Now briefly back to Mr. Buchanan.

He worked for Richard Nixon as an opposition researcher during his bid for the Oval Office, and when Nixon won the White House, he went to work for him as his and Spiro Agnew's speech writer. Nixon was a CFR member and insider, and Pat was not far behind. I've never trusted CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) types and never will. They're on the right and they're on the left, and they dominate both political parties, commerce, industry, education, and almost every enterprise where international trade, communications and relations, and government is involved.

Whether or not Pat Buchanan is a CFR Member in good standing, I do not for sure know. I do know that he worked in Nixon's White House as the president's speech writer, and that he gave a speech at the Council On Foreign Relations (for the entire speech go to this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read.freetrade.html), and the CFR does not often as far as I know, invite non-members to speak at their functions.

Having said all of this, it is not surprising for Pat's take on the various movements springing up across the nation who are opposed to the socialist agenda of the progressive far left (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113463). But, although I understand what he is doing with his article, which is nothing more than a reaction and poorly written rebuttal to another article which appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal written by Alan Maimon, about a group of ex-service men, law enforcement officials, and other professionals called the Oath Keepers whom have taken an oath not to carry out orders that in their opinion run against our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. Maimon attempts to link them to white supremists and other far out fringe groups. I do not like how Mr Buchanan went about doing it (see the following link: http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html).

His comparison between the groundswell of American discontent to Obama's agenda with racism, even the very hint of it, is nothing more than feeding the false god of political correctnes that has run amuck in our culture and is now attempting to squelch disent and free speech.

I for one, do not like the policies of Barak Hussein Obama. His race has no bearing on my opposition to him. Had the moderate John McCain followed the same path to radicalization that President Obama has taken this nation on, I would oppose him as well. Race has nothing to do with it, ideas and policies do. To claim, as Obama's followers in his White House and the media do, that opposition to Obama is because of his race, is an insult to people like me, because it relegates the level intelect of those who oppose Obama's policies to those of the chimpazee. It is an insult to our intelligence.

Such a charge of racism is nothing more than a bold attempt to shut off and shut up all opposition, disent; nothing more. It ignores all discourse and intelligent argument, and replaces it with emotional invectives created to drive the argument to its conclusion without having had the opportunity to engage in it.

This is why no matter how often one hears Obama claim that he is open to discuss all matters with those who disagree with him, he never does. He actually takes it to the next level: he holds discussions behind closed rooms with only those who support his point of view, and then spends his time and our money campaigning across the country and the world promoting these causes. The only transparency that Obama shows is how badly he takes criticism to his policies. He is very thin-skinned. Perhaps this is why he and his allies in congress are trying to ram an unpopular health care bill down our throats while neglecting weightier matters such as rising unemployment, a deepening Great Recession/Depression, the War in Afghanistan, etc. But he doesn't end it there.

Obama takes it another notch by openly criticizing the only news organ with the courage to question (as it and all the news media should) policy measures that will prove antithetical to the interests of our nation and every tax paying American (see the following: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/).

His campaign against Fox News and talk radio is unprecendent. Show me how a public figure reacts to criticism, and you will show me his soul; what he or she is all about, and whether or not they are true leaders or nothing more than media creations with very thin skins.

Obama is nothing more than a media creation with very, very thin skin. He does not take criticism very easily, and neither do any of the people he has around him. Compare this to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr., who were pilloried by the news media almost daily, but who did not comport themselves as Obama has.

Obama craves praise and adoration, but does not take criticism and opposing points of view very well; the signs of a megalomaniac. He believes himself above criticism and when faceed with it, he doesn't quite know how to handle it, so he tries to squash it, make it go away instead of engaging it and attemptijng to rebut it. If you're so sure about what you believe then let's come out and discuss it, and afterwards let people form their own opinions about the matter, but don't try to kill the argument before it has a chance to get out.

This is also another sign of one who is not sure about his core beliefs because they're not based upon impiricle evidences and well thought out argumentations, but on emotional meanderings of ideas and concepts which do not hold up well when scrutinized, and which prove to be dismall and dangerous failers when put into practice as public policy.

This is not good for the rest of US, because when we elect a person to public office, part of the benefits which come with that office is great power; a great responsibility. History has shown that very few have done well with such power, and from what we can see thus far, Barak Hussein Obama is not holding up well with the office of the president of the United States in this category. Yet we do have some examples of leaders who faced great crisis and were given to lead their nations in that hour and led them well. One thinks of Winston Churchill, and in recent years, Ronald Reagan.

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1980, the nation was faced with double digit inflation, high unemployment, stagnation, double digit interest rates, and the loss of prestige overseas because of the Iran hostage situation the nation endured for 444 days up until the day he took the oath of office.

Over and against the daily dictates of the alphabet soup media and liberal politicians, President Reagan went about restoring America's place in the world community, establishing economic growth by scaling back government spending (not cutting it as the media and the politicians told US), cutting marginal income taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and ushered in the greatest economic boom in peacetime in this nation's history. His policies set the stage for welfare reform (workfare), and the country's first balanced budget in modern times, which the nation enjoyed when Newt Gingrich some years later led the new Republicans' Contract with America. Where have these people gone?

But one will remember well how Reagan was savaged daily by the monopoly alphabet soup news channels and the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe, including the usual liberal rags of Time, Newsweek, and the rest.

He didn't take them on personally, and didn't call for other organs of the news and print media to take them on. Nor did he work behind the scenes to pull their licenses or audit them, or use members of congress to draft legislation unfavorable to them, because Ronald Reagan was a statesman, and he certainly did not hold himself above the rest of US as Barak Obama does.

History does show US the behavior of those who have had great power over their nation and have not taken criticism too well. Their names are forever etched on our psyche. Names such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Quaddafi, Hussein, Khomeini, and the list goes on.

We do know how these men received criticism and what they did to their critics. That is no to say that Obama will resort to this, of course not. But it a most dangerous thing to see and hear him personally engage in verbal fisticuffs with an organ of the news media because it has the temirity to question his polilcies. That is very dangerous. I've lived a long time and I have never seen anything quite like it. Not in this country, and not by any elected official here.

What's more, I've lived a very long time, and I have never seen almost the entire news media wedded to a president and his agenda quite like what I am witnessing at this moment.

The news media is supposed to be impartial observers reporting news without bias, indeed presenting all sides to an issue and not becoming embroiled in it. So why are we witnessing the pimping of America's press? And why is Obama becoming their Mack Daddie? Why is he calling on them to take on Fox News and to take on all those who oppose his policies? Why? Oh, it has become a dangerous thing to ask WHY in recent months.

I began this post in focusing on Pat Buchanan's piece about the Oath Takers, and it has taken US to reexamining the current state of our news and print media. I will conclude by writing that Mr. Buchanan knows well the parameters of what he can and cannot write if he wishes to continue his employ with MSNBC, to which end explains his article on the Oath Takers.

It could have been better written, and he could have not played into the hands of the far left who see Neo-Nazis and White Supremicists under every bed, and scream, "Racist" , when faced with points of view they cannot address and have no rebuttal for.

But true to form, Mr. Buchanan instead has done what he has always been very adept at doing; replay from time to time the same kind of screed that the left is famous for. It helps US to understand when on occasion he writes something as baffling as the aforesaid article on the Oath Keepers.