Of Political Courage, & The Company You Keep

Ronald Reagan's views regarding the USSR, communism, and the then emerging Cold War were initially formed by his experiences in the Hollywood labor strike of 1946.

According to author Peter Schweizer's (Reagan's War) research of Soviet archives, strike leader Herb Sorrell was being funded by the Communist Party... and received operational help from Soviet agents. Sorrell was head of the Conference of Studio Unions (CSU), and the goal was nothing less that control of the Hollywood film industry. He had said at the onset of the of the strike "There may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over"- and had brought in crews of goons, just in case things got rough as he was predicting... which of course, they did.

The Screen Actors' Guild voted on whether to join-in, and a majority decided not to honor the strike. Reagan's employer, Warner Brothers Studio, was determined to keep up to production schedule, but advised actors crossing the picket line to sneak-onto the lot through a drainage pipe. Reagan saw that as being intimidated by an unjust cause, and one with underhanded methods. His response to this advice from WB security was "if I'm going to cross the picket line, I'm going to cross the picket line"- and he did just that. He soon emerged as a leader of the anti-strike, anti-communist movement in Hollywood.

It wasn't long before Reagan received a phone call in which he was told that if he continued to oppose the CSU strike, he would never be able to work in films again... as a crew would find him and disfigure his face with acid. He soon obtained a gun for the protection of himself and his family, which he kept handy in a holster each day, and placed on his nightstand every night. Communist sympathizers in Hollywood denounced him as a "fraud", a "stooge", and a "fascist"... even old friends turned on him. His wife Jane Wyman blamed Reagan's new political mission and the environment of fear created by his ruthless new enemies for their divorce.

But, when all was said and done, the strike had collapsed- and Reagan's leadership and courage had impressed even his most bitter opponents. In 1947 several actors, writers, and directors testified before the Un-American Activities Committee of the US Congress on communist influence in Hollywood. Both the Congress and press were extremely impressed with Reagan's poise and intelligence in testimony, and it was clear he had done his homework.


Later, in 1951, in front of the same committee, actor Sterling Hayden testified that the 1946 Hollywood strike had failed because the CSU had run into Reagan, who he described as a "one-man battalion".

His brave, and often lonely fight against Communism became, and was to remain for 40 years, highly personal. When others were seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union, from the 1950's on-through the Carter Administration, Reagan's belief in the American capitalist system told him that if the USSR was forced to compete in a real all-out arms race with the US, their weaker economic system simply "couldn't keep up". Few agreed with this at the time, and it was actually widely ridiculed. However, this truly insightful viewpoint was 100% validated when he was President in the 1980's.

The his hard-line strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union earned him criticism from all quarters of the press and academia as a "warmonger", and a trigger-happy, "self-assured bumpkin" with an overly simplistic world view, among other things. While most feared what they saw as invincible Soviet power, Reagan said that "the Russians aren't ten-feet-tall" and spoke of inherent weaknesses in the communist system that few others saw. This was a difficult position to take, but Reagan always displayed true, visionary leadership.

He also said while campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964, regarding appeasement to avoid war, that: "there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace... and you can have it in the next second: surrender!". Such unwavering views were often unappealing to a large chunk of the electorate... but the man was sincere in his convictions above all else, and had no taste for political opportunism. Reagan's KGB file defined him with grudging respect as a "convicted anti-communist" and a "firm and unbending politician, for whom words and deeds are one in the same."

Even once elected President in 1980, his military buildup and confrontational approach with the USSR were unpopular. With both double-digit inflation and unemployment inherited from the Carter administration, his own cabinet in 1981 was highly divided on the issue of increased military spending and new weapons systems... but President Reagan held firm with plans to confront both militarily and economically in a concerted manner what he famously dubbed the "Evil Empire". When others called the Warsaw-Pact nations of eastern Europe "Soviet satellites", he more accurately referred to them as "captive" states.

Reagan's foreign opponents felt threatened by his influence long before he became President. KGB agents stationed in the US were told in the 1970's that someday, they may be called upon to "get rid of Reagan". There was also a stillborn mission by Cuban agents to nip this problem in the bud in the 1960's... and assassinate him. There were three known attempts on Ronald Reagan's life before deranged lunatic John Hinckley shot him in 1981.

As California Governor in the late 1960's, Reagan was well-known for his outspoken views on topics ranging from campus radicalism to Cuba and the Soviet Union. He became the number one opponent of Berkeley radicals, whom he didn't hesitate to call "brats" and "freaks" at press conferences and in his speeches. In 1967, Secret Service agents fired upon two men lighting gasoline bombs next to the Governor's mansion. Reagan's brave stands soon earned him a spot on the hit-list of the Weather Underground... the group even kept a bullet with Reagan's name on it at their headquarters. These radicals were planning an armed, Marxist overthrow of the US Government, and they had contacts with the intelligence services of countries such as Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and North Vietnam. They had also collaborated with a Cuban agent on a plot (broken up by the FBI) to assassinate Reagan.

And where does Barrack Hussein Obama fit into this story of valour, honor, and principle?

Unlike Reagan's brave political stands, which had earned him at best lost friends and public condemnation (and at worst a divorce and death threats)- Mr Obama has a record of consistently adopting pragmatic, self-serving platforms that get him the power and positions that serve his aspirations... first and foremost. This of course includes support of, and promotion by, the Chicago Democratic machine- one of the most corrupt in the country, with whom he certainly made no waves... just "get along to get ahead".

.

And there was no shame in seeking the advice and support of powerful, yet controversial figures in Chicago politics to aid his career, and perhaps get some "street cred" (with south-side African Americans that didn't grow up in Hawaii or go to Harvard).... anti-American racist Reverend Wright, Nation of Islam rabble-rouser Louis Farrakhan, and shady political mover/racketeer Tony Rezko, among others.

Later, when the DNC had adopted him as their prodigal son, he was more than willing to slavishly serve the party's entrenched interests (i.e. unions) and it didn't seem to violate his principles to win elections by disqualifying opponents with questionable legal maneuvers...and thereby running unchallenged.

Mr Obama was also received an early boost from former bomb tossing members of the very same Weather Underground that had planned a Marxist overthrow of the US Government... and attempted to put a hit out on Ronald Reagan.

Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (who had bombed numerous US Government buildings in the 1960's) hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama at their home in 1995. Obama of course denies any significant connection, but records show that he had in-fact e-mailed and called Ayers repeatedly after 9/11... relevant due to the fact that Ayers stated after the Al Qaida terrorist attacks that ""I don't regret setting bombs".

Of course, during the 2008 presidential campaign , Obama distanced himself from all these controversial figures. Not too surprising, considering the shocking opportunism and lack of character this man has displayed throughout his political career- from thrown elections fixed by the party to gangster connections like Tony Rezko- whatever it takes. Most or all previous candidates never would have been able to dodge such issues... but the media's complete abandonment of their traditional vetting role (at least on the Democratic side) allowed the DNC to present an appealing, yet plastic, manufactured-to-order product for electoral consumption... and consume they did.

Meanwhile, Obama had spoken during the campaign of reaching an accommodation with determined and aggressive foes of the United States, such as Iran and Syria... exactly the kind of appeasement of an insatiable enemy that Reagan warned us about for years. What else can a militarily and economically weaker nation like Iran, Syria, or North Korea- or a terrorist organization like Al Qaida- do to get their way with us, except to attempt to scare a majority of our electorate with frightening brinkmanship?

What a contrast this specious and ruthless political chameleon is to the brave and visionary principles of Ronald Reagan. And to add insult to injury, we already have Obama taking a classless cheap shot at Nancy Reagan at his first post-election press conference (while she's just out of the hospital, and 87 yrs old). The problem with the smiling, charming Barrack is that a quite different one tends to leak-out when he's not chained to a teleprompter.

This scheming opportunist is clearly no messiah. And regarding issues of judgement, principle, character, political courage... and true leadership?

Barrack Hussein Obama couldn't hold The Gipper's jockstrap.

Obama's Fallacious Freeze-Frame

The dissapointed half of the American electorate is walking around with a very strange feeling this week... not one of defeat, so much as of loss- i.e. when one has had their house robbed. They haven't yet, though... but they're about to, along with their portfolio... and pretty much everything else, all in the name of a semi-stealthy agenda of class warfare. But, the real reason for this sinking feeling is that the election was not exactly stolen from them and the GOP, but more accurately scammed... with all the sleight-of-hand of a shell-game huckster. And as the dawning moment of realization that "we've been had" hits hard, the next question is "where was the (media) Sheriff? "Oh, no- he was in on it too!"


Presidential campaigns are pretty nasty business, as was this one. But, due to artful spin by Mr. Obama, portraying himself as above dirty politics of "division", -an image supported unceasingly by a fawning "tingle-up-my-leg" press- he was seen by many voters as occupying the moral high-ground, far above the fray that has entangled lesser men... his hands are clean, the "good guy" won, and a just history is being made. A lot of people do feel very good about it, no doubt.


McCain on the other hand, was busy disappointing everyone by reverting to a "negative" campaign... "he's changed" they uttered. What were we to expect, after all? He was as "desperate" as The One's ascension was "inevitable". But, how do such views stand up to post-election scrutiny? Arguably not too well... as anyone who thinks the tactics of John McCain (who resolutely refused to introduce the topic of the repulsive Rev. Wright, fearing the kind of racial divisiveness that bothered the Rev) were overly "dirty" or "negative" must not remember the 1988 Bush campaign of Willie Horton... when a very large number of Mr Obama's supporters were 5-10 yrs old (no coincidence there). By traditional standards, the GOP's tactics in this campaign didn't offer much to be offended by... and the party also didn't benefit from what used to be thorough vetting of their opponent by the mainstream media... a duty our Constitution was built upon.


Barrack Obama might be a lot of things... but he ain't stupid. He and his advisors knew perfectly well that if the voter's analysis focused on his thin resume, past connections, and/or prior tests of character... or even his legislative/attendance records... vs that of John McCain... he hadn't a very good chance of winning the Presidency. So, like the best military tacticians, he drew his enemy out-onto the battlefield, to a time and place of his own choosing... one where he could best leverage his strengths, while exploiting his opponent's weaknesses. For the Democrats, this battle had to be fought in the here-and-now of the MySpace generation; where Mr Obama was handsome, young, clever, glib, and the right man- at the right time...and right NOW. And to keep the focus on the present, this would need to remain a referrendum on George W Bush... the main "problem" of "now". This disengenuous, yet fully 21st century strategy fit right-in with his focus on the youth vote; they cared little about history's past humiliation of both socialism and pacifist notions... and most of them weren't here for it.

And what an opportunity to rebel against your annoyingly yuppie-era parents... a chance to establish your intellectual superiority with an embrace of the New Left; it's no coincidence that the larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate seem to have swung to the left... not the moderate tone from candidates you would have thought necessary for such Democratic gains just four years ago. The BHO-enamoured youth of 2008 have more in common with their hippie-era grandparents (interestingly, most Obama supporters I know are over 60), and one could see this cyclical political echo of the past was jump-started by the deja-vu war protesters in 2003-2005. I was instantly struck then by the emergence of 20-somethings alongside allied 60-somethings walking arm-and-arm in tie-died shirts and bell-bottoms at these protests in the US and in UK/Europe, like old craftsmen of the Vietnam era protests handing down skills to their apprentice Iraq-war-hating interns (Wow, you're into Hendrix, too? Cool!). Their one-world ideals contrast sharply with the combative world view of the Bush Administration, as well as Mr McCains; and in their new political alliance with a majority of non-whites (at least for this candidate), became a political force to that the Reagan-built alliance of religious rightists/military hawks/pro-business conservatives simply couldn't overcome.

The enlistment (both formally and informally) of new media/bloggers/social networking in support of this "now" strategy was highly effective, also- plus had the built-in, self-fufilling prophecy of making Obama ever-more the "cool" candidate- in obvious contrast to McCain, the "old fossil" and "dinosaur" that once in self-deprectating humor had remarked he "doesn't know how to send and e-mail"- which was then shamelessly exploited by the Obama brigades. Never mind that McCain staffers have long handled that for him, due to the fact that his extensive war/torture injuries make it almost impossible for him to use a keyboard.


To steer the discourse in this election away from his own inauspicious narrative, and keep the debate focussed on the present, BHO had also had to stay on the offensive, with the pedal-to-the-medal right to Nov. 4th. How to do it? Connect Bush to McCain in any way possible, with a reckless disrgard for the truth... while informal allies go for an all-out character assasination against both McCain and Palin. Obama didn't want to dirty his white gloves, of course- and he didn't have to; he had the de-centralized, albeit unipolar propaganda ministry of the net age at his disposal, as well as a complicative MSM and e-press to do the dirty work. And to the delight of the DNC, it was often as if some in the traditonal media were trying to compete with e-media outlets/blogs by being even more blatantly partisan and outrageous (similar to how standards of language and obscenity on network TV plummeted in the 90's, in an effort to compete with the cable networks' more racy fare). When it all went a bit beyond the pale, finally bringing protest from some quarter, The One could just raise his hand and make it clear he "condemned" the attacks... and was of-course no way connected to them. I found it surprising so many Americans where so receptive to such a claim- seemed pretty incredulous to me, considering his background (and questionable m.o. in prior election victories) in the ruthless world of bare-knuckle Illinois politics. So while the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and myriad liberal bloggers went about their mission... often supported by the MSM in a feeding-frenzy on the GOP nominees... all Obama had to do is continue to tie McCain to Bush in every other paragraph he uttered... and let his loose association of allies do the rest.

In the event, Democrats and their supporters had a field day, desecrating the GOP nominees at-will... while legitimate concerns raised by the Republicans (including standard vetting issues now fully neglected by the media) regarding Obama were either quickly countered as "racist" or "that old politics of attack and division". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever once recall John McCain mentioning race in any way... never; but we got plenty of pre-emptive strikes from Obama, playing the race card in his (false) predictions that he'd be discredited by the GOP as "not looking like the presidents on dollar bills" and "having a funny name". What is that, if not race-baiting? Mike Huckabee had a pretty funny name too... but didn't seem to harbor any such concerns. Both new and mainstream media's disregard for impartiality in allowing such blatant double standards in this campaign (ITAR-Tass demonstrated more journalistic independence), thereby allowing Obama and his allies to write the script and slap McCain silly while he had his (one, good) arm tied behind is back was a comprehensive disgrace... no wonder half the electorate feels like they just got mugged. This inequitable complicity will forever change the role of the media in American Presidential politics- as will Obama's (again unchallenged) 180-degree turn on the campaign's initial public financing. Billion-dollar spending, deployed in a lengthy financial artillery battle of attrition will now be the standard... with any previously envisioned finance reform (as proposed by McCain) dead for the forseeable future.



Obviously, John McCain had trouble countering such a wide-ranging assault upon him and his running-mate; his campaign seemed to assume that the background of the candidates, as well as what they'd done in their political careers (if anything)... not just what they're saying now... would, as it has traditionally, matter to the electorate. These were assumptions borne of the confidence of a man who knew who he was, and what he'd done- and also felt his record made it more than apparent he was a competent and trustworthy man... he had nothing to hide, and no reason to feel he'd be on the defensive regarding issues of accomplishment or character. But while McCain accurately saw life as being a movie... which of-course it is, in reality... Obama deftly turned this the perceived reality in this election into a digital snapshot freeze-frame; a handsome, smiling, charismatic, and adored fresh face, vs a old, irrelevant relic of "George W Bush's" failed Republicans... And for a photogenic, "historic" candidate with a past he really didn't want to talk about any more than he had to... it worked like a charm.



"Those who don't learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat it" said George Santayana. Well, a freshly-taken snapshot doesn't offer much history.... but the US electorate wouldn't have had to look back very far into the previous century to see examples of how appeasement of an aggressive enemy is always a mistake... and no further back than 1990-91 to see a large empire imploding due to the countless failures of socialism. Not only were many of the Obama supporters apparently ignorant of the lessons of history... they simply didn't want to hear about it. Perhaps the waves of propaganda from friendly media simply drowned-out the warnings, but it seemed to me that there was a well-documented record regarding the unglorious past of a number of Obama's proposals and philosophies... and many more BHO-specific red flags about his past public statements and radical associations.

But no matter what came out, it just didn't matter, it seemed. Anything that went against the zeitgeist of Obamamania was brushed aside as "the politics of division" and an incredulous "attack"- regardless of the preponderance of evidence, nor gravity of the charges. His supporters were cult-like in their suspicion of non-believers... "don't you dare take our dream away- we're in far too deep to walk away from this now". It put Obama in a position of being able to claim he was pretty much anything he wanted to, and have it widely accepted, like that he was a bipartisan centrist,...when his record and past statements had showed precious little evidence of it. And while not all of his voters were in this trance, one his support acheived critical mass, and he was the fashionable choice of youth, trumpeted by almost all media outlets, the swing voters became easy meat. With such a high level of enthusiasm among his core supporters, it is hard for those around them to resists after a year of this... just ask someone who grew-up in the Third Reich. Due to the blind support he thus enjoyed, Obama was also able to change his positions on major issues often, and without as much as a peep from the media. That is also how they got away with ripping Palin apart on issues of questionable relevance like her wardrobe, daughter's pregnancy, and the now resolved "Troopergate" (where she tried to protect the public from an alky rogue cop who tasered a ten-year-old) while showing little interest in Joe Biden's belief that 1929's President Roosevelt made a TV address regarding the depression... although it hadn't begun yet ...he wasn't President then... and there was no public TV yet.

The 2008 Presidantial race all came down in the end to a campaign of how you looked, sounded, and had the audacity to portray yourself... the first presidential election in history where what you've done, how you've done it... and who you did it with... didn't really matter to over half the electorate. It was a tailor-made situation for a guy who had no shame in writing two self-absorbed books on his "personal struggle" to succeed... while playing hookey from his day job in the Illinois and US Senate... and the 52% of the electorate that doesn't see anything wrong with that. And while all Obama's books and speeches feature the theme of how he had to carry the extra load of racial prejudice every step of the way... it seems more to me that it made him (along with his talent for speaking and sharp elbows) the prodigal son of the Democratic party at an extremely young age, with almost no distinguishing accomplishments of any kind (except getting elected)... and this was, in-fact, his ticket to the White House.

What won this election in the end was a cash-turbocharged, high tech self-promotion machine... with the Obama campaign and it's allies writing the entire script, the star's glowing biography, and then the rave reviews, too. It sounds like the daunting prophesies of Orwells' 1984- and all in stark contrast to the actual 1984, when a real, modest, and accomplished man of honor, Ronald Reagan, won 49 states... and gave this country some of the best years in it's history.

"Pat Buchanan Slams GOP"

Well, my BHO-infatuated associate couldn't wait to get that one in front of me.... I had already read it a couple hours earlier on election day... and I knew it was just a matter of time until it was in my e-mail inbox. And, as always, Pat Buchanan provides some thought-provoking arguments.

And so it is... I am an avid reader of Mr Buchanan's column, but not because I embrace all I hear from the controversial, pugnacious, rightist-nationalist. The primary reason is because the man is an original thinker; I have read him for years, plus a couple of his books- and perhaps agree with about 60-70% of what he has to say... yet always entertaining and thought-provoking,. especially 2001's Death of the West. In contrast, I might see eye-to-eye with Sean Hannity 95% of the time... but with so little original thought, why bother watching? I could make a comfortable living betting on what position he will take on any issue, but with Buchanan... I go into it with a curiosity of what I'll find lurking within his latest saturnine diatribe.

And I could tell that the annoyingly bubbly Obama supporter was certain I'd be shocked that Pat Buchanan was laying into the GOP with such vigor- but of course, if you've even seen the McLaughlin Group once over the last couple years... you'd know Mr Buchanan is not a happy GOP-camper these days. Actually, he has been harshly criticizing the party... and more specifically George W. Bush... for at least 5 years already. He certainly has some valid points, too, regarding deficit spending and his standard warnings of imperial overreach. He's basically an isolationist, who dislikes free trade and overseas engagements, always has been.

But, with high-profile Republicans such as Colin Powell jumping on the BHO bandwagon, Buchanan's column would look to some like yet another one throwing-in-the towel on John McCain... and this is exactly the spirit in which it was inflicted upon me- "Hey, have a look at this! Good grief, Pat Buchanan too?!!"

In reality, Buchanan all but endorsed McCain, enthusiastically supported the choice of Sarah Palin... and recently said of Obama: "if he's not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one that I've ever seen" And this begged the question; does this latest "slam" of the GOP, and a few opportunistic "conservative" defectors... plus a general widespread dissapointment with George W Bush... make Obama more qualified to be President than John McCain, somehow? Is that the logic? Seems to be a pretty common way of thinking this election year, IMO... somehow The One has all the answers the voters want to hear, and if not, they have an enduring confidence in his Midas touch... primarily because he is the most-opposite-of-W-choice available. Not a lot of logic in that, but that's how love is. And, does anyone actually think ol' Pat voted for Obama? Seriously?

How does all this cumulative dissapointment with the prior administration indicate that Obama's long-ago-discredited, redistributionist socialist nonsense is suddenly going to work just great this time? The only other one that might possibly buy-into that is Hugo Chavez- even Cuba's finally tip-toeing away from it. I sure hope Target is all stocked-up on red Che Geuvara T-shirts... should be the hot Christmas item among the stubbornly-ignorant fashionistas of the American electorate this year.

And regarding America's plentiful and daunting foreign-policy challenges of 2008-on, IMO the election of a pacifist former pot-head to the position of Commander-in-Chief because people are sick of hunting terrorists is extremely short-sighted... and foolish. This delivery of a victory to enemies of the United States by presenting a (dream-come-true) strategic and martial Bambi to the likes of Al Qaida, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Venezuala, and Russia is a good idea... because you're pissed at George Bush? And those who thought BHO sounded well-thought-out and convincingly reasssuring on defense issues during the campaign... well, just watch and learn; it doesn't take much scratching of the surface to see that Obama's ignorance of defense issues is shocking, to say the least (but in fairness, clearly above average compared to most other community organizers). Like most on the left, his view is based more upon how he'd like things to be... than the actual world that confronts us.... coupled to a misguided attempt to seek the moral high ground vs. his domestic political opponents.

The vodka is likely flowing freely in Moscow tonight, with Vladimir Putin laughing his New-Czarist ass off, believe it... and he could very-well have tanks in the Crimea by spring. Guess why... 52% of the American electorate just invited him to do it, because they are generically "sick of war". It was Trotsky who said "You may not be interested in war... but war is interested in you". I heard some say they "couldn't sleep at night" with the trigger-happy maverick McCain (and his allegedly short-fuse) with a finger on the button... well there's two sides to that; Vlad the Invader wouldn't have been sleeping so soundly either.

So Obamafiles, Obama-ites, Obamiacs, and Obama-mamas, et. al.... enjoy the party... while it lasts. It is pretty obvious to the less-infatuated that many both in the US, as well as abroad, harbor such lofty expectations for this most unqualified, disengenuous, and misguided man that massive dissapointment is all but waiting-around-the-corner... especially since he clearly lacks the stature to control Pelosi and Reid domestically (can you say "trillion dollar deficit?... then watch the dollar plunge to €0.30) -anyone who voted for Obama out of dissapointment with Bush's large deficits is surely in for a nasty shock. Once again, just because George W Bush happened to get it wrong... doesn't mean the political opposite is an improvement. And just wait for that "early test" we've been hearing so-much about... where Mr Obama will promptly receive a harsh introduction to strategic brinkmanship favored by so many of America's sworn enemies (as even hallucinating, crazy-aunt-in-the-attick Joe Biden seems to see coming).

Those deliriously celebrating this setback of everything pragmatically achieved (from the first Reagan administration, on through the 2nd moderate Clinton term) remind me of the words of French PM Edouard Daladier, upon seeing crowds cheering his return from the signing of the Munich Agreement (1938), with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini (and thinking France had now acheived a guarantee of peace in their time). While descending from the plane, he observed the many joyous French citizens greeting him at the airport... with disgust... and said "These people are crazy!". Even though he was the one who negotiated and signed this (shameful attempt at appeasement) as best he could... Msr. Daladier was still wise enough to know naive, wishful thinking when he saw it.