(1) Multiculturalism in the US has been a euphemism for anti-white. This has changed and is changing in large part because there is a partially black president. Remember, Obama is half white. There should have been a category in affirmative action for poor white people a long time ago. When asked about affirmative action (I think from a Black person) during his campaign, Obama stated that there needs to be such a category or something like it. When Al Sharpton speaks, he often says something to the effect that of there were more income and wealth based programs, everyone would benefit, to include poor white. He also sometimes says things to the effect of claiming that there are more poor white then poor minorities simply because there are more white people. But the concentration of poor people are higher in minority populations. The above tone likely was not the tone of multicultural discussions 40 years ago. At that time, multiculturalism was an anti-white movement. Its been a ling time and the county has changed substantially.

(2) You are more a propagandist than you are a commentator. To claim that Hitler was not an extraordinary man with an extraordinary gift of charisma and exemplary leadership abilities would warrant a failing grade in any graduate history class, even if the professor was jewish. The man took over Europe and would have succeeded in taking over the world if he wasn’t stopped. Saddam Hussian was also a man with great leadership abilities. So was Gaundhi and so is the Dalai Lama. Hitler was a genius, just a diabolical one.

(3) Did Nixon visit all of the Kennedy Widows on the anniversary of their husbands’ assassinations? Maybe he did but if he did, it should have been done with discretion, otherwise it would have come off as the widow tour. Buchanan apparently picked up on that and was careful to consider it, as a good staffer should. Further, there was government surveillance of Martin Luther King at the time because US military intelligence, the CIA and the FBI thought he was starting a militant revolution. It was the Cold War and people feared a socialist revolt that would end democracy forever. You have to put yourself in the context of the time.

In the decades just prior to those events, General MacArthur was wrong for ordering the US army to march on veterans (I am an Army veteran) but in the context, he truly could not understand why these people would even demand money for the previous service. Neither MacArthur nor Patton could comprehend why just having the privilege to serve wasn’t enough reward in itself. We are the greatest county in history. We are living a chosen destiny to change the world forever. Why isn’t that enough for them. They must disagree with the destiny. They must be on the other side. They must me socialists. This must be a revolution and someone, some powerful and charismatic force must be behind it. I have no choice. Destiny leaves me no choice. Duty leaves me no choice. I must order the army to march. But MacArthur and Patton lived the good life of America. If you told them that not everyone had equal opportunity to attain greatness, they would not have believed your. Further, because their material and health care qualities of life were taken care of, greatness was they had to long for. Why the fledgling masses didn’t share their priorities was not something that MacArthur was capable of pondering. The same was true of those who ran US Intelligence Operations and the FBI during the civil rights movements.

US leadership couldn’t understand why minority populations weren’t happy with the existing social arrangements and the era grew out of the two world wars and occurred during the Cold War. It was a time in global history when there really was an active enemy looking for disgruntled populations and movement within the US that could be manipulated into being supplied and taking up arms. We thought this way because we were doing the very same thing in Soviet block countries at the very same moments in history that you are citing as the context of your claims. Put yourself in that context. I would be shocked to discover that Martin Luther King and other members of the American civil rights movement were never contacted by the KGB, even if it occurred unbeknownst to them. Further, if the KGB hadn’t at least contemplated the idea as a contingency operation, I would lose a great deal of respect for the KGB. It is yet another reason why we won the cold war.

(4) During the moment in history that you make reference to South Africa and Apartheid, the most important question to both an American political advisor and a Soviet political advisor was; Who has South Africa, US or them? Even in recent history military history, we have succeeded in exploiting the existence of disgruntled minority populations that live in enemy territories but arming them, training them and funding them to function as proxi-fighters for American foreign policy initiatives and objectives. Its what we do as a country and its a large part of how we became who we are as a county. You need to start putting yourself in the context of the moments you are citing. You make no attempt to do that.

(5) If you have not observed that race, ethnicity, multicultural clashing, etc… are a big part of the immigration problem, then it is you, not Buchanan who has his head in the sand. Do you think that not organizing such symposiums would make those problems go away. It takes someone like Buchanan to organize such a thing because any ordinary professor or bureaucrat would likely lose his or her university job for doing so. Why should it be ok to erode my culture and replace it with cultures from abroad or beyond the US borders? Do you remember the melting pot cartoon that used to air on Saturday mornings along with the bill that became a law? Dropping the melting pot initiative and replacing it with salad bowl analogy is the cause of a lot of our cultural clashing. American needs an American culture. A national feeling of US. To have an US, we need a them. This is world we live in. You need a broader perspective. But, your goal is not to see the world. It is to disseminate propaganda.

If I had responded to Carl Christopher of the Standard Speaker with this response, he would have either deleted it or added in typos before he posted it and then deleted the paragraphs that he feels strengthen my arguments. The Standard Speaker tries to make me look like an uneducated hill billy. At least you see, to take it on the chin. Carl Christopher used the Standard Speaker to tell people who they must vote for. Ray Saul used to do the same thing. Those days in Hazleton politics need to come to an end. The holding company needs to fire the entire staff of journalists, disperse them to the other affiliate papers and hire a new management team and completely new staff. Until they do that, blogs like yours will grow in popularity for the simple reason that there is no other venue through which members of the public can express their views without some two bit poorly educated editor riding roughshod over what others are allowed to say.

Sincerely,

Sean M. Donahue

Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that “white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.” (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the “Boer Republic”: “Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?” (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

White House adviser Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit “the Widow King” on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, warning that a visit would “outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse…. Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history.” (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)

In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as “an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage.”

In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler’s anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was “an individual of great courage…. Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.” (Guardian, 1/14/92)

As far as white leaders being more successful and more effective, that has been true for America simply because there have only been white leaders. It has not been until recently that a black man could lead a country where the majority of the population that makes up the country is white. So, Buchanan’s comment would be the same as saying that male leaders have been more effective than female leaders. Up until recent decades, the same sort of statements would have been true of Secretaries of State. America started as military revolution and has since been a political evolution that will likely continue into perpetuity. If it didn’t have political evolution, it would need military revolution. Neither the desired future nor the established present should negate the results of the past.

As far as being endorsed by the KKK, it is a far stretch to claim that speaking at a symposium where a member of a white supremacist organizations is also speaking make all the other speakers white supremacists too. If that is true, then why aren’t all those who attended the symposium or watched the event via the web or television also considered to be white supremacists?

And as for Pat Buchanan, read some of his books. He openly states that he believes that 1.) Slavery wasn’t all that bad of a thing in America and 2.) That non-whites are not as effective as leaders when compared with whites. In my book, he’s a racist.

Barletta is not a lawyer, so he will not be good at making law. He doesn’t like to be challenged and prefers to have a buffer to give people the runaround but he would not be able to evade the barrage of other legislators who need not go through his secretary or anyone else. He won’t like being on PCN or CSPAN being bombarded with criticism from across the isle. But there is more. His staff doesn’t do a good job preparing him for debates. I don’t think he practices. He doesn’t seem to know or understand the details of bigger issues. He is a one issue man. He is a Mayor. He doesn’t understand the banking crisis and flopped when asked about it. His staff did not connect foreign policy issues to domestic issues so that he could respond intelligently. When he ran against Kanjorski, all that Kanjorski had to do was stand there and let Barletta no come up with any deep answers. His own people loved him and they remained in awe of his being on stage but he never said anything that led anyone to believe that he thought things through. He thinks tactics, not strategy. That is ok but instead of worrying about getting to be a Washington DC staffer, his people should have worried about understanding Washington DC issues.

These are the things I criticize Barletta for. But I do not think he is a white supremacist. The people who got chased out of Hazleton needed to go. The problem was not only the fact that they were here illegally but that they were committing crime and trying to take over. Using their illegal presence was synonymous to a cop stopping a drunk driver or a drug dealer for having a busted taillight. It works. Further, Pat Buchanan is not a white supremacist either. Your article is written as if you think he is. I don’t believe that he is.